Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/05/11 - Agenda Packet r_1 U • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Gu~ oNCn May 11, 2005 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Maaas _ Vice Chairman McNiel Fletcher McPhail _ Stewart _ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 27, 2005 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial They wdl be acted on by the Commission atone time w~fhout discussion if anyone has concern over any item, ~t should be removed for discussion A DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW - DRC2004-00141-TOLL BROTHERS INC -The review of site plans and elevations for 40 single-family detached residences on 24 25 acres of land in recorded Tract 14771 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Rmgstem Dnve - APN 1074-511-01 thru 05 and 1074-621-06 thru 40 Related Files Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771, Development Review DR 97-11, and Development Review DR 98-13 This action has been determined to be within the scope of Mitigated Negative Declarations that were adopted by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990, and the City Council on November 15, 2000, and no additional PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May, 2005 RANCHO 2 CUCAMONGA environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed protect is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Public Resources Code Section 21166 B HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC - A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total floor area, including a guest house and 3-car garage, 886 square feet (footprint approximately 3,700 square feet) on a of 4 , parcel of about 12,000 square feet, including excavation in excess of m the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located 5 feet , on Lot 33 at the north side of Camino Predera, APN 0207-631-23 This protect is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (Class 3 Exemption -New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) C HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC - A request to construct a 2-story single family residence with a total 722 square feet (footprint approximately 4,000 square feet) on a area of 4 , parcel of about 15,000 square feet, including excavation in excess of in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located 5 feet , on Lot 31 at the north side of Camino Predera -APN 0207-631-21 This protect is categorically exempt from the regwrements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Gwdelines Section 15303(a) (Class 3 Exemption -New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned indrv~duals may voice their opinion of the related pro/ect Please wad 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 indiwdual for each pro/ect Please sign in after speaking D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 -MARGARITA BEACH - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner, which is not detrimental to the public safety, or welfare or materially inlunous to properties in the viamty health , The Planning Commission will consider modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit (Continued from April 27, 2005) • • • • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May, 2005 RANCHO CocAMONCA 3 VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Thts is the time and place for the general public to address the commiss~on Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on thrs agenda VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commtsston has adopted Admintstrahve Regulations that set an 11 00 p m adjournment trine if items go beyond that time, theyshall be heard only with the consent of the Comm~ssron 1, Gad Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 5, 2005, at least 72 hours pnor to the meeting per Government Code on g a m Section 54964 2 at 10500 Civic Center Dnve, Rancho Cuca ~ ~ ~ / If you need speaal assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division at (909) 477-2750 Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ® ensure accessibility Listening devices are available for the heanng impaired Vicinity Map Planning Commission May 11, 2005 D B * Meeting Location Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 10500 Ciwc Center Dnve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • N City of Rancho Cucamonga T H E C I T Y O F RANCflO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE. May 11, 2005 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller, City Planner BY Douglas Fenn, MPA, Associate Planner SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW - DRC2004-00141- TOLL BROTHERS INC - The review of site plans and elevations for 40 single-family detached residences on 24 25 acres of land in recorded Tract 14771 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN 1074-511-01 thru 05 and 1074-621-06 thru 40 Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771, Development Review DR 97-11, and Development Review DR 98-13. This action has been determined to be within the scope of Mitigated Negative Declarations that were adopted by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990, and the City Council on November 15, 2000, and no additional environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed protect is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Public Resources Code Section 21166 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A Project Density 1 7 dwelling units per acre B Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North - San Bemardino National Forest, vacant land within the County South - Single-Family Residential, Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) East - San Bernardino National Forest, vacant land within the County, Flood Control West - Single-family Residential, Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) C General Plan Desionations~ Protect Site -Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) North - Flood Control/Utility Corridor South - Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre) D Site Characteristics The protect site has a recorded final map (Tract 14771 house plotting was previously approved) that has been graded and prepared for development The site is within the Haven View Estates and Is surrounded by vacant land to the west, the San Bernardino National Forest to the north and east, and Ringstem Dnve and large single-family ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00141 -TOLL BROTHERS May 11, 2005 Page 2 . homes to the south The property slopes from north to south There are three private equestrian trails that are oriented north/south that tie into the community equestrian trail along the north boundary All four streets of the protect off Ringstem Drive are a cul-de-sac design style (Sundowner Court, Buckskin Court, Lone Acres Court, Paddock Place/Hidden Trail Drive) ANALYSIS A General/Product Design The proposed protect consists of six floor plans that range in square footage from 4,460 square feet to 5,825 square feet There are five architectural themes, which are as follows Spanish Colonial, Tuscan, Craftsmen, Mission, and Manor The protect site is located within the Hillside Overlay District, which regwres architectural design techniques that minimize the amount of grading and allow the house to follow the natural grades The protect has been designed so that all floor plans have stepped pads, with elevation changes ranging from a minimum of 3 feet to a maximum 5 8 feet, thereby, meeting the design goals of the Hillside Overlay District All plans have variation in the footprints and articulation in the wall planes, thereby avoiding "box on box" budding forms All plans have been designed with roof planes that have a strong variation and are within the 30-foot high budding envelope requirement B Design Review Committee• The protect was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (McPhail, Stewart, and Coleman) on March 1, 2005 The applicant prepared revised plans that were in response to the Design Review comments The Committee recommended approval to the Planning Commission based upon the applicant's enhancements to the houses The Committee's recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution of Approval C Gradno Rewew Committee The Grading Review Committee reviewed the protect on March 1, 2005 The Committee recommended approval of the protect The subtect site has already been graded D Technical Review Committee The Technical Review Committee reviewed the protect on March 1, 2005 The Committee recommended approval of the protect subtect to conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval E Neighborhood Meetinos The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on August 18, 2004, which was attended by five residents The developer has met with other neighbors in the area to discuss the protect, there were no adverse obtections The developer has approval from the two homeowner's assoaations that are responsible for the design review of the protects within the Haven View Estates F Environmental Assessment The Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771 on November 14, 1990, and the City Counal adopted a Negative Declaration for Development Rewew DR 98-13 on November 15, 2000 The current proposal will be regwred to implement all pertinent mitigation measures adopted in the previous Negative Declarations, thereby ensuring that any potential impacts of the protect will remain less than significant Staff is of the opinion that no further environmental review is necessary because the proposed protect is within in the protect scope of the above-cited prior environmental assessments Aa PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00141 -TOLL BROTHERS May 11, 2005 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DRC2004-00141 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conddwns. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DF/ge Attachments Exhibit "A° Exhibit °B° Exhibit °C" Exhibit °D° Exhibit "E" Exhibit °F" Draft Reso - Site Utilization Map -Detailed Site Plan - Bwlding Elevations and Floor Plans -Conceptual Grading Plans -Conceptual Landscape Plans - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated March 1, 2005 lution of Approval for Development Review DRC2004-00141 K~ 3 K p J ~ IF `~ ~ S a ~ ~ ~~ i ~ t$ 76~ a R ~@ !~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ W ~ _ Ng O ' II i ® ~ a a h f 2 i ~ • o =~ Q ' f ® ~ ~ o ~ l 1 ? F ~.l~ e.. tl 9F i Y8 e _ t 4 ] 44'' 6 Y°~ Q]O S O /5/5 la ~p ~@3 !~ :t =:~~ € ~E "' s ti a ~~ Z " U~ g ~ HH x a a k a k A s l 4 : x i t : : A l 4 x ! g L l y L t ~ : ~ g a R tl S tl g C ~ ~ R q = ; ~' ~ b _ _ _ y $~S y x E d ? 3 E 9 S E S Y E ~ i a 3 ± F e 3 ~ tl Y c . i i : i ' - R i - ~ ~ r _ F - - a _ i . c" _ : _ t _ ; _ # E- S E E E 2 E : ? E S 3 E $ i E E l ~ e R b ; ; a x ; R R t R R s ¢ ; i e ¢ l R t ~ t~ 8 k x 4 : 4 t t i x k a : k x l i l t Y k t th ~~ 3 tl 7 6 tl ° g g q L tl C tl tl q ~ ^ a ~ tl 3 ~g E , a ~ , ~ ; ~ e f g e a ~ : E a e : a E g ~ ~ €` ' F k S = E - E 2 ¢ 3 4 S § 's z ~ E °- E E x C t E x ' - - - - - e a x R • - • - _ ¢ x - 3 . l . ¢ . • . . . R ~ .wires s ...~ Nw •~ q ~ ¢~~~~~ i --,~ I '~ II 1 1 1 SITE UTILIZATION PLAN THE HEIGHTS TR. N0. 14771 SAN BERNARIXNO NAlpNAL'F6RfS1 _ . , . ,_ _ ~ . VACANT- . f - _J i a~ , `~~r~i.~ r' G ~~ ~»~ vlawTV ruP xor ro s:xc LEGFNR ~~~ a..R e ,. ~.®,~ w .4... o .w,waeea .., r R^~ • SITE ®xoxum ~ umu•m i~~- 1 1 ~i ~~ i 9 0 0 ~"° ~ . -- ~ --- ' __ - ' •' ~°^^ o : ~ ~ =-- -" -- 1 ~ 1 ~~ - --- -- --------- ,~,,~~ ~ Nw ~ b ,~, .__, ' O enm wmci 5~ °"TM b2 ~ Ww .amp s I ~---- ----- ----- ~ r ~ r ~ ... bt `Tol1 brothers DRC200400141 .. THE HEIGHTS 90UMEFOOT~UE RANCHO CUCAMONGA '°'~ '°: CAPISTRANO ~~ - .- `= UP SLOPE FIRST FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN san~ros ....,,..,... ,.~ -~.~ry,~~o,,.e ..~ w.,. ~ i t s • • 1 ~i L SA ~ o ... .® ~. ~.~. ® ® ® ~ .r C I^ ~~60A mnp~ a Ny< I, ~ 0 ~ s ... a .. ... ~ ~ ~ w~ e. ~ ~____ ___~__. 0~ m' ° O ~^ ~}~ mw ~ b ~ I mmw a i ____ ~-~ _____________ l______________________L ~~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN moll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CAPISTRANO UP SLOPE SECOND FLOOR PLAN narnos 2 1 1 1 2011 brothers TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES 1 @RF Y nE f 1M[µ ~ 15N~0 Mmi 1 Milm fY W ~~ ~ NOSm R.YRII t^n® Cw 1L C~ P~¢-iN¢ a DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CAPISTRANO UP SLOPE SPANISH COLONIAL 0117/0.7 3 L S A 1 ! i • FRONT ELEVATION a 1x11 u w ~ z 3 ~ C F ~ g ~~~ d ~ ~', ~ ~gE?~~pp "' r~9~~~s~z~~ °- ~ Y - •.__cA z ~ o a mood 4 p=azOWO ~WV~V'~V~ c= ~~~ ~ NW=dadye G~=V~OQ ~ a d V ti a~ 0 0 • H a 1 1 1 1 1 t TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES 4 Y 149tl/W ~~ ....,,...... ,.. - a ~ ~,e r~~ 0 ELEVATION `Toll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CAPISTRANO UP SLOPE SPANISH COLONIAL oai~Tros 5 LEFT ELEVATION 7PANISX GOLONUL' • i ~ REAR ELEVATION _ TWICAL ELEVAPON NOTES mae2 z nu ~ovw v rn.ra~ •wm R m~~vm aa. m ma we~wo era O DRC2004-00141 ~~ THE HEIGHTS .............. moll brothers ~CAPISTRANO GA UP SLOPE SPANISH COLONIAL o~~Tros s ROOF PL/1N a c~ O=~Zg W a"dye ~W~F~ J~~ O=vyy0~ OC F- Z v ' J O ---- &----- ~~~~~ -~ _ aq u ~~ F _ I ~ ` ~' ~ \~\_ _ \Vl I ~ ~ ~, P ~ / 0 0 \\ i ~ U \\\ \\\\ N N C ~ FG3N 1 y b Jl 3 ~ n ~ 3 ___________ O Z O p/_________ • L_~ °ot7a~ Owe ~W~f JF.: ~= V ~ M Q o N W = d ~ J ~~~~ 0 ~~ o_s, rw ~y .a- a ~~ '' _ ~ ~ ,,,, ~~~ ~ I ~ ~ i `' ~ ~' ~ O ~~ ~ ~ ~i ~ -- ~ O 1 m ____ N o O 0-Si ~ #I \\ ~ a * N &____________ N ~ ~O „ ~ ~O J q ~: w a ~I °~a~~.°-' =~F~yF.^ -----y- N W = d ? J' _ d' F ~ V O m------------ - o ~~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ \\`~ '~, I ~ ,\\r i I 1 ~\\~~\Y ', I ~ ~ / ~ _____ w ~, ; ~~ N ` ,~ I ~ ~ O W ________ _~~ ~ yQ ~ Q~ J \ t~\\ 1 W~ oy N H ~ 2 Q i I 0 ^~ aHo `~ o=Q zd~ a O~ 0= V ~ N O~ O N W= N W~ o ~ ~ a ~ N ~_ sass s i i i e 3 @~i~ ____~_____-______ __ R i I sg --- _; y _~__ a ~T ~ p~ ~1 7t a I,$, i i~ ~ i ~ ~ 6d ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1,1 ' ~ r t I ~ T i~ a ~ i ._ ~ ~; ___ .._~ ~ i g~ ,~ ~ $> ~ c !~ , ii ~~ ~ ^ • R ~~ gt ~+ i; 4 ' ~ § ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~! P~ i I~ O an a g ~~Z Z d o=~ ~~ d~ o y O= O M NW=d W~ G0~ V= u Q y Z GF~~ V W N I.• O e t' oOOo ® ~ ^ i ~ ' -- ~ ~ ~ _ ___ . ~ ® t ~; Y r., • f ® 3 ~ C= t ' 1 E~ ~ E~ ' p I 81 SJ e i R ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ A I i I I ~~ --- • ~ h a N T Q ~ a~; o W o e ~ =a g O~ $~~ ~~ p d ~ W v a y UJZ ~ ~~~ 3~ s O T. ~ W Q~ w 2~ aa ~@~ q ~ F z O O d 0~ i~r ~~a~ ~~ •.yycN ~ yvy `t ~ Y~ r V N ti a~ 0 • ~ h J ~~ ~ ~- ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i s TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES y.,,® DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS ~'oll brothers RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~ CAPISTRANO SIDE SLOPE MANOR oynros ....,,..,... ~.. 14 RFJR F~ cvwnoR ROOF PLwN T e a E w 4 ! i 6~ ~8 ~ ~ g87®~® ~ :~ E 2~; ;; Q!l~aaq~e ~_ Gyyr~~y3~s-~~~ Q. tlfP Nl'P RN~:: IY F-~. n e. s 6 F p p A A Q O Z a Z d Q i O~t1 aWV ~ f J m MFe ~= N Iii ° ~~ v=te a - ti a~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~o C~ Q p w v~ o Fg~( €~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~~~~ € ~ "' 2~}::[ gl~aa~,Yie e _~ ~E~~y~YP9~~~~~ 3 pp pp~p p ".~.p..apcppdq z 0 ~ ~ O Z ~=~QZd~Q ~~ v~JtQ9 N= =uyWC ~; Nye=dOa ~xoaH~ OF~~ Q~ V a ti N OO O C~ .Q f I f~ TYPICAL ELEVAl10N NOTES t rda¢a nn n<xoo~c l A MI •M flll® NP '~ :: ~ _ ~ n ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ,~ ~,.a - ea a mow. LER ELEVATION L orc.r e..e. auu ircm¢ `ToIl brothers DRC2004A0141 THE HEIGHTS RANCNO CUCAMONGA CAPISTRANO SIDE SLOPE CRAFTSMAN oanTros 1T RIOMT ELEVATION _ aoov vua TYPICAL ELEVAPON NOTES su® eo ,M d41wv4 RWxi ..w - g O.l POdsS OR O DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS moll ~3rot~iers RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~ CAPISTRANO SIDE SLOPE CRAFTSMAN .,..~~..,... ,.. ow+vros 18 ~~ r ~ ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ RFAR FL¢VATION ROOT ~lAtl TlPICAL ELEVATION NOTES 1 tlb[R Y 1[ Mwi 1 fil¢µ {~N'm fM1VG Yt 1 f~xm ry~ i M 511 qp ~S S~MR SIOL gR11 v2 Nrt~pf a DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS moll ~ro~hers RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~ CAPISTRANO SIDE SLOPE „ ,,, ,., „ TUSCAN oarnros 21 C~ N N Q t7 d ~F-OOW ~------- -- p = f ZZ d ~ ~ O u ~ O Nn ~W~F-Hf.e ~ _ ~ H W O~ OCH=V ~~ e - ~ ~ ~~ ~ 'I i ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ a O '~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ --__ __a~ ~ ~,, ~ ' it ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ H d~ ., ~ O '~ _ ~ o ~ o J N Z O U wN N $N F N 2 F Z O ~~ M N U W N a p t ~ Ol7~ Z ~ d ON W ~ F J ~ o=O N WO; J V= V Q y D~~ ~ a~ J • • a N ~ N = O = ~ Z d O@1~~ON v G=' N NH ~ -------------- O O . o _ N W= d 0 J b' ~ oC w \,__ ~~~ _ \\\\\\1\l~' ~ ~______________ ~ ~ I I ~ i I ~ ~ ~~ , .o- 3 ~ ~ ~ ! (~ ~ `1 O I ~~ N ~ F ~ ~ N w \ O o fi ~ m N N 0 J ~r U- N \\~ 0 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ w N Q t9 O=aZ 0'pp O ~W~FNI-e ------ - p = c ~ W O; --- NWsd pJ G ~ ~ V W 0 ~~~y ~ ! I I ~~ ~ ,~ F \ `,1 ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ tq \~I - - ~ ~ \~`\'~ O \\V`{~ -~. O _-___ F ___ ~~ ~~ w b h O p 3 I J e • • u moll brothers BOIIMEFOOTAOE DRC200400'141 f~i g~ ~ :.9 ~« E H GH T H EI TS ~ ~ ~'~ ~~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA c w cc , ~.~~ ~,mR SADDLEBACK SIDE SLOPE FIRST FLOOR PLAN o~tvros 26 FIRST BOOR PLAN ... mun o ..~ ~v -.~ ti N Z i^1; Q r M Z ~ d O@JvmjCg '~W~ W NJ^ O ~ OG=0 C W ~o O N W= p p p t1=vQyZ p~~ W V M W IV~~] N a • - - - ~` -3-------~--~ 4-----r---- TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES a ssvn snare R cs m scan ww ®1/.M wJIPI Oi 4l . - OLL ONOV 0.6 n w ` 5¢ W n fa q9p Rlpi DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS moll ~ro~hers RANCNO CUCAMONGA SADDLEBACK ~~ SIDE SLOPE MISSION ....~~..~.,.... om~Troa 28 i ~ ~ -_ FRONT ELEVATION 'MISHION' i I 1 1 I 1 _-~_:-- ~. LEFT ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES rtT1Y IlOJi 1 Atim w~ 4n Ar rt~ ~~ A 11~ d~ ~OAO YY t~l ~~~~ .4 ainr w¢- uwomso.¢ moll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SADDLEBACK SIDE SLOPE MISSION osnTros 29 ROOF ^L11N m nm` zu TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~~[Y1[mW 1 nnf4 L~Fd w 1Nyp iZ® ~ M M SnIID MYe~ • [TB- IIMY Inli r PC(- E Tl pOmoC YrS a DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS moll ~rotliers RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~ SADDLEBACK SIDE SLOPE MISSION ....,,..~... ~., oanTms 30 REgR !LlVATION a ~ ~ a ~~~v d o €~~~g ~ ~ c~vm W JC~ ~ u ~~~~a~~ g egg `. A E 22 ~ ~ ? e E C=v ~ Q O Nt~ a~ O ~ O a ~ i yyC gy~ g^@ pq~ ~g7 p E CC ~;p p I , v ~ = y V~ 6 pt [[ ~Miii{~~IAni L ~ r O a~ 0 0 TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~'~~ o,.t _ ~~ DNrtb . ........... ... ~J L~ 2011 brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SADDLEBACK SIDE SLOPE MANOR oanTms • 32 LEFT ELEVATION `~ RIGHT ELEVATION ROOT PLAR TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES mart v+ va me v mw num m ~/ mvn wv mm~i.¢ wh r.rto ur ~ W .! YYN.m DRC2004-0014'1 THE HEIGHTS ~"oll brothers RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~ SADDLEBACK SIDE SLOPE MANOR •,.•~~..,..• ,•. aanvros 3~ REAR ELEVATIOR • TYVICAL ELEVATION NOTES +.v m.~..m~wm r m~v- u aR ~wa~e o.m o~~, 2011 brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SADDLEBACK SIDE SLOPE CRAFTSMAN UL7T106 c~~ FRONT ELEVATION 'GRAPT>oMAN' TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~~w~ms ~~~ ;:; :,~,.m.~:.,~ ~. a .~ 'm ... ~ .,m ~,,.., _ e..,,~~ ...,,...... ,.. ,.:n. O 2011 brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SADDLEBACK SIDE SLOPE CRAFTSMAN 011TI09 35 • LEFT ELEVATION RIGNT ELEVATION m 5~ ~! a i ~yz~C e ~ plfQda W ~~ ~: o~ufa O~~Q C~ ~@ a a W v j y~a _~ F~€~ so5~ ~ ° N W =~ Gg~ g~y ~ ~32~tl3~~i~~§~6 ° ~ C ply : _€.. y_ie ::: CA ti a~ 0 • Z J ci F1 i t t p U w N W F F y<~ W F JI ~ a Z ~ N Y O = < Q 6 ~WU J ~FE C' o= o W a o~o ~=u N N OCF~ D ti a~ ~" • Q v ~~ M Q p O = ~ Q d OV' V mQlf~ - H $ ------------ c = v J W p~ a O p D Jo V = u ~ O G F ~ H N r,/ ,o a-a = ~~ ~ i ~ ~;; ~ o- ~ ° m ~' :~ ~ ~' ___ ~N ~ ' O ---- ~ ~~ w ~_ N N 5 O N N K H 0 0 \ AIM 2 J K yl pIl i f I I I 1 I ---~ EAST /WEST SITE SECTION (7B-TB) ~ „~. v l0T 7 fl NORTH /SOUTH SITE SECTION (7-1) r r LOi7 DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~'oll fro th ers SAN UPSLOPEARA ~~ LOT 1 aan~roe 39 A~~~Irreir~~ Ise 0 v ~' ~---- &------- a Y o=Q OC9p a m dN J~ ~p W V = J ~ y ~" WO; p O O O ~~ t~Iv N QF~ y r~ '~ O O 0 z ` • ~ J a a c~ °ot9ad'6N ~W~a~F~ ~ C=~ m ~J' H ~ ~~~a D H '--- --- '1----- o ~ ~------~- \~~ ~ o ~ ~~ ; ~ ~ ~1 _____, ~~ ~ ;;, ~ I, ~ 1 .~~ ~ it O i i I i ~ ~ 4 ' ' \M~~ O r I€ w I N ~ 'q N \ \' N O n N F ~ al ~ ~ Z @,. ______________ P 0-Of~ N w r r _ o N ~R 3 pi Z O h Q ~: ~~ r"'1 L~ ~J `J N Q C7 O = ~ Q d N e G~ V m ~ Nn " b e~ W u J y Fe ---------- p= p p W O p V=t='ta yJ D~~~ o- a --»>-- S ' ,~~1 41 Z ~ ~1~, I ~ Q C O ~ U W ~ ' \~,~ i N i' W t i' ' _______ N i ~-- N f ~~ ,~ O ~- _ ~F -- - \\\ I/ N 0 F W N F N 5 O f/1 2 ~ N 0 Q Z J ~ i Q~ 4~ M a o=~ ~ ~ V a m do O {h ~W~ W n yNe Ot C WOe ~ N W = D 0'~ V=v Q N d'f Q O V~ oC e m a~ O I~ • Z h J a~ z `~ A , c~ ~ ~aa~`s ~ v ~_'~ m Wd o a ~ d ~ x~x Ra O .~ ~WOa~O~ g Otv m yJ'a °~ _„ O O Q d 1~ o ~ F~ _~ 3 O ~ F z a' N D ~ y ~ LL • < ~4q i I L SA ---, SECOND FLOOR PLAN rm w,man nr.. aa.o~ moll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCNO CUCAMONGA SANTA BARBARA UP SLOPE SECOND FLOOR PLAN osrnms 45 so v ap ~~ F ~gyg ~)~ '~~~ ~J' s F 'e l'~2 p~~~'E ~~~~afa,p~~~~ a < ~ z o a F C m W Q OC9v a " ~ W ~ m J e J W N W = H ~ Q ~~Z z ~ O ~ N ~ H • ! v ~~ 5 . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . 1 t i ---- -s----- -~--- _ Ly I t ® i . TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~_,. ~ i mo•• ~r x ~i ii i ~ .n.~cr :nao .m.• ~ II II ___ I L ~• N16NT EIEVATON TUSCAN' a..w m n.ew ~• ~• *`""•`~ •'"• `qm' •'~" +""•~ amc w h ~w~i- vwom~eew DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS moll brothers RANCHO CUCAMONGA SANTA BARBARA ~~ UP SLOPE TUSCAN ELEVATION ••••".•,••. ,•• ohms 47 if ~ i ~ ~auw- "~..W.. ,~_________________________ ------~--------------~'~ _~ C3~ ~~ v ' 3 ~ ~ Z o, os I~ ~ g !'NZ O ~ 'D v~ I ~ !____~____F' ~ ~ o = ~ m d 9 o ~~g: ~ OC7uQ 0 W e ; a, :o ~g~9~~ a ~WVmN W 'a °s - _ Q is ~ ; d y e --- .,.,, 0 ~~!!~~ < <,,ffti~~ < ~ f,Y C4 ~Y. ~' i ~_ ~, ~ w~` `Y ( 1 ~~ W c y f g _.u ~ s~ p ~ O 1 S~ ~~ o~ 1 0 C r p^~i'- ~ _'^ t ~~ L~yiy__ ___L ____ .______ _a~ G 4 J ~~ ~ S ~~ ~y ii e ~~~5 7 ~~~ ~~ ~~ 13~ , ,.~ ~` i ~ ' r ~^ ~` ~ ~' .F [.. ~ r}<F ~rl A 53 1 1 i 1 FRONT ELEVATION __ ~~ 1 2011 brothers TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~ m.eex~. u .w.a v av® u. mn.. r~m.F n ., ®wmwaa ...w w.a m w. O DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SANTA BARBARA UP SLOPE CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION ovnms 49 1 1 L I ! ! i ------z-----------------_ RIONT ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES rao~rt nnr u •ee~ ~'.~~_~_ ~\ 9LL~Im IF}wId W 90MC AIM F OOfR ~~ .-....~ moll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SANTA BARBARA UP SLOPE CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION oamros 50 LEFT ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~r~ ....~. W `Toll brothers ROOF PLAN TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES emu =TMZ~rtrm a~u O DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SANTA BARBARA UP SLOPE CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION oanTms 51 REAR ELEVATION N Q OC_7ad'd~ a o W ~ m 0~ ~ ~-------- 3 N W= a d J e F 7 D~~a N o-n _ o-si \, ~~ -- ' ~ ~ ' ~ a a \\\~V,/ 1 0 \\V 1 O \~, ~ ' al ° ~\Y\ dl ~ S a ;,~ ~ ~ ~_r----------- If °" o a y N t \ \a\ ~ O h 3 _ ~F o \S\~ u1 ~ ~ J 0 O O 2 0 U N H N J O N o rc F O 2 O a c~ ot7~ ~ ~N a Q ~ V O = m ~~ N p Q e d J F i F Z 7 Q G y C a~ 0 z 0 U N C N O W C N S 5 0 N 2 H Q O 2 • ~ J i a ~~ ~Nt ~------------ r ~ ~ Q ~ G = ~ m W G ~ V ~ Q Mn W ~ a J e I ~ p=p m d0o ~~\\\\ {I oC~tQZ~~ ~~~ ~-- ~~~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ - I a ~ N ~ it ~o ~ ~ p-4G a ~ ~ _ `~ y 0 F w N H N 7 O N ~ Z O N N ~ ~ o~a ~ ~ p ., ~ C = ~ m N ~ a ds ' 0'HZ ~ ~ Z W a~ 0 0 J O m rw w a z g o~amd~ ~ ~ N J ~ e O N W i a d~ 0: H Z t1 ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ssssss ~iE Wae~ 8 EW f37Q k Y ~~ 6 = yet' M P t I I' Z ~~ d ~ rce ~ a ! LL ! N K LL i .~ (r~-l .... „.. e~~. ..i~l ~I » ~.. . , .. L________J ® ® i rCJf= I i I _JUJ I i I ~ ~ ~ '~a ® ~ I i I i~a® O - I '- __ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 , I 1 ~ 1 ~i II I I ~` ~+ ~ ~ Ij I I I \`I I ~ 1 I 1 II I ~ [~ I 1 ' r` Va' O ® I ti ~ _ I 1 I I I 1 ` g I_; I ~~ t sa @@ I I I I I O O ~ ~ I I i I I I I I I _I __J I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r r r r ~ ~ ~ ~~ - - ~y"~ 6 ~. •, ~ ; ~ _ . _ i ~° ® ~ ~ ~ I ^ VV/// a 1 ~r ___ O~ i ~ ~ ® i 6 ~ a m ®° ®° i a onsowa i l + i ~ ua ~rw~m ~ ~ i eaa i i O -"" ua i u w1C Q ~wroa.a DER i I!~Lll-I ~ ~ ® 6 emnoou. - ~ ...... i ~ ® 1 ~ 9 --~----- -- ------" -~ a a ~I"oll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD UP SLOPE SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0L17N3 rJ7 us • ~^ 5 q o ~ G z ,t ~ z~ ~ o g ~~:° ~ & t yyyyaapp b w rG'l Yi ~i~~~56 R ~5~@~d~~ dY € x n 99 AO:X°?t b F _ n.. •____~ a ~, z o =~a o OC~Vm d O > Wn O=~J N W' a o ~~Z~ ~ v 0 ~ ^ r ` r ~O 0 J ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ RIGNT ELEVATION - DRC200400141 TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~hers ~ ~r ~ THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~2T2 ,~ o o CARLSBAD ~~ ~ UP SLOPE ~ ~~ KgP/.nN .MI'J~KM ~m ~ ~_ ,..~M.~~. AN ELEVATION ~ TUSC sa..,~....~ ,,,,, „s ovn~os .,..~,..,... ,.. 59 s ~ 0 m c W ~ t z ~ a[ ~~ a y ~y5 ~ ~Y~C F & 3 y ~ 6 Je~b~~~S~S YYB ~~ S ~~„Eae~:n L.F __^__A a c~ t O H o=~ 017 a a0 d p > WQ ~= V ~ N W e N W= a d Z V ~ ta i C F Z x F a~ 0 L 5 A 20ll brothers iIPICAL ELEVAT~10~ NOTES x[45f ~/ sucO ~/ su¢o ~/ Sni[CO awaucfY OAn ~~R DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD UPSLOPE MANOR ELEVATION oyrros 61 ~J FRONT [LlVATION `loll ~3rothers L S A TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~/ rnxcn ~~~ u~/zva + ~~ .x n~r~imc~im mwn m ma o•on~m~~w o.~s ~J DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCNO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD UPSLOPE MANOR ELEVATION oaT1TN5 62 RIONT 8LlVATION M i0 g N O 5~ Z @6 °- ~ pq~d~pq~p i3a~Y~ ~ ~ L' ~ pC~~E~~@iR~tl 8 ~~~~i~ga~t~~~~; U C.d0.~Etl~~k ~ .............A a l7 ~ O = Q Q d ~ e}W~ fA jJ~ O=O W d' ~W° d ~ N = Q V ' ~ H Z O ~ Z Q ti '~ O O • a ~o a c~ O ~ V m G NQ O, O=O ~ N~~ d' H = ~', ~ QQ ~ ,' w ~ \\ o si \~ ~ ~~ a a~ ' B t ~~~ i ~ ~ O B ~\\~ ,, i \ u ~ :'~ ~ ~! ~ ~ 5 m ~ N ~1 ~ \ P ~ ~ \ ~: ' O ~ S ~ W ~~ Z 5 O F \ ~~ y f~I1 O` a ~ J GNU 3 N F N ~~ S r r r N C O 2 ~ e W l m a ~WVJJ~" o I d ja ~F=-zv ~ e O a~ O ~- x 0 z .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~o co a c~ O = ~ Q W oc7~m~~„ ~W~H JFe p=C1 J NDa NW=Q d Je " V=ttv ~ ~----------- t C H ~~ yy , 0 ~ ' ~ `, i ~ ^f p ~ j Y ~ p Z C N O C~_ NNI y r$y i y ~ L ~ c \'l _ F C'i _ T O r r \ N '~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e, _____________ ~~ _ ¢ r &, _____~_____. i a ~: A~~ ---------------- so O ~ 'FO _ ~ " O , 0=~ j OJ~ O O ~ H ~ ~ 6'F~Zv O~ O ~ N ~ S55S65 ~il ivav ~~~i$~@ _° - ~@ ~~rn~, s e ..~~. _ I _l~_ } pi ~ ~ ~ i , . ~e ~ e~ ~ ~ I I 1;6® i' ~ ~ .. I < ___ n _______ ' I i i ` r i I 4 I ~ ~ ~ R ; ; _ X61 ` ~~ : ' 1 ~ 1 Y4 ~ ~ I I : I ` II 0 I !~ , I ~ __ I '! e t I i ~ __ I I I i-~ I }e I ~ S ~, ~ I , e ~ ~ ; _~ ; ~ ~ O I I I '~ I O ~ ~ I , I I I _I 11___J • r h a ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ~ U~ ~"oll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD SIDE SLOPE - FD SECOND FLOOR PLAN s~rnros ss SE~ON~F~OOR PLAN I I ~ -~ I I FRONT ELEVATION TWIG AL EIEVA iION NOTES svm aavs~x ~:mi ~ww~ wog orte wrmn.o~.r O DRC200400141 moll ~rozhers THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~ CARLSBAD SIDESLOPE - FD ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ SPANISH COLONIAL ELEVATION OL17N3 69 ~ ~ ~ ~ ______ 7______~ TYPICAL. ELEVATION NOTES =_-_=-='=~_= O RIGNT ELEVATION L S~ moll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD SIDESLOPE - FD SPANISH COLONIAL ELEVATION oaNTros 70 LEFT ELEVATION I I I REAR ELEVATION ROOF PLAN TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES m auranwa •u O ~'"oll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD SIDESLOPE - FD SPANISH COLONIAL ELEVATION oanTms 71 s ~- • • N n Q ~` t9 J o=~°aa 0 ~ V m ~ Tn W ~ N W e °o=off ODo ---------1-- /I} ~ ~~zv W~ p ~ D N y ------------- o-~ --0 -»>-- ~> ~ t 6 ~~ f -a ~ O ~~~ ~. m ~ ~ ~~ ~ g ~ ~ U N ~ \~1 y \\V \\~; ~ o \\~\l ~ ~ w m ____\ t N u-ae~ i 5 O N H K F y7 2 O ~ 9 ~i 'f'~ ~-- 0 U N N C M Q ~ ~ J =~ oC9~ ~ m a ~ W Q 0= O ~ O Q o J N W S Z Q V J W ~ f O ~ ~ N a~ 0 y a a a ~ ~ J 0~7vm WM~ ~WVJd f~ NW=Q J Je ~fZt7 W p ~ D N ~ i a `~ J ~~ ~ A-~ - ~ 6 ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ \~\Y. ~~ ~ ,: ~; ; ~ ~ ; ~a ~ ~ U \' ° \ ~ N \1i O _____ N \I n ~_ ~ O ~ P ~ " f & I p ~_p~ \ fn J \ ~~~ W N J O FN ll O ~ ~___________ h' ~ O h Q A ~q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ I ,i ' ~~i moll ~4rothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD SIDE SLOPE - LD SECOND FLOOR PLAN oan~ros 76 ME~OND FLOOR PLAN ry~~o r Z 4 THZ j0 ~~ ! ~~ O=f Q W~ ~ ~~~ ~ 3~ ol7vy dW? w~ p~~~d~~~p ~ C= V J J W o p^y Cy~ ~ gyp € ~ ~ 53~ p~ ~ ~ i ~ N W ~ Q N d' U tlF ~GCG~6 C~Et'G ~ ~ _ ~ C Z g -.n....-"""-A 0 5 H~ ti a~ 0 0 .~ h a • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ r ~ S r r s +~ • ELEVATION Ls~ 78 ~~ ______"_°°_'_ 7_ ___l ____________ ___________...-{g ___________________i____ ____ TYPICAL ELEVAPON NOTES i i ~ i ~~ - i i i ~ ® ' ' SO~ i r~~ ®1 i ® s yrm~s ~r~ea i~ i i n ~ ~ ~ 4 umm.~v.~ .soar ~ ~.. *~ r~aoa wa- uwma.-oa ' wow w.c. RIONT ELEVATION s... m ~ O DRC200400141 ~"oll brothers THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD SIDESLOPE - LD MANOR ELEVATION O~HTI03 i 1 1 1 L 1 1 I r ' ~~i .._... TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES i sv~ uiw a uam it y •umo ewr .-.c..~m m-.n n nr wa- m m. Dome moll brothers mROmOF PIAN DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD SIDESLOPE - LD MANOR ELEVATION ow+sros • 79 r 1 O W d Q J t7 o = ~ Q C OV' vmNa pWt~.1J~~~ O = p ~ Q Je N W = Q Q OQCFZCt OG G ~ t ~---------- ~ - J \\ \ ~l`~ , A ~~~ ~ .JZ---------, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;;'----------i-~. ~ ~ 4~ ~ , \'~;, i ~ ~ -o- , =a \~ ~, \\ 1 U ~ i i \~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, 9 I! o ~ O ~ ~ o _ w ----- --_- y ~ ~ ~ a ~ J ~D 5 &__________ °~ N a rc r 0 0 z 2 b V v 1 ' ~Gl ~ ..... EAST I WEST SITE SECTION )9G9C) LOT 9 k NORTH I SOUTH SRE SECTION (&1) ve err-.a LOT 9 moll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARSLBAD LIVING SIDE SLOPE LOT 9 oa~nros 81 L 1 1 1 ~' 1 1 1 1 ~r~ moll brothers DRC200400141 ,~ THE HEIGHTS :°' ~^ RANCHO CUCAMONGA veve wn ;;; ;;: DEL MAR _~~ m^ SIDE SLOPE ev son FIRST FLOOR PLAN oarnros 82 ~..~ . mexr as FIRST FLOOR PLAN w.a ,..M~.e~.e ~o w... 1 ~~ SE~ONmFLOOR PLAN ~,~, ,y N~o moll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEL MAR SIDE SLOPE SECOND FLOOR PLAN oynros 83 • 1 1 1 ~ ~G1 ~ ....~ ._ _~ srtor~r e~v~now C~ moll brothers iWICAL ELEVATION NOTES 2 Y R[ xmxc a DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCNO CUCAMONGA DEL MAR SIDE SLOPE SPANISH COLONIAL oy~~ros 84 i I L S A `Toll brothers TYP~CAR SI~VA~KION NOTES tx srvve a.[~ DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEL MAR SIDE SLOPE SPANISH COLONIAL oanTros 8S RIONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION -°^!~"-=t ^ 1 1 @I ~XT ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES O DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS moll ~rotliers '~" DEL MAR ~"GA ~~ SIDE SLOPE SPANISH COLONIAL ....,,..,... ,.~ oarnAs 86 RIGM ELEVATION ~i ~~:, W~ 6 F ~+ $3 s "s w Z ~~~.~yv~~ B w ~~~i3~98@~~'~ ~ a r.$ gl~EE5 yp~QE~B ___.q ~ Q ~a~ ~~e OWV~ = N~Z~ W Q e O W ~ O v== G~ u ti '~ O a • i i 1 ~- '~' ii e - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F _ _ o- o- - _ ~.____________ ~. o- LEFT ELEVATION ...i~M-r-` DRC200400141 rwicn~ e~evnnoN Mores , ~.~ THE HEIGHTS ~ ' ~ m ll b h RANCHO CUCAMONGA o rot ers DEL MAR d~ ~ Rn ~~ ~ Y .~ SIDE SLOPE ma MANOR ~, ~~,. ~ ~ '~ OL7A03 . . ... .. 88 RIGHT ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s 1 1 1 1 rrv ...~_ REAR ELEVATION ..e .n moll brothers NOOF PLAN i1nICAL ELEVATION NOTES w e.im~xo w 0 s DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONi DEL MAR SIDE SLOPE MANOR oan~ros • 89 t 1 __ TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES rz r~n~ wavc .n sMMnc s ue ~n e.uus.ws v s[ m n ca usa a~.u or. DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS ~"oll brothers R"" DEL MAR oNCA ~~ SIDE SLOPE TUSCAN oa~nros 90 r~eoxT e~cv~now -ruacaN- o~ o ~ z s~ oY ~~~ €~ a ~ ti wy ~~~eeY ..ep B a ~~339y~yi q2q ~5a~b A U ~~p~6 4 s ___R .. a '~ o=~~ 0 ~ V ~ dz O Q '~ W ~~ V yV~ O= ,~ VJe O~ H ~ ti '~ O • h J ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r TYPICAL ELEVATION NO7E5 rt Y R[ .mYE ~~ ' DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS moll ~rozhers ~°'" DEL MAR oNGa ~~ SIDE SLOPE TUSCAN oynros ....,,...... ,.. 92 RIONT ELEVATION 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 :~ /~~~~~ R EAST / WEST SRE SECTION (128-128( _ LOT 12 NORTH / SOl7TH SITE SECTION DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA moll brothers SIDESLOPE ~, LOT 12 0]H7103 An~l~~e~~~• Ise 93 a o~ a c~ o=~~d Ot9vQJ~°e WO O=O W N~~ J d ~ ~ Z ~ y Y a------ ~ o-a _ ~ »>~- - \Y>. ~ ~ ~ ; ~~ ~ 4~ ~ ' ~ ~'~~ o a ~' O ~',` i ~ ~ 9 m ~ ~a o ~~__ W WN \\\\\\\\\\\` F \\\V N a\S\\ ~ ~ \- ' - ~_____ ~ J \ \\\~ ___ 1 -~ (/q~ N ,~9^_J' W ~ N N 5 N &._____--____ T m C) F Z O N QI Q 02~ OC d oc7~Q0~„ ~W~~yFe ~=v-~ WOE ~ ------------ N W= W G J O ~ ~'HQ D C m----- , 0- P' \) ' ~ = ~ ~~ ~ i ~ \~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .9 \ i ~ ~ M \\V a oc ~i ~_- e ~ _ \~ ~ ~ ~; ~ F ~ I i w ~ O H I I Ft e _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~[ N ~~pp 0 < - N \ Ol ~~ ~ z o ~ U N \\~ Y1 N K 3 O ~ ~ __________ i p q ~: I O~ o~ ~~ o~u~pa°O~ NW=a d Je H ~ ~ F = Z ~ ~ N ~~ ~ _ »>_ ~\~ \, ~ `mil ~ O %, 1 ~ ~~ ' ~~~ ~ ; . ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~~ o ~ ~ ~ o o_a ~ ~1 4 ~ ~ _ $ U \\ w \l~' ~ ' ~ N U lu \ 0~~~ w S C ,5 N i i mQ H O W O ,~ N ~ I 1 ~ 6 v f Z _ ~ I 1 • L SA n~;~: .~. MiF~J u-- ..mwe ~. 3, 1 1 •" ..M. _ ..we.r. ___ i ~ ~ m~, . , ®0 a~uw FIRST BOOR PLAN N. ., ma (1 •P C +'°~ YoR ~. ~I"oll brothers DRC2004.00141 ~^x ~a eR THE HEIGHTS ~; RANCHO CUCAMONGA ® '"` TRABUCO UPSLOPE FIRST FLOOR PLAN avnros 97 • W moll brothers ~~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCO UPSLOPE SECOND FLOOR PLAN ovnms 98 1 1 1 srtor+r e~ev~noM 2011 brothers • TIPICAL ELEVATION NOTES rzSn f Sm~[x slot KK[w M O DRC200400'141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCo UP SLOPE TUSCAN o~T+~ros 99 1 t --~~ ~- --~3_--__--_-~--.~ _--_ TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES mval[ Y N V/W ®e~ If SMMM 5~ q(A ' Ar~~l~~~~~ri Ise O moll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCo UP SLOPE TUSCAN O7H7103 100 LEFT ELEVATION ~m RIONT ELEVATION A1n"O ' °""' T r w i ~ s ~ N Z ~F'o gp pg ~ o W i 5 + ! I~a~" 9 ° R ~ a W ~'~ ~= v m 0~ H W Q ° '~~@ < ° ¢~~c4:3~~ NW=O: d~ ~ o o D ti a~ rt • e h J • • N O Q o = f O d Of9v' jN~ ~W~mNF~e a p NW=~ G~~ p -----------w ~ F = ~ ~ - D o_S, \ ~~ 1 pp9 rv_, ' G - ' ~ \~ ~ i ~ ~~;/ \ ~ ~ O ~; .a-a ~ , ~i ~ ~ i ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ W U _______ N yt~ V-OC O N \ ~~~ F~y\ N N w o ~b o // U I WrN % N I o / y N 0 0 I i I ~ruc~ ~ o 'p iiR f ~ I O O 1 I I I I I ~ I 1 I -T-- MYWo L_ L. ~~ rh~ I `~ ' ~ --!--------- I ®~® 1 , i ' t -- = -- ----~ r~ ---~ ,.e i we ( ueeun c' i I - ~ • . 1 " 'l uueve~ 1 i ~~ ~ ~ I - uM• _~ I 1 . ~i-i i I -~- I I --- /orow7 4..~,. e~, moll I euuw t ---- ~~" "~ ~3rothers ~ ---, -------- DRC2004-00141 wu~eesoor~oe THE HEIGHTS ~~ ~ s~ ~; RANCHO CUCAMONGA .a - -° TRABUCo FIRST FLOOR PLAN SIDE SLOPE ~~ ^- ~°~-_ FIRST FLOOR PLAN aa~nAs ,...I,..,...... 103 1 1 1 1 i$ o 0 0 ~_ o ...... ~ , -, _ o ® o s ;i _ - •Mnl O plM M WT ~~~ 11 1 ~I ®®® MMOO~) O • f~ i se M ~OM• MMOO~l ^ os ~ , _ _ _~ .: _ __. , - ---------- I MCI I I 1 ~ ~ 1 I ~ I ~ I ~ I i I -I I -~ < < < < ~~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN moll brothers DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCO SIDE SLOPE SECOND FLOOR PLAN oa~nros 104 I 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 l 1 ~ ~~~ 2011 brothers TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES RY A r - VA UoaOSC ORs a DRC2004-00141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCO SIDE SLOPE MISSION oynms 105 FRONT REVATION ._' ,w.r~ .~ ---------- ---- -- LEFT ELEVATION u- ~ U ~n ^ ~ a -- NIGHT ELEVATION ~-p TWICAI ELEVA710N NOTES x s ~. :~:~~ > ~ ~~ .~a,~~~. r a~,.. .,..~,..,... ,.. O 2011 ~rotliers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCO SIDE SLOPE MISSION o~nros 106 1 1 1 1 1 i TYPICAL ELEVATION NO7E5 vsm Km® ~u ~..~ ar wwarc oci O DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS moll brothers ~"TRABUCO NGA ~~ SIDE SLOPE ©® MISSION ....,,..,... ,.. aynroe 107 ~ ~ ~ aoov vua 1 1 1 iWICAL ELEVATION NOTES aru[- O DRC200400141 ll b th m THE HEIGHTS RAN NGA o ro ers TRABUCO ~~ SIDE SLOPE •..•,,..,... ~.. SPANISH COLONIAL oarnms 108 FRONT CLCVATION 1 1 u ~. .~ ~ LEFT ELEVATION b __~__ ____________ C e n ~ 0 , 0 ________ TWICRL ELEVATION NOTES ~R~2~~ s.~°~. .,..,,..,... ,.. O moll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCO SIDE SLOPE SPANISH COLONIAL oaNTros i 109 ~~ 0 T r --~~r------------------ ------ Q J o a Z o ~ ~=~0 d~ ;, ,~ ,. ,~ ,~ , __________P __ -, ~ V - w r~§:~~$~5 c N W O~ W= 3 - k"3 la~~~° A x CND 0 0 0 ~ a ~• _~ d °a H -.- ~-----------------------i---- ~`~ ` ~1 ,~ Q~ ~ ~ , -,+ Q '; (' ®' i yy 1 ~Y~ 1 = 0 t i W ~~-____ ~rt~ ~~~~ __ ;I ` ~, L ~ ~' ` ~ Sad ~ . l .f ~` ~~ < r} i t I i I 1 IL S ~ 20ll brothers TIPICAL ELEVATION NOTES m. ./ svao wn O DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCo SIDE SLOPE MANOR osT+Tms 111 FRONT ELEVATION s.u w-rte 1 • 1 1 1 1 ~' 1 1 1 1 rr~ .__ `loll brothers iIPICAL ELEVATION NOTES ./' wn nrs O DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCO 4 CAR GARAGE OPTION SIDE SLOPE MANOR oy+Tros 112 FRONT lLCVATION - 9 CAR 6ARAG! OPTION ^ 1 ~.,~~~: TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~2~,~~ .,~:.~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a o,.~,.~,.~ ....,,..,... ,.. O 20ll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCNO CUCAMONGA rRABUCo SIDE SLOPE MANOR 113 oytz-ros a ---~~y------ o ,,. .D; t7 ---- ~~ a H z W ,° ~ ~~~ o av0~ .,. ~ = . O= Ca WQa a NW= f, , , , , LL ~ ~C~._id!a a ~ H z , ~ ~ 8 ..,.....A o ' ¢ ----------------i------- a - - o - - -------- ~ `' ~~~ Y ~' ~~ v1 f ([[~7~~IIV//\ll S~2 S~ i ~ ~ ;e O ~' O i i; + ~{ °~ ~ 0 ^ »--- ,y. ,. _-_ _ u-~ '~s-~--- r-~-r------------, y m c Yi,gt~ ~~< ~~ t ~ ( r~ Iq N r G z Y Y o X rt4y$iE ~Y H} pE Y-Y'y Kp w Ngygy EEqE ~iF'Br~3~~ R eg GSY~. ~~u ~ 6 6~~~~~~~4g~~j & g_...`.:::ra:~A ~ ~~ o~av Oa NW=~ p~° ~ ~ ~ f Z D N a~ ti 0 • e h I 1 1 1 1 1 TWICAL ELEVATION NOTES ~ I DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS moll brothers ~"TRABUCO NGA ~~ 4 CAR GARAGE OPTION SIDE SLOPE TUSCAN ....,,..,... ,.. 116 ownroe FRONT ELEV4TION - 6 Wq GARAGE ORIOM ~. nL~o ~ ~~ RIGHT ELEVATION ~ ~ A sew ~..K TYPICAL ELEVAPON NOTES m9fF Y 1[ vlwc ' ;.,,.~K,w ~~. moll brothers DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRABUCo SIDE SLOPE TUSCAN ovnms 117 I LEFT ELEVanoN L_J ~J `J ------------ ------ ... :D~ a ~;~--- ~, a~ c~ ~~ ~t~z ~~; aF- a: ¢o ~ r_O W O O d L~ o Y xis `g a O Q (~ ----------.,. e -, w@ @.6 ~WV~~a D's 'D a ~g~~es s O O~ W.7 0 S I bl ' ¢ ~~a: ~e!a u ~ _ ~ ~ Or , C •en~nA ~ _ _ r ~ -1 ~ ' & - - ' tt l ~ _ ~t l ~ S '° ~' O ,; ~ _~ O s !~~~g~ -- ,_ 4yb--- i F ~ 2~5 ~~;`f 7 e ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ i ~ ..~. ~ ~t~ ~ j• r .~. _.~ ~ f ~~< r} e ~ a3 o~ T T C N N Q O = ~ m W ~W~ Q JFe O = O m J d o CfZ Z ' ~ ~ N a~ ~O • J O N Q C = Q m d ~ .7 _ GWVm JO~ p=pQ dJo F ~ o~~a ~ N o- a \~\_ . _ ~f----- ~ ~~ I ~~ i ~~~\~ ~', ~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ o ~ ~ i~ w _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ e_sl ~ ~ ^ N H ~ ~° ~~ N ~ __ N ~- - 5 °~~~ a ~1 0 0 °------ ~ ~: 5 .~ .~ N r Q C7 Q oN1a~0~~ aWpa JFe O = p m ~ ~o D ~ ~ a N i i 0-M ~~ - ~ _ _ »>_ _e_ ~ r^ g~__.___ ~ § ~I~ Y f,' ~ ~ \I / C O 3 i ~ a U ~ y ,1 ~q __ ~ ~ ~ O- 51 N ~ L O ~t3yl O ~ _________ O J r 0-0( NN ~~\ W C oN N a O ~ ~_____________ Z OJ q ~ a~ • N N T Q O d o~n7~~€ G = ~ mQ W O~ d ~_~ F OJ° N ~ " G~o~ ----------------~ a _ ~ - - - - >>> - ~~ o s ~ \ p i i_ `V/ ~' 1 ~ ~' ~ O \i ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~. Q w ~! ~- N i W ~ C y ~; ~ ~ n $1 0 ~ \ I ' ~ O `` N z ~ ~ O \ \ a~~\ U wH / t N ja ~ i m =o ~- T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~ ~ M N r Q O ~ Q ~ d ~ ~W~ a JF$ O=O m d0o ~ J ~ H = Z ~ ~ W a~ 0 O 0 IN h a • v N Q ~NZ ~-------------- ~- G ~ Q V C 10 ~v7 JN"e C = O m W OD O J ~F=-Z~W D I / rw @' r `~1 RS o`er ~ oat ~~~~~ ~,~ ~~~ ~ ;- \~, ~ ~,~ ., ~ ~ ' `~ ' ' ~ ~~ ~ N \i I ~ I O W ---~ ~ H :~y - qQ ----- ~ W ~ \ ~~~ V WN W N F J O N _______p~ O~I ~ 2 O as H N ~ . 0~7 a ? ~Nn p= W Oa p ~ J OOCF- ~ y ~ D a~ 0 I~ h a m N Q ~= Q V d ~ ~---------~ ~ ~ V ~ OJ rfn ~ 'I C = C ~ W O~ GJ 6' H x l- H D °~~~_ -------- ~°-511 ~ ~ I ~I ~~ ~~~~~~ ' ~ ~ d Q.~ E ~ ~ I ~ I~ ' ~: ;- ~~ ~ p ~ti', ' ~ ~; ~ ~1 w N '. ti N ~ ~ _ X11 , ~ O ---- u 5--~ ~ ° ~ I i ¢~---- \\ ~ \\\ Q - U w WN /~ W '/,{/~ N N n ' ~ O N r Q O = Q O~ V d ~ M O C1 O m j , ~ C = 0 Q OL W Oa D J ~ ~ N F-ZQ O C a~ 0 0 ~: ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ • • ! r 1 i -~ I G7~~ .o ~. ~_ u u m •r.a ~ ~ u w t eroeerear O • r N nor[v[xE[w ar w.u M caWEnmw F smEpu:[vauun A p --- W s •wauaru Oawnoa % 6r cbsBl U A snrtmrunart O a warx mEm ~ anrm s~or G sn~ p e 7 ...~. °_~ ~ ;-. v m:.. m3.L _ ~~ - __ .. C'~ ~... _ ~,~~ a °.."3 :.w ..rs ~. a ... ti .- . .... - _- . Y 3J3.3rg V _-. G ~ _ sa .rwur •~ •'y P _..r acEmsr wur K _ _ _... u J - er- E .....- p -_- rt __ roraxNS C -- ~ h ll b m ~:~ -• - ~3L =~" - - - N, z~ "6° ,,,_,-„w ''~'~ o=_ •r - ~ _~ ~ = -- ~ ~, - ers rot o DRC200400141 THE HEIGHTS ~~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA TECTURAL DETAILS - ARCHI p s~~- . surtrv.Nrw Z rwmu v t ax..c sowmr g t anew Nman P K t rmEnrca axawa t o~ ~a -~ 2M1 ? ~f "I~ ~ 6 `~! 2 ~ J =WZ•_ W W ~ W2V~ W ~_~ ~ O Q ~ 3 Ii fil ~1 f 16: ii~IF : • ~i ;; Fgl~t~sllfEl: il,;s i B161f 9i ~~IadZ~: SS 3 li B~Ii~llji east II till) 1 II~II I~ ~::: Fd: } 3II t E4~IIB~ ;~:;;~i~ }~SIIC 3! Ii PIE14~ VIII.±:I ~° !I u i~ ~Ir yFy b Fy q pF (F}I F~ F EE " I € } ° @ $ ~ gl ~ td 5 5 R 1°j :~ e 1 tl 1 id r ~ 1E ~~ ;$ ; ~ g~ 9 ~~"$ g" g~ Y d tl !I Y [ C~ i~lg B ~• _ y :pe ~EC e 64~I 3 1 ~~ }~ d5fi i ~I 1 ~Ed ~~ I-F~ ygyglt iI : ]i E$6 Ye qY 0 Ad 4 S 9d A[E 9 i E Y p7p q 1St ~~ i .u A] e Y 0 } e ~o g ~r "ci ~ ~~ e~ 9y e g ~p@ F iyy C Y- 1N Sa}i C EM r }~ ~C .~ ~~ ~' ¢ 4 2I Si ~ ~ dEp 4 3 ~: - IF6} 5 } d d °tl['g ~Y ~5 E C Y 41~ ~ Itl } it F F ~ 29 ' 1 p9p9~A} Sa ~€ e:S ~4 e ~ 1 15: y ~a ~~k9 1 a~ a~ ~ ~° ~}~ 5s 5 F ~}J° tl ° Y t C Y t i! FyEy E C Q~ a ~e~l z ~y Sy ~ 3Ef v~p ~,~ ~ ~ ~I E'dE s g ~. b A e q r~ g§ ~~ ~gg"~ F • ~ 6 [ qqb ' .~ ~~ t ~5 B~ if 5 ¢ SS eE6 tl 36 6 ~~ :elF~ ! P~ [f S ~Ig 3pb°} a7 S i C~ rr1$ i "~ EI d ~a 6a c. : ~ ~ 5p I b ~~ KI ~. tl}~~~ ~ 5y} 5¢€ ; °.3i~ 1" ~e rC Ed ~9 L~SF5° f E~ ~1 1 f€ tlY1rY5 E 4 r PE € 5S1 1~~ a5 a5 : E CC § ' etl } ;it 1' 1• d e 4 E 2 9F t. a $ of 9"~y~(7,~ [ ie} ~F} e! eEls }!+€ e5 ~F pY ~ •~°Ey" (F ~~ sn~ E p}p {~ f~/qI [ 1.€ [a~ ,!~ ~E` ~i ~'~~ 1° !i ~; 36(8 ~~ °4£ 2Y Fy pY G~. fgLp ii Sev EzF FYFS ~ae t8 Y~ cgs ° (p `€ ~ °E 3` ;~Ife LY ~FI fpI I[ a@~ e,i IF~e F tE Ii 3551 a E! Qe .. II es 3 1} ~= 1 5 k1}S €~ t}L 4.~ ~d} }Ej, .1 ~i €y ~ I~ ~` ~ F[ p°Y 1}~?~' E~ 3~~ 8~~ ~~ °SgE~ I~e -1~ ~~ t fil ~~€S [ }€ •~ S E a ~ ~ o ~3a ~aaa i N R E E • f oN~t~~ P F ~ . @ d ° 0~53~@FI C : _ _ :~ F ~~ ~ ~d b eF Ye IE 1 6 S# `s ~ 11 ~~ a 3 :~ "~ E Y 4€ ~ V +Y Ills a e ~ Ie ~ ~$ I E ~ Y . . e•' g5£ a~ & §~ ig~s c! ~ F }c- ~ d t9 ~} ~~ li Q°c¢9 5 ~~ e6Y P ~ E~ ~~ 1 pI ~~ 1 tl° t R pa ~ E$ ` RB o ~~~~d~x 9t ~ 1 g'g4 ~ 3°} ~ ~ 6z S ~° e~ ~ ed 1 ° t r s5 ° ~ ej Y S `$ ~@ ~ ~~~ ~°~ C~ S ~1 91q 3Y i 1Y3 Ig5 . i. ~ ~Y ~F3 3 ° ~1~ e ~g~g ~ ~a ~~yy 3 =i - ~d _a5 F$ [d tl ~n Rd5 eI ~~ i~tl ~~ °E l d, a ~T ~e UI o ~ d ~ i l / _~ 3 :E,: ~ s u r ~ u t - ' 2 2D I N wp O' - I~ v ¢ I t F Z . OJ :=~ ~ ~ t it -a ~~ y48~ y&^.C °°37 1~, ~~~ } ~Ee . (,: ~}- !F5 C ~6~ ~5~ 35 e+ IY 1 F~b I i 1 I3 ig ° s~y ~IIF41Ee d gg~ ~~ t ~6i I 21 e ~~ 1 ~ tdt ~e : 1'!al ;g g ~=i1~ ~g y ~Ea:a °b } .1 €j ~C nl IF, :i ~t ° ~i ._ ~( ~~ >: p§ 1 ~~ un ~€ ~SSI 9 x3 c~ al S` 5da d~I~ f@@5~~ Ff ~9 :1 ?e5 &a5~~135 i1` 'aIL f :EE @ 5 $ 5 [ - • E ~ F p~p1$E ° ~~9$1~!S O 5 ~- o ro 1 t,n !~ ~ ~ N ; i`ri S^G ~ N [ 1131 of ' N a Ili/f ~ ~ E l,:,~ } Ilil{ a tl ~~ I m i m ~~ o` Itl U y Ilt ~ ~~ 9I ei ~ : I M ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ a =n ~ Y,i £ f `I p _ V V~ ~ 1 u g C ry O 2~ _Y{ ~1 • yy~ t ZppZ P&G `8 mE 2 s C0 iZ ~ `I~ YY~ Si rF €ep V y ~gy e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ 2 = ~ ~ a~ .~ ¢~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o- y9 ' { ~~ w~wti ' • ~ Y ~p;-•i a ~ ~4 ~ m9 _~ 9 µl 4 ~f t~ f :.. . ~~~~a ~~ L e ~~ ~E of b V 2 u t E'e WU ~o ~ ~~ Abu $ ~ 'd~s ~ gy Y so 8~ ~` ~ o. W `~ ~~~ ~ ° 0 W N 2 r3 a 'np 0 V r z S Iqa I . n~ I/~ ~ €EI I d~i j ^~9 ~~~p i i~~~ iF ~ 3 sy j Y ; a~ ~J I ~ 18~I I~ g I _ I; J ~ ~ i I 3 0 3 N~ WQ ~g h ,~. 3 ~e e i ~ a0a ~ r u tll o ` W 2 ~ ; C ' ~Ci ~~ 3 2 6 ~ =e e o~ U m L E a h @ g F ,~~~e r ~ „- os a ., e a j ~~ „o Z k ~ g e ^m a r b u~~ 3~ j _ _ _ __- - ~ Y ~ } _l -.--- ~ ~ ~ k ~ € ~ e ~~ y " ° ° 4E ( :. ~ ~ e r .. ~ g z t~ ~ $ , u ~ y ~ N yy l ¢p B } O O ~ J~ a ~ j' k i ~ ~ < p} ~ J SC t q g d~ - -_iY ~ a3eovaa ~~ 4~ ; YA X ~ ~~ O u 2 6 U `ti O ~ f$R~ o ~L ~ gMCee 2 U ~C::E vai E.p.a B'~ ~ ~~ ti 133HS 33S ~D ~~i ~/I ~, r ~ ~ ~, ~~ a ~ I R -~~: ~r -- 8 9 i ~'3 ~> s ., ~ °Hc ~pp• U~ ~ d 4 < yEyES ~ L~EC ,,•i ~ m`9a9 1 _.~ F@ _- ...~ •; i ~~ P ~.,. a iii of/,/~/ / Il lire /%~, ~i /~~i i~~~ ~ ~~I S 133HS 33S - - ~, I# '~II m,'~c ,; I ~` '~ \~ ~y ` Pfi i \ 1~ ` ~l ~I i ~1~ ~ ii = IS ~~li~ l1 ~ ~ ~'=} x~ \\ I / ~H" ~ ~ o~ r -dpi? _ { A .p ~ I u r yIrI 1 ;1„ ~ `~ II / ~\f15 ~~i 1~~ ~`Il ~~ \ ~I 1'\ '1\p ~~,II ~ I" `~. SZ '-}~ 4 fff u I 'eg 1 ~ I ~ I r' ~ I ,~ I ~~ ~ - ',~. ~~~ ' ~ f~l d e~ ~' , i ~ ~ (( d ~I ~~~\ '' it _ i ':~ I y , i. ~1p ~ o J I ~l 1 °~ r\ h~ t1, /p iI J~ ICJ / nv %i /~ ~a-'i Q m1~9 J n ~. ~ ~ i„ 0 111 r , e~` ~*nsl~~~~ 1 I CKSN(IN T,.' --~~ ~~' li 4: o \ , r .~ -r ,~ , ~a - -- -1 ,' 1 r ~_ g` ~~ I ears ~ i ~ I ~ r I ~ ~ ,G \~ •~~• aw 1-~~ ~I , ~ ii 1 •.,111 0 + //• ' ~- I tD ~, - ~, , n I ij :~~ ~ ~~ ` L I ~ I "~ I w ~ I I I~.r ` I ~+I ~ ~\ `• \\o~~r~~J1\ \ II I \ I~ S 1 J N v' 11 S . I e I to % •~~ - ,._ '~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~~ I~ 2 1 O ~ , I~ 1 ~ I I, o a~ 1 J ~I I 1 ~ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ ~I ~ f 9 ~ \ xz I oa8t~ _ ~,"••tl~~'` rl izr~ / /~ - - -9 sl - -_ 9 ' ~, ~ ~ _ v ~~, ~ti "w rz ~~~ ti v 1 v 1~ a L r + •~ •'Q, I ~ /r" r g^ ~~~'~~ p ~ 1 ~y~ '`V/` i ~ / ~ ', ~ s ~ 3' /r i i .`I 1 ^ r'~ ~.' a+.` r ~ lll+ R' \'~~/ I ~rr/ ~"~ ~ % ' ~rZ ~./-f1'~11, 1 I P- I~ ~ ~ r r~ j '(~ { -y/ 111 ~ ~ • I ~ ~ ~ ~ o'° l i t~ l l I. ~17 r 'S P ~ _ !r w ` _ r ~ r ~ /~~~ ~ -~~ ~ i •~ `' I~ I ~~ _ 6 1~~H5 ~~5 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ryM1 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ i - _~~~ ' \ 'i ~ . P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ( ~~` ~. ~! ~ 2 r ~1 C+ ~B ~~(l 1 ~ ' ~ m ~ K ~" _ ~ Iii 1 ~ ~ _I ~ p ^ I ~j9 i . e x ~ i . I ~, y ~. J .t i AO" % ~T ~ ~ J /M i` ~ i V '_ _ ~ 4 { ~ ~ *, I ~ II g V /~~~, , .~ _ J'1 /~,S ~ ~,~ - ¢ ~ I- ~ i 1 6 I\ 1 x ~ V / i , \i ~I' ~~ ~I r ~ ~ ~ ~~ V ~ ~ ti-~ ~ 5: 1 _ ~ i ` n _ __ _ ___ ~ :~ 1 : I S C. ~ ~ u~~ 0 : ~ ~ ~ 1 k\ ~ \ ~y y i 6 ~O ~ _ 1 i I'z~T 1 ` ~" 1` O``~ ~ 1 ~ V W •~11t~ 4 ~ ~ ~ s ~! ~" w ®i i i - -__~~ l ~ N ~z z i JIILZ Z J z '~~. i !i'J 1 „~ ~ f ~~, s is s a )l~ e~~ - ~ - t~~a ~F ' \ ~ i >, 1 ~Q ~ ` ~ ' 1 41 t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ..V i ~~ !~~ i ~ a ~~ A- 6` 8 8 ~~ i a :~~f ~~ =~_ ~ `~ _ V O '•j~ y g a-f! ~ $~° u, E o~@p -4 ~ m9a . a ,~~_ ~ f ~- x_ } FE ®~ ~d ~ ~°a~ ' tb ~+,k. {Y6G tl L F V~ ~U _ W y ~~ =.~s ~, =~ ~ ~€ V a_ES ~ $€ag `, i ~ ~~~E _~~; -~ z_ ~ F@ r~• ~ ,~ Ed ' a \ as a °W.. UJ N 8 133HS 33S n i i 77L.IC 77G ~~ ~Oi` '. ', ~ - "~ ~:. ~ ~ ~~ . ~ 1 1 _ `1,11 ~ ~ ; ~'TT lu T~1" Y~ ~. ITT ca i l'~ r~-~r a13L~5S ~'; H W W N W w N ~/1 .~n~ ~ - ~ `pro _ ~ ~ -~ a~~„1.,~ ~ _ ~ ' --- ~.`~r:A' -.' ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ wee ~ \ r-~ „ ~/l ,.,.-~ -~' % ,ham. :• r Y -- .).~ `___ ~~ ~ r ~ 1y~na »a it `a~ Poyb ~ w W 2 r N w W V1 133HS 33S ., !` :r f ~, ,~ ~~ . ~• ! ~ o-~, vta. -<y,~ @@@@a_FI $€V~V2 C<i'~ E w9a~ e ~~ i'~i ~. _ ®! E.E ` SZ e7`--~ 8 v 8 ~°! I~ z t ~+ jz~ ~ 3 u 3n c ~~ ° c U V. a ~ I ~ ~ _t 6 G ~ ~ ! tt O ~ ~ L'- ~r O u i i N ~i ~ •y~ a ' ~ t ~ ~ az I .. ~6s 1_ _ '1---7-- - looe~-- 1 r > I 1 x'11 Fe ~ 1 ~ ~~. - I ~, + r ~ 1 ~ B D ' ' ~ ~~~}} '~I C~fJ ~ I` ~ ~ l A ~ ~ I,~ S6 / _ V ~, ~ zz 'li 1 ~ ` l ~ I ~ ~ /`~.- ill ~` ~ ~ I t -_., ~ ~ q ss ~ e i - - ~ `I 'M'Z p '~~ I I I i~ =~T I s2r ~( -~~/LJ ~ ~ ~ 1 Cp~r'11~'`"~ + ,~ I' ' - _ i ~~ a~ i _ I ,~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ lL~ ~ ',. ~ ~ i ALtr ~1 d~ ~F/' Imo'(,®~f_7 W I 'ro IT w' '( ~O t _ W ,- 3 ~ / i ~~ ~~ ~', \\ ~. Ate'' ~ ,A • °~'r ~'~_ _ 1241 •b ~~ e , ~ %.. \/ \ \` ~ i 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'K ~-~11 ~~~ _ t ~ g~ ~ y, I`~ I ,~~ ~``~ ~~ , LI~~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~-- _ - _- -L_ -I __IS,;~9! -_ - __ I ._. l- -_ I 59 SI - -3 Q R \_ ~1 ~ ~ YZ - - - - ~. +n, - - 6 133HS 335 ply cD W W N W W VI ~ ' ~ ' ; ~, ~ , ~~- l.~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ \ \F `I \i •\~ ` ~~ _ ~ j \ vvtr''~I w' , - Y ~ I~ nv~•~ ~" - + ~' A~ ~ ~r ~1i ~ 1 .~~ U '~wp, ~~ - 1 ' I ~ 111 ~ _ ,, ~ ( ,^ ~, =`:, ~_ , , t+ ' ( ~ ' ~ i ~ ~ ~ H ~~ , / .~.~ .~ ~ ~ .>l - "_ dl/ - r ~, I , ., _ a,~ . - ~' ~~ _ ~e ~ ~' r= ,rr .r Sli W, ~ - 8t \ ~: 1. ~~ g: \1 - -i ~ ~ ~. A v { ~ ____ y_, \~, ~ , ,lei ~ \~, _ ~~, ,, ~ ~ ~ - [~ ~ / /~~ .. ~ ~ ~ II r I ~ I ' ~ I1 C ' 1 . r \lrt ~ \ 5+ \~ ~ ~~.~ ' 1 I I • \ ~ ~ ~, , ~` .i {~ ta ,. i ' ~~r r(¢(~','~' z ~ I '1 ~ r ~ _ IH ~ . ~~~ ~ may/ ~ ~ e, ~I~ ~ ~ - M~ ' ~ r l 1 \` ~r ~¢ete _~ j Tr ;itr ~~db~ ~ ex -T -,~~ osa' ~ l , jy~9 b6 L , j 9'15'9 V_ ! ~y L 133HS 33S 3 u~ s~ a ~~g u ~~a~ 0 mH 9 FE ,r'• f~ .e e °~.: A ~~~ € ~ ~~ a 6 e h j}q ~ ~ a "~ ~ aF Ptl ~ ~ 4 ., F °~ ~ a g @ x r`Y ~~R~ g ~ ~ r qy se g~tl RgS ~ AA ~ ¢ t ~ "A y ~ pe a e ~ E~~~ g e4~ ~1~ B,pB ~ F~3~' BG ~n g ~~~e9 ~ ~~c ~.~9P ~ E'$CS ~ ~$3F 6 1 i i i i ! {~ 6~ ~v 1 F .,~ :E' F ~n44:~ 1 ~ s ~ o ! ~t, F::I:t q, ~ ,.,:r ~ ' ~ ~ ., yhp ~}ii~~Ef i~ y. ~ g .. ~:; s; A rr T, F 8. ~P ~ 1 4 F n 4 S A pg ' +„? + ~= a 8 ~, N ~ \ Y : ~ :i~~ii i~ p i; t, 3 7'~l C~ii~?+~ 2 b •i~ ~~k~`t}t a ~p . . . FI is ~~ P{ ~g' i ~ t t !P B~iF 4 ~FTY ~_ .:.~ ~'• ~F.P ~;I~i fiu ~~ ~ I ~ ~~€ ~ ~ ~ r a u z o ~' N $ r rv s ~n : - ~! z n s !! a U O~ q : ~i i F ? io 2 i h ~ ~ Z ~j tF ® I % ~ ~ ~ i '! ~~iF ~ . s'F 3 ~ t ~~ 4 e ° _ < i g ~ d~Ec ' ~ ` $ C !! c aF . Q ~' YYY ~ ~ p p m a :. i ~ F ~- 1 9 ^~ E ~ ~- ®7 t .E 9 ~' ~ z i ~ L ~ ~ ° e ° F 66gg V 2 ~ ~ t ' U 2~ 8 • g ~YY ec eCC@@eecee ~ ~ ~ ~ - !L g •ppP P8 W ~ :p56r n ~ §a ~ ` ~ E'~ C ?? 5 Y ~ j E 4 ~ 1~~ I €` ~ ° ~ Co ~i ~ a ~ ~ ~r,~v ~~.~ ~ , , i $ F~ ~q g t i a e 1 r 6; ?v ,,~ t- • `J T ~i .~ •~;; i f' U~ _ <~ ~e ~'i ?s ~~ fy he6: ,~1 Y C~i~R~ s E 4~~¢ <- i € mE . a ~~3 1 -~ - i F: c ~a J ~J ~ "R4 2 OO N ~~`, DNS cg~ tl 6 d 4 I I ^ ~ 1, ~ I~ ~~ ~~ I The Heights at Haven View Estates Tract 14771 Alta Loma, CA Project Developer Toll Brothers 725 Town and Country Road, Swte 500 Orange, CA 92868 (774) 347-1300 O a D oDSCMOU OCN PARKWAY A JN12NIlAGUNA NEDS CA 92653 STAN SMITH ASSOCIATES (949)895-6413/FA%(949)830-4465 KEY MAP h..i CITY INFORMATION /APPROVAL BLOCK 9f1EET INDE% ~"~ No snen oocwrnw 1 P8NC8A WALL RAN 9 PWCB~WALLPLAN 9 PCNCB~WALL PLAN ~ PfNC6A WALL PIAN 6 PLNCBA WALT PLW • INUOA'IION PLVI l IRLIpAT10N PIAN E IIWCATION flAN P I8810ATION RAH In IBNCATION PWN 11 PLVIIINO P.W 17 PLANTING PLW la P1.umNO nwN 1• PuemNa e1.AN 16 PIAIRINO fl.W I• 06TAeB Il ORIAIIB to OelAllb oW onrvLWAr uxlErr A e a x u s t-1~ I~_ 5$$ ~ g~f[ i; ~ ~ S~ rrttc rrt acsstttt tc s ~[ ~~ ~ 4a ~t; ~~ ~~ tj~ ~~ ~~ ~a ®`i~ili ©LFit Fiift ii t dd ii E ! ~ dE ;j f((~ ~ ~c~ I ~~~ ~~ i, `~~~dpf ~ ~~41~~6~~ ~ ;~ i € j ~ 9~ ii f~ ~ ~3r i ~~I ' r~ ~ ~~E` ~~ ; i 4ti ~ o~ l~ ~~F~~tl~pF ~ Bf{iS~l~` li t iY 3, t~ /~~ ~ ~' / / i i II 1 • r ~ ~ = i t i . SDNDp °1 ~fD n' __ :.~ ~ i i / I~ r i ~~~: ~'~ -- --' _--_~---- :'K----~ ---------- :.... ::..:.T .. .:.:............ Lurcmaxe~(se sty Lz1 ................-.l. :........ i • a THE HEIGHTS O ;:"°„w..; Ar nnveu view esTAres PLANTING PLAN ~ppp ~= TRACT 14J % I 9i°X Surtn °s50C4i6 "~ '~ ALTA LOMA CA I e~ 61 ~a vo vwoi vnv a.+xcc wirvs xvic I LL41 1JVi11 DDpp Nb'ld ~NIlNHId s~visamalnrvanvuly ,~°,,;~, o[~d S1u913N 3N1 f;xg. ~ N e h{~IH ~ 14 ~ -- ~~ ii i ~ 1 [ f = M [ s.......... f1 _i .r _.1 T. ~ ° c_ I , f _ _ - _- rt~ , ~ f a ui ~~ , [ i f f L E f • [ .. • ~ i f i [t M1 '~ I • CSE IIIf f [ i[ [ i t 1 f ` Y o ~ [ _ _ II ` ` !t i1 py [~~Ip~~i~ ~ . I ~ '~ ~ i `A ~ »llliq~IfE~6;~ ~ i - ~,~ ~ t ' :' i r ~'sl ~ 9a ~ ~~ _ ~ ~~~l I i [_ 1 ~~' f + ~ u ' [ I4U v• L I f ! [ i f [ i i [ f s j ' 4 . I ' _ 1 '- ""- - ....1111 - ~ ~ 1 1.1.111 l I~ ~ f • 1 s [ I t ~ ~i j • 5 L 11 -L- '_ ~ i t• A ~ 577C tI ~ ~~ Id \ V i [ee I l Il A [ f by 1 i(~ i ~ _ f [ _ ~ ~I 1' ( e -1 1 S 1 I I ~ __ 11 t _ ~ ~ ~ ' 1 f ~ I~ . [ i ~I ~1 ~ 1 i [[ 11 1 i • . . _ I , _ .I ~ li [ [ 1~1 h f ~ ~`~~i . ` ~ ~, t ~' ~~ ; i ; ' ~ I -J/ ''/ 2 - [ ~ ~_;.~ i [ y ~ ~ ~ ' f f °~ . ~9 _ ~~~ RDV~y~,N ' ~ 3 DD ry ' ~ i n E s q ~~ ,`Qyi ey p RE 3 v V.1 ° Sxt' 3 Gt1T5 ~10 JIEW ESTATES PLANTING PLAN pUO~ °' W '-L '71 srul slum ufecure "' CA I> -,~ [ .' I -1F [ i I I I .,~_ I ~ : ~ ~~ •_ I m I I.~ ,, ~~, :` ~ ~ I I i (J I+~: I I~~ /I ICI; I I u I L L I = L I ' I I I I I ~~~/ I ~i r I I I' I I I - I Ii ~"I I ~~ ' I I' I I^ I I. L I' I I ' I Ii I I V ~ I: I E I ~ • q~ A8 !9 c ti ~z N yN P 11\AtlI1C ~ •d[AE\\I[ iG ]A P ~~ ~ ~i~i~Fti S if iFiitFi it ti ~~ (~ ~~~~f~~! ~ j ~i{ ~ 6~ E ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~~Es~~~s ~ esi ~ +~ ii ~`~~ ~ZF 6~~ 3~ ~I G S A11 #b .. .. NORTH p THE NEIGIITS rJt-J~1O § , I ATl1AVEN VIFNESTATFS PLANTING PLAN L1dU~~ ~~- ~. " TRACT 1471 ,~ ,••• srw soon tissacura A y ALTA LOMA CA 6i VJ VWOl bll' -M pIYIX%'sv uurvs rr.ac I LLV 11JVd oO~p NHId 9NIlNVId 531b1SJ M3t~ N7~VN 1' siu~iau au. fi~F S 6 ~ c 5~:~ I ~i ' ~i si ~ a~~Pla~~ ~>< ~ ~~ ~ ~i g sa i ~~ ~I~~ 6} ,~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~1 i ~ ~~~~~~9~ ~~ ~~ ~ t ae 6e66ss6e. ~ a66i s.66 8 B f..l (sr ws ••s) uuuio.wn ~~[ i I ire rnn ~~ C0.Qt Li f4dJiN Er6W YLR FI(f (YOIX K COLQF Li (1RA11 cowct~rF raonG , eim moue F£R eiwicwx ocrEea G I DETAIL ~ D ~ PEDESTRIAN GATE ~ Q ~ SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL P) r4 PPevr4 Bois x+mP 1lO6OQ PMRIAILNOIPN ~r IOO6 isoenarwmrawvFemeF PmlumPw Pam wnaa norms fj DETAIL E VINYL HORSE GATE B TUBULAR STEEL FENCE ~x m mm~ rv Pn mmi ~- r mm~~ Pwacc moertmFe~ ~ u ~ ~F nm FomiFP rs PFnwF nwr~cnFa. m NLIIBLYnRR1OIn ]YLFYOMN Ip176 IPOO n 2 MRLID RI1 MMrKNPIF PRA'a OMPOI®ImrIW nOT\ I DETAIL F~ DETAIL C VINYL HORSE FENCING ~~ z222? ~4 ~1 alb a~~ a~~ J Q `~ H~ =~i-u ~>n a W ~ P L ~ = og ~ H « a 16 I 1 i I I • -- .~,, ,a_°~ _,~, .~,~ ~_ .~~~ J ROTOR ON GRADE G ANTI-SIPHON VALVE ~ ATMOS VACUUM BREAKER A PEDESTAL CONTROLLER r_ ~ 4 ~~ ~ J ~~~ ... :: "v L TRENCHING ~ POP-UP ROTOR F CONTROL VALVE C BACKFLOW PREVENTER K QUICK COUPLER H POP-UP SPRAY E GATE VALVE B WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER QIVIJ(K6v uLrv6 M16 ~ ~` o°dd ~ j~'C{Pr ~~~~ t I E ~~ P ~~~~; . ~ ll ~~ I iy Z ~ , e~ '° 3°3l w . • W w~ H Q ~gg~g~ I! z a J d W W fY H W d 0 J N 9 1 ! f e• t ! ee 1 E~~I~( !° ~ I , ~'•~t t ~ei ~ 1 I~ ~ I~ il~ e~° 9~ 1 i5e5 ~~f ~tl 1 ~ i e to ° PI 7; E I I ~ IE li! lil ~ ~ It ( ei~ I ~°e I ((p1+ ~I P~ ! }1 E$ 'a.5tl~ ' !~I 9 ~ ~~ E 191 I,I 1~p ° j li9 F~~9"I 414! I°, iEge~e ~: ~ ! ~( i1iE~ 9 i9t 1 P}i i ~O qll III ~}! ~~~ I ~E~ EPIi rl~e tl !°~°~~ ~ ~ ~ Pe II~P, ~ ~~~ ~ i~ !~~ °~ !is ili ~I ~!° 13~tt gg~lE II' I II ' ~ft@ ~ I I r ~° 7 ill ~ ~e' I i. !pl Iyt 11 ~9Y I f ~f it el 11i~ i$~'oi~ {y~~s~l ~~91! ~ I~~I I ~Y~ i~i'! li ~if lll; il~~ ~;f~ pi ~I€ I!t'~9 aE~'! ~~ ~6P(I~iP~ !A1 ~~~gt` ~~l6i G~ Ir~~ ~~ !! E°( ~; E~i Il~q l~6' 9li iQ 7~' QrBP( ~'13', PI [P ilf :1 1 at 7! fl ~{3 !I ile Ills III In !t il9 b~° ietP Z a J d m S N m c~ z r a J a fL 7 [Y 2 N W a 0 J fn W ~I. z f- a J ~I W 0 U Z O fY U J Q w O J Q f- w 0 d ! ! !I I rii I9 ` 'el(f I Itl ! i ~ ~g~~~~°f I° °y I !IE!' ellt I~{R ' P ~~! 19 I irE~t ~° ~ I :I ! I t' ~`~ ~' ~ ! tll'~6 ~ I° ~el ~rl! lef fyl 4P~ I IIl~ , Ir 3 a 31~ 7 , ~ 1 ~~~~l~~ g, I e~~r 7 ~e ~~~~ °~ ~~I 'e! II° !f~ Pt{! !I p° lP~~~ ~p~y( I; ~; i°~°ly~ EI ° ! f(~~!(d (~ d 4~~~~E9~f ~o tl~! ~fel~ ~~{~fi ~~~I 1~0 le 7~ Se t~~9 411 el PI f°E; ~ II pl1IPI~ ~~ ~ S3j. ~a P I!!i`~ t°P~ ~ N°~j I~(6 [i[ It e E IrEI ePl~~ ~I ((P tea ~ ~~ i PP ~ ~IH~' ° SS p f 4P,•I~! I PP I~~ a g3!9 e~ ; }~ `E~ ~I,I n II I P° ~ PII e! lP f I~° P ! I ~ i Set •E ~:: • I~ II! ~~ f ~ tl'7 S ~ tl°~! t' i6 79.! 13set~ ,! ea f9.( g° ~'t E ~P e~ ~'3f ~ ~I ~°91~ f ~~ ~ e~lP~ ~d~i !li° ~e~l ~3~g a9t+§,.PI E~ ~ °i ~I lk~ip3i ~q'4! Its Is ~I¢7~ to ~ (~i Pi~1 i;f~~(pf'' ~ !!! tt~P ° ~ ~~~t4 ~~, 9~g(la 71! ~~ !{f~ yPfiB I~ I(~s II {I I I~ ~~ '9 ~ PlilB° eP I ~!° 169 ~,: ' ~~ ~~~ E ~1{l~1~( Ed i~llE 3'i~l~ !`tl el t a' u(~ Iltt II 77 GPI ! le le 71 e! e r le I fdl EPI_. It~l~e 1. III li r Ili I AP . ! llil 7 e i(E~ p~ §ga~ E!P r~ vwo~ vnv I .!~ I ILL611JVi11 (7 ekP i V.l S11V130 saivisa main r+anvu iv _ S1Vl913N 3Nl -- - -` ~~ ~~ ~ ~e~ efffffff~ fry fr• ~~ ~ Et• ~ J ~ i ~ ~------------------ R i °! ', ~ pit `~ ' i~ 'iii L - ------------------ --------------~ 'Ii ----------------- t 9 ~ !~ ~ t'~ ~ 6- L - ----------J t ij ------------ - ----------------- ~ I i! ~ ~ ~ i ~ °s t _~ ;6~ ~~ tit ------------- rr 31 !~$~ ~~ ~a~t ~i p~ tl~~ Ei ~~'Ia ~~+ ~ ~~~~ ~~ iE It I~ ~~ 31~ ~~ r e EattE, , 6 i ~ i ° E ~ 6~ ~i!i!~~ Et ;9Ep~ 1~~~ ~ ~q~~ i ~BBE, ~~~6 ~p~~ ~1 ~~ S pi ip B~;E p C ~i E- ii ~ ` ~ tBtlE- ~ ~7~ !~~ ~ €e~° ~ tl~o~ ~~~~ ~°i~ ~~ ~~ i Q ~f ~°i @ ~ r t~ I iaE ~ !E ~ i i;9 ~ i t d, pt is i ~~i~i it` ~~ °~E it tD < ~ ` ~_~# E B'~F0 i~~ t i~0 Q ~ p~i "~id ~(~ ~t ~ ° ~ ~ ~a t ~ ] 9 Y A 7E FiEIGF1T5 pp~ :". ~" HAVEN view Esrnrzs Z ,~ i<»i DRIVEWAY F~(HIBITS ""'"'"" ,,,,,~„ .TA LOMA CA siul surtn nswu.rc+ "' I I DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7 00 p m Doug Fenn March 1, 2005 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW - DRC2004-00141-TOLL BROTHERS INC-The reviewof site plans and elevations for 40 single-family detached residences on 24 25 acres of land, in a recorded Tract 14771, in the Very Low Residential Distnct (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Rmgstem Dnve - APN 1074-511-01 thru 05, and 074-621-06 thru 40 Related File Tract 14771 Desion Parameters/Update The project site has a recorded final map (Tract 14771 house plotting was previously approved) and has been graded and prepared for development The site is with the Haven View Estates and is surrounded by vacant land to the, north (San Bernardino National Forest) east, and west To the south are Rmgstem Dnve and large single-family homes The property slopes from the north to the south There are three private equestnan trails that are oriented north/south that tie into the community equestnan trail along the north boundary All four streets of the project off Rmgstem Dnve are a cul-de-ac design style (Sundance Court, Buckskin Court, Lone Acres Court Paddock/Hrdden Trail Drive) The proposed protect consists of six floor plans that range in square footage from 4,460 square feet to 5,825 square feet There are five architectural themes, which are as follows Spanish Colonial, Tuscan, Craftsmen, Mission, and Manor The protect site rs located within the Hillside Overlay District, which requires architectural design techniques that minimize the amount of grading and allow the house to follow the natural grades The protect has been designed so that all floor plans have stepped pads, with elevation changes ranging from a minimum of 3 feet to a maximum 5 8 feet, thereby, meeting the design goals of the Hillside Overlay Distnct All plans have vanation in the footpnnts and articulation in the wall planes, thereby, avoiding "box on box" building forms All plans have been designed with roof planes that have strong vanation, and are within the 30-foot high building envelope regwrement The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on August 18, 2004, which was attended by five residents The developer has meet with other neighbors in the area to discuss the protect without any adverse obtections from the neighbors The developer has approval from the iwo home owner's association that are responsible for the design review of protects within the Haven View Estates Staff Comments The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion Major Issues The following broad design issues will be the focus of Commrttee discussion regarding this protect 1 The Development Code requires a 360-degree architectural treatment to all elevations and the Planning Commission has direct staff to negotiate a better design on the sides and the rearof the residential protects All of the front elevations do have a significant amount of various materials, design vanations, and strong archrtectural details, but are "lacking" on the sides and rears of all the proposed elevations Besides the issue of much needed enhanced details and archrtectural design on the rears and side of the houses, staff suggests a couple of other critena that could be made to enhance the bwldmg elevations On all elevations that depict a stone material midway up the chimney, the stone- work must continue up on the entire chimney facade. DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2004-00141 -TOLL BROTHERS, INC March 1, 2005 Page 2 All decorative trims around the first level windows, doors, garages and similar like items, should not be constructed with Styrofoam, a durable material should be used instead Several plans have second chimneys plotted as options Should optional chimneys be selected during the construction process, the second chimney should have the same architectural enhancements as the primary chimneys (wood siding, stone, etc ) Policv Issues The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the protect design without discussion All interior private yard slopes are required to be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs, and one tree per 150 square feet of area 2 River rock shall be real, or native fieldstone may be used Stone veneers are not permitted 3 Provide decorative pavement on driveways Decorative driveways shall have variation throughout the subdiwsion 4 No wood fencing is allowed Construct block walls between homes (i a along interior side and rear property line) for permanence, durability, and design consistency 5 Access gates to rear yards should be constructed of a material more durable than wood • Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC 6 Taper three- orfour-car driveways down to standard two-car width at the street Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the protect be revised and return as a consent calendar item to the Design Revew Committee Design Review Committee Action Members Present Fletcher, McPhail, Coleman Staff Planner Doug Fenn The Committee recommended approval subtect to minor changes to the side and rear elevations A 15~- RESOLUTION NO 05-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00141, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 40 SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES ON 24 25 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE, AND MAKINGFINDINGSINSUPPORTTHEREOF-APN 1074511-01THRU 05 AND 074-621-06 THRU 40 A Recitals 1 ToII Brothers filed an application for the issuance of Development Review DRC2004-00141, as descnbed in the title of this Resolution Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subbed Development Review request is referred to as "the application " 2 On May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission of the Gty of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said heanng on that date 3 All legal preregwsites pnor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred B Resolution • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Plannng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows. 1 This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the fads set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct 2 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dunng the above-referenced meeting on May 11, 2005, including wntten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows a The application applies to property located at the northeast comer of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Dnve with street frontage of 1,200 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem and is presently vacant and has been graded, and b The property is bordered by the San Bemardino National Forest ~nnthin the County of San Bemardino to the north and east and the properties to the south and west are developed single- famdy residence and vacant single-family parcels c The probed consists of the subdivision of 40 single-family lots in the Haven View Estates area, and d The project design is compatible with the existing Very Low Residential Distnd and residences to the south and west of the protect site, and e The site will gain access from Tackstem Street and Ringstem Dnve . 3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dunng the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of fads set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows F} 15~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-32 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00141 -TOLL BROTHERS May 11, 2005 Page 2 a The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the obtectwes of the Development Code, and the purposes of the distnct in which the site is located b The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detnmental to the public health, safety, or welfare or matenaliy intunous to properties or improvements in the vicinity c The proposed use complies ninth each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code 4 Based upon the facts presented in the application, it is determined that the Planning Commission adopted a Negative Decaration for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771 on November 14, 1990, and the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for Development Review DR 9&13 on November 15, 2000 The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent protects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subtect to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Planning Department 1) All pertinent Conditions of Approval from recorded Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771 (Planning Commission Resolution No 90-138), Development Review DR97-11 (Planning Commission Resolution No 97-36), and Development Review DR98-13 (City Councl Resolution No 00-241) shall apply with approval of this protect 2) Retaining walls north of the channel shall be provided with 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 Imgation Plan and shall be installed pnor to completion of the probed 4) If construction, such as for grading or block walls, results in damage or undermines the stability of newly planted vegetation that runs along the south end of the site, the vegetation shall be replaced by the applicanUdeveloper subled tothe permission of the property ownerand to the satisfaction of the City Planner Engineenng Department 1) It will be necessary to recheck the approved improvements plans, Drawing No 1622 under Tract 14771 for conformance to current City Standards, since more than a year has elapsed since their approval Revise the existing street improvement plans if locations of dnve approaches are different from what was previously approved. A 15°1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-32 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00141 -TOLL BROTHERS May 11, 2005 Page 3 2) Prior to the issuance of Bwlding Permits, a Diversion Deposit and related Administrative Fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50 percent of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills and appropriate documentation is provided to the City Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first Budding Permit application is submitted to Budding and Safety Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department wnthin 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition protect 3) All pertinent conditions of approval of Plamm~g Commission Resolution No 90-138 approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771 shall apply Environmental Mdigatwn 1) All mitigation measures previously adopted with the Negative Declarations for recorded Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771 and DR97-11 and 9&13 shall be implemented 6 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Rich MaGas, Chairman ATTEST Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Plamm~g 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 11th day of May 2005, by the following vote-to-wtt AYES COMMISSIONERS. NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS. F} - In ~ STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00141 SUBJECT: 40 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES APPLICANT: TOLL BROTHERS LOCATION: EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Com lehon Da A. General Requirements 1 The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the Clty, Its _/_I_ agents, officers, or employees, because of the Issuance of such approval, or In the alternative, to relinquish such approval The applicant shall reimburse the Clty, Its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees maybe 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 Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No 05-32, Standard _I_I_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size) The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties Involved In the constructlonlgrading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect B. Time Limits 1 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 C. Site Development 1 The site shall be developed and maintained In accordance with the approved plans which Include _/_/_ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file In the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations 2 Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _/_I_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner ~ n ~~~ Protect No DRC2004-00141 Comolehon Date E. F. G. 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 _/_/~ 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 architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of bwlding permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision 2 Existing trees regwred to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in ~_/_ accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19 OS 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 regwred 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 regwred 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 Department 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 This regwrement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting 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 Department 8 All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment If located in public maintenance areas, the ~_/_ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department Environmental 1 Mitigation measures are regwred for the project The applicant is responsible for the cost of ~_/_ implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting Applicant shall be regwred to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $474 00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory pertormance and completion of all mitigation measures These funds maybe used bythe 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 forteit • 3 A ~ ~D'J Prolect No DRC2004-00141 Comoletion Date r ~ L.~ H. Other Agencies 1 The applicant shall contact the U S Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location _/_/_ of mailboxes Multifamily residen4al developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner rewew and approval prior to the issuance of budding permits APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) I. General Requirements 1 Submit five complete sets of plans including the following _/_/_ a Site/Plot Plan, b Foundation Plan, 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 diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and au conditioning, and g Planning Department Prolect Number (i e , DRC2004-00141) clearly identified on the outside of all plans 2 Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a sods report ~~_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal 3 Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to _/_/_ the City prior to permit issuance 4 Separate permits are regwred for fencing and/or walls -/-/- J. Site Development 1 Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved pnor to construction All plans shall be ~_/_ marked with the prolect file number (i e , DRC2004-00141) The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application Contact the Bulding and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts 2 Prior to issuance of budding permits for a new commercial or industnal development prolect or _/_/_ major addition, 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 Check Fees, Construction and Demoldion Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permits issuance 3 Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tracVparcel map _/_/ recordation and prior to issuance of bwlding 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 4 ~~~O~f Protect No DRC2004-00141 Completion Date K. New Structures 1 Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances _/_/~ considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness 2 Provide compliance with the California Bulding Code for required occupancy separations ~~_ 3 Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions ~~_ L. Grading 1 Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with Califomia Building Code, City Grading _/J_ Standards, and accepted grading practices The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan 2 A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to _/_/_ pertorm 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, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, _/~_ submitted, and approved by the Bulding and Safety Official prior to the issuance of bwlding 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 POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Lighting 1 All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with _/_/_ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development N. 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 _/_/_ O. 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 APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED 5 F} I l0 5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT STANDARD CONDITIONS January 27, 2005 Toll Brothers, INC Tract No 14771 (40) SFR DRC2004-00141 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply 1 Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants The following provides design gudelines for the spacing and location of fire hydrants a For single-family residential protects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area, the maximum distance between fue hydrants is 400-feet No portion of the exterior wall faang the addressed street shall be more than 200-feet from an approved fire hydrant For cut-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 150-feet b. Fve hydrants are to be located The preferred locations for fire hydrants are i. At the entrance(s) to a commeraal, industrial or residential protect from the public roadways u At intersections ui On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. iv As regwred by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire District v A minimum of forty-feet (40') from any building. c If any portion of a factlity or bwlding is located more than 150-feet from a public fire hydrant measured on an approved route around the exterior of the facility or bulding, additional private or public fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided d Provide one fire hydrant for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow or fraction thereof FSC-2 Fire Flow 1 The required fire flow for this protect is 2250 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of • 20-pounds per square inch This regwrement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances Public fue hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed protect may be used to provide the regwred fire flow subject to Fire D~stnct ~IDIP review and approval Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. 2 Fire service plans are regwred for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site Budding permits will not be issued until fire service plans are approved. 3 On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site FSC-4 Requirement for an Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in• 1 Bwldings constructed in the designed Hazardous Fire Areas which include. a All structures that do not meet Fire District access regwrements. The approved Alternative method for lots 27-40 regwres that homes & garages in these lots be egwpped with automatic fire sprinklers b When required fue flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure. 2 Residential gates installed across Fire District access roads shall be in accordance with RCFPD Residential Gate Standard #9-1 The following design regwrements apply: a. All automatic gates shall be provided with a Fire District approved, compatible traffic pre- emption device The devices shall be digital Analog devices are not acceptable Dewces shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and speafications b Vehicle access gates shall be provided with an approved Fire District Knox Key Switch. c. The key switch shall be located outside and immediately adjacent to the gate for use in the event that the traffic pre-emption device fails to operate d A traffic loop device must be installed to allow exiting from the complex e The gate shall remain in the open position for not less than 20-minutes and shall automatically reset 3 Fire Lane Identification. Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes A site plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval 4. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application, if applicable, must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan review. FSC-7 Hazardous Fue Area This project is located within the "State Responsibility Area" (SRA), the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga "Hillside District", and/or within the area identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Exhibit V-7 as High Probability-High Consequence for Fue Risk These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire 2 ~} ~ ~D~" District The Hazardous Fire Area is based on maps produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 Hazard Reduction Plans The applicant shall prepare the architectural plans for the construction of the bwldings in accordance with the County of San Bernardino's Development Code as amended by RCFPD Ordinance 39, Appendix II-A Fire Area FR-1 or FR-2 requrements apply to the construction of the bwldings based on the slope of the terrain and/or mitigation of the fuel modification plans. The development code provides standards regulating and regwring a Fire resistive roof assemblies b Fuel Modification and hazard reduction plans c. Fire District access roadways d. Fire resistive construction and protection of openings e Fire sprinkler systems f. Fire flow criteria For construction requirements in the "Hazard Fire Area" refer to the following web site http //www co sari-Bernardino ca us/landuseservices/DevCode (Chapter 2 Hazard Protection, Article 2 Fire Safety (FR) Overlay District) for an Adobe copy. Also reference RCFPD Ordinance 39, Appendix II-A. 2 Construction requirements for the Hazardous Fire Area (This is not a complete list of . requirements and some regwrements may not apply to FR-2 Areas) a The roof shall be a Class "A" fire-resistive assembly approved by Bwlding and Safety Fire- retardant Class "A" wood shakes and shingles shall be listed to comply with the 10-year "natural" weathering test Class °A" roof assemblies shall be installed in accordance with their listing and manufacturer's instructions. b The space between rafters at the exterior walls shall be solidly filled with tight-fitting wood blocks 1-1/2 inches thick The eaves may also be "boxed" c The exposed surface of exterior wall must be a part of a listed one-hour fire resistive assembly d All exterior doors must be of a solid wood core type Dual pane glass is required for all glass in doors e All windows and sliding glass doors shall be constructed of dual-pane glass. f Cantilevered or standard type decks shall be constructed in accordance with one of the following i A minimum of 1-1/2 inch lumber for all the framing and any deck materials u Protection must be provided on the underside of the deck by materials approved for one (1) hour fire-resistive construction . ui. Be of non-combustible materials, as defined in the Bwlding Code 3 '~} ~ lo~ Patio covers attached or within 10-feet of a residential structure shall not be constructed of materials less than 1/2-inch in thickness Plastic, bamboo, straw, fiberglass or wood-lattice less than 1/2-inch in thickness are not permitted All required fences adtacent to fuel modification areas or wildland areas built as conditions o* approval shall be of non-combustible materials as defined in the Building Code Any fence within 10-feet of the fuel modification area or wiidiand area shall be non-combustible; Beyond 10-feet, the fence may be constructed of any approved material All other fences, including those on the interior of the protect are not subtect to this regwrement Roadways shall be provided along the protect perimeter exposed to a fire hazard or fuel modified area The roadway is to allow fire district vehicle access. Such roadways shall be a minimum twenty (20) feet in width, with a grade not to exceed fourteen percent (14%) and capable of supporting fire fighting vehicles. 3 Fuel Modification Requirements: The applicant shall prepare fuel modification plans for the site in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines and RCFPD Ordinance 39, Appendix II-A. For the fuel medication plan regwrements, refer to the following web site. http //www lacofd oro/forestry%5Ffolder/pdf/fmog Ddf a The preliminary fuel medication plans shall: 1 Show all property lines, contour Imes and locations of proposed buildings or structures. 2 Show the 100-foot defensible space for slopes less than 15%, for steeper slopes and larger defensible space may be requred (Per RCFPD Ordinance 39, Appendix II-A) around the structure 3 Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigation method, thinning and interfac• thinning). 4 Show existing vegetation impacted by the regwred fuel modification and proposed vegetation to be planted in the fuel modification area, if any The preliminary plans should be sensitive to rare, threatened or endangered species and the applicant must be prepared to address their disposition in the final plans 5 Include photographs of the area that show the type of vegetation currently existing, including the height, density and relationship to grade Describe the mechanical or manual methods that will be used for the removal of the vegetation to comply with the fuel modification plans 7 Describe on the plans the existing structures, natural vegetation, roads, parks and/or green space 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions. State on the plans who will have ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the fuel modification zones The applicant shall obtain Fire District approval of a final fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program The plan shall indicate the proposed means of achieving an acceptable level of risk to the structures b The final fuel modification plans shall: 4 A - ~9 Clearly indicate each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigation method, thinning and interface thinning) Also indicate locations of permanent zone identification markers 2 Include irrigation plans and specifications 3. Include the landscape plan The landscape plan must identify the location and type of supplemental plantings The plans and specifications shall include both the common and botarncal names of new and existing plants within the fuel modification area Clearly indicate on the plans the disposition of impacted existing vegetation and identifying those proposed for retention All groundcover, shrub, plants and trees are regwred to be fire-resistive in accordance with three (3) published references for fue safe vegetation Refer to the following web site http://www.ucfal.cuop.edu/FMI- Zone.XlV pages 168 to 177.htm. 4. Indicate any special or specific landscape maintenance intended for the site such as pruning, "limbing up", mowing, etc 5 Describe the mechanical or manual methods that wdl be used for the removal of the vegetation to comply with the fuel modification plans. Describe the existing structures, natural vegetation, roads, parks and/or green space 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions. 7 Note the names, addresses and phone numbers of the responsible parties for the maintenance of the fuel modification zones. 8 Include on the title sheet the conditions of approval, CC&R's and/or any deed instructions related to the site or final fuel modification area. Include a copy of the approved preliminary fuel modification plans with this submittal 9 Provide a copy of the proposed fuel modification maintenance documents to be recorded The maintenance agreements must be perpetual in the event of property transfer and/or a change in Board of Directors for the Homeowner's Association 10 Indicate that the developer wdl implement the regwred measures of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire Distract, before the introduction of any combustible materials into the protect Fire Construction Services must be summoned for an on-site inspection and approval prior to the issuance of the belding permit Mobile, stationary or portable power-operated equipment in the Hazardous Fire Area shall not be used without the Fire Safety Division's written approval. Speafic fire protection measures that may be regwred to mitigate the hazard include, but are not limited to a A stand-by water tender, equipped with a pump, fire hose and nozzle. b Pre-wetting of the site to avoid the production of sparks between blades or tracks and rocks. c Conducting a fire watch for a minimum of one-hour following the cessation of operations each day d For welding, cutting or grinding work, clear away all combustible material from the area around such operation for a minimum distance of 10-feet A "hot-work" permit must be obtained from Fire Construction Services prior to cutting, welding or grinding work ~~~ e Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one five (5) gallon backpack water pump-type fire extingwsher fully equipped and ready for use at the immediate area during the operation FSC-8 Chronological summary of RCFPD Hazardous Fire Area requirements Prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit, the applicant shall obtain the Fire District approval of a preliminary fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program The plan(s) shall be prepared by an indiwdual or firm qualified and experienced in wildfire hazard mitigation planning Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have submitted and obtain approval of a final fuel modification plan Further, the bwlder shall have completed that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District before the introduction of any combustible materials into the protect area. Approval is subfect to an on-site inspection. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan requirements shall be installed, inspected and accepted by the Fire Distract staff. Schedule the inspection with Fire Construction Services at 909-477-2713 FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal have approved an alternate method, The approved Alternative method #05817 PMT2004-04831 for lots 27-40 requves that homes & garages in these lots be egwpped with automatic fire sprinklers Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS -Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: 1 Private Water Supply (Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire Distract Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District Standards Approval of the on-site (private) fire underground and water plans is required prior to any building permit issuance for any structure on the site Private on-site combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with RCFPD Standards # 9-4, #10-2 and #10-4 The Building & Safety Diwsion and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. Fire construction Services will inspect the installation, witness hydrant flushing and grant a clearance before lumber is dropped Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire Distract and CCWD On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radds of the protect All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site CCWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped Fuel Modification Plans Please refer to RCFPD Summary of Fire Hazardous Area requrements. 5. Construction Access The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7 All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road 6 ~~~ 6 Fire Flow A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services 7 Easements and Reciprocal Agreements All easements and agreements must be recorded with the County of San Bernardino PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures". PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION -Please complete the following: Hydrant Markers All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location Private Fire Hydrants For the purpose of final acceptance, a licensed sprinkler contractor, in the presence of Fire Construction Services, shall conduct a test of the most hydraulically remote on- site fire hydrants The underground fire line contractor, developer and/or owner are responsible for hiring the company to perform the test A final test report shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services verifying the fire flow available The fire flow available must meet or exceed the regwred fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code 3. Fire Sprinkler System• Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services 4 Access Control Gates Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular gates must be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards #9-1 or #9-2 by Fire Construction Services. 5 Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. 6 The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and the maintenance of all regwred fire access roadways 7. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street When bwiding setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry Fuel Modification Please refer to RCFPD Summary of Fire Hazardous Area regwrements i ~~~a On August ]7, 2004, I wen[ to the planning department to review the file and mquve about the neighbor hood meeting schedule At that kme I was informed the appbcauon was still very incomplete and nothing was scheduled When I left the tract the following mommg, there was no stgnage Retummg home that evening the attached was posted Calimg the folly ~wmg day to ask about this "Town Meeting" 1 was again informed that for a Neighborhood meeting adequate nonce and an addres would have been required by the Ctty 'THE N~IGNrs TOWN inT ~ WEDS This Nonce (whmh ~s still posted on the property) is veq• m~sleadmg, As rt ~s consistent wrth the Notices throughout the City, there was a reliance that regular City standards and procedures would be adhered to ~y i NOTICE OF FILING ^~ x~ .. ,'¢'• ix .+ r• l ~~ _.. t 4. / ~Y . `i ~J ~~~IC~L ~AI~IiI~Y H~ME~ i. , ~ f ~T l '~ ~ P~~'1~IC f~G~V Ind 'ri ~~ , ~ o. i _ ~ ~.~1'r1~ ~`~~1~~~~ 1:~~ C ~ ~ . ~ ~f ~~ + ~ ~;J~ t r ~.•~ ~ ;;, ~ ~~~ r,~°~^at~~~ ~~rCa~f ~~t.~ ~s Banc"~ Cucarr~t~na P~~~~nin~ D~v~s~.~n ~~ ~ ~ 6~ f u~~~ ~~~'~i x.16. ~`~' ~1~~ ~, ~~,~ } 1 r , -~~~ ~, i • J J l y (yy1~ ~ V y !- I ~,yy~n, y~ G «~* c]I ~. i 4'.a~/~/'~.C'_~ l'Y _h~~ ~ I~~,M ~ a~1\ ~i~i'~ "~Ip ~pF*~.~ i ~ ~t S~}'Y{1 'i~~.TB t ~ ~ / ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~' ~,i ~ ~~i~„ .~~ '{+ x'11 ~,,., ~' .. l o ~ 1 t~ 1~. ~j' F, +]r e ~, i~_ v r i .yam w r ,; r• ;. -5: -~ - . `~,~~~, ~:. ~~ • ~,~~,., ~,, s ;,r',• y ~, .~ r. , V 1~ ~'a d ~ fi ~.y :~ ,, r May 11, 2005 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Cwic Center Dnve Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Commissioners RE Develoament Desrgn Review -Toll Brothers -The Heights at Havenview This design review is a discretionary action CEQA applies when a discretionary action is taken and CEQA regwres that changed Grcumstances and new information be considered At the time of the previous approval the Corps of Engineers certified that we had protection fora 200-Hundred Year Storm event The Corps certified the basin capacity was 310 acre feet or roughly 750,000 tons Subsequently in November 1999, Joe Evelyn of the Corps did a revaluation using a more current method which yielded a 100-Year Storm debns total of 292 acre feet This 292 acre feet total assumed there had been no fires In 2002 the state of California detemtined the basin capacity was 135 acre feet or 200,000 cubic yards instead of the Corps certification of 310 acre feet and 500,000 cubic yards Another "neutral" party, Los Angeles World Airport's determination of 100 acre feet or 160,000 cubic yards of capacity is even smaller In a June 21, 2002 letter, the California Secretary of Resources, Mary Nichols, states all parties (including the Corps) agreed that we do not have even Hundred Year Flood Protection Speafically the Secretary wntes "all parties agreed-to varying extents-that the debns volume associated with a 100-Year flood exceeds the basin capacity " Further "Each analysis provided by members of the technical review committee also concluded that the existing basin capacity is s~gniflcanfly less than the onginal design capacity of 310 acre feet While there may not be agreement on what level of protection 310 AF of effective storage provides, rt falls wdhin the range of estimates provided by the Technical review committee, and would be a significant improvement over the existing situation " A ~• The state then recommends our Senators ensure that our protection level be brought up to the 310 acre feet Additional changed circumstances since the previous approvals include a wildfire with a bum of our complete watershed and a large slag heap I would note that all the calculations m the State Report assume no fires have occurred m the previous five years The capaaty range for after a fire has been esi,mated between 1000 acre feet and 1800 acre feet dust over 6 million tons) No action has been taken to ensure protection either to the State's recommendation of 310 acre feet or for additional protection because of the 2003 Fires I am submitting my comments, the Secretary's letter and a copy of the State Report for the record Further I incorporate by reference all previous matenals submitted in this matter Thank you very much for your consideration Sincerely, Maryhnda McKedh 5 T Q.T E O F A C A L I F O R N I A G E N C Y June 21 2002 The Honorable Deanne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 The Honorable Barbara Boxer United States Senate 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 Subject Deer Canyon Debns Basin, San Bemardino County Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer GRAY DAVIS Governor MARY D N/CNOLS Srar e<a rY I am venting in response to your offices' request that I investigate the potential public safety issues with respect to the performance of the Deer Canyon Debns Basin In San Bemardino County, Calrfomia Representatives of several federal, State, and local agencies, and stakeholders met In January 2001 in Senator Feinstein's San Francisco office, and agreed to collaboratively address these issues As a result of this January 2001 gathenng, I directed Mr Steve Vengin, Chief of the Calrfomia Department of Water Resources' Division of Safety of Dams, to organize and coordinate a technical revew committee This committee was open to all interested parties, and Included the Calrfomia Department of Water Resources (CDWR), the U S Army Corps of Engineers, and three consultants representing Interests downstream of the debns basin, inGuding the Havenwew Homeowners Association and the Ontario Airport The CDWR convened at least 10 meetings of the technical review committee over the following 16 months, and In total devoted approximately three months of nearly full-time work for 4 staff people to the technical analysis State staff also coordinated meetings, and wrote and edited the final report The CDWR estimates their total costs at approxmately $250,000 I was bnefed several times dunng the process The specific task of the technical review committee was to calculate the effective debns basin storage capacity and the volume of debns yield that would occur dunng the 100-year flood (for use in determining the adequacy of the debns basin) I hoped that this group would also be able to reconcile differences of opinion among those is ]b Ninth Svee4 Sm7e 737 7 Socramento CA 9587a FM1 91b 653 56Sb Fpz 976 b63 8701 Mtp //resources ca gov _ ~~ ~ - Ca57ormo(mserrmmn(orps DgvrmemdBemime Wmmxm (tporrnrnldConsnvolmn uanrtmmtdfisM1BCame p[porimmtdforeuryBnre ROm[eron DeyortmmtdNksBRrDmtron Dmrvlrrnnd4VaTRrwiiArn CaAI 'msmlCOmnnssrm tal~ame RAor(marwrRy Cm[MCaWPryMam[amfCmsmanry-SanAnyu+rNMrCmsseswRy SamoMmlmMam(o-nifmssnrnry (dwmoRiWrena•Ed CaMOmo DurVY RCSOUrtR Cmsmntrtn SLkMODnrent Commismn lvnlmrrouo&yConscrwMiBLkNqunzm (nm'rys5KK1 San(pb[q18LOm•[LOSArc~[lnFrWriBMOanls+iCmuvwrY B]YIMn W05CMSfNnn % SIaRCOOY(OICO'I1fM1tlnry 1[o fINN[Caallnli{IMI $bleFHMmOIMI &Nt! NatM`ATPRNll4nm9P (wnT(tfbn W Senators Feinstein and Boxer June 21 2002 Page 2 partiapating in the review process Despite the hard work of all of those involved this was not possible The final report of the technical review committee was completed in May 2002, and is attached for your review Since a consensus assessment of the debns basin's performance was not reached, the final report includes each of the different perspectives discussed dunng the committee's deliberations Let me be very clear about the State's speafic responsibility in this issue The Deer Canyon Debns Basin Dam is under the tunsdiction of the State of Calrfomia with respect to dam safety On the basis of a thorough analysis, the Calrfomia Department of Water Resources has determined that the facility is sound in this respell There is still, however, a range of opinion regarding the hydrology assoaated with a 100-year flood and the volume of debns moving downstream Although there are different methodologies to estimate the debns flow, the reason for this range of opinion stems directly from the debate over how to estimate the 100-year flood Although the technical review committee was unable to resolve drfferences in the calculation of the 100-year flood, all parties agreed - to varying extents -that the debris volume assoaated with a 100-year flood exceeds the basin capacity (see attached Summary Table of Results) However, these findings did not result in a consensus agreement to recommend a basin enlargement project It has been suggested that a National Aa3demy of Saences (NAS) study focused on the Deer Canyon Debns Basin might ultimately resolve these differences of opinion While the State has no objection to such a study, we caution that there is sparse data available to improve present debns production calculations, as well as considerable uncertainty assoaated with ewsUng preapitaUon, stage, flow, and debns yield information for this speafic drainage basin The technical review committee fulfilled its charter, and I believe their work adequately reflects the range of potential calculations based on the best available information Given the potential public safety nsk assoaated with the existing situation, I believe the next step is to take action to expedite an increase in the storage capacty of the debns basin As stated earlier, all representatives of the technical rewew committee concluded - to varying extents -that the volume of debns assoaated with the 100-year flow exceeds the basin capacity Each analysis provided by members of the technical rewew committee also concluded that the existing basin capacty is significantly less than the onginal design capacity of 310 acre-feet (AF) This volume was denved from the U S Arrny Corps of Engineers standard project flood design, and will correspond to different return penods depending on the method of analysis While there may not be agreement on what level of protection 310 AF of effective storage provides, it falls within Senators Feinstein and Boxer June 21 2002 Page 3 the range of estimates provided by the technical review committee, and would be a significant improvement over the existing situation Therefore, I recommend that you call upon the U S Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with San Bernardino County, to provide the onginally intended 310 AF of effective storage in the Deer Canyon Debns Basin Your support of this recommendation and direction to the U S Army Corps of Engineers are cntical to taking this next step and will encourage all interests to work together to develop a locally sponsored project In closing, allow me to make one additional observation I have been tracking issues related to Deer Canyon for almost two years now Besides the public safety issue related to floods and debns flows, I've also heard from those interested in the alluvial fan below the debns basin for its environmental benefits and groundwater recharge values In many ways, the complex set of issues surrounding Deer Canyon reflects the situation in many other watersheds in Southem California, where urban development on alluvial fans is creating potential public safety concerns and impacting important environmental values What is often lacking in these complex situations -where we work at the intertace among floods, debns flows, ecological values, groundwater recharge and urban development -are the tools to address these issues in an integrated manner One tool that California is using increasingly to address some of these issues is California's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Although the NCCP program is not able to address all of the challenges that Deer Canyon presents, many Southem California counties, induding Riverside, have successfully employed this tool to protect biological diversity, important habitats, and open space, while also allowing for strategic urban development The Calrfomia Department of Fish and Game is responsible for NCCP implementation, and I strongly encourage San Bernardino County to follow the lead of neighbonng counties and make use of this program Thank you for your attention on this important matter I believe Calrfomia's local communities need and deserve the best available information when making decisions that affect their environment and address public safety issues I pledge my support in this ongoing effort If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact Mr Tim Ramirez, Water Policy and SGence Advisor, in my office Yours Sincerely, ~~~~ Mary D Nichols Secretary for Resources Senators Feinstein and Boxer June 21 2002 Page 4 cc Honorable William, J Alexander, Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga John D Mikels, San Bemardmo County Supervisor Ken A Miller San Bemardmo County Dept of Public Works, Flood Control Distnct General Robert L Davis, U S Army Corps of Engineers Colonel Richard G Thompson, U S Army Corps of Engineers Tom Hannigan, Director, Calrfomia Department of Water Resources Bob Hight, Director, Calrfomia Department of Fish and Game Roger Johnson, Los Angeles World Auports William Snape, Defenders of Wildlife Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club Kevin Doyle, National Wildlife Federation David Conrad, National Wildlfe Federation Jerry Meral, Planning and Conservation League William E Hawkins, Havenwew Homeowners Malissa Hathaway McKeith Sheldon Sloan Emmett Berg, Center for Governmental Studies Tom Levy, Coachella Valley Water Distnct Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League Senators Feinstein and Boxer June 21 2002 Page 5 Deer Canyon Debris Basin Dam No. 87-11 San Bernardino County Final Report of the Coordinated Technical Review Committee May 2002 Summary Table of Results Engineer Debns Capacrty i ~aau~~ed by 100- Existing Basrn Basm Deficit Year event Capacity (AF) AF AF U S Army Corps 188 172 16 of En meers California 215 135 80 Department of Water Resources Los Angeles 340 100 240 World Ai orts Exponent,lnc 348-422 112 236-310 DEER CANYON DEBRIS BASIN Dam No. 87-11 San Bernardino County Report of the Coordinated Technical Review Committee May 1, 2002 FINAL REPORT Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5 Charter 6 Tabulated Charter Results ~ Corps of Engineers Report 9 Exponent Report 12 Los Angeles World Auport Report 25 Havenutew Homeowners Report Summary 34 Department of Water Resources Report 35 Companson of Results of Charter Computations 39 Conclusions 41 Appendix A Letter Report from David R Dawdy A2 (Dawdy) Appendix B Consideration of Large Histoncal Events 62 (Department of Water Resources) Appendix C LADCOE Deer Creek Report of November 1999 C2 (Corp. of Engineers) USGS Report on Day Creek Flood of January 1969 C16 (U.S. Geological Survey - California District) 2 Executive Summary The purpose for doing this study was to fudge the 100-year flood control adequacy of Deer Canyon Debns Basin Dam by companng the basin capaaty with the quantity of debns that would be generated by the 100-year flood The results of the study are compiled in Table 1 The existing debns storage capaaty was calculated to be in the range of 100 to 170 acre-feet The debns yield from the 100-year flood was calculated to be in the range of 190 to 420 acre-feet All parties found the basin deficent to some degree, although the U S Army Corps of Engineers conGuded that the defiaency was so small that the excess debns would not hinder the perforrnance of the flood control system Based on the diverse findings in this report the adequacy of the basin remains in question The reason for the range of debns yield values stems from the calculation methodology All partiapants, except the Los Angeles World Auports', used the methodology contained in the Los Angeles Distnd Corps of Engineers report entitled "Los Angeles Distnct Method for Prediction of Debns Yield" for calculating debns yield In the Corps methodology the calculated debns yield is directly proportional to the 100-year flood peak flow (i a the larger the 100-year peak flood, the larger the debns yield) If all partiapants used the same 100-year peak flow, and same factor for recency of bum, then the calculated volumes of debns yield and required basin capaaty would match The difference in the calculated values is due almost entirely to the value assigned to the January 25,1969 peak flow on Day Creek, an adjacent drainage basin, and how that value is used to determine the 100-year return penod peak flood flow on Deer Creek The January 25, 1969 peak flow of 9450 cubic feet per second was the largest histonc peak reported over the approximate 40 years of record maintained by the United States Geological Survey In Apnl of 2001 the U S G S discredited the 1969 flow for the reason that it was thought to be influenced by debns flows and that the reported value was too large Much of the enswng dispanty in the calculations of peak flood flows and debns yield resulted from the dfferences in assumptions that the engineenng partiapants employed to make their indiwdual calculations Speafically, the value chosen for the 1969 peak flow and the skew selected to fit a statistical distnbution through that flow, strongly influence the calculated value of the 100-year return penod flood on Deer Creek Numerous attempts were made by the engineers on the committee to resolve the differences in assumptions used for calculating the 100-year peak flood flow computaLon, but none were successful And, since the 100-year peak flood flow magndude is the value that dnves the calculated debns volume the committee was also unable to agree on the design debns yield Due to these differences, the committee could not conGude the work with a cohesive set of conclusions and recommendations The wide vanety of contusions and recommendations are thus presented in the final section of this report ' The LA World Airport consultant used the Corps enveloping curves duectly Engineer Debns Capacity regwred 100yr AFFt Existing Basin Capacity Ao-Ft Basin Deficit (Ac-Ft) Corps of Engineers 188 172 16 Dept of Water Resources 215 135 80 LA World Airports '340 100 240 Exponent 348 to 422 112 236 to 310 TABLE 1 -Summary of Results 'Corps, 1985 enveloping curve (according to Cassidy) 4 Introduction Deer Canyon Debns Basin Dam (Deer Creek) No 87-11 is a 78-foot-high earth embankment debns and flood control structure located in San Bernardino County in Southern California The dam was designed and constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and is presently owned and operated by San Bernardino County It is under the ~unsdiction of the State of California with respell to dam safety The dam has been in operation since construction was completed in 1980 Recent concern has been expressed over the adequacy of the basin to safely pass the 100-year flood and debns flows A technical review committee was formed on January 11, 2001 to evaluate the adequacy of the basin At the beginning of the review the committee drafted, and on January 19, 2001 adopted a charter The speGfic task of the technical review committee was to calculate the effective debns basin storage capaGty and the volume of debns yield that would occur dunng the 100-year flood for use in determining the adequacy of the debns basin The Coordinated Technical Review Committee Charter and tabulation of computational results are on pages 6 and 7 respectively The pnncipal organizations that made computations to fulfill the charter were the Corps of Engineers, Exponent, Inc ,and the Department of Water Resources Consulting engineers Dawd R Dawdy and John J Cassidy, representing the Havenwew Homeowners Assoaation and the Los Angeles World Auport, respectively, loaned the committee while work was in progress Mr Cassidy completed a nearly full set of charter computations His results are listed in the table on Page 7 and his wntten report is contained in the main body of this report Mr Dawdy did not make a full set of charter computations, but submitted a report His conclusions are summanzed in this report and the letter report is included in its entirety in Appendix A This report has been compiled and wntten by Stephen W Vengin of the State of Calrfomia, Department of Water Resources except as othervvise noted Deer Creek Debns Basin Coordinated Technical Review CHARTER A technical review of the engineenng input loadings and debns basin capacty is to be performed The purpose for perforrmng the review is to compile and compare the computational results of concerned interests in order to define the level of flood and debns protection that the basin currently provides The computations to be performed are Calculation of the 100-year precipitation Calculation of the 100-year routed flow through Deer Creek Debns Basin (water only) 3 Calculation of the 100-year debns yield 4 Calculation of the 100-year flood event induding debns and Gear water flow 5 Existing basin level pool capacity at the spillway crest 6 Existing basin level pool capacty at the dam crest 7 Existing basin capacity assuming debns deposition in the reservoir up to the spillway crest and sloping baGc and up toward the channel Depositional pattern to be supported as part of this computation 8 Calculate the inches of rainfall and corresponding return penod that would yield the debns volume calculated in Item 7 (above) for the one, six, and twelve years after bum conditions 6 a Computations to be pertormed Army Corps o/ Engr Exponent World Airports DWR 1 Calculabon of the 100-year preaprtation 2 33 - 1 hr 2 26 - 1 hr 8 00 - 6 hr 2 32 -1 hr 491-3hr 497-3hr 806-3hr 783-Bhr 800-6 hr 788-Bhr 2060-24 hr 2000-24 hr 1809-24 hr 2 Calculation of the 100-year routed flow through Deer Creek Debris (Bold Indicates Basin (water only) Proposed Range) (Changed to 100-year basin inflow) 13,800 cts° 100 yr - 2770 cfs 7,200 cfsE 8000 to 7000 cfs 3000 cfs 6,730 cfsr 5,570 cfs° 3 Calculation of the 100-year debris yieltl 270 ac•ft'P 292 ae-R N/A 340 ac-R 218 ac-R's 236 ac-R'° 4 Calculation of the 100•year Flood event including debris and clear (Bold Indicates water flow Proposed Range) (Calculation of debris yield from 100-year flood) 1,001 ac•R" 824 ac•R' 422 ae-R' 188 ac•R 413 ac-R" Not Calculated 216 ac-R 382 ac-R` 348 ac•R'" 322 ac-R" 235 ec-R° 6 Existing basin level pool capacity below the spillway crest 19 ee-R 19 ac-R 19 ac•R 20 ac•R 6 Existing basin level pool capacity at the dem crest 144 ac•R 140 ac-R 140 ac-R 140 ac-R 7 Extsbng basin capacity assuming debns deposi4on m the reaervou up to the spillway crest and sloping back and up toward the channel 172 ae•R 112 ec-R 100 ac-R 138 ac-ft Depositional pattern to he supported as part of this computation 8 Calculate the inches of rainfall and corresponding return period or the 6 yr w/ 1 yr burn 4 yr w/ tyr burn 8 yr w/ 1yr burn stream Flow return periods that would yield the debris volume 30 yr w/ 8 yr burn 260 cfs 319 cfs calculated m Item 7 (above) /or the one, six, and twelve years after 76 yr wl 12 yr burn 10 yr wl6 yr burn 20 yr w/ 6 yr burn burn conditions 630 cfs Nat Calculated 1072 cfs 20 yr w! 12yr burp 60 yr w/ 12yr burn 1620 cfs 1910 cfs See FOOTNOTES on next page FOOTNOTES: 'A -McCuen and Hromadka Method 'B -USACE Method (Note - DWR will need to revise if cfs for 100 year event is changed basetl upon new data) `C -Los Angeles County Method `D -Bulletin 178 Including Historical Data from 1889 to 1918 •E -Bulletin 176 Using Systematic Record with Station Skew `F - USOS Regional Regression Equation for Southern California •G -Bulletin 17B Using Systematic Record wdh Weighted Skew 'H -USACE Debris Method, X100=7,200 cfs, 4-Years after a Watershed Burn •I -USACE Debris Method, Q100=5,730 cfs, 4-Years aker a Watershed Burn •J -USACE Debris Method, Q100=7,200 cfs, Unburned Watershed Condition •K -USACE Envelope Curve Plus 100 % Method 'L -USACE Tatum Method, 4-Years after a Watershed Burn 'M - USACE Debris Method, Q100=5,730 cfs, Unburned Watershed Condition 'N -McCuen and Hromadka Debris Method, 4-Years after a Watershed Burn 'O -Los Angeles County Debris Method 8 Corps of Engineers Report (prepared by Joseph B. Evelyn At the March 2, 2001 Deer Creek Charter Technical Meeting, Steve Vengin of DSOD requested each participant to prepare a bnef two-page synopsis of the basis for hydrologic results provided for the Technical Charter summary table The summary table and these bnef descriptions of the technical work in the report will be provided to decision-makers within the agencies addressing flood control issues on Deer Creek This information paper summarizes the methods described in detail in the Corps of Engineers (CESPL-ED-H) Information Paper dated January 25, 2001, subiect Deer Creek Debris Basin Coordinated Technical Review The technical information requested in the Charter has been restated below in bold font followed by a bnef synopsis of Corps computations, results, and/or rationale 1. Calculation of the 100-year precipitation Depth-duration values of estimated 100-year precpitation for Deer Creek watershed at the debris basin site (3 71 square miles) as derived are from NOAA Atlas II are as follows 2 33 inches (1-hour), 4 91 inches (3-hours), 7 83 inches (6-hour), and 20 5 inches (24-hours) 2. Calculation of the 100-year routed flow through Deer Creek Debris Basin (water only) Since the level pool storage capacity of the debris basin is relatively small (19 acre- feet), basin outflow can be assumed equal to inflow for engineering purposes The estimate of the 100-year flood hydrograph (water plus sediment) was based on streamflow records The characteristics of the 100-year (Base Flood) hydrograph were developed from the discharge frequency and volume frequency relationships of the nearest long-term stream gage with a hydrologically similar watershed, which is the Day Creek near Etiwanda (USGS gage No 11067000) Day Creek near Etiwanda is the ad)oining watershed to the east of Deer Creek and has a drainage area of 4 56 square miles vs 3 71 square miles for Deer Creek The March 1938 hydrograph for Cucamonga Creek near Upland gage was used as a pattern hydrograph to establish the shape of the Base Flood hydrograph The resulting 100-year hydrograph has an instantaneous peak discharge of 2,770 cfs, and a 1-day mean daily flow of 1,530 ft 3/s The sediment to water ratio of flood events vanes depending on the antecedent moisture conditions of the watershed, precipitation characteristics of the storm that produces the flood, and the bum condition (how recent a wildfire occurred on the basin and the percentage of the basin burned) 3. Calculation of the 100-year debris yield The determination of the 100-year debris yield estimate of 292 acre-feet was based on the procedures described in the Corps' November 1999 Deer Creek report (See Appendix C) 4. Calculation of tfie 100-year flood event including debris and clear water flow. (Debris yield coincident with the 100-year flood is curtently shown in the Draft table) The estimated coinadent debns yield dunng a 100-year flood event at Deer Creek Debris Basin is 188 acre-feet This debns yield estimate is based on the occurrence of a 100-year flood coinadent with an average (50 percent of the Ume) watershed condition Refemn~ to Figure A-4 (Generalized Fire-Duration Curves For Drainage Areas 0 1 to 200 mi ) of the Corps' Debns Yield Method Report, the percentage of time afire factor of 3 0 is equaled or exceeded for drainage areas between 3 and 10 square miles is 45 percent Hence a fire factor of 3 0 is the appropriate coinadent fire factor to use in the analysis The 188 acre-feet debns yield estimate exceeds the nominal "design" storage volume determination of 172 acre-feet by a small increment (16 aae-feet) that would be handled by the proied as additional deposition m the debns basin above the design debns deposition slope, transported throughout the downstream channel system, or deposited in the downstream channel In addition, the exceedance of the design debns deposition slope would occur on the very tad end of the flood hydrograph when discharge would be very low in comparison with available channel capaaty Hence, there would be no flood inundation or debns deposition on Deer Creek floodplain dunng the occurrence of a 100-year flood event 5. Existing basin level pool capacity below the spillway crest Based on July 2000 basin topography in Digital Terrain Model format the level pool a3paaty below spillway crest was determined to be 19 acre-feet using Microstation and InRoads CADD computer software 6. Existing basin level pool capacity at the dam crest The existing basin level pool capaaty at dam crest was determined at 144 acre-feet also using the July 2000 basin topography in Digital Terrain Model format and Microstation and InnRoads CADD computer software 7. Existing basin capacity assuming debris deposition in the reservoir up to the spillway crest and sloping back and up toward the channel. Depositional pattern to be supported as part of this computation The existing basin "design" debns storage volume estimate of 172 acre-feet is based on the assumption of sediment deposition in a pattern similar to a natural alluvial fan This pattern of deposition is normal to the gradient of the stream, and assumes flow paths emanate from the apex of the fan This "design" deposition pattern is assumed to occur at the same 6 percent slope upstream from spillway crest elevation as m the original basin design The term "design" as applied to the basin storage implies a sediment storage volume that limits the sediment outflow from the basin dunng a speafied magrntude flood event to small par4de sizes that are normally transported as "suspended load" as opposed to "bed load" 10 The debns basin trap effiGency dunng an actual flood event is dependent on charactenstics of the flood inflow hydrograph, sediment to water ratio, sediment size distnbution, and flood inflow path (east side vs west side of basin) Under a worse case scenano of all inflow occumng in the current active channel on the east side of the basin the effective basin storage capaaty is estimated to be 172 acre-feet If however basin inflow occurred predominantly on the west side of the basin due to deposition in the active channel, the effective basin storage space would be sign~cantly greater than 172 acre-feet because the pattern of deposition would extend further to the west within the basin 8. Calculate the inches of rainfall and corresponding return period that would yield the debris volume calculated in Item 7 (above) for the one, six, and twelve years after burn condkions The Table entitled "Debns Yield vs Years-Since-100 Percent Wildfire and Frequency of Exceedance° of the Corps' November 1999 Deer Creek Report (see Appendix Cl provides debns yields for speafic combinations of n-year floods and years following 100 percent bum of the watershed Based on this table the corresponding return penod for floods that produce 172 acre-feet of debns yield for one, six, and twelve years after bum are approximately 5-year, 30-year, and 75-year, respectively A volume of 172 acre-feet equals 74,781 cubic yards per square mile for the 3 71 square mile drainage area above the debns basin Values provided above were estimated from the table by interpolation 11 Exponent Report (prepared by Douglas Hamilton) 1. Estimate the 100-year Precipttation for the Watershed. Based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual the following precipitation values are denved for the Deer Creek watershed 100-Year, 1-hour 2 25 inches 100-Year 3-hour 4 97 inches 100-Year, 6-hour 8 0 inches 100-Year 24-hour 20 0 inches The USGS regression equation for the South Coast region of California is frequently used to develop a reference value that can be used to evaluate the results of other peak flow frequency calculations For the 100-year event, this equation is (Waananen and Cnppen, 1977) Qioo=1 95'Ao e3.Pi s~ Where Qioo is the 100-year peak flow in ds, A is the drainage area in square miles, and P is the mean annual precipitation in inches detennined from a contour map in Rantz (1969) This map was translated into a polygon shape file and overlaid on the Deer Creek watershed map in order to estimate the average annual rainfall Using this method, the average annual rainfall for Deer Creek is 40 inches 2. Estimate the 100-year peak flow for the watershed. The 100-year peak flow can be estimated using rainfall-runoff calculations, statistical analysis of measured peak flow data at a stream gage, or regional regression equations Deer Creek does not have a systematic stream gage record Histoncal flood data between 1862 and 1946 are available for Deer Creek from a United States Engineer report dated September 30, 1948 (See Attachment 5) These data show that dunng this 85-year penod, 5 years had peak flows that exceeded 9,000 cfs (2 426 cfs/square mile), and 16 years had peak flows that exceeded 3,000 cfs (809 cfs/square mile) Though a statistical analysis cannot be done with these data because only 20 out of 85 years are reported, these data reflect both the intensity of histoncal storms and the potential for large amounts of debns to be delivered The adjacent Day Creek watershed has a stream gage which has recorded stream flow data from 1928 to 1972 Histoncal data for Day Creek from 1889 to 1938 also has recently been obtained from the Preliminary Survey of the Santa Ana River (See Attachment 5) These data indicate 8 floods exceeding 4,000 cfs (877ds/square mile) during the 39-year penod Because Day Creek has a systematic record, the histoncal flows can be used to supplement the record in order to estimate their potential effect The Corps of Engineers has done a statistical analysis of the Day Creek data and transposed it to Deer Creek The statistical analysis for the Day Creek Stream Gage done by the Corps of Engineers in their November 1999 report is shown in Figure 1 12 The downward curving solid line is their computed flow frequency curve and the diamond shapes are the actual measured peak flow data ~~ ~~ Figure 1 -Corps of Engineers Peak Flow Frequency Curve for Day Creek The solid line on the graph is the statistically computed flow frequency curve using the methodology in Bulletin 176 This Ime is intended to be the best representation of the measured data so that it can be used m a predictive manner The trend of the data slopes upward (positive skew) while the calculated Ime slopes downward (negative skew) The data from Day Creek and the region indicate a positive skew It is not appropnate to the fit the data with a negative skew because it underestimates the magnitude of the 100-year flood Bulletin 17B suggests using a weighted skew coefficient which combines regional and data-speGfic values The USGS computer program PEAKFQ does this automatically by entenng the stream gage data along Huth the latitude and longitude of the gage Re- computing the flood frequency data using the approach recommended m Bulletin 176 results m a curve that is consistent with the trend of the measured data (Figure 2) This approach results m a 100-year peak discharge of 6,664 cfs Exponent has concluded that this is a realistic estimate of the Day Creek 100-year peak flow 13 sa tin - ,gym-xaa ov c nx Emsra, w 2W1 F~ 23 14W ~A3 ~~ HJtFL E~ER~ A~S7Y, F~Id "tom ~m - lJkb-i~ 6i' C IR EfIlbi~61 6i c'®1 FFB D ]RCS] Figure 2 -Flow Frequency Curve for Day Creek Using Bulletin 17B Skew It can be seen from Figure 2 that the weighted skew still does not adequately match the 5 highest measured peak flows for Day Creek By using the skew coeffiaent denved from data at Day Creek, a flow frequency curve can be developed that better fits the data Figure 3 shows this curve Using the station skew coeffiaent, the 100-year peak flow for Day Creek is 8,608 cfs By using the USGS regional regression equations, the 100-year flood value can be transposed from Day Creek to Deer Creek by using the ratio of watershed areas raised to the 0 83 power The watershed area for Day Creek is 4 56 square miles The watershed area for Deer Creek is 3 71 square miles The resulting transposition factor is 0 84 Based on the Bulletin 176 method, the transposed 100.year peak flows for Deer Creek are 7,200 cfs using station skew, and 5,600 cfs using weighted skew 14 ~~ Figure 3 -Day Creek Flow Frequency Curve using the Station Skew Adding the 12 h~stonc Day Creek peak flows from 1889 to 1918 results m a revised flow frequency curve as shown m Figure 4 The weighted skew value of 0443 for the systematic record is used in this calculation Incorporating the histonc data results m a 100-year peak flow on Day Creek of 13,789 cfs The large number of high histonc peak flows suggests that Day and Deer Creeks frequently produce floods with large amounts of debns m them 15 495 % b 59 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ]B 5 2 10502 ~~. ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ,1~ 8,11 17-8 frequaiay f o O glstcr~vc ae~s gJ~tic frequeioi lg+ + + wstn•~l adrustQd ~~ ,-F++ ++ ~ 9 >~ o +++ a. ~° c FOTItE - R-elu~v~a-y ccrp~t~t irn lSs~ is r~pvs~ble fm £1"d IIILBpEG~1Q1 995 A 56 ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 70 5 2 10502 RtIFL D~~ ~.IIV, R7gTd 9[at6ui - 11FLTE'~ ORI C lii Ef74f1~Q7 ffi X91 OCf 4 14:25 42 Figure 4 -Day Creek Peak Flow Frequency Curve, Adjusted with Histonc Data 1889 to 1918 Recently, Robert Meyer of the USGS has "discredited" some of the measured flow values including the 1969 Deer Creek flood event Exponent, John Cassidy and David Dawdy all question the USGS' rationale for discrediting these flows Photographs obtained from the National Archives show the conditions at Deer and Day Canyons in 1937 and 1938 These photographs show that, although the 1938 flood conveyed large amounts of debns, the event was not a fully competent debns flow (These photographs are included for reference in Attachment 5) Because it is not known whether the discredited stream gage data will be restored to recorcl, or what additional stream gage records wdl be changed by the USGS in the future, a sensitivity analysis is done on stream gage records for 6 gaged watersheds adiacent to Deer Creek (Table 2) 16 Table 2 Gaged Watersheds Adjacent to Deer Creek Gage Number Drainage Area (sq mi ) Day Creek 11067000 4 56 ucamonga Creek 11073470 9 68 Lone Pme Creek 11063500 15 1 an Antonio Creek 11073000 16 5 a on Creek 11063000 40 6 L tle Creek 11062000 46 6 For this sensitivity analysis only, the 1938 and 1969 peak flows are adjusted m order to account for debns flow concentrations Sediment concentrations by volume m excess of 35% can affect the flow behavior and develop into fully competent debns flows For each of the above stream gage records, the 1938 and 1969 peak flows were reduced to 65% of their reported values m order to account for the effects of debns The second test was to assume that no significant flood events occurred m 1938 or 1969, effectively eliminating them from the record The PEAKFQ program was used to compute the 100- year peak flow events for each of these cases Table 3 sets forth a summary of the range of computed 10Q-year peak flows for the ongmal record, the revised record based on a debns adjustment factor m 1938 and 1969, and the revised record based on the removal of the 1938 and 1969 floods All Bulletin 176 calculations m this table are based on the weighted skew Table 2 also shows the computed 100-year peak flow for the USGS regression equation Average annual rainfall values are taken from the map by Rantz referenced in the USGS report Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Califom~a 17 Table 3 Summary of 100-Year Peak Flow Analysis. Measured Debris Adjustment Remove 1938, 1969 USGS Eqn Gage Number Drainage Area Mean Annual Precip 100-Year Peak Bulletin 17B 100-Year Peak Bulletin 178 700-Year Peak Bulletin 17B 100-Year Peak s mi in Cfs cfs/s mi cfs cisls .ml cfs Cfs/s mi cfs cfs/s mi Da Creek 1106700 4 56 4 6 664 1,461 5 21 1,145 2,13 468 6,80 1,49 ucamon a Creek 1107347 9 6 36 7 313 75 5 75 595 2,95 305 10,43 1,078 one Pine Creek 1106350 15 1 2 3 857 25 2 84 18 2,13 141 5,02 333 an Antonio Cree 1107300 16 14 34 86 11,39 69 3,29 20 16,24 985 a on Creek 1106300 40 2 23,74 58 20 82 513 17,58 43 11,43 28 L tle Creek 1106200 46 3 22 130 47 20 12 43 15,82 339 27 35 58 18 Figure 5 Summary of 100-Year Peak Flows io,ooo E ~i N w 3 1,000 0 LL Y d a 100 -------- ------- ------- ---------- ------- ------------- - MeasuredPeakFlow(cfs) --- --------------------------------------- - ----- ------------- - ~DebnsAdfustedPeakFlow(cfs) ----------------------------------------------------------------- O Exclude 38 8 69 Peak Flow(cfs) _-- J/Additiona~HistoncDatasmcetBBO tUSGS Regression Equation --- / ~k-So Cal Max Flow Envelope Curve • Other Data (cfs) Appendix 6, Plate 12 -----_- ;I ------ ------------------ III~___ I' ~'.I ________ _______/ Deer Creek 3 71 Day Creek 466 sq mi Cucamonga Creek Lone Pme Creek 161 San Antonio Creek Calon Creek 40 6 Lytte Creek 46 6 sq mi 9 66 sq mi sq mi 16 5 sq mi sq mi sq mi - II ________________ ~________~,6, _________. 19 Table 3 shows that, by adjusting or removing the 1969 and 1938 events, 100-year peak flows are reduced by 20% to 60% Companng these values to the USGS regression equations indicates that reduang the systematic 100-year peak flows substantially underestimates the magnitude of the 100-year flood compared to similar watersheds in Southern Calrfomia Eliminating completely these two events from the record has an even more pronounced effect and will lead to signficant underestimates in the 100-year flood magnitude Figure 5 shows a plot of the range of computed 100-year peak flows from the Bulletin 17B approach compared to the USGS equation Also shown in Figure 5 is the Corps of Engineers' envelope curve for mawmum peak flows in Southern California For the watersheds with high average annual rainfall such as Day Creek, Cucamonga Creek, and San Antonio Creek, the 100-year peak flows are approximately 50% of the peak flow envelope curve values Based on the results of Figure 5, removing the 1938 and 1969 flood events from the record results in 100-year peak flows that are three to five times lower than the 100-year peak flows from the USGS regional regression equation For the Deer Creek watershed, which has an area of 3 71 square miles and an average annual rainfall of 40 inches, the USGS regression equation results in a 100-year peak flow of 5,730 cfs Realistically, this is the lowest value of the 100-year peak flow for Deer Creek The Corps' estimate that the 100-year peak flow for Day Creek is 2,770 cfs is not supportable by either the regional or site specfic data If the histoncal stream gage data is taken at face value, or rf the 1969 and 1938 events are adjusted for debns potential, peak flow frequency analysis gives results reasonably consistent with the USGS regional equation If these events are eliminated from the record, then the peak flow frequency approach gives unreasonably low estimates of the 100-year peak flow Using a realistic range of estimates for the 100-year peak flow for Deer Creek results in large computed values of debns volume when using the Corps' Los Angeles Distnct Debns Methodology Though such large debns yields are not unrealistic given the watershed conditions on Deer Creek, DWR is concerned about the regional impacts of adopting a comparatively high debns yield Rather than fine-tune the100-year peak flow to accommodate this reality, we have employed a number of debns methods and enveloping approaches Whichever method is employed, it is Gear that the Deer Creek debns basin is deficient 3. Estimate the 100-year debris yield. Figure 5 of the Corps of Engineers' November, 1999 report shows debns yield quantities from the Deer Creek watershed plotted against probability This graph was used to demonstrate that, rf the Deer Creek Debns Basin could physically store 310 acre-feet of debns, then it provides a 111-year level of protection In DWR's January 31, 2001 meeting, the Corps of Engineers presented a new cntenon to fudge the level of protection provided by the basin This quantity would be used in deciding the basin's design capacity and would be tensed "the 100-year flood event debns" 20 This methodology was developed speafically for the Deer Creek Task Force process Exponent questioned the meaning of this term, however, because it is no longer being used, no estimate is provided 4. Estimate the 700-year flood event debris. This quantity is best descnbed as the debns produced by a 100-year flood occumng simultaneously with a watershed condition that exists 50% of the time According to the Corps' design curves in the Los Angeles Distnct Debns Methodology, an unburned watershed condition e>usts 50% of the time This quantity, therefore, is essentially the debns yield assoaated with the 100-year flood on an unburned watershed Because the Deer Creek watershed has significant areas of barren rock, a fully recovered assumption may not be appropnate Exponent considers it essential to have debns storage capacity based on realistic, adverse watershed conditions such as a burned watershed that has not completely recovered In San Bemardmo County, the flood control distnct evaluates debns basins based on a 100-year event occumng 4 years after a fire For comparative purposes, Exponent has used a number of different methods to establish a range of potential debns yields for Deer Creek The results are summanzed in Attachment 1 First, based on the range of 100-year flood estimates from 5,730 cfs to 7,200 cfs, the urnt peak runoff ranges from 1,544 cfs/mil to 1,940 cfs/mil The contnbuting drainage area is 3 71 square miles (2,374 4 acxes), and the relief ratio is 1,445 feet/mi For a burned watershed that has recovered for 4 years, the fire factor is 4 7 This is also compared to an unburned watershed condition where the fire factor is 3 0 Using the Los Angeles Distnct Debns Method, Equation 2, the resulting debns yields area as follows 100-year flood o/ 5,730 els, burned watershed, 4-years recovery: 824 a f (358,000 c.ylsq m!J f 00-year flood of 7,200 cfs, burned watershed, 4-years recovery: 1,001 a.f (435,000 e.yJsq mi) f00.year flood of 5,730 crs for an unburned watershed: 348 a.f. (151,000 e.yJsgmiJ 100-year flood of 7,200 cIs /or an unburned watershed: 422 a.f. (184,000 c.yJsgmi) The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology manual contains a method for estimating design debns yield based on the 50-year capital flood This method is based only on drainage area and location vnthin the mountains This method gives the following result Los Mgeles County 50.year Capital FMaf debris yield. 235 acre-feet (102,000 c.ylsq ml.) This method contains additional design cntena beside the inflowing debns yield related to the shape and configuration of the debns basin that wdI be discussed later 21 Appendix 6, Plate 15 of the Deer Creek Feature Design Memo contains a debns volume enveloping curve In this procedure, one reads the value off the curve based on the watershed area, and then adds 100% This approach yields Enveloping Curve Approach: 413 acre-h:et (180,0 c.yJsgmi.) Prior io developing its new Los Angeles District debns method, the Corps had developed a procedure known as the Tatum method This method starts with a maximum debns yield and adtusts based on watershed conditions For Deer Creek the maximum yield is 1,900,000 c ylmi2 The adjustment factors for slope, drainage density, hypsometnc index and 3-hour rainfall are 0 98, 0 75, 0 8, and 1 0 respectively For a burned watershed with 4 years of recovery, this approach yields Tatum Melhod, 700-year event, burned with 4~/ears recovery 382 a.f (757,500 c yJsq m~ ) A more recent method developed by McCuen and Hromadka is based on the same data set as the other methods but employs drfferent statistical pnnaples This method employs a regression equation with the following parameters Drainage area (3 71 sq mi ), drainage density (3 47 mi/sq mi ), hypsometnc index (0 363), total stream length (12 9 mi), and the mean bduraation ratio (3 5) This approach yields McCuen-Hromadka method, 700-year, 4-years after bum• 322 a f (140,000 eyJsq mi.) Based on the above calculations, the results show a debns yield ranging from 235 to 1,001 acre-feet The basin was originally planned to capture 310 acre-feet of debns This is a typical range considering the uncertainty of these methods and the key role that fire plays in causing debns flows Based on the historical database, maximum measured debns yields in Southern California infrequently exceed 150,000 cubic yards per square mile Given the spread of results from the various methods the adopted range of debns yield is 348 acre-feet to 422 acre-feet (See Attachment 1) 5. Storage Ratio The Deer Creek debns basin was constructed by excavating into the existing ground and is known as a pit type basin The Los Angeles County hydrology manual identifies this type of basin as the least effiaent at trapping debns and the most likely to experience momentum overflow The manual identifies the storage ratio as an indicator of the how likely it is for this phenomenon to occur Although the committee members were not asked to calculate the storage ratio of the existing debns basin, this calculation goes hand-in-hand with the capaaty estimates The storage ratio is defined as the ratio of storage capacity below the original, natural ground level, to the total storage capaaty of the basin If the storage ratio is greater than 0 7 then there is a high likelihood of momentum overflow For Deer Creek, the storage volume between the natural ground surface and the bottom of the basin is approximately 131 4 acre-feet The storage capaaty is 111 6 acre-feet The storage ratio is 1 18 This means there is a high likelihood of momentum overflow Storage Raho 1 18 22 8. Estimate the Existing Level Pool Capacity of the Debris Basin at the Spillway Based on Exponents Apnl 27, 2000 report (Appendix 1), and their September 18, 2000 report (Appendix 2), the existing level pool capaaty is 19 aae-feet 7. Estimate the Existing Level Pool Capacity of the Debris Basin at the Dam Crest. The existing level pool capacty at the lowest point along the dam crest is approwmately 140 acre-feet 8. Estimate the Basin Capacity Assuming Deposition in the Reservoir up to the Spillway Crest and Sloping Back up Toward the Channel. Based on Exponents Apnl 27, 2000 report (Appendix 1), and their September 18, 2000 report (Appendix 2), the maximum debns basin capacty is 111 6 acre-feet This is based on a 5%debns deposit slope Detailed surveys of the natural channel slope on this part of the fan indicate that the slope is 11 %, not 12% as assumed in the onginal design of the basin The design debns deposit slope is one half of the natural slope or a maximum of 5% The maximum allowable value of 5% was adopted by Los Angeles County in 1993 to reduce potential for momentum overflow on debns basins below steep watersheds The reason that the debns basin capacity is so much smaller than the ongmal design oblechve is because the Deer Creek channel immediately upstream of the basin is entrenched and focuses the debns to the smallest part of the basin The westem two- thirds of the basin will not store debns dunng a large flood Only the eastern third will do so Mussetter Engineenng Inc ,working for the Corps of Engineers, stated that some debns could reach the westem part of the basin but did not provide any back up matenal such as the 3-stage analysis m FEMA's alluvial fan gwdelmes They pointed out that debns from a side canyon could block the entrenched channel, enabling the flow to dump across to the westem side of the fan Signficant engineenng and geologic data exist to demonstrate that the Deer Creek fan is entrenched on the east side and will remain so The Corps of Engineers explained why information generally required by FEMA's guidelines should be ignored m this case In the Apnl 27, 2000 study, Exponent outlined the three-stage approach required by FEMA By using histoncal flood photographs of the 1938 and 1969 floods, sods data, and field mspedions, this approach conGudes that this part of the fan is entrenched and the Deer Creek channel cannot be relied upon to relocate itself to the westem part of the debns basin dunng a flood Even though the Corps of Engineers and its consultants state that a relocation of the channel is possible, it is not prudent to assume that it will definitely happen as a basis for the design of the basin 23 9. Calculate the Stream Flow and Retum Period that would Yield the Debris Volume Calculated in Item 8 (above) for the 1-, 6-, and 12-year after Burn Condition. The purpose of this calculation is to give an idea of what magnitude of flood event can be handled by the existing Deer Creek debns basin for different watershed burn conditions None of the parties conGuded that the existing basin could handle the 100- year event Based on the Los Angeles Distnct Debns method, the basin offers the following levels of protection 4-Year event (260 cis) for 1-Year of recovery after a bum t0-Year event (830 cfs) for 8-Years of recovery after a bum 20-Year event (1,520 cTS) for 12-Years of recovery after a bum These results of the nine calculations are summanzed in the table in Attachment 1 This report was prepared by Douglas Hamilton, P E ,Registered Civil Engineer 42210 by the California Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (exp 3-31-04) 24 Los Angeles World Airport Report (prepared by John J. Cassid INTRODUCTION This report was prepared to descnbe my condusions and the work done m reviewing the Deer Creek Proled as requested by Mr Roger Johnson, Deputy D~redor of the Los Angeles WoAd Airport /n particular the review concentrated on assessing the actual flood~ontrol capability of the Deer Creek probed which included considerations as to the caoac~ty of the reservoir formed by the Deer Creek dam and the hydraulic design capacty of the spillway and flood control channel downstream from the Deer Creek Dam In the process of making this rewew and analysis I have attended two meetings with the Department of Water Resources in Sacramento (Apnl 19 and October 11), one meeting with the U S Geological Survey in Sacramento (May 29), and a meeting with all interested parties in Ontano (March 19) After the meeting in Ontano on March 19, I was able to make a short field tnp to the proled In addition, Imade atwo-day field tnp to the Deer Creek Protect on Apnl 28 and 29 In addition to this final report, I have submitted the follovng to you as my work progressed • A preliminary assessment sent by fax and dated March 26, 2001 • A letter gwing my condusions at the time dated Apnl 14, 2001 • A letter descnbing my observations dunng the Apnl 28-29 field tnp to the Deer Creek Protect dated May 9 2001 • A declaration related to the benefits of keeping the large levee below Deer Creek Debns Dam dated May 19, 2001 • A letter descnbing a meeting with the U S Geological Survey dated May 30, 2001 • A letter descnbing the benefits of the large levee below Deer Creek Debns Dam dated May 31, 2001 Throughout this report I have used the following abbreviations USGS -United States Geological Survey Corps -United States Arrny Corps of Engineers DWR - California Department of Water Resources SCS - U S Sod Conservation Service 25 CONCLUSIONS As a result of my rewew and analysis I have formulated the following contusions 1) The 100-year peak flood entenng the Deer Creek Debns Basin would be considerably greater than the 2,500 ds estimated by the U S Army Corps of Engineers and is most likely m the range of 6 000 ds 2) The U S Anny Corps of Engineers envelope curve "Observed Maximum Debns Yields vs Debns Basin Design Capaaties° represents essentially all of the available data on debns yields m the Southern Calrfomia area This curve indicates that the volume of debns entenng the Deer Creek Debns Basin dunng passage of a 100- yearflood is most likely in the range of 150,000 cubic yards per square mile which would yield a total of 340 acre feet entenng the Deer Creek Debns Basin 3) The capaaty of the Deer Creek Debns Basin is debatable since the mased channel on the east side of Deer Creek Canyon would carry debns only into the eastern side of the debns basin If the entire debns basin could be filled by inflowing debns (and this is quite unlikely) iYs current capaaty would be only m the range of 100 acre feet, much less than the volume of debns that would enter the basin dunng a 100-year flood I personally believe that only about half of the reservoir would be filled before debns began to be named over the spillway and into the downstream flood channel I base this conclusion on the fad that debns has flowed over the spillway and into the flood channel m the past 4) The Corps design flow for the flood channel downstream from Deer Creek Debns Basin was 5,400 ds Since I estimate that the 100-year peak flood would be in the range of 6,000 ds, it is Gear that the design capaaty of the channel is less than the peak value of the 100-year flood The Corps provided a minimum freeboard of 2 feet m their hydraulic design of the channel Two feet of freeboard would not be suffiaent to contain 6,000 ds if large quantities of debns were to pass over the spillway and into the flood channel The debns would travel mostly as bedload and since flow is supercntiaal throughout the flood channel, the bedload would probably create "anti-dunes" which would disturb the flow greatly, creating large waves with probable overtopping of the channel walls If flow did overtop the channel walls it would impact downstream development including the Ontano airport 5) The Corps designed the Airport Conduit to have a veloaty of 47 5 feet per second at its inlet and 41 6 feet per second at the outlet Veloaties m the steep section of the flood channel near the debns basin are m the order of 80 feet per second Thus, the debns-carrying capaaty of the steep channel is significantly greater than that of the conduit If large volumes of debns were to enter the flood channel, the airport condwt would pose a restndion for the passage of the debns As a result, debns would deposit m and upstream of the conduit and could a-eate a blockage to flow through the airport condwt Such blockage could present a hazard to auport operation 26 MATERIAL REVIEWED AND DATA UTILIZED My revew and analysis was based on streamflow data, rainfall data, and reports prepared by others The reports that I have reviewed indude 1) Hamilton, D , "Evaluation of the Debris Storage cepaaty of the Deer Creek basin," Report by Exponent, dated April 27 2000 2) Hamilton, D "Response to the Los Angeles District's Memorandum for the record, dated August 4, 2000 regarding the Exponent, Inc evaluation of the Deer Creek Debns Basin storage capacity," Report by Exponent 3) Hamilton, D , "Memorandum. Deer Creek Debns Basin coordinated Technical Review," Califomia Department of Water Resources, report by Exponent dated February 28, 2001 4) Hamilton, D , "Letter to Mr Robert McKechnie at the Governors Office of Emergency Sernces in Rancho Cordova dated August 25 2000 5) Letter from Mussetter Engineering, Inc to Edward Sing of the South Pacfic Division of the U S Army Corps of Engineers, dated August 3, 2000 6) Post, W , "Santa Ana Investigation, Flood Control and Conservation," State of Califomia Department of Public Works, Reports of the division of Engineering and Imgation, Sacramento, CA, December 1, 1928 7) Dawdy, D , Letter to Robert W Meyer of the U S Geological Survey regarding the peak flow estimated for Deer Creek during the 1969 flood dated March 7, 2001 8) "Review of Debris Production and Level-of-Protection, Deer Creek Basin, Cucamonga Creek Protect, San Bemardino County, CA," Hydrology and Hydraulics Section, Los Angeles District, U S Army Corps of Engineers 9) "Santa Ana River Basin, San Bemardino and Riverside Counties," Design Memorandum No 2, Los Angeles District, U S Army Corps of Engineers, June 1973 10) "Santa Ana River Basin, San Bemardino and Riverside Counties, Calfomia, Feature Design Memorandum No 6, Deer Creek, Demens and Hillside Debris Basins and Channels," Los Angeles District, U S Army Corps of Engineers, June 1979 11) "Santa Ana River Basin, San Bemardino and Riverside Counties, Calfomia, Design Memorandum No 1, Hydrology for Cucamonga Creek," Los Angeles District, U S Army Corps of Engineers, January 1973 The streamflow data I utilized in my review came from the Peak Flow File for Califomia streams and was prepared in CD format by the U S Geological Survey The rainfall data was prepared by the Calfomia Department of Water Resources and was given to me by them In addition, rainfall data for selected stations was given to me by the San Bemardino Flood Control District HYDROLOGY There is disagreement between the Corps, DWR, and others with regard to the magnitude of the 100-year peak flow The Corps has estimated it at 2,770 d's while DWR has estimated it at 3,000 cfs, and D Hamilton of Exponent has estimated it at 7,200 cts In order to make an independent assessment I performed a frequency analysis of the peak-flow data available from the gage records for Day Creek which is the drainage basin dust to the east of the Deer Creek basin Annual peak-flow records 27 are available for Day Creek for the penod 1928 thru 1972 [1 ] The flood of record on Day Creek occurred on January 25, 1969 and was estimated at 9 450 cts The second largest flood of record occurred on March 2, 1938 Both floods were produced by intense rainfall over several days The January 1969 storm was probably the largest storm of record for southem California and produced a large flood on both Day and Deer Creeks Both the 1938 and 1969 peak flows at the streamgage on Day Creek were beyond the established rating curve In order to estimate the flow, the rating curve was extended by Slope-Area methods [2] I transposed the Day Creek peak-flow data to the Deer Creek drainage area by multiplying the Day Creek values by the square root of the ratio of the drainage areas I measured the drainage area of Deer Creek on the 1996 7 5 minute Quadrangle Sheet published by the USGS (Mount Baldy) and obtained 3 66 square miles The drainage area of Day Creek is given by the USGS as 4 59 square miles Thus, the factor to convert Day Creek peak flows to Deer Creek peak flows was 0 894 That is, the Day Creek records were multiplied by 0 894 to estimate the corresponding peak flow at Deer Creek I plotted the peak flows on log-probability paper as shown on Fig 1 of the Appendix The figure shows that there is signficant positive skew in the plot of the frequenGes of the estimated Deer Creek reconi I calculated the mean and standard deviation for the flows as 487 and 1,363 respectively Neglecting skew and assuming that the peak flows are distnbuted according to a Normal Distnbution I estimated the 100.year peak flow as 3,657cfs These calculations are shown on a spreadsheet in the Appendix However, in this case I believe that the skew is too great to be neglected Accordingly, I utilized the three-parameter Log Pearson Type III distnbution to estimate a 100-year peak flow The result was a 100.year peak flow of 7,700 cts The USGS has decded that many of the peak flows estimated on streams forming alluvial fans in southem California have been incorrectly estimated They believe that the profile of flows measured from high-level marks may have been incorrectly estimated because of the effects of large solids concentration in the flow [3] They have discredited several of these estimated histonc peak flows The discrediting process is unfortunate in that the USGS does not attempt to make an improved estimate of the magnitude of the histonc peak flow Instead they simply discredit the histonc peak which is in effect stating that the flow never occurred If the 1969 flood is dropped from the peak flow record, the estimate of the 100-year peak flow is decreased greatly In order to assess this effect, (performed a flood-flow frequency analysis of the peak flows which is obtained by dropping the histonc 1969 peak The result was a 100.year peak flow of 3,601 cts as is shown on a spread sheet in the Appendix It is totally unreasonable to drop the 1969 histonc peak flow completely The 1969 storm was probably the storm of record for southem Calrfomia and it is reasonable to believe that a very large flood occurred on Deer Creek as well as other streams in the general area In order to further assess the effect of discrediting the 1969 histonc peak I decided to perform a frequency analysis using a peak flow value of half the estimated value or 4,224 cts The result was that the skew of the data set was still positive and the estimated 100-year peak flow was 7,600 cfs This indicates that setting the 1969 peak flow to zero (discrediting it) strongly effects the estimate of the 100-year peak flow 28 There is a good deal of uncertainty inherent in projecting annual peak flow records to estimate peak-flood magnitudes for floods having a remote probability of exceedance The shorter the record the greater the uncertainty It is not uncommon for three hydrologists woriong independently to produce three gwte different estimates of peak flows fora 100-year flood using recorded annual peak flows for records having a length of record of 45 years such as is available for Deer Creek In 1982 in order to faalitate uniform results, the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data developed a report which recommended a method to be used by all federal agenGes for the performance of flood frequency analysis Bulletin 176, now published by the USGS, establishes rules for the performance of flood frequency analysis [4] The purpose of this bulletin was to put all federal agenGes on the same basis with regard to perfortning flood frequency analyses The Corps in their hydrological analysis has ignored the procedures of Bulletin 17B in favor of their own methods In their analyses they ignored the fact that the histonc peak-flood data is skewed positively and instead used a negative skew m their analysis As a result they obtained a value of 2,770 cfs as an estimate of the 100- yearpeak flow which would enter the Deer Creek Debns Basin This estimated value is most likely much too low because of the Corps' use of the negative skew value Doug Hamilton of Exponent has performed aflood-frequency analysis following the rules of Bulletin 17B and has obtained 7,200 cfs as his estimate of the 100-year peak flood flow on Deer Creek RAINFALL ANALYSIS One way in which the estimated peak flow can be checked is to perform a runoff analysis using rainfall data for the drainage area in question Although the peak runoff from a 100-year rainfall does not necessanly equal the 100-year peak flow, such an analysis does provide an order of magnitude companson with the value determined from flood frequency analysis Unfortunately, there are no rain gages in the Deer Creek basin so there is no way that the intensity of storm rainfall on either the Deer Creek or Day Creek drainage basins can be determined with definable accuracy Since the 1969 peak flow on Day Creek is the flood of record for that basin, it would be reassunng if the rainfall record for the Deer Creek basin could be constructed using available rainfall records for the 1969 storm There was a recording rain gage at Mt Baldy which is north and west of the Deer Creek basin The top of Mt Baldy is at elevation 4,275 The total depth of the 24-hour rainfall recorded at the Mt Baldy gage was 11 04 inches The recorded depth of preGpitaUon at the Upland-Chappel gage, which is south and west of the Deer Creek basin at appro~amately elevation 1,840, was 4 69 inches The gradient of rainfall between the Upland-Chappel station and the top of Mt Baldy is in the order of 2 6 inches per 1,000 feet in elevation Since Cucamonga peak is at elevation 8,859, the 24-hour precipitation there might have been 4 69 + 2 6 x 8 19 or approximately 26 inches The rainfall at the lower end of the Deer Creek basin would have been about 10 inches based on interpolation of the records at San Antonio Dam, Day Cyn Ranger Station, and Fontana 5N Thus, it appears that the basin average rainfall on the Deer Creek basin dunng the January 25, 1969 storm might have been in the order of 18 inches However, there is no way to estimate the intensity of the maximum penod of rainfall Since there was as much as 20 inches of rainfall dunng the penod between January 19 and January 25 it is Gear that the Deer Creek basin was 29 saturated and there would have been very little infiltration of the ram that fell on January 25 when the peak flow occurred The sods and lads of cover on much of the Deer Creek Basin indicated that the SCS curve number for the basin could be as high as 70 Under saturated conditions, a curve number of 70 implies that approximately 90% of rainfall will become surface runoff Some insight can be obtained by use of the rational equation to assess the approximate intensity of rainfall that would be required to produce the peak rates of flow detennined in the flood frequency analysis described in the previous section The rational equation is Q =CIA (1) Where Q is the peak flow in cfs, C is a runoff coefficient, I is the intensity of average rainfall on the basin in inches per hour, and A is the drainage area in acres The drainage area of Deer Creek basin above the Deer Creek Debris basin is 3 66 square miles (2,342 acres) Assuming that C = 0 9 for the basin, Eq 1 can be used to estimate the intensity of rainfall required to yield a given peak rate of runoff The results are shown in Table 1 Peak Flow Rainfall Intensity (cfs) (inches/hour 7,700 3 65 6,000 2 84 5,000 2 37 3,660 1 74 Table 1 Possible Rainfall Intensities for Given Peak Flow Rates on Deer Creek These are obviously very severe rainfall intensities but are within reason since they would have had to occur only for a duration equal to the time of concentration for the Deer Creek basin which is in the order of 30 minutes This indicates that 100-year peak flows on Deer Creek could indeed be in the range of 6,000 to 7,000 cfs The question of why such large flows occur on basins in southem California is not new In 1939 Mr Henry B Lynch, a consultant in Los Angeles, published a paper in the 1939 Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers [5] He stated that a number of record floods had occurred on southem Calrfomia streams which were entirely out of proportion with the rate of rainfall, and that these storms are caused by a very abrupt increase in rainfall His theory was that an abrupt increase in rainfall intensity causes a rapidly increasing runoff to the stream channel which in turn creates a transient wave (bore) which travels down the channel at velocities significantly greater than the normal velocity in the channel A discusser, Mr Gordon Williams (a prominent hydrologist of the time), pointed out that the phenomenon had been recognized for some time and that it was a mistake to use a normal rating curve, or a slope-area method for determination of the peak flow which occurred rf the flow had been a transient wave Large flows have occurred on Deer Creek many times in the past, and since the stream is ungaged several field studies have been made to estimate peak flows occumng as a 30 result of severe storms A search of the literature shows that large flows have occurred many times rn the past on Deer Creek The USGS, the Corps, the Bureau of Agriculture, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District have been active rn field investigations attempting to estimate the magnitude of historic floods on Deer Creek Table 1 rs a transcription of a summary of large flows which were estimated for Deer Creek [6] Table 1 -Estimated Historic Peak Floods on Deer Creek Date Runoff cfs Remarks 1-22-62 18,000 Estrmated from historical records Most severe storm of record at more than two times the runoff of the March 1938 Flood 2-23-91 9,500 Runoff estimated slightly more than March 1938 USED 2-21-14 9,320 USGS-McClashan from field cross section 3-2-38 9,250 USED-Brown from field cross section 1-17-16 9,080 USGS-McClashan from field cross section 1-1-10 7,230 Runoff estimated, USED Su I Re t 12-25-89 7,100 USED Su I Re t Estimate 9-29-46 7,050 USED Runoff from a Sonoran storm centered on Deer Creek watershed Storm runoff on Deer Creek onl From field cross section 2-16-27 5,250 USGS-Div of Water Resources, Calif Bull 19 1-1-34 4,650 S C Service - BAEn Field cross section 1-22-43 4,510 USED-This storm was as severe as 1938 but runoff much less Field cross section 4-5-26 4,230 USED-Suppl Report estimate 12-19-21 3,620 Estimated from WSP 551 3-21-93 3,620 Estrmated from WSP 447 12-21-94 3,600 Estrmated from historic records 1-20-14 3,000 Do 4-1-03 1,500 Estrmated from WSP 447 3-26-06 1,450 Do 1-23-09 1,400 Estrmated from historic records 2-6-37 1,400 Uncertain record -debris flow BAeng "Ranofffor Day Creek was reported rn "Preliminary Survey Report on Santa Ana River Basin Drverston structures on Day Creek dtvert~lows creating uncertainty to the records The structure m Deer Creek ~s low flow diversion, allowing for more certainrv " Table 1 shows that there have been large flows on Deer Creek throughout the period rn which records have been kept It rs also Gear that the people keeping those records were indeed aware of the effects of debris flows and that their estimate of ungaged flows have considered the effects of possibly high debris content 31 The estimate of extreme flood-flow peaks from short records is uncertain at best, particularly for ungaged streams In every situaLon, judgement has to be applied in performing frequency analysis and in interpreting the results It was for precisely this reason, as has been pointed out in the previous paragraphs, that Bulletin 176 was developed As pointed out earlier, rf the pnnaples of Bulletin 176 are followed, the predicted 100-year flood peak flow rate would be in the range of 7,000 ds Still another source exists for estimation of the 100-year peak flow rate for Deer Creek The USGS has developed a regression equation for estimation of flood peaks in the southern California basin [7] Q~~ = 1 95'A*0 83~p1 87 (2) Where Q,~ is the 100-year peak flow, A is the drainage area in square miles, and P is the mean annual precipitation for the drainage basin Using this equation for Deer Creek with an average annual preapitation of 38 inches and a drainage area of 3 66 square miles yields a 100-year peak flow rate of 5,150 cfs Thus, the range of 100-year peak flows, as detemtined using acceptable methods, ranges from 5,200 to 7,000 cfs My personal opinion is that the 100-year flood peak flow rate which should have been used for the design of the Deer Creek Project is in the range of 6,000 cfs DEBRIS FLOW The alluvial fan at the mouth of Deer Creek is substantial and exhibits the fact that, histoncally substantial volumes of debns have come down Deer Creek after penods of intense rainfall A good many studies have been made by vanous agenaes working in the Southern Calrfomia area The Corps has published an envelope curve of debns flows which has been updated to 1985 That rule curve constitutes all of the data on debns contnbutions that exist Many others have looked at this data and analyzed it in different ways inGuding the effects of fires in the stream drainage area However, there is little to justify using methodology other than the envelope carve constructed by the Corps D Hamilton of Exponent has studied the capaaty of the reservoir developed by the excavation of the reservoir and construction of the Deer Creek Dam using aenal surveys of the site Debns being named down Deer Creek would not deposit with a level surface in the debns basin The natural slope of the alluvial fan created by Deer Creek is approximately 12 degrees Hamilton calculated a capaaty of the reservoir assuming that debns would deposit within the reservoir with a top slope of half the natural angle of the alluvial fan On this basin the capacity of the reservoir is at most 111 acre-feet The capaaty of the reservoir, with a level surface at the top of the dam, is 19 acre-feet The Corps envelope curve, for a drainage area of 366 aa~e feet, indicates that the debns yield of the Deer Creek basin should be in the range of 150,000 cubic yards per square mile of drainage area Thus, the total volume of debns which would enter the reservoir would be 340 aa-e feet, signrficantly greater than the capaaty of the reservoir assuming that the reservoir were empty at the time the storm began 32 Because the 100-year flood would carry much more debns than the available capaaty of the reservoir more than half of the entrained debns would be tamed over the spillway and into the downstream flood channel The high velocity of flow in the flood channel (in the range of 80 feet per second in the steepest portion of the channel) would flow at what is referred to as "supercntical flow " Heavy bed loads in the steep channel would develop as a result of the transported debns As a result "anti dunes" would be formed in the channel with resulting large unsteady undulations in the flow surface These disturbances would result in flow dumping out of the channel and continuing down the steepest gradient of the slope, the escaped flow would impact development on the alluvial fan with resulting damage The long conduit which conveys flows from Deer Creek and Cucamonga Creeks under the runways and taxiways of the Ontano Airport constitute a possible blockage for flood flows from Deer Creek If a 100-year flood were to occur on the Deer Creek drainage, a large flood would almost certainly flow from the Cucamonga Creek drainage as well The probability of floods from both drainages being equal to 100.year floods is extremely remote However, the combined flow through the airport conduit would be large Since, as pointed out in the previous paragraphs, substantial amounts of debns would accompany a 100.year flood from Deer Creek, large amounts of debns would reach the airport conduit The airport conduit was designed by the Corps and the velocity of flow through the conduit is much smaller than the velocity in the steep channel upstream The design velocty at the inlet and outlet ends of the conduit was 47 5 and 41 6 feet per second respectively [7] These velocties, being much smaller than the approximately 80 feet per second in the steepest parts of the Deer Creek flood channel, could not convey the heavy concentration of debns that the velocities in the steep portion of the channel are capable of Deposition of coarser matenal in the transported debns would oar at the entrance and within the airport conduit This deposition could block the conduit and cause flooding on the upstream side This flooding could teopardize operations of the airport 33 Havenview Homeowners Report Summary (Consultant David R. Dawdy) Mr Dawdy submitted a report that induded an estimate of the 100-year design flood for Deer Creek the logic supporting his analysis, and some computation results Mr Dawdy's computed 100-year design flow is 6500 cfs Mr Dawdy did not compute the other values speahed in the charter His report and letters contained in Appendix A do, however, contain his comments on work done by others and explain his thoughts on how some of the other values should be calculated 34 Department of Water Resources Report (prepared by Stephen W. Verigin The Department of Water Resources' Division of Safety of Dams has reviewed the spillway capacity of Deer Canyon Dam and found that neither the design flood flows nor debns flows will threaten the safety of the dam That statement means that failure of the dam and an uncontrolled release of the reservoir contents will not occur as a result of hydrologic loading The work that has been done under this charter has been performed to evaluate the flood protection that Deer Canyon Debris Basin Dam provides the downstream community The values calculated by the Department of Water Resources for the Charter are listed in the table on page 3 and described in this section as follows 100-Year Precipitation The 100-year precipitation was calculated using statistical values compiled by James Goodndge The database is essentially an update of DWR Bulletin 195 published in 1976 2. 100-Year Flood The 100-year flow is defined as the flow event, which has a 1 percent chance of exceedence in any given year It is an important component of this study in that it is used directly to calculate the debns yield by the Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles District manual equation While simple in concept, the 100-year flow cannot be measured directly because it must be inferred from historic data Available stream flow data is typically a short and imperfect sample of the "true" runoff pattern, which can only be revealed with perfect measurement over a very long period of time The 100-year concept is underlain by the assumption that Gimate is static and characterized by annual weather events randomly distributed over time, but with stable statistical measures such as mean, standard deviation and skew In general, the longer the period of record, and the more stable the watershed and stream channel the better we can estimate 100-year peak flows However, a particular period of record is not necessarily representative of the longer record and thus data points are typically plotted and fitted with a smooth curve which the hydrologist hopes will best represent the "true" frequency distribution There are several difficulties involved in estimating 100-year flow for Deer Creek The most obvious is that the basin in ungaged In such cases, hydrologists will typically seek data from nearby streams with recorded data, and make appropriate adjustments for basin charadenstics (most notably size) to create a synthetic record for the ungaged stream 35 Records are available for Cucamonga Creek and Day Creek, which are adjacent to Deer Creek on the west and east boundanes respectively Another difficulty in estimating 100-year peak flow is that the Deer Creek watershed is hydrologically unstable It is steep, erodible, and subbed to penodic bums Fire and erosion can have profound effects on watershed charadenstics and resultant runoff patterns No less important is the dffculty in obtaining reliable flow measurements Flow "measurements° are typically a misnomer, because it is stages, not flows, which are measured at most installations The flows are computed by relating the measured stages to a rating curve of flow versus stage The rating curve is in turn denved from penodic measurements of stage, flow veloGties, and cross- sectioned area It is important to have a stable channel cross-sed~on, free of downstream backwater effects in order to reliably measure flow by this method Unfortunately, the very charadenstics of the Deer Creek watershed and its surrogates for estimating flow make it drfficult to measure flow accurately The channels are unstable, with dynamic changes in geometry due to the erosion, transport, and deposition of debns Accordingly, there is substantial uncertainty and controversy surrounding histonc flow measurements, particularly for larger events In recognition of this uncertainty in the estimation of 100-year peak flows for Deer Creek from histonc data, DWR also sought to estimate 100-year flow by an entirely drfferent method based on rainfall-runoff modeling While this approach has its own uncertainties and pitfalls, it does prowde an independent basis for developing an assessment of the overall range of uncertainty in the final 100- year peak flow estimates Computed values for the Deer Creek 100-year flood are listed below 100-year design flood 3850 ds (Watershed Modeling, DSOD Hydrology Manual) 100-year design flood 3120 ds (Watershed Modeling, 1969 rainfall scaled to 100-year intensity) 100-year design flood (Regional Skew = - 2, 1969 event mduded) 2750 ds 100-year design flood 2880 ds (Normal Dist ,Skew = 0, 1969 event mduded) 100-year design flood 3020 cfs (Station Skew = 3, 1969 event not included) 36 Inconsideration of all data and both analytical approaches, a 100-year design flow of 3000 cfs is fudged appropnately conservative for calculating the debns yield by the Corps of Engineers equation 3. Calculation of 100-Year Debris Yield There is no standard methodology for calculating debns yield Most approaches depend on past observations, enveloping curves and regression analysis for predicting debns yield The lack of a standard approach demonstrates the uncertainty of the computations and the need for exerasing seasoned engineenng iudgment to achieve a balance of economy and public safety Debns yield computations were made using the Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles Distnct manual "Debns Method", 1992, updated 2000, the publication "Estimating Debns Volumes for Flood Control", by McCuen and Hromadka, 1996, and the Los Angeles County, Department of Public Works "Sedimentation Manual", 1993 Calculated debns volumes are as shown in the table Method Volume Cntena Corps of Engineers 215 ao-ft 100 year flood 10 years after bum McCuen and Hromadka 270 ao-ft 100 yearflood 4 years after bum Los Angeles County 235 ao-ft 50 year flood 4 ears after bum 4. Calculation of the 100-Year Flood Event Including Debris and Clear Water Flow The 215 acre-feet debns yield calculated from the Corps of Engineers equation mentioned in Item 3 above was selected because it is the only value that associates a recurrence interval stream flow with debns yield This value is the volume of debns that would be produced from a 100-year storm over the entire watershed 10 years after a 100 percent basin bum The combined recurrence interval of these two events is 300 years according to the Corps' procedure 5. Existing Basin Level Pool Capacity Below the Spillway Crest This calculation was made by plammetenng the topographic map of the basin The calculated cepaGty is 20 acre-feet 6. Existing Basin Level Pool Capacity at the Dam Crest This volume was calculated in the same fashion as Item 5 The calculated capaGty is 140 acre-feet 37 Existing Basin Capacity Assuming Debris Deposition in the Reservoir The computations for calculating the basin capacity were made with the following assumptions a All debns will be deposited from the existing inased stream channel that enters the basin on the far left side b The stream and point of deposition wdl remain in the present location (will not shift) over the length of the depositional event c Debns wtll be deposited in a conical shape, as opposed to a planar surface d Debns wdl slope up from the spdNvay crest at a mawmum slope of 5 or 6 percent These assumptions are conservative and the calculated existing basin capacity volumes are also fudged to be conservative The calculated volumes are 110 acre-feet, assuming a 5 percent slope 135 acre-feet, assuming a 6 percent slope The 135 acre-feet volume is recommended for use in evaluating the adequacy of the debns basin 8. Streamflow Return Periods That Would Yield the Debris Volume in item 7 (above) for the One, Six, and Twelve Years After Bum Conditions These numbers were calculated using a streamflow distnbution with a 3 skew and the 1969 event omitted The following combinations of return penod storm and years after 100 percent bum yield 135 acre-feet of debns 5-year storm, 1 year after bum 20-year storm, 6 years after bum 50-year storm, 12 years after bum Analysis of Results Under the most conservative assumptions the numbers indicate that the basin is undersized by 160 acre-feet (270 acre-feet yield -110 aae-feet capacity) With the most unconservative numbers the basin would be undersized by 80 acre-feet (215 acre- feet yield -135 acre-feet capacty) The conclusion stated more simply, is that the basin ranges between being 45 to 63 percent adequate to store the debns accompanying a 100-year flood event 38 Comparison of Results of Charter Computations This section provides a bnef explanation of the differences in the results computed by the Corps of Engineers, Exponent, Inc ,the LA World Airport, and the Department of Water Resources The computed values are contained in the table on page 7 Items 1, 5, 6, and 7: There is Gose agreement in the values reported by all parties for the 100-year preapitation, the exsting level pool capacty at the spillway crest, and the exsting level pool capacity at the dam crest, therefore, no discussion of those items is required There is also fairly Gose agreement for Item 7, the existing basin capacty sloped upstream from the sptllway crest The differences in Item 7 values can be attnbuted to the assumed final slopes of the debns fan deposited in the basin Items 2, 3, 4, and 8: In Item 2, the 100-yr basin inflow, there is close agreement between the Corps and DWR values (2,770 cfs and 3,000 cfs, respectively) and Gose agreement beiween the Exponent and LA World Airport values (5,730 to 7,000 cfs and 6,000 to 7,000 cfs, respectively), but significant dispanty between the two sets of values This difference stems from and is almost entirely attnbutable to the handling of the January 25, 1969 USGS recorded flow of 9,450 cfs on Day Creek There has been controversy over for the validity of that particularflow over the entire course of this study On Apnl 9, 2001, the USGS officially discredited the flow Appendix C presents the USGS report that describes the basis for their decision to discredit the official January 25, 1969 peak discharge estimate made for Day Creek In the USGS evaluation the recorded 1969 value is an over-estimate Hamilton, Cassidy, and Dawdy requested that the USGS provide a substitute flow since the 1969 event was obviously a significant event, but USGS said that they are unable to satisfadonly make that substitution at this point in time The requests and responses were made at a meeting at USGS headquarters in Sacramento on May 29, 2001 The group performing this study has not agreed on a single methodology for handling the 1969 peak flow, thus, there are drfferences in computed 100-year basin inflows as detailed in each case of the individual reports There is not Gose agreement in Item 3 because the Corps value was computed using the Corps coinadent frequency approach with a combined flood and debns probability of 1 100, where the L A World Airport used the Corps enveloping curves, and DWR used the Corps equation and combined a 1 100 year flood with a 100 percent 10-year old basin bum which yields a combined probability of 1 300 Exponent did not submit a number for this item Item 4 was calculated by all parties using the Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles District equation for debns yield The differences in the computed values are due primarily to the differences in the calculated 100-year peak inflow (Item 2), and secondarily to the assumptions made for recency of bum 39 Values calculated for Item 8 are in fairly close agreement with the reason for differences being m the statistical fitting of the Day Creek data and the computed existing basin capaGty 40 Conclusions Corps of Engineers The estimated comtadent debns yield dunng a 100-year flood event at Deer Creek Debns Basm is 188 acre-feet This debns yreld estimate is based on the occurrence of a 100-year flood comtadent with an average (50 percent of the time) watershed bum condition The 188 acre-feet debns yield estimate exceeds the Corps' nominal "design" debns storage volume determination of 172 acre-feet by a small increment (16 acre-feet) that would be handled by the protect as additional deposition in the debns basin above the design debns deposition slope, transported throughout the downstream channel system, or deposited m the downstream channel Furthermore, the exceedance of the design debris deposition slope would occur on the very tail end of the 100-year flood hydrograph when flood flows would be very low m companson with available channel capacity Hence, there would be no flood inundation or debns deposition on Deer Creek floodplam dunng the occurrence of a 100-year flood event 2 Exponent A The Deer Creek Debns Basin is substantially undersized and does not have the taapataty to capture the 100-year event debns At best, the debns basin will only provide a 20-year level of protection, and will overtop for conditions exceeding a 20-year event B Even rf the most optimistic estimate of 100-year debns yield (Corp of Engineers -188 acre feet), and the most optimistic estimate of the basins debns-holding taapataty (Corp of Engineers - 172 acre feet) are chosen, then the basin will not handle the 100-year debns If more reasonable estimates of yield and capacity are chosen, Deer Creek Debns Basm is undersized beyond question C The committee's work exposed several fundamental institutional issues that are relevant to flood protection m the entire San Gabnel/San Bernardino Mountain areas First, there is uncertainty in the methods used to calculate debns yield, second, there is uncertainty in the data used to put into our mathematical models, third, technical terms can be redefined to make flood control fatalities appear safer than they are Although out committee had discussions about these issues, it was beyond our scope to thoroughly address them A second, independent committee such as those conducted by the National Research Counal should be appointed to address these issues on a wider scale mdudmg not only Deer Creek, but other flood infrastructure similarly designed This is a significant public policy issue that should be given the highest pnonty m light of the number of mdivrduals affected 41 3 Department of Water Resources The computational results of the Department of Water Resources are that the basin should hold between 215 and 270 acre-feet of debns to contain the debns accompanying a 100-year storm Our recommended "best number" is that the basin should have 215 acre-feet capacty, the number generated using the Los Angeles Distnd of the Corps of Engineers office manual assuming a 100-year flood on a 100 percent burned basin 10 years after the bum The combined frequency of these events is 1 300 according to the Corps' methodology The basin currently has the capacty to contain 135 acre-feet of debns, therefore, the basin would have to be modfied to contain an additional 80 acre-feet of debns in order to hold the entire 215 acre-foot design volume 4 David Dawdy 1 The 100-year flood on Deer Creek is 6,500 cfs 2 The above value was reached by applying the accepted present USGS procedures 3 The evidence of a ram-on-snow event, as reported at the time by the meteorologist, is an issue which should be considered m calculating runoff and has been ignored by the Corps and the DWR 4 The design-stone analysis conducted by the Corps and the DWR is a lower bound for the design flood (This is a cntical fact to acknowledge for public safety issues ) 5 Interviews of USGS personnel who measured and documented the 1969 event at the time have stated that the 1969 flood was caused by water flow, not a debns flow The USGS 'discrediting' of the 1969 flood at this time is highly suspect and dangerous It should be reviewed further 5 Jack Cassidy A The 100-year peak flood flow rate entenng the Deer Creek Debns Basin would be greater than the 2,500 cfs estimate by the U S Army Corps of Engineers and is probably Goser to 6,000 cfs B A 100-year peak flow of 6,000 cfs would tax the Deer Creek Flood Channel's capacty which was designed for a flow rate of 5,400 cfs C The total volume of rocks, sand, and gravel which would be tamed into the Deer Creek Debns Basin dunng passage of a 100-year flood would be m the order of 300 acre feet D The effective capacity of the Deer Creek Debns Basin, as currently constructed, is less than 100 acre-feet E A signficant volume of rocks, gravel, and sand would be tamed over the spdiway and into the Deer Creek Flood channel dunng passage of a 100- yearflood 42 Jack Cassidy (cont.) F The capaaty of the flood channel would be compromised at bends and at changes m grade rf quantities of rock, gravel, and sand were tamed mto the channel G The Airport conduit has significantly lower capaGty to transport rocks, gravel, and sand that the upstream flood channel and, thus, constitutes a senous blockage for passage of a 100-year flood H The Deer Creek Debns Basin and downstream flood channel will not provide protection to property owners on the alluvial fan dunng passage of a 100-year flood I The Deer Creek Debns Basin and downstream flood channel wdl not provide protection for Ontano Auport dunng passage of the 100-year flood 43 Mr. Stephen W. Verigin June 8, 2001 Chief, Division of Safety of Dams Department of Water Resources 2200 X Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, Calif. 94236 Dear Mr Verigin: Enclosed is my report on the flooding of the Deer and Day Creek Fans near Rancho Cucamonga. My estimate of the 100-year flood on Day Creek is 7715 cfs, and on Deer Creek is 6500 cfs. The logic of my analysis is outlined in my report. I have used the values of the floods of 1969 as the best estimates available at this time until the USGS revises the values rather than discredits them. I have personally contacted Mr. John A. Singer, the USGS scientist on the ground who walked the complete fan after the flood for preparing Hydrologic Atlas 425. He states that there was no evidence of debris flows deposited on the fan as a result of the flood. It is too bad that the USGS went to all the trouble to discredit the floods yet did not contact the people who were on the ground at the time to obtain their input. I have also spoken with Jim Bailey and Larry Martens who were involved in the analysis and review of the floods of 1969 and they also feel that the floods were mayor water floods. The fact that hydrologists from all over the country were called in to determine the flood peaks indicates that there were mayor water flood peaks rather than isolated debris flows. It is a standard USGS practice when a major flood occurs for distracts over the country to pitch in to help out the affected region. I feel that it is incumbent upon the USGS to determine the size of the flood peaks to the best of their ability They are derelict in their duty to take the stand that they cannot provide any answer for the magnitude of the flood peaks on Day and Deer Creeks because those would be only 'guesstimates'. The USGS is supposed to be the preeminent source for determination of stream flows, including peak flows. If they cannot perform that task it seems that they are not performing their duty to the public. I feel that the attitude of the USGS has changed after my period of service. In considering rainfall-runoff models for estimating the peak floods, two points must be considered. First, Cucamonga peak is one of the highest points in the San Gabriels, along with nearby Mount Baldy. The precipitation upgradient on Day and Deer Creeks are therefore greater than indicated by the regional values. Second, the descripitions of the flood of 1969 state that the flood contained a major amount of snowmelt runoff in addition to the rainfall. This would increase the effective rainfall above that obtained for regional rainfall estimates alone. This is mentioned in my report, but it applies to rainfall-runoff estimates with design rainfall also. Apparently the mayor floods occur as a result of storms from the south which are warm enough to melt accumulated snow Thus, design storm analysis provides a minimum value for the floods on Day and Deer Creeks. A2 It seems that the USGS is confusing a geologic debris flow with a debris-laden flow. What occurred on Day, Deer, and Cucamonga Creeks in 1969 undoubtedly were debris laden water flows. Most high peak flows from steep mountain streams, particularly the San Gabriels, carry large amounts of debris Howeever, the peaks in 1969 were caused by excessive rainfall, not slope failure. Although my report is concerned with flood frequency alone, I did inspect the basin with Jack Cassidy and Doug Hamilton after our meeting in Rancho Cucamonga. As a result of that field inspection, there seems to be no way for the debris from Deer Creek to get to the west side of the debris basin. The appearance of the basin shows that there has been excavation of the east side of the basin to remove debris, but there is growth in the west side which is indistinguishable from other chaparral in the region. There is a gabion dike on the west side of the fan above the basin which has not received any debris flow since built. It appears to have been built some time ago, perhaps as a part of the irrigation project. This indicates that no debris gets to the basin except via the incised channel on the east side A further point to consider in assessing the viability of the project as a whole is that sizable debris gets a.nto the concrete channel below the debris basin. Such material will collect at the break in slope several(?) hundred yards downstream from the basin. That debris will change the resistance to flow so that the channel may not hold its design discharge. A few large clasts were observed in the middle of the channel shortly downstream from the spillway during our field inspection. Those rocks were too large to have been thrown that far. This case is much like a similar concrete Corps of Engineers channel on Corte Madera Creek in Marin County which has not performed to design capacity because of deposition of bedload at a break in slope. Sincerely ~u~~ a~ ~( !~ ~'u~~~' David R. Dawdy 3055 23rd Avenue San Francisco, Cal. 94132 A3 DETERMINATION OF THE FLOOD FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION for DEER CREEK near RANCHO CUCAMONGA by David R. Dawdy, Consulting Hydrologist My report will concentrate on the determination of the flood frequency distribution for Deer Creek. Determination of the debris yield depends upon the flood frequencies, so that the flood frequency distribution is fundamental to the problem of the holding capacity of the debris basin. First, I am a strong believer in data over models, despite the fact that much of my career has been spent in the development of models, both in the U. S. Geological Survey, where Z developed their first several rainfall-runoff models, and in private practice, where, among other models, I developed the model for the determination of flood hazards on alluvial fans presently contained in the FEMA Guidelines for flood mapping. Validation of the data for the January 25, 1969, flood There are considerable data of good quality which exist in the vicinity of Deer Creek The iteresting fact is that the U. S Geological Survey is attempting to trash their own data for the 1969 flood on the basis that they believe the flood was mainly a series of debris flows, despite the existence of a flood report (USGS Hydrologic Atlas 425) which shows that, without a doubt, those floods were caused by water flows, not debris flows. In addition, John Singer (540 297 0993), the author of the Atlas, walked personally over the whole flooded fan area to prepare the report and he has stated that there was evidence of lots of water and no evidence of any residual debris, which would be necessary for a debris flow to have occurred A look at the data shows that a large storm centered over the mountains behind Rancho Cucamonga during January 25, 1969. Figure 1 shows a plot of the recorded peaks for the Upper Santa Ana Basin for the storm of January 25. It shows that five basins in the vicinity of Rancho Cucamonga experienced higher flows than the other basins in the area, about four times as high. Figure 2 is a plot of the location by latitude and longitude of the gages in the Upper Santa Ana Basin. Five basins with higher peak discharges are seen to cluster lust north of Rancho Cucamonga. Figure 3 shows a plot of the peak runoff in inches per hour versus the logarithm of the drainage area for the five anomalous stations. This indicates that the storm intensity declined exponentially with drainage area, as would be expected. The peaks are large, but consistently large. Arvi Waananen states "In the Santa Ana River Basin major flooding occurred in the upper reaches of the river and in mountain tributaries. The rampaging water of streams such as Cucamonga, Deer, Day, and Cajon Creeks damaged or destroyed--by erosion--an aggregate of several hundred miles of improved flood channels Floodflows discharged by canyon streams onto the alluvial fans in the foothills exceeded the capacities of the channels and overflows occurred through residential areas; about A4 1,000 persons were evacuated in the town of Cucamonga alone " Thus, the storm on January 25, 1969, was the result of intense rainfall over the mountains just north of Rancho Cucamonga. In order for these to be debris flows, the evidence of the published report of the Geological Survey must be discredited, and one must believe that the engineers in the U S. Geological Survey were so incompetent they ran five independent indirect determinations of peak discharge, they all lined up consistently, yet all were caused by debris flows. That is a stretch of the unagination, a demand for a large number of coincidences, and violates rational thinking Zn addition, it is arrogant to think that the engineers of an earlier day were incompetent in order to discredit their data based on a flawed theory rather than field evidence. The arguments of the USGS personnel are compromised by the fact that email messages show that they had decided to discredit the data before finding the original field notes. Therefore, the field notes, collected and judged by the men on the spot soon after the flood, did not enter into the decision to discredit the peaks Further evidence of the validity of the 'excessively high' peak flows in the vicinity of Cucamonga is contained in the Santa Ana Investigation Bulletin of the predecessor to the Department of Water Resources. A plot of the peaks for that storm are shown in Figure 4 Once again, the peaks for streams in the vicinity of Cucamonga are 5 to 10 times larger than the peaks for other upper Santa Ana Basin streams. This could result from at least two causes. First, these streams drain the south facing slope from the top of Cucamonga Peak, elevation 8859 feet. Thus, as a result of orographic factors they may intercept more rainfall from the moist tropical storms from the south which cause the major floods. Also, the elevation is such that the peak has snow at higher elevations, and a warm rain melting snow which had accumulated from earlier storms would cause higher peaks than the rainfall alone would produce. Probably both of these factors are at work to cause the apparently consistently high peaks on Day, Deer, and Cucamonga Creeks. The occurrence of rain on snow, melting accumulated snow, is indicated by the description of the storm period in January 1969• "In the first period of heavy precipitation, the snow level was about...7,000 feet in the southern mountains. Zn the San Gabriel Mountains of Southern California, the station Mt. Baldy Notch at elevation 7,735 feet reported accumulation of snow during the period...On January 22, near the end of the precipitation, a cold front moved through the State and brought 1n a colder air mass. At Squirrel Inn 2 (elevation 5,680 feet) in the San Gabriel Mountains, some snowfall was reported by 5 p.m. on the 22nd, which indicated a rapid lowering of the snow level on that day ..The reestablishment of the confluent pattern on the 24th brought a warming during the second period of heavy precipitation, with the snow level lifting to.. 7500 feet in the San Gabriel Mountains." Thus, some 2000 feet of elevation of snow apparently completely melted during the storm of the 24th on Cucamonga Mountain, adding to the runoff from the rainfall. Evidence of the higher 2 A5 precipitation in general on Cucamonga Mountain is shown on a recent map developed at Oregon State University, which has developed precipitation maps for the lower 48 states The map for California shows that Mount Baldy and Cucamonga Mountain have much higher rainfall than the rest of the San Gabriel Mountains. Explanation of the U. S. Geological Survey flood frequency method The U. S. Geological Survey determines a flood frequency distribution at a station based on Bulletin 17-B, lust as all federal agencies are required to do. This method uses a regional skew value to weight against the station skew to determine the resulting distribution Skew is a departure from the normal distribution by having data, 1n this case (logarithms of) size of floods, cluster on the low side or the high side, rather than being symmetrical about the mean. The regional skew value is given weight because the sampling variability of the values of skew based on station data are very high and the regional skew values, based on stations in the vicinity of a gage, gives weight to nearby data in order to reduce sampling variability in the station data. Thus, regional data are given some weight, based on the error of the record skew (a function of length of record at a site) as compared to the estimated error i.n the regional skew values. The U S Geological Survey then computes regional flood frequency relations based on basin parameters. From the at-a- site flood frequencies, various quantiles are picked --- the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, and 500 year peaks. Those peaks are correlated against drainage area and other basin characteristics Such a report was prepared for Cali.forn>.a by the U S Geological Survey in 1977 by Arv1 Waananen and John Cr>ppen The report for the area which includes the Cucamonga, Day, and Deer Creek fans used annual rainfall as well as drainage area in the flood frequency relations- The rainfall was picked from a map by Saul Rantz, and that map must be used in order to properly compute peaks from the equations in that report. Once the regional flood frequency relation is determined, the U. S. Geological Survey then adjusts the at-a-site relation by weighting the computed peaks based on the length of the record at the gage as compared to the equivalent length of record of the regional relation. The equivalent length of record is based on the information content of the regional relation. Such a computation was not yet developed and was not made for the 1977 report. This adjustment once again gives weight to the regional relation to adjust the at-a-site values to compensate for sampling error. Supplementary flood data for the Cucamonga region The Santa Ana Investigation of the California Department of Public works Division of Engineering and Irrigation (predecessor to the Department of Water Resources) reports on a flood in the Santa Ana Basin in 1927. The peak recorded for Day Canyon Creek is 4430 cfs, and for Deer Creek is 5225 cfs. Thus high peaks are not unknown on these basins. Oddly, the 1927 peak is not 3 A6 included in the Corps of Engineers data nor analyses Adding the peak for 1927 for Day Creek to the data listed by the Corps of Engineers increases the length of the systematic record to 46 years. In that 46 years there are three recorded peaks above 4000 cfs. The list of peaks and the flood frequency analysis are shown in Exhibit 1 below. There were no high or low outliers in the record. The estimate of the 100-year flood by FEMA guidelines is 8240 cfs and 10,300 cfs by the Corps expected probability analysis. The expected probability value says that in a 100-year period there 1s a 50 percent chance of a flood exceeding 10,300 cfs for Day Creek Determination of the flood frequency distribution for Deer Creek A flood frequency report was prepared by the U S. Geological Survey in 1977 which covered the state of California, as mentioned above. The Deer and Day Creek basins are in the South Coast Region. From those equations a flood frequency relation can be drawn In addition, Day Creek has 46 years of record, so that a relation can be developed for the station record. The U S. Geological Survey weights the regional relation with a station record to develop a revised estimate of the flood frequency at a gage. The two basins of Day and Deer Creeks are adjacent, so that it is appropriate to transfer the weighted value for Day Creek to Deer Creek based on the ratio of drainage areas raised to the power for area shown in the regional relation That power varies from 0.83 for Q100 to 0.72 for Q2 Zn order to weight the regional and station discharges, a value of the equivalent years of record (E) of the regional equation is needed. For eight regions in New York, the values of E were 13, 9, 12, 23, 51, 12, 9, and 7. The regions had 31, 49, 42, 23, 17, 48, 73, and 30 stations, with standard errors of 24.7(.106), 28.6(.123), 43 6(.184), 28.9(.124), 16.9(.073), 26 9(.116), 36.0(.153), and 31.6(.135) percent respectively. The numbers in parentheses are equivalent log units. The South Coast Region had 137 stations and a standard error in log units of 0 39, equivalent to 90 percent. The standard error is a major factor in the determination of E, and the standard error for the South Coast Region is more than twice as large as the largest error in New York The U. S. Geological Survey weights the regional flood frequencies shown in row 1 for Day Creek below with the station flood frequencies shown in row 2 for Day Creek They use the formula QTW = (QTS*N+QTR*E)/(N+E) where QTw is the weighted T-year discharge, QTS is the station Q-year discharge, QTR is the regional T-year discharge, N is the number of years in the station record, and E is the equivalent years of record of the regional equation. Using 10 for E (a conservatively large number, given the standard error of the regional equation), the weighted discharges are shown in the third column for Day Creek. Transferring the values by the ratio of the drainage areas 4 A7 raised to the power shown in the regional equation yields the transferred discharges for the Deer Creek basin shown in the second column for Deer Creek. Weighting those values with the regional equation values using N=46 for Deer Creek and E=10 for the regional equation yields the weighted discharges shown in the third column for Deer Creek. Those are the values I would recommend, based on the weighting of the regional equation and the use of the Day Creek gage record. The 1927 flood of 5225 cfs would be about a 75-year flood by this calculation. 11067000 Day Creek nr. Etiwanda A=4.56 sgmi P=35 inches from Table 5, page 74 Flood Frequency equation from Table 2, Page 23 Equation Station Weighted Discharge Discharge Discharge Q500 25600 24000 est Q100=1.95*A" 63*P"1.87 53D1 8240 7715 Q50=1.5*A".82'P"1.85 3740 4830 4635 Q25=1.1*A".81*P"1.81 2343 2700 est Q20 2230 2180 est Q10=.63*A".79*P"1.75 1052 1160 1141 Q5=.4•A".77•P"1.69 523 543 539 Q2= 14*A .72*P"1.62 132 143 141 Deer Creek nr. Etiwanda A=3.71 sgmi P=35 inches from Table 5, page 74 Flood Frequency equation from Table 2, Page 23 Equation Discharge Weighted Discharge Transferred Discharge from Day Cr. Q500 21500 20000 Q100=1 95*A".83*P"1.87 4467 6943 6500 450=1.5*A".82*P"1.85 3151 4078 3912 Q25=1.1*A".81*P"1.81 1974 2275 1890 1800 Q10=.63*A".79*P"1 75 886 986 968 Q5=.4'A".77*P"1.69 441 463 459 Q2=.14*A".72'P"1.62 111 123 121 REFERENCES CITED: California Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1929, Santa Ana Investigations, Flood Control and Conservation, Bulletin No. 19. Lumia, Richard, Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York, excluding Long Island, U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 90-4197, 1991 Singer, John A. and McGlone Price, 1971, Flood of January 1969 near Cucamonga, California, U. S Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-425. Waananen, A O., 1970, Open-file Report on the Floods of January and February 1969 in Southern California. Waananen, A. O and J. R. Crippen, 1977, Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in California, U. S. Geological Survey water- Resources Investigations 77-21. 5 A8 EXHIBIT 1 --Flood Frequency Analysis for Day Creek ##RIi##///!*!!f##!##f!##!!!!#**##*f##f ff###fY#####!1f*#**#*t#RR• ' .... EVEN TS ANA LYZED...... ' ........ ...ORDERED EVENTS ......... ` WATER WEIBULL ' * MON DAY YEAR FLOW,CFS RANK YEAR FLOW,CFS PLOT POS ' D 0 1927 4430. ' 1 1969 9950. .0213 * 0 0 1928 29. * 2 1927 4430. .0426 * 0 0 1929 90. ' 3 1938 4200 0638 ' * 0 0 1930 29 ' 4 1966 1740. .0851 * " 0 0 1931 118. * 5 1943 1500 .1064 ' * 0 0 1932 105. ' 6 1967 1330. .1277 ' * 0 0 1933 20. " 7 1950 580 .1489 ` * 0 0 1934 64 ' 8 1945 400 1702 * * 0 0 1935 172. * 9 1959 367. 1915 ' 0 0 1936 192. * 10 1971 358 .2128 ' ' 0 0 1937 80. 11 1958 355. .2340 " * 0 0 1938 4200. 12 1968 346 .2553 * ' 0 0 1939 261 13 1940 286 .2766 ' * 0 0 1940 286. * 14 1939 261 2979 ' ' 0 0 1941 175. ' 15 1946 250. .3191 ' 0 0 1942 20. 16 1954 242. .3404 * ' 0 0 1943 1500. * 17 1947 232. .3617 ' 0 0 1944 139 ' 18 1952 214 .3830 ' * 0 0 1945 400. * 19 1956 195. 4043 ' * 0 0 1946 250. 20 1936 192. .4255 ' 0 0 1947 232 21 1957 176 4468 ' * 0 0 1948 81 ' 22 1941 175. .4681 * ' 0 0 1949 24. 23 1962 174. .4894 ' * 0 0 1950 580. 24 1935 172. .5106 * ' 0 0 1951 47 25 1944 139. .5319 ' ' 0 0 1952 214 ' 26 1931 118 5532 ' * 0 0 1953 28. 27 1963 114 5745 ' ' 0 0 1954 242. ' 28 1932 105. .5957 * ' 0 0 1955 57 29 1972 105. .6170 ' * 0 0 1956 195. ' 30 1929 90 6383 ' ' 0 0 1957 176 ' 31 1934 84. .6596 ' 0 0 1958 355. 32 1948 81. .6809 ' ' 0 0 1959 367. ' 33 1937 80. .7021 * 0 0 1960 41. 34 1955 57. 7234 ' ' 0 0 1961 44. ' 35 1951 47. .7447 * 0 0 1962 174. ' 36 1961 44. .7660 * 0 0 1963 114. 37 1960 41. .7872 ' 0 0 1964 16. 38 1930 29. .8085 ' * 0 0 1965 18. 39 1926 29 .8298 * 0 0 1966 1740 ' 40 1953 28. .8511 ' * 0 0 1967 1330. 91 1970 25 .8723 ' * 0 0 1968 346. 92 1949 24 .8936 * 0 0 1969 9450. ' 43 1942 20 9149 * 0 0 1970 25 44 1933 20. .9362 ' ' 0 0 1971 358 * 45 1965 18 .9574 ' * 0 0 1972 105. 46 1964 16. .9787 * i#R##* 1111 ##**11 R11f###1#R! # #*11f#f##*#if##iii####i## #1##f lff!## A9 -OUTLIER TESTS - ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOW OUTLIER TEST ---------------- BASED ON 46 EVENTS, 10 PERCENT OUTLIER TEST VALUE K(N) = 2.736 0 LOW OUTLIERS) IDENTIFIED BELOW TEST VALUE OF 2.5 ----------------- HIGH OUTLIER TEST -------------'--- BASED ON 46 EVENTS, 10 PERCENT OUTLIER TEST VALUE K(N) = 2 736 0 HIGH OUTLZER(S) IDENTIFIED ABOVE TEST VALUE OF 9893. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -SKEW WEIGHTING - ---------------------------------------------------------------- BASED ON 46 EVENTS, MEAN-SQUARE ERROR OF STATION SKEW = 168 DEFAULT OR INPUT MEAN-SQUARE ERROR OF GENERALIZED SKEW = .302 ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL RESULTS -FREQUENCY CURVE- Draina ge Area 4 56 sq mi •rwwwrrwrwrwwwwrwwrrrwrwr rwrwrwwwwrrrrwrwwwrww+wwrwrw rwrrrrwwww,. *. ..... FLOW,CFS........ * * .CONFIDENCE LIMITS . ' * EXPECTED ' EXCEEDANCE ` ' * COMPUTED PROBABILITY * PROBABILITY * .OS LIMIT .95 LIM ZT * * 25600. 38400. ' 002 ' 80200 11200. * 13700. 18900. * .005 37800. 6500. * 8240. 10300. 010 * 20700. 4190 * 4830. 5690. * 020 * 11000 2620. * 223D. 2460 * 050 4420. 1330. * 1160 1230. 100 2060. 735 * 543. 559. * .200 870. 366. * 143. 143. * 500 ' 207. 98 * * 43 42. ' .800 65 27 * 25. 24. 900 38. 14. ' * 16. 15. 950 26. 8 * * 7. 7. * 990 * 13. 3 * ` FREQUENCY CURVE STATI STICS * STATISTICS BAS ED ON * MEAN LOGARITHM 2.1989 HISTORIC EVENTS 0 * STANDARD DEVIATION 6566 HIGH OUTLIERS 0 * COMPUTED SKEW .7051 * LOW OUTLIERS 0 ' ' GENERALIZED SKEW - 2000 * ZERO OR MISSING 0 * * ADOPTED SKEW .4000 SYSTEMATIC EVENTS 46 rwrw*rrrr wrrrwwrwrrw rrwrw rrrwrwrrrrrw wwrrrrwrwrrrrwww rw wwwwwwerw June 9, 2001 7 A10 UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN STORM OF 1125/1969 48 44 42 4 38 38 LOG 34 32 OS 1 15 2 25 3 0 Mdl Cr ^ ~ Lytle Cr San AMOn~o Cr Cucamonga Cr ante Ane al Mentone Da Cr _ ____ ^ rcehouse Cr ajon Cr • Plunge Cr • De I Can an r _ • ISCHARGE IN C b~ty cr One Pine Cr • Little San Gorgonl Cr • est Tenn Cr •NF Se Gabriel R • Welertnan Ce yon Cr LOG DRAINAGE AREA IN SOMI • Senesl ^ Series2 Eye fd line Flg 1 -Upper Santa Ana Basin, storm of Jan 25, 1969 Day Creek and Cucamonga Creek are on either side of Deer Creek This region was hit by over 42" of rain on upper Lytle Creek A11 UPPER SANTA ANA GAGING STATION LOCATIONS 34 3 34 25 34 2 3415 LATITI 341 34 OS 34 •NF San G tmel Lo a Pine Cif elon Cr San Antonio • Lytle • ~ evd Ca yon Cr • a errnan nyon r Cucamong way • ast Twin Cr • • DE i Plunge Cr • •Sant Ana nr Me one • Mdl Cr San Timoteo Cr Lytle San orgomo C -117 85 -117 75 -117 85 -117 55 -117 45 -117 35 -117 25 LONGITUDE Figure 2 --Location of stream-gaging stations In the Upper Santa Ana Basin The canter of the storm was around Lytle Creek and Cucamonga -117 15 -117 OS -116 95 -118 85 A12 UPPER SANTA ANA BASIN STORM OF JAN. 25, 1969 35 3 25 2 15 1 RUNT os 0 OB DAY • ICEHOUSE CUCAMONGA ~ SAN ANTONIO • ~ LYTLE FF IN INCHES ER HOUR OB 1 12 1.4 18 18 LOGARITHM OF DRAINAGE AREA IN SQMI Fig 3 -Relation of peak runoff in inches/hour versus logarithm of drainage area Runoff rate decreases exponentially with size of drainage area in the area of intense runoff A13 UPPER SANTA ANA BASIN FLOOD OF FEB. 1927 45 35 LOG 5 • Cuca --- onga Cr D eer Cr • • Day Cr ~ _ - - ~ ~ Eesl Etrxanda Cr • ISCHARGE IN FS - ~ - 05 1 15 2 25 LOG DRAINAGE AREA IN SOMI Fig 4 -Scatter diagram of February 1927 peaks showing Deer, Day, and Cucamonga Creeks are, once again, 5 to 10 times as large as nearby basins A14 Mr. Stephen W. Verigin Oct. 5, 2001 Chief, Division of Safety of Dams Department of Water Resources 2200 x street, Suite 200 Sacramento. Calif 94236 Dear Mr. Verigin. I have received the extensive data set from Mallissa Hathaway McKeith. I earlier, on June 8, sent you my report on the flooding of the Deer and Day Creek Fans near Rancho Cucamonga My estimate of the 100-year flood on Day Creek of 7775 cfs, ano on Deer Creek of 6500 cfs still stands Z still consider the original USGS estimates of the floods of 1969 as the best estimates available. As mentioned fn my earlier report, I contacted Mr. John A. Singer, the USGS scientist on the ground who walked the complete fan after the flood for preparing Hydrologic Atlas 425 He states that there was no evidence of debris flows deposited on the fan as a result of the flood. The fact that hydrologists from all over the country were called in to determine the flood peaks indicates that there were major water flood peaks rather than isolated debris flows When the USGS presented their dog-and-pony show, they would not consider any facts contrary to their preconceived views. The film presented by Dr. Costa, although rather elementary, showed Lhat debris flows create a deposit at the apex of a fan when they hit a lower slope That film showed that there was no major debris flow on Deer and Day creek, because such a mound was not deposited The USGS insists on following policy rather than science and facts, Zn my opinion. They also refused to discuss the peeled bark on the downstream of trees as evidence of rapid water flow, not of debris flow. As stated in my earlier letter to you, in considering raiafall- runoff models for estimating the peak floods, two points must be considered First, Cucamonga peak is one of the highest points in the San Gabriels, along with nearby Mount Baldy The precipitation upgradient on Day and Deer Creeks are therefore greater than Indicated by the regional values Second, the descripitions of the flood of 1969 state that the flood contained a major amount of snowmelt runoff in addition to the rainfall. This would increase the effective rainfall above that obtaine3 for regional rainfall estimates alone. This is mentioned in my report, but it applies to rainfall-runoff estimates with design rainfall also. Apparently the major floods occur as a result of storms from the south which are warm enough to melt accumulated snow. Thus, design storm analysis provides a minimum value far the floods on Day and Deer Creeks I also reiterate my concerns concerning the size calculations for the debris basin. I inspected the basin witn Jack Cassidy and Doug Hamilton after our meeting in Rancho Cucamonga There is no way for the debris from Deer Creek to get to the west side of the debris basin The appearance of the basin shows that there has been excavation of the east side of the basin to remove debris, A15 but there is growth in the west side which is indistinguishable from other chaparral in the region. There is a gabion dike on the west side of the fan above the basin which has not received any debris flow since it was built This indicates that no debris gets to the basin except via the incised channel on the east side. As was pointed out in my letter to you, sizable debris gets into the concrete channel below the debris basin. Such material will collect at the break in slope downstream from the basin That debris will change the resistance to flow so that the channel may not hold its design discharge As mentioned, this case is similar to a concrete Corps of Engrneers channel on Corte Madera Creek in Marrn County which has not performed to design capacity because of deposition of bedload at a break in slope. In conclusion, I consider the project is underdesigned, particularly for flood flows This is because the Corps underestimates the size of the design flood and because the concrete channel will not operate as hypothesized because of the heavy debris loads which will increase the resistance to flow in the concrete channel I hope that these comments are of some use to you In your deliberations Sincerely David R Dawdy 3055 23rd Avenue San Francisco. Cal 94132 A16 Consideration of large Historical Events (Prepared by Stephen W. Verigin) Large rainfall and flood events are known to have occurred in the Rancho Cucamonga area dunng the past century Raingage and streamflow estimates are available for most of the length of the penod from 1927 to present The most signficant events observed on Deer Creek and the ad)acent Day Creek basins occurred in 1927, 1938, 1943 and 1969 Reported values of 24-hour precipitation and peak daily flow are as follows Cucamonga Etiwanda Mt Baldy Lytle RS Deer Canyon Day Creek Creek Year Preci elation Preci elation Prea elation streamflow streamflow streamflow 480m/24hr 684 in /24 hr 1927 (Annual Max 9 OS in / 24 hr (Annual Max (1) 5,715 cfs (1) 4,430 cfs (1) 6,120 cfs Date Unknown 9/1627 Date Unknown 9/16/27 9/1627 9/16/27 (2) 4,200 cis (2) 10,300 cf 1938 1094 32/38 N/A 3/2138 32!38 5 79 122/43 15 37 122/43 7 97 122/43 (3) 1,500 cfs (4) 1,400 cfs 1943 7 81 123/43 8 00123/43 1390123/43 N/A 123143 123/43 (Heaviest rain occurred between 7 PM 122 and 4 AM 123) 4 19 12 38 1966 Annual Max Annual Max 1,740 cfs 2,000 cfs Date Unknown Date Unknown N/A 1229166 12/29/66 2 88 10 87 1967 (Annual Max (Annual Max 1,330 cfs 1,320 cis Date Unknown Date Unknown N/A 12/6/67 12/6/67 1969 6 45 11 04 25 00 9,450 cfs 14,100 cfs 1/25/69 1125/69 1/25/69 N/A 1/25!69 1/25/69 (1) Computed by Kutters' formula, by J A. Case Fiekf measurements by F W Bush (2) Computed from rainfall runoff studies (3) Estimated by slope area determination and unit runoff (4) Estimated by slope area method The data in the table demonstrates that there is a lack of consistency between the rainfall and streamflow data Large quantities of rainfall should produce consistently high peak streamflows, yet an examination of the data reveals that the pattern was not recorded The most logical explanation of the lads of this consistency is that either errors were made in calculating the streamflows or that the flows being back calculated were not solely the result of runoff from rainfall (i a they may have been influenced by debns flows) It is noted that the values of rainfall were measured and the values of streamflow were calculated The stream gages were accurate for measunng flows in the tens to low hundreds of cubic feet per second, but were not viable for the much larger flows that had to be calculated from high water marks and other measured channel dimensions Calculating flows by these means is difficult and susceptible to error 62 The most stnking compansons are in the storms of 1943 and 1969 Those events have the best-documented rainfall totals, appear to be the largest and are of nearly similar magnitude, yet, the streamflow values drffer by a factor of approximately 10 The peak runoff values from the 1943 storm are much closer to the values that would be calculated by watershed modeling The 1969 peak streamflow greatly exceeds values calculated by watershed modeling In concluding this companson, it is noted that the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has discredited the Day Creek peak flow of January 25, 1969 for the reason that the measurements and calculations for estimating the flow were hindered by complications ansing from debns flow acUwty and because the hydraulic setting used for the indirect estimate was extremely poor B3 Cucamonga Creek Project, San Bernardino County, CA Hydrology and Hydraulics Section, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers 29 November 1999 Background: A developer and residents are litigating over a proposed real estate developmen! located near Deer Creek, San Bernardino County, Ca The area of concern heslust downstream from Deer Creek Debris Basin along the western side of Deer Creek Channel Deer Creek Debrrs Basin and Channel were authorized by the 1968 Flood Control Act and completed in about 1983 Deer Creek Debrrs Basin was designed to capture debris and act as an inlet structure for directing flows to the downstream Improved channel Among the contains of residents is the level-of-protection afforded by Deer Creek Debris Basin in relation to debris production The original basin design was based on a Standard Proled Flood (SPF) event and thought to have alevel-of-protection of about 200-year The Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Distnd was asked to re-evaluate the level-0f-protection based on the latest Los Angeles Distnd Debris Method, dated February 1992 An investigation was performed using readily available information and is summarized herein Results. Based upon this investigation, the Deer Creek Debris Basin design storage volume of 310 acre-feet was determined to be equivalent to a 009 probability (or 111- year) debris yield event This means there is a 0 9% chance that the capaGty v~nll be reached or exceeded in any given year In the course of this investigation it was also determined the downstream channel (designed for 5,400 ft'/s) provides protection up to a 002 probability (or 500-year) event Details of this analysis are provided below Technical Information. Deer Creek Debris Basin is located on Deer Creek at the mouth of Deer Canyon in San Bernardino County, Ca Deer Creek, at the debris basin, drains 3 71 miZ in the San Gabriel Mountains Deer Creek is a tributary of Cucamonga Creek Cucamonga Creek flows into the Santa Ana River lust upstream from Prado Dam A drainage map showing the area above Deer Creek Debris Basin is inGuded as Figure 1 A streambed profile, also for the area above Deer Creek Debris Basin, is presented on Figure 2 A map showing the Cucamonga Creek Protect, including Deer Creek improvements, is shown on Figure 3 Pertinent data for Deer Creek Debris Basin are listed below C2 Deer Creek Debris Basin -Pertinent Data Drama a Area 3 71 mil Intake Elevation 2643 75 feet Outlet elevation 2621 0 feet S dlwa Crest 2658 0 feet To of Dam 2677 5 feet Total Area induding basin 32 acres Standard Project Flood Peak Volume 5,400 ft'/s 900 acre-feet Probable Maximum Flood Peak Volume 15,000 ft'!s 2,195 acre-feet Debris Allocation (at s illwa crest 310 acre-feet Downstream Channel Ca achy 5,400 fN/s From FDM No 6 for Deer Creek, Demens and Hillside Debns Basins and Channels, dated June 1979 There is no development in the area above the debns basin and there are no structures affecting runoff or debns Above an elevation of about 5,000 feet, the vegetation consists of pine, fir, tuniper, and spruce Most of the lower part of the area is covered with heavy growth of brush, induding sumac, mountain mahogany, and chamise Sycamores and alders grow along the streams, and scrub oaks grow in sheltered areas and on the north side of tributary canyons The San Gabriel Mountains in this area are susceptible to wildfires, which play a mator role in debns production at the basin, espeGally following storm events The debns basin was designed using Standard Protect Flood (SPF) criteria The SPF was based on the 3-hour local storm of March 1943 The storm, which originally occurred over Sierra Madre, Ca ,was transposed and centered over the Deer Creek drainage area The SPF peak discharge was determined to be 5,400 fNls The occurrence of a storm of the magnitude and intensity of the March, 1943 storm with the ground conditions assumed for the design study, would produce a flood that would rarely be exceeded The original design debns production was estimated using the method outlined in "A New Method of Estimating Debris Storage Regwrements for Debris Basins" by Fred E Tatum, printed in 1963 Debris production estimates with this method are based on drainage area, slope, drainage density, hypsometno-analysis, 3-hour rainfall, and bum effect The design debns estimate for Deer Creek Debris Basin was 310 of For details on the ongmal debns yield deterrnination, see FDM No 6 for Deer Creek, Demens and Hillside Debris Basins and Channels, dated June 1979 Methodology. The debns basin was designed to capture debns, up to the design yield, plus serve as an inlet structure for flood flows to the improved channel downstream For this re-evaluation, the level-of-protection for the debns basin, based on the debns yield, was recalculated using the "Los Angeles District Method for Prediction of Debris Yield", C3 dated February 1992 This method mdudes regression equations for estimating debns yield based on the following parameters drainage area, frequency discharge, relief ratio, and a fire factor The equations used are based on drainage area and can be used directly to calculate a speGfic frequency or design debns yield The comGdence of flood events and fire events can be determined utilizing the Comadent Frequency Analysis (CFA) computer program The level of protection for Deer Creek Debns Basin was determined using the CFA approach Fire Factor-Frequency Relationship. The first step for developing a CFA input file was to establish a fire factor versus frequency relanonshrp Since there wasn't a fire history for the drainage area immediately available, frequency fire factors were determined using the generalized fire duration curves for southern California coastal watersheds given rn Appendix A of the LAD Debns Method Using Figure A-2 from the LAD Debns Method, the Deer Creek watershed was assumed to have completely "recovered" from wildfire after 12 years Afire factor of 6 00 rs used for 1 year after a 100% burn and a fire factor of 3 00 rs used for 12 years after a 100% burn Afire factor versus years-since-wildfire (up to 12 years) was established using Figure A-2 from the Appendix and rnterpolaung for a drainage area of 3 71 mr1 Each fire factor was then assigned a frequency according to 1~'rgure A-4 of the Appendix using the 3 0 to 10 0 mr' generalized fire duration curve These results are shown rn below Deer Creek Fire Fado~ vs. Frequency Relationship Years Since 100% Bum Fire Factor (a) Annual Exceedance Frequency (percent) (b) 1 600 22 2 552 47 3 510 75 4 470 96 5 431 126 6 397 158 7 377 180 8 358 209 9 3 30 26 8 10 315 321 11 3 03 41 0 12 3 00 100 0(c) (a) From Figure A-2, Frre Factor Curves for 3 71 mil (b) From Figure A-4, Generalized Fire-Duration Curve for 3 71 miZ c Usrn 100% for fire factor of 3 0 C4 Discharge-Frequency Relationship. The next step was to determine the discharge-frequency relationship for the area There are no stream gages in the Deer Creek drainage area, however, there used to be a stream gage located on Day Creek which was operated from 1928 to 1972 The Day Creek watershed is located lust east of Deer Creek It has a drainage area of 456 min at the gage and drains terrain that is hydrologically similar to that of Deer Creek There rs also a stream gage further downstream on Cucamonga Creek Discharge-frequency analyses were performed on both of these stream gages using the Hydrologic Engineenng Center's Flood Frequency Analysis (FFA) computer program The FFA program is based on the "Gwdelmes For Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin 176", by the Hydrology Subcommittee, revised September 1981 The techniques presented m Bulletin 17B have been adopted for all Federal planning mvolutng water and related land resources FFA results for Day Creek are presented m Exhibit 1 A discharge-frequency relationship, based on the Day Creek stream gage information, was developed for Etrvvanda Creek at the mouth of Etiwanda Creek Canyon dunng the design phase of the Etrvvanda Debns Basin m 1969 Etrvvanda Creek Debns Basin is located lust east of Day Creek Debns Basin These results were included here for companson purposes The resulting frequency discharges for the three IocaLons were reduced to unit discharges based on drainage area (ft'/s per mil) These results are shown in the following table Discharee-Freauencv Results and Una Discharees (or Nearby Locations Frequency (years) Day Creek DA =456m Cucamonga Creek DA =98m Etnvanda Creek DA =28mi (it'/s) (ft'/s/mi~ (fl'/s) (ft'/s/m~ (fl'/s) (fN/s/mi~ 500-yr 6,580 1443 0 11,900 1214 3 1,600 571 4 200-yr 4,590 1006 6 8,230 839 8 1,200 428 6 100-yr 3,400 745 6 6,040 616 3 900 321 4 50-yr 2,430 532 9 4,280 436 7 640 228 6 25-yr 1,450 318 0 2,520 257 1 400 142 9 10-yr 900 197 4 1550 158 2 245 87 5 5-yr 500 109 6 851 86 8 130 46 4 2-yr 154 33 8 255 26 0 34 12 1 167-yr 101 221 1 43-yr 68 14 9 1 25-yr 41 9 0 1 11-yr 22 4 8 1 05-yr 11 2 4 Day Creek, USGS stream gage no 11067000 Cucamonga Creek, USGS stream gage no 11073470 Etrvvanda Creek -discharge-frequency curve developed dunng design phase of Etnnanda Creek Debns Basin C5 Unit discharges generally increased as drainage area decreased except for the smallest drainage area, Etnvanda Creek at the mouth of Etrvvanda Canyon, which has a drainage area of 2 8 mil Since the Day Creek drainage area is so similar to that of Deer Creek and the drainage area size is also similar, the frequency unit discharges were adopted for Deer Creek Results for Deer Creek can be seen in the table below Discharge frequency curves for Deer Creek and nearby locations are shown on Figure 4 Deer Creek Discharge-Frequency Relationship Probability Frequency ears Discharge fN/s Unit Discharge (fN/s per mP) 002 500 5350 1443 005 200 3730 1007 01 100 2770 746 02 50 1980 533 04 25 1180 318 10 10 730 197 20 5 410 110 50 2 130 34 60 167 80 22 70 1 43 60 15 80 1 25 30 9 90 1 11 20 5 95 1 05 9 2 The United States Geological Survey (USGS) published equations and Homographs for calculating the 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year peak discharges for the South Coast region of Calrfomia in the publication "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Caldomia, Water Resources Investigations 77-21", dated June 1977 Discharges for a drainage area of 3 71 mP were calculated and plotted alongside the Deer Creek frequency curve and compared gwte well The equations and results are shown below Q10 = 0 63 A079 P' >s Q25 = 1 10 Ao a~ p~ ai Q50 = 1 50 A° ~ p' ~ Q100 = 1 95 Ao e~ p' a~ Where gages, = 600 ft'!s = 1,320 fP/s = 2,090 fN/s = 3,100 fN/s Qn is the frequency discharge in ft'/s, A is the drainage area in mP, and p is the mean annual pn:Gpitation in inches (based on nearby precipitation data from Climate data West, by Hydrosphere Data Products) C6 Debris-Response Relationships. The final step for setting up the CFA model was to develop debns-response relationships for discharges from 1 05-year to 500-year frequency and for the number of years-since-wildfire ranging from 1 to 12 years The drainage area and relief ratio, along with each specfic frequency discharge, were entered using the appropnate equation, the fire factor was vaned for years 1 to 12 since wildfire (6 00 to 3 00, respectively) The drainage area for Deer Creek Debris Basin is 3 71 mi' (2374 4 acres) The length along the longest watercourse between the highest point m the watershed (8,859 ft) and the lowest point (2,644 ft) is 4 3 miles The relief ratio is 1,445 ft/m~ Equation 2 for drainage areas 3 0 to 10 0 miz was used to plculate the debns response relationships Equation 2: Log Dy = 0.85 (Log Q) + 0.53 (Log RR) + 0.04 (Log A) + 0.22 (FF) Where Dy is the debns yield m yd' per m~ Q is the discharge in ft'/s per min RR is the relief ratio (akin to the slope) in ft per mi A is the drainage area m acres FF is anon-dimensional fire factor C7 The table below shows the debns response relationships developed for the Deer Creek basin Debris Yield vs. Years~ince-100% ~ldfre and Frequency ofExceedance Years Since Freguencv of Exceedance r100 ears 100% WildFire 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 95.0 1 653,415 481,102 372,781 280,196 180,659 120,449 73,084 26,859 2,850 2 512,376 377,257 292,317 219,716 141,664 94,450 57,309 21,062 2,235 3 414,180 304,956 236,295 177,608 114,514 76,349 46,326 17,025 1,807 4 338,212 249,022 192,954 145,031 93,510 62,345 37,829 13,902 1,475 5 277,580 204,380 158,363 119,032 76,747 59,969 31,047 11,410 1,299 6 233,662 172,043 133,307 100,199 64,604 43,073 26,135 9,605 1,019 7 211,149 155,467 120,463 90,545 58,379 38,923 23,617 8,679 921 8 191,774 141,201 109,409 82,236 53,022 35,351 21,450 7,883 837 9 166,414 122,529 94,941 71,361 46,011 30,676 18,613 6,841 726 10 154,237 113,563 87,994 66,140 42,644 28,432 17,251 6,340 673 11 145,141 106,866 82,804 62,239 40,129 26,755 16,234 5,966 633 12 142,952 105,254 81,556 61,300 39,524 26,351 15,989 5,876 624 Debris yields in yd'/miZ Coincident-Freyuency Analysis Results. The CFA computer program was run using the fire factor frequency, discharge-frequency, and the debns response relahonshrps described rn the Three steps above The CFA program, as iYs name implies, uses mathemaacal algorithms to determine the coincidence offire and flood events m a watershed and computes a debrrs yteld versus frequency relanonshrp The results from this analysis are shown rn the table below The debrrs yields were converted to acre feet, plotted on frequency paper, and a lane was graphically Ji! through the points Finally, a straight horizontal kne was drawn representing the 310 ar capacity of the basin Where these two [rues intersect, was determined to represem the level-of- protectron for the debns basin The debns yield curve rs shown on Figure 5 C8 Deer Creek Debris Yield vs. Frequency Relationship Probability Frequency (years Yield (d'!mP) Debris Yield (a~ 002 500 249,670 574 005 200 170,040 391 01 100 127,110 292 02 50 91,707 211 04 25 54,119 124 10 10 34,120 79 20 5 20,675 48 50 2 7,393 17 60 167 5,455 13 70 1 43 4,153 10 80 1 25 3,110 7 90 1 11 1,895 4 95 105 720 2 C9 34°13'27", 117°35'51" 34°13` .~''F I -(- "if CuFmrOnBJ ~,t ~: `w`1,~::r_ . i ~ ~- it T ~ , \r •. l' ~/ ~ . ~~ ~ r. G~ r)I!"r- ~-MLz•L:,. ~n ~ n ld,n ~ ~°~'b; i y,~l(c/!~~'~'/~ '!'1-.~~vl kq -. 4l ~ir tr,~~k ~~_'1_~~i ~ ~r ` ., A~ ~ :G~' .). Ft. ~,~k .__ 1. hr,`~'~_t ~ j - ~ °j, V i ~f/ '~ fir /,~ ~~ ~~ ~_~Yi rev \I' '.:{_ o-'/4~'~~ v ..~ - =r - rp ~~. b Ci°.e,. "~ 1 _~ I, •~'~ ~y..: ?~ v' ~ ~ ti it~~f{ ~n^`d f `"i1CA:l ~~~r i~-~i: y~_Y~ !. 1 S~~ arlf~q,"~~o~`T};rt~r'(``hi~A,r`;-~^ ,h~~~'r*', ~~~~LA:'~.a.s.. ~.;~c'T ~..S~ -`c`tt ~".~ Sk'.'d?~1~~"~~~,'>;=_t' l=d.y„!; '~`.+,~ < hi~7/1~ ~i,~ ~ =`~V~~~ fhb j'a1„~~-(' ~T?.-'\~ ~ ~W~' i'i'F' ~_ ~+J .~L `tea) ~ji ;%' : hr. ~ ~ Z' j1. ~~, , `~ V A,` Cif., r ~, ", -rc''I - ~ ",~~ ~:v~ ~''~`~ ~,~ -- I„yin-{ `~ ti ~J ~~~,,, ~~Ij~a is .Jim (a;~ '% ,~' :~ i;, ~ r ~~lf ~~ rk,, 111, 34°1+0'24", 117°35'51" 34°10'24", 117°33'3 TN'F fMN 0 1 /2 1 MILE ~IIfJj 14° 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 FEET 1 Punted fmm TOPOI m1996 Wildflower Pmductmns (wanv topo com) Figure 1: Deer Creek Drainage Area Deer Creek Debns Basm I C10 Figure 2: Deer Creek Streambed Profile Deer Creek Debns SiM COYTRd.'.T CpuPLETED 6110 1980 Va` 1963 gVCP3pN SYSFEv Ontano r N SERIAL NO 39 ~5 BCS/N CAP.OfJ/Y 100 0Y/lNLL~ n~ ' soo,ooo cu ras ~~ x FYt 6T4531.40 BEGIN 6PLLlN61Y vruw o/aw«N Ns [[ \ d`NO ~ V N ~- SGN BERV 4RpIV0 I ~ a 5W J N4110M1GL FOflE6. y I 41i 5 I L J 9Tn CONTR4'! q •C CONVLFiED ~ 4fEM~x E~NCYE WRM ~1 ~`~~.1Jn 98) LOC~AON +al , J i CMGMEL 2 ni tim 3i[d ST0.956`60 2 ! wrn COn1flLCT gCMAh'NE~~ ~ / • 12 ~ VICINITY MAP IMO • ~ 6TN CONTRGCi )C~V I1Isi:~=~ •i.b - ` _ ___ _ CONN.ETFO / CCi 961 S NC/.E.C1D (514CF / ~3so rr P ~~ Note LJ /PO ~1 6~°~/ Pro(ect to be mGlntalned by f/ ~ local mtere515 00 ~p ` I~y~/ /y N ~It ~ ~I i~s~.nrc exw £ Q ~ PrmTVn/ P/N NW/n .orv I~3 CwiHeugn Cm..rrn~ R I ° B4yG~VS EbL I winl. a/ nzw.r B n..w i e.N An[ ~ f Ip _/s N..,.., I . 9.w,v ...rx2 9Tfl M 6- / S caxrRx: III ~ --- _ COV;ETED ! I •/, ti 4.9w. P.,w ,rrx2 sEPT/ xz >° --~~I ~I I P~ [-,. L aDDI `~~ h TN CONTRGCT : 1 L Q CONPLEi ED >II I - I 4 ~' L OEC 1979 L+ ,~y 6 5•Ih000GMONGA CR 4GVV[L B .41.6~gZ~~'~`J TYPICAL SECTION snlrr . ' RECTANGULAR CHANNELS (1'~ g PII_ xpT TO 0<~LE Figure 3: Map Showing Deer Creek Improvements C11 Prmi W 5°m TOT91019A5 9FiN0Dmr Pr.~As~Lm (PwN rop6s6rJ7 23NOV99 12 45 37 DEER DSS Deer Creek at Debn s Basin E L D1I tY N G E s e loooo looo 100 to P 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 5 2 PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE Deer Cr (DA=3 71 mil) ~ Cucamonga Cr (DA=9 68 m2) Seer Cr USGS Eauoiions ~ Deer Cr using LACDA curves Doy Cr (DA=4 56 mi 2) Etiwanda Cr (DA=2 8 m 21 Figure 4: Discharge-Frequency Curves C12 23NOV99 12 53 51 DEER DSS 100 Q 10 J N (Y m w D Deer f.r eek of Dehr i s Rnsi n -Debris Yi el d --~ Deer Cr (DA=3 71 mi 2) - Copacily Figure 5: Deer Creek - Yield vs. Frequency C13 PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE Erhibir 1: Final Results Plottrne Postnons -11067000 Day Ck nr Etrwanda DA=4 56 mrz Events Analyzed Water Year Discharge (ft'/s) Ordered Events Rank Water Discharge Median Year (tt /s) Plotting Posdion 1928 29 1 1969 9,450 154 1929 90 2 1938 4,200 3 74 1930 29 3 1966 1,740 5 95 1931 118 4 1943 1,500 815 1932 105 5 1967 1,330 10 35 1933 20 6 1950 580 12 56 1934 7 1945 400 14 76 1935 172 8 1959 367 16 96 1936 192 9 1971 358 i9 26 1937 80 10 1958 355 21 37 1938 4,20 11 1968 346 23 57 1939 261 12 1940 286 25 77 1940 286 13 1939 261 27 97 1941 175 14 1946 250 3018 1942 20 15 1954 242 32 38 1943 1,500 16 1947 232 34 58 1944 139 17 1952 214 36 78 1945 40 18 1956 195 38 99 1946 250 19 1936 192 4119 1947 232 20 1957 176 43 39 1948 81 21 1941 175 45 59 1949 24 22 1962 174 47 80 1950 580 23 1935 172 50 00 1951 4 24 1944 139 52 20 1952 21 25 1931 118 54 41 1953 28 26 1963 114 56 61 1954 242 27 1932 105 58 8i 1955 5 28 1972 105 6101 1956 19 29 1929 90 63 22 1957 176 30 1934 84 65 42 1958 355 31 1948 81 67 62 1959 36 32 1937 80 69 82 1960 41 33 1955 57 72 03 1961 4 34 1951 47 74 23 1962 17 35 1961 44 76 43 1963 11 36 1960 41 78 63 1964 16 37 1930 29 80 84 1965 1 38 1928 29 83 04 1966 1,740 39 1953 28 85 24 1967 1,33 40 1970 25 87 44 1968 346 41 1949 24 89 65 C14 Events Analyzed Water Year Discharge (fN/s) Rank Ordered Events Water Discharge Year (fN/s) Median Plotting Position 1969 9,450 42 1942 20 9185 1970 25 43 1933 20 94 05 1971 358 44 1965 18 96 26 1972 10 45 1964 16 98 46 F:nal Results Freauencv Curve - 11067000 Dav Ck nr Etrwanda DA=4 56 mr' Computed Expelled Percent Confidence Limits Flow fN/s Probability ft'/s Chance Excceedance 05 (fN/s) 95 (ft'/s 6,580 8,230 2 16,100 3,420 4,590 5,470 5 10,500 2,500 3,400 3,900 10 7,350 1,920 2,430 2,700 2 0 4,940 1,420 1,450 1,550 5.0 2,690 899 901 942 10 0 1,550 587 500 512 20 0 793 341 154 154 50 0 221 108 44 43 80 0 65 28 23 21 90 0 35 13 13 12 95 0 21 7 4 3 990 8 2 System Statistics Log Transform Flow, fN/s Number of Events Mean 2 1667 Histonc Events 0 Standard Deviation 6263 High Outliers 0 Computed Skew 6996 Low Outliers 0 Regional Skew - 2000 Zero or Missing 0 Adopted Skew - 2000 S stemaUc Events 45 C15 llu6'nnn II J, [ r nr lius.JndJ B•luud ..f Ian ?c~~ 1n69 Inds} iplil r• ~nul to PhchJJ 1' tilmllcr, Ul,nlcl Ch1rl y,pnnal 110.r :J1Llul n' Ir•: of tln. n,dlr. cl m4nunmcn n•hlch ,,;l: the ha il,,~I W_ p_Jk ,h,d,J r_.,:md mu:n~Nuuc•. ,•Ilh (~11is ••I SnrIJCZ ll"arcr 'd9<It R~hc_ r~_Jnhucchangn,, ordw_1rddln_ pwl.+.n Jls,amnu_dvr., }•arty`:nlis Jn,IVCJl 1n,IW:fUhl llh`III,IIIltil nlulcllfi l1LI11111JJC In dncnrnna llu Jun'Ar' I~%,:•IIJL JIti I1JrC: :11 Ia1~lRCk lc Icyu,l.. ~ I I h: r yusl la made u I Icr coned IJ u,~n c.1 d, RIB hanl I I unn~h, I I, dn,log nl d: mr, Cum ~ G~on¢ •ry,hnh~_ 1.1 ' hch 1~I ho Lu1, kc_~ 1, a,a I ~n rl ec: t\ J 1J ~p:•: 1J6+1, Jnd Ivlw [, •d u • C•I I i:, nl Sur I:¢c `.t':n:l I h~ nneulol unhr.l n1.u,m, rn:nl ,,:1, n lour-'+slnnl,L•~ arw cyan lallmlon m u Hach Jvundre,m Innu 01. cac: I ~ c:n 1vu, uc,l 1 b_ I~q„e rq,h n aprt o I I he I]J_, I_ rl. ~ :rl I Ilt IJI IJ Il C b_:n ~ Idnlcz ~~ d: Inr d: hn+ Ilou•• hn•. I lr_ ,~.cnn:,l m Ou', r•. ach P l o,l o l I h~ R"I-Ilovd +l•_ rn ph, n o+,ho• ••r~z.L_Innu_.'alulo_~~I,Lbn,ikn,a:urn} III, ha rdl•~m,,lgmcll.d;..u.111••s,mlh_Ilhun,l:hmlh~u,k~m,_d 16. clwnncl a?,nnu_; n~.l I„r11,. mduLel cumwl: ~,I dr,:hJre~• II calJUd. apl~ur,Ih.d aJchn, Ikrtr rtl,kdlhnnra, I b_ :11~ 1 „1 Ilh' I JII NAI dl 11 Il m. y,rtml „n l a, II 1,RxLCJ.J d~ •u IbI n:Jil, C i P Jl 111,1 ^ dchns Il nt• ,1CIIIlu1 n,IIT_ J a 1.1 h. ~J IILI dcR nd, upon T:^: I ~ ~m ui Il.,,, pn,:..:c. cJlnl,•I r ~.hla J r_ habb. c,untn. ~ ~I dl~: hare: I he unln ~n J m•- o 11,6_ nu I •• n,_ Il ~"• -pn ~...,, u, n„n m1:un •nvun, b: buc dow a utter n : a m, uu o I dre hur~ e ,,:n rna a nld r nnJ~r,1•:J m Ir•v In :,JJlhon i,~a,mph:.drtmt•In;n,_ Imm J_hu, ILr, :rIP IP. II1l 1, All Jlll 11 4'II III•: 114\I II•r d,l mJl ricl .unn ue n ctu•.n1a; p,•,•r h,pan.na, dn, melunu the I•.uch 1+Inr_c and n~nrr'„n,_c rwv• h.n••.~u rr••c~.,_,uca„ are h.rn,d Io:,a,mr.mL•Ihmu. Ihc•1-,.tiuonmw,nr:m:rnr~..rdlcm,hccd~.ah:.,Irudlclwrq,mmlJ•rrJ.h C•.k•:w:.:md I rout. nnmhcn IJr Ills R• d 111„1rG,lll ~., I lull, JfC UI1JI G • nlld hc. \1, t:kJ 111 J g0.1, ,n1n,d, annT,k-final ch 1nn, I I h~ur1~IR',I n1111j tIS d_,Id:d lu dNiJ ni dlC r:wll. nl lh.a-,itllnn 6~n,1,111L11C•0 J•1n10.J~~IIGI,I_ et '•1••1,. u nn:, :n,c::,hnn1: `.n, n,J J_ uuuc Ih. un dleu r~~+c ,_. uon Ihat e. shall hAJOu:d ola ~k ~p_ c•,n•::au•: ci•mpmau,mpn,•.IJn,;•nhd lsull,,: b_r,oaopc mca inn,pmanun c•ndJ mil n,loR aalsc_JI>:e n,.aalran.nl.w h~~ n huhk . rcyun., 1un~ awh h un d,~nn and ac yr Jl, l} d,d cmuntl Qnp2, ~w 1~ a I>J rou_ hn~ , cl•.Im n1•., none o1 s,hl.h c,.l,l:•I III Ii_':•_I::Il ll 0.:lih of J1:n,nd In 11>_ d,:n,. •cldur_ c~~ndmon, hlemnni +n`tlh~;•:n yu_,h, mahb_ 1o rn,hlcmnual_ Ih1u_ 111_ vuJllcal ~.:u,a,:.a,a r_:1wnJbL_ Id<.1 • In,l.,u•nc.nncnl~r, dl.u Ih_ .,h• mush m:l+,r •_ ,.Jm,.nl u:,n,p~•n d,a1 ~ramLJ u.nlhl lu^. hJd 16, nn••J =.l_mlicam uuryn tm 11,. vnlll.,1 ticma, Ih:.bmu,.l .n~:•;v_.u.~nalolw~uhcumculrllcperk,.:,,m,knvxn Ihcuncnn4~InLIaI~I111•.I~IdcR•.n+mlhccvmracl:~lorx:, u•nddhn: undcrc,~n_dlc nuxl.L~ra.Vnnn wlb.n„-•„aV., b. ratan d,c pclA,uul lb. an,:; I•:Jdmc 1,~~••_n gll.cd•.1 m,:, nJnu: m cmc, ca n,nal ~a r. a It~~hnt1 !•I~„r CIIh AL: 11'91.1 ~l`:l'IJII<1 t=Jhn•nu1 hnlncl C16 1 tD"7000 Day Cr m Etitivanda FIC~r,~~ nt ii1 ~,, 1;rGg 7vr5e of measurement Paul-sec4on Sla~~~ Ara t_acatioia o#uradirect site at;o~_d 110'" mlb~ dc~afnsheam Uf ~~a~~~~ Site selected by Elmer Pearson I-Io~~:~inJ Ivlillhai }3urh water marks tlacrcaed hv: Elmer Pe~rsan I Ic~:~rarcl P:1~llh~l i7atefieldworkcornr~lete 2?'~1P69 party Ch9e# & Cre~,v Elmer P~nrs~~n Tam I-lul7ler R :';il6orns Gacre-heigi~t USED SSA InsN~ '39 C~i-gsr_fe DPI J91 ~Drsrl~arne: 2J~q~~ fl'`~s ~Drairnane Area ~1 rn nll' Unit clischarpe ~~ AGO (t"+snm~ .Datum of Survey Natureofflood R?]IGnal i5:~~.11~S1f~Im~tlpgCl Sg~l~~r;q~r~?h~rpq•~ g,,.Capp ngiQ~B• Stll X16.1 Ch Pfi~liwfllr5 ~ a3rsc8iarge 1'~ 3dn ~;~, ~'pn .i7 g~~~~~ Type L E E Een~th 1dQ tt25' 2=~~ Eaii ~dH) 1r3 iin 2',. ?~~ 1 fit, 23?9 ~1 ~~ 2f~'d1 eat 11 ~~ "~:, -1 L~I C17 110!~TGDD DO': Cr nr Elpa~nda- i;~'I1hIlU@CI S=CIIOII F'fGpefliC-S Area °.1? 1 2G? -,, ,,dg 2 37? Alpha 1 02 1 079 1 Gil 1 02 fooude # ° 25 1 CE E~0 9 Velocity 2!. =1 23 S ?• 78 L d IHv 21 i ~'~, 9 2'J 1 211 2 d d N suh-area 1 0 Gt:'0 0 05'G G GS'G v OS1G N sul5-aaea ? 0 Ii~CI G 05'0 G Os'0 0 051G N suh-area 3 01UG Original {1369} revdevr coiytlnents } o'onY b?1'e',2 a•~ shrJi,ict ase ii?2 r:-sWiis of it?.- l0ie' S.^^-,?i1~7R d0p2 ?(e''c! :['c^, C1' ' dC"? i 1)2'!Pi+2 i/??i i172 Ch. a/?C?$ 1R a: 2F5 2i i1?2 S2C:1•~l'S ?.'2 L?Cf'Cai2d c^.S Ct?2nC,rs ,R s;~r2 ti if?G-Si O 2 cf02S !7rJi CPC'2252 ,t,ii; 2r22 rn,_^'2c^.SB 2'i1?2' 2 `.2 r1 i2rG2:R,?: BaSB fn "n" iBk;~S j.Tir^C2 GI it72 t'i1: 2i?c^.IGB 'S 1'T~~'BaS'!?u 'J2i41•E%" S2tC,::G7'S S14c2 }t=2 i22! Ci',.42 Si:,2 i1??.i ;112 ?.JGJ2 !S!T'i .c^^. IORC, j?i8i~' ;!ti:~'P :~TdS: J2 3!i1!2f ?.!' ~ /r[I( I,Q j.'lJil'~~ iJ( S?,~: L~,n [.'2c' 1 i22i Gail:P $: r2lbii'1 2J2u: i1)2 Ci2i1P.!i!FJQ iJi i1?2 CrOSS S2.'.il0l?S '' inc^.: t: ~'tt?r^,':',,~°t~ :'r^. c'f ~?$'F'." il2i :?i;' hn~c a` a' "+:. :•i 2' iPflb?c?t2i( utl i 4'F.•y •;;, •:7~ i 6:.:?~ !i (~ ~.2ta c?i . i>r ...._,.. .,:^F r _.... .et;, .r^.r, ,.~ ,., ~4? .,.. F!P:f.- r_i117: 1, r^.Pil t ... r....,?li f:5 r?1.... . 1S i/?2 S:Y!2^25;. !i CC,r7?2S i;rJS2Si S'RJ2 S!Oj.)2 Cf22S!?'i C17n^P.'_2 i !!'tT!r: cc^.:1•JP i1?2' 2rB21'28 i!t:i2 2ii 2.°: Qn it?8 f'''14':~ 1 ,1 Giri Cf $ru ~G2S: S •?; L'l'? ?P, Ct Cvi R~ u~ 2 (1 = ~KG'17 $1'(il Ic" ? i1; 2 f.'-Sufi LTp:/r ' r=r2in C ~:1C4 ,K = ~ ~ ['d? /~`.2'2C2 ~ = i~ r1:~2j Gr~ =''J 2S0 (? = ii! 75+;!I~3 I'd ;1 = rd d$' Use A22i~ it'sc1?a!c2 as 9.d5C dl}i l' r2:2 2S '~i~OR i~2?.!' S:2G2 = `3 `~C, Crrn2Cf i h 1;1?rPl?S {_ {_!~,U Fl ca r)i(i Sjngp (,~t,~r r C18 Addltwnal cornment on oncdmal i.1S J v' n Cr.+ ~' `J d~ 2.?it Cc!•: 8 CS c''S:JP,RiB t_ r IC qPf ~ r-c:2 S•~1 ; -c"''J ,l"J nS+l:i2:'=P? l~yei i? ( ~Giif Separate docurnent~ Qw~le~l rnalenol aC:'!C'et' L'EY Cr - ti:4: aRd2 .-iUit~' ~Ji ..fc p 25 ',l77~ f fpiC; !0; diS~JlfSS,V R .l1;IT !' f2:;J727 al?~ (' f?f;21?S ~' f'„9a^ = G ~%? Su :^1 g'S' !E ' :S S-Q CC+'r ~ilY th. ^.:,~'1? d~~h $i!P-,?'J(',~~i itil4F D+i; i_~: i,~S ?. iIc'iRc''? ~Lh,S 'c3:i, c J i u. f Y 1 C~1S,J f:?IC8 fji d? t')fll L!: 2 G?G$ r?2•rf7i iJi ~'J'`1 I^l il;O+1S f)b'c^.I~ !S ~ i Q~' 2: Q y~ O( 01?fir Ii J4tl~r f rJ_C10?? r1;1'~;_- - - - ., r.~ T .tir ,.,a .-t. •~..,:~ *, ~ ~JJ~~?.: a':Y C7!? O'I G"NC,1~~•+.4'1?~1.'~11? i\C. [!1?'~ VVUiIi Ar':C2k .~l i''ti 111 tf ~('t F:CtC.CI'+fti~~.'{ r1Tl'JIIOLO Elad of enqua~l comment. Geomomlaolorn Th. G~Ilo;+lni~ lel:'lesanls of sar•:allons and mlelplaloh~lns Lased soli. on InspecUOn C!t :7 Sar185 Gf 518f8C'-5IId85 Ilkall .IIC'I1CI ~~}` Cfeak IleOf CIbCIITd~ l~j+ r!Il 2-3-69 (~'li"tana the fla0d .!f 1-25-69 :':dh n~' I:al~'r lmo:+ll.ale of the sequanca e•:ants of i~i:G11101(''111C I1ISIG I-J iJ( the 51~? II I$ Ol'r' I'I C'(aSSIel111 G~'1I11C'll Ihal D.l.: 1. P3?I! ~rtli8rl r~IlCad lClel:'I lS flfi r: fOlli n;:r~Cl fj SIItiSrw-lLl~=111 hjG'fjf-rC'nCl~ntrlt~~lJ .l nClii it (li r=iCl flc':+:s that le:l:~'rked pvrlwns ~'i the cL-~I ~ns (10:1: tlepr'sll Gelals IIo:eS lla r~prcl mass mc!•:ements rnlermeth~le LaL•+,een landsll'aes end flc'c'J flo;+s c0rnposad o(a ':'final,` of arum sizes barn L'oukl~ls la cla•,• arnJ ml,ta':I s':Ilh •:.ll ymg arn0unls of :a~lar Diy Craak (loth 0ul c't i confined mountain dr~mo'_le k'osln o'nto' an nllu:'lil fon :~s the chonnal bacnmas less c'0nhned and channel'_lridlenls JeCre6se .+,rth nlcl'_nsm_I CIIS1anCa fIC'In 1118 ^I"'8X ~'( the ~Ilu'a01 (an ~ dlsU IL's-rtoly mul4-IhIeOJ channel ~''ltlem Je':el_'ps The de~'oslll'~nol and er'sIO170i processas d G'JLII11r~I1l8Cl IIl 1178 s~rle5 c'f 518(9['-SIIdeS Ch711']v IIl J i~Cl:`rn5lf8~fn dlfeC11U11 6:'IlJaI1Ce Gf C18bf15 i14;+) CI611lIn.IlUl I:'fDCesses IS 1:'rasar4ad IY:Ir lh8 lpe,t ut lha IIhP:lll (011 vaa8re:15 further dOr:n511e01n a`:ICIeI1Ca'~f fe;:'C'fIQIT] Cd lha CI?b115 fID+:: rJBpC'S11 ~';: h,`~^il-CC'nCallllilled fli'1;5.llld:iJr f146~1 fIClr:SIS I:'IaSal''..cl T;plc01'Jabns floc+l chancb~nshcs _'bserrad IIl the sears t4 slarerJ-slNes taken rtin 2- -69 uacluda p"0r sc'rlu7~ 1 In': erse ~rochn'~ lock of slnllclraphlc fobnc hummocky SLII f:1Ce lellaf ;Ind hlef~l la'.v.. CI.31iC'SIIS C'(CQ.lfsa LInsC'I lr~d CI3bf15 F6f ei0lnpl~: the Shde l0felad Seo2 1r0'lang acrc'ss al RG sh0~;._, a poorly sot led ur:~~lsal; grode_I C19 iJ rl''fls floc: (137511 :':1111 0 I?i'LIICI$f le'iee 1111115 GJfSfIfG[IIT:I Ilrlnll11GC1[y SLIf11G~ loponl~ph:: ~rnJ rnulh('I5'71101111611000IIOnC.+ C •:Ii1511C5 6f SLIL-'SG'~[1e111 fB:':GfklnC_I Gf the CL31af15 Ou?r dCl-'DSIlS ObSef: eil IIl 111e S~(155 ut Sle(eC'-SIIE105 Lll[011 C'll L ~°-L'~ 111CILI'JBS clllbanlc 9foSIG11 leff~Ce di~Se10('n18n1 and II111iIIC111~'n'7f '7l':1f59-QL11116C1 S~'JII11BI115 Fof 51;01111''le 1115 Slldes ht'al5'J `In ch:lnnel nl R~ In'olsln'a ncn,,a Secri ;d L6' and Cfi 3 nl mld clnnncl 1t'olung ds lhnl'1 of LC'. Sho7r Clllt'llll: efi'S1011 %M1 :4all CIC":01~ q?BCI f ILI YLI l@ff:1L'3' IS Shotr: IIl Iht? SII'J0 Llf!91rC1 f-rc'm c5nt51 .'f sUSom In_'luncl lhnl mach :lnd nnbncahon of the SLIT fac5 c'f ~ debns flos`; clep~_sll Is shy "::n u1 the t'~cV;lr'un'J of the slNe lahel~d `Sec 2 11und across of r-,f3 .i?O~^.r rn: ^iS ~20;*V(a70e'Og'Si .'r1°dr ~b76^i .ti'?•a a•ea f.?:°. 117:^'^?^:S 'JCSao CAA7 :^j i:15r^Bi:~0:1 Or Lh? ?~fi9 LZIi 1.;26'iC racrraCi CfSC)la:y? f•~?a&:(?:'a?~7i 1:1 t~'?L:r O!1fC? iari :h?2i! ! i~rB?C 0.^Lh ,i?C^'B C.L:'iiS~ Sii'^'!7C,^i IY ~'.ti:' COBS Ci2d: &S~Ca ^e`a fOr C2.hn'S ~1,715s ha.`L7g OC Cam; rPC: ^ L7fS '?aC'` ~IrOSi Of i.'1? f^OSi-1',OL F h0[OS Si10'.h O/a755:"B. ~^:':~ e>:t~.7C? OiC?.ti..^.S ::OY.S aCi:4rC, i[:Sha'C iO .'93y':^B i7.'.: IY.'.iB'°O'h -dC'?(2'aC Q2'J.^.S COri i0.^^aC ihB ih.'.,7~^B y'a0!^BC^r is S?G' iP''l?:B f:1L::2G es::'^a:B O~ C:SC~i RjB li 1'B'2.'. c:.i'i ati^-.7aarS 2S ci`l7Lty'ti?C2.'1(iS iiU15',7a'.SSBd ilh'Oilyi7 L'7? ar^2x C(i~'B (8:J a:7C ri72i ~°iON 577.'?ate OC: aS C r^lpi 61.1720 don:7s::Bam 4i:r f?croy:xaor Of e a aNaC:S a7.7C Px:B:1: O~ CBb7S !iOIYS 7~aY2 f. *'UrO raC S7ah^ 1969 and i c '1 O:7i'i (~'C?SS L'7ai I"r Gl.'OS~': a: i'B'S 1Y0f}~ ^y f:: iit? CR'Li : ricer i!•P I~OOQ ISB~P ;.ra!n~iA.' SV:ih 02J~^S-~'OW B«?C:S j~''.?'r' Ci~ra'. +' C,C^ i ~'4'l!2 ~'ihi: a'.:7~ S C,'] a;S ii''.]i ,7(Ur1i3?C 'J',' I~~ICe D! $i:ria'Ca 1'NaiB: ^°B" 1U; Llf•i![:!^ 92 ??'' IYI`IC:7 da$i '>•3S ::]? f:'~.?'?ri','711~ Of lCa:li:f:f?J <°iU!. C.'C~aYSS r:7 f7V [: ^f a'::: Si'2.'.'^S :~a.r0'a LiUi:7y C7i.~ 2C; eSii:9dias O ~ C'S C ~'a,'S'2 ^ aCd6.57.7 i0 CO'9aii caua^s a~^sr77y' f1D! *' C2'J'7S ~~OIY 3i itfl?r, i.'t? ."r L7~^J::ni SeiJ7YJ USga: !O' Lh2 C7Cr: en esic^aie a exz~'•7aiv,^oer Era. ^&O^ ii'"OalyhO[R i~'4? rB8i:1 fS ha.1~"? a:?C Cal rB Va.7C2 fai.>7.5 :?iLYBB.^. CROSS S?Kr0('S ~S:a'wJ~^u fei O'~P7?.7C20 i!'•7!iS ~''Ou~hi° G')? ~?Si ,^OS(-r~OIY f,7iC T'i is LY7 GYJ;^PS 70'n a;•a r3apmai^: O~ i;'B C~^S'i:2a.^'-1'VSi CrOSS S?r~ i0:7 t Cu,'7~i 'Ci7:i'r aCi l.~i0 Jr?~7 (iOSii S SJy'LJ2S20~^S i S :O ~7U1'Y iU .^ C'/a [:.S? O~ i~'7iS f:7?O rf.^a2U^ ri:l'r' .S2 Cl y'?Ol°6iTr' U( iha J.7SC?a^? .'•?OSi Cf0.SS '^CS: ;?iY Q^ t he ass[::POiaY1 :ha:i L'•? C(DSS SBCi:O^ IYdS i0'?J.7(aiR'Y `~:i?C :"::.h IYaia'' di iha Cf*~? OS i:)B F?ak aced C;d 80i C7Cf y? 5: y'D: ffCaaiiy Cri?F i tia p?: 'h L1UCi~'^a!'iaa0:7 OI v??:!'drlaC7 aSii;"Bice OI drSCN L'lry'2 r^fO4:daS 4aia.2e'l'9?r: u'P7C2 Of S"rha: i7i r7~2f:aC 1:7 L'):S Cpl?.'N~?~ 2S i +'dSLtii U! i~'8 i ~~ UBa}: 1'1r? SJOa:!d U^aS?P.9 L']:S f:1A?.q?7.'7irU.7 ai.'C7 !^Cile:: aSa8:7'Ji2 io ,7?ua'e:^i?raSieO :f) da'J7S-~iO1Y a:1d CJOif-~iOri :•aZ8.57S i:M1~Si' n'? ~42y^r08a: SC~tiL'>?^'fl'a'.[?r $R?C~ai: S: 020 O':er~ll If•:r:r: The sd~ s~lecletl ;vns nu[ ~(~pro(~nate trr an mclnr~el rne:lsun~nlent 11181h0~~ ba59~:1 ..n uniform t16:: a~ lualn?ns VI':911 the phy5lCal COIU~1110n5 enc6unlered Ihr1e v'.'as 6lll~ (~+?SS1Utl11•,• of unliann fic~;+r nCrUfllll~ I TI76 teach iI0111 1118 Sla'_le lI1IC~uCl11 Ih~ 561?0 al8a 18aC11 ~!)c^^.$•'+~ 0J' S:cf20 1?.+?=r~~?u; 81?f;Sr ~~KF~C:I1011CC'CI SC^;III1LIll UCIIIS(~C~II r_+n i m~ssr:e scil~ taahllal lorn:nnn_ frrrm fm~,s to hnar baUklBfs :+,en~ rno•:~,d lhic~u~~h the r~eh The hkllhc•or161 the cross secllr_rnal alea al the Ilme+?t paak tl6:+r Lem~J :+,ell lel:~lasenled I ~.: a 5ul':ep ? :+reeks aflel lha pane. ;+ra5 slim l6 none ~tm: Inne Ihal? Is nla5sr:a sedlm~nt tlanspc+rl Ihn_~uclh n lenc'h d Is nc~l'7pprc~pnil~~ to Clo an Indu~~r_t Illal`atllelllelll ~~BClUS@ CIO55 S: CIU?Ilal afea i aI1Cl fOtlClhn855r 1f~~ UI11:1107t11 Thed-sechon slo(~9 are maaswamanl arts ~~?ncunally claernecl unr~'hahde TI1~~ if eC151011 CihOUIJ hn':6 I-~EBn ~I~~c' ~cR i :'1'O 8r' JRC$!T:'c! fi',Pc':Sir.'2i7t24i N? it't!='Sc' ~ lnr'1~Iih''r',S Il :haS l I}G~!f ~:I++?CI51011 iG Illake U58 0i +?I15 C~1 IIT3 CI055 SECt16115 (GI 0 5100? C01T: BgaI1C8 D.rnl(rUla[I611 Tila 51009 C0n•: B;:aI1Ce n181i10d has ':ell 11101e S[fln~~?Ill I`'~UII811181115 i61 t111dDI n1 C011CI11U7115 Ihan CIC~95 a 51Di:':' alga 1158 0t SUCh a leC hnlgUa nnen the c6ndi11C ~ns';ac~ul~l lesull m Mlle mare than a rluess ~~r:en lht~t lha upslranl-n16s1 crass s~chon tr:l5 the srnallesl the+7n~ateslad':else II111iaCl Lt 5C•d1n19111 lf~I151:+Ofl d.OUI':I CrCCtlf lI1~sIE' IIl 15r1115 6f a'J'=1fl~Ja11011~CIE]I.l~~allC~ll IeallUnrl u1 larc_le anors m m~asuled alga •+cb~hloc+nall; recesslonni Oc~;++ nl l:r:c~ :vaelcs CIUIaIIGn 11lIDUC111 all LInC6115DhC11leCl Se Cllnlenl dbpc+511 ;+r C~!IICI dead Ili 5t1~ ~Slafl ll'll de~~ra'~htmn and 519n1ticanll mcre-as3Cl CIn55 SeClI011a1 0fe0 851?OCIOIIy n1 the snlailesl CIS=~55 S~, Clli ill ~~LL [ir I1 h:IhEf Y~~IOr,llb35 13a58d 611 185aaIC11 51nC+3 1 ~~?l II has ~ ~5C01T15 II1CI895111!-ll:+' CIOaf IhCll IC~Lb_I1111+355 t'lannnl~:I'S i~~ has 6fien b=an UI1CI81-6 5 11111a15C1 u-15leep m6unlaln shc'an15 ~s fat as I 1111 1:Yaf8 Ihel n :'ll e 110 ':8f111'°'~ ': IIU~_5 rat !' (Of 51f9.11115 Ul~l ~~+(CSa~J 'l Ifld18111 C+t Ot'OUl 5 perC0111 TI10 510(3 01 6a;: CI':ek IS 1In1451 CI6!ItdO lllll :+iI11Ch n1B7115 all;: 58IcClecl !? :+r~~uld tiara ~ la1[le unc~,llainh: arn~l all»651 c~~llalllll~ under-+~sllrnal~d Ih~':alua Th15 rnea5uremenl cannul t~9 supporletl and rh6uld be lem6•:ecl tlr_~In the p~=alc the Bala ba5r C21 ~mcollhzphoto~~taphic daumentauwt(shdes~stata~slidesla.adahle ~ ~'t! ~r.i° f ~k- ,. ' ~~ ~'t- ~ ~S ~ L~ ~ -~_. ate ~ "` 1~~ ' ' 9 Y~v°~~ Day Creek Gaga site IJev 168 The photo's below from 1969 are only a few of those that are available in 3d C22 What the weir really looked like and size (Late 19391 Taken about Feb 7 1'?65~ Mote mixed s¢?s lark of onen[abon Etc C23 Looking do:.nstraam from about 20u tt u~slream of gaga about 28(1969 IJole ra_ant rc~ck daposds among trees ilhal is MGT a date on [he board. Feb 7 19c46n sechon 2 laokmg lo.,ands nghl bank C24 fala~~r clc~posrts app~arto hire bean ~ contu~uin~7 piablam nn ffia c~~air C25 Gn XS 2 Fel; ; IGc9 C26 As built after March 1935 .~ r - Lookmg dcvrns[rram faun 1938 slope ar._a reaih 1 75 mtlas upstream+~f gagw Note s~nun=d-off bark on trees, man and tnpr,~ nn nght fer scale t "'+~- ,~ Loi+km9 il]rlnstrcam Sli+p_•ara rcnci~ lust dw:mstrnam from gaga Aug 1938 4pparently+there ~vsre t:aa computations or at leas[ n:~o sitei C27 R A N G U O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE. May 11, 2004 TO• Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM• Brad Buller, City Planner BY Mike Smith, Assistant Planner SUBJECT HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. - A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total floor area, including a guest house and 3-car garage, of 4,886 square feet (footprint approximately 3,700 square feet) on a parcel of about 12,000 square feet, including excavation in excess of 5 feet, in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Lot 33 at the north side of Camino Predera - APN 0207-631-23 This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Gwdelines Section 15303(a) (Class 3 Exemption -New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) BACKGROUND The proposed single-family residence is located in the Low Residential District and is included in the Hillside Overlay District Development proposed in the Hillside Overlay is subtect to the Hillside Development Regulations, Section 17.24 of the Development Code The intent of these regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lot size and configuration Typically, the Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner However, because the project includes excavation equal to or exceeding 5 feet in vertical depth, the application regwres the rewew and approval by the Planning Commission ANALYSIS A General The project site is located on the north side of Camino Predera on a parcel of about 12,000 square feet The parcel to the north is developed with asingle-family residence, the property to the south is vacant, the property to the west is a single-family residence under construction (Hillside Design Review DRC2003-00917); and the property to the east is vacant but is pending development (Hillside Design Review DRC2005-00003) The topography slopes in a northwest to southeast direction and has two distinct slope profiles At the front of the property, the slope is 32 percent (about 3.1) At the front property line, the existing elevation is approximately 1,307 feet and uses to approximately 1,320 feet at a point approximately 40 feet north, or behind, the front property line At that point, the slope is approximately 17 percent up to the rear property line, which is at a general elevation of about 1,340 feet The applicant is proposing to construct a 2-story single-family residence, attached 3-car garage, and guesthouse Because of its unique, split-level design, the primary entrance is at the rear of the house, which appears to be the second floor as seen from the street The first, or bottom floor, is located at the south side of the house directly beneath the second floor and is ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00630- BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC May 11, 2005 Page 2 comprised of two bedrooms and a bathroom No direct access to the exterior is possible from this floor This lower floor with an area of about 780 square feet is sigmficantly smaller than the first floor, which is about 2,980 square feet in area As a result of this floor plan, no stepping has been provided in the finished pad of the second floor There are three contiguous areas where the depth of excavation or "cut" will exceed 5 feet in depth• at the first floor in the front of the house, at the north end of the garage and driveway, and at the northwest corner of the property (Exhibit "E") The matority of these areas of cut are necessary to allow the portions of the house and garage to be tucked into the terrain, therefore, these cuts will not be exposed The areas of cut that are exposed will be screened from public view by the bulk of the house Excavation throughout the rest of the property that is needed in order to provide features such the driveway will be 5 feet or less At the front of the house, the overall height of the structure will be about 23 feet, measured from the finished grade. At the rear of the house, the overall height will be about 16 feet The lot coverage will be about 38 percent, the maximum permissible in the Low Residential District is 40 percent B Neighborhood Meeting On August 24, 2005, a meeting was conducted to gather input and comments from the owners of the surrounding properties on Camino Predera and immediately to the north on Red Hill Country Club Drrve (Exhibit "I"). The primary concern stated by those present was the potential loss of views caused by new construction on currently vacant land along Camino Predera, speafically on the south side of the street As the applicant's property is on the north side of the street, and is significantly lower than house to the north, his design and grading will allow the house to have a lower profile. Any loss of views will be minimal. C Grading and Design Review Both the Grading and Design Review Committees recommended approval of the protect as submitted at their meetings on April 19, 2005 (Exhibit "J") D Environmental Review The protect is categorically exempt from the regwrements of the Califorrna Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00630 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Standard Conditions Respectful) submitted, Br ull City Planner Attachments Exhibit "A" - Information Sheet -Hillside Design Review Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "I" Exhibit "J" Draft Resol - Project Site Map - Site Plan - Grading Plan with Sections - Grading Plan identifying where excavation exceeds 5 feet - Elevations - Floor Plan - Roof Plan - Neighborhood Meeting notification area map - Design Review Committee Action Agenda dated April 19, 2005 udon of Approval for Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00630 CJ ~a INFORMATION SHEET HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO: PROJECT NAME APPLICANT LOCATION FLOOR AREA OF BUILDING Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00630 • LOT COVERAGE LOT SIZE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION EXISTING ZONING EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE• ZONING North Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) South Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) East Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) West Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) Single-family residence Bardos Construction, Inc Lot 33, Camino Predera; APN 0207-631-23 4,886 square feet (2 stones, including guest house, porch, porticos, and 3-car garage) 4,593 square feet (38%) including roof overhangs 12,113 square feet Residential Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Vacant Residential LAND USE single-family residence vacant vacant; single-family residence under review (Related file DRC2005-00003) vacant, single-family residence under construction (Related file. DRC2003-00917) EXHIBIT `A' ~~ `~,'~ ,y w PROJECT SITE NUJ Po(/ CuurtM ~Cfuh i ~~ V6rA ONTAI 10 sr EXHIBIT `B' +BERYL PARK -~_r r a~ar/oaw u7A ~~ LOMA i ~3~ urn iau,, ~~~ ~~ ~~. ~_ - - ~- 5 •° '41 • i o.roioroocan +. Tu a~v+wr 53.LON Tda3N39 Md~d 3115 '~'LLI1 QLC505r IbL~Yl6b a :~ r li ~ i ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ i Y ~e# ~~ is }e I ! i a1411'~id~ ~~ j ~ ~ 111 ~ s.il 1~~~#~ ~~ 3 bbbb 6 6 f 1 i } i EXH.~. ~rn. ~6 i ~ r~r~ bbc~b ~$ ~P 0 EXHIBIT `D'~ `-,1~„~ ; ,;`; ~,,I~~`~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~y' ~ -, a g ~~ ~ a ~ °~~ _~ ~cce~baro-,( 5' i~ ti EXHIBIT `E' ~`~ 061.16 b'7 Y9NOWV'a?7 OH7NVL tX1~05~ IbL410b (FOb/ ~ ~ ~ oMOO+occan • vN+'A'~ 3hV ~S~1S .121dM Y Q 7HOH W016fYJ M31 ~ SNIO~1 9b919b91 ~ ~ ~ NOll~d/~3~3 1NOT~d °3111 ~w 1auaQU~m sarnl-g $ z O rr- b 1- ~~ u_ ~J EXHIBIT `F' as L u w~ao-wccvan •va•oa~ai+ OF116 V7 Y9NOWV'J(1'J OH'JNVEI 02LSOS LbL9-16b (b06) ~ ~ 'j' ~V V?9a3tJd~1S ~ Y Q 3'TfIQ3H05 MOQrdIM jai wolsm ~ ~ 'h ~°~'~~ ~ NOlld/~3"13 1Sd3 31111 ^a~ tau~~m ~ g t R :: Y;' ~.~ :MI _~ ~: ~n ~~ ~~ - 1 owo~o-~eoc~o ~ ati i~v~oou NOlld/~3Td H1210N NOlld/~3"f3 153M OZL509t lbL9-16b ~ 1, U r-1 U b ~~ ~~ i - - - - - 540015 J~dW yQ46 Vh'oN1d1 9 z ~ 3~OF1 Y1015f1) Af3N AVM RII~ 9691 ~3"fl~l ~,~~ s 0 • 91!6 11 11 11 111 1!III l4!!IiJ!:PIA!:FI 11SIiIIIIWIIIEilll,l ~.i'';IIII'ailljlll=;Jle ®oo 0 0 , ~' EXHIBIT `G' _~. ~~ I i i ~ i .~~I~~'I~ ~i I~~ 3~' ~~~~ rY999~t ~! ~ i I . t ~ i ~~ i f f ~ y ~~ ~~~ S 9 !a 1 ~ - i F ~ i . . 9 3 ~~ a erg; €~ .~~~~ NYId door) ~i°~ ~ ww n vrvi 1 ` a AY0 R°O®!1 °°°1 1 RIB GEf V.LL2Y10~ onoo~ocora =3'wl ~ wouavua+m wmn'a 1 ~ 1 ~ `~ u ~s ~i • EXHIBIT `H' ~'°' `__ ~-~---r"f^ -rr~~r a~ ~~ ^n~'+S1 - ~~ ~~~- ~~ 4 '- 'FMS , A\VAVA ,(~ a , Syi ~'I i S.i ^ µt` v, '~`j~:. •'1° , ,,ri,~ f S'v,: ~' o'.y'~° yS V .2. 4, it ~ .1 "D '%~~~. pX ~x•i _:, 1, w ',i 'y .j . 'i .~ i.. r ~ ; .t _ r- _ a e 1 .t ~ a. .; _ i~ ,~:,~' c~ ,y ~,q~+ti x~({,! - _kr, ~ ~ , tip. ~`V ~i J 'aT t ~ ~ ~+ _^ ~ '_ '~eyxoti ,t'~i. v`r< ~ o V '«y. ~~',t ~a~3 s; rcY. 4 • .a t t~6; _$ { V.,n~1i ~'k1"~;`V, " in'`s`` ,n a. 1y ^w j ~V ` ~~~IIf ,~s •m+ rn `f r 7, ~u e~ ~ 4r~ ~~~,~ ~` ~~ ,'fiJ~4't• -1i 15+ay't"~~ _~ ~' •r y~b. i•. r., .ate ' ~ Ar~ qtr as b° ~._~ 1 ~=~ v r f i +l f~ oVi~V°~x. ~_Vi sa Y. - yj.; fa'a - ~'t~~,`- ~~ _ _ i t'~ < I , ~ - ~ Y~ 4 n n -' , ~. ~ it ~~ ~~ ~' Y v~ r r. }~; ~tJ)s '4rv `~ ^y;~~ °i~rt`'d rs ~~ e~, ~li~' ,'iq{'S~`t~ C ~ t '~; 1 ~d• ~~' ~ ', t= ilv 'y4 .. ._¢.e /~ 4u x~I`.fr iV~ ~ _. F I ~,l '~~` 't V v'~ ~ ~~ ~~~ `SY 4 :_ 1 i~ -l~ M,~ ~ ,~, l:,i~~ ~ ~,, ' %-~. ~. ys,~ ~ ~~ - •~, ~ t t""i. Cqj;~ - •. 'ti' irigat 1'_'7ir ~ , -'!''~•", ~~ ~ , 2`*,r ,r r,'>s - ' , u~ ~t~, ^x ~~ x F`. ` .,.,, , i „tw :~Y W rt-i~'j ~,v , .t,`. x ~r y~'iJ+'1 ,'~ :r s' ,~»~ y, rq''• ~, ?4^y .'~y>.~ re7 6 .• .. „ r_w ..- 1 ~:,4,# f~« p ry,y a! Iya ~i.:',#~n ' " ~l'~, • *~`s " ~~ , ~ r _; , . Neightio hood~meeting.n "ti~i ation ''~ ., ~; ~ „1~' ~,_ ,~ ~,,, t, v r area bo niia ~i Ea ' ~~~ ° "~ - ,~_ (~//~~~~ y tq~ t„E a- : ? a ~~ i' i ~~ '1' 1 ~: 4`r d~ ~i . ~''f" k' :~ ~ ~t { r,~ ~ "~ - _ ~ ~ ~°~~~ . `~_ •~ v~ Foothill Blvd s n ~~` {;.l ~2"~il+mn~`~•~i„~~tR. ". .ri q,. ,' ~ .l " ~i . '.~ "r t• r i~ [ Vin' ,~l« „: -i `,-~ it t' - 4• " ~ ' t h,LV S' ~ _ . r ~ f~ ~ T' 1. ~x 7 ~ ~~~w~F1` "ryV t ,. :1~ V: ~ f tai .,,F.~w i dpi atT„L45:Y a3• ~e14'<k!~'iS+1 ~ , .fp. •'i ~ 1 1 4 ,~'~ ~",'~1`% ix3a. :*~ .a ~~.~ L•..~+rr •a~ I:. ,t ~ry ~C •' A," ~ ~.•),~.}t. . ~ ~,.~ _ ~ tin ~r~ Y 3 ~o,r'-i..t ~C;,:;• t t ri .~ ., ~ i L ~, t, .nt' .r y~.. ,~s; ~~~'r~ 3 ,y. j ,~u, ~ ~'f a.~ `r,x~'tAl. . ~~'> r .'~ o,i Zt~'~--` DI .k.,_m ~ h+- ~ n. ,}~ F-' - ~t 'a. _ ,,,_ 13 „t`_ :~.;~~', ~~`~ t, ~."u`t.G~~' I v :1. ~` ~~. ,,'~ ~ t 1'~• -, sa'_ - v ~ ~' ~ :w z i n:'ar^ .d rt i nqr.~ "r i EXHIBIT `I' rY.., _. ,_,tr_, : z~ r_=_~_. F~ •~,_ ~a~, ~:. F = ~1.. :_ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p m Mike Smith Apnl 19, 2005 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total floor area, including a guest house, of 3,765 square feet (footpnnt approximately 3,700 square feet) on a parcel of about 12,000 square feetthat includes excavation in excess of 5 feet (the maximum permissible in the Hillside Overlay) in the Low (L) Residential Dsstnct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Lot 33 at the north side of Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-23 Backoround• The proposed single-family residence is located in the Low (L) Residential Districtand is inGuded in the Hillside Overlay Disthct. The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lots size and configuration Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner However, this protect requires the review and approval by the Planning Commission because more than 5 feet of excavation is proposed. Desion Parameters• The project site is located on the north side of Camino Predera on a parcel of about 12,000 square feet The parcels to the north are developed with single-family residences. • The properties to the south are vacant. The properties to the east and west are vacant but are pending development (related file: Hillside Design Review DRC2003-00917 and DRC2005-00003, respectively). The topography slopes in a northwest to southeast direction and has two distinct slope profiles. At the front of the property the slope is 32 percent (about 3:1) At the front property line the existing elevation is approximately 1,307 feet and nses to approximately 1,320 feet at a point approximately 40 feet north, or behind, the front property line At that point the slope is approximately 17 percent up to the rear property line which is at a general elevation of about 1,340 feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2-storysingle-family residence, attached 3-cargarage, and guesthouse. Because of its unique, split-level design, the pnmary entrance is at the rear of the house on the second, or top, floor as seen from the street The first, or bottom floor, is located at the south side of the house directly beneath the second floor and is compnsed of two bedrooms and a bathroom. No direct access to the extenor is possible from this floor. As result of this floor plan, no stepping has been provided in the finished pad of the second floor There are three areas where the depth of excavation or "cut" will exceed 5 feet in depth: at the first floor in the front of the house, at the north end of the garage and driveway, and at the northwest comer of the property (see attached). The majority of these areas of cut are necessary to allow the portions of the house and garage to be tucked into the terrain, therefore, these cuts will not be exposed The areas of cut that are exposed will be screened from public view by the bulk of the house. Excavation throughout the rest of the property that is needed in order to provide features such the driveway will be 5 feet or less. The overall height of the structure will not exceed 30 feet, measured from the finished grade The lot coverage will be about 38 percent, the maximum permissible in the Low (L) Residential Distnct is 40 percent A neighborhood meeting was held on August 24, 2004 The staff believes all of the concerns have • been addressed by the proposed design. Staff Comments The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion EXHIBIT `J' ~~~- • C~ J DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC Apnl 19, 2005 Page 2 Maior Issues• The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project 2 In the Hillside Overlay, the maximum excavation "cut" or fill is 5 feet. Amounts in excess are discouraged and when viable alternatives exist, staff will suggest to the applicant that they seriously consider those alternatives first Similarly, sensitivity to the surrounding neighbors' concerns, such as preservation of their views and architectural design compatibility with existing structures in the neighborhood, are recommended. The project has been designed with excavation that allows the house to sit lower and minimize view obstructions This solution is the result of discussions with the applicant and a neighborhood meeting conducted on August 24, 2004. Staff believes that the applicant has made a good faith effort to satisfy the intent of this ordinance. The project complies with the technical requirements of the Hdiside Development Regulations Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal as submitted Attachments Design Review Committee Action. ' Members Present• Fletcher, Coleman Staff Planner. Mike Smith The applicant did not attend the meeting. The Committee recommended approval. ~~5 RESOLUTION NO 05-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00630, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TOTAL FLOOR AREA, INCLUDING A GUEST HOUSE AND 3-CAR GARAGE, OF 4,886 SQUARE FEET (FOOTPRINT APPROXIMATELY 3,700 SQUARE FEET) ON A PARCEL OF ABOUT 12,000 SQUARE FEET, AND INCLUDING EXCAVATION IN EXCESS OF 5 FEET, IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON LOT 33 AT THE NORTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN• 0207-631-23 A. Recitals 1. Bardos Construction Inc has filed an application for the approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00630 as described m the title of this Resolution Hereinafter m this Resolution, the subject Hillside Design Review is referred to as "the application " 2 On the 11th day of May 2005, the Planning Commission of the Gty of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date 3 All legal preregwsites 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 Gty 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 May 11, 2005, inGuding written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows a The application applies to property in the Low Residential District, located at the north side of Camino Predera; and b The subject property has an area of 12,113 square feet with a street frontage of about 89 feet and lot depth of about 137 feet, and c. The subject property slopes from north to south with an elevation of 1,340 feet on the north (rear) side and an elevation of 1,307 feet on the south (front) side, and d The applicant proposes to construct a 2-story single-family residence, attached 3-car garage, and guest house of 4,886 square feet with a lot coverage of 38 percent; and e The proposed residence Hell have a top (primary) floorwith a finished floorelevatron at 1,330 0 feet, a bottom floor at 1,321 0 feet, a guest house at 1,334 5 feet, and a garage with a finished surface elevation of 1,328 8 feet, and 1_JI PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-33 DRC2004-00630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC May 11, 2005 Page 2 f Excavation in excess of 5 feet will occur at three contiguous logtions at the bottom floor, at the north side of the garage and dnveway, and at the northwest comer of the property Only the excavation at the northwest comer of the site and at the north end of the driveway well be exposed Excavations on the remainder of the property well be limited to 5 feet or less, and g The combined quantity of excavation and fill will be about 1,000 cubic yards, and h The property to the east is vacant wrath asingle-family residence cun-ently under review by the City, the property to the west has asingle-family residence undeh construction, the property to the south is vacant, and the property to the north has an existing single-family residence, and The site is vacant and contains one tree and native grasses, and ~ The proposed residence is consistent with other single-family residential developments in the area, and k The proposed resrdence meets the intent and guidelines of the Hillside Development Regulations 3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dunng the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth m paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and conGudes as follows The proposed project is consistent with the obtectives of the General Plan, and b The proposed use is in accord wrath the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distract in which the site is located, and c The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, and d The proposed use, together wrath the conditions applicable thereto, well not be detnmental to the public health, safety, or welfare or matenally intunous to properties or improvements in the vicinity 4. The Commission hereby finds and determines that the protect identified in this Resolution is categoncally exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEGIA) of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the State CEOA Guidelines 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subtect to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of a 2-story, single-famrly residence of 4,886 square feet, located on the north side of Camino Predera b~ ~- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-33 DRC2004-00630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC May 11, 2005 Page 3 2) Architectural details, finishes, tnm, matenals, and colorshall be uniform in appearance and design, and shall be applied on all elevations of the house 3) Pnor to the construction of a new penmeter wall on the west and east sides of the subject property, a good faith effort shall be made to coordinate the design and construction of this wall with the property owners to the west and east to ensure that any grade differences are minimized and that there are no "double-wall" conditions. Although separate, approved building permits are required pnorto construction of this wall, its location shall be shown in its entirety and with dimensions and elevations (top/bottom of wall) on the Precise Grading Plan 4) The minimum honzontal distance between any retaining walls is 3 feet (inside dimension) and shall include appropnate landscaping between them All walls shall have a decorative finish and a 2-inch decorative cap The maximum allowable height of the retaining wall in the front yard setback is 3 feet, measured from finished grade Although separate, approved building permits are required pnorto construction of these walls, their location shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan . 5) Walls with a height in excess of 6 feet shall require the submittal of a Minor Exception for review and approval by the City Planner pnor to construction. 6) Vertical cuUfill shall not exceed 5 feet in depth anywhere on the property, as measured from the natural grade, except at the three locations identified in Exhibit "E" of the staff report 7) Detailed Landscape and Imgation Plans shall be submitted at the time of plan check to the Planning Department for review and approval. A minimum of 30 percent of the landscape material shall be large size (minimum 24-inch box size trees, 10-gallon shrubs) within the frontyard and visible portions of the side yard in order to create a mature appearance. The Detailed Landscape and Imgation Plans must be approved by the City Planner pnorto the issuance of building permits 8) Prior to issuance of Grading Permit(s) and the removal of the tree that is located near the northeast comer of the property, a Tree Removal Pemtit (with applicable fee) shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner. 9) Front yard landscaping shall be installed pnorto release of occupancy 10) Any revisions to the Grading Plan, including changes in the quantities or depth of cuUfill, will require the review and approval by the Grading Review Committee and Planning Commission. ~~g PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 05-33 DRC200400630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. May 11, 2005 Page 4 Enameerina Department 1) The drainage runoff from this developed site shall not adversely affect the existing homes/lots adjacent and downstream of this site 2) Revise existing Public Street Improvement Plans, City Drawnng No 922 Provide all missing public improvements inGuding dnve approach and curbside drain outlet a) Center 12-foot wade dnve approach between westerly property line and the ewstmg street light Drive approach shall be constructed per City Standard No 101, type R-1. b) Curbside dram outlet(s) shall be constructed per City Standard 107-A. c) Replace any damaged portions of the existing sidewalk as required by the City Engineer. 3) Protect all existing street improvements in place inGuding, but not limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlight, and pavement. 4) Prior to the issuance of building permits, Forrn CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety Department Single-family residential projects are exempt from paying fees for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program 5) Along the northerly property line, protect all ewstmg private drainage easement improvements Protect, repair, replace or otherwise maintain the PCC drainage swale in good working order 6) Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits or fees required 7) Per the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Non-Category Pro/ects are required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Obtain a WQMP form at the Engineering Counter, and complete and submit for review by the Ciry Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) therein should be attached to the signed Owner Certification sheet 8) Typical street section for Camino Predera shall include a parkway that slopes at 2 percent from the top of curb to 1-foot beyond the sidewalk Then loin on-site grading with maximum 2 1 slope The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution ~~~ • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-33 DRC2004-00630 - BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC May 11, 2005 Page 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Rich Maaas, 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 ~ regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of May 2005, by the following vote-to-wit AYES: COMMISSIONERS' NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS- ~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DRC2004-00630 SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICANT: PAUL BARDOS CONSTRUCTION LOCATION: NORTHSIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA-APN 0207-631-23 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Date 1 The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the Ctty, 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, parttapate at its own expense in the defense of any such actton but such partiapation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition 2 Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No 05-33, Standard _/ /_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size) The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect B. Time Limits 1 Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Devefopment/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 C. Site Development 1 The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/_ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations 2 Prior to any use of the protect site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _/_/_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction o f th e Ctty Planner Q em 1'Q. Prgect No DRC2004-00630 Comoleoon Date 3 Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Budding Code and _/_/_ . State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance The bwldings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy 4 Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/ /_ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of budding permits 5 All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for _/_/ consistency pnor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, budding, etc) or pnor to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdroision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first 6 Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all _/_/ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Speafic Plans in effect at the time of budding permd issuance 7 All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _/ / including proper illumination 8 Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the protect perimeter If a double wall _/ /_ condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adtoining 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 protect's penmeter 9 Construct block walls between homes (i a ,along interior side and rear property lines), rather than _/ /_ wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency i 10 For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry _/_/_ 11 Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock Other stone veneers may be manufactured _/_/_ products D. Building Design All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or _/_/_ protections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adtacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner Details shall be included in budding plans E. Landscaping 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 architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of bulding permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision 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 requred by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy 3 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 2~a~ Prated No DRC2004-00630 Comolehon Date 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 regwred by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be regwred per the Development _/_/, Code This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment If located in public maintenance areas, the _/ /_ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of _/_/ Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code F. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U S Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location _/_/ of mailboxes Multi-faintly residential developments shall provide a solid overhead sWcture for mailboxes with adequate lighting The final location of the mailboxes and the destgn of the overhead structure shall be subject to Ctty Planner review and approval pnor to the issuance of bwlding permts APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NOTE. ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) G. General Requirements Submit five complete sets of plans including the following _/ /_ a Site/Plot Plan, • b Foundation Plan, c Floor Plan, d Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan, e Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) tncludtng 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 diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning, and ' g Planning Department Project Number (DRC2004-00630) clearly identified on the outside of all plans Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a sods report _/_/_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to _/ /_ the City pnor to permit issuance 4 Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls I _/ / H. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved pnor to construction All plans shall be _/ / marked with the project file number (DRC2004-00630) The applicant shall complywith the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at 3 ~3 Protect No DRC2004-00630 ComoleGon Date the time of permit application Contact the Bulding and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts 2 Prior to issuance of bulding permits for a new residential protect or major addition, 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 Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permit issuance 3 Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tracUparcel map _/_/_ recordation and prior to issuance of bulding 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 New Structures Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances _/ / considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness Provide compliance with the California Bulding Code for required occupancy separations _/ / Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions _/ / J. Grading 1 Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading _/_/_ Standards, and accepted grading practices The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan 2 A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to _/_/_ perform 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, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, _/_/ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Offical prior to the issuance of building permits 5 A separate grading plan check submittal is regwred for all new construction pro/ects and for _/ /_ existing bwldings 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 POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Security Lighting Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures L. Security Hardware • t A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors _/-~ a8a~ Project No DRC2004-00630 Comolehon Date 2 One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors Ifwindows are within /_/_ 40 inches of any locktng 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 _/_/~ M. Windows 1 All sliding glass windows shaii have secondary locktng devices and should not be able to be lifted _/_/_ from frame or track in any manner N. Building Numbering 1 Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective far nighttime _/ /_ wsibtlity APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED i 5~~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT STANDARD CONDITIONS July 28, 2004 Stoops Residence 8034 Camino Predera DRC2004-00630 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. FSC-2 Fire Flow The required fire flow for this protect is 1,750 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch This regwrement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire Distract Ordinances For structures in excess of 3,600 square feet use CFC Table A-III-A-1 2. On all site plans to be submitted for rewew, show all fire hydrants located within 600 feet of the proposed protect site Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: Fire Flow A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 2. Address: Note on the plans that pnor to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated dunng penods of darkness The numbers shall be wsible from the street When budding setback from the public roadway exceeds 100 feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry ~Cv Staff Report DATE May 11, 2004 TO• Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller, City Planner BY Mike Smith, Assistant Planner SUBJECT HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC - A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total area of 4,722 square feet (footprint approximately 4,000 square feet) on a parcel of about 15,000 square feet, including excavation in excess of 5 feet, in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Lot 31 at the north side of Camino Predera - APN 0207-631-21 This project is categorically exempt from the regwrements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (Class 3 Exemption -New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) BACKGROUND The proposed single-family residence is located in the Low Residential District and is included in the Hillside Overlay District The development proposed in the Hillside Overlay is subject to the Hillside Development Regulations, Section 17 24 of the Development Code The intent of these regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the house's form, mass, profile, and architectural features are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lot size and configuration Typically, the Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner However, because the project includes excavation equal to or exceeding 5 feet in vertical depth and quantities of earthwork in excess of 1,500 cubic yards, the application regwres the review and approval by the Planning Commission ANALYSIS A General The project site is located on the north side of Camino Predera on a parcel of about 15,000 square feet The parcels to the east and north are developed with single-family residences The property to the west is vacant but is pending development (related file Hillside Design Review DRC2005-00003). The properties to the south are vacant The topography slopes in a generally northwest to southeast direction The existing topography has two distinct slope profiles At the front of the property, the slope is generally 40 percent (between 2 1 and 3 1) At the front property line, the existing elevation is about 1,304 feet and rises to about 1,310 feet at a point about 15 feet north, or behind, the front property line From there, the slope is about 15 percent until the rear property line that is at a general elevation of about 1,332 feet (Exhibit "E") The applicant is proposing to construct a 2-story single-family residence with an attached three-car garage The first floor of the house, including the garage, will have five stepped pads with finished floor elevations varying between 1,318 feet and 1,314 feet The garage will have a finished surface elevation of 1,320 feet This stepping will be consistent with the existing contours and direction of the slope The first floor will be 3,245 square feet in area, while the second floor will be about 780 ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC May 11, 2005 Page 2 square feet in area Because it is smaller, the second floor has an apparent setback from wall plane of the first floor that results in a home with less casual bulk There are two contiguous areas where the depth of excavation or "cut" will exceed 5 feet in depth at the northwest corner of the garage and parts of the adtacent driveway, and at the northwest corner of the protect site The ma~onty of these areas of cut are necessary to allow the portions of the garage to be tucked into the terrain, therefore, these cuts will not be exposed There will also be a retaining wall along the west property line and m the rear yard area about 10 feet south of, and parallel to, the north property line As the applicant's property will be on the 'low' side of these retaining walls, the depth of cut and the height of the retaining walls will be most apparent from within his property The bulk of the house and garage will further screen the depth of cut and the height of the retaining walls Excavation throughout the rest of the property, needed to provide features such the driveway, wdl be 5 feet or less The overall height of the structure will not exceed 30 feet measured from the finished grade The lot coverage will be about 33 percent, the maximum permissible in the Low Residential District is 40 percent B Neighborhood Meeting On August 24, 2004, a meeting was conducted to gather input and comments from the owners of the surrounding properties on Camino Predera and immediately to the north on Red Hill Country Club Drrve (Exhibit I) The primary concern stated by those present was the potential loss of views caused by the new construction on the currently vacant land along Camino Predera, speafically on the south side of the street As the applicant's property is on the north side of the street, and significantly lower than houses to the north, his design and grading will allow the house to have a lower profile, therefore, any loss of views wdl be minimal. C Grading and Design Review Both the Grading and Design Review Committees recommended approval of the protect as submitted at their meetings on April 19, 2005, (Exhibit "J") D Environmental Review The protect is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00375 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Standard Conditions Respectful) submitted, Brad uller City Planner Attachments Exhibit "A" -Information Sheet -Hillside Design Review Exhibit "B" -Protect Site Map Exhibit "C" -Site Plan Exhibit "D" -Grading Plan with Sections Exhibit "E" -Grading Plan identifying where excavation exceeds 5 feet Exhibit "F" -Elevations Exhibit "G" -Floor Plan Exhibit "H" -Roof Plan Exhibit "I" -Neighborhood Meeting notification area map Exhibit "J" -Design Review Committee April 19, 2005 Action Agenda Draft Resolution of Approval for Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00375 ca INFORMATION SHEET HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO PROJECT NAME APPLICANT LOCATION FLOOR AREA OF BUILDING Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00375 Single-family residence PCJ Development, Inc Lot 31, Camino Predera, APN 0207-831-21 4,722 square feet (2 stories, including the porch and 3- cargarage) 4,851 square feet (33%) including roof overhangs 14,894 square feet • LOT COVERAGE LOT SIZE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION EXISTING ZONING EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE ZONING North Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) South Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) East Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) West Low (L) Residential (2-4 du/acre) Residential Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Vacant Residential LAND USE single-family residences vacant single-family residences vacant, single-family residence under review (Related file. DRC2005-00003) EXHIBIT `A' C3 coFaFLUV~ >t ~. BARK ~ .. _ ~ _ _ _ I`i`i _ 3, A. ~. L°I& I JL~ RHIflf M1~ _ ~, PROJECT SITE _ RN Nlll Cumrtn Cluh F ~ 1'1 VALLE VISTI ~ ONTA~~10 5TN S? EXHIBIT `6' BERri PARK uRNEU,w urA r~ Low A t IASE •i1~YS Ron lfY~ ~VAINp~ 'tnO1R mnM1R ~:ISR P IIYWR IM¢NR ALTA LoiuA , m- 9LA vwEr i Iw.a 19TH ST DEER -1°~ LANI'ONr ~ ~A Y '~ ~ D~ YER ' an i Y m _ ., I •"~RANCN n CT CORPO ATE = CUCAM YARD U Q PP81C n 'I 4 it I ~ ~ ~, u~w}rm IPI ~ I Y RI.I9nYI.N. iCMCU~M[01 I S! Q a c T (D ~ ~ DU P o ~ ~.~ c P I I ~ ac c tl ~ PF f-T STH ST Yc p n .S 4 I C 5310N Td213N39 Nb'"Id 3115 c t S iipptlc ~ ~}~t~e~i~f~' r }I~~Si~~~~~i EXHIBIT `C' •3"1111 ~¢~ ~~ ~~ 1 Q t t ~ 1 ~~ b ~a ~! ~~ tlaaaaaa ~ ;~~i a t ~ ~ } '° t 1 itl Ili °* _ s : . a55a55a5 55a '=~'Ii'1 a4' ~~~ ~'1 '----- t 1i~) ' t•~t~t ~M~ ° ~ ~~I~t~l~.°~i~ __-•d it,i,e~Pi,~,•~ 't~ttt..9ebs~d _..., rirl~rd~~ttriit _ ,~=_ bbbbbbbb bbb =~ s § ~g~ ~ E 1 t i '~~ ~ ~ ~ .N ~\ / ~~/ /~ EXHIBIT D ~~c(v ~~ L~ ~" 4§ ~g~ w_ U k W C 6 :I ~ J I ~ /~ /~' I fs ~ ' /~ ~ / I ~~ ' ~ „ ~~ ' I A / ~ / / ~ ~ ~ i~fi I R ~LC1/~ "~ ao ~ / `J J' / ~y~1'/ ~~ 1 I _ /~ ~ x. R; 1 /~ ^HY 1 (/ ~' ~~$ ~ ; ` ' i ,~ • ~ I ~ Vii a i ~" I 1 ,R I. -J7 / IJ ~tu~,d ' ~ I ' '' '' ~_ - ~' J ~ J .~ , ' i W I' L IY fO I I ~ JM~ / { M~ ~ ' yJ ' ' ' , i / OOfI 1 J ~ i~ i I J~ / ~ ~ ~ r ~-I ~./ ~ 11 ' / I i~~.~~ 4. , __ ~ I J, , ' ' ' f / / ' ' -~ ' ~' / / I - 'Jl i~ I x I I ' J' J J ti I ~~/IYrrr/G I ---- i ~ _ / ~ 00 ~ ~ 'I ~ f . ~ __ I N!Y /C i ' N ~ f Z ~ ~ JI M I ' a ~" ~; I ~ ~..~ ~ u /-- -- 8 ,~ o ~,_ w. • IJH 90 /C i I a I / /~~ I c, I r , I Y, ~~' ~~°+' I''J I I /C I ~ - 5 V 8 -- ~-~ a : ; - 1. I •a v i .r__ _ ___ _ _ ~ _T ~ Y a ss' __ __ _~ ___ 1 ~ __ __ ___ _ _ _ /~ i ~ / 9 - Q / • -- --- --- -- -\ In ~EAHd WO- - ~ -~-- -- - EXHIBIT `E' ~g ~_ - -~__ ~_~__ ~~~__ ', ° ~. T~ ~\ ~~\ , ~~ i 116 ~ ~1 1 l~1 1 1 i ,1 . .. ,, 1 v'__. ' i I ~~ _> EXCAJAno~ > 5 ~a_ ~_-_ ~~ ~b PREDERA` • lb v'1 Y9NOWY'JiTJ ON~NVl1 OfJ lbL916b (b06) . 3AV V2BQ3tld CNINVJ *G09 ' ~ Q ~IU LBddOE/~3a I`~d @IYidfl 1$LIb 'I7 ~ ' 3dLH WO15f17 A9t1 - ~ryAl 9HI~3M 9691 6 r31NO2~ rwuvn3 ~ ull au ira~ldo~aa rid ~c u~ e ~~ ~~ EXHIBIT `F' C9 3M '/~1id 816147 KOC Haarn~ aeao ~"' ~,' ~ ^~ ~ raa n •o~va+ ~ ~y~ ,~ raurta~ aera Ewa a. }ie~t~aa r d i~ 6$ E J ~. i 9~: .li L_J C ~~ ~~ oaa » vaaaur_m a~ana u~«ac nau ~Q aw ~eaaad awn rcao d G941¢~la70 Hawd ai'uc-s~dven3a rai ran n'oa~vi a ~ ~ uoiaiu ~. .ea aiaa3a an ! ~ Q Q Nourn3'[3 nu9a+ 9vu a.'uayoaaa ra+ ~b 3 ~~! i ~~yE ~~E~ ~PP ~FS~~$~~ 1(i9ii~a ~i~~~~'i sf a~ ~aaa3aa 1 ~~123yY ? a w..3 'aiiis a ...i33i3~ .=..t tt ita a9i€~€ .,°31diE1 ~~ ~~ pe 9 d E~ ~ ~ :~ ~ .~ oaa ~J vwwrr~rc anarob I.iLMf4,sou e E am •ta~d ewwn Kw YF ~ i• ~'ua+doe.aa rla rauo n'on>+~ s ~ ,~ BNOM {Yl1Yl0 IIB~ Atli RIIOmtl'1G~1 AiVld LO?Li ~3'Wl ?~'J1B~1dOHA3G 1'aI LL ¢¢¢~''' pa~ b a8 T uyaLL ¢b 1 EXHIBIT `G' cia J • u E .~„R h~~~ E ~ ~ auon uoiaro ~ •rm nuaa3a .cw 0 VNY•Id dOOM '3LJ1 a~ •,ir~a+aonnaa raa a ~ 6 •f f -.~~ . o ~ --~ .. •• .. I si ---- ~------------------------------------ ,s ,1 ~ ,: ,, ~~ • • ~1 t • ~• =1 f I ~ b sl , ~ 3 • ~~ XHIBIT `H' C13 • -Cr c t ~ ` if ~ , ' 4 ~ ~ ~ _ 5 ' ' y ' 1 • _ ~ 1 MM_ f" , :.. + '~ ,, ~ ~, _y ~- ____ ____ _ ._, ~ :'l~~i ~ ~''pL,.. ~•Ai j ~, Fe., ~ ~ _ v~.yt~ j R ~, :~ ~ ~ ~° ; ~, ,,~, , .. ~ ~,, v, ,~ : , ''` ,, c.~ _ .,x SSY_~ C ±+~ J~ _• 3 • S ~ 1 ~ ' ~~~ ~ '~' '' Yi ^ / ~ Red Hill . ° ~~-~.-~k3 ~,,~~..~. ~,;,,~..'< :~,~. m-~,~_ ~g .~`-4~- ~ .~, ~tr.~.v.~-, ~ ~., ,,, ~ : ~, ~,. _ ,, r~, `~ ~ _ ' Camino pie _5 ~x~t~ `, .. • ,r~ aA•°: 1 5 .,Jti b ~'. ., ~~~ ~°`~x = s Neighbo hood meeting n ti i ation ~ ~, ,., ~* • 4s <,;: ~`~ ~ area bo ndary ~, ~. ~~ ~ .~ ~'~ -~ Foothill Blvd .,. -.s ~, v~ ~ ~ t~_ i ~ r. '1 e r '~~ ., a~} .li 1 ~ ~ sit; .~ . 'ia t /~ ~,~~i~.K _ ~n ~ ~ . •r ~ i • ~ ~ n .2 .r ~~~ r ~oui r$'~ ~~ ~ • l .~ r - - - __L. rb DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7.40 p m. Mike Smith April 19, 2005 HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00375-PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC. A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total area of 4,722 square feet (footprint approximately4,000 square feet) on a parcel of about 15,000 square feet that includes excavation in excess of 5 feet (the maximum permissible in the Hillside Overlay) in the Low (L) Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Lot 31 at the north side of Camino Predera - APN. 0207-631-21. Backoround• The proposed single-family residence is located in the Low (L) Residential District and is included in the Hillside Overlay District The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope, and give consideration to the lots size and configuration Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner However, this protect regwres the review and approval by the Planning Commission because more than 5 feet of excavation and over 1,500 cubic yards of earthwork are proposed. Design Parameters The project site is located on the north side of Camino Predera on a parcel of about 15,000 square feet The parcels to the north and east are developed with single-family residences. The property to the west is vacant but is pending development (related file Hillside Design Revew DRC2005-00003). The properties to the south are vacant The topography slopes in a generally northwest to southeast direction The existing topography has two distinct slope profiles At the front of the property the slope is 40 percent (between 2 1 and 3 1). At the front property line the existing elevation is approximately 1,304 feet and rises to approximately1,310 feet at a point approximately 15 feet north or behind the front property line From that point the slope is about 15 percent until the rear property Ime which is at an elevation of a approximately 1,332 feet. The applicant is proposing to construct atwo-story single-family residence with an attached 3-car garage The first floor of the house, including the garage, will have five stepped pads with finished floor elevations varying between 1,318 feet and 1,314 feet The garage will have a finished surface elevation of 1,320 feet. The stepping will be consistent with the existing contours and direction of the slope The depth of excavation, or "cut", that will be regwred to construct the garage, and the yard area around it, will vary between 2 feet at its southeast wmer to 8 feet at its northwest comer (Exhibit A), The second floor is about 780 square feet in area (or about 1/3 of the first floors area). Because it is smaller, the second floor has an apparent setback from the wall plane of the first floor that results in a home with less visual bulk (Exhibit B) The applicant rs proposing a retaining wall along the west property line and in the rear yard area about 10 feet south of and parallel to the north property line. As the applicant's property will be on the low side of these retaining walls, the depth of cut and the height of the retaining walls will be most apparent from within his property The bulk of the house and garage will further screen the depth of cut and the height of the retaining walls. Excavation throughout the rest of the property needed in order to prowde features such the driveway, will be 5 feet or less The overall height of the structure will not exceed 30 feet measured from the finished grade. The lot coverage will be about 33 percent, the maximum permissible in the Low (L) Residential Distract is 40 percent 1 A neighborhood meeting was held on August 24, 2004 Staff believes all of the concerns have been addressed by the proposed design EXHIBIT `J' c~5 DRC ACTION COMMENTS DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC • Apnl 19, 2005 Page 2 Staff Comments The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion Maior Issues The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this protect 3 In the Hillside Overlay, the maximum excavation ("cut") or fill is 5 feet while the maximum amount of earthwork is 1,500 cubic yards Amounts in excess are discouraged and when viable alternatives exist, staff will suggest to the applicant that they seriously consider those altematrves first Similady, sensitivity to the surrounding neighbors' concerns, such as preservation of their views, and architectural design compatibility with existing structures in the neighborhood are recommended The applicant's proposal includes the following design features to address these cntical concerns. a) Stepped floors b) The second floor setback c) Excavations that will allow the house to sit lower These solutions are the result of discussions with the applicant and a neighborhood meeting conducted on August 24, 2004 Staff believes that the applicant has made a good faith effort to satisfy the intent of this ordinance The protect complies with the technical regwrements • Hillside Development Regulations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal as submitted Attachments Design Review Committee Action Members Present: Fletcher, Coleman Staff Planner: Mike Smith The applicant did not attend the meeting The Committee recommended approval subtect to adding window surrounds and mullions to the matonty of windows on sides and rear. • C ICo RESOLUTION NO 05-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00375, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TOTAL AREA OF 4,722 SQUARE FEET (FOOTPRINT APPROXIMATELY 4,000 SQUARE FEET), ON A PARCEL OF ABOUT 15,000 SQUARE FEET, AND INCLUDING EXCAVATION IN EXCESS OF 5 FEET, IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON LOT 31 AT THE NORTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 0207-631-21 A Recitals 1 PCJ Development, Inc filed an application for the approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2004-00375 as descnbed in the title of this Resolution Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subtect Hillside Design Review is referred to as "the application " 2 On the 11th day of May 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date 3 All legal prerequisites pnor 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 dunng the above-referenced meeting on May 11, 2005, including wntten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby speafically finds as follows a The application applies to property in the Low Residential Distnct located at the north side of Camino predera, and b The subtect property has an area of 14,894 square feet with a street frontage of about 80 feet and lot depth of about 186 feet, and c The subtect property slopes from north to south with an elevation of 1,340 feet on the north (rear) side and an elevation of 1,307 feet on the south (front) side, and d The applicant proposes to construct a 2-story single-family residence, including a three-car garage, of 4,772 square feet with a lot coverage of 33 percent, and e The first floor of the proposed house, including the garage, will have five stepped pads with finished floor elevations varying between 1,318 feet and 1,314 feet The garage will have a finished surface elevation of 1,320 feet, and C~" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO OS-34 DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC May 11, 2005 Page 2 f Excavation in excess of 5 feet will occur at two contiguous locations at the northwest comer of the garage and portions of the adjacent driveway, and at the northwest comerof the property. Excavations on the remainder of the property will be limited to 5 feet or less; and g The combined quantity of excavation and fill will be about 1,600 cubic yards, and h The properties to the east and north are improved with single-family residences, the property to the west is vacant with asingle-family residence currently under review by the Gty, the property to the south is vacant, and i The site is vacant and contains vegetation limited to native grasses, and ~ The proposed residence is consistent with other single-family residential developments in the area, and k The proposed residence meets the intent and guidelines of the Hillside Development Regulations 3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the speafic findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows a The proposed project is consistent with the obtectnres of the General Plan, and b The proposed use is in accord with the obtectrves of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, and c The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially infunous to properties or improvements in the wcrndy 4 The Commission hereby finds and determines that the protect identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental QualityAd of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subtect to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of a 2-story single-family residence of 4,722 square feet, located on the north side of Camino Predera 2) Architectural details, finishes, trim, materials, and color shall be uniform in appearance and design and shall be applied on all elevations of the house Gg PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO OS-34 DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC May 11, 2005 Page 3 3) Pnor to the construction of a new penmeterwall on the west side of the sub/ect property, a good faith effort shall be made to coordinate the design and construction of this wall vnth the owner of the ad/scent property to ensure that any grade differences are minimized and that there are no "double-wall" conditions 4) A 6-foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the east property line that is shared with 8725 Predera Court This wall shall be built along the full length of this shared property Ime 5) The minimum honzontal distance between any retaining wall is 3 feet (inside dimension) and shall include appropnate landscaping between them All walls shall have a decorative finish and a 2-inch decorative cap The maximum allowable height of the retaining wall in the front yard setback is 3 feet, measured from the finished grade 6) Although separate, approved Bwldmg Permits are required pnor to construction of anywall, their location(s) shall be shown in theirentirety and with dimensions and elevations (top/bottom of wall) on the Precise Grading Plan 7) Walls with a height in excess of 6 feet shall regwre the submittal of a Minor Exception for review and approval by the City Planner pnor to construction 8) The vertical cuUfill shall not exceed 5 feet in depth anywhere on the property, as measured from the natural grade, except at the two locations identified in Exhibit "E" of the Staff Report 9) The detailed landscape and imgation plans shall be submitted at the time of plan check to the Planning Department for review and approval A minimum of 30 percent of the landscape matenal shall be large size (minimum 24-inch box size trees, 10-gallon shrubs) within the front yard and visible portions of the side yard, in order to create a mature appearance The detailed landscape and imgation plans must be approved by the City Planner pnor to the issuance of Bwldmg Permits 10) The front yard landscaping shall be installed pnor to the release of occupancy 11) Any revisions to the Grading Plan, including changes in the quantities or depth of cut/fill, will regwre the review and approval by the Grading Review Committee and Planning Commission Engineenna Department 1) Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of the surface drainage entenng the property from ad/scent areas C Iq PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-34 DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC May 11, 2005 Page 4 a) The drainage runoff from this developed site and the drainage easement flows through this site shall not adversely affect the existing homes/lots or public improvements adjacent and downstream from this site 2) Revise the existing public street improvement plans, City Drawing No 922, Sheets 1 and 2 of 3 Provide missing public improvements. a) The dove approach shall be constructed per City Standard No 101, type R-1 The minimum dnve approach width is 12 feet The near edge (top of "X") of the dnve approach shall not encroach upon the existing pnvate drainage easement b) Provide an inlet to the existing curbside dram outlet located at the southeast comer of the site Join the proposed drainage easement culvert to the curbside drain and show details on the precise Grading Plan Refer to City Standard 107-C concerning manhole frame/cover details for cleanout purposes (to be installed on site) c) Provde a curbside drain outlet City Standard 107-A to convey flows concentrated along the west property Ime through the parkway 3) Protect all existing street improvements in place including, but not limited to, sidewalk, curb and gutter, streetlights, curbside dram outlet, and pavement Also, protect all existing pnvate drainage easement improvements or modify/replace per approved precse Grading Plan 4) Pnor to any work being performed in the public nght-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 and fees regwred 5) The owner shall be responsible for all maintenance of drainage easement facilities on this site 6) The typical street section for Camino Predera shall include a parkway that slopes at 2 percent from the top of the curb to 1 foot beyond the sidewalk, then loin the on-site grading with a maximum 2 1 slope Bwldina and Safety (Grading) 1) Provide a reinforced concrete pipe with a diameter of 12 inches (instead of 10 inches, as descnbed m construction note No 10 of the Grading Plan) parallel to the east property Ime 6 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution Cao PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 05-34 DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC May 11, 2005 Page 5 BY• APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Rich Maaas, 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 Planrnng Commission held on the 11th day of May 2005, by the following vote-to-wit AYES. COMMISSIONERS NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS jai STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00375 SUBJECT: 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY REST APPLICANT: PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Comolehon 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 T 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, els agents, officers, or employees maybe 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 partiapation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition 2 Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No OS-34, Standard _/_/_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size) The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not requred to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect B. Time Limits 1 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 C. Site Development 1 The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations 2 Prior to any use of the protect site or business actively being commenced thereon, all Conditions / / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner _ _ SC-1-05 1 caa Protect No DRC2005-00375 Comolehon Date 3 Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Bwlding Code ant State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with Prior to occupancy, plans shall bt submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Bwlding and Safeh Department to show compliance The bwldings shall be inspected for compliance prior t< occupancy D. 4 Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Cary Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits 5. All sde, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated foi consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment budding, etc) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approvec use has commenced, whichever comes first 6 Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, al other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of budding permit issuance 7 All bulding numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination 8 Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the protect 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 9. Construct block walls between homes (i a ,along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency 10 For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry 11 Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock Other stone veneers may be manufactured products Landscaping 4 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 architect 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 subdiwsion 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 requred by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy 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 Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code This requirement shall be in addition to the regwred street trees and slope planting / / -/-/- ~~. _/~_ / / ~~. -/-J_ ~~_ ~-/ ~~_ ~~- -/~_ ~-/_ SC-1-05 2 C~?3 Protect No DRC2005-00375 Completion Date 5 All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment If located in public maintenance areas, the ~_/_ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department 6 Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of _/___/~ Xenscape as defined in Chapter 19 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code E. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U S Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location _/___/_ of mailboxes Multifamily residential developments shall prowde a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of buddmg permts APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) F. G. General Requirements 1 Submit five complete sets of plans including the following _/~_ a. Site/Plot Plan, b. Foundation Plan, 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 diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning, and g Planning Department Project Number (i e , DRC2005-00375) clearly identified on the outside of all plans 2 Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report ~~_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to ~_/_ the City pnor to permit issuance 4 Separate permits are required for Penang and/or walls ~~ Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction All plans shall be _/~_ marked with the project file number (i e , DRC2005-00375) The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition, 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 SC-1-05 3 1-.017 Protect No DRC2005-00375 Completion Date Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permit Issuance 3 Street addresses shall be provided by the Bullding and Safety Official after tract/parcel 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 H. New Structures 1 Provide compliance with the California Bullding Code (CBC) for property Ilne clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness 2 Provide compliance with the California Bullding Code for required occupancy separations 3. Roofing material shall be Installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions I. Grading 1 Grading of the subject property shall be In accordance with California Bullding Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan 2 A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Callfornla to pertorm such work . 3 A geological report shall be prepared by a qualfied engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check 4 The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits 5 A separate grading plan check submittal is regwred for all new construction protects 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 Civtl Engineer APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED LJ / / ~~- _/-/. -J~_ ~~- ~~. ~~- _/-/ _/ ~- ~~- SC-1-OS 4ca5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT STANDARD CONDITIONS Apnl 29, 2004 PCJ Development, Inc 8034 Camino Predera DRC2004-00375 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. FSC-2 Fire Flow The required fire flow for this protect is 1750 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch This requirement is made m accordance with Fire Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. For structures m excess of 3,600 square feet use CFC Table A-III-A-1. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed protect site Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: r~ u Fire Flow A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services Address: Note on the plans that prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated dunng periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street When bwiding setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry ~ac~ T H E C I T Y O F ANCflO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE May 11, 2005 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller, City Planner BY Michael Diaz, Senior Planner SUBJECT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner, which is not detrimental to the publlc health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity The Planning Commisslon will consider modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit (Continued from April 27, 2005) ANALYSIS: As directed by the Planning Commission, City staff met with the business owner and local residents to discuss ways in which the issues raised regarding the business could be resolved The meeting occurred on April 19, 2005 During the meeting it was determined that further dialog was necessary between the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable plan of action In order to allow for additional time to formulate a recommendation, and to accommodate scheduling conflicts, staff is requesting that the matter be continued to the June 8, 2005, Planning Commission meeting date RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the above matter until the regular Planning Commission meeting on June 8, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB MPD/gs u ITEM D Page 1 of 1 Diaz, Michael Paul From• MarkDavidson369@aol coin Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1 39 PM To: Diaz, Michael Paul Sub~ect• Margarita Beach Dear Mike, Just a reminder I am still waiting for your email, no rush I also want to remind you that I will be out of the country from June 1 thru June 8 I mentioned this to Brad but I think he forgot I understand that he wants to schedule the hearing for June 8 I was told that my neighbors submitted a package for city review of our flyers When can I get a copy of this submittal Capt Ortiz commented that he was told they were pornographic I don't believe that to be the case, but if you think they are, you should review the Victoria Secrets in the mall since I have been ripping off their adds for yearn Thanks Mark ,~~`r' /~ si9izoos PC ITEM: A PC ITEM: E DRC2004-00141 CUP 88~5/EP 91-03 Doug Michael D. Toll Brothers, Inc Ed Sanchez Hank Madand 9869 Estaaa court 13038 Norcia Dnve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Etrvvanda, CA 91739 PC Item: B Shook Properties DRC2004-00630 P O Box 2575 Mike S. Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 PCJ Development, Inc Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control Paul Bardos Attn Lori Tolle 1696 Redding Way 3737 Mam Street, Swte 900 Upland, CA 91786 Riverside, CA 92501 Mark Davidson Marganta Beach 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 5 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 PC Item: C DRC2004-00375 Mike S. PCJ Development, Inc Paul Bardos 1696 Redding Way Upland, CA 91786 PC Item: D SUBTPM16445 Mike S. Mark Capellmo CP Item: A 2020 Del Amo Boulevard, Surte 105 DRC2005-00270 Torrance, CA 90501 Mike D. PC: May 11, 2005 Victona Gardens-C, Inc HPC Workshop: None 2 copies to above 949 Hope Street, Sude 200 CP: May 10, 2005 Los Angeles, CA 90015-1455 Planning Commission Meeting of ~ i ~i~ 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET Please pant your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding. Thank you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 y~ ~,N,~lAME J~~yG ADDRESS ~/,,~ CITY ITnEM ~dlR is ~'fhtiLl~~ qz~z S~.d~.~ ~rt ~ h~- G~~~ ~