The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997/08/20 - Agenda Packet CITY C 0 UN CIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. August 20, 1997 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City/lttorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 477-2700 City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 1 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: AlexandeGrutierr~z Biane Curatalo , and Williams B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of a Proclamation commending Pomona First Federal Savings Bank for its support of National Night Out. 2. Presentation of U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Awards to the City for Affordable Housing and NeighborhoOd Revitalization. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: July 8, 1997 2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 7/23/97, 7/30/97, and 8/6/97 1 and Payroll ending 7/10/97 for the total amount of $2,544,675.00. 3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of July 18 31, 1997. 4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale Beer and Wine for 23 Foothill Market Fresh Meat & Dell, Jamili Fawzia, 8161 W. Foothill Blvd. 5. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for 25 Felipe's Parrilia, Ala V. & Felipe De La Piedra, 7344 Carnelian St. City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 2 6. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale General for Castle 27 Liquor, Alberre Abdo, 8655 19th St. 7. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for 29 the Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, from Base Line Road to 19th Street, to be funded from Engineering Prop 111 Funds, Account No. 10-4637-9605. RESOLUTION 97-107 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE AMETHYST AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO 19TH STREET, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 8. Approval to declare surplus miscellaneous city-owned equipment. 35 9. Approval to transfer two 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity vehicles to the 41 San Bernardino County Sheriffs Phelan Substation Citizen's Patrol. 10. Approval to adopt Annual Statement of Investment Policy. 42 11. Approval of Agreement (CO 97-040) with Mr. High Entertainment 43 for Concert Entertainment and Production Services. 12. Approval of an application to designate the Nesbit -McCorkle House 44 (built in approximately 1924) a Historic Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related file: Mills Act Agreement 97-01. RESOLUTION NO. 97-108 57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-01, DESIGNATING THE NESBIT-MCCORKLE HOUSE (BUILT IN APPROXIMATELY 1924) A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 7608 HELLMAN AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-073-43 Approval of a request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax (CO 97-041) on the Nesbit-McCorkle House (built in approximately 1924) a Historic Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related file: Landmark Designation 97-01. 1 City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 3 13. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for · 59 Minor Development Review 97-11, located at 12550 Arrow Route, submitted by Air Liquide. RESOLUTION NO. 97-109 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 14. Approval of an Agreement (CO 97-042) to annex property to 62 Community Facilities District No. 85-1 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, Cornerpointe 257 LLC and Cornerpointe 85 LLC. 15. Approval to award contract (CO 97-043) to Pageantry Productions 64 for services for the 1997 Founder's Day Parade in the amount of $7,558.11. 16. Approval to accept Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 65 13717, located north of Church Street, between Spruce and Elm Avenues, submitted by Lewis Development, a California General Partnership. RESOLUTION NO. 97-110 66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT 13717 17. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 67 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for DR 89-09, located on Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route and east of Utica. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $29,810.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-111 68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 89-09, LOCATED ON PULLMAN COURT, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF UTICA, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK P~ City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 4 18. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 69 Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for DR 95-30, located on the east side of Beryl, south of Hillside Road. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $72,110.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond $ 7,211.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-112 70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 95-30, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 19. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 71 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Parcel Map 14647, bounded on the south by Fourth Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A.T. & S.F. (Metrolink) Railroad and on the west by Cleveland and Utica Avenues. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $1,145,900.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-113 72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 14647, BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY FOURTH STREET, ON THE EAST BY MILLIKEN AVENUE, ON THE NORTH BY THE A.T. & S.F. (METROLINK) RAILROAD AND ON THE WEST BY CLEVELAND AND UTICA AVENUES, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 20. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 73 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for DR 94-30, located on the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $29,351.00 '~ City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 5 RESOLUTION NO. 97-114 74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 94-30, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND CARNELIAN STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 21. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 75 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Tract Map 14407, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Mountain View Drive. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $205,000.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-115 76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 14407, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 22. Approval of release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount 77 of $26,200.00 for Tract 14365, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, west of Milliken Avenue. 23. Approval of release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount 78 of $16,500.00 for Tract 13303, located on the southwest corner of Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista Parkway. 24. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 79 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Tract Map 14786, located on the east side of Elm Avenue, north of Church Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $88,800.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-116 80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 14786, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ELM AVENUE, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Agenda August 20, '1997 6 25. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 81 Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file Notice of Completion for CUP 95-39, located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of 1-15. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $123,245.00 Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 12,324.50 RESOLUTION NO. 97-117 84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 95-39, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, EAST OF THE 1-15, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 26. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 969990S 85 in the amount of $48,200.00, for Tract 13273, located on the southeast corner of Mountain View Drive and Milliken Avenue. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond $48,200.00 #969990S 27. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance 86 Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Tract 13566-3, located south of Twenty-Fourth Street, west of Cherry Avenue. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $166,146.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond $ 16,615.50 RESOLUTION NO. 97-118 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13566-3, LOCATED SOUTH OF TWENTY-FOURTH STREET, WEST OF CHERRY AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 7 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES ORDINANCE NO.558-A (second reading) 88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPLACING PART IV OF CHAPTER 1.06 PRQVIDI.NG FOR CITY',.¢; ADOPTION, BY REFERENCE, OF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586. RELATING TO REFUSF ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES ORDINANCE NO. 20-A (first reading) 93 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586, RELATING TO REFUSE ABATEMENT AND WEED ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR DEVELOPMENT 96 REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a review of the detailed site plan & building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074- 351-10 and 1074-541-21. P~ City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97-119 202 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21 H, CITY MANAGER'$ STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REFERENCING 205 NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS 2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE 5-YEAR ACCORD EXTENSION FOR THE PINES MOBILE HOME PARK 3. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE'$ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BOARD 4. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES; UPDATF 211 A. PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1 ) Lions East 2) Lions West 3) RC Family Sports Center 4) Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center 5) Spruce Avenue Skate Park City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 9 6) Cornerpointe Development TT 15727/Future Neighborhood Park Site 7) Annual Soccer Field Renovations 8) East Beryl Park and Lions Park Tennis Courts 9) Spruce Park 10) MillikenPark 11 ) Civic Center B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 213 1) VietnamMemorial 2) I Love RC 3) Senior Transportation 4) 1997 Founders Day Parade and Celebration J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 14, 1997, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. July 8, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Central Park Task FOrte Meetine A. CALL TO ORDER A special Central Park Task Force meeting of the Rancho Cucarnonga City Council was held on Tuesday, July 8, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:46 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Blanc (arrived at 6:00 p.m.), James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams (arrived at 6:00 p.m.), and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Karen Emery, Associate Park Planner; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF MASTER PLAN PHASING PRIORITIES FOR CENTRAL PARK Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, explained the master plan for Central Park. He stated staff would like to know if the uses outlined are still valid as indicated in the plan. He stated tonight's meeting is to get direction on the priorities so that the financing can be looked at for discussion at future meetings. Mayor Alexander stated he would like to see some of the questions posed tonight with written answers coming back so that everyone has the information. Councilmember Gutierrez stated his big question is what kind of funding can the City get for this project for the next year to two years. He stated he was not sure the City could get the money for the entire grand plan, but hoped they could get the green areas going to be able to enjoy that part of it. He stated he would like to know where and when the money will come from for the library and the other buildings. He stated he liked the library and the aquatics buildings. He liked the cultural arts building and felt this was important and that there is not enough of these types of activities in the city. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated they would like to get the goals or priorities for this project and then the staff could come back with more financing information for these goals. Councilmember Curatalo asked what the total was for the whole project. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated approximately $100,000,000. Councilmembers Biane and Willjams arrived at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting up for public input. Addressing the City Council were: City Council Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 2 Kathy Peters, Sr. Advisory Committee, asked who will establish the priorities or who will make the decision as to what will be built first. Mayor Alexander stated they are trying to get the information from all of the people in the community that attend these meetings to help the Council make their decision as to what they would like to see. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, asked her what she would like to see. Ms. Peters stated she would like to see a very fine library. Dan Grif~th stated he liked what he sees tonight and asked if there was a precedent in other cities close to our size on ways to get funding for such a project as this. He felt all options for funding should be looked at after the priorities are set. He stated he is excited to see what is going on along Base Line. Councilmember Biane felt each element of the project should have a cost placed on it. Margie Strow stated she is hear to address the aquatic center and is very interested in seeing one built. She knew of a program in Irvine that would help to fund the center and its programs. Councilmember Williams stated they are hoping to have a major aquatics/Olympic size pool. Wendy Feruno stated she agrees with the aquatics center and that they currently have to drive to Irvine for these types of activities now. She felt a swimming complex would generate income for the City. Elder Wilkerson, Sr. Advisory Committee, stated he was very happy with the improvements that have been done on the tennis courts at Lions Park. Mrs. Elmos stated she liked the idea of a questionnaire to list priorities. She liked the aquatics, library and the cultural arts buildings. She felt the City needed more community centers and felt the City needed a gymnasium for sports programs. She felt the park design was beautiful and would like to see it built. Councilmember Williams stated there will be a gymnasium in the Gemco Center once that project is complete. Phillip Hubbard stated he would like to see a strategy developed. He felt the plan developed in 1987 is outdated. He felt the environmental impact should be looked at and considered before any construction is done at this site. He felt fees should be looked at and who will be charged and how much. Councilmember Gutierrez talked about the clean up work being done along Base Line at the Central Park site. He stated there will be people cleaning up along the street on Saturday, July 19, from 6:00 to 11:00 a.m. He felt it would be good to see the task force members and the community working on this date to clean up the location. Eric Vale stated he loves the proposed plan and realizes the cost of it. He felt the community needs everyone to do something. He stated he felt it was hard to set priorities when he does not know what the bank account holds. Councilmember Williams commented that a children's theater could support a performing arts center because of the people it brings to the center for the performances. City Council Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 3 Mayor Alexander stated they need to be considerate of people living around the park also by what types of activities take place at the park. Councilmember Gutierrez pointed out they need to look at alternatives how to fund something and whether it is five or ten years. He felt they needed to sit down with the City Manager and City staff on how to fund this so it can be started. Mayor Alexander felt staff should come back with more information on what it would cost to do some of the things mentioned tonight. Councilmember Williams stated when this plan was developed, the people doing this did not want to worry about the cost of it, but instead to think about the needs of the community. She stated it appears that the needs often years ago are still the same. She felt possibly options should be looked at to try to keep the maintenance costs down. Elmer Stevee, Sr. Advisory Committee, thanked the Council for the wonderful Senior Center. He felt there should be a Senior Center at Central Park to be separate from a community center. Alejandro Castro, resident since 1988, stated he has not seen a parking lot in this plan and wondered how many spaces there will be. He stated he would be happy to turn off lights or other volunteer work to keep the cost down. He stated he has not seen any soccer fields in this park. He felt there could be various classes for the community. He stated he is excited to see the trees going in along Base Line. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated there is adequate and overflow parking in this plan and pointed it out for Mr. Stevee. Tammy Farley of Terra Vista, was concerned about the location of the parking lot being near the fence of the residential area and the vandalism it might create. She asked if the sports center was to be named after Ralph Lewis. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there was a room in the center to have the name of Caryn DiIorio. Don Carroll, Senior Center, commended the Council for what they have done to the existing library buildings and felt it was a fine thing they have done for the community. Nick Caravitas, Filippi Winery, stated he would like to see the planting of grapevines for the park site until the buildings can be built, and he would be happy to assist with this idea. Mayor Alexander brought up that the City does buy its water from the Cucamonga County Water District, and that it does have to pay residential water rates. He stated the minutes along with questions and answers asked tonight can come back before the next meeting. Councilmember Williams asked for Rick Gomez to comment on the soccer fields that were brought up earlier in the meeting, because when this plan was developed, it was to be a passive park. She stated this park is not going to have loud games that will disrupt the neighboring people. Rick GomeT_, Community Development Director, stated there are other parks in the City that provide for soccer, little league games, etc. Councilmember Biane asked how people were notified of this meeting. City Council Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 4 Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated they were notified by mail and that a notice was in the newspaper about it. Cynthia Mixon stated she was not notified by mail, but did see it in the newspaper. She wondered if the July 19 service project would be in the paper. Rex Gutierrez felt it should be in The Sun and The Daily Bulletin. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, clarified that this is a service project for the Mormon Church and that they are not really asking for everyone to come out with their shovels. The Council concurred that the next meeting will occur near the end of August. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. D. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * · I I 11 I I-- · · · , ,, , .-,.-, ..,., ..,., .,.-, .~'~ "" .-,..,..,., · II · il ,~,4 ....... ~~ .... ,: ; ,:,:, ..... e, · I il BE ,;:::3 I · i ,.J;Z<:} · el :::) C) eeuJ~ ,J UJ :~ Zf,~ Z] e · Ze:r)>u') L~C){::) "tZ I--Z I.,-k.l%,,~J) :.dZZdJZ ,J,dJbU HQ,I [XJ~l ., /,~ 08/13/1997 CITY 0F RANCHO CUCI~SDNGA 1~4 - 1 PORTIK)LIO~gtSTBR sueeeLRy CITY ~JLY 31, 1997 CASH AVERAG~ ---YIELD TO MATURITY--- PBRC:[,~r OF AV'BItAGB DAYS ~ 360 365 ]~ ~K V~ ~O ~ ~ ~~ ~UI~ Ce~ificates of ~it - ~ ............... $ 8,825,532.20 12.37 390 178 s.ee2 5.964 ~ ~ Inveetm~t ~mam ................ $ 11,673~017.45 16.36 1 1 5.589 5.667 P~r~ ~q Is~ee - C~ ............... $ 50,397,187.50 70.61 1,618 1,234 6.~48 6.538 ~S~itiee - C~ ................. $ 272,845.00 0.38 1,180 30 6.057 6.141 ~g~e ~ck~ S~ftlee ................... $ ~03,019.87 0.28 6,502 2,653 8.897 9.021 .............................................................................. ~ ~~S ~A~ ............. $ 71,371,602.02 100.00% 1,214 901 6.243% 6.330% ================================= ...... =============== .... ==================== Pu~/~ Acc~ts ................... $ 674,551.48 1.973 2.000 (n~ ~c1~ ~ ~eld cal~ati~) Accm~ ~tereet at ~e ................. $ 18,497.90 ............................................................................ ~ ~ ~ ~B ~ ............. $ 693,049.38 ======== .... =================== ...... ======= ....... == ..... ==================== ~ ~H ~ I~~S ................. $ 72,064,651.4~ ======= ....... === .... =============== ...... =~==== ..... ===== ........ = .... ~ ~ ~Y 31 ~ ~ ~ ~t Y~ $ 372,661.08 $ 372,661.08 A~DAILY ~ $ 73,535,155.78 $ 73,535,155.78 ~ ~ OF ~ 5.97% 5.97% I certify that this report accurately reflects all City plea investmemts and is in co~Lform/tywiththe investmemtpolicy ad(~pteaAugust 7, 1996. A cc~y of TEEAS ~//~/~ the investment policy is available in the A~ministrative Services Department. The Investment Program herein sho~n provides sufficient cash flo~ lic/u/d/ty to meet the next six mceathe estimatea expenditures. The mcmth-endmarket values DATE were obtained from (IDC)-Interactive Data Corporatic~ pricing service. /? 08/13/1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PM - 2 ~ PORTFOLIO DBTAII.~ - INVFaTMBIfrS CITY JULY 31, 1997 CASH ~ AVBRAG~ PURCHASB STATe) --- Y'EM--- MATURITY DAYS I~jIe~R ISSUJ~ BAIANCB DATg BOOK VAI/JB FACB VALUB MARKIT VAL47B RATB 360 365 DATB TO 8T CIgRTIFICATES OF D~POSIT - BANK 00975 SANTA 05/22/96 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 6.000 6,000 6.083 05/26/98 298 00976 SANWA 08/06/96 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.650 5.573 5.650 08/06/97 5 00986 SANMA 03/05/97 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 S.830 5.830 5.911 03/05/98 216 00987 SANMA 03/18/97 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 5.700 5.622 5.700 09/16/97 46 00990 SANMA 04/29/97 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 6.240 6,155 6,240 04/29/98 271 SUBTOTALS and AV~RAGFa 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 5.882 5.964 178 00005 LOCAL AG~ICY/]IVST P[~) 11,673,017.45 11,673,017.45 11,673,017.45 5.667 5.589 5.667 1 00804 LOCAL AG~gNCY ZNVST PUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.667 5.589 5.667 1 ............................................................................. SUBTOTAZ~ anctAVERAGES 14,650,136.93 11,673,017.45 11,673,017.45 11,673,017.45 5.589 5.667 1 FEDB3~kLAGiDiCY ISSUBS - COUPON 00964 F~)BRAL FArM t"~m'~IT BANK 01/16/96 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,986,875.00 6.030 6.030 6.114 01/16/01 1,264 00969 FEDBRALFARMCPaDZTBANK 03/05/96 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,990,000.00 6.165 6.165 6.251 03/05/01 1,312 00973 F~DD]gRAL FA/~C?J~ITBANK 05/20/96 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,006,250.00 6.500 6.500 6.590 05/20/99 657 00978 FBD~A. L FARMCIP. gDITBANK 10/03/96 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,502,812.50 6.610 6.610 6.702 10/06/99 796 00983 F~)]~U~LFAi~MCREDITBANK 12/23/96 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,001,250.00 6.700 6.700 6.793 12/24/01 1,606 00988 FEDEYAL FARM CPaDITBANK 03/27/97 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,023,125.00 6.620 6.620 6.712 03/27/02 1,699 00993 Fi~gI~AL FARM(ZPJ~ZTBANK 04/29/97 1,993,125.00 2,000,000.00 2,002,500.00 6.310 6.499 6.590 04/01/99 608 00996 F]~]ERAL FARM CF3DZTBAtTK 07/17/97 1,999,375.00 2,000,000.00 2,016,250.00 6.240 6.247 6.334 07/17/02 1,811 00922 F]ED]ERALHOI~Jg T,.OANBANK 12/19/94 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,008,750.00 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 140 00940 I~8DERALHCX~Tg EX)ANBANK 04/06/95 942,968,75 1,000,000.00 993,750.00 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 486 00962 I~D)~RALHOIq~ EOANBANK 12/18/95 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,983,750.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 12/18/00 1,235 00971 FIgDERALHOFIE LOAN BANK 03/19/96 995,312.50 1,000,000.00 1,001,250.00 5.880 6.053 6.137 03/19/99 595 00974 F]gDBRALHC~Dg LOANBANK 05/21/96 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,010,312.50 7.025 7.025 7.123 05/21/01 1,389 00982 FBDBRALHOI~g LOAN BANK 12/30/96 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 999,375.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 06/30/00 1,064 00989 FEDERAL HO!4B LOAN BANK 04/02/97 2,000,000.00 2,000,000,00 2,017,500.00 6.540 6.540 6.631 04/02/01 1,340 00991 l~gDBE~LHC~4B LOAN BANK 04/29/97 1,000,312.50 1,000,000.00 1,005,937.50 6.518 6,500 6.590 04/21/99 628 00997 FEDERAL HC~q]g LOAN BANK 07/30/97 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,002,056.78 6.544 6.544 6.635 07/30/02 1,824 00938 FEDERAL HO!~E LOAN NORTG. CO 04/06/95 1,002.031.25 1,000,000.00 998,750.00 7.420 7.226 7.326 09/23/99 783 00957 FBDERALHOI~E LOAN MORTG. CO 11/20/95 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,493,750.00 6.290 6.290 6.377 11/17/00 1,204 00967 FigDBRALHOMB LOAN NORTG. CO 03/06/96 1,998,750.00 2,000,000.00 1,986,250.00 5.990 6.005 6.088 03/06/01 1,313 00968 FEDBRALHO!4B LOAN HORTG. CO 02/22/96 1,985,312.50 2,000,000.00 1,973,750.00 5.695 5,867 5.948 02/16/01 1,295 00994 FEDBRALHOMB EOANHORTG. CO 06/25/97 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,036,562.50 6.630 6.628 6.720 01/24/02 1,637 00995 FEDERAL H0e4E LOAN HORTG. CO 06/30/97 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,003,437.50 6.450 6.450 6.540 06/30/00 1,064 00947 FEDERAL NATLMTGASSN 05/08/95 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,517,812.50 7.270 7.270 7.371 05/08/00 1,011 00959 FED]g]~ALNATLHTGASSN 11/29/95 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,988,750.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/28/00 1,215 00960 F]~)BRALNATLJ4TGASSN 11/24/95 1,000j000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.970 5.970 6.053 11/25/98 481 08/13/1997 CITY OF ~NCh~) CUCAIqONCIA P~4 - 3 INVEST!~qT PORTFOr-TO DBTAIFa8 - INVESTMENTS CITY JI3LY 31, 1997 CASH INVESTMNNT AVERAGN PURC}iA.~R STATe} ~-- YTM --- ~4~ETURITY DAYS N~Ie~NR ISSUBR BALANC~ DATE BOOK ~ FAC~ VALDB ~a~CNT VAXaB BATE 360 365 I~TE TO NAT FI~B~AI~ AGENCY ISSUB8 - COUPON 00981 F~DRRALNATLMTGASSN 11/29/96 2,000,000.00 2,0OO,OOO.OO 1,996,250.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/29/01 1,581 00984 FI~)RRALNATI~MTGASSN 12/12/96 lt980,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,~90,625.00 6.160 6.378 6.467 12/14/01 1,596 00992 P~DRRAX~NATLMTG A~SN 05/05/97 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,057,500.00 7.070 7.070 7.168 05/08/02 1,741 ............................................................................. S~i~TOTALS and AVERAGeS 48,429,768.15 50,397,187.50 50,595,181.78 50,500,000.00 6.448 6.538 1,234 TR~%a~Ry SRCURITIFa - COUPON 00903 TRP~SURY NOTE 06/08/94 272,845.00 277,000.00 276,913.44 5.625 6.057 6.141 08/31/97 30 AVIgI~G~S 272,845.00 MO~ BAC/~J~ SBCURITIES 00071 P~DIERALHCN41~ LOAN~4ORTG. CO 02/23/87 38,363.27 39,385.54 30,281.08 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 1,614 00203 FBD~O3~LNATLMTGASSN 09/21/87 73,733.92 79#820.21 78,588.72 8.500 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 4,779 00002 GOVI~B/~IIENT NATIONAL MORTG A 06/23/86 67,996.59 68,944.58 55,519.11 8,500 8.621 8.740 05/15/01 1~383 00069 GOVBRN4ENTNATIONAL~40RTGA 05/23/86 22,926.09 22,476.56 2,723.10 9.000 8.534 8.652 03/15/01 1,322 ............................................................................. SUBTOTALS aX~dAVERA~ 532,097.99 203,019.87 167,112.01 210,626.89 8.897 9.021 2,653 ..................................................................................................... TOTAL ~IVFaTMBNTS a~dAVG. $ 71,371,602.02 71,537,756.88 72,710,380.26 71,486,176.54 6,243% 6.330% 901 ======== .... ====== .................... === ....... ==== .....== .....=== ....================= .... ============ 08/13/1997 CTTY OF i~'t¢l,lO ~ 'rNV]iB'I'MBliT POi~Zla'OT.'rO DBTA]:T..ft Jl, l~y 3]., 1997 INVFaTM~eT AVE]U~G~ PURCY~aR STATED --- YTM--- HATUBITY DAUB ~ ISS~ ~ DA~ ~K ~ ~ V~ ~ ~ ~ 360 365 ~/~ AC~S 00180 ~OF~ 643,~06.85 2.~00 1.973 00979 ~OF~ 0.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 00985 ~OF~ 30,844.63 2.000 1.973 2.000 S~ ~A~ 824,775.51 674,551.%8 1.973 2.000 A~m~ ~te~st at ~e 18,497.90 ~~ $ 693,049.38 ~ ~H ~ ~~S $ 73,535,155.78 72,064,651.40 2! 08/13/1997 CITY OF P~CHO CUCAB4~ ~Y 1, 1997 - ~Y 31, 1997 CBFrIFICATFa OF DEPOSIT - BAHK B~GI~ING BALANCB: 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 LOCAL AGD~CY INVESTMENT FUNDS ([~mtlxly Sumu~7) BI~II~rXl~IMth~ICB: 15,943,782.02 00005 LOCAL AGI~eCY INVST F~ND 5.667 2,438,886.12 5,500,000.00 00804 LOCALAGENCY INVST P~ND 5.667 16,941.63 1,226,592.32 S~BTOTALa and ENDINGBALANCE 2,455,827.75 6,726,592.32 11,673,017.45 C!{]~CKIN~/SAVINGSACCOUNTS (~ct~thly ~.~wa=','y') BEGINNING BALANCB: 901,496.48 00180 BANK OFA~O~/CA 2.000 3,605,000.00 3,832,000.00 00979 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 00985 BANK OFAM~RICA 2.000 55.00 S~BTOTALS aXldENDINGBALANC~ 3,605,055.00 3,832,000.00 674,551.48 ~BRAL aG]D~CY ISSUES - C"C)~ BEGINNING BALANCB: 47,397,812.50 00996 F~DERALFAR~ CR~)ITBAIqK 6.240 07/17/1997 1,999,375.00 00997 F]~DBI~HO~ LOAN ]~ 6.544 07/30/1997 1,000,000.00 SUBTOTALS aE~ B~IDING BALANCE 2,999,375.00 0.00 50,397,187.50 TEEASURY SECURITIES - COUPON BEGINNING BALANCE: 272,845.00 272,845.00 MORTGAGE BAC~ SECURITIES B~GINNING BALANCe: 690,867.52 00071 FEDEFALHOO~ LOAN MORTG. CORP. 8.000 07/15/97 819.32 00203 F]EDERALNATLMTGA~SN 8.500 07/25/97 476.09 00002 GOVEI~O0~TT NATIONAL MORTGASSN 8.500 07/15/97 1,342.67 00069 GOVE]~ENT NATIONAL ~0RTG AS~N 9.000 07/07/97 51.80 00004 SMALL BUSINFaSAD~IN 8.750 07/28/97 1,386.77 00004 07/22/1997 482,394.98 SUBTOTALS aX~tENDINGBALANCE 0.00 486,471.63 204,395.89 TOTALS BEGINNING BALANCE:$ 74,032,335.72 9,060,257.75 11,045,063.95 72,047,529.52 22 ,~ c 4 t t t o ~ n t A DROPPING {~ Y E S APPLiCATiON FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number .............. 332492 Receipt Number ......... 1142695 Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date.. 6/18/97 Issued Date DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: R I V E R $ I D E ~' C~ Name of Business: FOOTHILL MARKET FRESH MEAT'& DELI ~~' b' Location of Business: (~ ~~~t~O Number and Street 8161 W FOOTHILL BLVD O/~ City, State Zip Code RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 /o/, ~,OO~ County SAN BERNARDINO Is premise inside city limits? YES Mailing Address: :tOO (If different from premise address) If premise licensed: Type of license Transferor's names/license: INNABI ANWAR M 324222 License Type Transaction TYpe Fee Tvoe Master DUD Date Fee 1. 20 OFF SALE BEER AND PERSON TO PERSON TRANS NA YES 0 JUN 18,1997 $50.00 : 2. 20 OFF-SALE BEER AND ANNUAL FEE NA YES 0 JUN 18,1997 $34.00 : 3. 20 OFF-SALE BEER AND STATE FINGERPRINTS NA YES 1 JUN 18,1997 $39.00 : TOTAL $123.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? NO Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? NO Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed pan of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of RIVERSIDE Date JUN 18,1997 Under penalty o perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and s s: (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants. or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this applica on on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that ~ech o~the abovfe statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the a fieant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to con ucted under the license(s) for which this application is made; (4) that the trans r application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an liability Io the Department. Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s) JAMILI FAWZIA /:'~0~.~ e ( , ~ ,' Attached:231 & 22'~ ' "~"""~"~ c 4 t t ~ o, n t A DROPPING PARTNER .~(~ YES NO V/ APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number .............. 332929 3737 Main St., Suite 900 Receipt Number ......... 1144578 Riverside, CA 92501 Geographical Code ........ 3615 (909) 782-4400 Copies Mailed Date 7-1-97 Issued Date DIsTR, crsE. v NGt,oCA'norq:RIVERSIDE R E C E I V EED Name of Business: FELIPE'S PARRILLA Location of Business: Number andStreet 7344 CARNELIAN ST J[JL 0 7 1997 city, state zip Code RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 County SAN BERNARDINO Is premise inside city limits? YES Gity el Rancho ¢ucarnonga If premise licensed: Planning Division Type of license Transferor's names/license: License TYD~ Transaction TVDO Fee ~'VDe Master DUD Date Fee 1. 41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ORIGINAL NA YES 0 JUL 01,1997 $300.00: 2. 41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ANNUAL FEE NA YES 0 JUL 01,1997 $205.00 : TOTAL $505.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? NO Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? NO Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date JUL 01,1997 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appeaxs below. certifies and says: (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive officer of the applicanl corporation, named in the foregoing application. duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made: (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days precedin the day on which the transfer application is filled with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any cred tot or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor o~transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name(s) ¢~~Signature(s) DE LA PIEDRA FELIPE ~///' ./ ,/~/ ABC 211 (5/96) ,~ c a L; ~ o i s ~ A DROPPING p~ROTN~ ~( a~~ Y E S APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S] TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number .............. 333719 ......... 47S94R E C E I V E g Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date.. . 7/25/97 AUG 0 5 1997 D]~ SER~G L~A~ON: RIVERSIpE N~e of Business: CASTLE LIQUOR City of ~ancho Gucamonga ~adon of Business: Plailning Divi~n Num~r and S~et 8655 19TH ST City, State Zip Code RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 County SAN BERNARDINO Is premise inside city limit? YES M~ling Ad~ess: Of diffe~nt ~om p~se ad~ess) If pre~se license: Ty~ of license Tr~sferor's n~e~icense: ~M IK HWAN 222983 License ~De Transactio~ ~e Fee ~ Master DUD Date Fee 1. 21 OFF-SALE GE~ PERSON TO PERSON T~S NA YES 0 JUL 25,1997 $1274.00 : 2. 21 OFF-SALE GE~ ~AL FEE NA YES 0 ~L 25,1997 $446.00 : 3. 21 OFF-SALE GE~ PRAISE TO P~MISE T~ NA YES 0 JUL 25,1997 $100.00 : T~AL $1820.00 Have you ever ~en Have you ever v~o[a[~ ~y provisions of [he Alcoholic BeycruEt Con[ro] conv~c[ed of a felony? YES Ac[, or re~]afions of [he Depa~men[ ~m~n]nE [o [he Ac[? YES Bxp]~. ~y "Yes" ~swcr ~o ~ ~ovc gucs6o.s on ~ ~c~.[ w~ch s~] ~ d~ pM of [~s app]i~ion. AppHcan[ a~r~s (a) ~ha[ any m~aSer emp]oy~ ~n on-sale ficcns~ premise wH] have aH [he qua]~cafions of a license, and (b) [ha[ he no[ v~o]a[c or cause or pepSI [o be v~o[a[~ any of [ho provisions of [hc A]coholk Beverage Comro] AcL STATE OF C~O[~ Coumy of RIVERSIDE Dale 3UL Under ~na][y of ~r]u~, ~ch ~son who~ s~Ena[u~ apes k[ow, ~ Md says: (]) He ~s a. app[~n[, or o.c of ~ appHc~, or ~ execu~ve of~cer of me co~m~on..a~d ~n [he rodEoS.E app]~ca~on. 4u}y aurora4 ~o m~e ~s a~p[~on on ~ ~ha]f; (2) ~a[ ~ has r~d ~e foreEo~nE ~d ~ows ~e co~[enu ~[ and each of ~e above sm[emen[~ ~em~. made ~ ~e; (3) ~a[ no ~on o~r ~ ~ ap 5~m or ~p]~m h~ any ~mc[ or mdi~c~ ~n~s[ in ~c app]~c~[ or app~c~['s business k conduc[cd under ~ a~cense(s) for w~ch ~is a~]]~on ~s made; (4) ~a[ ~e ~s~r app[]~on or pro~d msfer ~s no[ rode [o ~sfy ~e pay~n[ of a [o~ or [o aEree~n[ ~m~ed ~mo more ~an ~ne[y (~) ~y~ ~d~n ~e day o. wh~ch ~ ~sfe~ ~p]~on ~s ~]]~ ~ ~e ~p~cn[ o~ [o Emn or csmbSsh a p~f~n~ [o o~ [o~ c~][or o~ ~nsferor o~ [o defraud o~ ~n]um a.y c~d][o[ o~sferor; (5) ~a[ ~ ~sfcr ~p]~ca~o. my k w~dmwn by ~[ ~e app[~n[ or ~e [~H~e wi~ no resu][]nE ]iabH][y [o [he ~penL App]]c~[ N~e(s) AppHc~[ S~amm(s) ALBERRE ABDO ~ / w ~ SAMAAN NIDAL M ~ ~/~ ~/~ /~ Attached: 231 & 227 ABC 211 (5/96) 27 CAq, NELIAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE AMETHYST AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO 19TH STREET, TO BE FUNDED FROM ENGINEERING PROP 111 FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4637- 9605. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PER ARTICLE 19, SECTION 15301 (C) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, from Base Line Road to 19th Street, and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The subject project plans and specifications have been completed by staff and approved by the City Engineer. The project consists of minor concrete repair, minor pavement reconstruction and an asphalt concrete overlay. The Engineer's estimate for construction is $114,733.03. Legal advertising is scheduled for August 26, and September 9, with the Bid opening at 2:00 PM on Tuesday September 23, 1997. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil - City Engineer WJO:lrb:dlw Attachment PTo je c t H_ LEMON AVE. Site ) HIGHLAND AVI /ISTA ST. · "~ t,I.T.I. CHURCH ST, The project consists of minor concrete repair, minor pavement reconstruction amid an Asphalt Concrete overlay. RESOLUTION NO. 9 7' ]/) 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE AMETHYST AVENUE · PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO 19TH STREET, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "The Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, from Base Line Road to 19th Street, Improvement Project". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, Califomia, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said the City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 P.M. on September 23, 1997, sealed bids or proposals for the "The Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, from Base Line Road to 19th Street, Improvement Project" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of "The Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, from Base Line Road to 19th Street, Improvement Project". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in ~vhich the public work i[performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of Califomia is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. -.3/ Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the pro- visions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contrac't and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or Class "LICENSE" in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code", Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is nonrefundable. Upon written r~'quest by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 20th day of August 1997. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 20th day of August 1997. William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debbie J. Adams, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: August 26, 1997 and September 9, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 'FO: Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager, Jack Lam, AICP FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan A. Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO DECLARE SURPLUS MISCELLANEOUS CITY- OWNED EQUIPMENT PalECOMMENDATION That City Council approval be given to surplus the City-owned equipment on the attached listing which is either no longer needed, obsolete or unusable. BACKGROUND The City's purchasing manual identifies two major categories of surplus property; materials and supplies, and capital equipment. It is the policy of the City to request that the City Council provide authorization to the Purchasing Agent to dispose of City property by declaring such items surplus. Methods of disposition can be transferred to another department, trade-in, sale by bid or auction, sale as scrap, donation, or simply trashing. As the replacement of various pieces of equipment has occurred, the miscellaneous items listed are surplus to the City's need and should be disposed of. Respectfully submitted, Attach. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 1997 TO: Joan Kmse, Purchasing Agent FROM: Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance Manager BY: Gary Vamey, Streets and Storm Drains Superintendent SUBJECT: Surplus Vehicles The following is a list of the vehicles retired from service and available to surplus. Also attached are photocopies of the vehicles' fleet inventory photographs. Two of the vehicles will remain in use until the auction. The remaining vehicles are retired from the active fleet. Please advise us on how you wish to dispose of the surplus vehicles. Unit # Description Asset # Model Year 226 Chevy S- 10 Pickup 0007 1982 323 Chevy Blazer 0589 1987 501 Fo~F-250* 0583 1987 502 Fo~F-250 0575 1987 512 ChevyC-2* 0026 1984 521 Chevy C-2 0027 1984 522 ChevyC-2 0006 1986 523 ChevyC-2 0044 1986 526 J.D. AMT 626 1231 1990 613 ChevyC-2 0024 1985 614 ChevyC-2 0045 1986 615 ChevyC-2 0025 1985 617 Ford F-250 0580 1987 619 Fo~F-250 0762 1988 I:~LE~CAL~U~LS96.WPD 630 Ford 5 Yard Dump 0030 1981 641 Mobil M8 Sweeper 0033 1984 642 FMC Vanguard 3000 Sweeper 0566 1987 643 FMC Vanguard 3000 Sweeper 0565 1987 644 FMC Vanguard 3000 Sweeper 0822 1988 645 Ford Backhoe 0035 1980 648 FMC Vanguard 4000 Sweeper 1018 1988 660 Essex Walk Behind Roller 0051 1981 *Denotes vehicles remaining in service until auction SMD:smd co: Larry Temple, Admin Svc Dir Joe O'Neil, City Engineer I:\CLERICAL~SURPLS96.WPD DATE:July 14, 2997 TO: Joan Kruse, Purchasing Agent FROM: Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance Manager BY: Gary Varney, Streets and Storm Drains Superintendent SUBJECT: Surplus Vehicles The following is a list of the vehicles retired from service for Fiscal Year 1996-97 and available to surplus. Of the Thirty vehicles being retired two of the vehicles will not go to auction, unit's 507 and 622. Unit number 507 has been assigned to Community Services and unit number 622 to the Fire Dept. The remaining vehicles are retired from the active fleet. Please advise us on how you wish to dispose of the surplus vehicles. *Denotes vehicles remaining is service because replacement vehicle not availiable until August/September. Unit # Description Asset # Model Year * 101 - Aug. Ford Crown Victoria 0797 1988 231 Chevy Blazer 2wd 2.811. 0040 1986 233 Ford Bronco II 2wd 2.911. 0775 1988 234 Ford Bronco II 2wd 2.911. 0776 1988 311 Chevrolet Cavalier l.Slt. 0006 1985 316 Chevy Blazer 2wd 2.811. 0011 1985 321 Ford Tempo 2.311. 0594 1987 325 Ford Tempo 2.311. 0772 1988 411 Ford Ranger 2.911. 0599 1987 500 Ford F-250 4X4 6.911. Die. 0579 1987 503 Ford F-250 6.911. Die. Dump Bed 0584 1987 504 Ford F-250 6.911. Die. Dump Bed 0586 1987 505 Ford F-250 6.911. Die. Dump Bed 0578 1987 506 Ford F-250 6.911. Die. Dump Bed 0577 1987 508 Ford F-350 Dual R/Wheel 6.9It. DIE 0592 1987 509 Mitsubishi P/U 2.011. 0597 1987 510 Mitsubishi P/U 2.01t. 0596 1987 616 Ford F-250 6.9It. DIE. 0604 1987 618 Ford F-250 7.311. DIE. 4X4 0565 1987 621 Ford F-350 Dual R/W 6.911. Die. 0607 1987 *623-Sept. Ford F-350 Dual Wh. 6.911. Die Dump 0824 1987 631 Ford F-350 Dual Wh. 6.911 Die Dump 0593 1987 *632-Sept. International 4700 2X4 466CI Dump 0798 1988 710 Chevy Blazer 2wd 2.811. 0009 1984 712 Chevy Blazer 2wd 2.811. 0039 1984 713 Ford Escort. 0048 1986 715 Ford F-150 5.011. 0773 1988 ** Ford Tempo #2FAPP36XIKB112247 ?? 1989 **600 Ford Escort #1FABP36X9HK14967 E 076075 1987 912 Ford Ranger 2.9L 0600 1987 **Denotes vehicles that were given to sherriffs department several years ago and now returned. No records are availiable in fleet section. May have to contact county for "pink slips"? SMD:smd ADDITIONAL SURPLUS ITEMS Item Serial Number Fixed Asset Tag Microfiche reader/printer 523366 00366 (located in Building & Safety) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the Cit Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manag FROM: Rodney Hoops, Chief of Police SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF CITIZEN L VEHICLES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that two (2) 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity's be transferred to the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Phelan Substation for use by the Citizens Patrol Unit. BACKGROUND: Recently the Council approved the purchase of two (2) new vehicles to be utilized by the Citizens Patrol Unit of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. These new vehicles were purchased to replace two (2) 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity's. The Victor Valley (Phelan Substation) is aware of the status of the Celebrity's and is requesting that they be reassigned to that station for use by their Citizen Patrol Unit. The vehicles are listed as follows: 1.1986 Chevrolet Celebrity, California License #E475669 2. 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity, California License #E475670 Rh/JH/jh CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager FROM: James C. Frost, City Treasurer By: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO ADOPT ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the annual Statement of Investment Policy for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a Statement of Investment Policy in July 1987. California Government Code, Section 53646, requires the City Treasurer to annually render to the City Council a Statement of Investment Policy, which shall be considered at a public meeting. Further, the City Council must also consider any changes to the investment policy at a public meeting. The attached Statement of Investment Policy includes reference to the Broker/Dealer Questionnaire & Certification that we will require fTom every broker/dealer wishing to do business with the City. The City has always maintained an investment strategy even more conservative than that allowed under state law. As a result the City has not experienced investment difficulties such as those in Orange County. The attached policy removes investment instruments that could be deemed "risky." The policy has been thoroughly reviewed by the City Treasurer and staff. Respectfully s , JCF/LIT/sgr attachment STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~TRODUCTION The investment policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is based upon state law, prudent money management and the "prudent person" standards. This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's temporary idle cash, and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The primary goal of this policy is to enhance the economic status of the City by protecting its pooled cash and to invest public funds to: 1. Meet the daily cash flow needs of the City. 2. Comply with all laws of the State of California regarding investment of public funds. 3. Achieve a reasonable rate of return while minimizing the potential for capital losses arising from market changes or issuer default. SCOPE The investment policy applies to all investment activities of the City ofRancho Cucamonga. These funds are accounted for in the Rancho Cucamonga Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include: General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds, Trust and Agency Funds. Bond proceeds shall be invested in accordance with the requirements and restrictions outlined in bond documents as approved by the City Council. OBJECTIVE The City ofRancho Cucamonga operates its temporary pooled idle cash investment under the Prudent Man Rule (Civil Code Section 2261, et. seq.)* This affords the City a broad spectrum of investment opportunities as long as the investment is deemed prudent and is allowable under current legislation of the State of California (Government Code Section 53600, et. seq.) and other legal restrictions as the City may impose from time to time. The objective of the investment portfolio is to meet the short and long term cash flow demands of the City. To achieve this objective, the portfolio will be structured to provide Safety of Principal and Liquidity, while then providing a reasonable return on investments. Rev: 8/97 42.-/ Statement of Investment Policy Page 2 INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS Security purchases and holdings will be maintained within statutory limits imposed by Government Code. City policy has been to limit investments more stringently than allowed under state law. Criteria for selecting investments and the order of priority are: 1. Safety - The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of principal, interest, or combination thereof. The City only operates in those investments that are considered safe. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure that capital losses resulting from institution default, broker/dealer default, or the erosion of market value are avoided. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating the two types of risk: credit risk and market risk. · Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be mitigated by investing in only high quality securities and by diversifying the investment portfolio so that the failure of any one issuer would not unduly harm City cash flow. · Market risk, defined as the risk of market value fluctuations due to overall changes in the general level of interest rates, shall be mitigated by structuring the portfolio. It is explicitly recognized, however, that in a diversified portfolio, occasional measured loses may occur, and must be considered within the context of overall investment return. 2. Liquidity - This refers to the ability to "cash in" at any moment in time with minimal chance of losing some portion of principal or interest. Liquidity is an important investment quality espedally when the need for unexpected funds occasionally occurs. 3. Yield - Yield is the potential dollar earnings an investment can provide, and is sometimes described as the rate ofretum. Yields should become a consideration only after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity have been met. Rev: 8/97 q2-Z. Statement of Investment Policy Page 3 AUTHORIZED BROKER/DEALERS The City will transact business only with approved investment securities broker/dealers that are approved as an authorized broker/dealer through the City selection process. The Treasurer shall request all broker/dealers which wish to do business with the City, in order to determine if they are adequately capitalized, make markets in securities appropriate to the City's needs, and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in this Investment Policy. All broker/dealers who want to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must provide a current audited financial statement and complete the appropriate City Broker Dealer Questionnaire and Certification. The Treasurer will maintain a list ofapproved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness who are authorized to provide investment services to the City. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS The City is authorized by California Government Code Section 53600, et. seq. to invest in specific types of securities. The City has further limited the types of securities in which we may invest. Any security not listed is not a valid investment for the City. The concise list of approved securities is as follows: MAX/MUM INVESTMENTS/DEPOSITS PERCENTAGES MATURITY Securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies Unlimited 5 years** Certificates of Deposit (or Time Deposits) Unlimited 5 years** (placed with commercial banks and/or savings and loan companies) Negotiable Certificates of Deposits 30% 5 years** Banker's Acceptances 40% 270 days Commercial Paper 30% 180 days Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits 20 MM*** n/a Passbook Savings Account Demand Deposits - n/a Repurchase Agreements (Repos) 20% 1 year The market value of the securities that underlay the repurchase agreement must be valued at 102°/6 or greater of the funds borrowed against the securities and the value must be adjusted no less than quarterly. Rev: 8/97 q; -3 Statement of Investment Policy Page 4 SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES Securities purchased from brokers/dealers shall be held in third party custodian/safekeeping by the trust department of our local bank or other designated third party trust, in the City's control, whenever possible. No outside broker/dealer or advisor may have access to City funds, accounts or investments, and any transfer of funds to or through an outside broker/dealer must be approved by the City Treasurer/Deputy Treasurer. The City strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100% as possible, through daily and projected cash flow determinations. Idle cash management and investment transactions are the responsibility of the City Treasurer and/or his appointed designee. DIVERSIFICATION The purpose of diversifying is to reduce overall portfolio risks while attaining an average market rate of return; therefore, it needs to be conceptualized in terms of maturity, instrument types and issuer. The portfolio should consist of a mix of various types of securities, issuers, and maturities. REPORTING Pursuant to Section 53464 (b) of the Government Code, the Treasurer is required to render a quarterly report to the City Council and City Manager, containing detailed information on all securities, investments, and moneys of the City. The report must be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. This report shall include the following: · The type of investment, name of the issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities. · The weighted average maturity of the investments. · Any funds, investments, or programs including loans that are under the management of contracted parties. · The current market value and source of the valuation. Rev: 8/97 qo2- q Statement of Investment Policy Page 5 · A description of the compliance with the Statement of Investment Policy. · A statement of the City's ability to meet its pool's expenditure requirements for the next six months or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may not be available. · The City Treasurer shall report whatever additional information or data may be required by the City Council. The City Council may elect to require the report to be made monthly instead of quarte~y. The City Treasurer shall be responsible for reviewing and modifying investment guidelines as conditions warrant and is required to submit same for re-approval to the City Council annually. However, the City Treasurer may, at any time, further restrict the items approved for purchase as deemed appropriate. The basic premise underlying the City's investment philosophy is, and will continue to be, to ensure that money is always safe and available when needed. *The Prudent Man Rule states in essence, that "investing...property for the benefit of another, a trustee shah exercise the judgement and care, under the circumstances then prevailing, which men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs..." **Maximum term unless express& authorized by Governing Body and within the prescribed time flame for said approval. ***Limit set by L.A.I.F. Governing Board, not Government Code. CCity~s C. Frost Date Treasurer City ofRancho Cucamonga I:\SANDYXTREASURYMNVPOLIC.WPD Rev: 8/97 q,,? -5 GLOSSARY ACCRUED INTEREST: The accrued BUYERS MARKET: A market where interest accumulated on a security since the supply is greater than demand, giving buyers issue date or the last coupon payment. The an advantage in purchase price and terms. buyer of the security pays the market price plus accrued interest. CALLABLES-N/C: Securities that the issuer has the right to redeem prior to maturity. AGENCIES: Federal agency securities. CASH SETTLEMENTS: Today. ASK/OFFER: The price at which an owner offers to sell. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity BANKERS' ACCEPTANCE (BA): A draft evidenced by a certificate. Large or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust denomination CD's are typically negotiable. company. The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as, the CMT: Constant Maturity Treasury. issuer. COLLATERAL: Securities, evidence of BASIS POINT: 1/100 of 1% deposit or other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also BID: The price offered by a buyer of refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure securities. (When you are selling securities, deposits of public monies. you ask for a bid). See Offer. COMMERCIAL PAPER: Short-term, BEAR MARKET: A period of generally unsecured, negotiable promissory notes issued pessimistic attitudes and declining market by businesses. prices. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL BOOK VALUE: The amount at which a FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR): The security is carried on the books of the holder official annual report for the or issuer. It includes five combined statements for each individual fund and account group BOND EQUIVALENT YIELD: The basis prepared in conformity with GAAP. It also on which yields on notes and bonds are includes supporting schedules necessary to quoted. demonstrate compliance with finance related legal and contractual provisions, extensive BROKER: A broker brings buyers and introductory material, and a detailed Statistical sellers together for a commission. Section. BULL MARKET: A period of generally optimistic attitudes and increasing market prices. City of Rancho Cucamonga COUPON: (a) The annual rate of interest DISCOUNT SECURITIES: Non-interest that a bond' s is suer promises to pay the bearing money market instruments that are bondholder on the bond's face value. (b) A issued a discount and redeemed at maturity for certificate attached to a bond evidencing full face value, e.g.U.S. Treasury Bills. interest due on a payment date. DIVERSIFICATION: Dividing investment COVER: Spread between the winning bid funds among a variety of securities offering (or offer) and the next highest bid (or offer). independent returns. CREDIT RISK: Credit of the underlying EASE: To assist the economy in growing security. faster, Fed supplies more credit lowering reserve requirements or discount rates. CUSIP: Committee of Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. EXTENSION TRADES: Selling short term, buying further out in the yield curve. DEALER: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, (usually affected in a bull market) acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account. FACE VALUE: The principal amount owed on a debt instrument. It is the amount on DEBENTURE: A bond secured only by the which interest is computed and represents the general credit of the issuer. amount that the issuer promises to pay at maturity. DELIVERY VERSUS PAYMENT: There are two methods of delivery of securities: FEDERAL CREDIT AGENCIES: delivery versus payment and delivery versus Agencies of the Federal government set up to receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery supply credit to various classes of institutions of securities with an exchange of money for and individuals, e.g., S & L's small business the securities. Delivery versus receipt is firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, delivery of securities with an exchange of and exports. signed receipt for the securities. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE DERIVATIVES: Financial products that are CORPORATION (FDIC): A federal agency dependent for their value on (or "derived" that insures bank deposits, currently up to from) an underlying financial instrument, a $100,000 per deposit. commodity, or an index representing values of groups of such instruments or assets. FEDERAL FUNDS RATE: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This DISCOUNT: The difference between the rate is currently pegged by the Federal cost price of a security and its maturity when Reserve through open-market operations. quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale is considered to be at a discount. City of Rancho Cucamonga FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS basis. The Committee periodically meets to (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding banks (currently 12 regional banks) which purchases and sales of Government Securities lend funds and provide correspondent banking in the open market as a means of influencing services to member commercial banks, thrift the volume of bank credit and money. institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLBS is to FRN: Floating Rate Note. liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their FULL FAITH AND CREDIT: The district Bank. unconditional guarantee of the United States Government backing a debt for repayment. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA): FNMA, like GOVERNMENT NATIONAL GNMA was chartered under the Federal MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (GNMA National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. OR Ginnie Mac).' Securities influencing the FNMA is a federal corporation working under volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA the auspices of the Department of Housing and issued by savings and loan associations, and Urban Development (HUD). It is the and other institutions. Security holder is largest single provider of residential mortgage protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the Government. Ginnie Mac securities are corporation is called, is a private stockholder- backed by the FHA, VA, or FMHM owned corporation. The corporation's mortgages. The term "passthroughs" is often purchases include a variety of adjustable used to describe Ginnie Maes. mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages. FNMA's securities are INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN: Rate of also highly liquid and are widely accepted. return over life of security on variables, step FNMA assumes and guarantees that all ups, or floaters. security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest. INTEREST RATE RISK: The risk that rising interest rates will cause bond prices to FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: The fall. central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven member INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO: A collection Board of Govemors in Washington, D.C., 12 of securities held by a bank, individual, regional banks and about 5,700 commercial institution or government agency for banks that are members of the system. investment purposes. FEDERAL OPEN MARKET INVESTOR: A person who purchases COMMITTEE (FOMC): Consists of seven securities with the intention of holding them members of the Federal Reserve Board and to make a profit. five of the twelve Federal Reserve Bank Presidents. The President of the New York ISSUE: A group of identical securities or the Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, marketing and selling of such securities. while the other Presidents serve on a rotating City of Rancho Cucamonga ISSUE PRICE: The price at which a new MONEY MARKET INSTRUMENTS: issue of securities is put on the market. Private and government obligations of one year or less (flexible in some arenas under five LIQUIDITY: A liquid asset is one that can years would still be considered a money be converted easily and rapidly into cash market). without a substantial loss of value. MTN: Medium Term Note. LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds NEW ISSUE: The first offering of a security. from political subdivisions that are placed in the custody of the State Treasurer for NONCALLABLE: Security that does not investment and reinvestment. contain a call provision. LOCAL: Refers to the ability to sell OFFER: The price asked by a seller of securities one owns. securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See asked and Bid. LIBID: London Interbank bid rate. OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS: Federal LIBOR: London Interbank offered rate. reserve activity, Fed entering the market place to initiate repos, reverses, bill or coupon pass. MARKET VALUE: The price at which a Under the Federal Reserve Act., Fed uses security is trading and could presumably be purchases and sales of Govt.. & Fed Agency purchased or sold. securities to add to or subtract from commercial bank reserves. Goals are to MARK TO MARKET: Current value of sustain economic growth, high employment securities at todays market price. and reasonable price stability. MARKET RISK: The risk that the security OPTION: The right to trade a security during will be dif~'~cult to sell. a certain period of time. MASTER REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT/OlD: A written contract covering all future Security priced at a discount at time of transactions between the parties to repurchase- issuance. -reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party's rights in the OVERBOUGHT: Refers to the price level transactions. A master agreement will often of a security or market which has undergone specify, among other things, the right of the a sharp rise due to vigorous buying. buyer-lender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller- OVERSOLD: Refers to the price level of a borrower. security or market which has undergone a sharp fall due to selling. These conditions MATURITY: The date upon which the indicate that buying/selling may have left principal or stated value of an investment prices temporarily to high/low, given all other becomes due and payable. market conditions. City of Rancho Cucamonga PAPER GAIN OR LOSS: Term used for other states the trustee may invest in a security unrealized gain or loss on securities being if it is one which would be bought by a held in a portfolio based on comparison of prudent person of discretion and intelligence current market quotes and their original cost. who is seeking a reasonable income and This situation exists as long as the security is preservation of capital. held while there is a difference between market value and the purchase price. QUALIFIED PUBLIC DEPOSITORIES: A financial institution which does not claim PAR VALUE: The stated or face value of a exemption from the payment of any sales or security expressed as a specific dollar amount compensating use or ad valorem taxes under marked on the face of the security; the amount the laws of this state, which has segregated for of money due at mamrity....not to be confused the benefit of the commission eligible with market value. collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been PAYDOWN: A net reduction in debt that approved by the Public Deposit Protection occurs when the amount of a new issue is less Commission to hold public deposits. than the maturing issue. RALLY: A brisk rise or recovery in the price PREMIUM: The amount by which the price of a security or the market. paid for a security exceeds the par value. Also, the amount that must be paid over the RATE OF RETURN: The yield obtainable par value to call an issue before maturity. on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the PRICE RISK: Volatility. amortized yield to maturity on a bond; the current income retum. PRIMARY DEALER: A group of government securities dealers who submit RATING: The designation used by investor's daily reports of market activity and positions services to rate the quality of a security's and monthly financial statements to the creditworthiness. Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary REGULAR: Next business day. dealers include Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-registered securities REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: Repo - a broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated holder of securities to an investor with an firms. agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security "buyer" in effect PRIMARY MARKET: The demand for first lends the "seller" money for the period of the issues of securities. agreement, and the terms are structured to compensate him for this. When the FED does PRUDENT PERSON RULE: An investment R.P., it is lending money, thus increasing bank standard. In some states the law requires that reserves. a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state--the so-called legal list. In City of Rancho Cucamonga RICH/EXPENSIVE TO THE YIELD STRUCTURED NOTES: Notes issued by CURVE: An expression applied to a security Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, price when current market quotes appear to be FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which in comparison with past price records of have imbedded options (e.g., call features, securities or current prices of comparable derivative-based returns) into their debt securities. structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, ROLL OVER: Reinvesting funds received the volatility of the imbedded options and from a mature security in a new issue of the shifts in the shape of the yield curve. same or similar security. SUPPORT: A price level at which a security SAFEKEEPING: A service banks offer to tends to stop falling because there is more customers for a fee, where securities are held demand than supply. in the bank's vaults for protection. TIGHTEN: If the economy is growing too SALLIEMAE: Trade namefortheStudent fast, and inflation is increasing, FED Loan Marketing Association. withdraws money from the banking system, by raising reserves or the discount rate. SECONDARY MARKET: 1) A market for Ultimately, putting the brakes on economic the repurchase and resale of outstanding issues growth. following the initial distribution. 2) The purchase or sale of securities in a special TREASURY BILLS: A non-interestbearing offering or through a means other than the discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury regular channel of trading. to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE or one year. COMMISSION: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities TREASURY BOND: Long-term coupon transactions by administering securities bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as legislation. direct obligation of the U.S. Government having initial maturities of more than 10 SEC RULE 153C-1: See Uniform Net years. Capital Rule. TREASURY NOTES: Medium-term SHORT/SELL SHORT: Sale of securities coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities without ownership. issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from SKIP DAY: Next business day after twoto 10years. tomorrow. SPREAD: Difference between the bid and the ask, or offer. City of Rancho Cucamonga z/; -// UNIFORM NET CAPITAL RULE: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member rirms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio. Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among members of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash. VALUE OF 1/32 PER MILLION: $312.50 WHEN ISSUED BASIS-WIB-WI: A term applied to securities that are traded before they are actually issued, with the stipulation that transactions are null and void if securities are not issued. YIELD: The annual rate of return on an investment expressed as a percentage of the investment. Income yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. YIELD CURVE: Yield calculations of various maturities at a given time to observe spread differences. YIELD TO MATURITY/NET YIELD: The current income yield minus any premium above par, or plus any discount liom par in the purchase price with the adjustment spread over the period from date of purchase to maturity. City of Rancho Cucamonga CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers Jack Lam, AICP City Manager FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH MT. HIGH ENTERTAINMENT FOR CONCERT ENTERTAINMENT AND PRODUCTION SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the approval of an Agreement with Mt. High Entertainment in the amount of $5,000 for entertainment and production services for a community concert. It is further recommended that the budget for the community concert be approved in the amount of $66,130 from Fund 13 (Recreation Fund). BACKGROUND/ANALYSI S: At your meeting of June 4, 1997, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the possibility of providing small scale community concerts and entertainment at the Epicenter Stadium. Staff has discussed the production of a community concert at the Epicenter to be held in October, 1997 and has negotiated an Agreement with Mike Scafuto of Mt. High Entertainment (Mt. High). The Agreement provides that Mt. High will assist Community Services in negotiating the artist contracts and assist with the concert production set up including rental of the stage, lighting and teclmical systems. Mr. High would also work with staff on marketing and promotions of the concert. Mt. High's fee for these services will be $5,000. The Community Services Department will produce the concert as a community special event. In an effort to assist non-profit sports groups with fundraising, ticket discounts will be provided for non- profit group sales. FISCAL ANALYSIS: It is recommended that the City Council approve the budget appropriation for this community concert in the amount of $66,130 in Fund 13 (Recreation Fund). The expenditures for the concert are projected to be covered by concert revenues in the amount of $66,130. Respectfully submitted, Suz Community Services Manager q3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-01 - SCO'I'I' & MICHELLE LUKESH - Consideration of an application to designate the Nesbit - McCorkle House (built in approximately 1924) a Historic Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related File: Mills Act Agreement 97-01. MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 97-01 - SCOTT & MICHELLE LUKESH - Consideration of a request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax on the Nesbit - McCorkle House (built in approximately 1924) a Historic Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related File: Landmark Designation 97-01. RECOMMENDATION Approval of Landmark Designation 97-01 by adoption of the attached Resolution and by minute action authorizing the Mayor to sign the Tax Reduction Agreement for Mills Act Agreement 97-01, as unanimously recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission and staff. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This structure was built by G.P. and Ruth McCorkle in approximately 1924. G.P. McCorkle was active within the community and was an officer of the First National Bank of Cucamonga. The McCorkles sold the house in 1925 to W.T. Cason. Mr. Cason owned the House until 1929 when it was deeded back to the McCorkles. The McCorkles kept the house until 1932, selling it to Robert and Edith Nesbit. Mr. Nesbit was also active within the community. Mr. Nesbit was involved in the Cucamonga County Water Company and served on its board of directors until his death. Mr. Nesbit was a citrus and avocado grower; some of the original avocado trees are still located in the back yard. Robert Nesbit is discussed in several places in the book entitled, "The History of Alta Loma, California - 1880 to 1980," by Martha Gaines Stoebe. Robert Nesbit was the secretary/manager of the Cucamonga Growers Fumigation and Supply Company. This Company was organized in 1911 to take care of pest control and oil smudging supplies for the local citrus ranches. The company was discontinued in the 1970s. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LD 97-01 & MA 97-01 - LUKESH August 20, 1997 Page 2 The subject site and structures qualify for landmark designation based upon much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance including significant areas as; historical, cultural, architectural, and neighborhood and geographic setting. Details concerning these areas of significance are contained in the Facts of Findings section of the attached Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report and Resolution dated July 23, 1997, (see Exhibit "A"). Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:LH/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report dated July 23, 1997 Resolution of Approval for Landmark Designation 97-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 23, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-01 - SCOTT & MICHELLE LUKESH - An application to designate the Nesbit - McCorkle House (built in approximately 1924) a Historic Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related file: Mills Act Agreement 97-01. MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 97-01 - SCOTT & MICHELLE LUKESH - A request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax on the Nesbit - McCorkle House (built in approximately 1924,) a Historic Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related file: Landmark Designation 97-01. BACKGROUND: A. Historical Significance: This structure is a good example of a grove house. It is unique in that it follows a Mission styling, whereas most of the typical grove houses were built with a Craftsman styling. This structure was built by G.P. and Ruth McCorkle in approximately 1923. G.P. McCorkle was active within the community and was an officer of the First National Bank of Cucamonga. The McCorkles sold the house in 1925 to W.T. Cason. Cason owned the House until 1929 when it was deeded back to the McCorkles. They kept the house until 1932, selling it to Robert and Edith Nesbit. Nesbit was also active within the community. He was involved in the Cucamonga County Water Company and served on its board of directors until his death. A water treatment plant within the water district bears his name. He was a citrus and avocado grower; some of the original avocado trees are still located in the back yard. Robert Nesbit is discussed in several places in the book entitled, "The History of Alta Loma, California - 1880 to 1980," by Martha Gaines Stoebe. Robert Nesbit was the secretary/manager of the Cucamonga Growers Fumigation and Supply Company. This Company was organized in 1911 to take care of pest control and oil smudging supplies for the local citrus ranches. The company was discontinued in the 1970s. B. Site Characteristics: The site is relatively flat, but is 3 to 4 feet above Hellman Avenue. In addition to the residence, a detached garage of approximately the same style and time period is set slightly to the rear and south of the main residence. There is also a smaller shed, or chicken house, in deteriorated condition, on the north side of the parcel. The grove house retains much of its setting because of the large yard to the rear which is developed with a grove of avocado and various fruit trees. -,. / HPC STAFF REPORT LD 97-01 & MA 97-01 - LUKESH July 23, 1997 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The residence and garage are in very good condition with the significant exterior and interior features having been retained (Exhibit "B-1 "). The house is a two-story design with a large front porch. The roof is Spanish tile and the walls are stucco. Windows are of a single-pane, double-hung design. The windows and doors appear to be originals. One minor exterior modification is on the north side with a pop-out, kitchen bay window on the first floor (Exhibit "B-2"). B. Landmark Designation: The subject site and structures certainly qualify for landmark designation based upon' much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, including such significant areas as; historical, cultural, architectural, and neighborhood and geographic setting. Details concerning these areas of significance are contained in the Facts for Findings section. The requested designation area includes the subject lot, residence, and garage (Exhibits 'B-3" through "B-5"). C. Mills Act Agreement: In accordance with City policy, the owner has requested a Mills Act Agreement. The Agreement Schedule List of Improvements has been drafted and reviewed and is attached for reference (Exhibit "C"). The concept of the Mills Act is to provide an incentive for the property owner to protect and preserve the property by retaining its characteristics of historical significance. This intent is encouraged through the reduction of property taxes, thus enabling the property owner to reinvest the money saved from the reduced property tax on improvements. The properties that enter into the agreement are to be inspected by City staff on an annual basis to determine whether notable progress has been made in rehabilitating the property. Staff estimates the annual property tax savings to the owner could be as much as $1,093.00 and the reduction in tax proceeds to the City would be $24.59 annually. The exact amounts are dependent upon the County Assessor's property valuation which is based on income potential and the capitalization rate at the time of assessment. D. Environmental Assessment: The project is Categorically Exempt under Class 3.e of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1: The'proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact/s: The property identifies an historic period of the early 1900s when grove and vineyard production was at its peak in the community and the region. The residence is an example of a grove house which was common at the turn of the century. HPC STAFF REPORT LD 97-01 & MA 97-01 - LUKESH July 23, 1997 Page 3 Finding 2: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: The landmark-eligible properly is 73 years old and an example of Mission architecture. Finding 3: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: The house was built by G.P. McCorkle and lived in by the R. Nesbit family for many years. Both the McCorkle and Nesbit families had a long established involvement in the local community Finding 4: The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: The residence and garage are indicative of the style and design used by the once prevalent, but now rare, rural grove and farm houses. B. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: Finding 1: The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: The Mission style is preserved and artfully incorporated into the residence with such features as a front porch, stuccoed walls, and site orientation. C. Neighborhood and Geoqraphic Setting: Finding 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact/s: The proposed landmark contributes to the variety and historical continuity of the neighborhood. Finding 2: The proposed landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. Fact/s: The residence and its mature landscaping represent a significant identifiable feature along Hellman Avenue and thereby contributes to the entire neigfiborhood. CORRESPONDENCE: The Historic Landmark designation was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. HPC STAFF REPORT LD 97-01 & MA 97-01 - LUKESH July 23, 1997 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the attached Resolution for Historic Landmark Designation 97-01 and recommend approval, by minute action, to the City Council for the Mills Act Agreement. Respec y submitted, City Planner BB:LH/taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map Exhibit"B"- Photos Exhibit "C" - Agreement Schedule List of Improvements Resolution Recommending Approval ,,A4.. \ X 1325.4 N Project: Title: ~-~f.. Exhibit: "~" Date: D-~-~ Project: LID el"? Title: "'F'~'to'l"c~5 Exhibit:"'l~~l" Date: .,.5'/ Project,: L.-'[::) ~":1-0 ~ Title: 'I::'~O'T'O-,~ Exhibit: "'I[b-Z" Date:'l'Z~"") Project: Title: Exhibit:"['5-3" Date: Project: Title: Exhibit:'~i:b_~.. Da~e:-l.?_.~.of-'l I .' - , - Project,: L'O C~"')'O~ Title: Exhibit: POTENTIAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS for Scott and Michelle Lukesh 7608 Hellman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 This is a list of renovation projects the applicant plans to complete. Future projects proposed by the applicant or by the legal inheritors of this contract will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission's staff. YEAR IMPROVEMENT 1998 Construct arbor or porte cochre over driveway (subject to Landmark Alteration). 1999 Remove backyard fencing around the sheds, pens and enclosures. 2000 Construct master bath second-story addition over rear-kitchen utility room (subject to Landmark Alteration). 2001 Construct barn in rear yard to resemble period style (subject to Landmark Alteration). 2002 Replace front yard landscaping and irrigation. 2003-2005 Refinish exterior texture coating and replace with original smooth cement stucco finish. 2006-2008 Refurbish and recondition original window frames and add some stained glass panes. 2009 Re-pipe plumbing system. Project: Lf"~ ~-0\ Title: Exhibit: nESOLUTION NO. ~2 ;7-/{J ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-01, DESIGNATING THE NESBIT-MCCORKLE HOUSE (BUILT " APPROXIMATELY 1924) A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 7608 HELLMAN AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-073-43. A. Recitals. 1. Scott and Michelle Lukesh have filed an application for a Landmark Designation as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application." 2. On July 23, 1997, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. On August 20, 1997, the City Council held their meeting and approved Landmark Designation 97-01. 4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The application applies to approximately 1.31 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located at 5708 Hellman Avenue. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council on August 20, 1997, including the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 23, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts: a. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. FaCt/S~' The property identifies an historic period of the early 1900s when grove and vineyard production was at its peak in the Community and the region. The residence is an example of a grove house which was common at the turn of the century. Finding 2: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: The landmark-eligible property is 73 years old and an example of Mission architecture. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. LD 97-01 - LUKESH August 20, 1997 Page 2 Finding 3: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned, or important, or a local personality. Fact/S: The house was built by G.P. McCorkle and lived in by the R. Nesbit family for many years. Both the McCorkle and Nesbit families had a long established involvement in the local community. Finding 4: The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: The residence and garage are indicative of the style and design used by the once prevalent, but now rare, rural grove and farm houses. b. HiStoriC Architectural and Engineering Significance: Finding 1: The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: The Mission style is preserved and artfully incorporated into the residence with such features as a front porch, stuccoed walls, and site orientation. c. Neighborhood and GeOgraphic Setting: Finding 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact/s: The proposed landmark contributes to the variety and historical continuity of the neighborhood. Finding 2: The proposed landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. Fact/s: The residence and its mature landscaping represent a significant identifiable feature along Hellman Avenue and thereby contributes to the entire neighborhood. 4. The City Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as landmark designations are exempt under CEQA, per Article 19, Section 15308. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, approval on the 20th day of August 1997, of the Landmark Application. 6. The Mayor shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11, LOCATED AT 12550 ARROW ROUTE, SUBMITTED BY AIRE LIQUIDE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving and accepting the subject agreement and security and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND The developer has requested clearance from the Engineering Division in advance of the standard development review process and plan check process currently working towards a City Planner approval for a Minor Development Review. In order to comply with the improvement requirements for ordinance 58, the City Engineer has agreed to take a cash deposit for 150% the estimated cost of construction. The developer will continue through the standard channels of the development review process and plan check process. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer - WJO:MEP:dlw Attachments ,, j RESOt UT ON NO. q 7" / e9 q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING · IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FORMDR 97-11 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by Aire Liquide, as developer, for the improvement of public fight-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located 12550 Arrow Route; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as MDR 97-11; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2 That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY INTO MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of an agreement (CO FD97- ) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, Cornerpointe 257 LLC and Comerpointe 85 LLC to annex property to Community Facilities District No. 85-1. BACKGROUND: On November 20, 1996, the City Council approved Griffin Industries (aka Comerpointe) Tentative Tract No. 15727. The proposed residential development is located generally between 6th and 4th Streets west of Archibald. The City and District conditioned the approval of the final Tract Map(s) with a requirement to annex the project into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 85-1 as a mitigation measure for impacts upon fire protection services. During the public hearing the developer indicated their full support for annexation. In July 1997, the developer contacted the District in order to proceed with the annexation process. Due to their timelines for approval of final Tract Map(s), it is necessary for the City and Fire District to enter into an agreement with Cornerpointe for annexation of the development into CFD No. 85-1. ANALYSIS The agreement allows for recordation of the final Subdivision Map(s) prior to annexation. It also permits issuance of building permits for construction of model homes. The developer is prohibited from selling the model homes as well as the issuance of additional building permits until such time as the project has been fully annexed to the CFD. Annexation of Property August 20, 1997 Page Two The agreement essentially allows the developer to proceed with processing their development in order to reduce unnecessary hardships on their behalf and assures the City and Fire District that the property will be successfully annexed into CFD No. 85-1. It also illustrates the parties' willingness to cooperate in proceeding in a timely manner to achieve common objectives. Respectfully submitted, L. Dennis Michael Fire Chief CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council Members Jack Lam, City Manager, AICP FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager BY: Nettie Nielsen, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AWARD CONTRACT TO PAGEANTRY PRODUCTIONS FOR SERVICES FOR TBE 1997 FOUNDER'S DAY PARADE 1N TBE AMOUNT OF $7,558.11 RECOMMENDATION: That the City award the contract for the services specified below for the 1997 Founder' s Day Parade to Pageantry Productions in the amount of $7,558.11 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Each year the City hosts a community parade on the second Saturday in November, known as the Annual Founder' s Day Parade. Thousands of residents line Base Line Road to view over 150 entries that include bands and drill squads, equestrian groups, floats, youth organizations, and novelty acts. This year the City celebrates twenty years of incorporation with the parade, scheduled for Saturday, November 8 at 9:30 a.m. The City has contracted for the past six years with Pageantry Productions, a Long Beach special events firm. Pageantry provides the following services to the City: design and mailing of all parade applications, receipt of all entries, parade line up, script, awards, judges, automobiles for dignitaries, provides announcer and public address system for main reviewing stand and coordinate all aspects of the parade with the City. On parade day Pageantry takes the lead in the smooth operation of the parade. City staff in tum gives direction to Pageantry as well as makes all the logistical arrangements for the parade (street closures, police, etc.) Pageantry Productions is a professional business devoted to parade management. Their level of expertise and connections make them the ideal choice for the City. Our working relationship with them in the past has been exemplary. The Contract details other aspects of the agreement. Fiscal Impact: The amount of the contract, $7,558.11 is included in the Community Services General Fund (01) Budget for Fiscal Year 1997/98. Respectfully submitted, ~ Community Services Manager " CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer.. ,3 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT 13717, LOCATED NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, BETWEEN SPRUCE AND ELM AVENUES, SUBMITTED BY LEWIS DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution, accepting the subject Improvement Agreement Extension, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Tract 13717, was approved by the City Council on November 20, 1991, in the following amount: Faithful Performance Bonds: $82,000.00 Labor and Material Bonds: $41,000.00 The developer, Lewis Development, a California General Partnership, is requesting approval of a 12-month extension on said improvement. The project is located north of Church Street, between Spruce and Elm Avenues. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City Clerk's office. Respectft!lly submitted, Will/~mm J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:ls Attachment RESOLUTION NO. t) 7-//b A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT 13717 WHEREAS, the City council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on October 30, 1991 by Lewis Development Company, a California General Partnership, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located north of Church Street, between Spruce and Elm Avenues; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in Said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said Tract 13717; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient improvement security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California hereby resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City Clerk to attest thereto. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineerc¢~ SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR DR 89- 09, LOCATED ON PULLMAN COURT, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF UTICA RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for DR 89-09 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Pertbrmance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: DR 89-09, located on Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route and east of Utica. Release Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $29,810.00. Developer: Allen R. Smith 930 Town and Country Road Orange, CA 92668 Respectfully submitted, Williamj.~O~e~'2~C'~ City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachment RESOLUTION NO. q 7-/// A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 89-09, LOCATED ON PULLMAN COURT, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF UTICA, AND AUTHOR/ZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of improvements for DR 89-09, located on Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route and east of Utica, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer ~ SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR DR 95-30, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for DR 95-30 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, accept a Maintenance Bond, and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: DR 95-30, located on the east side of Beryl, south of Hillside Road. Release Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $72,110.00. Accept Maintenance Bond in the amount of $7,211.00. Developer: H & H Homes 2558 Palomino Drive Covina, CA 91724 Respectfully submitted, William J. City Engineer WJO:LRB:ls Attachment ,, RESOLUTION NO. 9 7-// A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 95-30, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of improvements for DR 95-30, located on the east side of Beryl, south of Hillside Road, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. EngineerCj~ SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR PARCEL MAP 14647, BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY FOURTH STREET, ON THE EAST BY MILLIKEN AVENUE, ON THE NORTH BY THE A.T.& S.F. (METROLINK) RAILROAD AND ON THE WEST BY CLEVELAND AND UTICA AVENUES RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for Parcel Map 14647, have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Parcel Map 14647, bounded on the south by Fourth Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A.T.& S.F. (Metrolink) Railroad and on the west by Cleveland and Utica Avenues. Release Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $1,145,900.00. Developer: Environmental Golf 1920 S. Yale Santa Ana, CA 92704 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LB:ls Attachment 71 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS --. FOR PARCEL MAP 14647 BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY FOURTH STREET, ON THE EAST BY MILLIKEN AVENUE, ON THE NORTH BY THE A.T.&S.F. (METROLINK) RAILROAD AND ON THE WEST BY CLEVELAND AND UTICA AVENUES, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of improvements for Parcel Map 14647, bounded on the south by Fourth Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A.T.& S.F. (Metrolink) Railroad and on the west by Cleveland and Utica Avenues, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 72 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineel:? SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR DR 94-30, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND CARNELIAN STREET RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for DR 94-30 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: DR 94-30, located on the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street. Release Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $29,351.00. Developer: McDonalds Corporation 4370 La Jolla Drive #800 San Diego, CA 92122 Respectfully submitted~ Willia~.O{,Nei~'C/''/~ City Engineer - WJO:LRB:ls Attachment RESOLUTION NO. q 7'//Y A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE -. IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 94-30, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND CARNELIAN STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of improvements for DR 94-30, located on the southeast comer of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer ,~, SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT MAP 14407, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for Tract Map 14407 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Tract Map 14407, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Mountain View Drive. Release Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $205,000.00. Developer: Lewis Development Company 1156 North Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:ls Attachment RESOLUTION NO. q 7-//5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE -' IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 14407, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of improvements for Tract Map 14407, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Mountain View Drive, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino Count5;. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer .~.} SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND, IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,200.00 FOR TRACT 14365, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IvIOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 14365, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, west of Milliken Avenue. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,500.00 FOR TRACT 13303, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 13303, located on the southwest comer of Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista Parkway. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB :Is Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer,Lt SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT MAP 14786, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ELM AVENUE, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for Tract Map 14786 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Tract Map 14786, located on the east side of Elm Avenue, north of Church Street. Release Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $88.800.00. Developer: Lewis Development Company 1156 North Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:ls Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 9 7-Z/g-,, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 14786, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ELM AVENUE, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of improvements for Tract Map 14786, located on the east side of Elm Avenue, north of Church Street, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is attthorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda Beek, Jr. Engineer .~ SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CUP 95-39, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, EAST OF THE 1-15 RECOMMENDATION The required street improvements for CUP 95-39 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bonds and accept the Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Cup 95-39 - located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of the 1-15 DEVELOPER: American Pacific Concrete Pipe Company (AMPAC) 12167 Arrow Route Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $123,245.00 Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 12,324.50 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LB:sd Attachment m,.k of A,.o.i=., Time Deposit Receipt eRANCH Ut~.l. and- ~II 'NO. 2466 · DATE 8-Z,-97 PURCHASED BY kme~"icat'L Pac'i:E'ic Coz'zc~'et:e :9'lpe Co, l'nc. RATE 5.20:~ YIELD' 5.34Z ~:Lc.~ o._F 9.azzcho CucamoztE;a $AMOUNT $].2.,324.50 P. ! E TO ...... ACCOUNT TERM 365 Da:y's ~"~"Z ~'~ .... i MATURITY DATE 8-4-98 " ACCOUNT # 24557 -- 01813 The publi ains the terms and conditions of this account. This time deposit will be reinvested automatically for the same account term upon maturity or on the effective date of a deposit or withdrawal made during the grace period. (The grace period begins on the maturity date and is two business days for terms of 89 days or less; ten calendar days for terms of 90 days or more.) The new interest rate will be the interest rate in effect for the amount and term of your account on the date your funds are reinvested. * Interest compounded daily. Yield assumes principal and interest remain in the account for a year at the same interest rate. ' "' IMPORTANT INFORMATION If you withdraw all or part of your deposit before it matures a substantial early withdrawal penalty will be imposed. A personal time deposit is not transferable. Please review your statement to determine the status of your account, R-162 8-92 (Repr, nt 2-93) NOT NEGOTIABLE (~Raec;,c,eo Bank of America NT&SA · Member FDEC P Cheryl Moretti Vice President Financial Relationship Manager Pomona Valley Distdct 2543 Bank of America NT&SA 40 W. Foothill Boulevard Upland, CA 91786 Pager 909/207-5360 909/391-8337 I~ Customer Service 800/678-1433 Bank of America ~.~,.~p~.~, 72- American Pacific Concrete Pipe Company, Inc. (AMPAC) 12167 Arrow Route---Box 1979 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 909 989 i 092 Fax: 909 94:5 1686 The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 May 28, 1996 Mr. Jerry Dyer, This is the form of the letter which will be required by the Bank of America, Upland Branch when The City of Rancho Cucamonga has accepted the street improvements secured by the C.D.s. TO: Bank of America,Upland Branch 2455 40 W. Foothill Blvd. Box 248 Upland, Ca 91785 ATTN: Mr. Jeff Steel FROM: The City of Rancho Cucamonga Ciiy Clerks Office # RE: Release of funds Account #2455500020 And #24556-00021 Dear Sir: This letter is io authorize you to release funds in account nur~ber 24558-00020 and account number 24556-00021 to the order of American Pacific Concrete Pipe Company Inc. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Office of The City Clerk by: Sincerely, JWF RESOLUTION NO. q 7--//7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS CUP 95-39, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, EAST OF THE 1-15, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of improvements for Cup 95-39, located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of the 1-15, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying said improvements are complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND NO. 969990S IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,200.00, FOR TRACT 13273, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND MILLIKEN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond Number 969990s in the amount of $48,200.00, for Tract 13273, located on the southeast comer of Mountain View Drive and Milliken Avenue BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER: Lewis Homes P.O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:sd Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT 13566-3, LOCATED SOUTH OF TWENTY- FOURTH STREET, WEST OF CHERRY AVENUE RECOMMENDATION The required street improvements for Tract 13566-3 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bonds and accept the Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS TRACT 13566-3, located south of Twenty- Fourth Street, west of Cherry Avenue Developer: Gentra Capital Corporation 15111 Whittier Boulevard, Suite 360 Whittier, CA 90603 RELEASE: Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $166,146.00 ACCEPT: Maintenance Bond in the amount of $16,615.50 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LB:ls Attachment RESOLUTION NO. ~ 7- / / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE -- PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13566-3, LOCATED SOUTH OF TWNETY-FOURTH STREET, WEST OF CHERRY AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 13566-3, located south of Twenty-Fourth Street, west of Cherry Avenue, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER :t.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES. The City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: Section 1: Section 3.48.035A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. The maximum aggregate amount of the fees imposed by this chapter upon any one service user for utilities during any calendar year shall not exceed Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($28,400)." Section 2: Section 3.48.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee on the amounts paid for any intrastate telephone services by every person in the city using such services. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 3.91 percent of the charges made for such services, and shall be paid by the person paying for such services." Section 3: Section 3.48.050A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee upon every person using electrical energy in the city. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 3.91 percent of the charges made for such energy by an electrical corporation providing service in the City and shall be paid by the person using the energy. The fee applicable to electrical energy provided by a non-utility supplier shall be determined by applying the fee rate to the equivalent charge the service user would have incurred if the energy used had been provided by the electrical corporation franchised by the city. Non-utility suppliers shall install and maintain an appropriate utility-type metering system which will enable compliance with this section. 'Charges,' as used in this section, means charges made for: (1) metered energy and (2) minimum charges for service, including customer charges, service charges, demand charges, standby charges, and all other annual and monthly charges, fuel or other cost adjustments authorized by the California Public Lltilities Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission." Section 4| Section 3.48.060A1 of the Rancho Cueamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A.I. There is imposed a fee upon every person in the city, other than a gas corporation or electrical corporation, using gas in the city which is transported through mains or pipes or by mobile transport. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate 3.91 percent ofthe charges made for the gas and shall be paid by the person using the gas. The fee applicable to gas or gas transportation provided by non-utility suppliers shall be determined by applying the fee rate to the equivalent charges the service user would have incurred if the gas or gas transportation had been provided by the gas corporation franchised by the city." Section 5: Section 3.48.070A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee upon every person in the city using water which is delivered through mains or pipes. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 3.91 percent of the charges made for such water and shall be paid by the person paying for such water." Section 6: Section 3.48.140 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. Whenever the calculation of the amount of any fee due and owing under this chapter is alleged to have resulted in an overpayment or a payment more than once, it may be refunded by the Finance Director as provided in subsections (B) and (C) of this section, provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is rounded, is filed with the Finance Director within one year of the date of the claimed overpayment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the Finance Director." "B. A service supplier may claim a refund or take as credit against fees collected and remitted an amount overpaid or paid more than once when it is established that the person from whom the fee has been collected did not owe the fee." 2 "(2. Any service user may obtain a refund of fees overpaid or paid more than once by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section, but only when the service user having paid the fee to the service supplier establishes to the satisfaction of the Finance Director that the service user has been unable to obtain a refund from the service supplier who collected the fee." "D. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, whenever a service supplier, pursuant to an order of the California Public Utilities Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction, makes a refund to service users of charges for past utility services, the fees paid pursuant to this chapter on the mount of such refunded charges shall also be entitled to claim a credit for such refunded fees against the mount of fee which is due upon the next monthly returns. In the event this chapter is repealed, the mounts of any refundable fees will be borne by the city." Section 7: This ordinance shall be deemed effective on Section 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation, such decision or legislation shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases are declared unconstitutional or preernpted. Section 9; The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of ,1997. Mayor 919 CITY OF 1L~NCHO CUCANtONGA, STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William Makshanoff, Building Official BY: Richard L. Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPLACING PART IV OF CHAPTER 1.08 PROVIDING FOR THE CITY'S ADOPTION, BY REFERENCE, OF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586, RELATING TO REFUSE AND WEED ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES. RECO M M ENDATIO N Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance adopting by reference the revised San Bemardino County Regulations providing the legal basis for the operation of the County Weed Abatement Program within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND The San Bemardino County Department of Agriculture, by contract with the City, provides an annual Weed Abatement Program for fire hazard mitigation. The City has utilized this service to control weeds on vacant and undeveloped parcels of land within the City since incorporation. County Regulations authorize the Department of Agriculture to conduct the program, to require property owners to abate weeds and other combustibles from their property, or to do the work on their behalf. In order to provide the County the same statutory authority to conduct the program within the City, it is necessary for the County Regulations to be adopted by reference into the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. This action was first done by the City Council in 1978. ANALYSIS Approximately two years ago, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors adopted a revised Refuse Abatement Ordinance. This is the Ordinance that provides the statutory basis for the Weed Abatement Program. The revised ordinance was needed to update the regulations in response to legal and operating procedural changes that have occurred over a period of years. The revised County Ordinance contains no changes that alter the basic objective, function or purpose of the County Weed Abatement Program. When the County revises an ordinance that the City has previously adopted by reference, it is then necessary for the City to adopt that revised ordinance. Until the City takes this action, the County City Council Staff Report Ordinance - Refuse and Weed Abatement August 20, 1997 Page Two Weed Abatement Program continues to be operated under the authority of the old ordinance, which can create conflicts. After the County's adoption of the revised ordinance, a series of procedural changes have been implemented at the Department of Agriculture that are not completely supported by the ordinance that is currently in effect in Rancho Cucamonga. Although it has taken some time to bring this item to the Council for consideration, it is an important step in maintaining the effective operation of the Weed Abatement Program within the City. CONCLUSION The San Bernardino County Weed Abatement Program is an effective and efficient means of providing fire hazard mitigation on vacant and undeveloped parcels of land within the City. The ordinance before you has been prepared by the City Attomey's office to adopt, by reference, the San Bemardino County Refuse Abatement Ordinance. All necessary modifications have been made to the ordinance to reflect City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements. In order to allow this program to continue, the statutory authority must be provided within the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, therefore, adoption of the San Bemardino County Refuse Abatement Ordinance by reference is required. Respectfully submitted, William N~f~ Building Official WM:RLA/nas Attachment: Ordinance - Refuse Abatement ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586, RELATING TO REFUSE AND WEED ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES. A. ReCitalS. (i) Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Part I of Division I of Title 5 of the California Govemment Code (Section 50020, et seq.) authorizes the adoption, by reference, of Ordinance No. 3586 of the County of San Bernardino, providing regulations and procedures for refuse abatement. (ii) At least one (1) copy of Ordinance No. 3586, certified as full, true and correct, has been filed with the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk. (iii) A duly noticed public hearing, as required by California Government Code Section 50022.3, has been conducted and concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: Section 1. Ordinance No. 20 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and Part IV of Chapter 1.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code adopted thereby, hereby are repealed in their entirety, provided, however, that such repeal shall not affect or apply to any violation of Ordinance No. 20 occurring prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 2. purpose. A new Part IV hereby is added to Chapter 1.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "IV. WEED ABATEMENT ".1.08.100 Purpose. "The purpose of this ordinance is to provide standards and procedures for the abatement of refuse and weeds by the County of San Bernardino within the corporate limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. REFUSE AND WEED ABATEMENT August 20, 1997 Page 2 "1.08.110 Adoption of county refuse abatement procedures. "Ordinance No. 3586 of the County of San Bernardino, amending Chapter 3 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the San Bemardino County Code and providing regulations and procedures for refuse abatement, hereby is adopted by reference, subject to the additions, deletions and amendments set forth herein. "1.08.120 Amendments to OrdinanCe No. 3586. "A. Whenever the term 'County,' ' County Area,' 'County Areas,' 'County of San Bemardino,' 'Mountain Area,' or 'Desert Area' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'City' or 'City of Rancho Cucamonga' unless the content makes such construction inconsistent with the refuse abatement procedures of this Pad. "B. Whenever the term 'Board of Supervisors' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'City Council, City of Rancho Cucamonga.' "C. Whenever the term 'Agency' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture' or 'County Agricultural Commissioner.' "D. Whenever the term 'Board of Appeals' or 'Appeals Board' is used or referred to, it shall mean the Appeals Board established in Section 23.040 of the County Code. "E. Whenever the term 'Fire Warden' or 'County Fire Warden' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'Chief of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District."' Section 5. Deletions to Ordinance No. 3586. Section 23.043, as set forth in Section I of Ordinance No. 3586, and Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3586, hereby are deleted. Section 6. Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance hereby adopted. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof dudng which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance. Section 7. Civil Remedies Available. The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance hereby adopted shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City or County of San Bernardino through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. REFUSE AND WEED ABATEMENT August 20, 1997 Page 3 Section 8. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 9. The City Clerk to certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,1997. Mayor I, DEBRA ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 20th day of August, 1997, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the __ day of ,1997, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals filed in opposition to the project and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving the development review application. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 97-11 for the development of 40 single family homes within Tract 14771. The June 11, 1997, and July 9, 1997, Planning Commission staff reports addressing that project and the related development issues are attached. Following the Planning Commission approval two separate appeals were filed contesting the project approval. The first appeal was filed by Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE). This appeal is premised on safety and environmental concerns regarding the removal of the levee. The second appeal was filed by Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing.the Rancho Cucamonga V- Haven View Estates H~Fneowners Association. This appeal is premised on the statement that the project site does not have legal access across the private streets within Rancho Cucamonga V. These issues were discussed at length by the Planning Commission. Although the issues appealed appear to be unrelated to the design review process, the City Engineer will be prepared to discuss these issues at the City Council meeting. -- j CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DR 97-11- LAUREN DEVELOPMENT August20,1997 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE Notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site and to all property owners within the Haven View Estates. The project site was posted. City Planner BB:TG:taa: Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter of Appeal, dated July 16, 1997 Exhibit "B" Letter of Appeal, dated July 17, 1997 Exhibit "C" Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 9, 1997 Exhibit "D" Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 9, 1997 (Includes the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 11, 1997) Exhibit "E" Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 9 1997 Exhibit "F" Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 11, 1997 Exhibit "G" Planning Commission Resolution 97-36, dated July 9, 1997 Exhibit "H" Correspondence from Malissa McKeith, dated July 23, 1997 Exhibit "1" Haven View Estates Vicinity Map Resolution of Approval I OCO W;LSI'qIIE BOLI. m.,f&mqo LIMITED LIAelUTY P~RTNE~3HIP ~LUDmO ~IO~ilII~L COReOIAT~ONi ~O3 ANOELES, CA 90017,2475 FaC/IM~ L(: Z 13-6~&,34~0 213.6g8.3622 O-~ai]: ~CKglTH~loch.com RECEIV~o July 16, 1997 JUL Hand Delivered City of Rancho Cucamonga Debra Adams, City Clerk Planning Division Ci~, of ~cho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive ~cho Cuc~onga, CA 91729 Re: Cucamong;ms Unilcd for Rcssonahle Expansion ("C~") Ap~al of July 9, 1997 Planning (Tommission Approval of Laurcn Development/Development Rcvicw 97-I De~ Ms. Adds: Enciosed please find a check in the amount of S126 madc payable to the City of R~cho Cucamonga. CU~ appeals the July 9, 1997 Platoring . Commission Approval of L~mcn D~vc{opm~nb~cvc]opmcnt ~cvmw ~7-~ t Plcas~ advise me Gloriu5 of ~y office at (213') 6~8-3734 immediate v it' anShh~g else is needed to perfect ~e appeal. Th~k you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, .~alissu Hathaway McK N~M :pb Endosur~ ICMZ~,:.113. L0Z WOLF. RIFI<L',' & S/~tAPII~IO. LLP w,s.,c.. ~CL, .. CS~. FAX C310) 479-1422 003 · ,~o~.~= .... July !7, 1997 city c erk JUL 2 Z City of Rancho Cucamcnga lo5C0 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamon~a, Califo~ia ~ ~eOC~O ' 0 annin CuCa~ Re: Tentative Tr~c~ Map No. !~77t <the "Subje.s; proper~kiSiOO ~ar City Clerk: This fi~ represents Rancho Cucamcnga V-Haven View Estates Eomeo~er3' Association (the "Association"). The Association has re~ested that we appeal ~he July 9, 1997, decision of the Rancho CucamonD3 Planning Commission fthe "Commission") ~o approve the application for design review. of the homes tc be !ocaned on Tentative Tract MaD 14771, originally filed by Brock Homes and assumed by Laden Develcpmen:, Inc. <"Applicant"}, in the above captioned ma~ter. The appeal is premised on the fact that ~he S'~ject Propert'/ does not have legal access through the private streets of Tract No. 12332-2. Because there is no legal access to the Subject Property, the Applicant'~ re.eat for design approval should be denied unless or until such ~ime that the Applicant estabilshes alternate legal access to the S'~jec[ Prcper~y. Enclosed herewith is a check to cover the appeal fee made paysbit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the amc~n of One j~undred ~enty-Six Dol!~rs (S126.00) Ve~ truly yours, .- WOLF, RIFKI~S~P!RO, LLP · 5, Y Enclosure cc: ~saoclation ' s Boar~ of Directors Daniel C. Shapiro, Esq. Roy G. Rifkin ~ Esq. Richard S. Grit. t, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97~11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT ~ A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. ANALYSIS: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes the requirements and procedures for evaluating the potential environmental impacts resulting from the development of a project. Section 15162 establishes specific procedures when Subsequent Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations are necessary. The following addresses Section 15162 and why no further environmental evaluation is necessary. 15162. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. (2) Substantial c. hanges occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require revisions of the previous Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: There has been no new information of substantial importance which was not known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; The current application is the design review of 40 single family homes and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; The current application is the design review of 40 single family homes and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that wound in fact be feasible. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whetlTer to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, and addendum, or nor further documentation. There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 3 (c) If the project Was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072, A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:TG:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" - CEQA Section 15162 IDZ CEQA: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT ' QUALITY ACT Project EIR 15161. The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes i~ the environment that wotdd result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning. construction, and operation. Note: Authority cited.' Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code,' Reference.' Sections 21061. 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessary for the clarity and completeness of this t~micle and to show how this type of EIR differs from the other types discussed in this article. Subsequent 15162. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR EIRs and shall be pr. epared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in Negative the light of the whole record. one or more of the following: Declarations (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified sig- nificant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; CB) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EI~,; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative: or CD) M_idgation measures or alternatives which am considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. but the project propo- nents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an adden- dure, or no further documentation. (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in the subsection (a). the subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EER has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. Note: Authority cited.' Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087,' Reference.' Public Resources Code 21166; Bowman v. City of Petaluma, 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065 (1986),' Benton v. Board of Supervisors. 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991). Discussioa.' This section implements the requirements in Section 21166 of CEQA which limit preparation of a subsequent EIR to certain situations. This section provides interpretation of the three situt2tions in which the statute requires prep~arr, tion of a subsequent EIR. These interpretations are necessary to add certainty to the process. This section also cZarifies thz2t t2 subsequent EIR may be prepared where a negative declaration ht2d previously been adopted. Further, a subsequent negative declaration mtzy be adopted where none of the situations described in subsection (a) have occurred. Subsections (b) and (c) exp~in which agency would Aave responsibility for prept~ring a subsequent EIR under different circumstances. A subsequent EIR must, of course. receive the same circuition and review as the previous EIR. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive -APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. (Continued from June 11, 1997.) ANALYSIS: This application was continued from the June 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to allow both staff and the Planning Commission the opportunity to review and respond to the issues presented at that meeting. In addition to a fair representation of property owners within the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association stating their opposition to the proposed project, there was also representation from the Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") and the Spirit of the Sage Council opposing the project through oral and written testimony. The following summation addresses the issues presented at that meeting. In addition, the applicant has provided their own response to the issues raised (Exhibits "D, ""E," "F," and "G"). A. Failure to Provide Notice. There are two issues regarding notice related to this project. The first concerns the notice for the May 27, 1997, Neighborhood Meeting. As stated in the staff report dated June 11, 1997, these notices were mailed out on May 21, and the meeting scheduled for May 27, to provide community awareness of the project and afford the applicant the opportunity to make any necessary design modifications prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Notices for this meeting were mailed out by the management company for the two homeowners associations. This meeting was not a City function, but rather a Neighborhood Meeting between the applicant and adjacent homeowners. The second issue has to do with notice for the June 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. No notice was provided for this project because the project does not require review as an advertised public hearing. The Development Code requires review and consideration by the Planning Commission, but not as a public hearing, and as such was scheduled as a consent calendar item. B. Invalid Tract Map. Statements that the Tract Map is invalid are incorrect. Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were initially approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990; the initial approval was for two years. On October 28, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension for Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 extending the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 project until November 14, 1993. In 1993, Senate Bill 428 automatically extended, by 24 months. the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by September 13, 1993. As the map was still valid on that date, Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were extended until November 14, 1995. On October 30, 1995, the City Planner approved a one-year time extension for Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 extending the project until November 14, 1996. And finally, in 1996 Assembly Bill 711 automatically extended, by 12 months, the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by May 14, 1996. As the map was still valid on that date, Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were extended until November 14, 1997. The extensions granted by the State of California are in addition to any City extensions, The Municipal Code establishes criteria for the extension of tentative tract maps. Section 16.16.170(C) identifies that "Extensions may be granted for a period or periods not exceeding a total of three years." As the City has only approved two time extension requests, one additional time extension request may be considered extending the tentative map and variance until November 14, 1998. C. Violation of CEQA. Statements that the proposed project violates CEQA are incorrect. The proposed project is the design review of 40 single family homes and, as such. is not subject to further environmental analysis. As part of the initial project evaluation of Tentative Tract 14771, staff completed the Initial Study to analyze and address potential environmental impacts. That evaluation recommended, and the Planning Commission approved, a Negative Declaration for the project. Following approval, the Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination were filed with the County Clerk. Regarding compliance with Fish and Witdlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game requirements for evaluation of the gnatcatcher and sage scrub habitat; the applicant's representative stated (as the attached minutes reflect) that the applicant is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act, that they intend to comply with Federal and Stare requirements, and that they are aware that violation carries both civil and criminal penalties. D. Design and Construction Concerns. Several design and construction concerns were also identified and include: removal of the existing levee, access to the project, unit compatibility, and the financial stability of the applicant. The Conceptual Grading Plan approved with the Tentative Tract Map proposed the removal of the existing earthen levee and the installation of a concrete drainage channel along the northern boundary of the tract. Exhibit "D" of the June 11 staff report clearly shows the existing earthen swale and the proposed concrete channel and. as previously expressed by staff, the proposed Grading Plan is in substantial conformance with tfie originally approved Grading Plan. Access to the project site will take place from the existing streets within Haven View Estates. The Tentative Tract Map identifies a street pattern, consistent with the surrounding streets, taking access from both Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. Recorded street easement and maintenance agreement documents have been submitted to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 3 The project was designed to meet the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations with respect to setbacks, lot coverage, grading, unit massing, etc. The architectural variety was reviewed by the Design Review Committee and recommended to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Residents have expressed concerns with the size of the proposed units. As stated in the June 11 staff report, units range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet which far exceeds the minimum City requirement of 1,000 square feet. Further, they are consistent with homes in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - June 11, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit "B" - June 11, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "C" - Letters of Opposition Received after June 11, 1997, Meeting Exhibit "D" - June 30. 1997, Letter from Applicant Exhibit "E" June 27, 1997, Letter from Hewitt & McGuire Exhibit "F" June 25, 1997, Letter from Jackson, DeMarco, & Peckenpaugh Exhibit "G" - June 26, 1997, Letter from MDS Consulting Resolution of Approval with Conditions CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 11, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5.9 percent, although some portions reach a 10 percent slope. A man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side of the site, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. The site is bordered on the north by a Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light easement, on the east by Flood Control District land, and on the south and west by Tract 12332-2 (Haven View Estates) which is partially constructed. Haven View Estates is a gate guarded community developed with custom and semi-custom homes and private streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community (see Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: A. Background: Tract 14771 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. That approval included a 40-lot subdivision of the project site (see Exhibit "B") and proposed grading (see Exhibit "D"). B. ,General: The project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading (see Exhibit "C"). The design includes split level pads with multilevel breaks ranging from 36-inches to 78-inches between the garage floor and interior levels of the first floor. There are essentially six different floor plans; Plans 1 and--2 have side-slope elevations, while Plans 3 and 4 have both side-slope and uphill-slope elevations (see Exhibit "G"). Floor plans range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet. These floor plans have three elevation alternatives that include French Country, Spanish Colonial, and Italian Tuscan that when used on the six different floor plans will result in eleven different houses being constructed on the 40 lots. / a 7 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEV. June 11,1997 Page 2 The exhibits attached to this report contain the two Grading Plans associated with this project. Exhibit "D" contains the Grading Plan previously approved by the Planning Commission and Exhibit '°C'" contains Grading Plan proposed for the current project. Proposed grading is in substantial conformance with the originally approved grading plan and was designed to minimize the amount of grading associated with the proposed project and maintain the contour characteristics of the existing topography. C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project on May 20, 1997, and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. A maximum of 13 lots should have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots with front-on garages, therefore. 3 lots should be revised to a side-on garage condition or with the garage placed toward the rear of the structure. 2. Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. D. Neiqhborhood Meetinq: Representatives from the two Homeowners Associations within Haven View Estates were present at the May 20, 1997, Design Review Committee meeting. These representatives were given the opportunity to comment on the project and raised issues such as: neighborhood compatibility. garage orientation, garage appearance, view of structure from the street, and unit square footage. On May 27, 1997, a Neighborhood Meeting was held in the Rains Room at City Hall. Notices for this meeting were mailed out by Euclid Management Company who manage the two existing homeowners associations within Haven View Estates. Notices were mailed out on May 21, 1997, and the meeting scheduled for May 27, to provide community awareness of the project and afford the applicant the opportunity to make any necessary design modifications prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The neighborhood meeting was attended by 3 representatives of the project applicant, a Planfling Division representative, and 11 persons representing eight separate parcels (see Exhibit "1"). The following issues were identified: percentage of front facing garage doors, providing additional massing to reduce vertical elements, use of optional design elements (e.g., porte-cochere), building square footage, unit cost, providing additional exterior materials (e.g., stone, brick, metal railings), providing as much architectural variation as possible to create compatibility with the surrounding development, and providing an additional elevation alternative on the single story elevation. Following the Neighborhood Meeting the applicant indicated their willingness to modify their project based upon staff suggestions, Design Review Committee comments, and comments from the adjacent Homeowners Associations (see Exhibit "J"). The following modifications are proposed: door and window surrounds on all elevations, additional multi-pane windows, reducing the number of front-on garages, reducing the number of Plan 3 homes, providing a second elevation alternative for the Plan 1, reducing the number of optional elements (e.g., making the Plan 3 portal mandatory), and providing additional color schemes. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11-LAUREN DEV. June 11,1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:TG: Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Original Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Original Grading Plan Approved for Tract 14771 Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Potential Corral Pads Exhibit"G" - Elevations Exhibit "H" Design Review Committee Comments Exhibit "l" May 27, 1997 Neighborhood Meeting Sign-In Sheet Exhibit "J" May 29, 1997 Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval 'U-Co lag /// "' , .~:,, "!~:, ' ......... /L.." .... . i '..'."~ n F- L~J ;"...","'... ,---. ~ ='. ,,., .... "'," - .,_. - .. -. .,'.. .,~e.-~-~ I .',"' ,.~.D~~ ..... :_. ~... ,.....~ .~.:... >- .." '.o' , :' ': /12. "x-&-\\" 11 q " ~-\2;' · "'~""'<"~'::":::"':,"!!' z .~ [', '~ 0 .-,_ x U LId 't,.:_l L/') "'~' I II,-~:~-'-'-~ J r i J i z 'J , ;' LL._.I I I , ~-',5 / ..< ~--.'::-:5 se. Z T' ~ Z)n ~2~ii~ ..... z D :~i:L I o 0 :~.. ~ ;' '..,l > ZE ~', "' U Z ; ...j ~'~ ~ z ,I < ,.v m ~ H ""' .-, .< > ,,.J (5 7 .,,.-,,, 0 z 1 0' ° k "' > ';%.. ,,.< 7:%-..< z ~_ ~ o ~ ~ _.J ...... ,:~k--~:.:~.<~',:- Z ~" LU LL .J ~ On :,.~ ' \ '1 13] 6:40 p.m. Tom Grahn May 20, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, donsisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-54141. Ba.c.k~round: Tract 14771 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. The project site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5.9 percent, although some portions reach a 10 percent slope. A man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side ofthe site, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. The site is bordered on the north by a Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light easement, on the east by Flood Control District land, and on the south and west by Tract 12332-2 (Haven View Estates) which is partially constructed. Haven View Estates is a gate guarded community developed with custom and semi-custom homes and private streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community. Design Parameters: The project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading. The design includes split level pads with multilevel breaks ranging from 36-inches to 78-inches between the garage floor to interior levels of the first floor. There are essentially six different floor plans; plans t i~/~d 2 have side-slope elevations, while plans 3 and 4 have both side-slope and uphill-slope elevations. The floor plans range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet. These floor plans have three elevation alternatives that include French Country, Spanish Colonial, and Italian Tuscan that when used on the 6 different floor plans will result in I1 different houses being constructed on the 40 lots. Elevations were not provided for the Plan 3 side-slope elevation because of the design similarity to the Plan 3 uphill-slope elevation. Stnff 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 Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Conditions of Approval for Tract 14771 (Resolution 90-138) identify that a maximum of 33 percent of the lots shall be front-on garages. There are 40 lots within the tract and therefore a maximum of 13 lots may have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots designed with front- on garages, therefore 3 lots shall be revised to a non front-on garage condition. 2. The applicant has chosen a design alternative that technically results in a garage door that fronts- on to the street on an additional 17 lots. The Plan 2 and 4 side-slope elevations provide a garage located to the rear of the house, from 38 to 46 feet behind the front elevation of the house, and situated behind an optional porte-cochere. It is staffs opinion that these are not front-on garage elevations and would not be subject to the previously identified condition of approval. Secondary Issues: Once-all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Lots 23 and 39 do not meet the front setback requirement. Project: Title: CITY OF R.~'~!{G~0"~AMONGA ~ ,, PLAt I I ON Exhibit: FO-Zq" DRC COMMENTS DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT May 20, 1997 Page 2 2: Lot 1 does not meet the ~orner side yard setback for the porte-cochere. 3. Provide door and window stucco surrounds on all elevations. · . 4. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to the side and rear elevations. Staff Recom men dation: Staff recommends that the Committee foByard the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Public Comments: Bruce Ann Hahn felt that the proposed design was not compatible with the neighborhood for the following reasons: Floor plans are too small and garage doors are facing the street. Bill Angel expressed concerns that side slope front elevations were too narrow as viewed from the street. He also stated that some of the side elevations should be redesigned to break-up the fiat two-story vertical plane. He opposed tile proposed houses because they did ndt' ~ll the width of the lot. Design Review Con~miHee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Nlacias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Torn Grahn The Design Review CommiHee felt the proposed project presented a "custom home" feel in the architecture and generous setbacks. The Committee noted only a small number of homes have been built within this large neighborhood. The proposed floor plan sizes were deemed appropriate: The Committee noted that tile majority of garage doors do not face the street and, in those situations where they face the street, the garage is typically set back 38 to 46 feet behind the front of the house behind an optional porte-cochere. The Cornmivtee recommended approval subject to the following: 1. A maximum of 13 lots should have front-on garages· There are currently 16 lots v,'ith front-on garages; therefore, three lots shall be revised to a side-on garage condition or v.'ith the garage placed to,.vards the rear of the structure. 2. Door and window stucc'5 surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. 133 '9~ "" Project: '99- btI' t/ CITY OF R "'~..~.~0~AMONGA PLAI~I~f~I~ON Exhibit' '\._1:2"' Date: " ., ~ .....r2-C'~ LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. May 29, 1997 R E C F i V F D Mr. Thomas Grahn MAY 2 9 1997 Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Cily of nancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Planning Division Rancho Cucamonga, Ca-91729 Re: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 Dear Mr. Grahn: Enclosed are the 8.5" x 11" PMT's which you requested. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize revis. ions made to our plans since their original submittal and to propose three additional measures `.vhich will further benefit the project. These revisions resulted from suggestions proposed by staff, the design review committee and the three meetings at `.vhich the Haven View Estates homeo,.vners were present. · Window & Door Surrounds: \Ve agree `.vith the city's and the horneowner's recommendation to add additional surrounds around all `.vindo`.vs and doors. · blulti-pane \Vindows: We agree with the city's recommendation to add additional multi- pane windows to the homes. · Front Facing Garage Lots: We agree with the city's recommendation to change the homes on three lots to non-front facing garages. The resulting change to the plot plan brings the project into conformity with the 33% condition referenced in the Conditions of Approval. · Reduction in Number of Plan Three Homes: Concerns were raised by the neighbors about the number of Plan Threes and there reception by the public. Although we feel confident that this plan ,.vill be ,.veil received by the public, we have elected to reduced the number of Plan Three homes from twelve to nine homes replacing them with two of the larger Plan Fours and one Plan Two. This re-plotting of larger homes is in response to the homeowner's request to increase '6verall project square footage. The average of all units is now 3,988 square feet (outward appearance, optional interior areas expanded) while the median size of the existing Haven View Estates home is 4,086 square feet, a difference of only 98 square feet. / Project: 9t CITY ONGA Title: · ' Exhibit: Date: · Second Elevation for the Plan One: Although we currently propose to construct only four of these homes, we will agree to the neighbors' request that we provide another elevation for this plan. This new elevation would of course be subject to Planning approval prior to submittal to Building & Safety. The new Plan One elevation we are considering will have a side entry garage. This design would not only satisfy the neighbors concern for additional diversity, but it could farther reduce the number of lots with front facing garages. · Making the Portal on the Plan Three Mandatory: We believe the home is very attractive with or without the portal. In fact, this home was designed without it and it was added to create diversity among the plans. However, at our meetings with the neighbors, they felt that this optional item should be made standard. Although we will agree to include this portal as a standard element wherever setbacks allow, it should be noted that the inclusion of the portal as a standard feature, as well as the deletion of three of these plans, will decrease the diversity available. · Increasing Diversity With Four Additional Color Schemes: With the addition of the Plan One change, this project we will have six floor plans, twelve elevations and 12 exterior color schemes. Add to this the extensive list ofcustomizing elements available for both interior and exterior enhancement and we are quite confident that no two homes will be alike. However, to offset the changes made to the Plan Three and to address the concerns of the neighbors to add additional diversity, we would like to add 4 more color schemes. Two of these color schemes would employ brick veneers and two would employ stone veneers. The total available exterior color/material treatments would therefore increase to 16. Of course, these new color schemes would be subject to Planning approval. If you wish to make these last three items additional conditions of.approval, that is acceptable to us. Very truly yours, John L. Allday CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ..... PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 11, 1997 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker (arrived at 7:30 p.m. and was seated at 9:00 p.m.) William Belhet, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Butler, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buffer, City Planner, indicated that staff had been contacted by some residents who expressed concerns regarding Item A and new information had been submitted which was before the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission pull the item from the Consent Calendar, allow public comments, and continue the matter until July 9, 1997, in order to allow staff and the Commission to review the materials submitted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and Macias absenI),. to approve the minutes of the Adjourned meeting of April 9, 1997. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 'Barker and M:a~ias absent), to approve the minutes of May 14, 1997. The Minutes for May 28, 1997, were not acted upon because Commissioners Bethel and McNiel had not been present at that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. 137 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was before the Planning Commission only to review the design of the homes. He reported that the tract.map was approved in 1990 and the environmental clearance was also completed in 1990. He stated that letters had been presented from attorneys who disagree. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented a staff report and indicated three letters had been received in opposition to the project. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. John Allday, Lauren Development, 11030 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff for its guidance in understanding the Hillside Development Ordinance. He reported they had met with many residents of Haven View Estates and have incorporated many of the comments. He stated the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and the grading plan is consistent with the approved tract map and the conceptual grading plan approved in 1990. He felt the development is consistent with the community and stated they had researched the building permits and design review applications of the existing and approved houses in the development. He presented a summary of existing home sizes and a graph showing that 60 percent of the existing homes are equal to or smaller than the proposed homes. He reported that 55 homes have been built on the 243 home sites. Mr. Allday stated that in July 1996 his firm had begun consultations with the existing homeowners associations within the community. He said they met with the members of the boards of the associations earlier this year and the associations expressed concerns about access, development rights, and association management issues. He stated those issues had been resolved years ago in court approved settlement agreements which were recorded against all of the properties. He indicated they also had a neighborhood meeting. He said there have been some recent design changes as a result of comments from those meetings including adding surrounds around all windows and doors, decreasing the number of homes with front-on garages, changing the plotting to increase square footage, and agreeing to provide a second plan elevation for Plan 1. He indicated they have an optional design element on Plan 3 which the homeowners want to make standard even though that will defeat the diversity argument and said they will provide that element where setbacks permi[ it. He stated they had added four more color schemes which will provide 6 floor plans, 12 elevations, and 16 color and material schemes which would allow for up to 264 combinations of homes on their 44 lots. He showed a rendering or' Plan 3. The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Malissa McKei[h, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council, P. O. Box 77027-102, Pasadena Bill Angel, 12956 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga Mahlan Sampson, P. O. Box 1327, Rancho Cucamonga Tim Resar, 5078 Granada, Rancho Cucamonga Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga " Doug Kreinheder, 4146 Clover Place, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Montgomery, 10213 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga Ruben Salazar, 4981 Ginger Court, Rancho Cucamonga Robert Cantarero, 5122 Equine Place, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga George Hicks, 10430 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga A petition with over 100 names in opposition to the project was presented. Concerns were raised regarding destruction of possible California Gnatcatcher habitat, potential for wild fires, potential for earthquakes, possibility that removal of a levy could increase danger of flooding, increased City liability in the event of a flood, changed water absorption rates and drainage patterns caused by grading, lack of sufficient public notice, reduction in property values, lots being too small, large equipment traffic for removal of dirt, construction traffic, lack of diversity in architecture and variation in roof lines, lack of review by the existing homeowners association architectural review board, wear ,, ) mmission ,',,inures-2- June 997 and tear on streets, number of construction workers in the area and possible increase in crime because of the presence of such workers, and possible non-compliance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding habitat conserv.ation signed by the City. One resident complained that too many garages will be visible from the street even when they are pulled back and indicated the 33 percent maximum for front facing garages was reaIly an intent to hide garages to give more of an estate feeling. Objections were raised that tract homes should not be allowed in a community that is comprised mostly of custom homes. It was acknowledged that another developer had built tract homes in the community, but those homes were over 5,200 square feet. It was felt the proposed homes will be too small and it was pointed out that houses will expand square foolage by increasing interior space, not by expanding walls. It was stated that the average house size built since 1990 has been over 5,400 square feet. Pictures of all of the homes in the gated community were presented. A board member of one of the existing homeowners associations stated that Lauren should join one of the existing associations and pay full fees. One resident requested an opportunity to meet with Planning staff and the developer regarding the designs. One resident stated thai Lauren had incorporated in 1988 and he felt that indicated a lack of experience by the developer. The financial stability of the developer was questioned and allegations were made that a prior company owned by the developer had been sued. A request was made that the City determine if there were any problems or lawsuits in connection with prior projects developed by the applicant. One individual indicated a juice bar and private home is located at lhe business address of the developer. The residents requested further traffic, noise, and air pollution studies because of ~he funding and approval of the Route 30 freeway and additional biological studies regarding the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage. It was contended that the Planning Commission's review of the design reopened the matter with respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One resident requested a full Environmental Impacl Report,. Mr. Allday stated there is a business sign on the front door of their business and said he had been a private planner for over 21 years, a government planner for 5 years, and is a Planning Commissioner in another City. He stated there had been many untrue things said and asked that the Commissioners remember that the subject is the design review of the houses. He noted that several statements had been made that they had not contacted the homeowners or board members of the homeowners association. He asserted they had dealt with Euclid Management Company which handles the day-to-day operations of the homeov,,ners associations and indicated they have ,,,/fitten correspondence from the management company. He stated that the proiect is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and all City codes. Jeffrey Borum, Gipson, Hoffman, & Pancione, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, stated his firm represents Lauren Development and the company is owned by two people, Bill and Cathy Ford, who have been in the development field for 15 years. He said they are a small firm that does quality wodK. He noted that the City code does not require 7,500 square foot homes even'though residents may want larger homes to increase their own property values. He said this was {he first time they had heard there is serious opposition to the project. He stated there are court settlements which grant Lauren access easements over Ringstem, Tackstem, and Clover. He said those access rights were litigated by Cristiano, the former owner, in the late 1980s and the agreement was signed by representatives for both existing homeowners associations. He stated the developer has not been sued for fraud. He noted that Western Residential was a prior company in the 1980s which broke up because there was another partner involved, not because of a lawsuit. Mr. Borum stated that the court documents regarding access rights also allow Lauren to form its own homeowners association and a final decision regarding that matter has not been made but Lauren is leaning toward doing so. Andrew Hartzel, Hev,,itt & McGuire, Irvine, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050, Irvine, said he is the natural resources counsel to Lauren. He stated Lauren is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act. He said they intend to comply fully with the Endangered Species Act, both federal and state, and do not intend to take any listed species associated with this project development. He stated his client is fully aware that the act carries civil and criminal sanctions. He reported Lauren Development requested that the Army Corps of · Engineers .visit the site and the Corps confirmed they do not have jurisdiction on the site. He said they also had the Department of Fish and Game visit the site to be sure there are no riparian areas under its jurisdiction and it was determined that is not an issue. He reported that Lauren hired a team of Gnatcatcher biologists to survey the site and no birds were found on the site or in the immediate area bordering the site. He stated California Department of Fish and Game staff sent a letter in April indicating that the four surveys conducted were not sufficient. He said he called the service in April to ask what its concerns were and still had not heard back from them but he would continue to follow up. He commented that Lauren Development is under no obligations to do any further surveys for the Gnatcatcher. He stated the Fish and Wildlife Service has no authority to compel Lauren to do any surveys and said they would continue to dialogue with the service. He indicated he was very familiar with the MOU referred to by Ms. Klippstein and said this projecl would not violate the MOU. He stated the action before the Planning Commission is a design review issue and not defined as a project for the purposes of CEQA. He said the CEQA issues which had been raised were not relevant to the discretionary action of by the Planning Commission with respect to the design review. He commented that the issues raised by CURE and Spirit of the Sage would apply to all undeveloped lots in the community, not just this parcel. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, to continue Development Review 97-11 to July 9, 1997. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BETHEL, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, tv1ACIAS - carried Mr. Bullet indicated that a copy of the tape for tonight's meeting would be provided to the tv,,o Commissioners v,,ho were not present so they would be brought up to date. He encouraged residents to visit the Planning Division and noted the applicant had also extended an invitation to meel v,,i[h residents. He hoped the residents v,,ould take the time to understand the project before it returned to the Commission on July 9. He stated the City has met and exceeded the requirements of the state with respect to noticing and public reviev,, of the project. He asked the residents to talk to lheir neighbors regarding the next meeting. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at which time Chairman Barker joined the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS -. '. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC. - A request to develop a service station. drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Mil[iken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Relaled file: Parcel Map 14001. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.5 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. SIaff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 96-27. Commission ,'.,linutes-4-. une lee7 6-16-97 To: Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, My family and I have been residents of the Cucamonga area for 42 years. I raised my family on Archibald Ave. (the current location of the Rancho Cucamonga library). In 1986, after years of hard work, I purchased a custom home lot in Haven View Estates. It was expressed to me by Realtors that Haven View Estates, at the north part of Haven Ave., was the prime location in the City to build a custom home. We spent 18 months building . We have a nice custom home of approx. 5000 SF and have enjoyed our living in our neighborhood for the last ten years. It has now come to my attention that a developer is coming into our project to build a tract of homes. I can't believe that the city of Rancho Cucamonga would let a tract development like this come within our gates after many years of continuos custom home building. There are many areas in the city that tract home development can take place, this is one of the very few areas in Rancho Cucamonga that is exclusively designated for custom homes. As you know, even higher end tract homes still degrade and lower the property values (our lifetime investment) of individual custom homes. ,,.t,~.l','~,', ~','14 Although I attended the neighborhoog,,,,~ the developer in May and attended the Planning Commission meeting in June. I regret I am unable attend the July 9'' meeting. I am looking forward to the city's support in keeping our project a custom home development. Sincerely, Earle E Kruggel JUN 16 1997 4951 Cactus CT. Rancho Cucamonga 91737 ~5,ty ol Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division EXHIBIT "C" / '// June 23, 1997 Mr. E. David Barker Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive P.o, Box S07 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 CuckOong~ Dear Mr Barker: C\~ 0~ ~nPh°OW\s~°n On July 9, 1997, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission is scheduled to hear a matter involving a proposed housing development on 26 acres in the northern part of the city, just south of the National Forest and near our home. The application has been submitted by the Lauren Development Co. of Agoura Hills. If this housing development is completed, it has the potential to create a number of problems for the community and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, it is imperative that this proposed development and any proposed in the future be stopped. We do support expansion within the City. However, it must be reasonable. The proposed housing development site is located on steep, hilly terrain near the northernmost point of Haven Avenue. This project would inappropriately alter the natural flood plain and potentially endanger residents in the immediate area after fires and heavy rains, which are inevitable in our area. The proposed development would also have the impact of destroying a sensitive and nonreplaceable wildlife habitat. It is believed that the site may qualify to be a protected area· The developer may have presented misleading information to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whether by accident or design. They claim there are neither geological nor environmental concerns at issue. We along with many members of our community beg to differ. The risks the community and the City face by allowing this development to occur are great and may be very costly. We feel it is your responsibility to determine the facts and stop this disastrous development. Ernie and Mary Maldonado 4947 Calico Court Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91737 ~t"~r2~/: ;t/0 ~ J u n e 2 ?, 191 ? O,V,~j~e~OO' Re: Haven View Estates Opposition to Lauren Development ProjecF ~ Dear Councilmember, The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving a housing project that place our homes and family at risk of flooding and rock debris. The Project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams- All of the existing flood ~ontrol'infrastructure (cited to justify removal of the levee) is built on earthquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes. The Planning Staff have not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of thousands of tons of soil from levee removal. The Project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat land. The Planning Staff did not require any biological studies in violation of state and federal law. The planning staff has been biased toward the developer. It has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record. As residents and tax payers, we have a right to fair, responsible planning staff who take our safety into account. If the Project is approved and there is ever flooding in our area, we will sue the City for damages. Irene Santuci Home Owner irene Santuci ( 909 ) 987-5001 5096 Calypso Ct. _h~" Atta Loma, CA 91737 · Mark C. Estupinian 11045 Ranch Dr. Rancho CucamOnga, ~a 91737 ~'C~'///~'O (909) 945-3346 June26, 1997 C/~,.y ol ~, ,.,? 0u 72~ Plafi~c~ C 2250 East Imperial Hwy Suite 545 El Segundo, CA ~0245 Re: Lauren Development Inc. Proposed Site for Homes Dear Senator Boxer: Over the Memorial weekend, while vacationing with our family, we received a letter from our current homeowners Association, that there was a community hearing at the City Hall in Rancho Cucamonga on the Final Approval for the Proposed Home Sites of Lauren Development, tnc. on June,11,1997. This was the first and only letter on the development that we received. It wasn't until several neighbors researched and passed out information on just how the proposed project was going to affect us. At the meeting, Lauren Development spoke of there proposed homes showing us there elevation of the homes and spoke regarding the square footage of these homes and how they would not affect the values of our homes. Being a custom home builder myself, I have tried hard with design to blend to the surrounding environment with indigenous materials in hopes that other builders would follow my practice, but because of cost issues, I understand that when you build for profit, this becomes your sole objective. At first, our primary objective at the meeting was to address these issues, but after learning of the proposed grading plan, this became a more important issue, to protect my family and property. Lauren Development proposed to eliminate a levee that protects our community from several blue line streams which they have concluded are dried up and they say that this levee is not needed. I can't believe our present planning commission could be so out of touch with there surrounding area's. These streams run right to the east of my house and are collected by a catch basin in hopes to-catch the run off and protect the community below us. Of course they are dried up during the summer time, but these streams become very active during the rains of the winter and spring seasons. If this levee is removed, it would put my family and surrounding neighbors in danger during a wet winter (such as the winter predicted for this year's El Ninyo). This levee is also the only protection from failure of an infrastructure, a mile above us, that was constructed on a fault line that current studies have revealed (other than their eight-year outdated study) a possible 7.5 quake which is 15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake. I am currently a member of the Mt Baldy ski patrol and have experienced first hand the effects on our local mountain of large snow pack conditions With warm tropical rains on top of them. If we have the kind of condition we had during the 1932 flood and the more resent flood of 1968 this levee would be our.only protection from disaster. Many homes would be lost and peoples lives would be at risk. They don't know if that infrastructure will hold during these types of conditions, especially if it had been damaged by an earthquake. In our community we have very limited area of natural habitat left. This is where Lauren Development proposes to construct there homes. I am told that there are less than 2,000 acres of this area left in the world. My daughter and I both like to walk and enjoy the deer and other natural wild life that exist there. Although I have al.ways been in favor in the growth of our Community, I think that it is most disconcerting that when there is so much land in Rancho Cucamonga, from vacant groves to vineyards, that they would tear this sensitive habitat out only to adjoin more than over 100 lots that are undeveloped for over 10 years and in doing so put our families in danger. , This is why I have written to you today. We are in desperate need of Vour help!!! If this development goes through, it will not only put my family in jeopardy but also the lives of others. I have never written the government before and have never been a firm believer in our system, but when our local government has all but approved such a potentially disastrous situation in this community, I had nowhere else to turn. Please, with your influence, convince our city government to at least have Lauren Development obtain current studies on earthquake, biological and flood control issues. Thank you for your time to here our plea for help. I would appr.eciate a response at your earliest convenience, as I know how busy your schedule is. Respectfully yours, a concerned citizen, Mark C. Estupinian cc: Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: William J Alexander Paul Baine James V. Curatalo Rex Gutierrez Diane Wittiams Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: E. David Barker,_ Bill Bethel Rich Macias Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy and Jay C. Kim /z/z5 E. David Barker JUN a. 0 19,97 Planning Commission C~?y' 10500 Civic Center Dr. ,~ancho C' P.O. Box 807 nn' u Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 /fig OiWs~o~rfiorlga . Regarding: Lauren Development Project, Rancho Cucamonga We are writring to you because of a growing concern we have about a housing project that if approved will begin. in our neighborhoo~ shortly. As voting taxpayers we feel that we have the right to a fair and responsible planning staff who will take our safety and concerns into account before any "approvals" are processed. Our main concerns are the following: 1) The Cucamonga Planning Staff is planning to approve a housing project that place our home and many others at risk for flooding and rock debris. This project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three blue line streams. All of the existing flood control infrastructure which has been cited by Lauren Development ( the project developer) is built on earhtquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake could take place. A quake of this magnitude or greater would surely damage the flood control debris basin. This could result in serious flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our home. The levee the developer plans to take out is critical to the safety of our homes and us. 2) The project plans to build on sensitive habitat land. There are less thatn 2,000 acres like this habitat in the world. Isn't it a violation of state and federal law for the planning staff to ignore the requirement of any biological studies on this land? 3) No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of the thousands of tons of soil from the levee removal. 4)' We have a 2yr old. and a baby on the way. Other neighbors have small children as well. The planning staff has not looked into the design of our streets and whether they will hold the amount of new traffic that this developement/project would create in our neighborhood. By the way we pay hefty fees to be a part of our homeowners association. We never intended these fees to pay for non associations members to enjoy our common areas etc. every day at our expense. Our streets were not designed to accomodate all of the anticipated extra traffic. What kind of modifications children with the sizeable increase in traffic. 5) We also are very concerned with the impact these new homes would have on our property values. From what we understand about the tract homes the builder intends on building, is that the value of these homes would be far less than the lower price range of the custom homes in our neighborhood. We as homeowners have worked very hard to be in the position to invest in our current home as well as our fellow association members. This is an investment to us. Isn't there any level of protection we have against a project like this to protect the value of our investment? We know that the value of these new tract hc~mes will greatly devalue our home (investment) as well as the other ct~stom homes in this neighorhood. The developer has blatently ignored this concern. Will the city and county be lowering our property tax bills etc. accordingly?? The people in this neighborhood are some of the higher paying Voting Tax payers in this county. As residents and taxpayers, we have a right to a fair, responsible planning staff who will take our safety and concerns into account. So far the planning staff has been biased toward the developer and has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record to our association. If this project is approved and there is ever any flooding or accidents resulting from the above concerns we will have the right to sue the City for damages .... especially since more than one of the homeowners here have brought these concerns to the attention of several city and planning staff members. Please help. Sincerely, Karen & Lauren AIthaus .~///.~ 4907 Calico Ct. Alta Loma, Ca 91737 (909)945-3071 or (909) 466-7636 Dr. & Mrs. Arvind Kumra 5088 Granada Crt. Alta Loma, CA 91737 6/28/97 R E C E i V E D f~F-' ~~ .Y E. DaVid Barker ~o Planning Commission JUL 0 1 1997 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 ;~,a~C · ' Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 City of Rancbo Cucam0ngaG~.t'~ o O'xqxs~¢x . planning Division ~ Dear E. David: We are writing this letter to you because ~,ve are very concerned about the approval of a housing project located near our home. We were~surprised to find out about this project two weeks before it was to come before the planning commission for final approval. We were not aware that this land (which we thought was a levee) could even be developed. The property in question is located North East of Haven View Estates. As homeowners in this area, we are quite worried about the added risk of flooding and increased traffic through our small streets. After investigating the records on the proposed tract, we discovered that a negative declaration was approved for the area back in 1990. It amazes me that the city can determine that there would be no environmental impact to the proposed homes or the homes located south of this levee which they plan to flatten xvithout any research to support this builder. No environmental studies have been done. Isn't anyone concerned about the two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes, or the flooding risks if the flood control debris basins are damaged from an earthquake? We also are quite concerned about traffic and air quality which will affect us and our children's safety and health as they remove thousands of tons of soil to grade and remove the levee. No traffic studies or air quality studies have been done to consider our safety. No biological studies have been done to determine if this land should be preserved. · Lauren Development has been quite secretive about their plans to develop this area because I'm sure they knew that the homeowners would strongly object to destroying this levee. There are many many undeveloped lots within RC V, Haven View Estates, and Deer Creek which this developer could build on. Why are we cutting into nature, removing a levee which protects our land, and building homes close to huge power lines which you can hear buzzing overhead, when we have so many lots already available for building with streets and sidewalks and equestrian trails in place. We are appealing to you to support our efforts to stop the approval of this project. Allowing this builder to bypass necessary' environmental impact reviews could result in the city's liability for flood damage. Please help us protect our homes and our city. Sincerely, ,,,A.A L Arvind and Lynne Kumra RECEIVED JUL 0 2 City of Bancho Cucarnonga Jtme 24,1997 Dear Larry McNiel, .- Planning Division I am writing to you in regards to a housing tract proposal in Rancho Cucamonga, Lauren Development is planning approximately 40 homes at the top of Haven Avenue that will remove the levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams. The existing flood control infrastructure is built on earthquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake(15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake). When an earthquake occurs the control basins ~vill most likely be damaged and there may be flooding and debris flow. This is very disturbing to me as I live below the proposed project. I also feel the issue of public safety needs to be addressed. In the event of a fire or other natural disaster there is a danger of only having exits off Haven Avenue. Being a rural setting where most of the area is in its natural state, an earthquake or fire could block the only exits. Increasing the gated community by 40 plus homes without another escape route is disaster waiting to happen. . .~, Yet another concern is the negative impact this project has on sensitive habitat land. There is less than two thousand acres of this type of land left in the world. It is my understanding the planning staffof Rancho Cucamonga did not require any biological studies which I believe to be a violation of state and federal laws. Unfortunately little time is left before the Planning Commission vote on July 9 would appreciate if you could address my concerns, and I believe a visit to the proposed site would allow you to see firsthand the adverse impact this development, if allowed, will have on our city. .- Sincerely, Sue Bradford 5066 Granada Court Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 19737 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. June 30, 1997 Mr. Thomas Gram Associate Plarmer City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Dear Mr. Grahn: As you requested, the following represents our responses to recent comments made regarding our Design Review application. The comn'tents we are responding to are from the following sources: 1. Planning Con'm-fission Testimony, 6/I 1/97 2. Lctter from Ms. Malissa McKeith to Citv's Attorney, dated 6/11/97 (including attachments) 3. Letter from Mr. Bill Angel to Planning Comnfission. dated 6/10/97 4. Letter t'rom Mr. Earle Kruggel to Planning Conm~ission, dated 6/16/97 5. Letters from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. dated 4/18/97 and 6/10/97 Even though most of these comments are beyond what we have been informed is the scope of a Design Review application, ,.ve v,,ill respond to the comments nevertheless. \Ve respectfully reserve the right to add additional responses to these comments or to additional comments you mav receive in the future. h'~ some cases, we have elected to have others respond to specific comments, in which case those responses are so noted and are attached to this letter. COMMENT: The citv and Lauren Development o_.ave inadequate notification about this project to the residents. Lauren Development did not talk to all the property ovmers. Homeowners within 300 feet were not notified. RESPONSE: We have made extensive efforts to contact adjacent residents. \Ve have been in contact with members of'both existing association boards for at least one year, met formally with members of both boards in May, and met with other residents and property owners at the Design Review Committee Meeting and at a Neighborhood Meeting also held in May. Owners of 56% of all the lots in Haven View Estates were represented at the meetings held before the June I 1, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Subsequent to that time, we have mailed letters to each of the 106 property o,,vners in Haven View Estates (addresses obtained from San Bernardino '~ 14-'7 11030 An',ow Route, Suite 102 Ranc~o Cucamonga. CA 91730 EXHIBIT "D" c4e4az, d~a3 FAXEe,'V--~aS4 7/9/97 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 2 County Assessor) inviting them to visit our office to see our plans. As of this writing, ~ve have received no responses. In addition} the city has informed us that Design Review is not a "public hearing item" and notifications to all o~vners within 300 feet are not required. A &tailed chronology of the correspondence and meetings held with our neighbors and their elected homeowner's association board representatives is inchtied as an attachment to this letter. (Reference Exhibit 1) COMMENT: Lauren Develoament is "taking" endano_ered species. Lauren Development .is violatin~ the Endanoered Slaecies Act. RESPONSE: This is not true. \Ve have complied v,'ith and will continue to comply with all city, county, state and federal laws governing listed species. We have conducted more on-site research and met with more government officials on this site than is required by any existing regulation or condition. We are confident implementation of' this development -- consistent with approvals granted in 1990 as well as this Design Review application -- will not violate any provision of local, state or t)2deral law concerning listed species or result in the ';take" of any listed species. Please seeJiwt/zer comnzen[s in this regard in attached/etterj;'om/tndre~v Hartzel[ o/the [aw~rnz of He~vitt & :~'[cGzdre. (Reference E:clzibit 2) COMMENT: The city and/or Lauren Development is violatin~ th~ Memorandum of Understanding. / San Bernardino Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan bv aaorovin_ this aroiect. RESPONSE: This is not true. Please seeJiwther comments in this regard in attached letter from Andre~v Hartzell of the lav,' firm of Hewitt & McGzn're. (Reference Exhibit 2) DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 3 COMMENT: City Design Review approval is subject to CEQA. RESPONSE: This is not true. The issues dealt with as a part of the Design Reviexv process have no potential for impacting the envirorm-~ent or addressing purported environmental concerns and therefore this project -- Design Review -- does not require additional analysis and documentation under CEQA. Please see.~trther comments in this regard t'n attached letter frown ,4ndrew Hartzel[ of the law firm of Hewit~ & zl/[cGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) COMMENT: The tentative tract map has expired. RESPONSE: This is not true. N[s. McKeith's letter of June I1, 1997 states that correspondence from Robert Cristiano in city files dated October 14. 1993 ;;clearly establishes" that an extension application was ;;not received in a timely fashion such that the subsequent approval of an extension of the Tentative Tract Map violated" a city ordinance and that "the 1993 approval of Cristiano's extension was defective and thus the Tentative .Xlap expired as a matter of law." She is completely wrong. The correspondence to which she refers is merely a letter from Mr. Cristiano seeking acknowledgment from the city that the state had recently passed legislation giving an automatic extension to all maps in the state including his map, to which the city subsequently responded (October 20, 199.3) in the affirmative. CO,MMENT: These homes and the proposed eradinE are not in compliance with the Hillside Develoament Ordinance. Removal of the levee is not allowed by the Hitlside Development Ordinance. RESPONSE: This is not true. The house and grading plans we have submitted are in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance,"as staff has confirmed in their report. We are proud of that compliance and believe this will be looked upon as a modet project in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. An analysis of existing site contours and proposed grading plans was submitted and reviewed when the tentative tract map application was filed in 1990 as required by the Hillside Development Ordinance. A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved concu~ent with the 110~ Mow Ro~e, Sure 102 Ran~o Cuamonga. CA 917~ DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 4 tentative tract map and a condition was imposed on the tentative map which requires that all future grading be consistent with that Conceptual Grading Plan. Subsequently, the prior owner of the property, Brock Homes, submitted a ;;Rough Grading Plan" to the city Department of Building & Safety (Plan Check 92-0904), and that Rough Grading Plan was approved by the Planning Department on March 24, 1992 as being consistent with the 1990 Conceptual Grading Plan. Brock Homes was very near to initiating grading of the property at that time, however due to financial difficulties a grading permit was never issued and the site was not graded. The grading plan which we are now presenting as a part of this Design Review application is consistent with the 1990 Conceptual Grading Plan and the 1992 Rough Grading Plan. ., comment was made that the levee cannot be graded, per the Hillside Development Ordinance, because its sides are steeper than 30%. That is not true. The Hillside Development Ordinance refers only to natural features which should be preserved if the slope is greater than 30%. The levee is not a natural feature. .-\ re-artal'`'sis of the grading in-tpacts is not necessarv at this time. as the impacts of the grading pIans '`,.'ere evaluated when the tentative tract map ,.,.'as first approved in 1990. Our hon~es ha`,'e been designed to step with the slope. and minirnal deviatior~ from '`vhat ',','as the original grade of the site will be required. Our six floor plans have major splits inside the homes, of 36". 54", 66". 66". 60" and 78", or from 3 to 6.5 feet. Also, the roof lines are within the buildir~g envelope requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and the use of 2:1 slopes, retaining walls and stem wails have been minimized. Our homes comply with the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and city staff COnCUrS. ' COMMENT: Traffic `,rill adverseIv affect the community. RESPONSE: This is not true. The issue of traffic was raised by the homeo~vners at the time of the processing of the Tentative Tract Map. According to the Planning Department staff report dated September 26, 1990, the applicant, Brock Homes, conducted traffic studies and certain changes were made to the map to the satisfaction of this Commission and the homeowners. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ~ Page 5 In addition, the Homeowner's Association entered into a separate recorded agreement with the p[evious owner of the property and agreed that"... no more than 45 homes [shall be built] so as to avoid an overburdening of the... streets... ". Also, the RCV CC&R's further state that this property "... will consist of no more than 42 lots... ". Both of these documents clearly inform future property owners that this property would be developed and would not overburden the community. Further, we plan to be sensitive to our neighbors during the construction period and construction vehicles ,.,,'ill be extremely cautious of the residential nature of the con-~rnunity. Please seeJitrther comments in this regard in attached letter~'om Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of jackson, DeiVl'arco & Peckenpaugh. (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraph ,41so see comments in this regard in attached letter from ,4ndrew Hartzel[ of the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) COMMENT: Removal of the levee will endanger downstream residents. RESPONSE: This is not true. As ,.x,,is. NlcKeith testified, she and her cor~sulting engineer did not have time to review all the plans. Further, the conclusion made by her consulting engineer was based solel,,,' on a site visitation. In the words of the civil engineer who prepared the design plans for the new concrete channel, "the replacement of an aged, unlined, earthen training levee that was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until the Deer Creek Channel was c'omp[ete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic and hydraulic standards, is one where the ben'e~t is so obvious that it speaks for itself." . Please see the complete comments in this regard in the attached [etter~-om the civil engineer, M'r. Stanley ~'forse of ~VIDS Consulting. (Reference Exhibit 42 CO,MMENT: Lauren D(gelopment's houses are too small For our community. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are currently 243 approved home sites within Haven View Estates, including our 40 lots. Of the 203 other lots, only 55 homes (or 27%) have been built thus far. The graph and chart 11030 AFOw Route, Sufte 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ~r-Q9484..1863 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 6 information we distributed at the last meeting provides a number of facts about the existing and proposed homes in Haven View Estates. These two exhibits are included as attachments to this letter. (Reference Exhibit 5) This material shows that: , There are five homes in Haven View Estates less than 3,000 square feet, one home over 6,000 square feet and the rest in between. . The median home size is 4,086 feet. · There are more homes in the 3,000 to 4,000 square foot range than any other grouping. . Our homes range (outward appearance, optional interior areas expanded) from 3,143 square feet (and we only have 4 of these smallest homes) to 4,752 square feet. Approximately 60% of the existing homes are less than or equal to the size of the homes we are proposing. The average size of our homes is 4,107 square feet which is greater than the median size of the rest of the homes built in Haven View Estates. , The minimum square footage home allowed by the Haven View Estates HOA is 1,800 s.f. . The minimum square footage home allowed by the RCV / HOA is 3,000 s.f. Nineteen Design Revie.`v applications have been approved by the city for homes in Ha.`'en View Estates. While some of these Design Reviews have been for the larger homes lisied on the charts, the city has also approved Design Reviev,' applications for homes of 3,409 sf, 3,924 sf, 4,086 sf, 4,105 sfand 4,208 sf. The 3,900 and 4,200 sfapplications were approved as recently as last >'ear. Our homes ',,,'ill be perfeclly consistent with and compatible with the rest of the homes in Haven View Estates. Finally, Ms. McKeith, speaking for CURE, and Mr. Bill Angel, speaking for the RCV Homeowner's Association, both went on record in their testimony to the Commission on June 11, 1997 that the size of the homes proposed is not an issue. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 7 COMMENT: Lauren Development's lots are too small. RESPONSE. This is not true. Lot sizes were determined when tentative subdivision map 14771 and variance 90-08 `.vere approved in 1990. Our 40 lots have a minimum size of 20,045 square feet, a maximum size of 34,482 square feet and an average size greater than 21,000 square feet. COMMENT: All homes alon_o Ringstem and Tackstem will be the same plan and ',viII look the same. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are seven tots which abut these two streets. Three will be Plan l's, two ',,.'ill be Plan 2's, one ',,.'ill be a Plan 3 and one ,.',.'ill be a Plan 4. All of the above plans have two different elevations. COMMENT: Rear ~ara~es naust be counted as front-facing. RESPONSE: This is not true. When the conditions ofappro`,'al for Tentative Tract 14771 ',','ere being considered in 1990. the existing associations offered testimony regarding the design of the-homes on these 40 lots only with respect to the orientation of the garages relative to the street frontage. A cor~dition to this effect ',,.'as imposed, and ,.ve have al`.vays planned on fully complying with this design condition. During the early stages of our development `.ve v,'orked very closely with staff to develop plans which would mitigate front facing garages. The placement of the garages to the very rear of the homes ',,.'as proposed by our architect and discussed with staff'. It ,.','as agreed that placing the garage to the rear of the home, creating garage setbacks of as much as 120 feet from the street, ',,.'as an extremely effective way to meet this design objective. It should also be pointed'a, ut that front facing garages are at a minin'mrn in this development. Since these garages will be placed significantly toward the rear of the homes, the.',,' will only be seen by passersby from directly in front of the home; ,.,.'hen someone is slightly to the left or right of the front of the house, the garage ,,','ill not be visible due to its position relative to the rest of the house or the neighboring house. COMMENT: Onlv ;'custom homes" are allowed in Haven Vie,.,.' Estates. w'O 5,,%" -- 11030 Arrow Route. Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 909484-1883 FAX,c-C9484-18,54 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 8 COMMENT: Only "custom homes" are allo,,ved in Haven Vie,.,.' Estates. RESPONSE: This is not true. There is no condition or other regulation requiring only custom homes, either imposed by the city or contained in any of the recorded documents governing any of the properties within Haven Vie,,,,' Estates. A home-building company by the name of JCC has already constructed non-custom or "tract" homes in Haven Vie,,,,' Estates. The construction of these tract homes was subject to existing homeowner association approval (which our lots are not), and said approval ,.,.'as granted. The homes which we are proposing for our forty lots are designed with numerous floor plan variations, different elevations, alternative exterior colors and textures, and other optional design features such as garden walls, portals, Porte-Cocheres and balconies which will allow buyers to select features to individualize and customize their homes. The six floor plans, twelve elevations and sixteen color/texture alternatives allow such flexibility that there are over 264 alternative exterior appearances for these homes. It is conceivable that no two homes will look alike. While we are under no obligation to construct "custom" homes. we have striven to make our homes as dift~rent from each other as possible, and thereby to be compatible with the neighboring comn~unity. Please see fitrther comments in this regard in attached le,er frorn Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeA4arco & Peckenpaugh (Reference Exhibit 3 - second to last paragraph on page 4). COMMENT: This development ,,viII ruin the neighborhood and drive down sale~; prices of other progerties. RESPONSE: This is not true. Lauren Development fully. appreciates the concerns presented bv some of the owners over the value of their homes. It is our considered opinion that our de:,elopment is a quality development and will have the added benefit of stimulating economic activity in this neighborhood. Resales of both vacant lots and existing homes in Haven Vie,,v Estates have been minimal compared to the surrounding neighborhoods of Deer Creek and north western Alta Loma area, and overall property values for existing lots and homes have decreased over the last few years. While this is an unfortunate circumstance, its cause cannot be attributed to Lauren Development but to general ~cC94&4--1~53 FAX~c4,9,~-3..~1864 II DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 9 economic conditions in Southern California during the last five years. We believe that the market is showing signs of becoming more active. We are confident that our development is compatible ~vith existing development and can only improve the ultimate market for their neighborhood due to our ability to bring prospective purchasers into the community. Not all prospective purchasers ;vill be interested in purchasing one of our homes, and therefore a greater opportunity will exist for the prospective purchasers to either purchase an existing home or perhaps achieve the dream of building their home by purchasing an existing lot. I can assure this Commission that we plan to offer our homes at prices consistent with today's strengthening housing market. These are large semi-custom homes and ,,viII connmand a commensurate price. \Ve believe our development will stimulate the market for this neighborhood and have a substantial positive impact upon the economic stabititv and property values of the area. COMMENT: Lauren Developments lots are "Dart of' the rest of Ha;'en Vie,,,,' Estates and therefore must loin existin~ HOA's. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are currently two separate homeowners' associations in the 243 lot Rated community known as Haven Vie,,v Estates. There is no requirement that our 40 lots be merged with either of the other t,.,.'o associations. To the contrary, the recorded documents specificall>' reserve the right to form a separate, third association. The method of determining and sharing common maintenance costs and responsibilities is also included in these documents. The documents referred to herein are the "Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," the "Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," and the "First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easement". and the CC&R's for the Rancho Cucamonga V / HOA. These documents have been provided to city planning staff as background information. The above documents ,,,.'ere signed by representatives of the existing homeowner associations. Please see fiwther comrnents in this regard in attached letter.pore Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DezWarco & Peckenpaugh (Reference Exhibit 3 - paragraph c). ~cC'9 48.~1363 FAX %"9 =/44-1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 10 COMMENT: Lauren Development's lots are "part of" the rest of Haven View Estates and therefore must aain architectural approval from existinn HOA's. RESPONSE: This is not true. The court supervised settlement agreements referred to above provide for separate associations and none have review authority over the development of lots in the other associations. There is absolutely no basis for the statement that LDI's homes must be reviewed by the other associations or are subject to their architectural guidelines. As a side note, the only component of the Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowner Association CC&R's dealing with architecture is a minimum house size restriction of 3,000 square feet, which has been in effect since these CC&R's were originally recorded. A similar clause in the Haven View Estates CC&R's includes a minimum house size restriction of 1,800 square feet. VVhile we are not subject to either of these CC&R's, we will meet these two requirements. Please see fiv'ther comments in this regard in attached letter fi'om Mr. Dorren Hereford o/the law firm o/Jackson, DeA4arco & Peckenpaugh (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraph D) COMMENT: This aropertv has no access ri~_hts to Haven Avenue. RESPONSE: This is not true. The recorded settlement agreements specify that construction, marketing and permanent day to day access to Haven Avenue by the developer of the 40 lots and by the future homeowners is guaranteed. Please seeJiwther comments in this regard in attached letter fi'om Mr. Darren Hereford o/the law firm o/Jackson, DeiWarco & Peckenpaugh. (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraphs A and B) COMMENT: Who is Lauren Development? RESPONSE: Lauren Development, inc. is a semi-custom home developer and general building contractor, operating under California license number 706178. We are a privately-held 11030 An'ow Route. Sure 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 11 Califomia corporation in good legal standing with the state of California. The California Certificate of Status of Domestic Corporation is attached (Reference Exhibit 6) Lauren Development, Inc.'s philosophy is in kind with custom homebuilding: we take pride in quality building and offering personalized service and an array of customized features for our new homes. Our development management team is on-site, available for clients. This development's professional management team has an outstanding history of professional experience, with the members having many years of that experience working together at S & S Construction (Shapell Industries), one of the ten largest builders in the nation, at large developments in Orange County and Los Angeles County, as well as ,.vinning placement on the Los Angeles Times List of Leading Residential Builders. The members of this management team combined have over 60 years of residential construction experience throughout Southern California. Lauren Development, Inc. has the knowledge and capability to professionally develop and market The Heights at Haven Vie`,v Estates developn~ent. More details regarding the experience of the management team are available to the city upon request. The office of Lauren Development, Inc. in Rancho Cucarr~onga is located at 11030 Arrow Route Suite 102. Our plans are available for viewing there. We have in`,'ited each o,.vr~er of a lot in Haven \tieg' Estates to come to our office and discuss our plans in as much detail as the',' would like. I hope we have addressed all the issues raised. Please call me if you need additional materials. Very truly .,,'ours, John L. Allday JUN-27-97 l[:06 From:HEWITT ~GUIRE 7147980510 T-692 P.OZ Job-30S HEWITT & McGUTRE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEAN DUNN-R..~'Fd.'q ' 19900 MazArl.hur Boulevard, :quite 1050 MARK R. b,,(eOuIR~ C,f^RL-ES S. Exos Irvine, California 92.612 Dv.$~fs D. O'Nnm WaLLfASt R: HALLE G141 798-0500 * O141 798-0511 (fax) J~v $. P,~'CHZKOFS ANDREW K. HART2F. LL PAUL A. ROWE HUC, lt HI:"WFr'T WILI3AJ~ L. TWObraY JOHN D. HL~DSON JOHN P. YP-AGER June 27, 1997 The Honorable David Barker Chairman, CiTy of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Development Review 97- 1 1/Lauren Development (Tract 14771) Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: This firm represents Laurcn Development, Inc. ("Lauren") in connection with the above-referenced project. We are writing to respond to certain specific issues and allegations raised in written submissions to the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") by certain homeowners near the project site, acting under the recently named group Cucamongans United tbr Reasonable Expansion ("CUE"), and The Spirit of the Sage Council ("SSC") regarding compliance with certain namrai resource statutes, regulations and agreements and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Regrettably, both CURE and SSC have elected to rely on misrepresentations and misstatements as the foundation and basis on which to claim non- compliance with, or a "violation" of, the federal Endangered Species Act CESA") and the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding the possible development of the San Bernardinn Valley-Wide Multi-species Conservation Program. Both claims are wholly without merit. Moreover, both CURE and SSC demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of CEQA and its requirements as they pertain to the Planning Commission's role in the design review of this approved subdivision. I. Planning Commission Approval of Lauren's Design Rcvizw Application and hnplem.¢r~tation of the Proiect Will Not Result In Any Violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act. independent of, and irrespective of, its local entitlemoors t9 construct the residential project, Lauren remains subject -- along with every other lot owner of an undeveloped lot in the City or within Haven View Estates -- to the provisions of the ESA. However, given the racks and circumstances or this project, the ESA imposes no restriction on Lauren or the City with respect to design review. issuance or' grading perTnits or the grading of the property. 06-26-97 3021-90002 S:\DOC\161\CQRR\9706003O.LT2 EXHIBIT "E" 7/9/97 JUN-H-gF ll:0T Fcom:HEtITT ~GUIRE 714rSB0510 T-892 P.03/09 JoB-3O8 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 2 Simply put, the ESA prohibits Lauren from killing or injuring any federally listed species -- including the coastal California gnatcatcher ("Gnatcatcher") -- in connection with grading its property. 1 If grading the prol:>crry would result in such injury, Lauren would need to obtain an incidental take permit (Section 10(a) permit) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("Service") prior to grading its property. As well-counseled project developers typically do, Lauren has consulted with biological experts in advance of grading to determine whether any listed species exist on its property. Through such consultation Lauren learned that the only listed species which could conceivably be located on the site was the Gnatcatcher, although the probability of one or more Gnatcatchers occupying the site was quite law. Although l_auren had no legal obligation to conduct surveys or provide such information to any agency, it elected to survey its property for the Gnatcatcher in an abundancc of caution. (A copy or this survey report is attached.) The biologists surveyed the 25-acre site and immediately adjacent habitats completely on four separate occasions in January of this year. As the ermloled report note~, the surveys were conducted by qualified biologists in contbrmance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. No Onatcatchers were obseFved or otherwise detected. Since Grmtcatchers do not occupy the site, Lau. rea does not need to obtain an incidental tq.ke pertT!it fur any other authorization) frorB t.he Service and is under no particular obligations with respect to the ESA, the Service, the California Department of Fish & Game or od~ers. In fact, it would have been rather surprising to find any Gnatcatchers at the site. Only a very few individuals of this species have ever been recorded ta have been observed in San Bern=rdino County. San Bernardinn County is considered to lie at the very fringe of the range for this species. The Service letter of April 18 to Lauren Developmerlt and its Jurm 10 letter to the City appear to be primarily based on various misunderstandings. The Service appears to believe that Lauren, by sending to the Service its survey results (as required under the biologists' fedoral permits), is requesting an "incidentat take" permit from the Service. Lauren is not making such a request. Aircreatively, the Service may believe mat Lauren ls requesting a writ-ten statement from the Service regarding its site; again, Lauren is making no such request. It is even possible that the Service is under the false impression that the Negative Declaration for this project contain.q a condition requiring a letter of approval from the Service prior to ig~;uanee of a grading permit. Again, no such condition exists. ~ 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (1996). 06-26-97 3021-00002 S: \DOC\ 181 \COR R \97060030. L T 2 3 JUN-ZT-97 11:0~ From:HEWITT ).4CGUI~E T147980510 T-SgZ P.04/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker .Tune 27, 1997 Page 3 What we do know is that since at least 1993, the Service has accepted three surveys of a site as conclusive of the presence or absence of the Gnatcatcher for individuals requesting permits l'rom me Service. The Service announced a cl~ange in ~ls policy in March of this year (copy attached). Under its new policy, three surveys will suffice in some local jurisdictions, whereas the Service will request more in others. Ironically, most past surveys using the three visit methodology have been "grandfathered" in by the Service aa "acceptable." As this is a new and changed survey policy, the Service has welcomed comments as to whether it is actually appropriate and justified, and the regulated community is awaiting the release of the study allegeally supporting this change for comment. In any event, the decision regarding how many surveys to conduct in this instance is a matter solely within Laurcn's discretion. Lauren has also appropriately requested more specific information from the Service regarding me allusions in its two Ieuers regarding Gnatcatcher sighrings in me area. In a recent phone conversation with Mr. Jeff Newman of the Service, Mr. Newman informed the undersigned that the basis for the Service's June 10 claim that "the property is adjacent to known occupied California gnatcatcher habitat" consists of a verbal report from an unknown individual that last year one bird believed by that unknown person to be a Gnatcatcher was seen in or near the North Etiwanda Preserve -- approxh'-nately 1.5 miles to tiqe east of the project site.: To date, the Service has not responded to our request for copies of all written reports, if any, of Gnatcatchers currently living anywh~-re near the project site, and it is not clear that any such reports exist. Thus, this undocumented, anonymous, unconfh-med sighting appears to form the basis for the Service's concern. Even if the Service could establish credible documentation to support this rumor -- whicl~ to date it l~as failed to do -- ~e existence of a single bird a mile or more away from the project site would not give He Service a basis to request anvtlnin~ from the City or Lauren Development. II. The S~B ~Bernardino Valley-wide Multi-st3ecies Habitat Conservation Plan MOU Does Not Require the City to Conduct Any FuT'ther Biological Review of the Proiect. Site. The SSC's gssertion that the Snn ]~rm,~rdino Vnlley-wide MSHCP MOU somehow obligates the City or other governmental entities to conduct some sort of further enviromnentzl review of Lauren's project is simply incorrect. 2 In addition, Mr._Scott Ellason of the Service has suggested m the undersigned that there may be historical records of one, two or three pairs of birds formerly occupying the North Etiwanda Preserve at some earlier time. Of course, historic reports are of little relevance to the Service's statement. 06-26-97 302]-0~002 S:\OOC\~6~\CO~R\970fiOO30.LT2 JUN-2Z-gi' 11:0T From:HEWlTT 1,4Cr,,UIRE F141'980510 T-692 P.05/09 Job-SOS The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 4 It is rather telling 'that the SSC does not cite any specific set of provisions in the MOU which require such additional review. In fact, SSC could not do so; since the MOU is designed specifically to preclude any such mandatory obligeIons. The major purpose of the MOU is to establish some initial conceptual frameworks for a possible multiple-species conservation plan for a portion of San BernardloG County. The development of such a plan is expected to require a minimum of several years at best. (A copy of the MOU is artached.) SSC's first error lies in assuming that the MOU's interim Project Review Guideline~g ("Guideliner>") apply to projects which have already been approved and analyzed under CI!iQA, such as the project at hand. The Guidelines do r!.o~ contain provisions for retroactlve application. In tact, the Guidelines specifically indicate that they are meant to be applied -- and applied at the local jurisdiction's and project applicant's sole election -- to projects which are jus.t b_&~i.rmipg the entitlement process. According to the MOU. the Guidelines are meant to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and [Department of Fish and Game] so that projects which could preclude the successful development of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in rt~e development review process .... MOU Attachment F, at F-1. This voluntary review process is offered to "[eliminate the historic problem in which] comments on proposed projects are not received from the Depa~uLtcnt of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service until very late in the lead agency's decision- making process." MOU at F-1. Thus, the review process reouested by SSC does not even apply to a project such as Laurao's that was approved veers ago and where the Cirv has onJv limited additional discretion over narrow aspects of the proiect's implementation. Nevertheless, even if the Guidelines could be construed to apply to an upproved project such as Laurao's -- which they cannot -- the interim review is a totally voluntary process. Therefore, the City will be in compliame with the MOU even if it chooses not to subject gny. projects to the Guidelines' agency consultation process. The [Interim Project Review Guidelines] apecifically do not create an additional layer of project review nor confer any additional authority on the Department rot Fish & Game], the Service or lead agency. The recommendations of the Service and Department are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or JUN-2T-9~ 11:08 From:HE~ITT ~GUIRE T14f980510 T-692 P.06/09 Job-306 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 5 deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency pursuant to existing laws. Each lead agency and/or project proponent shall determine whether a project should be reviewed pursuant to the [Guidelines] .... The lead agency retains the discretion to determine that a project within the plan area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. MOU At~ackmcnt F, at F-1. III. CURE's and SSC's Assertions Concerninc. CEQA Ci3mpletglV Misstate the Fac;s a.ncl Law. The assertions of CURE's environ.mental counsel, Malissa McKeith, concerning the City's compliance with CEQA are factually and legally wrong. Ms. McKeith contends that because the Planning Commission exercises discretion in connection with design review applications, it must reexamine whether there are changed circumstances requiring additional envirnnmcntat documentation under CEQA regardless of whether ~hc circumstances have anything to do with the type of discretion the Planning Conm~ission exercises during design review. In addition, in complete contradiction to published appellate court decisions. Ms. McKeith argues that she and other project opponents must only make a "fair argument" that changed circun~tanccs arc present. First. :he fact that the Pla_p..ging Conunission exercises some discretion when considering design review applications does not mean that the Planning Commission must evaluate the current circumstances surrounding a/! aspects of 'a residential subdivision that already has complied with CEQA in connection with tentative map approval. As a leading CEQA treatise states: CEQA does not apply to an agency decision simply because the agency may exercise some discretion in approving the project or undertaking. Instead, to trigger CEQA compliance. the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the age. ptc_y wihh the ability to "shape the project" in order to minimize environmental impacts. Remy and Thomas, Guide to CEO A, p. 42 (1.996 Edition) (emphasis added). 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\gCC\161\CORR\97060030.L~2 JUN-ZT-97 11:08 From:HE~YITT ~GUIRE The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 6 Tim very case Ms. McKeith selectively quoted from in her letter to the City Attorney makes the same point: "The touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape me project in any way which wolJld respond to any of the environmental concerns which might be _identified in an environmental impact report." Friends of Westwoocl, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 267 (1987). Of course, Ms. McKeith failed to quote this sentence in her letter. Here, the Planning Commission's discretion in the context of design review has absolutely no bearing on the alleged environmental concerns raised by CURE. To paraphrase the Assistant City Attorney, tlm decision whether the homes will be French Provincial or Spanish Colonial has no relevance to the alleged environmental concerns raised by project opponents. CURE'S alleged environmental concerns revolve around tour topics: (1) vegetation/habitat impacts; (2) flood control; (3) traffic; and (4) air quality. While we believe each and every one of these "concerns" is a complete red herring (and will explain why below), the Corranission is certainly familiar enough with its role to 'know that none of these proposed concerns are addressed or addressable as part of design review. One easy way to illustrate this is to point out that the property owner could record his final map, obtain a grading permit. clear the development portion of the site of all vegetation, rough grade the 40 buildable lots, install all subdivision improvements. including roads, sell the lots to forty (40) different individuals, ~nd then submit up to 40 set3arate design review applications. Completing such tasks would moot all of the concerns raised by CURE and SSC but would not preclude the Planning Commission from exercising the type or discretion it exercises in connection wlth deslifo review. To reiterate, the mere fact that the Planning Corrunission still has some discretion over a narrow aspect of the project does not mean that the City can or must reevaJuate all impacts that will result from implementing existing project approvals. None of the alleged environmental concerns involve aspects of the project that can be modified in any relevant way as pan of the design review process. Ms. McKcith knows this: if-she does not know this, she is grossly unfamiliar with the applicable law. III. Even If Design Review. Triggered Re. evaluation of the Entire Project Urlder CEQA, the Alleged Chan~ed Circumstances Are All Red Herrin~s. Assuming solely for the sake of refuting CURE's other factual and legal misstatements that the City had the authority to reconsider all aspects of the project in connection with its design review,_ process -- which it does not -- there are no 'changed circumstances with respect to the project which result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. CURE's allegations that changed circumstances are present do not withstand scrutiny. JUN-ZT-gT 11:09 From:HEWlTT IJCGUtRE 7147980510 T-692 P.OB/09 Job-3a6 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 7 First, the listing Of the coastal California gnatcatcher could only conceivably be a significant new circumstance if the site contained Gnatcatchers, which it does not. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's letter claiming that removal of "suitable habitat' would violate the ESA severely overstates the Service's authority. This issue is addressed above. There have been numerous species placed on the endangered species list since 1990 in addition to the Gnatcatcher; this project will not impact any of them either, and their listing doeg not congtitute changed circurnsrances either. Second. the vegetation type that will be impacted has not changed since the tract map was approved. It was 'known as a sensitive habitat type even in 1990, although completion of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel have removed the gite from hydrological events that keep the vegetation dynmnic and healthy over time (see p. 2 of the attached Gnatcatcher Survey Report). Presumably, the City determined that the small amount of acreage impacted and its location in a residential development area made the impact less than significant. Rightly or wrongly, a determination of insigq:dficant impacts was made at the rime the Negative Declaration w~s ndopted and even Ms. McKeith acknowledges rJ:mt the time lo challen~e that deternqinafion. has lon~ since passed. Third. CURE's allegations of chan~e in circumstances with respect to air quality, traffic and noise do not relate to the project at all and do not create any potential for the project to have sig~nifican~ new impacts in those ar~as. The development Consists of 40 homes. whicPt will generate a relatively small amount of traffic. Finally. the claim that the always contemplated removal of the existing berm and swale on the site is a signit~cant new issue because Lauren Development may not have as many assets as the prior developer Brock I-Iomcs takes the cake. The City will require bonding for subdivision in~provements and will have the benefit of all mechanisms typically available to ensure proper performance of the project. Ms. McKeith's attempt.to characterize her assertion that the Project mi~,ght not be implemented properly as "significant new information" is novel and a distortion of what CEQA requires. CURE has attgmpted to create the appearance of real and serious new issues where none truly exist. CURE also contends that it does not nzcd to show "substantial evidence" that these new alleged issues are significant; CURE insists that only a "fair argmnent" need be made. CURE cannot provide any substantial evidence of significant changed circumstances and CURE'a counsel conveniently omitted from. her voluminous letter any references to the published cases that expressly state that the substantial evidence test applies even when a Negativ._e Declaration was the initial form of CEQA compliance. See, e.g.., Benton v. Board nf Supervisors. 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991); Ternecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Rarlcho California Watgr District, 43 Col. App. 4th 425 (1996). These failings 06-26-97 302~-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 JUN-2FgT 11:09 From:HE~ITT M(::GUI~E Tt4~980510 T-592 P.09/09 Jo~-30S The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 8 compound the fundamental error that CURE has made, which is that design review does no._!t trigger CEQA review of the entire project. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the very distorted representations made by CURE, SSC and others. Thank you for your consideration of the above. Should you have any questions, please contact Mark McGuire or the undersigned at (714) 798-0500. Andrew K. Hartzcli AKH/jmj Enclosures cc: William Bethel Richard Macias Gall Kobeflch Peter Tolstoy Ralph Hanson, Esq. Jeff Newman Larry McNeil John Allday Bill Tippets JACKSON, DErvlARCO & PECKENPAUGH A LAW COI::tPORATION ANO*ql;W V.t.e~mTC, IRVINF, CALIFORNIA 92623-9704 SUITe" IOC~ ............................. June 25 1997 (7 14) 851-7427 fsj03'~'~J'ct'p~l;:w.com 26427 James Markman, Esq. VIA HAND DELIVER Y Rancho Cucamonga City Attorney c/o Markman, A_rczynski, Hanson, Curly & Slough P.O. Box 1059 Brea, California 92622-1059 Re: The Heights at Haven View Estates Tentative Tract 14771 Dear Mr. Markman: We have been asked by our client, Lauren Development, Inc. CLDI"), to address certain issues which have been raised by neighboring property owners in connection with LDI's development of 40 lots in Tentative Tract Map 14771 (comprised of Lot 151 ofTfact No. 12332- 2 and the Remainder Parcel shown on the map for Tract No. 12332-2) ("Project") in Rancho Cucamonga. Specifically, we have been asked to address the following issues: (1) LDI's legal right oFaccess over property owned by the Iqaven View Estates Homeowners Association CHVE"); (2) LDI's legal right of access over property owned by the Rancho Cucamonga V- Haven View Estates Homeo,.vners' Association CRCV"); (3) whether-LDI is required to join one or both of the existing homeowners associations; (4) whether LDI is subject to the architectural control committees of one or both of the existing homeov,'ners associations; and (5) whether the development of the Project was contemplated by the applicable development agreements of record. We address each of these issues below. To provide you with a brief background for the documents which are discussed below, in the late 1980's, lawsuits were filed and litigation ensued between HVE and the property owners in what is now RCV, as well as the subject Project. These documents, signed by representatives of all affected properties are as follows: the Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989, as Instrument No. 89-056050, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Developer Agreement"); the Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989, as Instrument No. 89- 056051, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Association Agreement"); and the First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990, as Instrument ,, No. 90-111246, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Amended Grant"). JACKSON, DEMAIRCO & PECKENPAUGH James Markman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 2 A. Access over HVE Property,. The Project is subject to the Developer Agreement. In paragraph l(a) of the Developer Agreement, HVE grants nonexclusive easements to the "Adjoining Landowner" for purposes access, ingress, egress, use and enjoyment in, to and over the "Access Streets" in Tract No. 12332-1 (i.e., Ringstem Street, Clover Place, and Tackstem Street). Paragraph l(b) provides that these easements are appunenant to and pass with title to the "Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage, any portion thereof and interest therein." The term "Adjoining Property" is defined as all of Tract No. 12332-2, and the term "Additional Acreage" is defined as the Remainder Parcel of Tract No. 12332-2. The easements over Ringstem, Street, Clover Place and Tackstem Street within Tract No. 12332-1 are appurtenant to the Project, albeit subject to the covenants contained in the Developer Agreement for sharing of maintenance costs for the Access Streets. Thus, the Developer Agreement ensures access to the subject Project over the "Access Streets" owned by HVE. B. Access over RCV ProperP/. The Project is also subject to Amended Grant. In paragraph 2.1 of the Amended Grant, the parties granted each other mutual and reciprocal permanent, nonexclusive easements for ingress and egress of pedestrians and vehicles and use and enjoyment over all streets located upon the "Brock Property, the Chen Propert)' and the JCC Propen)'... as such streets are shown upon Tract Map 12332-2... and upon and over such streets which may be shown upon any recorded tract map for that portion of the Brock Propen>' which is presently shown as the 'Remainder Parcel upon the Recorded Tract Map." It is clear that the panics to the Amended Grant enjoy access over and share maintenance responsibilities for the streets within Tract 12332-2. Thus, LDI has easements over the streets in Tract No. t 2332-2 for the purpose of accessing the Project. Moreover, we understand that First American Title Company has al~o concluded that there are easements over the streets within Tracts 12332-I and 12332-2 for access to the Project, and First American has agreed to insure such access. C. Annexation to Existing Associations. It appears tt~.t the "Brock Association" identified in the Association Agreement, was originally anticipated to be a single homeowners' association with jurisdiction over Lots 1 through 151, inclusive, of Tract No. 12332-2, and the Remainder Parcel shown on the map for Tract No. 12332-2. The Association Agreement does not expressly intend or require that a single homeowners' association have jurisdiction over all oETract No. 12332-2. Moreover, the Developer Agreernent, the Amended Grant and the Association Agreement (collectively "Project /7b JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH James Mar'kman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 3 Documents") do not contain any provisions which expressly require that the Project be annexed to HVE or RCV. The Project is defined as Annexation Property in the Declaration of Establishment CC&Rs for RCV, recorded on June 13, 1990, as Instrument No. 90-231127 CRCV Declaration"). However, the Project was never annexed to the property subject to the RCV Declaration. Annexation of the Project to the RCV Declaration, without the consent of the RCV members, must be made by a Participating Builder `'vithin 3 years follo`'ving the original issuance by the DRE of the most recently issued Public Report for a Phase of the overall development. Assuming that this time period has lapsed, consent of 2/3rds of the RCV members, as ,,,,'ell as the consent of the Participating Builder, must be obtained in order to allow the Project to be annexed to the RCV Declaration. As a practical matter, it may be difficult to obtain the requisite member approval to allow such annexation. Nowhere in the RCV Declaration does it require that the Project be annexed to the RCV Declaration. In fact, Section 17.11 of the RCV Declaration expressly reserved the right of M.j. Brock & Sons, Inc. ("Brock"), LDI's predecessor-in-interest, to not annex the Remainder Parcel to the RCV Declaration. We have not reviev,'ed the Declaration of CC&Rs for HVE CHVE Declaration"). Therefore, we do not have any opinion as to what requirements the HVE Declaration may have, if any, with respect to the annexation of the Project to the HVE Declaration. Given that the HVE Declaration was recorded sometime prior to the RCV Declaration and the Project is defined as "Annexation Property" under the RCV Declaration, the HVE Declaration should not have any provisions mandating the annexation of the Project to the HVE Declaration. Even if the HVE Declaration did contain such provisions, they would be outweighed by the above-mentioned restrictions. D. Architectural Control. As discussed above, the Project Documents do not require that the Project be annexed to the property subject to the Declaration of CC&Rs for either HVE or RC'V. Thus, unless the Project is annexed to either the HVE Declaration or the RCV Declaration, the architectural committee of neither association will have any architectural control jurisdiction over the development of the Project. Clearly no submittal to or approval by either of the other two associations or their architectural committees is warranted. E. Development of PfSject. It is evident from the Project Documents that the construction of homes and related improvements within the Project was intended. For example, Section 2 of the Developer Agreement expressly provides for easements and rights of way over the Access Streets "for the purpose of access by construction personnel, vehicles, equipment and materials to and from the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage ... until the construction of homes and related / 7/ JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH James Mar 'kman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 4 improvements on the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage is complete .... "Also, Section l(a) of the Developer Agreement provides, in part: "The foregoing grant with respect to the Additional Acreage shall be effective for the use by owners of no more than forty-five (45) homes in the Additional Acreage, so as to avoid an overburdening of the Access Streets by the ultimate residents in the Additional Acreage." Moreover, the recitals on page 2 of the RCV Declaration provide, in part: "The Remainder Parcel is currently being remapped and it is anticipated that the Remainder Parcel will consist of no greater than 42 lots and may also contain Equestrian Trails, Drainage Facilities and Common Areas." Thus, it is evident that the development of the Project with 40 homes was intended from the beginning, and the members of RCV had constructive notice of this intent when they purchased their homes. The Project Documents encumber the Project and delineate the rights and obligations of RCV, HVE and the owner of the Project concerning access over the streets ~vithin Tract 12332-I and 12332-2, and the sharing of maintenance costs for streets and related improvements, among other things. However, the Project Documents do not contain any restrictions or covenants concerning the type of homes to be constructed within the Project. In the letter dated June 10, 1997, RCV's counsel fails to cite any recorded restriction or covenant encumbering the Project which supports RCV's position that the Project should only be developed as a "luxury, community" characterized by "large custom homes." We have not been asked to address the entitlement and environmental impact issues raised in the June 10, 1997, letter. However, it is evident that RCV's counsel fails to cite any specific authority or policy in support of RCV's opposition to the development of the Project by LDI. To the contrary, the public policy expressed by the California State Legislature is that the construction of housing is a matter of'great public need.1 Clearly RCV's myopic and self- serving opposition to the development of the Project is contrary to the express public policy of the State of California. Please call me to discuss any questions you may have regarding the foregoing matters. Sincerely, ,/ FSJ:DLH 0259882.03 cc: Mr. William D. Ford Jeffrey M. Boren, Esq. F. Scott Jackson, Esq. tGovernment Code §659 13. V)-ca" / 7Z MDS CONSUL TING " ~LANNERS o ENGLNi~ERS · ,~URVEYORS 1'/14) 251-8821 17320 Redhill Avenue, Suite 350 F.J-Y 'Z51-0516 lrvine, CA 92614 June 26, 1997 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development Post Office Box 790 Agoura Hills. CA 91376 TRACT 14771 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES Dear John: In response to the Declaration of Bruce Collins dated June 11. 1997, the oral presentation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission by Ms. Melissa McKeith on June 11.1997, and the correspondence from Loeb and Loeb to Mr. James Markman, Esq., also dated June 11, 1997, I offer the following comments: I am the president and founding partner of MDS Consulting, and have been in private practice since 1970. starting my own firm in 1976. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering and am a registered civil engineer in Cafifomia and Arizona. I have practiced civil engineering. including all facaLs of grading and drainage design, since entering private practice. My company has worked extensively in the western portion of San Bernardino Count'/, including the city of Rancho Cucamonga. and has followed the development and consb'uction of many of the major flocd control channels, including Deer Creek Channel and iLs appurtenances. t have been personally involved in the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations performed on Tract 14771, and in the subsequent processing through the involved approving government agencies. Our company was'retained by Brock Homes in Apnl of 1991 to complete the preparation of various construction drawings for the final phas~ of Master Tentalive Tract No. 12332, a forty tot subdivision named as Tentative Tract No. 1,4771. The Master Tentative Tract No. 12332 and its related construction drawings were prepared by Associated Engineers. Included in their drawings were detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations including various analyses of offsite drainage conditions. All of these calculations were reviewed and approved by all appropriate government agencies. Our assignment for the forty lot subdivision (Tentative Tract No. 14771) was to update and complete the processing of the FEMA map revisions. both the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and the Le~er of Map Revision (LOMR), which we accomplished. At a project level. we prepared the various hydrologic and hydraulic studies ir~ accordance with generally accepted engineering practice required to substantiate the design of the hardened concrete drainage channel at the northern property line of Tentative Tract No. 14771. These hydrologic and hydraulic studies were reviewed extensively and were deemed acceptable for permit in December of 1992. The project I.aid fallow (due to the general economic recession) until 1997, when Lauren Development resurrected the project and reprocessed the plans. The hydrology and hydraulic portions of the design have again been determined to be acceptable and the plans are in the final stages of processing for construction permits. We are not sure if either Mr. Collins or Ms. McKeith have ever reviewed the volumes of material available on the design of the various drainage facilities designed for Tra~ 14771, as our company has never been contacted by them. Apparently, they only reviewed the tentat. jve tract map, and. as we all know. a tentative tract map is just that. a t'~ntative plat to be used as a guide to more detailed construction planS. Even at that. MDS._ STANLEY C. MORSE GARY DOKICH SKiP 5CHULTZ EXHIBZT "G" 7/9/97 / 75 June 26, 1997 Page Two the City of Rancho Cucamonga requires preliminary drainage studies to accompany the tentatjve tract map, documents that neither of the project Opponents mentioned as being reviewed. In our professional opinion, the replacement of an aged, unlined, earbhen training levee that was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until Deer Creek Channel was complete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrotogic and hydrauric standards, is one where the benefit is so obvious that it speaks for itself. As a sidelight, the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District abandoned their drainage easement through Tract 14771 in 1988, as it was no longer necessary for their operation. In other words, the maintenance and operation of that earthen levee is not within any organization currently, whether private or public. By the construction of the concrete channel wfth Tract 14771, a maintenance association will be in place to take care of the channel. Should either of the project opponents need to perform proper complete research on the project, we are available to meet with them and discuss both the regional facilities (Deer Creek Channel) and the project level facilities (Tract 14771 ). SinceFe E 20596 SCM:jo G:~ 19tO~\C OR\TR 1477 1 Motion: b Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. Motion Motio.~: b h f~~~ AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, IEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9%11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented a staff report and discussed a supplemental staff report which had been issued to the Commission outlining why no additional environmental evaluation is necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He commented that issues raised at the last meeting dealt with compatibility concerns including whether tract homes would be compatible in an area which is predominantly custom homes and the size of the homes. He said the City does not have any specific requirements to prevent tract development and the applicant has met the criteria for design of the homes including compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. He noted that City codes require a minimum 1.000 square feet with the proposed homes being in the range of 3,100 to 4,300 square feet. He stated that before the Commission were a number of letters of opposition which had been received. He indicated the letters cited concerns regarding removal of the levee, affect upon property values, and the need for additional studies. He reported that two telephone callers had expressed concerns but could not attend this evening's meeting. He stated the Commissioners also had before them a copy of a letter from Robert Cristiano, the current property owner. Chairman Barker stated that the Commission had received a tremendous amount of information since the last meeting. He felt the additional information had given the impression of a shotgun being fired at the project. He requested legal clarification of the scope of authority and responsibility of the Commission and the options available to it. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney. stated the Commission had the City's most detailed design review process for consideration. He reported the Commission was looking at a detailed site plan and building elevations for the project. He commented that the project itself was approved almost seven years ago and at that point it was known that the property would be developed and conditions were established for that development. He said the Commission was now talking about what the development will look like. He observed there had been multiple layers of analysis from the residents and the developer and the issues brought forth had been analyzed in detail. He indicated that many of those issues had been discussed even though they may not apply. He stated that he agreed with the developer's team of lawyers with respect to the legal issues. He reported that a federal lawsuit had been filed against the City and two of its staff members and said he would not comment on that lawsuit. He observed that no injunction had been issued and the lawsuit would not be an impediment to the Commission's decision. He felt that any decision by the Commission would be appealed to the City Council. Chairman Barker said it was his understanding that the issue is design and the Commission could only legally take action regarding design review. Mr. Hanson respondedl'iat was correct. He said the subdivision map had been approved years ago and, to his knowledge, the only remaining requirement is to file a final map for the City Council to approve, which is a ministerial act. He stated the design review process is created by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. He commented that the design would not be brought back before the Commission in most communities. He indicated that it was decided years ago that there would be development in that location. Chairman Barker observed that there was no mention in the resolution of the other issues. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 9. 1997 //'7,5" 13" "E" Brad Buffer, City Planner, indicated that was correct. Chairman Barker said he was interested in hearing any testimony that he had not already heard or read, recognizing that anything other than design was in regards to an action taken seven years ago. John Allday, Lauren Development, inc., 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they have three law firms in connection with a design review. He indicated they had prepared a notebook for the Planning Commission responding to what had been raised at the last meeting. He asked if the Commission wished him to go through the responses, issue by issue, or if it preferred that he answer questions. Chairman Barker suggested that he answer questions. Commissioner McNiel commented that he did not see any value in going through all of the other issues raised, as the only action the Commission could take was in regards to design review. He suggested that the applicant be permitted to comment after the other testimony. Chairman Barker asked that everyone limit their discussions to design issues. Commissioner Macins felt the Commission should hear public testimony and allow the developer to address any points brought up following the public testimony. Mr. Hanson commented that the Commission would probably hear opinions which differ from his. Chairman Barker responded that he could appreciate that, but the City pays the City Attorney to advise the Commission. Mr. Allday said their house plans, grading plans, and conceptual landscape plans are all in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. He stated that removal of the levee does not conflict with the Hillside Development Ordinance because the levee is man-made and the Ordinance refers only to natural features. He observed that a comment had been made at the previous meeting that the houses are too small for the community. He said he was not sure that was still an issue because both Ms. McKeith and Mr. Angel had testified that size was not an issue for them. Mr. Allday felt their homes are consistent and compatible with the remainder of the homes. He indicated a statement had been made at the last meeting that all homes facing Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street would look alike and said that statement was not true. He recalled there had been a complaint regarding the garages which are front-facing but pulled back and stated the garages will be pulled back up to 140 feet and he felt the view of the garage will be shielded by the house. He noted that residents had indicated that only custom homes should be permitted in Haven View Estates and he pointed out that tract homes already exist in the community and those tract homes were approved by the homeowners' association. He said there is no code or legal requirement for custom homes. He said they have provided various options so that the homes will appear very different from each other. He observed there had been questions raised regarding the prices they will charge and a flyer had been circulated indicating they will be selling for S275,000. He said that fears that Lauren will lower the property values are unfounded and noted that property values have decreased in the last few years. He commented that the tract homes built in the early 1990s ranged from S117 to :8136 per square foot while recent sales data include homes selling for $99 to $102 per square foot. He reported that one resident had visited his office and made the comment that he understood Lauren wiil'~sell homes for whatever the market will bear, but he didn't like that Lauren will be selling in today's low market. He asked if the City should mandate moratoriums until prices improve to where they were five years ago. He said they plan to sell homes for whatever the strengthening market will allow. He stated that Lauren Development is a privately held company in good legal standing. He indicated their office is open every day of the week and stated they had mailed individual letters to all 106 home and lot owners in the tract and invited them to their office and only two individuals called and came to the office. Robed Cristiano, 9 Aurora, Irvine, stated he bought the property in 1987 and was restricted to access to his own property because of the gates. He indicated he sought relief in the couds and had to pay the homeowners association for access. He said those documents are recorded and there are no unresolved access issues. He stated that the 40 lots were approved in 1990 with very rigid conditions of approval including removal of the earthen berm. He said he selected Lauren Development because they were able to adhere to the strict requirements and he felt the floor plans and elevations are excellent. He stated he was concerned about the hidden agenda of those who are in opposition to the project, stating he had been told that the plan is to purchase his land for $1'00,000 after the project is defeated. David Tardnel, 6128 Ashton Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had been asked to explain how happy he is with the home he bought in Ashton Place, one of 13 semi-custom homes built by Lauren Development. He said he is very happy with his home. The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Malissa McKeith, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 1800, Los Angeles Tom Sheahan, Dames & Moore, 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, #C-110, Ontario Mindy Sheps, Wolf, Rifkin & Shapiro, LLP, 11400 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles Bill Angel, 12966 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga Arvind Kumra, 5088 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Joe Stephen, 5067 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Frank Bucalo, Beechwood Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council, P. O. Box 77027-102, Pasadena Maureen Sampson, P. O. Box 1327, Rancho Cucamonga Leo Orvananos, 1097 Carriage Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Millie Morris, president of Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowners Association, 5109 Lupizzan Place, Rancho Cucamonga Vasin Shane, address unknown Valetie E. Card, 10019 Banyan, Rancho Cucamonga Lauren Althaus, 4907 Calico Court, Rancho Cucamonga Sue Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Paul Davies, 7398 London, Rancho Cucamonga Ms. McKeith complained that Rancho Cucamonga has not had commercial growth in the last few years while Ontario got Ontario Mills and an auto mall. She also complained that schools and the library are under funded and commented that building 40 new homes will not address those problems. She presented a notebook containing a letter to the City Attorney and background materials objecting to the project. She contended that because the Commission has to make specific findings in the resolution, the approval of the design review is not a ministerial act. She stated that the City should look at whether the circumstances have changed since approval of the tract and felt she had presented new evidence to show there are changed circumstances. She asserted she would not limit her comments to design issues and said she had advised others not to as well. She requested atraffic study including a study regarding noise and air quality during construction traffic. She stated there were only 10 homes in Haven View Estates when the tract was approved in 1990 compared to 55 now. Ms. McKeith submitted a letter from Crain & Associates regarding grading of the levee and stated that letters had been received from the Army Corps of Engineers and Flood Control District stating they had not commented on safety following removal of the levee. She corl'[~'nded that the debris basin built by the Army Corps of Engineers was built to withstand a magnitude 5.0 earthquake but it has since been found that the area could suffer a greater magnitude. She stated that six debris basins have failed in Los Angeles County. She thought that even if CEQA does not apply, the Commission must make a determination regarding safety of the project. She stated she had heard a rumor that Lauren planned to start grading on Saturday. She asserted that if the project is approved and homes built, CURE would circulate disclosure statements to all prospective home buyers to make sure no one buys the homes. She stated a lawsuit was filed in Ventura County against a previous company owned by the developer. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 9, 1997 / 7 1 Mr. Sheahan stated he is a hydrogeologist who had been asked by Ms. McKeith to comment on the levee. He discussed the debris basin and swale and stated that if the replacement of the levee is not adequate, there could be erosion. He said the levee is designed to handle rainwater but a small drainage ditch would not be. Ms. Sheps indicated she represented Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association. She presented a copy of documents she had forwarded to the City Attorney alleging that Lauren Homes does not have access rights over the streets within Rancho Cucamonga V b~Cause the parcels to be developed by Lauren were specifically excluded from the agreements. There were comments that development is not allowed under Hillside Development Ordinance where existing slopes exceed 30 percent and levee is over 30 percent. Photographs were shown of the site and objections were made to removal of the levee because they considered it a prominent ridge that should not be removed. A comment was made that a Federally recognized blue line stream runs through property. It was noted that the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance is to have homes that flow with the land and it was felt that a 30-foot high fireplace on the end of a home is not in keeping with the ordinance. Comments were made that smaller homes were built when Haven View Estates first developed, but more recent homes are larger. Complaints were raised that the development is not compatible because they are production homes instead of custom. There were comments that the developer has not indicated how much the homes will sell for. A question was raised if there will be more development beyond that point once the road is opened. Objections were raised that the elevations portray different looks but some are options that must be purchased by the buyers and there was no guarantee they would be purchased. A resident said the development will only fit in if each house has a different look and no two look alike. Someone feared that flooding will result because an El Nino is expected next year. A question was raised as to the availability of flood and fire insurance. One resident stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to protect the people in the area. It was contended there was new data regarding the fault which was not known when the Negative Declaration was prepared for the tract and a comment was made that the State is currently retrofitting freeway overpasses because new evidence has come to light regarding earthquakes. A teacher observed that students are taught about loss of habitat in foreign countries but not in their own backyard. She felt it is hypocritical of United States to use natural resources beyond what it is entitled to and that it is important to save the land. A resident stated that Haven View Estates is the only fully gated custom home development in the City and he thought the tract homes would destroy their special neighborhood. Ms. Klippstein presented documents regarding Spirit of the Sage Council, alluvial scrub vegetation, and Shoshone-Gabrielino Indians and their beliefs. She showed pictures of undeveloped land and expressed concern that government is not saving open space. She indicated Shoshone-Gabrielino Indians are opposed to the project because of loss of sacred lands and medicinal plants. She felt all land is public trust land which is privately owned but the private owners do not own the wildlife. She contended that the City had entered into a contract with other agencies regarding habitat conservation. She stated the eco-system needs to be conserved. She requested an EIR. She stated saving the land would not be a taking if the owner were offered fair market value. James Badon, 5552 Canistel Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he supports the project. He felt the environmental issues had been addressed when the project was originally approved and he did not think the Planning Commission should only be considering them now. He stated that over 70 percent of basic land in the United States is left open for habitat. He thought that once development standards are establib"'~d for a site, the final review should only be to determine if the proposed development meets those standards. He stated he lives in Deer Creek and almost every house has personal touches, making the tract into a custom neighborhood. He said the only question should be whether the quality of the product the developer is offering meets the standards the City originally intended for the area. He stated there is a tremendous amount of vacant land because of the economy changing. He felt quality can be achieved when a series of homes are built at one time. He said he had read a newspaper article that claimed that City staff had misused its power and stated he was uncomfortable that someone would use the ploy that planning personnel would have ,,Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 9, 1997 / personal gains by not informing residents of the development. He felt people should know that once a tract is approved, all other lots will be built. He did nol feel the first person on the block should be able to block development of other lots so long as standards are met. The Planning Commission recessed from 9:25 p.m. to 9:39 p.m. Mr. Allday stated that all of the arguments presented tonight had already been addressed in materials submitted to the Planning Commission prior to tonight's hearing. He said the rumor that tl'i~y planned to begin grading on Saturday if the project were to be approved tonight was false. He noted that Mr. Sheahan of Dames & Moore had stated he did not know the details of what is to be constructed in place of the levee and that "if it were not designed to capacity it would be a problem." He said the levee will be replaced by an alternative facility and there will not be a threat to the residents. He felt it was irresponsible for people to spread the rumor that nothing will take the place of the levee and felt it was obvious that no one had bothered to review the plans for the replacement of the levee. He presented a letter from RMA Group, a geotechnical consultant, regarding an analysis of the existing levee and the proposed drainage system. He said the conclusion of the report was that the proposed system would be safer than the existing levee. He commented that civil engineers had submitted detailed hydrology reports for the site to FEMA and FEMA had approved them. He noted that the Flood Control District abandoned an easement they had on the site because of the improvements to the area. He also commented that FEMA removed its requirement for flood insurance for the area. There were no additional public comments, Chairman Barker asked for clarification that there is currently a map for the project. Mr. Hanson confirmed that there is an approved tract map. He said the Planning Commission has no authority regarding the map at this time and indicated a final map is presented to the City Council. Chairman Barker asked for clarification that the Commission has no authority regarding the map. Mr. Hanson confirmed that was correct. He said the Commission would be exercising discretion regarding the design review but it does not have the authority to make any changes to the map. He said the discretion is merely to determine if the project is in compliance with the Development Code and standards. Chairman Barker commented that he knew that most, if not all. of the Commissioners had visited the site. He said he had flown over the site as well as visiting it. He stated he could emphasize with many of the residents in the audience and commented he first became involved in the community in 1981 when a project was proposed in his neighborhood. He said he and his neighbors knew they could not stop the development, but they felt they could affect the quality. He stated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to revisit a decision which was made by a previous Commission and certain actions which had been taken several years ago. Commissioner McNiel stated he was still convinced that the Commission is dealing with the design review of the project. He noted the map is in place. He observed there had been some questions raised regarding whether the project meets the standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance. He asked if staff feels the project meets the limitations and spirit of the Ordinance, including building envelopes. '*' Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively. Commissioner McNiel asked staff to comment regarding removal of the levee and replacement with alternative facilities. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 9, 1997 Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that overall flood protection of the area depends on a debris facility in the hills and the channel being maintained by the Flood Control District. He stated the replacement is designed to handle local flows south of the debris facility. He noted that the Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers were initially involved and FEMA authorized the flood zone change south of the channel to a Zone X meaning that flood insurance is no longer required. He said it is not necessary for the replacement to handle mountain flows. COmmissioner McNiel asked if the proposed facility is sufficient to replace the levee. Mr. James indicated he has not studied the capacity of the levee. He indicated the overall system depends upon the debris basin which is maintained by the Flood Control District. He said the local facility will protect from local flooding, not mountain flooding if the debris basin fails. Commissioner McNiel commented that there had been a goodly amount of sniping. He said his concern was that any action by the Commission meets the codes and requirements. He recalled there had been some bad flooding in 1969 and 1978, but stated that things have changed since then. He said it is now possible to drive across town during excessive rainfalls whereas that was not possible prior to improvements being made to the storm drain facilities. He believed Lauren had met the letter of the law. He did not feel the homes will be detrimental to the community. He acknowledged there has been a good deal of changed circumstances over the years, but felt a great deal has to do with the improved flood control facilities. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the issue at hand was design review. He thanked the public for its input. He felt the project met the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and indicated it had gone through the design review process. He stated he had looked very carefully at what was presented and he supported the project. Commissioner Macins stated the developer and homeowner had both spoken. He felt the homeowners have legitimate concerns. He stated he had reviewed everything and listened to the tapes of the meeting he had missed. He agreed with the City Attorney's opinion that the issue is design review and indicated he had served on the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Bethel stated he had been on the original Design Review Committee when the project was reviewed. He noted that he had received a number of letters since that time. He felt it is important to know what the public is thinking but said he still supports the project. Chairman Barker reiterated his comment that the Planning Commission had no authority to revisit the actions of a previous Commission. Motion: Moved by Macins, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 97-11. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman Barker stated that staff would provide details to anyone who wished to appeal. He thanked the audience'~r its patience and time. The Planning Commission recessed from 1~:16 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 9, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 11, 1997 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMfSSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker (arrived at 7:30 p.m. and was seated at 9:00 p.m.) William Bethel, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Rich Macins STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that staff had been contacted by some residents who expressed concerns regarding Item A and new information had been submitted which was before the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission pull the item from the Consent Calendar, allow public comments, and continue the matter until July 9, 1997, in order to allow staff and the Commission to review the materials submitted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and Macias absent), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned meeting of April 9, 1997. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy. seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and M~cias absent), to approve the minutes of May 14, 1997. The Minutes for May 28, 1997, were not acted upon because Commissioners Bethel and McNiel had not been present at that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). located east of Haven Avenue and norlh of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. Vice Chairman McNiel pulled Item A from the Consent Calendar. / / Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was before the Planning Commission only to review the design of the homes. He reported that the tract.map was approved in 1990 and the environmental clearance was also completed in 1990. He stated that letters had been presented from attorneys who disagree. Tom Grahn, Assoc ate_Planner, presented a staff report and indicated three letters had been received in opposition to the project. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. John Allday, Lauren Development, 11030 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff for its guidance in understanding the Hillside Development Ordinance. He reported they had met with many residents of Haven View Estates and have incorporated many of the comments. He stated the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and the grading plan is consistent with the approved tract map and lhe conceptual grading plan approved in 1990. He felt the development is consistent with the community and stated they had researched the building permits and design review applications of the existing and approved houses in the development. He presented a summary of existing home sizes and a graph showing that 60 percent of the existing homes are equal to or smaller than the proposed homes. He reported that 55 homes have been built on the 243 home sites. Mr. Allday stated that in July 1996 his firm had begun consultations with the existing homeowners associations within the community. He said they met with the members of the boards of the associations earlier this year and the associations expressed concerns about access, development rights, and association management issues. He stated those issues had been resolved years ago in court approved settlement agreements which were recorded against all of the properties. He indicated they also had a neighborhood meeting. He said there have been some recent design changes as a result of comments from those meetings including adding surrounds around all windows and doors, decreasing the number of homes with front-on garages, changing the plotting to increase square footage, and agreeing to provide a second plan elevation for Plan 1. He indicated they have an optional design element on Plan 3 which the homeowners want to make standard even though that will defeat the diversity argument and said they will provide that element where setbacks permit it. He stated they had added four more color schemes which will provide 6 floor plans, 12 elevations, and 16 color and material schemes which would allow for up to 264 combinations of homes on their 44 lots. He showed a rendering of Plan 3. The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Malissa McKeith, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council, P. O. Box 77027-102, Pasadena Bill Angel, 12966 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga Mahlan Sampson, P. O. Box 1327, Rancho Cucamonga Tim Resar, 5078 Granada, Rancho Cucamonga Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Gradaria Court, Rancho Cucamonga .. Doug Kreinheder, 4146 Clover Place, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Montgomery, 10213 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga Ruben Salazar, 4981 Ginger Court, Rancho Cucamonga Robert Cantarero, 5122 Equine Place, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga George Hicks, 10430 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga A petition with over 100 names in opposition to the project was presented. Concerns were raised regarding destruction of possible California Gnatcatcher habitat, potential for wild fires, potential for earthquakes, possibility that removal of a levy could increase danger of flooding, increased City liability in the event of a flood, changed water absorption rates and drainage patterns caused by grading, lack of sufficient public notice, reduction in property values, lots being too small, large equipment traffic for removal of dirt, construction traffic, lack of diversity in architecture and variation in roof lines, lack of review by the existing homeowners association architectural review board, wear Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 11, 1997 " F-z' and tear on streets, number of construction workers in the area and possible increase in crime because of the presence of such workers, and possible non-compliance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding habitat conservation signed by the City. One resident complained that too many garages will be visible from the street even when they are pulled back and indicated the 33 percent maximum for front facing garages was really an intent to hide garages to give more of an estate feeling. Objections were raised that tract homes should not be allowed in a community that is comprised mostly.of custom homes. It was acknowledged that another developer had built tract homes in the community, but those homes were over 5,200 square feet. It was felt the proposed homes will be too small and it was pointed out that houses will expand square footage by increasing interior space, not by expanding walls. It was stated that the average house size built since 1990 has been over 5,400 square feet. Pictures of all of the homes in the gated community were presented. A board member of one of the existing homeowners associations stated that Lauren should join one of the existing associations and pay full fees. One resident requested an opportunity to meet with Planning staff and the developer regarding the designs. One resident stated that Lauren had incorporated in 1988 and he felt that indicated a lack of experience by the developer. The financial stability of the developer was questioned and allegations were made that a prior company owned by the developer had been sued. A request was made that the City determine if there were any problems or lawsuits in connection with prior projects developed by the applicant. One individual indicated a juice bar and private home is located at the business address of the developer. The residents requested further traffic, noise, and air pollution studies because of the funding and approval of the Route 30 freeway and additional biological studies regarding the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage. It was contended that the Planning Commission's review of the design reopened the matter with respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One resident requested a full Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Allday stated there is a business sign on the front door of their business and said he had been a private planner for over 21 years, a government planner for 6 years, and is a Planning Commissioner in another City. He stated there had been many untrue things said and asked that the Commissioners remember that the subject is the design review of the houses. He noted that several statements had been made that they had not contacted the homeowners or board members of the homeowners association. He asserted they had dealt with Euclid Management Company which handles the day-to-day operations of the homeowners associations and indicated they have written correspondence from the management company. He stated that the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and all City codes. Jeffrey Borum, Gipson, Hoffman, & Pancione, 1901 Avenue of the' Stars, Los Angeles, stated his firm represents Lauren Development and the company is owned by two people, Bill and Cathy Ford, who have been in the development field for 15 years. He said they are a small firm that does quality worK. He noted that the City code does not require 7,500 square foot homes even'.though residents may want larger homes to increase their own property values. He said this was {he first time they had heard there is serious opposition to the project. He stated there are court settlements which grant Lauren access easements over Ringstem, Tackstem, and Clover. He said those access rights were litigated by Cristiano, the former owner, in the late 1980s and the agreement was signed by representatives for both existing homeowners associations. He stated the developer has not been sued for fraud. He noted that Western Residential was a prior company in the 1980s which broke up because there was another partner involved, not because of a lawsuit. Mr. Borum stated that the court documents regarding access rights also allow Lauren to form its own homeowners association and a final decision regarding that matter has not been made but Lauren is leaning toward doing so. Andrew Hartzel, Hewitt & McGuire, lrvine, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050, Irvine, said he is the natural resources counsel to Lauren. He stated Lauren is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act. He said they intend to comply fully with the Endangered Species Act, both federal and state, and do not intend to take any listed species Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 11 1997 ' associated with this project development. He stated his client is fully aware that the act carries civil and criminal sanctions. He repoded Lauren Development requested that the Army Corps of · Engineers visit the site and the Corps confirmed they do not have jurisdiction on the site. He said they also had the Department of Fish and Game visit the site to be sure there are no riparian areas under its jurisdiction and it was determined that is not an issue. He reported that Lauren hired a team of Gnatcatcher biologists to survey the site and no birds were found on the site or in the immediate area bordering the site. He stated California Department of Fish and Game staff sent a letter in April indicating that the four surveys conducted were not sufficient. He said he called the sen/ice in April to ask what its concerns were and still had not heard back from them but he would continue to follow up. He commented that Lauren Development is under no obligations to do any further surveys for the Gnatcatcher. He stated the Fish and Wildlife Service has no authority to compel Lauren to do any surveys and said they would continue to dialogue with the service. He indicated he was very familiar with the MOU referred to by Ms. Klippstein and said this project would not violate the MOU. He stated the action before the Planning Commission is a design review issue and not defined as a project for the purposes of CEQA. He said the CEQA issues which had been raised were not relevant to the discretionary action of by the Planning Commission with respect to the design review. He commented that the issues raised by CURE and Spirit of the Sage would apply to all undeveloped lots in the community, not just this parcel. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, to continue Development Review 97-11 to July 9, 1997. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BETHEL, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, MACIAS - carried Mr. Buller indicated that a copy of the tape for tonight's meeting would be provided to the two Commissioners who were not present so they would be brought up to date. He encouraged residents to visit the Planning Division and noted the applicant had also extended an invitation to meet with residents. He hoped the residents would take the time to understand the project before it returned to the Commission on July 9. He staled the City has met and exceeded the requirements of the state with respect to noticing and public review of the project. He asked the residents to talk to their neighbors regarding the next meeting. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at which time Chairman Barker joined the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC. - A request Io develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared ~]'Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Parcel Map 14001. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.5 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Office Park District of the Tetra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 96-27. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 11, 1997 / ~' y RESOLUTION NO. 97-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT NO. 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. A. Recitals. 1. Lauren Development has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 14771, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 11, and continued to July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held meetings to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon subslantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meetings on June 11, and July 9, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed proiect is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propedies or improvements in the vicinity. e. Based on substantial evidence provided to the Planning Commission it is hereby found that none of the criteria found in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exists or are present. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. I'c, !'T " " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 97-36 DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771) - LAUREN July 9, 1997 Page 2 Planninq Division 1) A maximum of 13 lots shall have front-on garages. The remaining lots shall have either a side-on garage condition or with the front facing garage placed towards the rear of the structure. 2) Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3) Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. 4) The developer shall provide each prospective buyer with written notice of the cross lot drainage condition, in standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 5) The slope along the south side of Lot 5, adjacent to Tackstem Street, and along the south side of Lot 26, adjacent to Ringstem Drive, shall be terraced in conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations. Terraced walls shall not exceed 3 feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. 6) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. Enqineerinq Division 1) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to building permit issuance or approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. 2) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 1997. PLA C ISSI OF ' E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTES · -, .. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 97-36 DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771) - LAUREN July 9, 1997 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE If7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: Design Review for Tract 14771 SUBJECT: Development Review 97-11 APPLICANT: Lauren Development LOCATION: East of Haven Avenue, north of Ringstem Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits .completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are no / / issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. B. 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 Division. the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions / / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building 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 Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans a.n_d building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. SC ~ 5i97 G ''~ Project No. DR 97-11 Completion Date 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 Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner / / including proper illumination. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property . / / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Building Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and / / for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, / / detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or / / projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping __/ / in this 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 subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or less 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 plantingj'equired 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 SC - 5197 G '5 2 Project No. DR 97-11 .Completion 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 required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously / / maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold ' and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development / / Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways. walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the / / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. 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. E. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / / Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Alquist-Priolo Special / I Studies Zone for the Cucamonga Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project / / in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: F. Site Development 1. The applicant shall co.~ply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical / / Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. ,, Project No. DR 97-11 .Completion Date 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to / / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. 'Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and / / prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive / / information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. G. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City __/ / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 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 plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime / / visibility. SC - 5197 4 /9'/ LOEB LOEB A,ToR.E,s ,, LLP looo WILsHIRE BOULEVARD A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SUITE 1800 TELEPHONE: 213-688-3400 INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 FAGS IMILE: 213-688-3460 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 tg, k~, . e-mail: MMCKEITH@Ioeb.com C/ 7> -,,,, July 23, 1997 Ms. Debra Adan'~s City Clerk ~'; ~O City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Cucan~ongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") ChaIlen~e to Lauren Development Proiect Dear Ms. Adams: Please include the enclosed July 23, 1997 letter and attachments from me to Darren L. Hereford, Esq. in the Administrative Record in anticipation of the Hearing before the City Council in Development Review No. 97-1 I. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway :'vlcKL'~~ · MFtNi:pb Enclosure LOEB&LOEB A,oRNEY. ,, 1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD A LIMITEO LIABILITY PARTNERSHip SUITE 1800 TELEPHONE: 213-688-3400 (NCLUOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 FACSIMILE: 213-688-3460 CE.,.. C,Tv Direct Dial No. ,o~oo s..T. Mo.,c. 2 13.688.3622 BOULEVARO su,E 2200 e-mail: MMCKEITH@loeb.com Los ANGELES. CA 90067-4164 'rE~: 3~o-282.2ooo July 23, 1997 F,~x: 310-282.2192 Dan'en L. Hereford, Esq. N~w ~ ~.~KA~~~E Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh N~,Yo...NY 4 Park Plaza ~o,:~-oo3~ Irvine, California 92623 T~L: 212-4074000 F,.x: 212-407-4990 Re: Cucamongans United for Reasonab]e Expansion CCU'ELE:") Challen_,2e to Lauren Development Profeet NASHVILLE N,L~HV,LLE.TN Dear DalTen: 37203-3205 TEL: 6~5o749-830~ ~: s,s-7~-~ This letter is in response to Mr. Cristiano's correspondence to the City of Rancho Cucamonga dated June 26, 1997. I am specifically writing to clarify CURE's position ,,vitl't regard to the potential purchase of the Cristiano Parcel in the WAS.,.~o.. ~.c. event that CURE's challenge to the Lauren Development Project is successful. 2100 M ST~EET. N.W. SUITE W~.~T~.O.C. Because of the significant environmental and safety issues involved 20037-1207 with any development on the CHstiano Parcel, CURE concluded early on that TEL: 202-223-5700 ~:~2.,,3-s7o., acquiring the property for habitat preservation ~vas the only viable use of the property. My office therefore contacted Mr. Cristiano on June 16, 1997 requesting that he provide the name of his legal counsel. My secretary's phone call was .o.E followed by a letter from me explaining why I wished to speak with Mr. Cristiano's PIAZZA D~G~GNE. 0o,~.n~,~ counsel and why I was reluctant to speak with him directly given the Rules of "~-~ Professional Responsibility. Mr. Cristiano proceeded to leave a voice mail message TEL: 011-396-808-8.a.56 ~: o,,-3~67,-~ stating that, as we were not in litigation, he would prefer to speak with me directly. Unfortunately, the conversation with Mr. Cristiano took place while he was in the midst of a celebration of his son's championship baseball victory party. At the time, I thought it was best to proceed with the call and assure Mr. Cristiano that it was CURE's intention (as it remains so) that he be paid full fair market value for the Parcel and that I was exploring what other tax credits or incentives were available to him if the property were being purchased for habitat preservation. ICM24334. L02 ~ Darren L. Hereford, Esq. July 23, 1997 Page 2 I did explain to Mr. Cristiano that the "fair market value" of the property was a moving target and that, if CURE were successful in challenging Lauren Development or if the tentative map were stricken, my ability to raise funds satisfactory to Mr. Cristiano might be limited. In light of the difficulty that any developer will face in developing north of the levee, a developer's projected price of $100,000 for the lot(s) south of the levee would seem more than fair. As was quickly apparent from his comments, Mr. Cristiano has some very strong emotions about his previous dealings with both representatives of Haven View Estates and with the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council. Those dealings pre-date any of my involvement on this matter. Had I known the depth of his animosity in advance, [ would have insisted that counsel be present during any discussions to avoid the misunderstandings that apparently occurred. The attachment to this letter further responds to some of the specific issues raised by Mr. Cristiano. As I am certain you can appreciate, I had no option but to clarify the record on these issues. CURE welcomes the opportunity to speak with you further to discuss the possibility of purchasing the properly when appropriate. Please contact me if you have questions. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway McK'~ M2H2M:pb Enclosure cc: City of Rancho Cucamonga ¢' ~CM24334. k 02 Response to June 26, 1997 Letter from Cristiano to Buller 1. Failure of the City to provide notice of Desiqn Review Hearinq. The City, Cristiano and Lauren Development have admitted that no party provided any notice of the June 11, 1997 Development Review hearing. Euclid Management only provided notice of a "neighborhood meeting,, with Lauren Development the weekend before that informal meeting was scheduled. The vast majority of the Haven View residents were unaware of the Project until the Memorial Day weekend. The courts will determine the issue of whether such notice was adequate under state and federal law. 2. Failure of the City to conduct environmental review for over seven years. The City and Cristiano admit that. no environmental review has been conducted since 1990. Although Lauren Development has conducted limited California gnatcatcher surveys, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on three separate occasions (April 16, June 10 and July 9, 1997) has informed the City, in writing, that Lauren's California gnatcatcher surveys are inadequate. The California gnatcatcher is only one of several environmental infirmities facing the Project. 3. Most of the homeowners moved into the area after 1990 and had no idea about the Proiect. A review of the public record reflecting when current homeowners purchased their homes will confirm the accuracy of this statement. Aerial photographs from 1990 further will confirm the number of homes that were constructed. CURE agrees with Mr. Cristiano that Euclid Management was contacted and that Euclid failed to disclose information to individual homeowners which prevented homeowners from commenting on the Project earlier than June 11, 1997. Neither Euclid Management nor the Haven View Board of Directors has any authority to act as an agent of the property owners in connection with the Lauren Development Project. The fact that Lauren Development or Cristiano contacted Euclid Management does not eliminate their legal obligation (or that of the City) to provide meaningful notice to individal property owners affected by the Project. 4. The City has not adequately evaluated safety issues concerninq the removal of a merimheral containment levees. Senior Engineer Dan James admitted on the record at the July 9, 1997 hearing that he (and hence the City) had not evaluated the safety impacts of removing the levee or the relative effectiveness of the levee and swale system versus the concrete channel proposed by Lauren Development. The Army Corps of Engineers also has informed the City that it did not evaluate or comment upon the safety issues involved with the Project. The San Bernardino Flood Control District similarly has confirmed that it has performed no analysis of the relative safety of the levee and swale system versus the Lauren Development concrete channel. New information not available to the Flood Control District when it quitclaimed the easement mandates further consideration by the City Safety Engineers and certified hydrogeologists. 5. The Project is situated as habitat that is Cateqory Sl.1 and G.1 and actually constitutes about 1.5 mercent of the total remainin~ habitat for Gnatcatchers on earth. The California Department of Fish & Game has designated the ecosystem supporting alluvial fan sage scrub as SI.1 and G.!, including the subject property. Contrary to Mr. Cristiano's statement, the San Bernardino National Forest contains a very small amount of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, and therefore the reference to over 400,000 acres of remaining habitat is not accurate. The reference in the June !1, 1997 brief of there being less than 2,000 acres of gnatcatcher habitat in the world rather than less than 2,000 acres of alluvial fan sage scrub was an obvious error that was simply not caught in the final edit of the briefs. Given that all other references are very specific as to the California gnatcatcher rather than to the general category of gnatcatcher, flycatcher, etc., reinforces that the statement was an editing oversight. A reading of Michael Brennan's declaration supporting the statement in the brief and the fact that this error has not been made in a single other document submitted to the City or any other third party makes clear that the June 1! statement was an unintentional computer error. 6. Laure~ Develooment has never mrovided direct notice to any homeowner in the area. Lauren Development had the means to notify individual homeowners and failed to do so. Lauren elected instead to rely on Euclid Management. Unfortunately, Euclid Management failed to inform residents of the Project. ~CM24333.X02 ]7/23/97 7. Mrs. Hahn has a conflict of interest. CURE acknowledges that it has approached Mr. Cristiano concerning the acquisition of the property when · the Lauren Development Project is defeated. CURE believed it was important that Mr. Cristiano understand that CURE was not interested in depriving him of the fair market value of his property particularly in light of Mr. Cristiano's prior dealings with the Board of Directors of Haven View. When the Lauren Development Project is defeated and/or the Tentative Map is stricken, the fair market value of the property may be perceived as substantially less than that which CURE is willing to pay presently. 8. The extension of the tentative mao in 1993 was proceduraliV defective. The extension issues are a legal issue that the federal court will address. 9. Apmrova! of the Desiqn Review Aomlication violates CEQA. CURE and the Department of Fish & Game have requested that the City recirculate the negative declaration based upon new information and changed circumstances seriously calling into question the safety and environmental impacts of the Project. Such a request is entirely consistent with the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's own ordinances. The failure of the Planning Commission to evaluate such new information and changed circumstances in approving Development Review 97-11 violates CEQA. LOEB&LOEB ATTo...,. A, LAW LLP looo WILeHIRE BOULEVARD A LIMITED LIAEIUTy PARTNERSNIff SUITE 1800 TELEPHONE: 213-688-3400 INCLUO~NG P~OFESS~ONAL COrPOrATIOnS LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 FACSIMILE: 213-688-3480 CE.T..,~ C,T~ Direct Dial No. ,o,oo s~,.,. ~o,..~., 213.688.3622 s,~,,, aa0o e-mail: MMCKEITH@Ioeb.com Los AuGtt,~$. CA 90067.4164 T,~: 3,o-~..-~ooo June 17, 1997 F,x: 310'282-2192 Via Facsimile New YOmK 3,45 P,~,,~ Av~.~ Ne'wYo~K. NY 1VII. Robert J. Cristiano 10154-00~7 r~: 2,~-,o,-~4~o Zephyr Capital ~: 2,~-,o,-~o 4400 Macarthur Boulevard, Suite 780 Newport Beach, California 92660 ....v,,,. Re: Cucamon~ans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") 45 Mus, c ~e WES-r 3,2o~-~ Dear Mr. Cristiano: FA.~: 615-7411~-~306 My secretary contacted your office yesterday to learn the name of your attorney. As you know, I represent CUR_E in connection with the pending challenge w.E.,.o,o., o.e. to the Lauren Development Project. I do not represent Haven View Estates or RC-5 2100 M S'r~!rr, N.W. s,,~ ~, homeowners associations. W~.s~,,~o'ro~. D C. =0~.,=, Ajthough some residents oppose the Lauren Project because of the tract TO: 20'2-22'3-5700 ~.~:~-=~-~o. housing, CU'R~'s concerns deal with the safety of remov~g the levee in light of recent hydxological and earthquake studies and with eliminating what is extremely rare habitat. Because of these safety and enVirorLmenta~ concertos, CURE does not .o.. believe that the property should ever be developed. 001O7-Row~ "~'~ Nevertheless, we believe that you, as the property owner, are entitled ~: o,.:~,~,,-~ to a fair return on your investment. On the defeat of the Lauren Development Project, CURE would be interested in purchasing the property as CURE's ultimate goal is to have the property held in trust as a wildlife preserveZ As CURE is in the midst of a"legal dispute with the prospective purchaser of your property, I am ethically required to speak with your lawyer rather than you directly. Doug Kxeinheder, one of my neighbors, could speak with you about the purchase of the property as he is not an attorney. Doug and I are both relatively new residents to Haven View. ~.# L'N24206.L02 Mr. Robert J. Cristiano June 17, 1997 Page 2 I personally am very offended by the emphasis of some on the square footage of the tract homes and the notion that this should be an "exclusive" neighborhood when the real issue involved is our safey in this geologic zone of special concern. You should know that none of the residents received notice of the Lauren Development Project until May 23, 1997, and a lot of residents feel that it was very irresponsible that Bruce Ann Hahn, Bill Angel and Euclid Management kept information about the Lauren Project from the residents. Had we known earlier, we would have raised these concerns with Lauren and you before any resources were expended. I hope that we will have the opportunity to meet. Thank you. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway McK'~ ' . MI-hM:pb cc: Doug Kreinheder (by telecopier) MCM24206. L02 TRANSCRIPT OF VOICEMAIL MESSAGE FROM BOB CRISTIANO TO MALISSA HATHAWAY McKEITH Received: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 3pm Malissa, this is Bob Cristiano: I received your kind letter today and I am responding to you. Unless you are in the process of suing me, I don't see any reason why I cannot talk with you because I am certainly not suing you. My number is 714-476-0101. I will be happy to chat with you at your convenience and carry on the conversation. Thank you. 4CM24211. X02 300000000 RESOLUTION NO. ~' 7"//~ A RESOLUTION OF THE OITY OOUNOIL OF THE OITY OF RANCHO CUCAM ONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COIVlMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOOATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRIOT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER AORE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. A. RecitalS. 1. Lauren Development has filed an application for Development Review 97-11 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject development review request is referred to as the "application." 2. On June 9, 1997, and July 11, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the application and, following the conclusion of their review, adopted Resolution No. 97-36 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 4. On August 20, 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council 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 substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced August 20, 1997, hearing, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above- referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-36, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem Street and RiDgstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Drive and is presently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a Los Angeles Department of Power and Light easement, the property to the south and west consists of vacant and developed single family residential land, and the property to the east is vacant flood control land; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT August 20, 1997 Page 2 (c) The application contemplates the construction of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land which is consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (d) The proposal is in compliance with the objectives and requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations; and (e) The project, with the recommended conditions of approval, complies with all development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (e) Based upon substantial evidence provided to the City Council it is hereby found that none of the criteria found in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exists or are present. 4. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves the application. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion and Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing the Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion and Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing the Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association, at the address identified in City records. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 93-13 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC. August 13, 1997 Page 3 2) The project shall be designed for architectural consistency with the existing project including: stucco finish and color, cornice detailing, door color, etc. 3) In addition to the proposed tree plantings, irrigated vine pockets shall be provided along the west, south, and east elevations at a spacing of 8 feet on center. 4) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. Engineerinq Division 1 ) The project is located adjacent to and includes landscaping a portion of a Metropolitan Water District easement and the developer has received written comments form Metropolitan Water District (copy on file in the City Engineer's office: Metropolitan Water District to Mr. Angel, letter dated June 5, 1997). The developer shall obtain written approval from MWD for the Landscape and Grading Plans and required easements prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2) The developer shall process a lot line adjustment to incorporate a portion of the Cucamonga County Water District parcel (APN: 209-231-10) with the existing adjacent project parcel (APN: 209-221-19). The lot line adjustment Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded with the County Recorder prior to the issuance of building permits for this expansion project. 3) A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Council Members - R. Gutierrez/J. Curatalo Public Safety Subcommittee SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A CITY ORDINANCE REFERENCE NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS RECOMMENDATION: Review materials provided to the Public Safety Subcommittee for the purpose of adopting a Rancho Cucamonga City Ordinance dealing with "narcotic offender eviction referrals". If applicable direct the City Attorney to draft such an ordinance. BACKGROUND: Approximately two (2) months ago, during the course of a Public Safety Subcommittee meeting, Councilman Gutierrez provided the Police Department with a copy of a Los Angeles Municipal Code and L.A.P.D. directive dealing with "narcotic offender eviction referrals". The Police Department subsequently researched the matter and also obtained written opinions from both the City Attomey and City Prosecutor offices regarding the L.A. Ordinance and its applicability to Rancho Cucamonga. The ordinance (legislation) helps to expedite eviction proceedings against gang or drug offenders committing offenses on or near their place of residence and provides an effective law enforcement tool in the war on drug offenders. Both law firms responded in a positive manner and indicated that the L.A. Ordinance was too "new" to speculate on the reaction of the courts, however, based upon other actions of a similar nature it would appear that the ordinance would have the potential to prevail if challenged. The aforementioned information (see attached) was presented to the Public Safety Subcommittee on Thursday, July 24, 1997. The members of the committee accepted, and approved, the report and asked that the information be forwarded to the Mayor and Members of the City Council for their review and approval as they deem appropriate. RH/JH/jh CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RF, PORT DATE: July 21, 1997 TO: Rex Gutierrez & James Curatalo Council Members - Public Safety Subcommittee FROM: Rodney Hoops, Chief of Police SUBJECT: NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS Subject to your request of approximately one (1) month ago, my staff has contacted the law offices of James Markman (City Attomey) and Martin Mayer (City Prosecutor), for the purpose of obtaining their opinion regarding the new Los Angeles Municipal Code (see attached) dealing with "narcotic offender eviction referrals". Both law firms have provided written documentation (see attached) as to their assessment of the ordinance. Both finns indicate that the ordinance would appear to provide a "tool" to be utilized when dealing with issues of nuisance and dangerous conditions and would be applicable for use with both single and multiple family dwellings. Both law firms also indicate that due to the "newness" of the Los Angeles Ordinance there has not been sufficient time to speculate as to the reaction of the courts, however, based upon other actions of a similar nature it would appear that the ordinance would have the potential to prevail. At the last subcommittee meeting, state legislation (AB738), was also discussed. This legislation was similar in nature to the Los Angeles Ordinance, however, the attorney's for the aforementioned law finns both indicated that the legislation had not passed. The information provided above, as well as, the reports from the city retained law firms should provide you with the information you requested for action as you deem appropriate. P,H/JWjh 1.2.1 OFFICE OF OPERATIONS ~IICE m. X3 April 7, 1997 TO: All Personnel, Office of Operations FROM: DirectOr, Office of Operations SUBJECT: NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS BACKGROUND Recent legislation'intended to expedite eviction proceedings against gang or drug offenders committing offenses on or near their place of residence provides an effective law enforcement tool in the war on drug offenders. An understanding of Los Angeles Municipal Code (L,4~MC).Section 47,50 mandates that all officers include critical 'information in any drug-related arrest report. .,,.,~-~' The New Law: LosAn,~elesM~nlcinal Code Sec~on.47,S0 """ ' ~ The new law, LkMC Se~ion 47.50 provides in relevant part: ~,~ 0--~ A landlord shall not cause or permit: I ~ 1. The premises to be used or maintained for any illegal drug activity, drug-related nuisance or gang- related crime, and; 2. A terlarll to use or occupy the premises if the tenant commits, permits, maintains, or is involved in any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance or gang-re]steal crime; A landlord may bring an action to recover possession of a rental unit upon one of the following grounds: I. The tenant is committing or permitting to exi~ any illegal drug activity.. gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1.900 foot radius from the boundary line on the premises, or; 2. The tenant has been convicted ors crime wherein the underlying offense involves illegal drug activity, drug-related nuisance activity. or a gang-related crime on the premises. If the City Atlomey's Office determines that 'the landlord has failed to comply with the provisions of this section after receiving notice, then the Ci.ty Attorney 's Office may file an action for injunctive relief or take any other appropriate action to require the landlord to c. omply with the provisions of this section. In sum, this legislation a landlords to evict drug or gang offenders. Adequate notice of the offense must therefore be provided to such landlords as soon ai~er the offense as possible to permit these landlords to begin timely eviction procedures. A notice will be provided by Deputy City A'.:omeys 207 Narcotic OffeTaer Eviction Page 2 1.2.1 : assigned to the Nar~ics Abatement Unit's (NAU) Narcotics Enforcement Surveillance Team (NEST). In the event that the landlord fails to take steps to remove a problem tenant, the City Attomey's Office is authorized to pursue civil and/or criminal actions against the landlord. In order to ensure effective notice to landlords in ',heir eviction of drug offenders, the following procedures shall be implemented: I. In all narcotics-related arrests, officers shall alelorraine whether a drug-related offense occurred within the 1,000 foot radius of the arrestee's residence. If so, the arrest report shall include that information, and a copy of the arrest report shall be sent immediately to the Los Angeles City Attorney located at NAU NEST, 1645 Corinth Avenue, Room 213, Mail Stop 149. A- Every narcotics-related arrest report shah include the precise location of ~e offense with referenc& to the closest legal address. B. Because the precise d/stance may become a critical issue in subsequent eviction proceedings against the arrestee, in all but the most obvious of cases (such as where the defendant is arrested ihside his home or outside the front door), the officer shall measure or reliably estimaze the distance between the offense location and the arrestee's residence. Cl'ne average City block is g00 feet.) 2. Copies of at l arrest reports which arise out of search warrants where narc, otic.,s are recovered shall be sent immediaxely to the NAU NEST City Anorney for review. A Copy of the search warrants involved shall be included. If additional information is required, Lieutenant Sun Embry, Officer-in-Charge, Narcotics Group NAU, can be contacted at (310) 575-8910. ~WiS,rl:~/~Assis. tant'Chief Director Office of Operati6ns Distribution "A' Munlctpml Code eatmbliehlng the HertOrtes end O=ng-Releted Crime ~viCtlOh PrOqr~m. ~eat~Oa 1. ~ttcle ? e~ Cha~ec Iv ee the ~gele$ ~nicipal C~e ie hereby amended by addi~ a nov 5action 4~.S0 thereto to read ae ~ollo~et · , DBPZ~:~S, P~c the pu~oee~ QE ~hle Section, the detln~tl~ne In Secc~on ~2.03 o( thLe C~e ana the ~oll~ing definitions shall $pply~ ~OLLD ~8T~CI~ A d~g, lubltMCe, Controlled Subetsncee ~c, Health end ga~ety ~ee~en llgOg et esq. DRaQ*~ ~9~ ~y activity related t~e ~Seee$ion, sale, use er ~nu~actu~in~ oE contzolled eubetenee th$~ effaces en tAter~erence vieh the camterrible en~o~nt O~ lt~e, property end safety of other ~e$ident$ o~ the premises at within a 1000 E~t radius ~ the ~unda~ the promlace, Such activity l~clud$$, buc 15 l~m/ted to, eey activity c~nly aesociaCed ~ith and night to a particular unit, barticade~ rightinS or ~ea~ne, drug loitering as dot/ned in Health and ;tEsty C~e Section 11532. or other d~g- tel&ted circumstances. ~-M~ CR~a ~y c=lme in which the ~etreter is m kno~ N~er o~ · gan~, or any crime · ~tlv$ted by 98n~ me~e~shtp In which the victim intended victim sZ the Crime i$ s ksO~ me~r ILLIG~ DRUG ~VI~: A violation o( m~y of the pr~/mione o~ C~p~ec ~ (Co~enc~n~ rich So=lien 11350} ot ~mpter (.S {c~c~n~ uith Section IZ4OO} o~ the Heml~h end 8a~e~y C~e. (including any person, Jim, cobralion, or other ,ntity} uho t{~eivee o~ ~ entitled rent Eor the use o~ 8ny ren~81 unit, or the it mad other ~i~dingm o~ the complex ere located ~d c~n scene, including but not limited to, ~aC~lttiee. streets. allenaye. sta~wells and elevatere. 'd~sllinge unite, ~es~ ~me, end suites, ee de~ine~ Section ~2.03 o~ this C~e, including single Zemily resldencee. duplexes, e~d cond~lni~ms In the City ~s ~qelee. This te~ shs~l alan include ~bils h~e, ~hethsr rent ie paid (or the ~bl~s h~ ~d the ~end upon uhlch t~e ~n~le home is located. ~r the rent Is paid (or the lend alone. F~rther it shell include rec~*ationa~ vehicles. ee dsei~ed in California Civi~ o: recreational ve~lcle park, ~hether ren~ le the r~creational vehicle end t~e land u~n which l~ated. ~r rent ~m pm/~ ~ot the ~and alone. D~TXBI Of (L) The premieee to be ueed or rAinrained any llle~&l druq ec~ivi~y, nu~eanee or ~ang*related crAmel or (i[) A tenant to use or e~-u;y ~he prem~eel LE the tartsat Co~J, ts, per~J, te. m~nteLnl ~Avo~ved In any ~Z~ga~ d~9 ect~v~y, 9lng- related creme, o~ d~g-rel&ted nu~eence on premtee~ ot uLthln m ZOOO E~C rad~um g~ the Nundm~ ~JAe O~ the premtlem. ~. ~ZNZITMtZ~ ~l~g. The C~cy Atto~ey, or hie or her dem~ee, eha~ p~l~mte m.ch a~n~etratLve proaeduze8 aa ~y N neceeea~ to i~le~n~ the m~ chic Section: /' f ') 1. ~fo~de ~et ~et~. NoE~LchIEm~LN any pt~telo~ eg abe ~/~gelem Nuntc/pa~ C~e t~ the c~tra~, 8 Xmna~o~ My bring &n action Co re~¢~ ~llell&oR O~ a (~} the E~nC ~m cn~=~n~ or t~ ex~et any ~11ql1 d~9 ec~Lv~y, 9a~*reZm~ed ert~ wherein the underXyt~ O~fenlm Ln~vam ~e~l~ d~g 8ettv&ty,' d~g-related nuLlmace activity or a ~a~-re~aced erLM en the prem~tet. 2, hforemm6~, Z~ the ~Lty Attorney datemines t~c the land~ord ham failed to c~Xy with the preyredone re~tef Or ~ake any other appropriate icC~on to te~tre Che landlord to co~ly v~th the prevLm/o~a ~ thLe Section. A court re~deTi~9 a ~u~nc pureua~ Co ~htm g~deet~ My, in addttt~ to a~ other order ~vided law, ~ee 4' ~ne~y not to exceed five ~h~em~d deX~arm ($5,agO) pmyebte ca ~he City of ~e ~XeE. ~tre the ~nC Og rello~lb~e aG~orney'e feel, mnd cae~m OE Jn~emCtge~to~. dtmcave~ end cour~ I. ~i~8, ~y ~u~nt Ear ~ney can be recorded ms m ~len o~ the s~bJeet prodtry and i~ multiple de~en~nte exile. they mhall be ~olntly and severally ILabTe ~or any pl~tm so or~ered. lee. 2. The City Clerk/hall certify co the peasage newelper printed and published In the City e~ ~f ~elel. I hereby certify thm~ the forQ~in~ ordinmnce palled ~ the Council Of the C&ty O~ ~e ~qeZee. 0C lee og ' ~[~ 11 ,~, , J. MI~L ~f, City Clerk ~pu~y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager BY: Karen McGuire-Emery, Associate Park Planner SUBJECT: PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE BACKGROUND In accordance with the City Council's request to become more informed of park and recreation facilities issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent issues, projects and programs occurring in both the Community Services Department and the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Lions East: Completion of the Lions East Project has been delayed due to the recent sewer line blockage on Base line Road, which caused flooding and sewer inundation in the facility. Service Master Water Drainage Specialists were called out to provide clean up services as well as to provide an opinion on damage. At this time, we know that the VCT (vinyl coated tile) flooring will need to be replaced throughout, as well as the carpet tiles. Service Master will also be providing a Sanitary Cleanup Service which will be followed by testing of the affected areas by a company specializing in Health/Safety monitoring who will determine if cleaning the affected areas was sufficient, or if further cleaning or replacement is required. Firm answers and test results won't be available until the week of August 18. Lions West: The start date for construction of this project has been postponed until final completion of the Lions East Community Center. Once construction begins it is estimated that improvements will require approximately 5 months to complete. ADA modifications and related rehabilitation of the building will include: · Lobby addition and entry corridor modification (creation of a new ADA accessible lobby on the south side of the building and expansion of the entry corridor to provide disabled access) · Provisions for new office and storage space to replace the area lost through corridor expansion including reconfiguration of existing reception area .2/I CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE August 20, 1997 Page 2 · Restroom modifications to provide ADA accessibility including plumbing upgrades and space allocation modifications · Kitchen modifications to provide ADA accessibility including new cabinets and a service area to the gallery · Provisions for a ramp in the Forum for ADA accessibility · Renovation and/or replacement of interior finishes such as carpet, vinyl flooring, base, wall colors, cabinet lanfinates, ceramic tiles and ceilings as necessary due to ADA rehabilitation · Minor irrigation and landscape design to accommodate changes in building footprint and disabled access · Regrading, paving and striping of the main parking lot RC Family Sports Center: Construction is continuing on this facility. Insulation is in place, and plumbing, and electrical are being installed. Framing and drywall are in the beginning stages. It is estimated that renovations will be completed in December 1997. Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center: Security Cameras have been installed to overview the parking lots and are monitored at the reception counter, as a part of the existing CCTV system. These cameras were added due to car vandalism experienced by the Seniors while they were at the Center. Spruce Avenue Skate Park: Purkiss-Rose-RSI is preparing the construction drawings for the project. Cornerpointe Development TT 15727/Future Neighborhood Park Site: At the July Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual plan for the future park site as provided by the Griffin Industries. Staff will be forwarding this plan to City Council in September. Annual Soccer Field Renovations: Renovation schedule is occurring as follows: May 17, at the Red Hill fields; June 9, at the four Beryl fields; July 24, transitioning the Heritage baseball to soccer: seeding, grading and fences down; July 30, at the two Sports Complex fields. East Beryl Park and Lions Park Tennis Courts: Resurfaced all six courts at both parks in July. Replaced the badly damaged and vandalized court screening at Beryl as well. New screens are installed in small sections for ease of removal and replacement. Spruce Park: Removed old and worn slide on July 30. A replacement has been ordered. Milliken Park: Replaced 1,000 square feet of sod in the volleyball court the week of August 8. .2/2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE August 20, 1997 Page 3 Civic Center: Starting on August 8th, the HVAC system at the Civic Center will be receiving repairs on some of the components. To help keep things comfortable a temporary chiller will be set up in the North Parking Lot above the mechanical room. The equipment will be there approximately three weeks, and will displace about 4 parking spaces. There will also be some hoses and such crossing the sidewalk, so be sure and be careful around the area. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Vietnam Memorial: VFW Post 8680 has contacted staff and advised that Art Sonkoly has been appointed as the Project Coordinator to replace Phil DiDio who has moved fi'om the City. The local Post will continue its efforts to contact Mr. DeVitt, the representative for the Moving Wall. We've been advised that there are three moving walls and often it is difficult to contact the representatives who are working in the various cities with the Moving Walls throughout the country. Staff will keep the Council apprised of any progress made on this effort. I Love RC: In order to obtain commtmity input on the development of a City slogan, the following text is being proposed for City Council review and approval for inclusion in the Winter issue of The Grapevine. The Winter Grapevine is anticipated to be delivered to residents during the week of December 8, 1997. Staff proposes that the text below be formatted in a quarter page, advertisement style with an attention getting graphic (see attached sample). City Council is seeking conm~unity input in developing a City slogan. Webster's Dictionary defines slogan as "... a word or phrase used to express a characteristic position or stand or a goal to be achieved,' a briefattention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion." A slogan which has been suggested is "I Love RC." Please submit your thoughts on this slogan or contribute a slogan of your own. Please return your ideas by February 1, 1998 to: The Grapevine, City of Rancho Cucamonga, P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729. Senior Transportation: On July 29, 1997 staff met with A1 Newman, President of the RC/Ontario Service Club, to discuss the possibility of this service club providing van transportation for senior 2t3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE August 20, 1997 Page 4 citizens to-and-from the Senior Center. Staff indicated that the City was looking at the possibility of securing a surplus City van for this purpose. The van that the City is looking at would seat 7 passengers plus the driver. Discussions have also taken place between the City Engineer and the Finance Officer and Community Services staff conceming vehicle replacement time frames/amounts to cover this van replacement for FY 1997/1998. The senior transportation program staff discussed with Mr. Newman is as follows: · Hours of service would be between 9:00 a.m and 3:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. These hours would bring the seniors to the Center for Nutrition which occurs from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. These hours would allow enough time for two trips in to the Center in the mornings and two trips returning seniors to their homes in the afternoons. Mr. Newman stated that he would schedule between 7 to 10 volunteer drivers to cover this service. · This program would require dispatch services for scheduling transportation services. Staffs recommendation would be to have this function out of the Senior Center requiring that reservations be made at least 24 hours in advance. Mr. Newman stated that he would schedule 2 to 3 volunteers to cover this service. · The service club would be required to provide a $1 million public liability and automobile insurance coverage for the van and for their volunteer drivers. The service club would be responsible for n~aintaining and storage of the vehicle. · An agreement would be needed between the City and the service club stipulating that the City is donating the van for the primary purpose of providing senior citizen transportation during the times outlined above. If the service club is unable to provide this service, the van would be retumed to the City. Use of the van during non-senior transportation service hours would be scheduled as desired by the service club. · Mr. Newman stated staffing this proposed senior transportation program would not pose a problem for the Club as the RC/Ontario Service Club has 149 members; 14 of which are retired. Mr. Newman is presenting this proposal to his Board on Wednesday (August 13, 1997) for their approval. Staff will advise the City Council of their decision. 1997 Founders Day Parade and Celebration: As City Council is aware, each year the City hosts a community parade and celebration on the second Saturday in November, known as the Annual Founders Day Parade and Celebration. The date for this year's parade and celebration is Saturday, November 8, 1997. Traditionally, the parade is comprised of over 150 entries that include bands and CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE August 20, 1997 Page 5 drill squads, equestrian groups, floats, youth organizations and novelty acts. This year the City celebrates twenty years of incorporation. The theme of the parade provides a focus for the activity and allows groups entering floats to design their entries in accordance with the theme. In addition, the theme is prominently displayed on all parade materials. Each year an Honorary Grand Marshal is selected to ride in the parade, sometime to coincide with the theme. The proposed parade theme is "Celebrating Twenty Years of Progress and Heritage". In addition, it is being suggested that the City invite the former Mayors of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to participate in this year's parade. In addition to the Founders Day Parade and Celebration scheduled for the second Saturday in November, the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce has announced in their July, 1997 issue of The Business Connection that the Chamber is planning a Holiday Extravaganza for Founders Day Weekend. The Extravaganza is described as similar to the Business Expo that the Chamber normally holds in the late spring with the addition of having crafter booths, and expanded community entertainment. Staff is meeting with the Chamber to discuss ways in which the City and the Chamber can work together to ensure the success of both the Founders Day Parade and Celebration and the Holiday Extravaganza. Preliminary discussions have centered on a review of the elements of both events and time flames. The Chamber of Commerce has assured City staff that they will still participate in the City's parade by manning an announcement booth along the parade route and will continue to have their 'Grape Court' as an entry in the parade. In addition, it was agreed by both parties to jointly advertise both events. Res ~ectfully submitted, i~ onleJ' merit Director ger RG:SO:KME Attachment .2/5 SAMPLE ADVERTISEMENT FOR CITY SLOGAN 1998 Winter Grapevine The City Council is seeking community input in developing a City slogan! Webster's Dictionary defines slogan as '...a word or phrase used to express a characteristic position or stand, or a goal to be achieved; a briefattention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion., A slogan that has been suggested is "I Love RC." Submit your thoughts on this slogan or contribute a slogan of your own! Please return your ideas by February 1, 1997 to: The Grapevine City of Rancho Cucamonga PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ,2 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT Notice is hereby given that Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency at their meeting held Monday, August 18, 1997, adjourned said meeting to Wednesday, August 20, 1997, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, in the Council Chambers, for the purpose of approving the proposed budget for fiscal year 1997/98. b~'b~ J. Ada~z~,C~l'~, City Ciei'k""' City of Rancho Cucamonga . August 18, 1997 Redevelopment AtWm:y A. gu~ 20, 1~? City Council Agenda August 20, 1997 ADDENDUM I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 5. DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN LIMITATIONS RELATING TO PROPOSITION 208 I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamo _nga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 15, 1997, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Govemment Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. AUG-ZO-9? IT:13 From:HEWITT I~GUIRE 7147980510 T-139 P.02/02 Job-855 Augult 20, 1997 The Honorable William Aimrender Mayor, City ~ Ra~ Cu~among. 10800 ~ Center Drive Rancho Cu~m. ~ 91729 '0 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14,771 Dear Mr. Alexander:. · it hea ~=orne te our atl~;ttlon that the City of Ranol~ Cueamonga b reviewing the .abject re.ldenti.I devel~~ Iooat~ In the Deer Creek drainage area. Thi~ pmjec, t iS not our~ bm~m ttm Raglonal VVater Ctuality Control Board for any form of regulatoW review. The prbTtmy duty of the Regional Beam is to protm~ the qualily of the ~ wlthtn the Reg~ for ~11 be~ ueel. In the Regional Board'a Wal~r Quality Control PMn, ~ Greek ham a de~lnmtad'benefidal u~e of I,d~.nr~ groundwater reehtrga. Thu~. elimination of a recha~ area cauld .tfec~ thb beneficial uae and would be of gramram t~ u~, In the mume of the Clty'i review of this project, the City ~ould cormkler any &;;',.~.t~ that the ~ (mum have en groundwater mehqe. Board ~ wrmld be happy to m4Mt the City In that regaM. If you have any que~lorm, pl~e call me at (909) 782.328e. 81n~ltrely, Ted CoI~, SWRGB - Oflb~ of the Ohi~f Oounm~ Malbml HllmlW. y M=KIim, Loeb & Loeb Andrew Hmlzm,. I-lewllt & Mc(~uire Square Footage Thousands I HAVEN VIEW ESTATES Summary of Existing Home Sizes Community Consists of 243 Lots: 55 Homes ~ 148 Vacant Lots ~ 40 Subject Lots Home Square Footace* Street Address Last Name First Name 2,456 5083 Bramble Ct. Knatcher JoAnne 2,530 5079 Granada Ct. Johnson Gregory L. & Shelley M 2,538 5069 Bramble Ct. Ellis Tony J. & Victoria/~ 2,832 4972 Clover P1. Hazegh Hagsann H. & Mastenah 2,915 4946 Clover P 1. Kreinheder Douglas/~ & Charmaine 3,141 5087 Granada Ct. Hahn Allen L. & Bruce Ann 3,146 5068 Calypso Ct. Brewer Linda Sue M. 3,203 4925 Calico Ct. Zadick James W. & Paula E. 3,221 4945 Clover P1. Johnson Dwayne L. & Ingeborg M 3,300 5041 Calypso Ct. Jimenez Joseph V. & Yolanda 3,405 4993 Cringer Ct. McKeith Malissa H. 3,409 4903 Cactus Fiorenza Anthony J. & Cheryl 3,460 4987 Ginger Ct. Hawkins William E. 3,500 4999 Ginger Ct. Wyant Timothy P~ & Katherine 3,523 4926 Cactus Carey Wayne S. & Debra J. 3,550 4975 Ginger Ct. Martel Gilbert/~ & Sarah J. 3,568 5096 Granada Ct. Higgins Kevin M. & Michelle W. 3,654 5075 Calypso Ct. Chao David 3,675 5087 Calypso Ct. Bellanca Terry M. & Debra J. 3,679 4951 Cactus Kruggel Earle E. & Patricia/~ 3,703 5078 Granada Ct. Resar Timothy E. & Kathleen 3,741 5061 Calypso Ct. Wiedeman Delvin J. & Kimberly A 3,774 5088 Granada Ct. Kumra Arvind & Lynne 3,790 4947 Calico Ct. Maldonado Ernest M. & Mary J. 3,836 5029 Bramble Ct. Gupta Hari M. & Sneb Lata 3,900 4942 Cactus Seguy Albert G. & Joyce A. 3,924 5105 Equine P1. Say Joe 4,086 11045 Ranch Dr. Estupinian Mark C. & Dee/L 4,150 10978 Carriage Dr. Orvananos Loo J. Jr. & Shirley K 4,208 10951 Carriage Dr. West Brian & Kathie 4,393 5067 Granada Ct. Stephen Joseph H. & Maxine C. 4,665 4981 Ginger Ct. Salazar Rueben & Gelza 4,710 5066 Granada Ct. Bradford Thomas W. & Marilyn S. 4,766 4971 Clover P1. ARC Investment Grp 4,886 4907 Calico Ct. Althaus Lauren B. and Karen C. 4,935 5096 Calypso Ct. Santuci Ralph Jr. & Irene/~ 5,034 10991 Stallion Way Pacific West Land Development Inc. 5,231 4928 Clover P1. Crebs Raymond L & Sally P~ 5,300 5097 Granada Ct. Young Jon R. & Priscilla/~ 5,367 10885 Carriage Dr. Reiss Ronald & Elizabeth 5,278 5108 Equine P1. Jenkins Kevin & Gretchen 5,278 5119 Lipizzan P1. Duh Leonard & Kao, Dior Y. 5,348 5074 Equine P1. (Jibson Bruce & Susan 5,348 5050 Equine P1. Gaglio Jack G. & Laura A. 5,376 5129 Lipizzan P1. Gallade Alfred & Sonia 5,482 5092 Equine P1. Jung Hae-Chang & Pyung-Woo 5,482 5109 Eipizzan P1. Morris Leslie L. & Millie L. 5,482 5139 Lipizzan P1. Gaddis Dr. Otis Jr. & Gall P. 5,509 5122 Equine P1. Cantarero Robert & Nilda M. 5,608 5149 Lipizzan P1. Wronowicz Joseph J. & Margaret M 5,662 5159 Lipizzan P1. Okoye Christian E. 5,722 5091 Equine P1. Todd Allen & Joy ~ 5,736 4998 Ginger Ct. Navarro Alfonso V. & Corazon S 5,804 5009 Bramble Ct. Ferreira Narcie & Mary R. 6,737 10817 Carriage Dr. Diaz Ricardo P..MD & Wilma 4,086 Median Square Feet * Source: City of Rmeho Oucm'mnSa Buildin8 Peruairs c. v 4,152 Sq. Ft. Average Size Home Proposed by Lauren Development, Inc. 1,800 Sq. Ft. Minimum Size Home Allowed per HVE Communih' CC&R's' 3,000 Sq. Ft. Minimum Size Home Allowed per RCV/HVE Community CC&R's Comvleted 12 of Planned 37 Home Tract Develot>ed by JCC Homes in 1990 1.66',. O,C ' Z 1. o o ~~:z: o. Z66~ ~'Z~ pa~ O~-6n~ g6S oar' Z~/O~ a6e_~ 8gO-1 ~ ggO'l Z~C8 ._c. .L,56~ 8~'/..L ¢a~ 08-Shy ~6c~ c~or t~/9~ a§ed cJ'qO'l 5' 890~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MCM24402. X32 163112407 08/16/97 MHM:tsl DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. HENYEY I, Thomas L. Henyey, declare and state as follows: 1. I am a Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Southern California ("USC"), and Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center ("SCEC"), a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center with approximately $5M per year budget. I received an AB degree in Geophysics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1962, and a Ph.D. in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology in 1968. I have been on the faculty of USC since 1968 where I teach and do research in addition to my duties as Director of SCEC. At SCEC I coordinate the scientific work of more than 50 scientists, and direct an education and community outreach program on earthquake hazards. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct abbreviated copy of my curriculum vitae. This declaration is made in support of Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") request that an environmental impact report be conducted before approval of the Lauren Development residential project. I am not a party to this action. The statements made herein are of my own personal knowledge; and if called as a witness, I could and would testify to the truthfulness of the statements. As I will be out-of-the country on a planned vacation on August 20, 1997, I will not be able to make a personal appearance before the City Council. 23 24 25 26 27 28 MCM24402. X32 163112407 08/16/97 MHM:tsl 2 2. One of the most pressing and critical issues facing seismic hazard 3 planners in the southern California metropolitan region concerns the size and frequency 4 of earthquakes along the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga thrust fault. This 60-mile long, 5 northward-dipping fault system is responsible for the uplift of the San Gabriel 6 Mountains. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a map prepared by Dr. 7 James Dolan ("Dolan") of USC showing active faults in southern California. Of 8 9 specific interest shown on attached Exhibit B is the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga fault 10 system, and a recent trench site on the Cucamonga fault where data. about the 11 frequency and magnitude of earthquakes on the Cucamonga fault was collected by 12 Dolan in June of 1996. The Sierra Madre-Cucamonga fault system is relatively 13 continuous and many scientists believe it has the potential to rupture from end to end 14 or along much of its length. The region on the earth's surface that lies over this fault 15 16 is depicted as the green area in the upper panel of attached Exhibit C. Other colors 17 depict other thrust faults (some less certain than others), but it can be seen that much 18 of the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area sits over a network of these active faults. 19 The SCEC, which was founded in 1991 and is based at USC, has funded studies to 20 gain a better understanding of the earthquake potential of the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga 21 fault system to determine how frequently earthquakes occur along the fault and how 22 large they will be. 3. One important way to study the fault's earthquake potential is to identify places where the fault intersects the earth's surface -- referred to as the fault 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MCM24402. X32 163112407 08/16/97 MHM:tsl trace and identified on maps as the fault line -- and to dig trenches across it. The fault and the layers of rock that have been offset by the fault during pre-historic earthquakes can be seen on the walls of the trench. This line of investigation is called paleoseismology. Attached as Exhibit D is a mapping of one wall of the Cucamonga Fault trenched by Dolan in 1996 which shows fault lines and offset layers. The amount of offset can be measured and in many cases the age of the layers can be · determined by using radiocarbon dating to indicate when the offset; i.e., when the earthquake occurred. Often more than one offset is observed which reflects a number of past events. Many studies of earthquakes in California and around the world tell us that the amount of offset is proportional to earthquake size. For example, an offset of one meter corresponds to about a magnitude 6, while an offset of about three meters corresponds to a magnitude 7. While the offset of a magnitude 7 is only a few times that of a 6, the energy released by a 7 is thirty_ times more than that of a 6 and six times more than a 6.5. 4. Prior to 1991, there were no paleoseismology studies of the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga fault. Since then, there have been two such studies of the Sierra Madre section of the system between Altadena and Azusa, and one on the Cucamonga section jtist east of Day Canyon Wash shown on attached Exhibit E. All three studies suggest that earthquakes on this fault system are likely to be in the magnitude 6 to 7.5 range. The trenching done in June 1996 on one strand of the Cucamonga section indicates 1 to 2 meters of slip per event, or earthquakes with magnitudes between 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MCM24402. X32 163112407 08/16/97 MHM:t$1 and 7. These magnitudes are significantly greater than past earthquakes (magnitudes 4 to 5) reported to have occurred along this section of fault. 5. The Cucamonga fault strands are shown as barbed and dotted lines on attached Exhibit F, and as solid and dotted lines on attached Exhibit G (the dotted lines are where the location of the fault is less certain due to poor exposure). Attached Exhibit G shows that the mapped fault trace may pass through, or very close to, the base of the debris basin and the spillway. Earthquakes in the magnitude 4 to 5 range would not be expected to break the earth's surface and cause damage to the dam, whereas earthquakes greater than magnitude 6 to 6.5 will almost always break the surface and likely will displace portions of the dam. Also, the ground shaking for the larger events would be considerably greater than for the smaller events. 6. The Cucamonga fault in this area consists of at least three sub-parallel strands. The three strands can be seen as lines with barbs in the red region on the right-hand side of attached Exhibit F. If offsets take place concurrently on more than one strand during an earthquake, then the total offset could be considerably larger than estimated from the June 1996 trench alone, and thus the magnitude could be .re'eater than 7.0.' For example, offsets on parallel strands were observed during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake at the far western end of the Sierra Madre segment. (Note: The various parallel strands of range-front faults such as the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga are not always recognized, or disappear, at the surface in high energy environments such 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MCM24402. X32 163112407 08/16/97 MHM:tsl as on active alluvial fans, in major drainages, or where man has altered the terrain. This is not only a problem for paleoseismology studies as noted above, but also is a concern when developing range-front property in that City Planners must be careful to identify active strands using careful surface observations, trenching, and/or remote sensing [subsurface imaging] techniques so as not to construct across them. We also know from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and in retrospect from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, that ground shaking can be very extreme on the upthrown side of a thrust fault) which could be the situation on the Cucamonga Fault. 7. Finally, determining how long it has been since the last quake is an important factor in evaluating probabilities. It has been estimated that if the entire Sierra Madre-Cucamonga fault normally broke in repeated earthquakes, it should do so approximately every 1000 years (the recurrence interval) and be a magnitude 7.4. If the Cucamonga section broke independently it should do so about every 400 years and be a magnitude 6.9. And if only sections of the Cucamonga fault broke, major earthquakes might range between magnitude 6 and 6.9. So if the date of the last earthquake were known, the date of the next event could be estimated from the recurrence interval under the assumption that successive events always have the same characteristic size -- a very uncertain assumption in many scientists' minds because earthquakes are not always characteristic nor do they occur with regularity. Since the historic record, which begins in about 1800 in southern California, shows no major 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MCM24402. X32 163112407 08/16/97 MHM:tsl earthquake on the Cucamonga fault, we may well be into a mature part of the earthquake cycle in this region. 8. I understand that the City of Rancho Cucamonga tentatively approved the Lauren Development Project in 1990. It is important that the City consider the new earthquake information in determining the safety of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the safety of homes located in such proximity to a known fault, particularly in light of the new magnitudes estimates discussed above. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 15, 1997 at Los Angeles, Califorma. THOMAS L. HENYEY Personal Information Born: Current positions: Education March 7, 1941; New York, NY Professor of Geological Sciences, University of Southern California Center Director, Southern California Earthquake Center A.B. Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, 1962 Ph.D. Geophysics, California Institute of Technology, 1968 Biographical Sketch Dr. Henyey joined USC in 1968 as an Assistant Professor, and was promoted to Full Professor in 1981. His major research interests include the mechanics of fault zones and the structure of the continental crust. His Ph.D. work at Caltech and early research at the University of Southern California dealt'with the thermomechamcs of the San Andreas fault and the thermal regime of southwestern North America. Heat-flow observations were used to estimate the magnitude of shear stress on the San Andreas fault. Later thermal studies were applied to tectonic problems of the continental margin of southwestern U.S. and the Gulf of California. Henyey's current research deals with the application of reflection seismology to crustal structure and evolution in southwestern U.S.-, and more recently in New Zealand. He was coordinator for the CALCRUST consortium which acquired and processed seismic reflection data from a number of' areas in southern California and Arizona. Most recently he has become principal investigator for major geophysical transects across the Transverse Ranges in southern Califorma and the Southern Alps in New Zealand. In 1991, after chairing the Department of Geological Sciences at USC for 2 years, Henyey assumed the role of Executive Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center -- a new NSF Science and Technology Center with primary funding from the NSF and the USGS, and supplemental funding from FEMA, Caltrans, and the County and City of Los Angeles. In this position, he assisted K. Aki, the Science Director, in coordinating a program focused on earthquake hazard analysis and knowledge transfer in southern California involving more than 50 scientists at several institutions. With the resignation of Aki as of Jan. 31, 1996, Henyey was asked by the Board of Directors to assume the position of Center Director which he now occupies. Henyey has been on numerous national panels dealing with earthquake issues, and a consultant to the geothermal industry, state and local government, and the port of Los Angeles on earthquake hazards. Some Publications Li, Y.G., T.L. Henyey, and P.C. Leary, Seismic Reflection Constraints on Crustal Structure Beneath the San Bernardino Mountains, Transverse Ranges, Southern California, Jour. Geophys. Res., vol. 97, 8817-8830, 1992. Li, Y.G., T.L. Henyey, and L.T. Silver, Aspects of the Crustal Structure of the Western Mojave Desert, California, from Seismic Reflection and Potential Field Data, Journal Geophys. Res., vol. 97, 8805-88 I6, 1992. Schiffties, C.M. and T. L. Henyey, A possible earthquake deficit in southern California, Geotimes, June, 1994. Henyey, Tom, One shock leads to another, News and Views, Nature, Vol. 375, No.6258, p. 191, 1995. Li, Y.G., T.L. Teng, and T.L. Henyey, Shear Wave Splitting Observations and Implications for the Stress Regime in the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California, Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., vol. 84, 307-323, 1994. Malin, P.E., E.D. Goodman, T.L. Henyey, Y.G. Li, D.A. Okaya, and J.B. Saleeby, Significance of seismic reflections beneath a tilted exposure of deep continental crust, Tehachapi Mountains, California, Jour. Geophys. Res., vol. 100, 2069-2088, 1995. Jackson, D., K. Aki, A. Cornell, J. Dieterich, T. Henyey, M, Mahdyiar, D. Schwartz, and S. Ward, Seismic hazards in southern California: Probable earthquakes, 1994-2024, Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., vol. 85, no. 2, 1995. C-6 since 197i has given rise Eo the perception that this earthquake frequency is typical of the area. In reality, however, few large earthquakes have occurred on faults within the metropolitan region during the two centuries of historic record, the two largest being the M,v 6.7 Northridge and San Fer- nando events of 1994 and 1971, respective- ly (26-30). Geodetic studies indicate a shortening rate across the Transverse Ranges in the greater metropolitan region of approximate- [y 8.5 turn vear-~(31). These data suggest chat far too few moderate earthquakes have occurred within the region to account for observed strain accumulation, indicating that a deficit of seismic energy reiease exists in metropolitan southern California (3_2). In this article we use reasonable geologic slip rates for the known active faults within the metropolitan area, together with newly determined local relations between mo- ment magnitude (M,.), average coseismic slip, and rupture area, to attempt a quanti- tative assessment of the potential for future destructive earthquakes from fattlts within the Los Angeles metropolitan region (12). We compare the rate of historical seismic moment release with longer term rates de- rived from geologic data to quantify the historica~ earthqua.ke deficit. We then pro- pose two end:member scenarios: h't the first scenario," strain is released in numerous, moderate, Northridge-like earthquakes; in the second, strain is released in [ess frequent but much larger (M,v 7.2 to 7.6) earth- quakes. OeoIogical slip rates allow us to esumate repeat times for earthquakes in each of these scenarios. Source Parameters Moment rnagnitude can be empirically re- lated co known geological parameters, such as rupture area (A) and average co- Fig. 1. (A) Historical earthquake ruptures and pro- posed large earthquake sources w~thin the great- er Los Angeles metropolitan area. Black areas denote surface proiections of rupture planes of selected moderate historic earthquakes (6, 35- ~0, ~5-~7). Date and magnitude (M,,~) of each ear-t~quake are also shown. Historic ruptures on vertical strike-slip faults (1857 and 1933 eartin- quakes) are shown as heavy black lines. Polygons represent map projections of nonvertical fault planes. Thin lines denote near-vertical faults. In- termediale-width lines outlime major fault systems that we consider could cause large earthquakes (M,, 7.2 to 7.6). Solid barbs denote thrust faults Ihat break the surface; barbs point downdip. Open barbs represent the upper edge of blind thrust fault ramps; barbs point downdip. Predom- inantly strike-slip faults are shown by double ar- rows along the surficial trace of each fault. Maxi- mum credible earthquakes and their average re- currence intervals are shown for each fault system (for example, M.,, 7.4/1010 on the Sierra Madre system ~ndicates a recurrence interval of approx~- matel,/ 1010 years for a M~ 7.4 earthquake rup- tunng the entire system). Comp FLT, Compton fault; C-SF, Clamshell-Sawpit fault; HF, Holly- wood fault; MCF, Malibu Coast fault; RF, Ray- mond fault; SJF, San Jose fault; SSF, Santa Su- sane fault. (B) Map showing the 51 potential, moderate (M,, 6.5 to 6.8; average M~ 6.7) earth- quake sources within the metropolitan region that we used in our moderate-earthquake scenario. The number within each earthquake source area denotes the approximate average recurrence in- terval (in years) for a moderate earthquake from each scurce region. In this scenario, for example, the source of the Northridge earthquake produc- es a M,,,, 6.7 event every 1645 years. Double lines denote geologically reasonable segment bound- aries. ALT Seg, Altadena segment; AZ Seg, Azusa segment; BH Seg, Baldwin Hills segment; CUC FLT, Cucamonga fault; LA. downiown Los Ange- les; LB, Long Beach; NB, Newport Beach; O, Oxnard; P, Pasadena; PD, Palmdale; PH Seg, Puente Hills segment; SA Seg, Santa Ann seg- ment; SF Seg, San Fernando segment; SM, Santa Monica; V, Ventura. SAN ANDREAS FAULT 1857M 7.9 ~ ' ' -.: ~.~ ..,. '- ~ 88M ANDREAS FAULT SAN PD 200 SCIENCE · VOL. 2.57 · [3JANUARY l:)95 t · C-7 ' '.~~' - -.."-e; '_~.~ -~:~ .... ",|, ·· ,.,. ' . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~fl,,~ ' , , ' .' ......' ., ' '-,.~.,~, ·, ~" ' , , ~ ,. . , ,~ l~I i* ~ ~, ,.., .~ ,, ,'- ~ ,.' ,.J.' . '.',':',' . ' ' '" I'~ .'~ ,~"'~ *~;~ .... ' ': , ' ' .... '" ," ~'"~ · .ez ~ ~ ~r' ' , : ' '' g~'· ,-I ~ ~: ~. "' , . ,t , ,, ,,., ~,.~ ·..~. , .,,~,,- ~ ~~,,, .,,,, ...... ., ,.'- , ....~; . , .,~ ~,,~. ,.. .... . , .,,,. ~,., ~,, ,~. ~. ,, , ~ . ,,,....~ . ,.,,, ~., ... . ,.,, .-~,~.~ · ~. ,.~ ,'.. ~ ·-~' ~,,,, '&';.,~ .. .......·,,,~. , , -~,.1~ ~.". ,' ~ ".~ .... - .,, .~Z' ?... ",.'-.,. :.',~t~. ,.~.~'~ · , .......... ,.,-% ,,~..~. .~ · '~,,,,-~.... ",-~ ' · '.' ..... '.~L_~,i"s; ~" ":'.~'~':~:.',-~. .'~,' :: .......:' "' ' "~'. .....":',.,.r:~_'. ~i".'~.A,-: .:.~, ~ ~ ,e ,' ...........~';"*'~ ,~ ..~.~,.., - - , ~ ~ ., ,,~ i.~ ........ ......,~, ...~.~..~ ~ ..~..~ ,.,,~... ..... ' ' ~"'e~ "'~' ' ~' ' ~'" '" ~"'i .... " " ' ', : '4'~' _'. ~,~-~'. ~" ' ~' . , ,.., ,,. ,, ~ - ~ ~ Z . ~%; ....,, ,, ,~, . , ....~.~ ~.,' ~~, ...... ·. - ........ ~'~- , · ~ '..-.' ~- -:-:: ~( ', · ~ '":.'. .......~ :~:~';4'.,. ; ..,.. . '~..':'~'..x ....~.,',~,.: :.~....L, _ ...... . ............ :,..~ ......' ~,.~.~. .'. .'?- . ~4E3~ - ?.~'~.7~"~='., ";~' ' '. '"'~..~:.-.' ... · ..~..~ --. · -~ ":.,'-"~': -";X=.'.' '":=., ..... · '.. . ~ .' · = B ~ ,~' - ~;: ~d , : .=' , v ', '.,.~;~ .... "'' · ' ~t,. ' il ~ "~' ~ '' '"~ P ', '.~'=~'a"- '~P" .~ ,· . .. /. '. :~:~.7~,,,,¢,. ,,. ...... ,....,..,. .......... ..... ;-.'.~.:,~-,, ........... ..''. /~'r',"~;~:,.X -. ~.':'~ ~ ~-~ ......~. · ". - .' ~ ~ '., ........... · .....': .,e..?~'".,,"-~"" C .... · · ' · . . - · .. ' ~: · ~ i ,,'' , ;'" -~'~::s ~' ' ,:, "''.',,' , "',.,~,~, '~ ' . ,, ". ....',,~a' '/. "'~ ~ ..~,".:' · · · ~'~ i.~.:,b,~...,X'..,- ...... ....... . ........ 'i.- ......... ', ~-- '-' ~ , '.,~.~'z ' ~.~,~=.,~ .-,.~ :. ' ..', '~ .... . .......,'., ~:, '.' · . . '..' ' ' ."' .~ ~: =~. ,. ". ' ', ., .....I,d.',. ?' ~.' '.~',~ ,~ "~." '~q¢~'- ~.. '"' · ·'.-4.%"F;...'~' ~ '...'z :'. ''.-' ,..+;~"~,... '..' " ','' ~/l~ =.'.~'~'~ "..'"" ',~) ;' ..~ ' ·.' %',.~',,:'~',,~,' '?,' '~."':~.' ",~ '"'. , '" ' ."' .,'. ~'x '":. -. .,, ..~; ... .,, .~. ~,.'~- .q · ,. ~ , ~ .~-'. ,. ~ ,' ....~ '.,. , = . ' ,.,. -:.~ · · s .,;;. '.', '..., ~,~f~, "~.,........'% .',~' ' · ~..., '~ ........' .... -'. ',, ....~,~,A;- ' ........ · . . ,,,~., , ., ~.~r .=~,. ,,.,,,. ~,". . , .,i~.. .....,.. ,,, ,~,,;%.~:,, .'~..'~"~,.. ~-,.,-',.'. ~:~:,,.~'..,~..,?',"~.:;..r~'i....'.:'" ....,.,''.."~"'~".",.;,~.;z ~:::: . · , - . ~,.. · ~ . ,·,. ,,, , . ,, , ~.,, ~ , , ,,. ~ ~,', ,, . ...... .' ' ' ',.~;i, ~ '.:.. ' " '... ~%, ' .'..~. , ..... ~,.. '.~. ~ .'.,, ...............:=~.-'.... ..... ,, ,,' '.~ ' '~ '-',~ ~~..T , ',,,." ,%. , ..'~' , '~' ~ ......':-,.~, '':,':'/~ .~-./ '. ...."; ~ :'"':.'"~'l ,-~" '" ~<S:'.' ". ,' . ~-... ~' ; .... .. ' ' ' . ' ...... , ~- · ..~, ~ , '[ · ~,,, ' · '~kl',,,', ',' '~%" ' · ", ' ";-" ' ~:'~"~',<~. ~ " d'~'.;~ ~' ...." ' . ~ .........~ .......~ ......'~ .......... "..-:ev:~s'~ .~ -- ~=/-:~u~r~ ...... ~, .. ~.... 4~. - · . ...., ·, ........ ............ ..../ .,%":"."' ', "'...-" , ' · . /.-.;'.:'~'..~ ....'~.~(' '~', ~ '. ~ :r - .",'~, ,' .... '~' .', '~ .~" ":?. ~ · ; ~ ". . '/ ,. '-: %~...-'~ ..'.,, .. .,, , . = · .~.· ,,, ...., '. ,,. ,,.'";.~..~,,.~. , . · '~ ~ ~ · ,= , · ', =' ~ ~,"~ ,.,'~. '·' " ' '~~. '"~-" I.. ....· ~,~ ' ~"'~ · ',~ '~ ' ' ' ' ' ~' 'f '~ ....' ~"~ ' ~' ' '~'' · I"" ~" '''"'"'% '' ' ~ " '"'' ' "'""" ' ~"' ......' ....' ' '"' · , ' ......I ~ ~'~' '~ ~'1' -'":'' ' ,', '.~'~ i .'?. ' ,. .~..' * ......"'~.'. ". ~,, e,~ " '-h · -, , " ,", ', ,.',& ~ ~' ' .~** ~,,' ~, ".~'~ ~· '", .. · ~., ~ ~' · .~ '. ....,,. , '~ 4, -~., ,~',,',',, ' = ~ ~ .... . .' .....~,".' .--,.~'.' .....' ',..'.'~.~' · ~,....". '~..r,,.;.,.. v..-:t'~ ',. , ,, · ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ . . i ,: , s , ,, ,, .-- .. ,.,., ,, ~, ·, -,, .,~·' ' ' .. ,... ,.-.~ . ..:...¢-: .:, ..,..=.... b~,...:.~..x........~(. ~ -, '.(:. , ;.~.,¢~' ;~-'. , ..~...:..),,C~.,..,:'~,~;,,~...~ .,.~,.:" ; ....... ,. ''. ".~' .... i -~ s~.~;,- '. - .'- . .......... ~ ~" ~ ~ · ',.'· .~1 -','m ,, , , , ,~ .... .. . .... T,.:. . . . ,. . ..~,... ~ . ~,,,.,· ~,~,,,,~.~:~ ,,. ~ .... ~,, ,, ,., · . , ,., ,... ,.,,. · , i . ,,,. ~ .. ,.~[ . . .,., . ..../ .... : ~ ,'...-~.C -. ,,.. , .~ ...... ' ' ~ ~ ,,' ,,, .,',, ~.., . ..'.. "~.~.. ~' -.,~ · ..· , ., ~ .......- i' ' '~ .. ~ .... . ~.,...,.,. ~.,&..~.,~. ,~ ' "" ~ .....i,:,,~,.. ~ ~ ~ .a/a ,..,, . . · ~Z~..,.., ,i = . ~ . . ~ ,, . ,, . ,,~·...~.,~.,.~...,.,., . · , ~"", x ~' I ' ' ' ~ · '~. ' ii'"''~ ~', ''~sl-'--"~ ~ " ' ~ "' .., ~', ,",I ~4 ....,,, ~'~% , ' .... I'. a. ' '," ..... . , , . . .... ' ' , .~" ,. · ' "... :v '~.~ ....,~'-.~:'.,?~,?~, - ,,.~s~.~ . - ,.~., .... . , .. , , .,. . , , , . e~ ~,,. ~,,~.:~ ...., -., . ,..~¢. ·. ,~.. s ,,,. .. ,.. , ~ ,. . ,;,,,.,, ,., . . ,,., ,.. . · ~,,, ~.~,~ .s, ,.... ~,..,. ~.~ ~. .....,~ '~~.,..... ,..... ~ : :. ,.....:.~ ............ ~.~; ....~....~,,~.,: .~. . . , ~ ...... . ~ -. · , , , , · ~ . ~, .,., '~ .....'5"~".~.'~%;, '~%"~.::'::'- "-" S,. ' t'~r";~, . ', '; '" ' · "' · ~ z*.""' .· '"~'~'~,: ..' ',,,p? ., ,,~'~'] ',,,?~ ,~'..," .Z.-., ,.. -, ........~ ~"~'.,~ ,, ....... ~,~, .,,..~.~ ..... .... ' ~.' ."~'.' .,"=r'".:~ .....',~,,=i ......'~ d'.--'-:'',., ...... ~' ~ '.-. '.' .' ."~.*~ ..........'..'"'' ~'. '~LZ ;',. ....· ~ · ..,~l" ...'~':"~ '.."~...--71 ,.'""".~".,'~*'~;-~ ' ~ "~"':.~,-, .' ~ "". "',', '. ......... '.,=~~..,'~'.~';?..'.:.~ '~ ~' : '"~,~_' -..~'~','.'. · ~ ...... ' ..... ~.~.~. . ' ....'·,',', ,, '~ ~', .....," ,,'~' ,.~ '.~- .4 .~. ' . ...:........:.?'.,,.. .......-. ,,- : :';'.:' "'':'.' .:,:-..' ....i-'":," .'".~5 .'.. ' .F '~- ,-~"-., ~'"~:'%,' · : _ '~' ~" ~...',' ~- ...~"~"~. ~"~ '~,.'~ .~ "..'.. ,-., '*:,'g~, ..... ~ .... ,~..' '" i'. ~ --~ ~ .. ..... .. ~. ~;. ~ ~ ..,~.~ ~v. : '' ~'~"' ~~'~i~ " "' ~ " - ~ / ~ ' '' ~ · '~ '~-~ '- -~ · ~,' · · , "~ I ", ' '.,. , ~4,· ~ ,· ~:, , ,,.,, ~,. . , , ~ .' · ,, ~ J ,. I I'~ ~' " ~ ' ,' ....~ ~ .... ....~ ... ~ .~. ,.,....... ......,.._..,~ .......~.~ .~.,~. . .,' ,~ ....,..',. .~..,,.,,,·., : ~,,,~.,; ·. ~,,¢ ~. ~.~.,~.'. ':,~ -,~ .~ ,. ,: -. .',,~,.~.',,~., ,.~.~ . .,,~,~d.,, · ,' ~ · ~ [- '" -"?, '. i ~ ~ ' · ,'. ' "-. ·~'."'~= = -" ,.. , -..;'%; ..~..%/",~,.~.~.'~,,. ' =...~ ¢,,. ~'.'.. '~.,. , ; .] ,,"~' ~ ' .-,--.,.~"~'~ ..,,~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ " ' ' '' "' ' ""' ' ' ~'' ' ' 'I ' "~"~'~'''~'""; , '~' ' :.:.~.,,· ~:.,., ~'~,:,=....' ~ ...., ~...""..~ .....,.~=. .~.,~.~'~.:~.,. .~, .~.~,...,.~...,.~.'~ ~ -..: ~'~'~ ~~ ~' .~;'/~-:.~.. :' . ' x'f~ : ~ .... -~ ~ -' .-~~,i" "'' '-,;-t,·'~% · '. .... .... ....,..,,..,,.,... ........,..., ........ ~.'-~. ~ ~ "~'"~;~'-~'~~ ¢~,=""~"' ~' ' :' ~ · ,~ :~'~ ~, ,: ..... ~ .~ '. ......... ......·~ ...... ~... ~.~ ,.~[ .......- ~ ,.~. ~., . ~.,_1... . ~ . . · ~ ~ .~, ~ ......a .....,,, ,~.,~ ,, , ~,, ~ , . ,~ -~ -~-.~ . .~- .,. . , .,~ ~.~.~.~ ~ %- . ~ - .~. ,.,~,,,,~.... , .,. ,.,,.,, ..,....~. %', ,~,,,~ ,,~. ~,,,. ..... .~ ,.., ,,,:,.~,. ~ ~~;~. ~. ~ ,~ .... ,~'~ ,~.. , ' .." ~ ,.- ~ '~. ~' ..' &~'1 ...... .~.,,,.~.~ ~ ~ .~.,. ~ ~- ~'. ,..~-,, ~,. ..... · .......... ~ .... ~ ~ ~ .~ ,~ ..,.. .... ~ . ,~ .,..,. ,.~ ~,, ,,.. ..... ~ ~, , .. ,,~~...~,= ~,,,,. :.· .. , .....-.. .....,,,,.. , , .... ,,.. ....~- ,,, .~· ., ...... .:, - ,. ~ · . ..~.~ ,~ . -.,~,,- ~ ,,,'..:.~.,,. ,~.. . , ,, ~ -,. . .. . , . , ,,.._~ .~., ......... · , ,~...'· · ~, ~. , ., · .v · . ·,.. ~ ,,. · · · · · ~, .... , . .. , ......,...~ .......~....~ ~, ~...,. ....., ....~,.,,,,... .....:~......: ..... ' ",,'. , ~,~". '?; :,'" .~:%~.. ".,., .' . '".- "... "'%' V '., 7' :,,'Z"'~ '~..'2'..'. "~ ~ ~ ~ .,.,? ......: ~'~ ..'~.~.,:.... ~.~ :: ,~., ..~.-~-~ · ~.. ~.... . ...' ~:..'..~-.~.~ ....~. .. .. ,~,~,' ,. ....~ .. -~-. ,. ~,.~. ~'~',,~.,~ ~..., ~,.- .~ --,.~ ,.. ,- . , .-~.~..~ '~.,~,-.~ .... . ~.: ~.,'~ ~. ,,= ~, · ~ · . , ~ ,,','~'~-:..~, '~ ~ ~ .,. - . ~ · . .,,,.....,,-~:,,~. · :.~"'~.,.~ ." ".. _". .~?¢ . ,, · ~.~ ~ '~.~ .~%~' .~ :"~i~ "~ ..... ~ .. . '.<".~..?.~..'~.~ .~',,"· .' ' .. .'~ ~,,, ~ / ~,' ~.,~',.~!..~ ~.~,,~.~, ~-~ II· - ... -~-, ,~..~,.,, ' , ..... ~'"'~;'.~'~'.,,'~.~.,~ ~ ' ~V~'~'~,-~ "". '""~'="~,'7V~'. , ~. ~ , . ,.._ . , =., ,'~ ~.· ...,~. =..- .........~ . ~ ~ ...... ~..~. ~..,~....~ .. "2::' :~';.' '. ,']")~b:'~ Bas:n .;:..'~ ..,~:..=~.." ~'~:' .~;,="~...'..~. ;.~ .... '...:,~;,.: ....... ....... , ....· ......? ..~ .-,.-....~.,., ... ¢~;-'.. t." .~,:",?~.~ '"" ~'""~ """" :'"' '. %'. ,,,, .:,~ ........ ~.. .. ...~ ~ ...... ~ ,.~ .... ,,.. ~,~ ' ..,. .... ~' .u ,'. · I t / I I' / .....' p -.,'.,~ , · O~:Sll. IL ")ebr:.s ]"2::'.:. _. · ,. .... , ............., ~'"q.. · ; , ,. ..-. ~:., ,,,. .. ...., , . ,=, , · ~. .............., ~ ,..,,,. , · i. ,,,,~ ....,,,,,, ,, ,,,, .............., ......,,, .... · ......... : ....... ,...._· ,,,.' , , , ,. · ,~,,, ,, .,, ., ,,,, · ...... ~er:- 3y' A,~0,6'.....US 18~0 563'~33' 08 20.'97 '~'2~,AM;.,/ef,,~4~ #942;Page "/5 DECLARATION OF DAVID T. WILLIAMS- 1. I am the president of W~ST Consultan=s, Inc., a 4 San Diego based water resources engineering firm. I received a 5 B.$. degree in Civil Engineering from ~he University of 5 California, Davis, and an M.S. in Environmental Civil ~ngi~eering 7 at the same u~ivers~ty. I also received a Ph.D. in Hydraulics 8 and Sedimentation frcun Colorado State University. I am a fellow 9 of the Aa%erican Society of Civil Engineers, an adjunct professor '0 a% San Diego Sta=e University in the Civil Engineeri~ !1 Deparrz~ent, a certified Professional Hydrologist~ a Certified 12 Professional i~ Erosio: and Sediment Control (CPESC), and a 13 California registered professional Civil Engineer. I have over 14 25 years of experience in water resources, wi~h a specialty in 15 flood ha3ard evalua:ion. I currently supervise over 20 en~ineers 16 who co~duct flood related studies for the Army Corp, of 17 Engineers, California Depart.~ent of Transportation, an~ Federal 18 E=nergency Management Agency. I am familiar with the Corps of 19 Engineers' procedures as I was employed by =he Corp for 20 approximately 15 years. I am also familiar with FEMA regulations 21 and, in fact, I teach FEMA remapping procedures as ~art of a 22 course on hydraulics en~jineering for the American Society of 23 Civil Engineers. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of my 24 curriculLun v/tee. Because I am teaching such a FEMA course in 25 Portland, Oregon, I am not available to testify at the Rancho 26 Cuca-~nga city Council hearing scheduled for August 20, 1997. I 27 have personal k~.owled~e of the statements made herein and, if 28, called as a witness, I would ~nd could testi~y to the truth t~ereof. 1~11~407 08/~/97 #NN:otl 08;20/97 '1'21A¢~;,,.]~ ¢942;Page 2.;5 22 upslopm. 24 2 2. This declaration is made in support of Cucamongans 3 United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") challenge to t. he Lauren 4 Development Project. I have had the opportunity to personally 5 evaluate the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the property between =he & Debris Basin and the levee. I also have walked =he levee. I 7 have reviewed documents ann understand that the proposed 8 residential development by Lauren Development involves removal of 9 an approximately 40' high and over 2,000 foot long, levee and 10 mu!tiple swale sys=mm built in the 1950s. This levee and swale i1 system has effectively served to hold back water and debris flow 12 frc~n downslope structures, including water and debris flow during 13 the 1969 floods. The effectiveness of the levee can be seen on 14 aerial and topographic maps already submitted in the record. 15 16 3. In my professional opinion, I have concluded that 17 removal of the levee and swale system (and the construction of a 18 residential development) will place both the new reside4~ts and 19 the existing residents downslope of the levee in substanuially 20 greater risk of flooding and debris flow than currently ex/sts 21 notwithstanding the existence of the Deer Creek Debris Basin I base this conclusion on the fo!lowi~ factors. (a) The Debris Basin was designed to withstand a 25 5.0 magnitude earthquake. Attached are excerpts ~rom the Army 26 Corps' design memoranda for the Debris Basin. Subsequent studies 27 conducted by the Southern California EarthqumJce Center ("$CEC") 28 have revealed a fault 'under the Debris Ba~£n ~ha~ ~ould ~CR~A431 .P02 '6~112407 C~/20197 NH,~:~t 1 ~er:- :::"' A'¥'J=;'-";5 !800 563'933' 0=1¢20,,'97 '1 '22AM;.,/~ ¢942;Pace 3¢'5 - realls=ically produce & 7.0 or greater magnitude "ea~r~hquake. I 2 have reviewed t_he declaration of Dr. Thomas Henyey, Ph.D, Director of the SCEC and this declaration has been sub=,it=ed in the record fo= your considers=ion. 6 (hi The volume capacity of =he Debris Basin was 7 based upon =he Tatu~ method developed in 1963 by =he Los 8 Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps published update~ criterion 9 for Debris Basin design in 1992 which could significantly change i0 the design volume. Based upon my own personal observations and !! these new standards, the Debris Basin appears to be uz~dersized. 12 This is a~other post-lB90 changed circumstance that must be !3 considered. 14 15 (c) In 1994, WEST Consultants perfo~lned a study 16 of the Harrow Debris Basin in the City of Glendora, County of Los 17 Angeles. I was directly involved in that project. The Harrow !8 basin overtopped durin~ the 1969 flood, which at this location 19 was a ten year precipitation event approximately one year after a 20 burn. Although the available volume of the Debris Basin was 21 adeq~aze, compu~=ions s~owed the= the "ru~up" of the debris due 22 to mom-ntum was approximately ten feet, causing the debris to 23 over the spillway by ~our feet which, in turn, plugged the 24 downstream concrete chan~el resulting in overtopping of the 25 Debris Basin a~d substantial ds==age Uo downstream property. 26 The Deer Creek Debris Basin has similar watershed ~asin slope 27 characteristic of the Harrow Debris Basin. The spillway crest is 28. at elevation 2857 and =he upstream excavation elevation (aCter 1800 563'933; 08/20/97 '!'22AM;je,~ ~942;Page 4/5 ~ cleanup, according '.o the plans) is a= &pproxima'tely 284S. About 2 25% of the volume from small events is allowed to fill before 3 clean out is required. This would allow the material to fill u~ 4 to about elevation 2850. If an event similar =o the Harrow Debris -~ Basin event occurred, the aebris would go over the spillway by 6 three feet. The c~wnstream channel was designed based upon 7 mciear" water and debris in =he water would significantly ~ decrease the cap&city and spill over or cause it =o plug up 9 cornpie=ely - also causing i= =o epiil over. !0 11 (d) In =he 1950s, [he local flood control agency 12 cons=ructed a series of swales and levees designed ',o slow the 13 debris flows and conv~y =hem =o ~ controlled outlet pohn=. The 14 flood of 1969 caused a debris torrent which was largely 15 con=rolled by the levees and swales. The levee and swale system 16 protected the area and =he homes downslope of the levee. The 17 developer in=ends uo remove =his levee and use =he spoil to ~ill 18 in the swales. Although =he levee and swales were built before 19 t_he cons=ruc=ion o~ =he Debris Basin, the Army Corps considered 20 =h~ as a~ integral l~art of ~he projec= and recommended that 21 material that would accumulate in the Debris Basin actually be 22 used to fortify the levee. Removal of the swales and levees 23 would weaken the protective nature of =he Corps Debris Basin 24 project. I also uz$derst~nd that the developer claims that the 25 levee is no longer effective because of a approximately 200 foot 26] bremc/~ at the top of Paddock Road. This is a small fraction of 27 the overall levee azzd caz~ easily be repaired mz~d has min/.mal 28 bearing upon the overall proven structural integrity of the levee o_ · SHER~TON ,~!RP,DR~ HOTS' .- .. and the ,weis system to provide secondary protection to the downelope residents. (e) Tc~ Sheahan, a regie~ercd gco£oqiet, certified two potential la~mlide areaa exceeding 100 acres t~c are adjacent to the D~.er Creek Debris Basin npillway. [~ these alidea become ac=ive. they ~uld b~ee the Debrim Baoin and go ~hindered ~o do~glo~ areas t~t ~rrently are protected by the levee and e~le sy.tem. This ~uld ~ pa~icularly dangerou. for ~he prosed new h~e to ~ built on the ~ame location a~ th~ dm~e~u~ to ex~eting ~s. 14 15 5. The ~eriouaness of this matter uhould not be ignored by the City. The damage to ].ife and property in the event of a 17 debrL~ ~1~ is serl~e. Given t~ changed circ~ta~tceu 18 descried a~e [~a~h~ke ma~itudee and new debris ~ein 19. ~ei~ criteria), the C~[y ~e[ re~ire turth. r etud~ and 2O 2L 22 2.1" 24 2'7 mtr. tgation m~asurers prior tO piacin? ice citizen. at risk. i declare ~er ~nmlty u~ ~rlU~ that the foregolag ~or=land, Oregon on Auger 20, 1997. David T. WEST Consultants, Inc. August 19, 1997 By Telecopy Mr. Karl Mohr Mitigation Director Federal Emergenzy Management Agency 500 C. Street S.W. Washingto,l, D.C. 20472 Re' Cucamongans United For Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") (1) Request for Clarification from FEMA Concerning 1997 Letter of Map Revision ("LOMR"); (2) Application for Rema.pl~ing D~r Karl' As Malis.~a McKeith, counsel for CURE, and I mentioned to you when we spoke on August 18, 1997, we are working together on behalf of CURE to challenge a 26-acre residential development ('Development" or "Lauren Development') located on an alluvial fan at approximately 2,200 t~et above sea level in tile San Bernardino foothills in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The proposr..d Development involves removal of an approximately 40' high and over 2,000 foot long, levee and multiple swal,~ system built in the 1950s mat n~s et'tectively served to hold back water and debris flow from downslope structures, iv. eluding water a~ 'debris flow during the 1969 floods. The Developer claims that the removal of the levee has been deemed sate by FEMA because FEMA removed tt:e prior 'AO" designation on all property lot. rated downslope of the Deer Cr~k Debris Basin ("Debris Basin'). In my professional opinion, I have concluded that removal of the levee and swale system and the construction of a residential development will place both tile new residents and the existing residents downslope of the levee m substantially greater rks.k of flooding and debris flow notwithstanding the existence of the D~r Creek Debris Basin upslope. I base this conclusion on the following factors. · Arizona O~: On~ Ea.sl Cam.el.back Road, Suite · · Mr. Karl Mohr August 19, 1997 Page 2 I . . , . The Debris Basiv. was designed to withstand a 5.0 magnitude earthquake. Attached are excerpts from Ihe Army Corps' design memoranda for the Debris Basin. Subsequent studies conducte~l by the Southern Ualilbrnia Earthquake Center ("SCEC") have revealed a fault under the Debris Basin that could realistically produce a 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake. Attached is a declaration from Thomas Henyey, Ph.D. Director of the SCEC. The volume capacity of the Debris Basin. was based upon the Tatum method developed in 1963 by the Los Angeles Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps published updated criterion for Debris Basin design in 1992 which could significantly change the design volume. Based upon my own personal observations and these new standards, the Debris Basin appears to be undersized. In 1994, WEST Consultants performeel a study of the Harrow Debris Basi, in the City of Glendora, County oI' Los Angeles. This basin overtopped during the 1969 flood, x,,'hich at this location was a ten year precipitation event approximately one year after a burn. Although the available volume of the Debris Basin was adequate, computations showed that the "runup" of the debris due to momentum was approximately ten feet, causing the debris to go over the spillway by four feet which, in turn, plugged the downstream co~crete channel resulting in overtopping of the Debris Basin and substamiai damage to downstream property. The Deer Creek Debris Basin has similar watershed basin slope characteristic of the Harrow Debris Basin. The spillway crest is at elevation 2857 and the upstream excavation elevation (after cleanup, according to the plans) is at approximately 2845. About 25% of the volume from small events is allowed to fill before clean out is required. This would allow the material to fill up to about elevation 2850. If an event similar to the Harrow Debris Basin event occurred, the debris would go over the spillway by three feet. '11ae downstream channel was designed based upon "clear' water and debris in the water would significantly decrease the capacity and spill over or cau~ it to plug up completely - also causing it to spill over. ]n the I950s, the local flood control agency constructed a series of swales and levees designed to slow the debris flows and convey them to a controlled outlet point. The flood of 1969 caused a debris torrent which was largely controlled by the levees and swales. (See attached.) The levee and swale system protected the area and the homes downslope or' the levee. The developer rotends to remove this levee and use the spoil to fill in the swales. Although tile levee and swales were built before the construction of the Debris Basin, the Army Corps considered Mr. Karl Mohr August 19, 1997 Page 3 them as an integral part of th~ project and re.c. ommeaded that ~nateriai that would accumulate in the Debris Basin actually be used to fortify the levee. Removal of the swales and levees would wealten the protective nature of the Corps Debris Basin project. Tom Sheahan, a registered geologist, certified hydrogeologist, and pri~cipal of Dames & Moore, has identified two potential landslide are. as exceeding 100 acres that are adjacent to the Deer Creel( Debris Basin .~i!lway. If these slides become active, they would bypass the Debris Basin and go unhindered to dow',sbtx: areas that currently are prote..c-ted by the levee and swale system. This would be particularly dangerous for the proposed new homes to be built on the same location as the leve~: and swalas once they are d~troyed, and likewise would be dangerous to existing homes. Based upon the above, WEST Consultants and Loeb & Loeb, on b~haif of CURE, formally request remapping of the area as 'AO' (at a millimum) in light of this critical new information which was not available to FEMA in 1991. This letter will be supplemented ~ soon an possible with the appropriate information v',.quired by FEMA to evaluate remapping. In the meantime, we require a letter from you before the final City Council hearing tonight that clarifies the following issues to the City of Ranc~,o Cucamonga. The IX)MR does not include any evaluation or conmtentary on whether removal of the se.c. ondary levee and swale system Js safe or not. The LOMR was based solely on the Army Corps' certification that the Debris Basin would prevent flooding and debris flow. FEMA has received an application from citizet~s of Rancho Cuzamonga requesting that FEMA remap the area at i.gsu¢ ii~ light of new i~:formation concerning the integrity of the Deer Cr~k Debris Basin. This new includes, but is not limited to, (aS information co~w. erning new 1996 earthquake studies concluding that the Cucamonga Fault beneath the spillway is a possible 7.0 to 7.5 magnitude; (b) information that the Debris Basin design procedures have bcctl updated since the original construction of the Debris Basin; (cS information concerning two sizeable potential landslide areas adjacent to the Debris Basin that may not be contained within the Debris Basin if sliding occurs. If the Debris Basin is receniti~ based upon the above information, FEMA will conduct an analysis of the safety of thg secondary levee and swale systems as a protective measure. it ~o. qus 20,~7 $'-qC No.'O[ P.C5 Mr. Km'l Mohr August 19, 1997 Page a The type of factual information asserted by CURE's engineers is the type of information FEMA considers and thus could serve as the hasis for reinupping and alecertification of the Debris Basin. Karl - my personal opinion is that FEMA would seriously consider reinupping if all of the facL~ could be presented in a more formal m~umer. After wallting the site, I honestly feel that this is a _dangerous situation. The residents learned of the project only in late May of this year, and it was extremely difficult to obtain all ol; the ncccssary documents to evaluate matters. 1 lmow flint Malissa McKei~h faxed and left several messages to accelerate the FOIA request once the developer asserted on July 9, 1997, that FEMA was somehow concurring in Me removal of the levee and swales. Please assist us in sending a letter to tile City today. The letter should be addressed to The Honorable William Alexander, Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga 91729. if you need to reach me, I am in Portland at 503-281-2500. Please call as early in tile morning as possible as I am teaching an ATC-RAS course throughout the next three days. I will be in the hotel until 9:30 e.s.t. and I will check messages. Alternatively, call Malissa at 909-989-8702 or 213-999-4332. Thank you in advance tor your consideration. Very truly yours, [Original sisned by David T. Williams, Ph.D.I David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. CO: The Honorable Barbara Boxer (by telecopier, w/enclosures) The Honorable William Alexander, Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga (by telecopier, w/enclosures) Malissa Hathaway MeKeith, Loeb & Loeb, CURE (by telecopier, w/enclosures) Thomas Sh~han, R.G., Dames & Moore (by 1elecopier, w/enclosure) M CM Z44)OLD'2 SD~ BY:~I~ BAX~ 12'24 No.'OS P.06 PA~E: 2 1 ',# 2I 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency Wmhing~on, D.C. 20~72 · AUG2,01991 Thb finslx2adf to a letter (~od Attkm~ 19. 1997. Io d~ Focleral F. me~ Mo~mem A~ncy from Mr. David T. W'tltiam, PIt. O, P.S.. of WliST Cor~l'-,,'~, Inc., ~ a etalimp try ~,c~,3oapns United for I%e-,oe-klo 13~pemto~ (CURE) of a clovek4m~at In Rancho CucanxJ~a. Calllomb. Mr. William, ataUscl that be balievu the propored ramoval of · Ioveo sacfloe sad sw, b system as Iart o~the d~elopemm ~ Incream flood dsk~ i~ dowmJopo er~s. In JJtlx c~ t~ pmlx]wt ramoval of ~e levee ~tion and ~ ~m. Mr. ~ill[azrm ~ tJ~ WEST Coam~t~, lat., ~cl Loeb & Loeb, L[,.P., on behalf of CURE, wbh to roqu~ a mrn~ of &tl'~eexl ~ to a ,~eclal Flood HazaKI Area (SFHA) de~,ua~d Z0M AOo ~ I totalmum. SFHAs L,o aro~ l~at winlid be if~ndaMd by tbe flood h~vt~ · l lMrCOm chance of ~ equaJod c~ ercw'~t durln~ iny riven ~r (buo flood). Mr. William stated that his le~r would be supplemented as soon &j poe~blo with the appropdtM ~ochaic~ cht~ lo m~ppo~ fl~e rsvPloft roquost. Mr. Williams' Iot~r corroclly indlce~ Lhat we issued a ~ of ~p ~~ mvb~f ~ ~A ~~ ~l~ ~ of the e~~ ~ p~ ~ P~ ~ of of(hh ~r, ~ will nmify y~ our ~il~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m H ~ 0f ~h ~ C~ of ~r ~~~~ ~or will you h~o if,/94astloa aprdial dill mr, pleae ~ m~ in Wulda~oa, OC, eitbe' b~ cea~3boao .t (2aZ) ~-2W0 o~ by acsimi~ at (202) 6464~96. Identification Dranch Midiron DimctomM Mr. Devtd T, WftU&ms, Ph.D, P.E. W~T Comulm~. ~ac, M~. MalisM McKeith Loeb & Loeb, L.L.P, David T. Williams, Ph.D., P. E. -. Dr. Williams is the President of WEST Consultants and is a registered Civil Engineer in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Washington, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas and Oregon. While with WEST Consultants, he has written the new HEC-6 Users' Manual for the U.S. Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), performed HEC-6 and local scour analysis of pipeline crossings in Arizona and New Mexico, conducted Flood Insurance studies, the Keene Ranch groundwater modeling study and the Nile River sedimentation evaluation among others. He is the instructor of ASCE's HEC-2 and HEC-RAS short courses which are presented throughout the U.S. In addition, Dr. Williams is also a frequent instructor for other short courses on various topics of sedimentation and hydraulics. He is well versed in the computer programs HEC-1, HEC-2, HEC-RAS, HEC-6, STORM, and WQRRS. Dr. Williams is a nationally recognized expert in sedimentation engineering and in developing innovative solutions to difficult hydraulic design problems. Dr. Williams is currently President and on the Board of Directors of the International Erosion Control Association (IECA) and is chair of the ASCE Task Committee on Analysis of Laboratory and Field Sediment Data Accuracy and Availability. He is also a past chair of the ASCE Sedimentation Committee. While chair of the Federal Interagency Technical Committee on Sedimentation, he worked with sedimentation experts from the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, TVA, Bureau of Land Management and the Agricultural Research Service. His work with the Committee involved developing sediment sampling equipment and sediment data collection methods. Dr. Williams is also a Fellow of ASCE. A member of American Engineers for Social Responsibility, Dr. Williams is the author of many technical papers and reports on hydraulics and sedimentation. He was formerly an Associate Editor of the ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, as well as a reviewer. He was recently selected the 1993 Small Business Person of the Year by the Carlsbad, California Chamber of Commerce and serves as chair of the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee. Before forming WEST Consultants with Dr. Bradley, his professional experience included more than eighteen years as a hydraulic engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, both the Nashville and Baltimore Districts, and the Hydrologic Engineering Center in Davis, California. While at WES, Dr. Williams worked on research applications of sediment transport in rivers and reservoirs and the solution of unusual hydraulic and sediment related problems using computer models and 'other state-of-the-art techniques. He also worked on the development of the cohesive and network versions of the HEC-6 sediment transport computer model, and wrote the Reservoir Sedimentation Chapter in the U.S. Corps of Engineering Manual on Sedimentation Investigations. At the Nashville District, Dr. Williams performed erosion control and sedimentation studies for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Project and also conducted sedimentation and floodplain information studies of proposed flood control projects. He was acting Chief of the Hydrology and Hydraulics Section at the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers. During the mid 1970's, Dr. Williams worked at HEC, helping in the development of spatial data management techniques, evaluation of the economic benefits of flood control projects, and sedimentation in rivers and reservoirs. David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION · Professional · Professional · Professional · Professional · Professional · Professional · Professional Engineer, Engineer, Engineer, Engineer, Engineer, Engineer, Engineer, Arizona #24349 California #57020 Mississippi //8242 Washington #0027190 Hawaii #7796-(CE) Oregon #16,963 New Mexico #12187 Professional Engineer, Texas #80003 Certified Professional in Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, #703 EDUCATION Ph.D. (Civil Engineering - Hydraulics) Colorado State University, Fort.Collins, Colorado, December, 1995 M.S. (Environmental Civil Engineering - Water Resources) University of California, Davis, California, 1977 B.S. (Civil Engineering) University of California, Davis, California, 1972 PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Engineers for Social Responsibility American Society of Testing and Materials International Erosion Control Association NATIONAL AND LOCAL COMMrl-rEE ASSIGNMENTS Small Business Person of the Year, Chamber of Commerce, Carlsbad, California, 1993 Chair, Beach Erosion Committee, City of Carlsbad, California, 1993 - Present President, International Erosion Control Association, 1994 - Present Board of Directors, International Erosion Control Association, 1990 - Present Chair, ASCE Task Committee on the Analysis of Laboratory and Field Sediment Data Accuracy and Availability, 1987 - Present Corresponding Member, ASCE Sedimentation Committee, 1984 - Present Member,'ASTM D19 Committee on Water, 1983 - Present Chair, Committee on Unusual Hydraulic Problems of Flood Control Projects, Chief Engineers Office, U.S. Army, C.O.E., Washington, D.C., 1987- 1988 Chair, Federal Inter-Agency Tectmical Committee on Sedimentation, 1981-1987 Associate Editor, ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1984- 1986 Corresponding Member, ASCE Computational Hydraulics Committee, 1984 - 1986 Chair and Member, ASCE Sedimentation Committee, 1980 - 1984 David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. INSTRUCTIONAL EXPERIENCE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Advanced HEC-2, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California HEC-2, Basic and Advanced, taught for ASCE at various locations HEC-RAS, Basic and Advanced, taught for ASCE at various locations Hydrology and Hydraulics for non-Engineers, various locations Open Channel Hydraulics, San Diego State University, San Diego, California Water Surface Profile Computation Using HEC-2, Advanced, HEC, Davis, California Engineering Problem Analysis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California FESWMS-2DH, WEST Consultants, San Diego, California Sedimentation in Forested Watersheds, Alaska and Montana Civil Engineering Planning, University of Califorr~a, Davis, California Sediment Transport Course, HEC, Davis, California Spatial Data Management, HEC, Davis, California Water Quality in Rivers and Reservoirs, HEC, Davis, California Sedimentation in Rivers and Reservoirs, HEC-6, HEC, Davis, California Sedimentation Analysis, Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Mississippi Sediment Transport in Reservoirs and Inland Waterways, WES, Mississippi Numerical Modeling for Engineers, WES, Vicksburg, Mississippi Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, WES, Mississippi Water Surface Profile Computations on the Microcomputer, Fort Collins, Colorado Short Course on HEC-6 Modeling, various locations Stable Channel Design, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee Bank and Channel Protection in Rivers, (IECA), Vancouver, BC, Canada Short Course on Sediment Problems in Rivers, Oregon State University Calculus I-IV, Hinds Junior College (HJC), Vicksburg, Mississippi Differential Equations, HJC, Vicksburg, Mississippi PROJECT EXPERIENCE Water Qualily and Groundwater Cal Trans NPDES Permit Project, Los Angeles County Keene Ranch Groundwater Quality and Quantity Modeling, Bakersfield, California Turbidity Plume Analysis of Open Ocean Disposal for the Tampa Bay Deepening Project, Florida Predictions of the Effects of Structural Alternatives on Turbidity in the St. Lucie Canal at Port Mayaca, Florida Determination of Light Extinction Coefficients for Lakes and Reservoirs for use in Water Quality Mathematical Models Analysis of the Behavior of Fine Sediments in Reservoirs for Environmental and Water Quality Operation Systems (EWQOS) Program PCB Transport Study for the Hudson River, New York David T. Williams, Ph.D., P. E. Sedimentation Ashtabula River Hazardous Waste Project, Ohio Tia Juana River Valley Surface and Groundwater Water Budget Analysis, San Diego, CA Sedimentation Investigations of Boeuf River and Tributaries, Louisiana Sedimentation Analysis of a Cutoff for the Barbourville, Kentucky, Flood Control Project Analysis of the Effects of Strip Mining on Project Life of Martin's Fork Reservoir, Kentucky Sedimentation Surveys and Analyses of J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Tennessee Sedimentation Surveys and Analyses of Laurel River Reservoir, Tennessee Sedimentation Surveys and Analyses of Martin's Fork Reservoir, Kentucky Sedimentation Study of the St. Lucie River and Estuary, Florida Sedimentation Analysis and Debris Basin Design for the Rio Puerto Nuevo Flood Control Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico Determination of Sediment Yields after the Mr. St. Helens Eruption, Washington Modeling the Sedimentation Effects of the Removal of the Washington Water Power Dam Lewiston, Idaho Sedimentation and Dredging Maintenance Requirement Study for the Rochester,. Minnesota, Flood Control Project Sedimentation Study of Tuttle Creek Reservoir, Kansas Sediment Yield and Debris Basin Evaluation of Goleta, California, Flood Control Project Sedimentation and Sediment Yield Study of the Harding Ditch, East St. Louis, Missouri, Flood Control Project Analysis of Sediment Exclusion and Ejection System of the Igdir Irrigation Project, Turkey, for the World Bank Reservoir Sedimentation Study of Shoccoe Dam, Jackson, Mississippi Evaluation and Assessment of Sedimentation in the Nile River and Irrigation Schemes, Sudan, for the World Bank Zink Dam Sedimentation Study, Arkansas River, Tulsa Erosion and Sedimentation Analysis of South Coast Materials Mine Reclamation Plan, Buena Vista Creek, Carlsbad, California Incipient Motion Analysis of Spawning Gravel, Cedar River, Renton, Washington Stable Channel Analysis San Luis Rey Levee Design and Sediment Transport Analysis Sediment. and Stable Channel Analysis of Pipeline Crossings for E1 Paso Natural Gas Company, Northern New Mexico and Arizona Channel Stability Study of the Salt-Gila River Project, Arizona Sediment and Channel Stability Study of the Gallup, New Mexico, Flood Control Project Keene Ranch Stable Channel Assessment, Bakersfield, California Stability Assessment of Sewer Pipeline, Tia Juana River, San Diego, California Channel Stability Analysis, East Memphis, Arkansas Development of Channel Design using Gabions Computer Program Development of Channel Design using Geosynthetics Computer Program Development of Riprap Design Program using Corps of Engineers Criteria David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. Floodplain Hydraulics Hydraulic Analysis and Levee Elevation Design of West Williamson, West Virginia, Flood Control Project Flood Information Study of Pineville, Kentucky Hydraulic Design of Supercritical and Subcritical Flood Control Channels for the Rio Puerto Nuevo Flood Control Project, San Juan, Puerto Rico Flood Control Channel Design, Buena Vista Creek, Vista, California, City of Vista FEMA Studies of 27 Streams in the Unincorporated Areas of San Diego County, California Other Analysis of Proposed Hydraulic Dredging for Construction of Gallipolis Lock and Dam, West Virginia Design of Sedimentation Basins and Erosion Control Measures, Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway Project Dredged Material Disposal Site Analysis in an Ocean Environment for the Tampa Bay Deepening Project, Florida Assisted in the Development of the Cohesive and Network Versions of the Computer Program, "HEC-6, Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs" Evaluation of Structural Alternatives of a Sediment Retention Dam on the Toutle River For Hyperconcentration Sediment Conditions from Eruption of Mr. St. Helens, Washington Debris Analysis of a Proposed Tunnel Cutoff for the Harlan, Kentucky, Flood Control Project Preparation of the new HEC-6 Manual (Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs) for the Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California Kern River Ordinary Highwater Litigation, Bakersfield, California Erosion Control Plan, Rancho Verde Development, Escondido, California Development of Forest Sedimentation Management Plan, Tongass National Forest, Alaska, U.S. Forest Service Development of Water Resources/Geomorphology Small Stream Classification System, State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources Development of Computer Based Design Program for Gabion Lined Channels Development of Computer Based Design Program for Riprap Channels Expert Testimony: Flooding Potential and Analysis of Coconut Grove, Kailua, Oahu,Hawaii Expert Testimony: Subdivision Flooding Problems, Waialae Iki V, Oahu, Hawaii Expert Testimony: Flood Problems at Carlton Oaks Country Club, Santee, California Expert Consultant: Alpine Mobile Home Park Flooding, Alpine, California Expert Consultant: River Effects of Sand Mining Operations, San Luis Rey River, California David T. Williams, Ph.D., P. E. BIBLIOGRAPHY References Williams, David T., "Selection and Predictability of Sand Transport Relations Based upon a Numerical Index," Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1995. Williams, David T., "EC-Design, Erosion Control Design Package," prepared for Synthetic Industries, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 1995. Williams, David T., "River Restoration: Reverse Engineering of the Environment, invited paper for Third Annual Conference on the Management for Urban Development, Sydney, Australia, September 12-15, 1995. Williams, David T. and Austin, Deron N., "PC-Based Design of Channel Protection Using Permanent Geosynthetic Reinforcement Mattings," Proceedings, ASCE First International Conference on Water Resources, San Antonio, Texas, August 14-18, 1995. Williams, David T. and Passarelli, Peter, "Equivalencing Rock Riprap and Gabions for Stream Channel Protection," Proceedings, ASCE First International Conference on Water Resources, San Antonio, Texas, August 14-18, 1995. Teal, Martin J. and Williams, David T., and Grant, Gordon E., "A New Version of XSPRO: A Stream Hydraulic Analysis Computer Program," Proceedings, ASCE First International Conference on Water Resources, San Antonio, Texas, August 14-18, 1995. Teal, Martin J. and Williams, David T., "Computer Aided Design of Riprap Revetments," Proceedings, ASCE First International Conference on Water Resources, San Antonio, Texas, August 14-18, 1995. Williams, David T. and Teal, Martin J., "Riprap Design System, User's Manual, WEST Consultants, Inc., Carlsbad, California, 1994. Williams, David T. and Cozakos, David, "Use of HEC-2 and HEC-6 to Determine Levee Heights and Revetrnent Toe Scour Depths," Proceedings, ASCE Hydraulic Engineering Conference, Buffalo, New York, 1994. David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. Williams, David T. and Osendorf, Gary R., "Computer Aided Design and Cost Estimation of Gabion Lined Channel," Proceedings, ASCE National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, July 1993. Bradley, Jeffrey B. and Williams, David T., "Sediment Budgets in Gravel-Bed Streams," Proceedings, ASCE National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, July 1993. Williams, David T., "Computer Program for Gabion Designers is a Keeper," Civil Engineering News, Volume 4, No. 10, November 1992. Williams, David T., Carreon, Jr., Samuel and Bradley, Jeffrey B., "Evaluation of Erosion Potential at Pipeline Crossings," Proceedings, ASCE Water Forum, 1992. Williams, David T., and Julien, Pierre Y., "Examination of Stage-Discharge Relationships of Compound/Composite Channels," Channel Flow Resistance: Centennial of Manning's Formula, Water Resources Publications, Colorado, 1991. Williams, David T., "Sedimentation Problems and Solutions; Roseires Dam and Reservoir, Sudan," Proceedings, ASCE National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, July 1991. Bradley, Jeffrey B., Williams, David T. and Barclay, Michael, "Incipient Motion Criteria Defining 'Safe' Zones for Salmon Spawning Habitat," Proceedings, ASCE National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, July 1991. Stoker, Bruce and Williams, David T., "Dam Removal Methods for Lake Mills and Lake Aldwell Dams, Elwha River, Washington," Proceedings, ASCE National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, July 1991. Williams; David T., and MacArthur, Robert C., "HEC-6 Users Manual," Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, July 1991. Williams, David T., and Bradley, Jeffrey B., "Use of 2-D Hydrodynamic and 1-D Sediment Models to Estimate Dredging Requirements," presented at the Western Dredging Association (WEDA) Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 1991. Williams, David T., "Turbidity Plume Deposition Analysis at an Ocean Disposal Site," David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. Proceedings, Fifth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 1991. Thompson, James C., Williams, David T. and Bradley, Jeffrey B., "Integration of 2-D Hydrodynamic and 1-D Sediment Transport Models," Proceedings, Fifth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 1991. MacArthur, Robert C., Williams, David T., and Thomas, W.A., "Status and New Capabilities of Computer Program HEC-6: Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs," Proceedings, ASCE National Hydraulics Conference, San Diego, Calif., August 1990. Williams, David T. and Bradley, Jeffrey B., "The Sediment Histogram Generator and Estimation of Sediment Transport Trends," Proceedings, ASCE National Hydraulics Conference, San Diego, California, August 1990. Beverage, Joseph, and Williams, David T., "Comparison: US P-61 and Delft Bottle Sediment," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 12, 1989. Williams, David T. and Julien, Pierre Y., "Applicability Index for Sand Transport Equations," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 11, Nov., 1989. Williams, David T., "The Relationship of Milligrams per Liter to Parts per Million," Proceedings, ASCE Hydraulics Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, August 1989. Williams, David T., "Purpose and Activities of the Task Committee on Analysis of Laboratory and Field Sediment Data Accuracy and Availability," Proceedings, ASCE Hydraulics Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, August 1989. Williams, David T. "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sedimentation Engineering, D. Reservoir Sedimentation," Proceedings, ASCE Hydraulics Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, August 1988. Mulvil'fill, Michael E., Hashtalc, John M., Williams, David T. and Holand, Eric, "Computer Aided Hydraulic Design of Open Channels," Proceedings, ASCE Hydraulics Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, August 1988. Williams, David T., "Levee Design Profiles for the Williamson, West Virginia, Flood David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. Protection Project," Miscellaneous Paper I-1L-88-4, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, June 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Chapter 5, Reservoir Sedimentation," Sedimentation Manual, EM 1110-2-4000, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1988. Williams, David T. and Julien, Pierre Y., "On the Selection of Sediment Transport Equations," Proceedings, ASCE National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, Williamsburg, Virginia, August 3-7, 1987. Williams, David T. "Examination of Sediment Exclusion and Ejection Aspects of the Igdir, Turkey Irrigation Project," Prepared for the World Bank, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1987. Williams, David T., Ingram, John J., and Thomas, William A., "St. Lucie Canal and Estuary Sedimentation Study; Mathematical Model Investigation," Miscellaneous Paper I-tL-86-4, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1986. Williams, David T. "Considerations in the Selection of Transport Equations in Sediment Modeling," Essays on River Mechanics, Report CER 85-86, PYJ28, Civil Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1986. Williams, David T. "Sedimentation Study for Rochester, Minnesota, Flood Control Project," Proceedings, ASCE Hydraulics Specialty Conference, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, August 14-17, 1984. Williams, David T. "Tampa Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site Analysis," Miscellaneous Paper I-IL-83-8, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, October 1983. Williams, David T. "Sedimentation Study for Rochester, Minnesota, Flood Control Project," Miscellaneous Paper I-IL-83-7, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, October 1983. Dyhouse, Gary R. and Williams, David T., "Case Study of Stream Deposition and Changing Land Use," Proceedings, ASCE Symposium on Watershed Management, Idaho, 1980. David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. Williams, David T., et.al., "Determination of Light Extinction Coefficients in Lakes and Reservoirs," Proceedings, ASCE Symposium on Surface Water Impoundments, Minnesota, June 2-5, 1980. Selected Reports "Hydraulic and Erosion Potential Analysis of Berry Homes Property Near the Santa Ana River," prepared for Berry Homes, Santa Ana, California, January 1992. "Erosion Potential and Evaluation of the Salt River Stream Crossing Near 93rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona," prepared for E1 Paso Natural Gas Company, E1 Paso, Texas, July 29, 1992. "Erosion Potential and Evaluation of the Salt River Stream Crossing Near Cotton Lane, Phoenix, Arizona, prepared for El Paso Natural Gas Company, E1 Paso, Texas, July 24, 1992. "Tia Juana River Valley Surface and Groundwater Budget Analysis," prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, Califorrda, 1992. "Erosion Potential Evaluation of Gila River Stream Crossing Below Gillespie Dam", E1 Paso Natural Gas Co., E1 Paso, Texas, November 1991. "Phase I and II - Detailed Analysis Evaluation of Erosion Potential of Stream Crossings, San Juan Mainline and San Juan Triangle Pipeline Expansion", E1 Paso Natural Gas Co., El Paso, Texas, July 1991. "Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report, Buena Vista Creek Enhancement Design", prepared for the City of Vista, California, August 1990. "Report on Zink Dam Sedimentation Problems", Tulsa River Parks Authority, January 1990. "Report on Sedimentation Problems in Sudan", Ministry of Irrigation, Government of Sudan, December 1988. "Assessment of the Sedimentation Characteristics of a Sediment Retention Structure at the Green River Site, North Fork Toutle River, Washington", Letter Report, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1985. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF R,G,. R.GP., C.E.G., C.H_G. I, N. Thomas Sheahan, ticclare arid state as follows: 1. I am a vice-president and Principal Hydrologist at Dames & Moore. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and Geography from the University of Missouri, a Certificate in Advanced Groundwater Hydrology from the Massachusem Institute of Technology (MIT), and a .luris Doctor degree fi'om the University of La Verne. I am a Registered Geologist, Registered Geophysicist, Certified Engineering Geologist and Certified Hydrogeologist in California, and I am admitted to practice law in the State of California. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae. This declaration, like the previous testimony I provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, is made in support of Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") challenge to the Lauren Development residential project. I h~ve personally inspected the area in the vicinity of the Deer Creek Basin, Deer Creek Channel, and the existing levee and swale system, and have reviewed technical documents reg~ding the geological, geotechnical, ~nd hydrogeological aspects of this area. I am not a party to this action. The statements made herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if called as a wireess, I would and could testify to the truth thereof. I will be available to testify and respond to questions at the August 20, 1997 Hearing. 2. I previously testified and will testify again to the following opinions. The removal of the levee and swale system creates significant additional risk to down slope property and residems. The levee and swale system withstood the 1969 floods, the L/L ~Sed SR"IB9NV '~q lues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 largest flooding event in 30 yearg. Exhibit "A" is a copy of a Map reflecting the impact of the 1969 flood on the area, and the protection afforded by the levee and swale system. Aerial photographs also graphically demonstrate that the levee was virtually unbreached despite significant water and debris flow. 3. Removal of the levee and swales is particularly unwarranted in light of new information that calls into serious question the integrity of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. As I testified previously, two potential landslide areas exceeding I00 acres exist in the hills just to the east, and outside the catchmerit area, of the Debris Basin. If these landslides should be re-activated for any reason (quakes, heavy rains, or bums resulting in hydraphobic soil conditions), the Debris Basin Spillway Channel will not hold this much debris and the debris will fill the channel ~g the remainder to continue to flow southerly toward the existing levee. Dr. David Williams, Ph.D, an expert in Debris Basin design, shares this opinion and has provided a declaration to the City Council. Any overtopping of the Debris Basin places in serious jeopardy the new Lauren homes and, if the levee and swales are removed, places the existing homes downslope of the existing levee in serious jeopardy, also. 4. Other important changed circumstances concerning the integrity of the Deer Creek Debris Basin include the new (1996) information from the Southern California Earthquake Center ("Center") on the probable earthquake magnitude of the Sierra Madre- Cucamonga Thrust Fault which passes through, or very close to, the base of the Debris Bas/n, and crosses the spillway channel. The Army Corps originally designed the Debris Basin in 1980 to withstand a 5.0 quake. According to the Declaration of Dr. Thomas 666666666 t28/2~/97 ~,!M: cg'l Z/9 a6ed !Z# "x'"~~dZv:9 Z6/Oa190 ~6~6~699 OOg~ Saq~DNV '~q Zuos , 2 4 I~I~ny~, Ph.D, Diretoe of the gCEC., )'~meg Dolm~ of the Center trenched the Cuc~monga fault in 1996 and concluded that the probable magnitude was as high as 7.5. An ~arthquake of this magnitude would result in significantly more damage than the Axmy Corps originally estimated in 1980. 5. Additionally, Dr. David Williams has testified that the Debris Basin design is now obsolete, and that new design criteria was developed in the 1990s to improve the integrity of debris basins. He concludes 'Based upon my own personal 10 I observations and these [Army Corps] new standards, the Debris Basin appears to be 11 12 13' 14 undersized. This is another post-1990 changed eimumstance that must be considered:" Williams Declaration at Paragraph 2(b) at page 3. 6. I have reviewed a geotechnieal analysis performed by RMA C,-xoup 15 ,~ ("RMA"), consultants for Lauren Development, that purports m compare the relative I6 safety of the levee and swale system to Lauren Development's replacement berm and 17 channel. RNIA's conclusions are misleading and incorrect for several important reasons. 18 19 In each of the instances discussed below, RMA elected to use different factors for the 20 21 22 23 24 replacement berm and concxete channel than the factors which they applied to the levee. Had they compared "apples to apples" instead of their skewed analysis comparing "apples to oranges" the results would be significantly different: the calculated safety factors for the levee would be higher and the safety factors for the proposed replacement berm would 25. be lower. 26 27 28 (a) RMA utilized a higher water table for the levee than for the berm without any explanation for this disct~ancy. Such an al~mach artificially 1~,/~0/97 ~qMlq: cg 1 Z/~ afed ~Z# xP-J,N~d9~:9 Z6/Ogf~O ~¢D5[~9~ OOg; SRq39NV 'XO luos 1 2 3 4 6 ? 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 ]9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2R im;~¢d the load on the l~v~. the two structures. Calculation, must be equalized to truly evaluate (b) PuMA reduced the total load of soil on the replacement berm and levee by removing the quantity of dirt in the concrete channel. In the levee, they conveniently have added an earthen bluff that increases the soil load. Again, no justification or explanation exists for adding the bluff. (c) In attempting to find the most critical failure surface for the replacement channel, RMA should have provided a greater range for the downhill and uphill extent of the failure surface, as they did for the levee analysis. By using a larger range, RMA would likely have found a critical failure surface, thereby reducing the safety factor calculated for the replacement berm. Instead, RMA used a small range for the berm. On the levee, however, it used a broader range. Again, unless the assumptions are equal, the entire comparison is flawed. (d) RMA used a steeper water-table gradient for the levee that adds water to the levee creating an additional load. 7. The replacement berm and channel is 20 feet high; the existing levee is 40 feet high which is 100 percent higher. Further, RMA has not evaluated the integrity of the levee relative to the overall velocity reducing swale system which also will be destroyed. The levee and swales are an integrated whole and must be considered as such. 8. There are several significant defects in RMA's replacement berm designs. ~24438. 666666666 Z/v o6ed ~Z# ~f~d9~:9 Z6/O~/eO !665;69~ 008[ Sflq~gNV 'Aq luos The safety factor of 1.40 i-~ not enough. Static minimum de~:ign i~: usually 1.5. Based upon the findings of the SCEC, RMA has not used the approFriate earthquake standards. RMA used a 0.15 coefficient, however, a 0.30 or 0.40 should have been used, because aceeleration due to a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the Cucamonga Fault (the extent of jolt when the quake occurs) is probably 0.5 to 0.7. Thus, the true ground acceleration may be four times higher than what RMA used. If that had been taken into account, that is, a higher 10 earthquake load coefficient, the safety factor for the replacement berm would be 11 12 13 14 significantly lower. 9. My conclusion, based upon the above, is that the Developer has not introduced any credible, non-biased. scientific evidence to establish that the berm and 15 channel are sufficient mitigation to removal of the levee. Moreover, RMA has not, and 16 17 18 19 cannot, state that the berm and replacement channel can handle the volume of Debr/s Flow and flooding that would occur if the Debris Basin failed. Once again, the 40+ year old levee has a demonstrated record of withstanding the most serious flood of the past sever'a/ 20 decades. 2I. 10. I have reviewed materials from RMA and from the Hewitt and 22 McGuire firm that indicated that the levee is no longer effective because of a minor 23 24 breach at the top of Paddock Street. This is very deceiving. The entire levee is several 25 thousand feet long; the area of breach is only about 200 feet. Moreover, any breach can 26 27 28 be easily corrected (and should have been corrected) by the property owner. These arguments are red herrings withotrt any technical basis. Similarly, the argument that the 666666666 levee was breached in 1969 ig eagily r~utted by simply looking at the topographic mal~ · and aerial photographs attached for your information. Had the levee not ~ in place, 4 , it is obvious that all of the structures beneath the levee would have been seriously 5 6 7 8 9 damageaft in the 1969 flood. 11. It is my profess/onal opinion that the levee and swale systems continue to keep the people and prope/W downslope of the levee safe from flooding and debris flows. Removal of the levee and swale system increases the risk of damage to 10 ' property and m the families in the area. The trapezoid~l channel proposed as a substitute 11 12 13 14 does not provide protection. 12. The area at issue is zoned for open space and recharge. The Army Corps of Engineers actually designated the subject property as a recharge area as part of 15 its overall Debris Basin project. For whatever reason, the San Bernard/no County Flood 16 17 18 19 Control District has not implemented the Army Corps' recharge mitigation measures. The Debris Basin was designed with a four-foot pipe at the tower inlet to allow for releases of water into the area. This is one of several water-release valves which I 20 anderstand the Flood Control District intends to shut off due to the Lauren Development 21 22 23 24 and other proposed developments. The elimination of potentially thousands of acre feet of recharge water on an ~nual basis potentially reduces the quantity of groundwater available to the Cucamonga Water Agency and the San Antonio Heights Water Agencies 25 in the event that their allocation in the basin is reduced. 26 27 28 As is generally known, California is facing a federal requirement to reduce its allocation of waters from the Colorado River. Oroundwater (particularly groundwater recharged from mountain __t,6~__ Z/8 oiled !Z# "~~d§~:9 Z5/08/90 !~66[~9~ 008~ SBqB9NV 'Aq ~uos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~r~arn~) is of higher quality and is le~e expensive than water imported from other areas. As matters stand now, it is my understanding that the City is permitting the reduction of recharge areas without coordinating with local water agencies of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The failure to implement the Army Corps' recharge mitigation measures is a post-1990 changed circumstance that must be considered. t3. For all of the above reksons, including the changed circumstances described above, a full environmental impact report and careful study of the subject project is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and to protect valuable water resources in the area. I declare under penalty of perjary that the foregoing is true and correct and lhat this declaration is executed on August 20, 1997, at Ontario, California N. Thomas Sheahan, R.G.R.GP., C.E.G., C.HG. FILE NO. I I 3O5 LEGEND Boundary of Dr~/'na~e Area Boundart of Ora/hace Subarea Channel Copoc/H o/Storm Drain and/or Concrete Channel, Son ~ernordmo or ~/vers/de County Plan. Subare~ Concentroh'on Point INDEX SHEET .SHEET SHEET $'-:EET SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE C3UNTIES SUBAREA DELINEATION FOR PRESENT CONDITIONS, NO PROJECT SHEET I O F 4 U. S- AR,MY ENGINEER DISTRICT LOS ANGELES, CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO ACCOMPANY REPORT DATED'. 1973 224/164 APP. 6 PLATE 8 IOO0 O 2000 SCALE ~ N N I FEET CUCAMONGIANS UNITED FOR REASONABLE EXPANSION EXE C U T! VE S UMMA R Y 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Executive Summary Slides CEQA Authority General Plan Hillside Ordinance Earthquake Debris Basin Failure Loss of Alluvial Fan Sage Aerial Maps & Photography FEMA Recharge Fish & Game U.S. Fish & Wildlife Williams Declaration Henyey Declaration Sheahan Declaration Defects in Notice Defects in Easement Debris Basin Failure Earthquake ,aug-20 Wed 18'24 1997 LOEB( .LOEBLLP AT'~O~NFY% &'r LJ~w 1000 WILS~m~ BOut[YAAD SU~T[ 1800 LOs 4NBEL~S. CA g0017,2475 2 ! 3-688-3400 213-688-3460 ~ Y~ NY FM Z ~ 2-407-4~g~ ir~ 01~ .3g~.474-~Z3 SCOPE OF CITY'S AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEW INFORMATION Section 21166 of CEQA addresses the situations in which an agency must prepare a "subseque~%~" or "supplemental" EIR based upon new information and changed circumstances. Section 21166 provides ds follows: Pursuant to section 21166, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be conducted z£ one of the following events occurs: c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the en¥ironmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. Pub. Resources Code § 21166(c) The CEQA Guidelines. 14 Cal.Code Regs. §15000, e_it oeq., provide additional guzdance to agcnczcs whcn considering whether to prepare a subsequent or supplemental environmental document. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines providee that a Supplemental EIR zs required where" the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in l~ght of the whole record, onc or more of the following: 3) New informatiun of substantial i~portance which was not know~] or could not have been kno~] with the exercise of reasonable diligenc~ at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopteG shows any of the following: A) The project wi!l have one or more szgnificant effects not discussion in the previous EIR or neqative declaration; B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or ~]ew information becomes available a~t~r adoption of a negative declaration, th~ ]-ad agency sha%l nrepare a subsequent EIK if required under subse~ion (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subseGuent negative declaration, an ¢ddendum~ or no further documentation. (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in the subsection (a), the subsequent EIR or nega[ive declaration shall be prepared by the public a~ency which ~rants the next discretionary approval for th~ p~pjec~. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the prouect until the 8,~bse~uent EIR has been c~rti~ied or sub~ecru~nt negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be 9iven the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. CEQA Guideline § 15162, (emphasis added). The record before the Planning Commission and City Councml contains substantial evidence of new information ~nd/or chan~cd clrcumstanccs rclating to the approval of the Lauren Project Development, the impacts of which were neither discussed nor evaluated ~n the 1990 Negative Declaration prepared for the project, the preparation of a subsequent, rather than a supplemental environmental document, is proper. Moreover, the 1990 Negative LO£~ & LOF_..9 Page =,'24 .Joe 88,..3 ~ug-2O wed 18'24 ;997 ._ . Declaration requires more than mere "augmentation0~ as thc additions or changes necessary to make the previous Negative Declaration adequate in l~ght o~ the changed circumstances, are not minor. See CEQA Guideline § 15163. Thus, the provisions of subsection (b) of CEQA Guideline § 15162 more appropriately applies to the ~acts surrounding the approval of the Project. The City must, therefore, evaluate changes to the Project and/or new information which has become available since the adoption of the 1990 NtgaLive Declaration z~ a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration, or at. a minimum, must determine whether, in light of ~he changed circumstances and/or new infoz-mation, a subsequen~ Negative Declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation needs to be prepared. Id. CURE has presented substantial evidence of cha~]ged circumstances that has not been refuttd by Lauren Development: No traffic study was ever completed. Experts have testified that air quality and traffic impacts must be considered zn light of significant increase in homes and children in the area. Moreover, Lauren Development no longer can claim that its grading spoils can be placed on the Department of Water & Power easements. Materials will need to be trucked through Haven View. N~ additional information has been provlded on this point. . , Substantial evidence of a potential 7.0 to 7.5 earthquake impacting the Deer Creek Debris Basin has been submitted (Henyey Declaration). Lauren Development's evidence that the Debris Basin will withstand a 6.4 quake is irrelevant. Substantial evidence has been submitted that the Debris Basin is undersized based upon post-1990 standards. Lauren Development has presented no evidence to the contrary. The ~.$. Fish and Wildlife Service has informed the City that Lauren Development is not 4a compliance with Endangered Species Act regulations in light of the post-1990 listing of the California Gnatcatcher. , The California Department of Fish and Game informed the Clty that it is not in with CEQA and tha= habitat must be evaluated. (June 23, 1997 Department of Fish and Game correspondence.) Th= number of acres of alluvial fan sage scrub in existence post-1990 }]as decreased considerably and, according to expert Page 5/24 dou 880 ~ug-20 wed ~8'25 ~997 testimony submitted before the Planninq Commission, such ecosystems no longer can be replanted. o The California Department of Fish and Game has informed Lauren Development that a blue line stream alternation agreement is required. (Augus~ 5, 1997 Department of Fish and Game Correspondence). , The Regional Water Quality control Board has informed the City that the area at issue, zoned for open space and recharge, is an impor~an~ recharge area. The amount of acreage available for recharge has reduced substantially since 1990. The Army Corps of Engineers, when it developed the Debris Basin, required recharge on the acreage at issue. Those mitigation measures have not been implemented. Failure to comply with existing mitigation measures is a changed circumstance. The cursory (if non-existent) analysis supporting the Negative Declaration necessitates an even more careful evaluation of the changed circumstances. Unlike many cases where a complete EIR wa~ conducted and the supplcmcntal information is not significantly different, the current case involves substantially new information that has serious adverse affects on the habitat and on the safety o£ the residents of the City. These changed circumstances unquestionably trigger the Clty's obligations under CEQA. Several judicial decisions have addressed the need to prepare subsequent or supplemental environmental documents. For example, in City of San Jose v. Grcat Qaks Water Company, (let Dist. 1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1005, the court required the respondent city to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR before the city could condemn privately- owned water distribution facilities in order ~o construct its own distribution system. The Court emphasized that the city intended to drill three new wells no~ discussed in ~he original EIR prepared for its distribution system, and that the new wells posed a risk of toxic contamination and groundwater overdraft not previously considered in the original EIR. I.~., at 1014-1017. Similarly, in Mira Monte Homeowners Assoc. v. County of ~entura, (2nd Dist. 1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, the court required the preparation of an "additional EIR," where the staff of the respondent agency had discovered that the original EIR had unestimated the extent of wetlands on the project site. The need to prepare subsequent environmental review has been also been addressed by the California S~pr~me Court. First, in Concerned citizens of~Comta Mesa. Inc. v. ~2Dd.District Aqricultural Assoc., (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, the Aug-20 weo ~8'25 ~997 Supreme Court allowed petitioners to file an action for declaratory relief seeking a determination that, in absence of supplemental or subsequen~ environmental review addressing project changes, the respondent agency had no authority to proceed with an amphitheater project that was dramatically different than the version addressed in the original EIR. The public agency in Concer~ed Citizens adopted an EIR for the project in 1977, and in 1980, signed a contrac~ to construct ~he project. The project design under the contract, however, substantially changed the configuration of ~he project described in the 1977 EIR by increasing its size, design, and orientation. Even though no discretionary approval was required before construct. ion, the Court expressed i~s opinion that the agency was required to prepare a subsequent EiR before proceeding further on the basis that the changes were substantial enough to trigger the statutory criteria for preparing such a document. at 397. The Supreme Court again addressed the issue of subsequent environmental documents in ~aurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California, (Laurel Heights I), 47 Cal.3d 376 (19~8). The subject of the EIR in Laurel Heights I, was th~ c~nstruCtion of a pharmacy school which the Unlversity, within a few years of opening the school, intended to expand. Plaintiffs therefore filed a writ attacking the adequacy of the original EIR on the basis that the agency had failed to address the impacts of the proposed project in its probable expanded form of the project. Laurel Heights I, supra, 393- 394. The University argued that it need not evaltiate the effects of future use of the site, because it had not formally approved any expansion of the proposed facility. In holding that a public ag~ncy's approval of future portions of a project is not a prerequisite for the preparation of an EIR, the Supreme Court also held that the agency should have addressed the anticipated uses of the project site and its environmental effects. Thus because the agency had failed to do so, the Court required that a supplemental EIR be prepared. Laurel Heights I, supra, 395. Five years later in .~,aur~] H~iqhts Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. Reagent~ of the University of California, ("Laurel Heights II"), 6 Ca].4th 1112 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the provisions governing the need to prepare subsequent environmental documentation only apply after the certification of the EIR or the adoption of a Negative Declaration. Laurel I__~, supra, 1129. However, while the presumption of ¥mlldity of the originally prepared and certified environmental documentation "acts to preclude reopening of the CEQA process even if the initial EIR is discovered to have been fundamentally inaccurate and misleading in the description of a significant effect or the severity of its .. conscquences" the "CEOA reporting procc$~ is not 'dnsigncd to f:'eeze the ultimate proposal in the precis~ mold in$~al Dro~ect: indeed. new and ~lnforeseen in~$qh~s mav emerge during investiqation, invokinq revision o£ original proposal." See Laurel H~qhts .II, s~Dra, at 1130.~ More recently in 1995, an appellate court in River Valley Preservagion Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Board, (4th Dist. 1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, distinguished the Laurel Heiqh~$ I decision in the context of discussin~ when impacts previously considered in an EIR require an agency to prepare a supplemental EIR. In River Va%~ev, supra, the .question before the court was whether change in the size of a berm (the existence of which was considered in ~he original EIR) constituted a "completely new impact to the aquatic resources of the San Diego River environment." River Valley, supra, 10180. In concluding that the unavoidable adverse impacts caused by the change ~ eize of the berm were the same as those described in the orzginal EZR, the court held that the original EIR adequately analyzed and discussed the impacts and prepared mitigation measures for the zmpacts, thereby elimi~%ating the ne~d for supplemental environmental documentation. J~. at 158. The court concluded ~hat "even a substantial increase · n ~he severity of an environmental impact does not require _.the preparation of a [subsequent EIR] ~f mitigation% measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level or insignificance. I__d., a~ 168. In ruling against the petition, the court repeatedly emphasized that §21~66 required the preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR only where project changes or new information were so "substantial" as to require "ma~or revisions" in the prior EIR (emphasi~ added). Id. Further developing that thought, the court explained tha[ there is no duty to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR "whenever anF new arguably significang information or data is proposed, regardless of whether the information reveals environmental bad news." Id., at 168. The court reasoned as follows: "[w]e recognize that the size of a proposed project alone is not determinative of whether a public agency must prepare and EIR in the first instance or whether a SEIR may be required. Nevertheless, when deciding whether the addition of new information to an EIR is "significant" or has a substantial adverse environmental impact on a project, the particular area under consideration in ~ .See County of lnyo v. City of Lo_s Angeles, 71 CaI.App.3d 185, 199 (1977). relation to the entire project becomes a factor." I_j., at 175, fn.25. Based on this reasoning, the court held that the small size of the modified area in relation to the total project area was one factor leading to the conclusion that "the modifications would not create a substantial environmental impact nor would =hey require a major revision of the original EIR." IO., at 175. (Malissa - you could perhaps argue that in contrast to this decision, the impacts of the Project on the gnatcatcher, fault lines and safety, and Sage Scrub Habitat, and traffic have not been analyzed, and that no mitigation measures have been incorporated which will mitigate these impacts. As such, major revisions will be needed to the 1990 Neg. Dec.). WEST Consul , Inc. August 19, 1997 By Telecopy Mr. Karl Mo~ Mitigation Director Fccleral Em. ergen:y Management Agency 500 C. Stre:; S.W. Waxhington, D.C. 20472 Cucamongans United For Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") (1) Rr, qu~st for Clarification from FEMA Concerning 1997 Lctt~ of Map Revision ('LOMR"); (2) Application for Remapping Dem' Karl: A,~ Malissa McKeigh, counsel for CUI~, and I mentioned to you wher~ we spoke on August 18, 1997, we are working togeth~ on behalf of CURE to challenge a 2(>-acr~. residential development ('Development" or "Lauren Development') located on an allu',,ml fan a[ approximately 2,200 t~t above sea level in the San Bernardino foothills in Rancho Cucarnonga, California. The proposed Development involves removal of an apprcxiraat~ly 40' high and over 2,000 foot long, levee and multiple swale system built in the 1950s that has cft~ctively served to hold back wa[er aad debris flow from downslope structures, including wager aod 'debris flow duriag the 1969 floods. The Developer clai-,ns r~at the removal of ghe levee has been deemed sate by FEMA because FEMA removed the prior 'AO' designation on all property locaged downslope of the Deer Creek Debris Basin ("Debris Basin'). in my professional opinion, I have concluded thin removal of the levee and swale systcm and thc co~s.uction of a residential development wtll place both the new residents m~d ~hc existing residents downslope of the levee in .nubstan~ially greater riak of flooding and debris flow nomith~tanding the existence of the D~r Creek Dcbri.~ Basin upslope. I bast this concluaion on ghe lollowing factors. - ,~rlzo~a Ot~]1~e; O~g E,u, C.4o~. l.l~(:k Road, Sm~ 55~2~ Mr. Karl Mohr Augusi 19, 1997 Page 2 . , . The Debris Basic wa.~ desigued to withstand a 5.0 rr~gnitude earthquake. Artach~.d are excerpts from the ArrJly Corps' design memura.~cla for the Debris Basin. Subsequent studies conducted by the Southern California Earthquake Ccmer ("SCEC") have revealed a fault under the Debris Basin that could realistically produce a 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake. At~achcd is a declaration from Thomas Henyey, Ph.D. Director of the SC~C. The volume capacity of the Debris Basin was ba.~d upon the Tatum method developed in 1963 by the Los Angeles Army Corps of' Engineers. The Corps ~blished updated criterion for Debris Basin design in 1992 which could significantly change the design volume. Based upon my own pergo~l observations and these new standards, the Debris Basin appears to bc under,~ized. In i994, WEST Consultants performed a study of the Harrow Debris Basin in City of Glendora, County or' Los Angeles. This basin overtopped during the 1969 flood, ~,'hich at this location was a ten year precipitation event approximately one year after a burn. Although the available volume of the Debris Basin was adequate, computations showed that the "runup' of the debris due to momentum was approximately ten feet, causing the debris to go over the spillway by four feet which, in turn, plugged the downstream concrete channel resulting in overtopping of the Debris Basin and substantial ~mage to downstream property. The Deer Creek Debris Basin ha~ similar wamrshed basin slope characterisOc of the Harrow Debris Basin. The spillway crest is at elevation 2857 and the upstream excavation elevation (after cleanup, according to the plans) is at approximately 2845. About 25 % of the volume from small events is allowed to fill before clean out is required. This would allow the material to flu up to about elevation 28~0. If an cven[ similar to the Harrow Debris Basin event occurrod, the debris would go ovcr the spillway by three feet. 'l~e downstream channel was designed based upon "cleax' water and debris in the water would signif~.antly do;tease the capacity and spill over or cau~ it to plug up completely - also causing it to spill over. In the 1950s, the local flood control agency constructed a series of swale~ and levees deigned to slow the debris flows and convey them to a controlled outle~ point. The flood of 1969 caused a debris torrent which was largely controlled by the levees and ~wales. (See attached.) The levee and swale sysxem protected the area and the homes downslope of the levee. The developer rotends to remove this levee and use the spoil to fill in the swales. Although the levee and swales were built before the construction of the Debris Basin, the Army Corps considered Mr, Karl Mohr Augusl 19, 1997 Page 3 them as an integral par{ of the pro. iect and rex. ommeaded that material that would acc.~mulate in the Debris B~sin actually be used to fortify the levec. Removal of the swales arid levees w.~uld weaken the protective nature of the Corps Debris Basin project. Tom Sheshah, a rcgi~terexl o~eologist, certified hydrogeologist, and principal of Dames & Moore, has ic~entified two potential landslide areas exceeding I00 acres that are adjacent to the D~r Creek D~ris Basin ~i!!way. If these slide; become active, they would bypass the Debris Basin and go unhindered to downsiol~ areas that currently are protected by the levr~ a~ swale system. This would b¢ particularly dangerous for the proposed ne,v homes to be built on the same location as the levee ~d s'~,al~ er~ce they are destroyed, and likewise would be dangerous to cxistmg homes. Bas~ upon the above. WEST Consultants and l~ch & Loeb, on bel,air of CUP.E, formally rcquesl remappi~g of the ~rea as 'An' (at a minimum) in light of this critical new information which was not available to FEMA in 1991. This letter will be supplemcnted as soon a~ possible with the appropriate ioformation required by FEMA to evaluate remapping. In the meantime, we require a letter from you before the final City Council hearing tonight th~ clarifies the following issues to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The LOMR does not include ~y evaluation or commentary on whether removal of the secondary levee and swale system ts .~afe or not. The LOMR was based solely on the Army Corps' certification ~hat the Debris iLssin would prevent flooding and debris flow. FEMA has received an application from cilizcns of Rancho Cucamonga r~luesting that FEMA remap the ar~ at i~J¢ in light of new information corc..eming the integri!y of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. '1'1~i$ new includes, but is not limited to, (a) information concernbag new 1996 earthquake studics concluding that the C'ucamonga Fault beneath the spillway is a possible 7.0 to 7.~ magnitude; (b) information that the Debris Basin design procedures have been updated shlce the original com~i'uc~Jon of the Debris Basin; (c) information concerning two sizeable potential landslide area~ adjaceat to the Debris Basin that may not be contained within the Debris Bas~. if slidtrig occurs. If the Debris Basin is recenified based upon rig above information, FEMA will conduce an analysis of the safety of the secondary levee and swale systems as a pro{eclive measure. Mr. Km'l Mohr August 19, 1997 The tyl~ of factual informanon asserted by CURE's engineers is the type of information FEMA considers and thus could serve as the hasin for remapping and de~ertification of the Debris Banin. Karl - my personal opinion is that FEMA would seriously connider remapping it all of the facts could be presented in a more forraal mariner. After wallting the site, I honestly feel that this is a _dangerous situation. The residents learned of the project only in late May of this year, and it was ex'U'emely difficult to obtain all ot the ncccs.~ary document.~ to evaluate mailers. 1 know that Malissa McKeith faxed and left several messages ~o accelerate the ]::OIA request once t!~ ~v~loper asscrt~ on July 9, 1997, titat FEM^ was somehow concurring in the r~moval of the levee and swales. Please assist us in sending a lcrtcr to tl~c Ci~ today. Tile letter should be addressed m The Honorable William Alexandcr, Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Ccnter Drivc, Rancho C'ucamonga 91729, if you need to reach me, I am in Portland at 503-281-2500. Plea,~ call as early in tM morning as possible as I am teaching an ATC-RAS course throughout the next three clays. I will be in the howl until 9:30 e.s.l. and I will check messages. Alternatively, call Malissa at 909-989-8702 or 213-999-4332. Tlaank you in advanc~ for your consideralton. Very truly yours, [Ordinal signed ~ David T. Willian~, Ph.D.! David T. Williams, Ph.D,, P.E. CC.' Thc Honorable: Barbara Boxer (by telecopier, w/caciosures) The Honorable William Alexander, Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga (by telecopier, w/cnclosures) Mallsan Hat.haway Me. Keith, Loeb & Loeb, CURB (by tclecopier, w/enclosures) Thomas Sh 'e. ahan, R.G., Dames & Moore (by fciccopier, w/enclosure) 703 96~ ~125 TO: ~ PAGE: ; 8-20-9/ '12:48Pt~ ; 41OIM~ ~ CORP*. [ Federal Emergency Management Agency · AUGgOal The Hoaombb Wtfi~m Al~x~xbt' Mr. Williams' letter comactly indlcalad IJ~t we is4ued 1 ~ of ~ ~ ~h~l ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ me~ m m~d~ ~ ~ U.S. X~y ~ of ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~~ We ~ ~~ Mr. ~11~m' ~r u m ~ for i ~~ our~~~~. P~~~w~~N, atam~~tub~M~ If yo, by, s,~ q.~s:lom rela~Jtnl fi'tlls aallor. plt4~ ~ mi in Wagngtm, DO. dtbK ~- M.~dazatd Iden6fK.~:on Branch Mr. David T, Williams, Ph.D. MI. Mallala Mc, r~e Loeb & Lode, L.L.P. LOE5 & ~Of~ ~age 9/24 Jo~ 980 Aug-Z0 weO ~S'27 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Before a tentative subdivision map is approved, the city must find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. Government Code § 66473.5; Woodland Hills Residents_Assoc. v. City Council, 44 Cal.App.3d 825 (1975); ~=~ also ~esher Communications, Inc. v. City of W~lnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531 (1990)( Supreme Court held that the general plan was the "constitution of all future developments"); Cit. izens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990) (the general plan is the "constitution tor all tuture developments within a city or county" to which any local decision affecting land use and development must conform). However, in SecFuahah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App. 4th 704 (1993), the court held that the law does not require an exact match, but that the map need only "be in agreement with or in harmony with the general plan." ],_~. RCGP Open Space Plan Flgure IV-4, page IV-21 Property is clearly within the open space plan and the designation is flood control lands and utility/transportation ROW. in addition, there is an overlay showing the subject property to be in a natural resource protection designated "Streamside-woodland and Water Recharge Area." See F~gure III-1 of Land l;se Plan. Government Code 66567 expressly requires that a 'subdivision map may not be approved unless it is consistent with the Open Space element' consistency. The City's own August 20, 1997 resolution requires consistency with the General Plan as to all local ]and use ordinances. An amendment to the General Plan and an accompanying full EIR is required before ~n¥ additional approvals. RESOLUTION NO. 89-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COl'NISSIOli OF THE CIT? OF RANCHO CUC~ONGA, CALIFO~NIAo RECCbINEPIO!tW, G APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLNf ANEI~DetENT 89-02D REQUESTINI3 TO ANEIK) GENERAL PL.kN LAJ40 USE rAP FRC)~I FLOO0 COMTROL TO CIVIC/C~MITY FOR 3.15 ACRES Or LAJI) LOCATED ON THE IORTH SIOE OF BANYAN STREET, EAST OF THE 0E[R CREEk FLOOD CONTROL CHAMIEL, AM:) M.AKII~ FI~II13S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-19[-24. A. Recitals. (t) The Rancho Cucs~monga Rede~'elopmnt Agency has filed an application for Genera, Plan A~mmndmemnt No. 89-029, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Re~olutton, the subJe<t General Plan A/hand,ant is referred to as "the appltcatto~q'. (it) On September' 27, 1989, the Planning Cc~lsston of the City of Rancho ¢ucayaonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (lit) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 8. 14eio_lu t l~__n. NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Collision uf the City of Rancho Cucaz3onga as followrs: t. This Co~lssion hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Recitals, Part 'A' of t'is Re~olutton are true and correct 2. Based upoe ~ubstantial evidence presented to this Coatssion during the above-referenced public hearlng on Seotember 27, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testi~ny, this Co~lssion hereby specifically ft~s as follow: (a) The application applies to approximately 3.15 acres of land, in basically a triangular ccmfiguratton, located on the north side of Banyan Street, east of the Oeer Creek Flood Control Channel and is presently vacant. Said pretty is currently designated as Flood Control; end (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control &rid is vacant. The property to the ~mst it designated Lcm Density Residential (2-4 d~lltng units per acre) and Is under construction. The pr~erty to the east is de)lgnated Flood Control and i~ vacant. The property to the south It designated Low Hadlure Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is under construction; and e GPA 8~0~ Septea~er 27, !~8~ ._ . Page 2 '" (c) This amendment does not conflict wtth the Land Use Poltctes of' the General Plan end w111 provide for de~elolxaent, wlthtn the dls~rtct, tna m4nner consistent with the General Plan and with r~lated dave lopmenS; and (d) This ~ment 'does promote the goals and o~Jecttves of t~ Land Use Element; and (e) The property is suttable for the use proposed, as it has been designated $u~lus by the Flood ~ntrol Dtstr$ct and w111 be ~Nuately protected from flc,~s fr~ the north, IS da~in~ by t~ E~neert~ Division as a ~sult of hydro1~tc analysll end pr~d floN protKtt~ maims; e~ (f) Thts eme~nt would not be materially ln,lurlous or detrimental to the ~,l~nt pr~e~ttes an~ ~xJld not h~ave a significant l~act on the envlro~nt n~ the sajrr~ndlW propertte~ end i$$ua~e of a Iqegettve Oecllratlon ts rec~nded; and (g) The proposed land u~e wtll have adequate access based on compatibility with the bordering collector street and as determined by the Engineering Olvision'$ traffic analysis and the proposed roadway improveeaents; (h) The subject parcel is of an adequate size to enable proposed facility to meet development standard requirements; and (t) The) proposed land uso is compatible with axisStag land uses in the area, d~ much of the ~rrounding land t~ or wll I remain undeveloped or can be designed so as to minimize possible impacts. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Comamission durln~ the above-referenced public hearing &n~ upoe the specific findings of f~cts set forth tn para~iraphs ! and ~ above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follo~s: (a) That the subject property is suitable for the pet.emitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and co~atlbility with existing land use in the surrounding (b) That the proposed ~mer~nt would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and (c) That the proposed aarondamnS ls in conformance with the Genera! Plan. 4. This toemission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed end considered :n compliance with the California [nvtrormmnt&l Quality Act of 1970 end, further, thls Commission hereby recamamonds issuance of 4 ICegettve Dec 1 aras 1on. 5. dased upon the flndtngs and concluslons set forth 1, 2. ], and 4 ~o~, thts ~lsslon ~y ~1~s that WrsuInt 6~50 to 6~55 of t~ California ~v~nt ~e, that the P1~1~ ~ts~on of t~ C~ty of RaK~ ~c~i ~y r~~Ms ~provsl on the ~7th &. The $ecretar~ to this Co~mlsst,:,n shall certify to the adoptloe. of thts Re~lutlon.~ APPP, OV'ED A~ N~olrrtD THIS 27T14 0~¥ OF' SEFTEJm'I~R, I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commtl$1on of the City of Rancho Cuca~on~a, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution w~l duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Pla,m)lng Codamission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at m req~,yular me,ting of the Planning Cuemission held on the 27th day of September. 19 o by the-Co)lowing vote-to-wit: AYES: COI~ISSIOMERS: CHITIEA, M(~NIEL. TOLSTOY, W~INBERGER NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: NOME ABSENT: COml,~l S S IOmNLrR $: BLAKESLEY · ,,i / - · CITY OF R,AN~O CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION Ill IT: /~ SCALE: RESOLUTION NO. 90-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE'CITY OF"~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01A TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORRIDOR TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR TWO PARCELS CONSISTING OF 1.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF AN EXTENSION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREDF - APN: 201-200-37 AND 1062-640-57 ~ A. Recital s. (i) Bob Sherwood, on behalf of Leslie Sherwood Barnes, has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 90-01A as described in the title of - this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On September 26, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on September 26, 1990, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to approximately 1.92 acres of land, basically a narrow linear configuration, located'in two parcels north and south of an extension of Highland Avenue on the east side of the Cucamonga Creek Channel and is presently undeveloped. Said properties are currently designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor; and PLANNING COMMISSION 2SOLUTION NO. 90-126 GPA 90-01A - SHERWOOD September 26, 1990 Page 2 (b) The property to the north and west of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is developed with the Cucamonga Creek Channel. The property to the east is designated Low {2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family .homes. The property to the south is designated future freeway and is undeveloped. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties and that issuance of a Negative Declaration is recon~ended. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use designation in terms of access and size as evidenced by the site's ability to conform to the City's development standards for single family residential uses; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan due to the site's capacity to promote the goals and objectives for residential development. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recon~aends approval on this 26th day of September 1990, of General Plan Amendment No. 90-0IA as specified herein. 6. The Secretary to this Con~ission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RE~.~UTION NO. 90-126 Gn,~ 90-01A - SHERWOOD September 26, !990 ~a ge 3 APPROVED AND ~kDOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1990. PLANNING C. OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA / I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of September 1990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISS I ONERS '. NONE Pursuant to Publ;c F,s~urces Cede Section 21:"..':" :.. :,.. ......._- t.(2.©A,.:'. Cie:k of . ..... "'~ i~ the Ollie~' of 'L)eput't 1. Brief Description of Project' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01A - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from ?lood Control/Utility Corridor to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 1.92 acres contained within two parcels of land located north and south of an extension of Highland Avenue, adjacent to the e'ast and west sides of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, The City Council will also consider Open Space and Very Low Residential /less than 2 dwelling units per acre) as possible land use alternatives. The Planning Co~rnission recommends approval of Very Low Residential and issuance of a Negative Declaration. APN: 201-200-37 and 1062-640-57 and 58. 2. Name and Address of Applicant' Bob Sherwood 886 West Foothill Blvd. Upland, CA 91786 3, Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. 4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are on file in the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. This Negative Dec'laration is subject to the implementation of mitigating measures lif any) as listed on the a~'ff~ents. DATED' November 7, 1990 '"~nni~~ Mayor litle C IT'f O? RANCHO CUCAMONGA NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Clerk of the Board County of San Bernardino 385 N. Arrowhead, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 FROM' City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 729 SUBJECT' Filing of Notice of Der. ermination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01A - SiAIE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER' N/A PROJECT LOCATION' North and South of ah extension of Highland Avenue adjacent to the east side of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for !.92 acres contained within two parcels of land located north and south of an extension of Highland Avenue, adjacent to the east and west sides of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. The City Council will also consider Open Space and Very Low Residential !less than 2 dwelling units per acre) as possible land use alternatives. The Planning CommissiOn reconTnends approval of Very Low Residential and issuance of a Negative Declaration. APN.' 201-200- 37 and 1062-640-57 and 58. This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has approved the above described project' !. The project will environment. X will not, have a significant effect on the . An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at- City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. 3. Mitigation measures approval of the project. were, X were not, made a condition of the 4. A statement-of overriding considerations this project. ~ c.~cticn ,_.. ~-.-~:.~rc.,., -.,. C'.";e:;.< o~ O, ,).;,e,, . .,..,. ....~.-, :, .,.~..~.i' 70 - ,, .-. . -,:-;'~.°-., - pL..?:.. . , . ..... ~. :... ' --~-."7 .-...:~..., c,: :':~:~ '-T: 2'~ '..:-D~t~:.5.:...,No.~emb~r.-.7,.~,'jgz20 c~.-.::'~. . .. . , "; 3:-' '" *, :, - . .. c..LT. J was, X was not, a~lopt~j:l foK ¢.rl f'-- ! . ~ - .. . . Brad Buller ~: ~ : ~ Cit~ Planner ' -:. i~ES(,LUTION NO. 89-134 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAJ~N[,~G CP.J~ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI~OtgSA, CALIFORiIIA, RECO~(MENOING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AI~£NDMENT 87-12o REQUESTING TO Ae~£tlD THE DEVELOPI~ENT DISTRICTS MAP FROe( FLOOD CO, TIrOL TO ~EDIUI~ DENSIT~ RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DI~ELLIN(~ UNITS PEI~ ACRE) FOR 1.78 ACRES OF LA~(O I.OCATEO ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARNELIA~ AVENUE, EAST OF THE CUCAI~ONGA CR£EK FLOO0 CO~II~ROL CHANNEL, ~J~O SOUTH OF VIVERO STREET, RAqCHO CUC.~,OHGA, CALIFORNIA, ANII MAKING FINOIlI~S IN SUPPORI THEREOF - APH: 207-022-64 A. P, ec ( *.a 1 s. - {t) E.G.M. Development ;~as filed an application for ~velopment District Aeendment No. 87-12 aS described in the title of this Resolution. Herethai'tar in this Resolution, the subject Otvelopment District Amendment is referred to as 'the application'. (li) On October 1], 1989,. the Planning Commission of the City of Roncho Cucaeonga conducted a duly m)ticed public hearing on the application. On this date, it was requested U~&t thq itea be contlnued to the ne~t regularly scheduled ~ating of Octob~)r ~$, 1989. {ill) All legai prerequls"tes to the adoption of this Resolut4on h~ve occurred. ~. Resol'~tlon. ~OW, THEREFORE, it is herchy found, deteret,~ed aAd re~oive(: by the Pl:nning Co..~m!sston of the City of R4..,~cho Cucamonga ~$ follows: 1. This Commission hereby ;pacifically finds that all of the facts set for:h in Recitals, Part 'A', of i.hts Resolution arm true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced I~ubllc hearings on October 11 ~nd October 25, I989, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Coemi)ston h~reby specifically finds as follo~ (a) The appll~at;on iippltem to approximately 1.78 acres of land, in basically a trlangul:;' configuration, located vest of Carnelian, east of the Cuca~onga Creek Flood Centrill Channel, and Iouth of Vivere and is presently vacant. ~ld property is curt. 'ly designatad as Flood Control; and Z I I I I I I -~ < < -~ < I ~ Z Z ~ Z I Z I I Z ~ · Z~'-- h-- C) *l---Z ! ! I I coI co I COl COl COl I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I Z I--- i, Z Z · iIII IIIIiII IIi i~tl i i ~ iiiiii / IIIlllll -=, , 'I , · · ee · · e e '''"eeeeeeee*l~" ~ 'IllIll eeeee~e · e e . * e , i e e e e , ee it~ ' I * e e e · i e e t eee. · · · el e t e i · · · e e · e e e Ie e · · · · e e · ~ , i · , · · e e e e e e , e e · e e* e e, e e e e e e e e e ........... I ,eeeee.eeeeeeeeeee · e e e · e e e e · · I e e e · e e e e I e *lee· e · e eeleeeeeeeee' e ' e e I' e el ee eee,e, . e ~ * e e I e e 0 ~ . ~eeeeee GENERAL PLAN · The general plan LAND USE MAP shows the project to be in the designated "FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORD." under the headings "OPEN SPACE" (Figure III- 1 ) · The project is designated as "STREAMSIDE WOODLAND AND WATER RECHARGE AREA" under the NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION section in the General plan "OPEN SPACE PLAN" (Figure IV-4). In addition, the project is also designated open space under the RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY section, under the denoration of FLOOD CONTROL LANDS. (Figure IV-4) · The general plan shows this site as a major recharge area (greater than 50 CFSI) on the NATURAL RESOURCES MAP in the general plan,. (Figure IV-3) · The existing levee (which is proposed to be removed) is shown in the general plan on the FLOOD CONTROL MAP, in addition to the Deer Creek Basin and channel (Figure V-6). HILLSIDE ORDINANCE · Section 17.24.010 "A" of the Hillside ordinance requires that the project be consistent with the "Cits' of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan Open Space." · A Natural features map is required showing location of federally recognized blue line streams, rock outcroppings and existing vegetation. (17.24.030) · There are existing slopes on the property, exceeding 30%. (17.24.050//5) · Existing water courses are located on the site. (17.24.060 #2) · According to the hillside ordinance, all lots shall have the building envelope plotted individually. (17.24.030 # J) · The vertical elements on plans 2,3&4 do not comply with the intent of the hillside ordinance · unless the buyer selects the portico option. (17.24.060 # c & d) · Gable ends on some elevations do not comply. (17.24.060 # c & d) · Over all envelope on all two story plans do not meet the intent of the ordinance. The builder is circumventing the terracing issue by making the homes narrow so that the profiles fit within the envelope without building to the setbacks. (17.24.070 # c) Some plans have a 2nd story cantilever as a major design element on side elevations (17.24.070 # D) DEVELOPMENT CODE The development code requires new developments to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. These are not individual custom homes. The elevations and plans are duplicated thru-out the proposed project. More variation should be required. (17.08.010) · Chapter 17.16.010 of the development code makes strict "USE REGULATIONS" and "SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS" that this project does not comply with. In addition, the development code makes specific references with regards to consistency with the General Plan. Rancho Cucamon,~a Development Code CHAPTER 17.24 Section 17.24.010 o , Hillside Development Regz lations Section 17.24.010 - Purpose and Intent ' . These regulations are intended to further implement and define the goals and objectives of the General Plan, to minimize adverse effects of grading, and to provide for the safety and benefit the welfare of the citizens through !.~. A.. of Rancho Cucamonga while allowing for reasonable development of land, as expressed the following purposes: Provide guidelines and standards for development in hillside areas to minimize the adverse impacts of grading and to promote the goals and objectives of the City of Rancho C_ ucamonga's General Plan Open Space,. Conservation, and Design Elements' and, Maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with existing vegetation, wildlife, soils, geology, slopes, and drainage pattems.~ and to presen;e natural topography and scenic character, including swales, canyons, creeks, knolls, rock outcrops, and ridgelines whenever feasible; and, C. D, . Preserve and maintain existing wildlife through the retention of significant natural habitat; and, Encourage water conservation and aquifer recharge; and, Avoid development that would result in fire, flood, slide, erosion, pollution, or other safety hazards; and, Limit the extent of grading alterations and encourage sensitive development in the hillside areas through flexible design and innovative arrangement of building sites by utilizing increased lot sizes, clustering, and setback variations; and, Go Avoid residential densities which exceed the capacity of the !and and level of services which can reasonably be provided and that generate traffic requiring extensive grading to provide adequate street access; and, H, Encourage developments which use desirable existing features of land such as natural vegetation, viewsheds, and geologic and archaeological features; and, I. Protect natural areas for ecologic, educational, and other scientific study purposes; and, K. Preserve and/or introduce plant material to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage, preserve natural watershed, minimize fire hazard, and minimize the scarring and deformation of the natural landscape; and, . Limit the impact of slopes on adjacent deyeloped or undeveloped properties. 17.24-1 3/96 Rancho Cucarnon.~a Develooment Code Sections 'I~124.020 & 17.24.050 Planner. However, projects which require grading of large fiat areas, including, but not limited to, such items as tennis courts or dding dngs, shall be reviewed by the City Planner or may be referred to the Planning Commission if determined necessary by the City Planner. Interpretation of Standards.. If ambiguity arises conceming interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 17.24.010 through 17.24,090, the City Planner shall review to determine compliance with the provisions contained within the section or he may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Section 17. 24.030 -Application Filing Requirements A natural features map, which sh~11 identify all existing slope banks, ridgelines, canyons, natural drainage courses, federally recognized blue line streams, rock outcroppings, and existing vegetation. Also depicted shall be landslides and other existing geologic hazards. · · , A conceptual grading plan, which shall include the following items in addition to those required by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 19.04.060 or as part of the Submittal Requirement Checklist: A legend with appropriate symbols which should include, but not be limited to, the following items: top of wall, top of curb, high point, low point, elevation of significant trees, spot elevations, pad and finished floor elevations, and change in direction of drainage. . A separate map with propo§ed fill areas colored in green and cut areas colored in red, with areas where cut and fill exceed depths established in the hillside development guidelines and stanSards cleady shown. Additionally, the areas of cut and fill, calculated as a percentage of the total site area, shall be included on the plan. Contours shall be shown for existing and natural land conditions and proposed work. Existing contours shall be de'picted with a dashed line with every fifth contour darker, and proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with a solid line. Contours shall be shown according to the following schedule: Natural Slope Maximum Interval Feet 2% or less to 19.9% ~ 2 20% + 5 C, A conceptual drainage and flood control facilities map describing planned drainage improvements. Do A slope analysis map for the purpose'of determining the amount and location of land as it exists in its natural state falling into each slope category as specified below. For the slope map, the applicant shall use a base topographical map of the subject site, prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, which shall have a scale of not less than 1 inch to 100 feet and a contour Interval of not more than 2 feet provided that the contour interval may be 5 feet when the slope ts more than 20 percent. This base topographical map shall include all adjoining properties within 150 feet of the site boundaries. Delineate slope 17.24-3 3/96 Rancho Cucamon,~,a Develooment Code .. 'Se~ti'on 17.24.060 Natural drainage courses should be preserved and enhanced to the extent possible. Rather than filling them in, drainage features should be incorporated as an integral part of the project design in order to enhance the overall quality and aesthetics of a site, to provide attractive open space vistas and to preserve the natural character of the area. 17.24-36 3~96 ~ancho Cucamon~a De~,elopmen! Code .. Section ! 7. 24. 030 & ! 7. 24. 060 4. 15 tO 29.9 30 and over Development within this zone is limited to no more than the less visually prominent slopes, and then only where it can be shown that safety, environmental, and aesthetic impacts can be minimized. Use of larger lots, variable setbacks, and vadable building structural techniques such as .S!epped or po. le foundations are expected. Structures shall blend with the natural environment through their shape, materials, and colors. Impact of traffic and roadways is to be minimized by following natural contours or using grade separations. This is an excessive slope condition and development is prohibited. Section 17.24.060 - Guidelines These Hillside Development Guidelines are intended to facilitate the appropriate development of hillside areas. These guidelines are not intended to be strict standards, but rather, to provide direction to encourage development which is sensitive to the unique characteristics common to hillside properties. Their purpose is not to restrict an individual from proposing an innovative or alternative method of design in a hillside area; innovation is, in fact, encouraged as long as the. end' result is one which respects the hillside and is consistent with the purposes expressed in this section and in the goals and objectives of the General Plan. A. Site Design , Design of building sites should be sensitive to the natural terrain. Structures should be located in such a way as to minimize necessary grading and to preserve natural features such as prominent knolls or ridgelines. THIS NOT THIS 17.24-11 3~96 Rancho Cucarnon~,a Development Code .. · ' Section ] 7. 2:I. OdO Avoid large roof overhangs and cantilevers on downhill elevations to reduce the massive appearance from below, THIS' NOT' THIS Terracing reduces bulk Effective bulk Cantilever makes building appear taller, more Effective bulk ~J Effective bulk Smaller overhangs for individual floors or windows help break-up mass and protect against excessive sunlight Excessive roof overhan re.,sults In.additional g .~----~_J~ ~~' 17.24-24 3/96 J~ancho Cucamonga Development Code L%'ction 17. 24. 060 Do Detaching parts of a dwelling such as a garage. Avoid the use of gable ends on downhill elevations. The roof slope should be oriented in the same direction as. the natural slope. THIS Roof slope approximates that of hillside and follows its direction. BulltUng hugs ground form better NOT THIS Avoid large gable ends on downhill elevations Angular forms which slope ~ In the opposite direction to the slope of the hill. destroy the relationship bulk~ of the hillside and building _ and increase the effective 17.24-23; 3/96 Rancho Cucamon/?a Development Code $echdn 17.24.070 Uphill lot o A maximum height of 15 feet is permitted at the minimum front setback and shall extend up and toward the rear of the lot at a 45 degree angle to a maximum overall height of 30 feet as measured from finished grade. A maximum height at the side setbacks shall be 15 feet extending up toward the center of the lot at a 45 degree angle to a maximum height of 30 feet as measured from finished grade. BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR UPHILL LOT Uphill Section 15' /~-.,,. 30' ~-"~M|nirnurn sid® s®tb&ck Street Elevation Cross Slooe lots - A maximum overall height of 30 feet is permitted, as measured from finished grade, from the minimum front setback extending toward the rear of the lot.' The maximum height at the side setbacks shall be 15 feet extending up. toward the center of the lot at a 45 degree angle to a maximum of 30 feet as measured from finished grade. BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR CROSS LOT SLOPE 45~,~ >' ,,-' - 30' ; o ~'¥W'~/~'~//"k4~"/ ' M i n i m u m s i d e s e t b a c k Street'Elevation 17.24-42 3~96 Rancho Cucamon~a Develo12ment Code Sections 17.24.030 &:1.7.24.040 H, A statement of conditions for ultimate ownership and maintenance of all parts of the development including streets, structures, and open spaces. In the event that no grading is proposed, i.e., custom lot subdivision, a statement to that effect shall be filed with a plan which shows possible future house plotting, lot'grading, driveway design, and septic system location for each parcel proposed, to be prepared on a topographic map drawn at the same scale as the conceptual grading plan. When unit development is proposed, illustrative building elevations, that show all sides of the proposed structure(s) and which accurately depict the building envelope for each lot, shall be provided. K. The following items may be required if determined necessary by the Grading Committee, City Planner, or Planning Commission to aid in the analysis of the proposed project to illustrate existing or proposed conditions or both: 1. A topographic model; 2. A line of sight or view analysis; 3. Photographic renderings; 4. Any other illustrative technique determined necessary to aid in review of a project. L, Exceptions to the filing requirements for projects identified in Sections 17.24.020A & C shall be determined by the City Planner, or may be referred to the Planning Commission if determined necessary by the City Planner. Section 17.24.040 - Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases defined in this section shall apply: BALANCE: The cutting and filling of a site which does not require the export or import of earth material. BORROW: Earth material acquired from an off-site location for the use in grading on a site. C CONTOUR: A line drawn on a plan which connects all points of equal elevation. CONTOUR GRADING: A grading concept designed to result in earth forms which resemble natural terrain characteristics. Horizontal and vertical curve variations are often used for slope banks. Contour grading does not necessarily minimize the amount of cut and fill occurring. CUT: The mechanical removal of earth material. CUT AND FILL: The excavating of earth material in one place and depositing of it as fill in an adjacent place. 17.24-5 3/96 R A N C I O C U C A . · F I.I PEOTECTION vl O N C- A DI6TIE1CT .. .. November 15, 1993 Kenneth C. Eke, P.E. Flood Control Permit En'ginocr Transportation/Flood Control Dept. 825 East Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 Subject: Zone 1, Doer Creek, C/E Permit No. P-189013 File: 1-551/2.04 Dear Mr,. Eke, The Fire District will no longer utilize a portion of District's right-of- way for an emergency fire'access road located on Deer Creek, C/E, north of Highland Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Adequate public and private road systems now exist in the .area which renders the continued use of the emergency fire access roadway a nice. ty rather than a necessity.. The development to the southwest, Brock Homes, has been responsible for the payment of the required 'fees in the form..of pass- through billing. Please advise on the status and amount of. outstanding fees.' 'If' you have any .questions, please call my office at 909/987-6405. Sincerely, Kevin Walton Fire Inspector KW/vb ADMINIST['CXTIOI',I - P.O. BOX 850 - P,~JqC140 CUCAMONGA. CA, 0170'i-0860 · (00Q) 987-2535 · I:AX (900] 957-0887. r-I~- $AI::ETV - P.O. BOX 807 - I~ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 9'1729-0B07 · [909] 987.6'~05 ° FAX (909] 057-6499 Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024 (~ Southern California Earthquake Center 1994 Working Group on the Probabilities of Future Large Earthquakes in Southern California Duncan C. Agnew Keiiti Aki (Co-Chair) C. Allin Cornell James F. Davis James Dieterich Paul Flores Thomas H. Heaton (Co-Chair) Thomas L. Henyey David D. Jackson Paul Jennings Karen C. McNally Michael S. Reichle David Schwartz Kerry E. Sieh University of California, San Diego University of Southern California Stanford University California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology United States Geological Survey California Office of Emergency Services United States Geological Survey University of Southern California University of California, Los Angeles California Institute of Technology University of California, Santa Cruz California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology United States Geological Survey California Institute of Technology Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 85. No. 2, pp. 379-439. April 1995 Seismic Hazards in Southern California:-' Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 by Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities~'2'3 Abstract We combine geodetic, geologic, and seismic information to esti- mate frequencies of damaging earthquakes in three types of seismotectonic zone. Type A zones contain faults for which paleoseismic data suffice to estimate conditional probabilities. Type B zones contain faults with insufficient data for conditional probability analysis. Type C zones contain diverse or hidden faults. Each zone is assumed to have randomly distributed earthquakes plus charac- teristic earthquakes on specific faults. Our "cascade" model allows for multiple- segment earthquakes. Within each zone, distributed earthquakes are assumed uniform in time and space, with a truncated Gutenberg-Richter magnitude dis- tribution. Thus, seismic hazard is defined by the characteristic earthquake rate, the rate of all distributed events, and the limiting (characteristic) magnitude. Limiting magnitudes are determined from fault lengths, while earthquake rates are determined by observed seismicity and seismic moment rate. We present a preferred seismic hazard model with lognormal recurrence and an alternate Poissonian model. The models predict 80 to 90% probability of an m _-> 7 earthquake within southern California before 2024. The 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake occurred within the 13% of southern California's area having the highest moment rate density. The probability of 0.2 g or greater shaking before 2024 exceeds 60% in the Ventura and San Bernardino areas, and 50% throughout the Transverse Ranges between Santa Barbara and San Bernardino. The predicted seismicity exceeds that observed historically. This may imply that (1) we underestimate the maximum magnitudes, (2) significant strain may be released aseismically, or (3) seismicity may have been anomalously low since 1850. Introduction This report has two primary purposes: (1) to update the data and review the methods for estimating proba- bilities of large earthquakes on the southern San Andreas and San Jacinto faults estimated in 1988 by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 1988), and (2) to consider other potentially damaging earthquakes throughout southern California. This is the ~Principal Authors: D. D. Jackson, K. Aki, C. A. Cornell, J. H. Diemrich, T. L. Henyey, M. Mahdyiar, D. Schwartz, and S. N. Ward. :Contributors: D. Agnew, G. Davis, J. Davis, J. Dolan, P. Flores, M. Forrest, E. Hauksson, T. Heaton, G. Hurtlie, I. M. Idriss, K. Jackson, P. Jennings, L. Jones, Y. Kagan, E. Lehmer, K. McNally, J. McRaney, B. Minster, S. Park, M. Petersen, M. Reichle, T. Rock- well, S. Salyards, J. Savage, K. Sieh, J. Suppe, P. Ward, R. Weldon, S. Wesnousky, and R. Yeats. ~Coordinated by the Southern California Earthquake Center, on be- half of the United States Geological Survey and the California Office of Emergency Services. The Southern California Earthquake Center is a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. second in a continuing series of reports on earthquake hazards in southern California prompted by the 1992 m = 7.3 Landers earthquake. It updates and expands upon a report entitled "Probabilities of Large Earthquakes Oc- curring in California on the San Andreas Fault," pre- pared by WGCEP (1988). A previous report (available from the Southern California Earthquake Center) entitled "Future Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Phase I, Implications of the 1992 Landers Earthquake Se- quence" dealt primarily with short-term hazards through 1993 posed by the Landers earthquake and its after- shocks. This report is timely for several reasons: (1) new information exists on earthquake histories for the faults considered by WGCEP (1988), including the San An- dreas; (2) we need to address the seismic hazard throughout southern California more broadly than WGCEP (1988); (3) we understand better the "blind" faults that 379 ~.ur_= & -.,,.):= ~age :2,:24. uob 880 Aug-20 WeC 18'28 1997 EARTHQUAKE FACT SHEET Lauren Development has submitted no substantial evidence to refute CURE's evidence of changed circumstances and new information concerning the Cucamonga Fault. All of Lauren's assertions are false and are refuted by the very source quoted by Lauren in the Declaration of Tom Henye¥, Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center. LOCATION The Alquist-Priolo Map locates ~he Cucamonga fault at the debris basin. Attached Henyey Declaration (page 4, line 8-10) states "Attached Exhibit G shows that th~ mapped faul~ trace may pass through, or very close to, the base of the debris basin and the spillway" The "legal" locator of earthquake faults is the AlquisS-Priolo Maps compzled by State Geologists under the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act. These maps locate the fault at the debris basin. The recent Mi~hway 30 Deszgn Plans located the ~ault as going through the basin and beneath debris basin dam embankment. See Exhibit MAGNITUDE Lauren alleges that CURE's attorney "lied" about the possible magnitudes of an earthquake on the Cucamonga Fault. Given the information obtained through Dolan's work, the linkage to the Sierra Madre Fault system a~]d The sheer complexity of the interaction of the three strands (plus traces) of the Cucamonga Fault, every interpretation geologists gave us led to the 7.5 magnitude. Again this figure is confirmed by Henyey (page 4 line 8-10) . "A~tached Exhibit G shows that the mapped fault trace may pass through, or very close to, the base of the debris basin and the spillway". Lauren also alleges that investigations and trenching in 1996 were only proposed - not done. dim Dolan and Chris Hall trenched across Cucamonga Fault Strand C in June of 1996. See attached Exhibit D for Dolan's diagram of his trench. See also Exhibit B of Henyey Declaration. Exhibit B locates trench sites from Dolan's 199____~6 E~caYations at Hollywood and Cucamonga in red. See Henyey Declaration (page 3 lines 25-26) which states "The rrench~,~g done in June 1996 on one strand o£ the Cucamonga section indicates 1 to 2 meters of slip per event, or earthquakes wit~ magnitudes between 6 and 7". Lo:u & LO:B ~a~e 13,:24 ,;o9 880 Aug-20 ?;eO 18:28 1997 C. LAUREN STATES Lauren states that the last change in information was 1987, and further falsely states that work was done on the Cucamonga fault since 1987, and that no information about the fault has been published since 1987. This is flatly refuted by the very source cited by Lauren, the Southern California Earthquake Center. Note: The Southern California Earthquake Center is located at U.S.C. in Los Angeles, not at Cal Tech as Lauren states. Nowever, from U.S.C. Dr. Henyey directs activities of scientists at Cal Tech and other universities. See page 2 line 19 of Declaration and Exhibit A thereto. Dr. Dolan participated In pub]~car. ion of the attached study Exhibit SCIENCE Vol. 267.13 January 1995. (See also Exhibit B of Henyey declaration). Henyey states (page 2 line 8-12) "Of specific interest shown on att.~ched Exhibit B is the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga Fault system, and a recent trench site on the Cucamonga Fault where data about the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes.on the Cucamonga Fault was collected by Dolan in June of 1996". Lauren also alleges that the estimates of magnitude has not changed since the Deer Creek Debris Basin was built. The Army Corp~ of Engineers Design MemOrandum ~6 sets a 7.0 on the San Andreas as the maximum desigr~-to- point. The San Andreas is no longer the design-to point. The Cucamonga Fault is now the design-to-point. n. LA~ STATES Lauren here alleg~s that Southern California Earthquake Center says there is no new fault information s~r~ce 1971. Dr. Henyey is Director of The Southern California Earthquake Center. In hi~ declaration, Dr. Henyey specifically requests that "the City consider ngw earthquake information in determining the safety of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the safety of homes located in such proximity to a known fault, particularly in light of qew magnitudes discussed above, E1 page 6 lines 6-10. "It ~s important that the City consider the new earthquake information in determining the safety of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the safety of the homes located in such close proximity to a fault, particularly in light of the ncw magnitude estimates discussed above." S'I'~.TE 0t= CALIFOF.4~IA--C~L)FOF~NIA ENVIRONM£NT~,t. PMOT£C"ION CAMFORNIA REGIONAl. WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 3737 MAIIk STREET, SUITE 500 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501-3339 PHONE: (909) 782-4130 FAX; {gO9) 78!-628~ PETE W'~, August 20, 1997 The Honorable William Alexander Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Po~t-lt" brand tax [ransmit:al memo 7671 J~ot p~ee~, /,~ ~.( i ~'.~ o. ,,.~r-. ~. '"'"'~,-,...,.- -f"' ~=~. LAUREN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14771 Dear Mr. Alexander: It has come to our attention that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is reviewing the subject residential development located in the Deer Creek drainage area. This project is not currently before the Regional Water Quality Control Board for any form of regulatory review. The primary duty of the Regional Board is to protect the quality of the waters within the Region for all beneficial uses. In the Regional Board's Water Quality Control Plan, Deer Creek has a designated beneficial use of intermittent groundwater recharge. Thus, elimination of a recharge area could affect this beneficial use and would be of concern to us. !n the course of the City's review of this project, the Cfty should consider any effects that the project could have on groundwater recharge. Board staff would be happy to assist the City in that regard. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-3286. Sincerely, Kurt V. Berchtold Assistant Executive Officer Ted Cobb, SVVRCB - Office of the Chief Counsel Malissa Hathaway McKeith, Loeb & Loeb Andrew Hartzell, Hewitt & McGuire 9 : 4~ MO~:E CONSULT ! H~ 6~OU~ - Page 2 June 11, 1991 R~FERENC~.: FILE - 65-~RE - CASE ~91-0cJ-47P - DEER CREEK DEBRIS ~J%'--.'N AND CHANNEL - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 'A Since the District does ~ot presently have facilities to contain these flows to P~colate them back into the ground water basin, the turnout ~; kept closed. The District im in the process of retaining .] conn~?.t.:.r" t~ -Jrepa':'(-: ,i gol~ course master plan for De;trier property i.n this ~r~a. As part of the plan, percolat.o~ ponds will be included. These ponds will be designed to P~..rcolate the mean average rainfall, with an overflow channel gc_ng back to Deer Creek Channel. ShOuld you have any further ..-uestions concerning this mat=er, ~lease feel free to contact ,e at (714) 387-2515. Very truly yours, KENNETH .D'J-G~ DRY ,' P. E., Water Remounts Division Enclosures as noted. Morse '-~nsulting to provide. cc: KAM R/F David Entsminger, Morse Document Name: 5208/5184 2-04. WATER CONSERVATION a. General. Local interests have requested that floodwaters from Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel and Demens Debris Basin be diverted to ex/stin~ and proposed spreading basins. The debris basins and pool drains.would not be designed to store water in the basins. Floodwaters would only remain in the basins for the length of time required to drain to t~e channels through the un-gated pool drains. ~eer Creek Debris Basin and Channel. At Deer Creek Debris Basin a %~t~d 48-inch-diameter reinforced-concrete pipe would be provided from the pool drain Junction structure to the spreading grounds below. Another gated 48-inch-diameter reinforced-concrete pipe would be provided from the Junction structure to the spl'llway. The invert of this latter pipe would be about 2 feet lower than the invert of the former. Any debris accumulation in the Junction structure could thus be sluiced into the spillway before opening the sluice gate to the spreading grounds. Four inlet structures would divert flows through gated pipes into other spreading grounds located along the channel dowstream of the basin. c. Demens Debris Basin. At Demens Debris Basin a gated 48-inch- diameter reinforced-concrete pipe would be provided from the pool drain Junction structure to the spreading grounds below. 2-05. ACCESS ROADS. Access for maintenance and inspection of the debris basins and embankments would be extensions of existing roads in the project area. Service roads would be provided along the banks of the proposed channels for maintenance and inspection. Vehicular access would be provided to the service roads from streets and roads crossing the channels. The road along one side would be paved with plant-mix asphalt. The service roads along the channels would be coordinated with the hikin6, bicycle and equestrian trails. At railroad and freeway crossings, the service roads would be widened for turnarounds. Access ramps to the Deer Creek Channel invert would be provided at about 2 mile intervals. Access to the Hillside Channel invert would be from the confluence with Deer Creek Channel. Access to the Demens Channel invert would be from the confluence with Cucamonga Channel. 2-06. STREET CROSSINOS. Bridge construction for highways, roads and streets would be required to accomodate the recommended channels. New brid~es would be constructed at all street crossings except at Arrow Route, where the existing bridge would remain and be protected in place during construction of the channel. The brid6e superstructures would be above the channel free board. Bridges would all be clear-span. Information on brid~es and crossings affected by the project is given in Table II-1. V - CURRENT NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT OBIECTI~eEs $-01. REDUCTION OF FLCX3D DAMAGES. The ~vere floods of Jtnuary tad Februaz)' 1969 emphasized the urgency of providing riooct damage reduction in the study area. See flood photographs in Appendix 4 for typical flood a~d flood damage scenes. 5~ATER CONSERVATION. Ground water is the only sour~ of water other "-... than imported water for this area. Therefore, it is ne~ to oonserve as much runoff as possible. At the present time over 90 percent of the average annual runoff is percolated into the ~tound water basin. Enlargement of existinl spreadinl basins provision for new basins and provisions for diversion structures fwm the proposed concrete channels would mitigate any ground water basin recharge losses. 5-03. RECREATION. Current and futuze recreational nee~ are discussed in "The General Plan for Regional Parks, San Bernardino County," prepared by the County Parks Department, May 1967..According to the report, in 1967 the w-,stern ptrt of the county corttair, ed 37 percent of the valley population; by 1980, it is expected to contain 42 percent. To satisfy the needs of these people as wel! as :hose from the adjacent metropoLitaxt areas, the San Bernardino County Parks Department estimated that 1,100 acres of park space would have been required by 1970. The~e ptrks have not been built. In order to meet the demand for recreational facilities, San Bernardino prepared the above general plan which proposes a series of regional pzrks joined by a system of recreational trails and greenbelts. The county has designated drainage and flood control channels as one of the most appropriate locations for these trails. Cucamon~a Creek would become a main artery connecting local and regional trails from the 5an Gabriel Mountains to Prado Dam, where local governments will build a recreational area on lands leased from the Army Corps of Engineers. Preliminary economic studies h~ve been conducted to determine the feasibility of a trail system for West Cucamonga and Deer Creeks channels. The Cucamonga Creek trail system and the West Cucamonga and Deer Creek channels trail system would connect existing and proposed parks and trails, providing an important Link in the "mountains to Prado Dam" concept. 5-434. PRESERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Strong efforts were and will be made to pr~erve and even enhance the natural beauty of the projec~ a~ea. To this end a study wa~ maxte of the environmental impacts of the various alternatives considered in the pc~t-~uthcrrization studies. 5-05. WELL-BEING OF THE PUBLIC. Intangible benefits that would accrue if flood damage reduction were provided include: (a)the prevention of interruptions to normal business; (b) the reduction of hazards to Life from the occurrence of la~e floods; (c) the reduction of the menace of epidemics caused by flood danurges to sewer tnd water systems; and (d)the prevention of interruptions to traffic on trtnscontinentaJ highways and railways, and to operations and traffic of the Ontario International Ai~'po:'t. V-1 .. I I - DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT PLAN 2-01. GENERAL · . The recommended plan provides for construction of: (l) Deer Creek Debris Basin in Deer Canyon, ·nd· main ch·nnel along Deer Creek from the debri· basin to Cuo·mon~a Creek Channel; (2) Hillside Debris Basin ·t th~ mouth of a canyon between Deer Canyon ·rid Demens C·nyon, and a channel from the debris basin to Deer Creek channel; (3) bemens Debris Basin downstream from Damess, Thorpe and Artgalls Canyons, and a channel from the debris basin to Cucamong· Creek C~annel; (~) facilities to mitig&te water conservation losses; and (5) recreat~ on and beautificatioe me·sure· appropriate to the project. b. The purpose of the recomnende~ plan is to provide protection and debris in the overflow ·re·. W t ~ ons v ttn .... - .~ 2-02. DEBRIS BA~L5 · . Deer Creek Debris Basin. The Deer Creek Debris Basin would be located at the mouth of Deer Canyon, ·bout 2 miles north of Charley College. The embankment would be a compacted earthfill structure, with a maximum height of 58 feet and crest length of about 1,857 feet. rectangular broadcrested concrete spillway would be on the left (east) side of the embankment fill and would have a width ranging from 75 feet · t the crest to 51.07 feet at the downstream end, and · depth of 19.5 feet at the crest. The spillway would be designed to pass a maximum probable flood of 15,000 cubic feet per second. The debris basin would have · capacity of 310 acre-feet of debris store&e, with no reduction of flood peaks assumed. The pool drain would consist of an intake tower with an un-gated 36-inch-diameter encased reinforced-concrete pipe passing under the dam to a Junction structure adjacent to the spillway. An us-gered #8-inch-diameter reinforced-concrete pipe Would connect the Junction structure to the spillway. The total basin ·re· (including the embankment an~ spillway) inside the required right-of-way would be ·bout 32 acres. b. Deserts Debris Basin. The Denens Debris Basin (downstream from the mouths of Damess, ?horpe and Artgalls ~anyons) would be north of Hillside Road and between Beryl Avenue and Amethyst Street. The embankment would be a compacted earthfill structure with a maximum height of 46 feet and a crest length of about #,23? feet, with about 2,600 feet of this length extending upstream on the left side to collect and guide canyon flows ~nto the debris basin. The downstream slope of the ~am would have · drainage ditch near the toe to divert rainfall II-1 intensities between VIII and X. One was located approximately 50 miles east on the San Andreas fault and the other was located approxima%e]~y. 60 miles southeast on the San Jacinto fault. b. There have been five moderate earthquakes within 75 miles of the project in the past 60 years with magnitudes ranging from 6.2 to 6.5 (Richter Scale). The closest one of these, which occured in 1923 with a magnifude of 6.2, was located approximately 21 miles southeast of the project on the San Jacinto fault. An earthquake, which occurred in 1970 with a magnitude of 5.4, was located approximately 7 miles north of the project. This earthquake was also associated with the San Jacinto fault. c. There have been approximately 20 earthquakes with magnitudes be 4.0 and 5.0 within 10 miles of the project during the past 60 years. An earthquake with intensity VI (M 4.7) occurred on 1 March 1948 on the Cucamonga fault, approximately 2.5 miles east of the mouth of Deer Canyon. Some experts suggest that the Cucamonga fault may be capable of generating a magnitude 6 to 6.5 earthquake based on the scarps in the geologically recent alluvial fan, its assumed structural relationship with the Sierra Madre fault and its general tectonic setting. However, local seismicity on the Cucamonga fault is lacking in higher magnitude events, (none greater than 5.0). There has been no demonstrated movement on the Cucamonga fault during historic times. d. The most significant ground motion that can be expected in the area of the project would be from earthquakes occurring on the San Jacinto or San Andreas faults. The maximum event that could be expected from the San Jacinto would have a magnitude of 7.5 and for the San Andreas an 8~ event. A plot of the different faults and all earthquake epicenters, with magnitude greater than 4.0, that have occurred within 75 miles of the project since 1916, is presented on plate G-4. 4-05. GROUND WATER. a. The depth of ground water in the project area is significantly influenced by recharge of runoff from the mountains, precipitation, well pumping and the locations of faults which act as ground water barriers. The faults forming the ground water barriers raise the water levels generally several hundred feet higher on the upstream side of the faults. The Cuc~monga fault crosses Deer Creek approximately one half mile downstream from the proposed Deer Creek Debris Basin. The Red Hill fault crosses Deer Creek in the vicinity' of Highland Avenue, approximately 2 miles downstream of the Cucamonga fault, and acts as the boundary for the Cucamonga ground water basin. b. Younger alluvium in the Cucamonga fan may reach a thickness of as much as 200 feet near the upper front of the fan. Generally, the younger alluvium is above the zone of saturation and most of the ground water is confined to the underlying older alluvium. The depth of IV-3 .,.,i II PORTATION / FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT '~. =~ Th~f~ Street * Sen ile~,Itar~kne. CA 92415.0835 · {714~ 387.2.800 - -. I~ex No, (714t 387.2667 June 11, 1991 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENC'~' 500 "C" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 F.ile' 1-502/1.01 4 (FED)-4.01 Tract 12332 ATTENTION: WILLIAM R LOCKE ;,c'~ ...... '-ie' Ric;k Studies Division, Feder~ ~. REFE~ENCE: FIL~ - 65-PR~ - CASE aO'-o9-47P - DEER CREEK DEBRIS BASIN AND CHANNEL - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA Dear Mr. Locke: This is in response to your letter dated April 15, 1991, regarding the above referenced LOMR. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District is in concurrence with the proposed LOMR request that would change F~MA flood hazard designations on Di.~trict rights of way south of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. It was also requested to address the exi:.~t. ing 48-inch die. RCP the1: can discharge flows into the spreading grounds area. Based on information shown on U..~. Army Corps of Engineers, Lo~ Angeles District construction dr~[w~.nq:z lot tnc Deer Creek Channel and [~ebris Basin, District F:;~.:': :;'o.,':. 255/13, 2~ and 24 an~ in "CUCAMONGA CREEK ~'LooD u9~'~?,O;. PROJECT, FL'AT'URk' DESIGN MEMORANDUM'NUMBER 6, D~R CREEK, DEMENS AND HILLSIDE DEBRIS BASINS AND CI4]MTNELS," Morse Consulting Group prepared :he attached calculations that this o:'fice reviewed and approved. Those calculations show that during a Standard Project Floo(~ les~ than 120 cfs could be outletted 'into the sgreading grounds. The outlet structure has a base width of 12-feet and uming an estimated velocity ot 10 fps, the depth will be less than one foot. It is assumed that the flows would continue to spread, but accur.~t,~ topo information is not available. =~...., LU=.= &' (,,)~ ,=age I/4 Job 59,4 Aug-20 .'Z':eo 19'05 1997 (562) 590-5137 August 5, 1997 AUG 1 3 1.997 . Mr. John Allday Lauren DevelopmetaL 11030 Arrow Rou~c. Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-&825 Dear Mr. Allday: This letter is regarding TenLat:ve Trac", No. 147'71. 1'he Department has received new :nformation and has cor~cluded ~he:'e are viable intermittent stream5 ~n [~e prop~.rr.y which w~11 require a Streambed Alt~_ratio,~ Ag:-ee,nen~ construc£io:] activities. AL Lhe review o[ ~he b¢,undarles July 28 by Mlk~ Gzusti, and myself. Signs ot an active along [he south¢,nster~ boundary o! to be natural drainage areas north of t hc pro~cc~ site. The.~¢ ~reame were in areas year. Enclosed is a Streambed Alteration Notification packet to be complete and submiEEcd Eo the De~)~r~rucl]E aL :;l~e address listed above. If you have any question please con~a¢:~ me aE (805; 285- 5867. Sincerely, Rebecca Jon~ Environmental Special Region 5 cc: Mr. Mike G.i.u~Li Mr. Cur~ Tauchcr Mr. Bill Tippels Me. Malissa McKeith *go ZD ',,,jr' Aug-20 Wed ~9'06 1997 Trtot 14T~1 e~l I,~en I~. Pr,~l~l P~J~t 10I~, .rd m ORy ~ Ri p~lapi~ in t~ ~ ~mifi~t ¥1~y ~ LOEB ~age 3/,: Jo~ 594 ~,ug-20 Weo ;9'C6 7997 I~U · L/ A ~ r , ~ 42:~. Jos 594 J ~.~ I~ Z..~ ~ f Aug. 20 Wed ~9-07 !,.997 08./08 10:18 1997 FROM' 805 285 5867 0~/89/1997 89:28 885-285-5867 TO: 2 CDFG PAGE: 2 PAGE 82 o ~ARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 60 Long Bee=h, California 90802 {$62) 590-5880 RE: STREAMBED/LAKE ALTERATION NOTIFICATION GUIDEUNES Dear Appllcent~nterested Party:. Thank you for your request for Information regarding the I)el)ertment of Reh bnd E!erne'e (Department) Streambed/Lake Alteration Notification and Agreement pro=aN. Enclosed is the required Notification Form FG-2023 for you to use to notify the Department of your proposed project end ectivi~es. Please complete the form and returri It to our Environmental Services Division ~t the above address. The Department will review your IxoJect within 30 days of receipt of · complete notification. This review perled may be extended by mutuel agreement. If the Department determines that an extstlng fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adver. ely affected, the Department will propose condltions neceesary to protect fish end wildlife, tn the form of a "Streambed/Lake Alteration Agreement" (Agreement}, and to be Incorporated into your proJec~ or actlv+ty. A 1601 Agreement will be provided for any st~e or local government or any public u~ility, and a 1 603 Agreement will be provided for any person or private party. A site Inspection may be necessary before any proposals ere developed. All applio~ts may not commence operations until the Department determines that the project or activ~ will not m~bstantlally adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, or until th.e Department's condltlons or the decision of a panel of arbitrator~ are Incorporated Into the project; with the exception that a 1603 applicant may commence proposed activItlu if the Department ~ to act'within the 30 days of recelpt of a complete nctificst10n. · Fish end Qmme Code Provldofis If you receive an Agreement with proposed c0ndltione, you may provide wTftmn objections to any or ~il of the proposals. You must notify the Department of your ac~=ept~nce or obJectlord within 14 day~ of r. eceipt of the Departznent's proposed cofiditiofiL TI~ time period may be extended by mutual agreement. You may raquaats meeting to did©uss the pep<mad condltlone and to develop mutually acceptable proposals. This meeting will be'held within Nven d~qm from the date the Depermmnt receives your request, or at a later date that is mutu!!ly lcceptalde. If mutual agreement cannot be reached at th~ meettrig ~x b ~ubeequent meeting=, a Imn~ of three arbitrator~ (representing the appUcm~t, the Delmrtment mda mutually aocepm~ thlrcl party acting as =hair) will be .~.embled wltldn ,even days of your written request. ff an aoeeptable third party cannct be found, the party will be appointed as provided by Section 1281.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appointment of the panel may be deferred by mutuel cor~ent. The panel wtll have power to eattie dleagreement~ and rneke blndlng dacislon~ regarding ~ and wildlife modifications to your project or active. The arbitration will be completed within 14 days from the date the panel Is established unleee the time Is mutually extended. Each Imrty will bear their own expenses end share the expel=es of the third p~r~. ~ Also enclosed for your reference is aoopy of the Current Fee Schedule for Agreememo. The purpose of the fee is to fully recover Department ~ ~s~)clated wtth the administration of this program. The established fees trove been calculated roughly ;xopottloft~l to the elze of a project and the resultarrt review and agreement effort required by the Dep~rtment 8'8/88/1997 89' 28 885-'285-5867 CDFG B~B~ AbTB~ON NO~H~ON GUIDBNB PAGE' Two Tim D~l~n~ wl~ n~t ~dder or me<apt ya~ Itre. mbed/l~a .NtMmlmt Notlfia.6o~ .~ oomplate unla. the f~lowing Infm'm~ b ~dmdt~d: Nnttfin~n Fnf~ F~-.~O.~-~: m..st h4~ nnmnlat~L~l. j12~,~ei~, .-t-n-,..n;L.~,hrnltte~ wt~ ~,,, pnnrnnltntn fee her the ~ttnr-h~rl f-~ ar-heclu[lt. . A. ~dafnnla~gn ~f P,rt *A" ~ N~tifinntion: Complete the Nol~,~ation as tnst~cted, Including the following Information (use separate sheets whenever necessary to provide the detailed information requested): 1. Complete mailing address of applicenWegency and T~le~hone numbel: where you can be reached to answer any questions about your project; 2. Starting and ending dates of your project {estimates are acceptable); 3. The name of the Stream, River, or Lake involved and the major body of water It Is either a tributary ];Q or ~ (if you do not know the name of the streambed. please identify the closest watershed, stream or river the streambed Is associated with); 4. An accurate location of the project site; please provide a detailed written description of. the exact project location using common landmarks, highways, streets, etc.; 5. The Section, Township, Range and the USG$ Qued Map Name end Number in which your project is located; 6. The County Assessor's Parcel' Number(s) where your project Is located (contact your local county office for this information); 7..The p(0perty owners name and address If dlffe.rent from the applicant; . 8. The name and telephone number of a contact persort/supervisor at the job alta who la familiar with the project designs and the Information provided in your notification. following the Instructions listed below (use separate sheet. whenever necessary to provide the datalied Information requested): 1. In addition to checldng all .quars. which apply, plea. provkle eftimatee regardleo the volume(a) of material(s) end any 2. 6peoify the type and volume(m1 of material(m) to be removed, displaced or ~lded .In ell ereel of Impact within the 11~eembed~ river, lake end to ell associated watlendhtplHen vegetation. 3~ ~ the type of equipment to be ueecl (e,g. type and number o~ heavy equipment, hand operated power toole, hand toole, etc.). Specify the use of water in the area, including flow estimates before, during and aft? all project activities. Include detel!ed clee=riptJons of any project activities which will require use of water for construction, diverlion, irrigation, et~. u~,,u~ :u'zu 19~,' ~-,~o~,t' ~05 285 5867 TO' 2 . . 88/88/1997 89'28 885-285-5867 CDFG 8~~B~~KE A[~RA~ON NO~R~ON GUID~N~ PAGE' 4 PAGE 84 Three e. ,:.onu21_efioq_.of Pa~._"B' ~f_N .eeff~-~lnn 6. De.ortbe the type and density of vegetation to be effaced by your project, and e~tlmete the total area involved, Inr. Judlng an estimate of tgt-I ~1~1 Impacted. Your de~riptlon of the vegetation .hould be detailed and q~e=~c a~ to species ~ age distdlxrtion, density and rover erJmates, and total area of Impact to both In-~tmam and adjecem wetlandlrtpari. n vegetation. Fllh and wildlife species ol~erved bad known to utlllze the area ahoulcl also be detailed during completion of vegetation surveys and provided to the Department. 1 Describe In detail the actions you are pmpoetng to protect tint end wlklllfe reeoumes, including wetland/riparian habitat which they utilize, and/or mitigate for projects impacts to these resoumes and any adjacent wetland/riparian habitat. TItW would Include those impacts and mitigatlon meamJras Identified in any document(.) completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such as a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report. Any/all biological .urvey$ completed to determine the necessary protection or mitigation measures for your,. project, and any other biological .urvey information available, especially concerning the presence/absence of any rare, threatened, endangered specie,, or species of .peclal concern to the State of California, which may be Impacted by your project, along with the odglnal notes and qualifications of the surveyor, should be provided to the Department with your notifi=ation. and 7b. Copies of any pernd~ re~NIr~ from other regulatory egancl~ should be provided to the Department. Obtaining a ~l~ambed alteration agreement close not obviate the need for. the Operator to obtain all necessary petmtt~ and apprmmle from any/all federal,. state, and iceel regulatory agmnot~. For those projects which requlro environmental review under CEQA, the I~dew procell ahould b~ comp~ ~ · Streambed/Lake Notification form is ~ubmltted. We recommend you ocrmutt early with the Department during the draft stages of the CEQA document to etmure eoordi~t~on with your Streambed/Lake Alteration Agreement, Pleats IXevlde ooplei of .any r~tdred I~rmlte, Walvem and 0ondltloni i~t~ with your nottfl~on, or aa 'they become available from the. following agenoi~: U~S..Army .Cape of Engineera (e.g. Nationwide ~r 8eatIon 404}, California RegionalWater Quaaty Conltol Board or the b~-L, Water Reeouroe~ Contr~ Board (e.g. 401 Certifieatl~ or PermE to Dleohlqla 8tore Watsfl, U.S. Ftsh and Wildlife Service (Federal Sectloft .10A .and 7 eormultetion}, and County~ Public Works and Resource Management Depa~ment~. List those petmitl or IIN~wal~ which still need to be obtained for your proJest and Include any Information or eorm.pondence from those agencies Ilsted above, Including any deeument~ Indl~ I]9 permit(a! are required. Dep~mmmt wlth ewe of the falk~wla~: (el. a copy ef t~ Note. of z~~~on and ~ ~ .te~ ef tee flaw ~ ~ ,. detem~inaEon t/tat your pro/set Is exempt er deea m~t require any ~ CEOA c. am~~. ~u,.'uu lu'~:l ~f r',~L)M' 805 285 5867 TO' 2 . . 88/88/:].997 89:"28 885-285-586,7 CDFG PAGE' P,~,GE 85 STREAMBED/tAKE ALTERATION NOTIFICATION GUIDBJNES Page Four 8.' ~-~nm=le'don of Part_~_._of. Natiflcitlon (_..,.,oem~. %.5; Although a brief description I~ required, In order to expedite review of your prola<~ed project, please provide a detailed written description end final diagram of your proposed art. embed/lake project activities end work. Your written description.and diagrams should Include spe¢lfi~ plans and Illustr~ionl datafling oondlfimm It the 'lite as they will exist both before and after project completion, Including all project Impacts which will occur to associated wetlend/rlpartan vegetation. Ple~e Include designs of all levees, culverts, bridges, channels, storm drain outfalls, utility crossings, .to. If blue print] of plans are to be provided, send copies reduced in size to 8 112' X 11' If po~lbla. II. A;Idittnn-I Inforr~tion Re.q,,e~tad with. Notlf_i=_~icm ~?.,-n FG-~n~.~. A. ~ m-n sh~)win9 the project Ig~-etior): please IXovtde a local or regional map In sufficient detail so Department Representatives unfamiliar with the area can readily find the site. A -_ copy of · local road map or Thomas Guide page Is useful for locating the specific area, and a copy of the appropriate section of the Untted States Geological Survey map ia useful for determining land oonfiguratlon relationships. Hand drawn maps Indicating local streets and providing sufficient detail to locate the project alta can be used if the above are not available. Be Phnt~r-nh_~ of the nrnlect Itte -17I ~mbed/!ak_ e:.~~ photagraptm of the project site which are annotated to your project plan can be particularly useful In dmmrtblng your proposed work within end adjacent to the err, embed/lake, and the overall relationship of the project to the streambed/lake. Good photograpl~ will help In the timely proceaafi~ of your Agreement. (A recent vertical aerial ~ of the project ~ can al~o be extremely useful.) C. ~,,~nl*)7~em-I Irrform-tion to M....Ini_mizt ']]]l;tlg$1. :. Depending on the geographical area Of your pra~oeed project, supplemental pages ~ be attached to the~e instructions reque~ting additional information to be provided in aorr,~utlng Notification Form FG-2023, and In designing ~our'prc~ct to mintsize Impect~ to local fteh and wildlife rescue,re. If no "Supplemental' page(a) are attends.d, please coal)let- the Steambed/Lake Alteration Nodfir. etlon Form m Inetm~ above. III. Aa~itinr~1! Informetinn as~ni-ted with NmffJglljget Fnrpt R,~m. Thre,~ten,~d m ;:r~.neem~ ?-,~e~i~,a Imq~;]~ ff the ~ent determlne~, by rm4ew of the submitted materials or other eurrdnt Infotmatto~, ram, threatened or endangered animal or plant species may be present at the project alta, the following may be required...: 1. ~---lifomia I=paenn-red $pe~.tes A~t-191~mnelDdJJm ~f Ur!~andlrlg ~1OUl: prm4euaty called e 2081 ParsE: A CESA MOU or do~z~l~ of consultation may be required from the Department under the Calffomts Endangered Species Act (R~h and Game Code Section 2081 - 20gO). 2. Rec1:lon 10A .l~rmit =ndlnr Sea, ion 7: A see. on 10A Permit or Sect~n ? conm~atlo~ may be required by the U.S. Fmh an~l VVlldlffe Servi~e for take of federally rated threatened or endangered ~pecies. If y~u are not ~ure the parsE or oormul*~tion Is required, contact the U.S. Fish end V~rddlJfe Service. 08/08/1~97 09:20 805-285-5867 CDFG STREAMBEDA.AKE ALTERATION NOTIFICATION GUIDEUNES PAGE: PAGE 86 Pegs FIve Please Complete the er~qoaed Notification Form ae Irmtmeteel ebeve end submit the required documents/information. along with the appropriate fee, to the following address: Callfornh Dopm'tment of Fish end Game Envirmmlental $ordoeo DMiIon 330 Golden Shore. Suite 60 Long Be.d1, Cenfo.~ 0O802 The requea~ecl Information I~ necessary for the Department to essess potential impacts of the proposed project to fish and wildlife resources. Failure to provide the requested information may delay the acceptance and proceuing of your Notification Form FG-20~3. Once your notification is received and accepted es complete. you may be contacted regarding a field inspection. If the Department determines the Information you have provided is incomplete, your notification and fee may be returned as unacceptable. You will then have to resubmit the notification and fee along with the required information, which will delay the completion of your Agreement end, therefore, may result In a delay of your project activities within the jurisdiction of Fish and Game Code 1600 at seq. Thank you for your attention and efforts in accurately completing your notification. If you have any questions or are unable to provide the required information, please contact ,the Environmental Services Division at {562) 590-5880, priorto submitting your Streambed/Lake Alteration Notification Form FG-2023. A llrt of the Department's current Environmental Specialists and their respective areas of responsibility is provided below for your convenience. Environmental Servloim Dlvieton Region 6 !:nvkonmental Rr,~.qall~t I.W..("~n'tv: R-n !~[~1o: W~rt ~f I-1R/c~~,rttlee Terri Dickcroon, Environmental Specialfat III i:;"n ._l~rnerdtno' C.~.j~nWRIv,~It~No.I_-10 Becky Jones, Environmental Specialist I!! Inv~/M,~to C-hr.,ntis= Bruce Kinney, Environmental Speolali~t !11" ! ,~. An~el,~ C;o.,ntv Leslie MecN-,ir, Enviro'nment~! SperJ=list II Rivnrsi~,~/~an hieno: I=.~ nf I-15/Trrl~ri-l r'~.rlttes Dee $. Sudduth. Environmental Specialist III ~nrrt,, P-arbAra/Vonturo Cot,~rtla- Greg Walls, Environmental Specialist III ....... .. T*lenhnne N,,m!laG (714).353-7638 (806) 285-5867 (619) 872-1129 (682) 6904836 (619) 468-9231 (805) 668-1227 08/08 10'22 1997 FROM' 805 285 5867 TO: 2 · 88/88/1997 09' 28 885-285-5867 CDFG (m.~.rfi · STREAMBED/LAKE ALTERATION NOTIFICATION GUIDELINES PAGE: 7 P~GE 07 Page b'lx · ' ~ol. P, rJ,,ct~ costing mm~ thin ~800,000 -. -- Fm: - ~ 1.1~ 2. ~r/1N!= MAJNT!=NANC~ Ar'rIVITI~ by Pubic AGenabs If Imrform4d undnr i Memamhdum ~ UmM,Ma~g (MOU) wl~ the Dep~tm~nt. PmjectsunderlNs ~d)eec~lo6~ fothQ4e v~tin~m~ urvbc lB]W_ leOlegmemefit upon whl~ publlc ~mx=le, ~xolx~e to perfrom ro tin, m~enm~e pmle4~: lb). For 21 thrm~gh 40 mdntermnc~ I~ ----- ~ - 4~ 88.00 (a). r.~ mm'e th.n 40 mMnt.,.moe I~ f~ - e e7.~ r~ 3. 1.03 APP! ~ATION= . Private {~cluding comm~rci~ ~ ~.~, titular han~t3, (C,o.t Inalude. ~132.00mm-mfund.ble ippllcmJon fee); (0). I~I/,;t~ Coltklg Illal l]1111 ~1600,O00 .--. F!~ ,,,, e 4. leO-~ ~ r'-A]';o#s for eIV~V~', 8. lf~03~IFg~6APPf k~S.T~N$ - 'TIMBER ~ COST PER APIqJCATION; (~); with I or 2 sO'earn ........... -- a)l. ~ 3 a~ 4 errearn '-..~,,--.G~,~,~,~ -- ~11. te~h 10 ar nmre f~,~- .n e~_-,~ AMt~~Al~M2ue,,m~d ohtnaee! Tr')~ leO1/l~V~AOIfe~""qTS: odCna! a~eemam. 08/08 ~0'23 '1997 FROM' 805 285 5867 TO' 2 · 88/88/1_997 89' 28 885-285-586,7 CDFG PAGE' * ~C~KTION OP 1~40V~ 01~ M~T!~f~ AND~I · OF'L&I~ ~ 01~ ~~D ~Ox-lOM. Ol M~GIN · · ._ _. ~,,.,,.~,~.. d_ ' .... - ..... · ._ ~ Asseo~'s Parma 140, 8 PAGE 88 o. rc,$,g.,ty ~ mine and address (if different from aptglmnt) _ ' b r~mm¢ole, t'o~ ~x~uom at the v . __ Polt-it' Fax Note 7671 August 18, 1997 DWP File ?-?2489 Mr. John L. Allday Lauren Development, /nc. ' 1120 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonoa, California 91730-4825 Dear Mr. AlLday: Grading Agreement Lugo Junction-Firestone Junction Transmissicn Line Right of Way No. 25B Vicinity: Maven Avenue and North of Tackstem Street, Rancho Cucamonga On June 25, 1997, we transmitted to you for execution, an original and one copy of a Grading Agreement which would give you permission to grade a portion of the above-referenced Department property for a new drainage channel. We also requested the remittance of the grading fee and a restoration bond or cash deposit. To date, we have not heard from you. In :he interim, I have been apprised that your proposed subdivision is not in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It appears that there is some concern by the State Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that grading and the accumulation of dirt (which is no~ a part of the proposed agreement) in this location would interfere with the rare habitat within the Department's property, which is part of the same alluvial fan sage scrub area. [t is my understanding that since the property is a recharge area, the Regional Water Quality Control Board is evaluating whether the development can go forward without mitigation measures. Water and Po x'cr Conservation... a way of life l I I Nta'th H.'~e Sltr¢l. ~ ~e:~. L'mWf~nia ~ailin% ~d~,: ~OX 5~ 11 I. ~ Ar~s T~I~. (21~) ~74211 Cab~ ~: ~A~A F~.' (213) .~7-3287 Mr. John b. Allday -2- Augu$~"18, 1997 Since it appears that you have not yet complied with CEQA, we regretfully rescind our offer to grant a license to Lauren Development for grading purposes. This rescission is effective until such time as all of the environmental concerns are 'addressed and mitigated. Sincerely, OR;GINA[ SJGP~£D ANNE ~. FISHER Chief Real Estate Officer be: Mallsma McKeith, Esq. Melinda Rho BDAMES & MOORE N. TItOMAS $wr~_n.4~ Vice Pr~idea~t Princlp~ Expertise Academic Credenfiall Professiousl Certificatiom Profcsfioa~l Affiliations Dm'n,~ & Nk~r~ Inc. 3602 Inland Empir~ Boulo,'ard. Suite C-110 Onm'io, California 91764 Pbonc: (909) 9~0-,1000 Fax: (909) ?$0-1379 Rem~al Investigations/F:asibility Studic~ Regulatory Interaction, Federal, State, Local Groundwatex flow and w~11 hydraulic~ Geochemical invcstigatiom/Grom~dwater Resoutc~ ]~rchoic e2~f ~ gcopi~'~c~l ~ Well demgn ard com-tm~m Conta,,,i,~nt-tmml~ modeling Financial Allocation M,:ded&n§ Litigation $uppma/Exlnrt Testimony Umwr~ity of Missouri, C.,~ology aad G¢or~aphy, B.S. 1960 UniverslB, of Ari2ona, l~st-graduatc courses in Gmund~ Hy~OlOllY, 1961 Massac~ ~ of Tcclmology, Certiticatc in Advanc~ Groundwater Hydrolog>', 1967 UniversiVy otLa Verne, Doctor ofl. aw, J.D. 1978 California, R.G. 682 Calitmma. C.E.G. 307 Calffom/a, R. GP. 757 Califor~a, C.HG. 119 California. R.E.A. 1208 Califorma St. Bar 864.43 Chegon., R.G. 288 Oregon, C.E.G. 2811 Nationwide, C.P.G. 2481 DAMES & MOORE . M.r.N. Thomas Pa§-c 2 Qual~ca6ons Mr. S~ has ov~ ~ (30) yeats r.x'penen~ in How, ~fi m~e!ing, ~ ~d ~~~ r~do~ ~' ~ly ~ ~ h~i~ ~ ~~t~ ~~~. ~s ~~ ~1~ ~~1o~ ~on of sites J~t~ ~n f~ S~d ~s, c~c~fion ~ ~e~g of ~ ~ ~ of ~n~~ ~~ at ~ ~t~, ~t ~, ~d ~~g ~ in~Ivi~ 1~ ~ ~ g~~ Mr. $heahan is call~ upon frequ~tly to provide litigation supwn to artorals in a wide varicty of cnvimnm~tal matters. He serves as exWxt witncas in his areas of spec/alizaUon, and assists m evaluating teclmical ismcs consistent with legal strategics. In addition, Mr. Shcahan assists clients and their atto~ in financial allocation of rcmediation ~'t$ among other parties. He has developed computerqmra~! groundwater flow and ~ models for this purpose, as well as other technically-based ~ for tkts Furlx~. In ~ldition to litigation-support consultation. Mr. Shgahan provides consultation in naariy all aspcc~ of dgvclopment, ~on, and evaluation of 8roundwntcr rcsourccs. $/n~ 19'/2, he ha~ concentrated on groundwatcr projects prmci~y in the western Urnted Statcs, although past project locations hav~ ranged from the B,~-ma~ to Guam, and ~wa. He has carried out groundwater irrv~stigatiom und~ local, ~c, and fi::dcr~l govcrnment agenci~ as wcll as for numerous i~ compam~, architr. c't-¢-nginccrLug firms, and attor~y clients. Along with his projects for clients, Mr. Shcahan also providcs in-house training in hydrogeology to Darngs & Moore's Wcstcm Division staff of' gnm.ngwa~ geologms, cngi~, and other acientim, and conduct~ $cn'uaar~ for tzr.,hnical writms oral commtmJc-~ iorts, and othcr a..Wect~ of pmfeacional work. lie r, erv~ as a mentor and senira' advisor to raM-level and seaior ~ professionals, providing career guidama: amt asaisting them in lyrofc~ional growth. Mr. Sheahan also prvvidc$ public-relations support services for attorneys and clients in forums ranging from small commuai~ meetings to large, multiple-asency Is:anngs. He ha~ been aeuw in profc~ional soci~, and was m=emmaen~l in ~ng a r,¢ne$ of ~eminars for expen-witne~ training of groumtw'at~r pr~cssional$ ptcae. utcd by tl~ Natiollal C_.mmad Wamr A,ssociation. He has ,~rv~ as Cnig~ Lcctur~ in Hydroggology, and in 1994 jo~ tim faclx]ty, part time, at Cah.fomia Stale Ulliv~sity, Fllllc~on, leaching Senior/Ca'aduat¢-level Hydrogeology.. In recent yeara, he has a~isted thc Pzofessional Practices Commitlee of the Califorma Suuc Board of Registration for Geologists and C~ophy~icim, and cncouraged development of a program for Ccrtification of HycLmgeologista in Cali. fomia. Thc ~ tcsting of prO~l,~-x, tive hydrog~logists was c;olllpl~ted in March 1995, and Mr. Sheahan was confimmd as one of the fn-~ Cenificd Hydrogeologists ia California. the o~y state that has ~:ch ccrtification. l DAMES & MOORE Mr. N. Thom,~ · Shcahan Page 3 Following arc a few, sclcc'tcd l~OjeCts conducted over the pas~ thirty years that gcncra/ly depict the background and experience of Mr. $hcahan as a professional hydmggologis~. Los Angeles. California. Provided consulting scrvice~ to S~thcrn California Waler Company. in evaluating the life e~cy of their wells, assessing the rclalive well cfHci~ncy, derretaining wcll- rchabilita~don needs and e~ctiv~r,s, and derdoping a plan for well rr~intcnanc~. Computerized the overall assessment ~ into a Well Optimizalion Program, incluctLug a database of all w~11 data ired programs for determining when to Molmtain View. California. Prepared an exlcnsiv~ Remedial lnvcsti~tion and Feasibility Study at the Middlcficld- Ellis Superfund site, Mou~lain View, Ca/ifomia. Prgpared a compulcr-based cost- allocat/on sy~em for financial allocation of cal~tal costs, ~ cost, and maimchance costs among fifty-twu sources from multiplc ~y r~si~nsible parties. Canyon Country. C, aJi .furnia. Conducted a s~te im, cstigalion and prepared a rc"rncdial action plan for clean-up of triakl~ne-contaminated soft and $roundwater at two l~ru~cclmics manufacturing facilitics in Los Angeles County, CaJffom/a. Remediatim~ included an reject/on-dram grotmdwat~r barricr, extractio~ w~Rs, ~-aaivatcd-car~n trcaunent faciliti~, pc'r,:uiaion poncl~. and soil excavation a~d disposal plato. Provided ~p~n w~tness sc, m~ to attorueys in dcl'cnding a?in~ ,mvironmcm~ stats. Kichla.ud. Washir~on. Dcvis~xi a groundwa~r monitoring strategy for the Basalt Waste Ir, olalion Prujecl, Kichl:~nff, Wa~hin~on, a gcologi~ r~x~itory for radioac'fi~ wasl¢. Provided ~on to othcr conmlum~s in modeling of 1ong~ com~minant trampon of groundwater containing radioacta~ waste. (Se~ Selccl~ Publications, 1982) ~ds. Cali~orrda. Irvms~igat~:l grmmdwsit'r condilions in the Crat~n-Redland~ area, S~ ~o ~, ~l~i~. indu~g ~a~on of ~ of ~rom~o~ ~d m~oro~ ~ the B~ ~ G~~ ~ i~c ~n~t-~ m~ ~ ~~ ~~ tO ~S ~ I~om ~ ~ l~ely m~, ~ to ~ o~ s~~ ~ ~m ~ El Ccntro. California. Evaluatcd multiple sitc~ in knpcnal County, California, to sel~-t optimum locations for a proposed geothermal w-a~c cti.R~sal site. C,,cophysica] surveys, test drilling, and monitoring ~ constn.trtion w~e ~mploycd, along with g~ologic mapping, to the data base needed fvr ~ite evaluatwn. Sit~ ~l~tion criteria werc de~ined, ami each site was rigorously zvaluated against the critn-ia to l~vvid¢ a s/t=-~r,l~ing matrix. uo, ~u, u~ :o:~ r,%t uu~ uou zJaa UA..e~b ~ ~UUi, ia, ~UU4,'UU4 DA ES & MOORE Mr. N. Thomas Pag~ 4 Las Vcps, Neva4~ Co~ed ~oct~m~ica! mv~ion ~f starlow aquifers in the ~ V¢sas, N~-ada, area to ~,at~at¢ ~~ comditio~s o~ a~ cxistin~ ~ wastewater coHccfion s'y~cm for the purpose of pzoviding input to t.~ dgsi~n of fiow-~s'tt~ modifications. Mourn ~harlesmn._ Nevada. Prepared a l~!w~er ~gntion and waslc-man-'!_:il~'alCnt plan for comw, tmifics in the vicitory of Mount Ctmrleston, Nevada, ~nvolving flow in ~ ~ move.~e~ of oonmmtnarl~ in the vado,~ ;~on¢, al~d fa~ ~ tralls~r~ af ~olubl~ v~ mal~. Served as Fngintmmg GeologisI for tl~ Titan It Missilc Pmj~cl, Tucson, Arizona, involving ~eat o£ de~l~hok ~on in ~ rock, dev~l~t of Santa n~rbar~ C~iforma. Pcdormed aquifer ~raluation and comput~ flow tnod~n8 of tl~ Sama barbara Groundw~r Basra, California. Desi~ impmvcrmmls to thc nnmicipal F~mndw'~c'r mppl~ sysmm mcludi~ wtlls, pumps, piping, and wate~ ~ plant. Othello. Wa~hin~lol't. D~signed and constructed a deep, multi-zoxte, ~.~!~ gtoundw~er ~ply weU fm tl~ Ci~ o~ Othello, W,,O,i,~ton, ~xl ~ testia$ and ewaluat/on of other ~ we~ls cffu:icncy and increa.~ pt'oduction. DAMES & MOORE Mr. N. Thomas Sheah~n Morro 1%-v. California. Performed a series of studies for the wate~-shcrrt community of Morro Ba~, California, to aid in short-term and mediate improvements to the municipal water supply. Assessment of subsurface outflow in the Torro Creek area, followed by test dnlhng and aquifcr tearing, disclosed substantial gro,,-dwater being lost to titc ocean. Assisted the City in filin~ water.-rights applic~on to appr~fiat¢ tmu.sed water, and develop~ prc~xas~ for w~ll-fiekl install~tiou to iaduc~ infiltl-ation of $tll~c~ walcr. Evaluated potential recharge sites to augmeat availabdity of grouadwater. Designed and implemented well rehabilitation and water treatment systems for wells with lugh manganese concentrations. _~an lost, Calffomi~ Provided expert witness s:rv'iccs 1o the Santa Clara County Walcr Disu'i~, San Jose, California, in eminent-domaia v,ocee. dings. Distria was successful in acquiring property for conslnu:fion of a sali-wa~er lrlixl~on barrier. (See Selected Publications, 1976) Los Osos. Califoraia. Prepared a Groundwater Ba_~in M~,,sgcmem l:qan for the Los Osos-Baywood park area of San Luis Obispo Camry, Calif--, including evaluation Of safc yield and rccommendatioas for resource developmeaL Also p~ a Water Quality Manag~ Pla~ for this axea which included evaluatio~ of waXcr.q, mlity impaq3 fr~m on-site wastewater dispore1 w/stems, and pr~ded ~:dutiom to the high-nitrate problem Stewart~lle. Minnesota. Provided litigation sugport ~rvicr~ to the City of Stewaxtvillc, Minne.w~ in their suit against their desiga eagineex for breach of contract in co--on with design and construcUon of a new mumcip~l w~!l. Ev-~luamd well desi~a criteria, comm~on techniques, and well devdopmeat methods teadrag to the ~,~-pumpiag pro~l~ and assreed the City~ auomey in obtaintag a settle~u f~vorabk: to the City. Santo Maria. Calffm'nia. Testified befor~ a l~nel of California D~p~rtment of Health Services experts on the issue of groundwater ptt~ection at the Casmaiis l~,ourc~ Chss-I 1~_ z_~rdous waste disposal f~cihly. This facility, one of tl~ ~ two Clas,s-I facilities in C, ali~rllia at the t~mc, was alleged to Ix: a sigttifica.ut attd imminent health ba?~_ rd to the col~nUllity. ]~'~-aluations of the groundwater monitoring data, and data anomalies wer~ used to support OlmUOns concerning migralaon of contsrninnnts Off site thxough grmmdwatcr. Torrsn~, California. Evaluated the cxtc-nt of BTXE conl~aination in groundwater caused by spills a~ a r~u~ in Torrance, Calfforaia. Mem~ds. T~. Demignarl and constructed deep and shall~ wells for groundwater p~oducti~n and waste disposal in MicJligan, Is~i_atm. V'u'gini~. '~, Hawati, and G,mm. Stn'v~ as v~ll-de~ign consultaat on m,merons wr~ls throughout the United States. DAMES & MOORE Mr. N. Thomas $heahan Page 6 San Fernando Valle~. Cali~ At ·me, I-als-fo~ ~ in 1ocaled in the Burbank Opcrabl~ Umt of the North Holly~xxt Nalional Priorilies Li~ silc (Superfired), took c~ inte~prelation ~ff site subsurface da~a from another consultant to pruvi~ site and soil-grmmdwat;-r contamination characterization in a politically and g~dogically complex envimmnent Eval~d ~rotmdwaler chem/cal dma to define the ofi-s./tt sourccs of Eroundwalcr conraminm/oa bcncaIh the me. Prcpal~ a compui~r~ video ~escntatWa of the hydrot~olo~.al charac~ri~cs in the vic/nity of the cite ;or use in communicali~ as~isled in leSOh4nE fillallc/al allocalion is,sues m'nong the other PRPs in the Operable Unit. Multi--Sile Cost-~ Lttigatio~ Pr~'idcd litigation-rapport se. mccs to several major oil COml~ni,-s. a majo~ electronics rn~nuf.~'t!lr~, ~nd a major air-~'oadition~r ~r, ~ th~ attoraeys, on separate cases seeking cost ~ from insurance c~mpames for environmental dama~e.s. Sites mcludad w'4s't~ facilities, mining, refineries, service sr, ations, r,,-,,,,e;cUiri~ faciliti~ amt ~Jtiag opc~atio~s. S~'icas prodad mciudcd: ~ pl=rmir~g and ~ identification; ~'ialopho~o mciudcd th~ followia~: ma~s~i,~ of multiple Provided consultin~ scrv/~ to allomcys rr, prcscatin~ a major scmiconductor ~rrmm_rf=cttllc~ in L[IC ~ Fl'dllCiS~;O ]~JKy ~ in COll~On with ~ M/ddlcfield-F,11/s- W~i~,-,~ Superfired (MEWS) she. Studies /nciud~ cvalua~on of organic solvent ~onianuaants in soil and gn:nmdwa~ and delineation of comaminan! plumes in a complex hydrogeological envi.-onment. Perfoma:d comi~ter modeling, water quahty ,,~.._<~s<-,e=~s. soil boria~, mouitor ~11 co~vuaio~, taxi ~l~it'cr t~',in~, ~d dc, vdo~ other sitc ial'ormatio~. M DAMES & MOORE MI'. N. Thoma_u Sttc~h~n Page 7 Employmeat Following is a summary of Mr. Shcahan's employment history presented in chronological order. Summary, U.S. Corps of Engineer.., ga._~_ c City, Missouri and Tucson, Arizona Title: Engin~g C-~ologm 1960 to 1962 Performed engineering geology and hydrogeology studies related m consinCere of ~e Titan II ,Missile Project Activities included inspection of bard-met: em;av~tions to 120 feet, surface and deep-hole mapping. materials testing well drillin~, ~ b~ eva,I,_m__non~. ~ ~zwed a~ r~l-estate cartographer. Wo~w~rd. Clyde, $berard & Assoc., Kansas City, Missouri Title: Engineering GeologisffHydrog,.-ologis~ 1962 to Served as engme~ng geologi~t/h~lrogeologist for site mvestigaUom involving construction, dovatering. groundwate~ chemisug,, and related matters. Actwi',ies includ~ drilling, well conslrucIion, surfa~ g~ophy~c~l gtrveys, materials testing, and consultation. Layne and Bow'l~r. Inc., M~rphis, Tcnnetr~-e Title: ~h Groundwater Geologist 1965 to 1969 Provid~ in-hous~ consulting services to f~een (15) ~ groundwater-development and w~11 drilling companies ttu'~ghom the Urnted Stat~ including l-Iaw~, Guam, Okinawa, and ~ Bah2m2q. Activ'iti~ included aquifcr.4c~ armlys/s, well design, mo4eling, grmmdwater-basin slufli~s, borehole gg~phys~. evaluation of ~ r~source. s, ~ ~r w~11 d~sign and constructio~ aud ~ of i~cffessional and tectmical ~ in hydrogeoloK~, amt w~11 Laynr Northern Company, Lansing, Michigan Title: Senior Grmmdwater Geologist 1969 to I972 S~rv~d as consultant to mtmidpalities and industries in grmuxtwa~ dcvcl~t, well design and consU'uction, mana~t of waim' resom'c~ g~physical survey, gronndwaIer mo~cJing, desi~a and constm~o~ tff water-treatm~ systems, site i~vesdgations for cnvironm~lal conditions, and wmc~-~stezn construction. Bt~v-n and Ca]~ll Con.~fl~g Eag~n~-~, Pasadena, CaliimUa Title: Clai~ G,0108ist 1972 to 1984 Provittcd technical management of gec~i~ aca:ivities for multiple offices. Managed various projects in connection with water supply development, waste disposal, hci~ design, env~ronmemal site assessmcn~ hydrogeology, and co--on of' water/w~tewater treatment l DAMES & MOORE .~. Mr. N. Thorr=,~ $heahan Page 8 u'catm~t-p~! design and conslruct~on, off-short gcophys/~s for outfall deign, grmmd,*mer modeling, and conjunctiv~.use studies ~or potable and reclaimed wa~er. Conduped proJeCts in California, Nevada, Oregon, W~_~hlngtrm, and Arizona. Woodward C]~c Cemultants, Santa Aria, Cal/fornta Tifie: Chief Hydrogeologist 19B4 to 1986 Served as M~ag~ of Hydrogeology Group for Western Divi~on, and Scmor Consultaut on variou~ pw.~-'ts. Acuviucs included !xroject management for soil- and groundwat~- contanunation pwjects, aqufftr-tcst ~ysis, evaluation of groundwarm basins, gcop~cal inve~ons, geoche~ studio, and groundwater well des/gn for production and monitoring. Dirtied activities of hydrogcolog~sts, geologists, and cnginecr~ 6'rvolved in waste m~mtmL v,~te~-supply devdopma~ and construction d~-wat~ projects. C~taehtv & Miller. Inc., City of Industry, California Tide: Vic~ Pr~sidem, Senior Consultant 1986 to 1990 Managed all Southern California Opcratiora for corporation, indudmg offic,~ in the C~ty of Industry and Ncwlx)n Beach. Served as Scmor Projccx Advizor and Prin~ Hydrogeologist on various projects and as Project Officgr for all ptoj~:ts performed in Southern California. Managed major projects for la~g¢, naUonal croats involving all ;t~pects of work including sitc investigations, facility des//~, re~uL~to~ intentction, and lmF~lion-r~lal~l se~dces. Major t~-~! acco~kshn~ts included preptr~on of a ~omprehe~v~ Rem~al In~tigation~ Risk As~.at, ~ F~ty Study fo~ a Sul~tnd project in No~em ~, de-~lopment of ~t__n~_ ~ management systems for wat~ che~isW/ data m a~l of ~ Calffom~ for the ~tan Wa~r District, d~ign and consuuction of groundwa~ re~__ b-lon facilities witlua the San Gabr~ Valley Sui~rfund Site amt, and dev~topm~t ~ g~cnmd~t~r resources for the aty ~ Mor~ Bay. Dames & Moor~. Inc., Multiple ~ Califorma Ottaccs Tific: Vice Pt~ident, Prin~pa~ Hydrogeologist 1990 to PresenI AS Principal Hydrogeologist in the We~em Division ~ Daae. s & Moo~c, Mr. Shesban provides senior-level c:onsu~tion to clients and senior project manageis on projec1~ involving groundwater flow and containmare wansport. He ~s scrv~i as C.~x~eric~ Unit Leader and ~ Consultant for ~eo,s~enc~s ac~,vitic~ in Southern Calfforma, as Mnn=~ng Principal-in- Charge of th~ San Gabncl Valley ~ office of Dam~s & Moore, and as Lead Cousulta~ for thc Onlario, Califoraia office. Mx. Sh~han manag~ major projccts tnv~ soil and grmmdwaxer contamination, and provides technical dixe~on to other semor prokssionals on /DAMES & MOORE Mr. N. Thomas Page 9 Military Expcricace um,t~t Sta~ Air Fozc~ 0vIOANG. AZANG, USAYR) Raz~ SN/Dcsig.' Service Dates: Airman First Class, 2'7540863/20650 Dece~r 19.% - D~-mb~ 1962 Air Photo Iz~nigea~, Air Operations lz~lhgence, and Air PllOtO InterprelaLiou Spcciahst. Servel as air plmto inlerptealioil specialist at TacLiatl RecOlIiIaiS,Sarlc~ 5qlja~0n level. Performed imtial interpretat~{m of vertical aad o~liqu¢ ~ir photos fi'um "wet" ~gativ~ W pwvid~ information foz intelligeace planning. 1%rformed ~temoscopic a~cl photogram~ric ~valuahon of air photoa, calculated six~, dimensions, and deta~ 0t' faO~itie~ az~d surfac~ features. ldentih~ extuipmcnt and cazlculated ratcs of ~, ~waluatcd photogeology. of soil anti rock condiLitms, and rapped vegetation in invesnsation areas. Special letvice wi:h ~ tullIS for Pira: Cone H War Gzmcs. Uaijad States Nw,-y CUSN'R, Mmmphis, Tczm~)se~) ILaak. SN/Desig.: Scm~ Dates: Licut~t J. G., 693053/163:~ April 1%5 -F:bm,~' l~g Special Du~' late, LLigmac,¢. Screcd with special-~ inteUi&ence unit cozutucl~g ~'aluafians of (tomestic azal foreign sites. D~lopc~ atratcgic informauon, prepared ir, mllig, eacc and provided afrocreation to other unitz of Office of Naval !ntcll/ge. nc~. Pmpar~ ~ from air photos, conduc~l a~xab, s¢s ~d evaluation~ of coastal and ~ wato'wayr,, evaluated beach conditions, assessrA pu~itkal cbara~-rist~ of foreign ~es, a~d prmacled inpm to matesxc dcfc~e. ae~vities. l DAMES & MOORE Mr. N. Thomas Sl~han Page 1o Publications Following azc a ~ of tile tmblicatio~ aulborcd or cg,-auihorad by Mr. $1mahan wtiich appc4u~ m national poblica~o~s of various professional soentific orli~ 'uzafions. Shealan, N.T., 1')6~. Derre'mining, Tr'~nmaissibiliiy irom C'htclic Dischar~. Ground Water, Journal Technical 13~sio~, NGWA. Sheatha~ N.T., 196'7. A Non-Crraphical Mc~od of D~ .m'm._inin~t u and WCu). Grou,ud Water. $ournal TcctmJcal Division, NGWA. Shcahan, N.T., 1971.' Tv/ve-Cswve Solh'tiot~ of Step-Drawdown lest. Gro, md Wat~'. 3ottmal Technical Division, NGWA. Shcaha~ N,T., 19'/2. TI~ Value of Flolc Cahl;)eli,n£ in Groundw_aler Exl)10rarion and W_~_~ Comayu~. iov.. ~s of Annual Meeting, ~4ichi~ Set:tion~ AWWA. Shenhnn: N.T., 19'76. lnicction/Ex-wat~on Well Sv.,aem - A Unim!9 Seaw'ater-lntrusimi l~tttjer. Proceedings Third National Groundwater Quality Symposium, U.S. Envimnmcmal Protectiota Ag¢,n~, Grotrod Warn, Journsl Technical Division, NGWA. Shcahaa, N.T.. 1980. Lek"'al Liability As.scciut~ with Reclamation. Ground Water Pollution aud flxe U.S. ]udicim-y Syslcm, Proceedings FiRb National ~ Q~lflity Sympovdtmt, U.S. Environmental Protccfion Agemy, C-'round Water. Iournal Tecl'~caJ Dix4sion, NGWA. Leonhart. L.S.. Sl~:~hAn~ N.T., DeLuca, F.A., and West, L.M., 1982. l)evising a Gto-n~ater Monitoring S. tratcgy for a C. moloKic l~positorv for l~"'!iOilc'tiv~ Wa,s'le. Grotrod Water Monitoring Review. NGWA. Spellman, 1LR., Sheahan N.T., Shitmort R.J., Slellat J.E., and Maycd& S.H., 1984. Trenching ant! Soil Dating nf Iloloc~c Fsultinx for a Water FiltrlltiOtl Pla,nt si~. Svlmar, _California_. Bulletin of the A,sscciation of Fngi,,eering Geologists, Vol. XXk. No. I, Februm'y. Sh~h~n N.T.. ~ud I.G. Zukin, 1993..l)ev~0ping St~rinx W~ Under 1~ ~ ~A R~. ~ ~f~~ ~1~ a ~bh~fion of the ~~ ~c of ~~ ~o~ Vol~ 30, Num~ 8. J~y. Shcahan, N.T., 1993. ~ Envbootnenv~ Connlltant: A Toolbox for the ^ttorncy. The Professional Geoiogi.,a., a Public,on of thr Amcncan Institute of Professional Geologim, Volume 3o, Number 1o, September. Sheal~,n. N.T., and J. Minneci 1996. O~imi2fine Waler WcU Prod~ avd Operal~' Cost._s. WATY, R/~ngineermg & Mmmgemera, a Public, ion of Scramon GiUcttc ¢ommumeations, Inc., May.. Once again, the City provided defective notice. In this instance the third page of the proposed resolution was for a different project and therefore the public was unaware of what is being voted on. On July 9, 1997, the Planning Staff amended the resolution without recirculation or advising persons at the hearing. See letter from Dan James. The engineering issues were critical to the decision making of the planning commission. LOb. 5 & L0~ 2;3-588-3466 Page 7/8 Joe 630 Aug.lg Tue 20:16 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 93-13 - E&R RANCHO PACIFIC, INC;. Augult 13. Pi~ 3 2) 3} GrafflU ahall be removed wllhln 72 hot·to. 1} The project le Iooeted adJecent le and ~ lender.4ping. ~v~lla~ of a MetmlaO#tan Wat~ Di~fict lea·merit .~1 the developer I~m ~ wdttm cmnmenl~ fom~ Melmeel~n Wmer ~ (mpy on the I~a~.mmae ¢ any building 2) The develope,' ~haJl prooeec · lel line a ~~ ~ ~ C~~ ~~ N: ~~1-10) ~ ~ ~g N: ~1-1~). ~ ~ i~ ~p~ ~1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3} A ~lned cor~ent anti w~lv~r form ta jo~ end/or fo~m t~e ·aP~l~tate ~ .he t_~ng C~.t~c~ md be fled w~ me Cay Encoder ~ t~ ieauan~e of buii<~ng pe~m~. Form·than ~ ahall be ~ e. The Se~;m~ to th~ Commission ~ ma~lty Io the ·doptlo~ of thi~ Re~iuam~. APPI~VED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 1~7. PLANNING COMMItION OF THE C. JTY OF RANCHO GUC. MIiIONGA lilY: E. I;)lvffi BezXer. Chairman ATTEST; -Brl~ Bullet, r:m~,~ lravel Information ervice December 1, 1995 Mr. J. Robert Lundy, PH. D. Executive Director Rancho Cucamonga Visitors Center / Thomas Winery Plaza 7965 Vineyard Ave., Suite F5 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. J. Robert Lundy, PH. D. Thank you for your kindness in promptly furnishing us with your latest informations. I'm sure that these materials will be quite helpful in introducing your company to our Japanese, and clients visiting can get familiar regarding you and America before they depart Japan. I would like to display your informations at our showroom. I look forward to developing this relationship to the mutual benefit of our organizations. Many things are changing everyday in the areas that we cannot see so therefore your updated information is always valuable to us and our clients. Once again, I highly appreciate your support and assistance in providing us with your various informations and hope you'll continue to favor us with your generous support. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Best regards, Hiroshi Omshi Director Travel Information Service 1-3-7 KOUJIMACH! CHIYODAKU TOKYO JAPAN TEL 03-3222-3290 FAX03-3222-8272 '.q3 I0/01' !6'02 ~'~03 3341 7301. Fax Transmittal from Fax Number: (03)3341-7301 page I of ,! Cal fern ia State Office of l'tc p r e s c n t a t i v e O f f i c e, Tour ism Japan Date: 'I:o: Route 66 Territory ¥isitors Bureau Fax: 310-474-B962 From: Cord Cartlidge; Mktg. Re: l,WO~ATION WANTF. i] Wc have been getting many requests for Route 66 information since we opened'our office here. in Tokyo about 2 months ago. Could you please send over X.$.i.P. any pamphlets, hrochers, ponters, events calender, posters. anti slides that you have on your area. ]'hank you rely much and I a, ait your rep!.,~ ,I ,'/=,,,, ,., l'.S. Ptc;tse send materials to the above address. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 14, 1997 Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst Public Safety Subcommittee Proposed Narcotic Offender Eviction Referral Ordinance For your information, attached is supplemental information for the Wednesday, August 20, 1997 City Council Meeting, regarding Item No. l, under Council Business, entitled, "Consideration of an Ordinance Referencing Narcotic Offender Eviction Referrals." James L. Markman .-Lndrew V. Arczvnski Ralph D. Hanson Wrlliam P. Curtey, III Marsha G. Slough D. Craag Fox Pamela P. King Daren E. Hengesbach Bovd L. Hill Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curley & Slough A Professional Corporation Attorneys At Law Number One Civic Center Circle P.O. Box 1059 Brea, Califorma 92822-1059 (714)990-0901 * (562)691-3811 9113 Foothill Boulevard Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Calfforma 91730 (909) 980-2742 ° (909) 381-0218 Fax: (714)990-6230 Fax: (909)948-9411 MEMORANDUM TO' From: Lieutenant Henry, Assistant Chief of Police, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department D. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney ~ Date: July 21, 1997 Re: Narcotics offender eviction ordinance Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed documents you have forwarded, which include a document apparently issued by Los Angeles Police Department Office of Operations, dated April 7, 1997, entitled "NOTICE NO. 13," and a draft 1995 Assembly Bill No. AB738. You also provided the names of two Los Angeles Deputy City Attorneys having knowledge of the City of Los Angeles narcotic offender eviction process. Our comments with respect to those documents and that program follow. First, we researched the status of 1995 Assembly Bill AB738 and determined that it was never enacted into law. That bill would have amended Section 1946 of the Civil Code, and would have reduced the normal thirty day eviction notice to a real property tenant, to three days, where the landlord has a good faith belief that such tenant is engaging in the unlawful sale or use of controlled substances. In any event, the City of Los Angeles proceeded to add Section 47.50 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code which, among other things, prohibits a landlord from causing or permining a rented premises "to be used or maintained for any illegal drug activity, drug-related nuisance or drug-related crime" (as those terms are defined in the ordinance), or to cause or permit a tenant to use or occupy rented property "if the tenant commits, permits, maintains or is involved in any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius from the Memorandum to: Lieutenant Henry, July 21, 1997 Page Two boundary line of the premises." Section 47.50 further provides a landlord with authority to evict and recover possession of rented property when either the tenant "is committing or permitting to exist any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius fi'om the boundary line of the premise," or when the tenant "has been convicted of a crime wherein the underlying offense involves illegal drug activity; drug-related nuisance activity or a gang-related crime on the premises." A copy of Section 47.50 is attached hereto for your ease of reference. Section 47.50 applies to virtually every form of residential dwelling, including apartments, guest rooms in residences, single family residences, .duplexes, condominiums and mobilehomes. Although not stated in the ordinance, a violation appears to be punishable as a misdemeanor. Also, civil remedies are set forth permitting the City Attorney to file an action for injunctive relief in order to compel a landlord to comply with provisions of the ordinance. We envision such an injunctive action as probably including an order of a court requiting the landlord to evict a tenant involved in drug or gang-related activities, as more fully set forth in the ordinance. We discussed this ordinance with a deputy city attorney for the City of Los Angeles who was involved in its preparation. She was unable to cite any particular statute as providing express authority for the adoption of Section 47.50. Nevertheless, it is the City Attorney' s Office's opinion that it is supportable, at least in part, based upon authority granted to cities under Health and Safety Code Section 11570. That section states: "Every building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any controlled substance, precursor, or analog specified in this position, in every building or place wherein or upon which those acts take place, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance." Section 11571 provides: "Whenever there is reason to believe that such a nuisance is kept, maintained, or exists in any county, the district attorney of the county, in the name of the people may, or the city attorney of any incorporated city or of any city and county, or any citizen of the state resident in the county, in his or her own name, may, maintain an action to abate and prevent the nuisance and perpetually to enjoin the person conducting or maintaining it, and the owner, lessee, or agent of Memorandum to: Lieutenant Henry July 21, 1997 Page Three the building or place, in or upon which the nuisance exists, from directly or indirectly maintaining or permitting the nuisance." Provisions similar to those set forth in Section 11570 appear in the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, (Penal Code Section 186.20, et seq.) which is aimed at properties utilized in connection with gang-related crime. While we feel that the City of Los Angeles is to be commended for taking a proactive stance with respect to the use of rental properties in connection with narcotics and gang-related activities, we do have some concern as to the validity of Section 47.50, if judicially challenged. Our first concern has to do with the ordinance purporting to give landlords legal authority to evict tenants under circumstances not specifically addressed in state landlord/tenant law. That was the apparent thrust of Assembly Bill 738 which, as noted, was not enacted. If challenged, a court could find that this portion of the Los Angeles ordinance is preempted by state law if the court were to also find that the State has so thoroughly acted with respect to circumstances under which tenants may be evicted so as to displace and preclude any local regulation of those matters. On the other hand, an argument can be made that Health and Safety Code Section 11570 provides cities with broad authority to enact laws which specifically address the use of property in connection with unlawful drug-related activities. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Section 11570, et seq., which suggests that a landlord may be held criminally liable for permitting the rented property to be used in such fashion. Our second concern also relates to preemption by state laws and constitutional due process requirements. As stated, Los Angeles Municipal Code Section ' 47.50 would impose a criminal penalty upon a landlord who permits rented property to be utilized in connection with any illegal drug or gang-related activity or crime. This prohibition is not limited to the property, but extends to a 1000 foot radius therefrom. First, due process requires that a landlord know of the existence of criminal activity by a tenant before being subject to prosecution. There is nothing in the Los Angeles ordinance providing or requiring that the landlord know of the drug or gang-related activity, before prosecution may occur. We think, under any circumstances, that it would be necessary to establish that a landlord either knows, or should know based upon objective facts, that such activities are occurring, before criminal liability may attach. Secondarily, state narcotic laws are comprehensive in their scope. Again, a court could find a local regulation imposing criminal liability on a landlord for not preventing drug and gang related criminal activities by tenants to either be beyond the scope of such local agency's police power or to be preempted by state narcotic statutes. On the other hand, we believe a cognizable argument could be made that due to the magnitude of the problem, including the resulting deterioration of multi-family residential Memorandum to: Lieutenant Henry July 21, 1997 Page Four areas due to illegal drug and gang related activities, a city is within its police power to legislate in order to supplement areas of state law which do not directly regulate matters covered by the substance of the local ordinance. In summary, we believe that the Los Angeles approach to dealing with problems arising from the drug and gang related use of rental properties, is worthy of further consideration. At this time, however, we are unaware of any express state authority authorizing the approach taken by Los Angeles.' We believe that such an ordinance would stand the greatest chance of validation if a city were to make findings clearly establishing the magnitude of the problem and the inability of existing state laws to address those problems, so as to support such city's use of its police power in the manner utilized by Los Angeles. In any circumstances, Health and Safety Code Section 11570, et seq., together with the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, provides cities with authority to civilly prosecute landlords who permit illegal drug and gang related activities to occur upon their rented properties. This concludes our review of this matter. Should you care to discuss any aspect of this memorandum at greater length, do not hesitate to contact this office. DCF:ljl L\RC\MHENRY~RC 1.3.3 Transmitted via facsimile and mail Enclosure ' NC C i ' ¥ C U C A ,~ 0 ,S E C U ©F NG. ,A ro ~ July 15, 1997 VIA FAX AND U.S. MA'IL Lt. Joe Henry Rancho Cucamonga Police Department 10510 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: L.A. tl~iqin~-e Requiri~~ln~! tp Pvi,--t t;:rimirla[I. Dear LI. Henry: We have had an opportunity to review not only the L.A. ordinance regarding eviction of narcotics offenders but other law dealing with ordinances and/or statutes wtaich compel a landlord to take action as a result of criminal violations cornmiffed at the pr3pe~ty, Basically, we have discovered very little and it does not appear that these matters have been addressed directly by the courts as cf this time. In 1993 in the case entitled C'.it, y of Minne-~!t;)nli-~ v. Fisher, 504 NW 2nd 520, the City brought a nuisance action against lancttorcls and tenants in orelet to dose a sauna wt~ere activities resulted ir numerous convictions on charges of prostitution. The court found that procedural due process rights of the landlords and tenants were satisfied by the notice of the convictions, making the premises a public nuisance and by the heanng to challenge whether those convictions occurred on tt~e property, In the case of 7~mi~a v. Hn!Jsir~ A,,thnrity (1995)41 Cal. App. 4th 82, the Court of Appeal identified facts sufficient to support a claim that a ~'dangerous condition" existed which included inaclequate security measures. The circumstances involved extensive local drug dealing at the housing authonty as well as the fact that the plaintiffs had become targets of hostility as a result of their hawrig reported criminal activity to the appropriate authority. Civic C~nt~w Or. re ,, P.O Box B0? · I~c3ncr, c Cucomon,.Do. Cn, 91729 · (c~'9) 477-271C · FAX (9g9; 477-28~7 ,,~-A~. Lt, Joe Henry Rancho Cucarncnga Police Department July 'I 5. 1997 Generally soeaking, landlords owe a duty to tenants an(3 patrons to provide reasonable securiW measures to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely 'to occur in the absence of suctl precautionary measures. This included a duty to exercise reasonable care to discover wilether criminal acts are being, or likely to be, committed on the landlords property. Sharon P. ¥. Arm~n Ltd. (1997) 97 DAR 6953. ~.dditionally, under negligence theories, part of the assessment would include the expense and social impact of what the imoosition of a duty would require. With all that in mind it appears that a strong argument supporting tt~e L.A. ordinance could be set forth art!culating issues of nuisance as well as dangerous conditions. The application of this law would apply to Doth single as well as multip{e family dwe{lings and would require putting the landlord on notice of the convictions before being able to impose any duty upon the landlord. Obviously since this is unchartered waters ~t is somewhat difficult to speculate as to the reaction of the courts, but based upon the above cited cases I submit there is a fairly optimistic 13otentiai of prevailing I hope this responds to your inquiries if you need to discuss this matter in greater detail please don't hesitate to call. Very truly yours, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MARTIN J.'~I~EI~ / City Prosecutor MJM/pw:mar rc:ordina'~ce RlOl IARL')~, WAT30N & ATTORN!='Y'S AT I ~L~N ~M DeW = ~M ~REA, GA~O~ 92~-IC~9 ~YOlq O. OUM! FA~IM~LE (714) ~W. TRA~RMIR~N ~YER 'rhc i~formadon containcd in this £acsimilc m¢ssa&¢ is intcnde, d only for ~e CONFIDENTIAL u~o vfd~ desi~ed addrests named ~1ow. The info.salon ~amm~ed ~s subjec~ to ~e a~o~ey-client privilege ancot [cprc~cnts ~nfid~ndal ar~rncy work pr~uct, If YOU arc not d~c dcsi~na~ add~'t~c aam~d below or the au~oriz~ agent restsibis for ~livet~g it m ~e desi~ated addrests, you recei~d ~ du~m.c.t dzs'uu~ i.advci ~nt ci~ur ~.d ~.y ~u~Li:~J' ~vi~w, d;~zzib~aLiv., db~ibudu. u~ ~upyin~ u~ thi~ communication by 7cu or ~yone else is s~ictly Fohibited, 1~ YOU R~CEIVED ~iS COMMUNICATION ~ ERROR, ~[ASE ~OTI~ US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEeHONING THE $E~ER NAMED BELOW AT ~14) ~901 AND RETU~ THE ORIGINAL OF THIS COMMUNICATIO~ TO US BY ~!L AT THE ABOVE ADD~. ~ yo~. TO: Diane O'Neal AT: City of Rancho CucamonBa TELECOPIER NUMBER: 909 //-f 77-2846 RE: The Pines Hobtle Home Park Aeendment FROM: Jarass L. Marlman DATE: 8-15-97 NUMBI~R OF PAGES: (including this cover page) ]~M~$: Enc[oaed ie the Amendment to the Place Mobile Holne PaLk Ai~;LVVt. VU.L · Hard copy to follow. IF THERE SHOULD BE A PROBLEM, CONTACT: TRANS M ITTER: annoy AMEND.MENT NO, I TO "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE OWNER OF THE PINES MOBILE HOME PARK FOR AN ANNUAL MAXIMUM RENT ADJUSTMENT." The City of Rancho Cucamonga and The Pines Mobile Home Park ("Pin,cs" hcreiaa£teO I~e~eby amel~d tl~ abovc-~'~£c~'~uc~d agrccmt:nt a~ I'011vw~: Paragraph 4 of said agreement hereby is amended to read as "4. Term. The Term of ~his Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced February 6, 1992, and shall end at 11:59 o.m. on February 5, 2002." 2. The par~ies agree that when negotiations commence to further ex~¢nd and/or modify said agreement, the parties will consider including additional space rents in said agreement which ~ceep pace v~Rh overall local housing costs and, in that regard, will consider including the tbllowing provision in said agreement: "11ouslng Cost Index: An additional increase will occur on [the date of the last increase before the Accord Extension expires], based on the following: The percentage increase in the Housing Cost Component of lhe Consumer Price Index, All [Yrban Consumers for l.os Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside ("Rm~.~in£ Costs") between December [the year before the Accord Extension began] and November' [the ycal' bel'ul'c the A~;uid E.,tleu~iun r~tpirc~], minu~ th~ total of the. Maximum Allowable Rent Adjustments as calculated in [the Paragraph which permits 100% of the CPI increase with a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8%] of the Accord for the previous five (5) years." No. I as of IN WITNESS WHEREO?, the parties have entered into this Amendment ~. 1997. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation By: · . William Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk Approved as to form: James I,. Markman, City Attorney OWNER P~_..S MOBILE HOME PARK By: .. I~RC~I:)INESMI IP 1,.$ 2 £A ~SIMIL £ GO V~ SHEET JR ENTERPRISES 69-7~1 Lincoln Avenue, $uit~ A · 'Buena Park, California 90~20 (714) $28-2838 Fsx: (7!4) 89.8.0261 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION AUG 1 3 1991' SPECIAL £NHT£UGTION$~ COh~ENTS OR I~'~t~K5'.' Thank you. This Comaunication i~ £ntandmd only for the person to whom it i~ addressed, Aug,.,~ 12, 1997 J,I; ENTERPRISES 8971 Ltncoln Avenue, B~ite A (7t4) $211-2838 Fax; ~7t¢) 828-0211! James Markman City Attorney City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o RiCan:Is, Watson, & Gersl~on P.O. Box 1059 Brae, CA 92822-1059 Re: Pines Mobile Country Club Dear Mr. Markman: Thank you for your assistance in understanding the City'S position regarding the Mobile Home Park AccorU. !~a~ed os3 our discussions, wc have concluded that a ~t3nable comoromise could be achieved as follows: JR Enterprises, the owners of Pines Mobile Countr~ Club, would be willing tO sign the Accord E~cnoion (which expires in Febrt,~ry ?002) if tile City Council agrees to negotiate with us to modify any future extensions to allow space rents to increase in o~cr to keep pace with overall local hm~sing costs. To accomplish such a modification, we we,ld .,,tJggeSt the following language to be included in future Accord Extensions: Housing Cost Index: An additional increase will occur on [the date of the last increase befoce the Ac~on"l I=xtension expires], based on the following: The pementage increase in tile Housing Cost Component of tl~e Consumer Price Index. All Urban Consumers for [.ns AngeleS, Anaheim. Riverside ("Housing Costs") between December [the year before the Accord Extenslor, began] and November [the year before tile Accon:l Extension expires]. minus tile total of tile Maximum Allowable Rent Adjustments as calculated in [tile Paragraph whici'. petmits 100% of the CPI Increase with a minimum u¢ 3% ar, d a maximum of 8%] of Itte Acco~l for the previous five (5) years. We are confident that you share our goal of w~rking together to make the Pines an even better place to live. Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely yours, fiI: Ig:c:'~w~rclfli~w~ acco~l T H E A N C HO C / y , C U C A H 0 N G A August 15, 1997 Ms. Marilyn Mohr JR Enterprises 6971 Lincoln Avenue, Suite A Buena Park, California 90620 Dear Marilyn: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of August 14, 1997 regarding receipt of your letter dated August 12, 1997 (faxed to me August 13, 1997) to James. L. Markman agreeing to the 5-year Accord Extension with the proviso the City consider using the Housing Index when the 5-year Extension expires in the year 2002. As we discussed, Mr. Markman will draft language according to the information you faxed to us, and it will be presented to the City Council at their August 20, 1997 meeting. Also as we discussed, I will call you, Marilyn, Thursday, August 21, 1997, in the morning to confirm the City Council approved the extension language. I look forward to meeting you and if you have any questions, please call me. Management Analyst H co: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director James L. Markman, City Attorney Mayor William J, Alexander Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams JacX ,~ AICP, City Manager k.,,~ m, Councilmember Paul Biane Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councilmember James V, Curatolo 10500 CL/~c L..enter Drive · P.O. Box 807 * Ranclqo Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 4,,,-.-'849 LEVEE FACT SHEET DR 97-11; Tentative Tract 14771 (8/13/97) STATEMENT: The levee no longer offers protection from flooding from the 2,374 acre Deer Creek Watershed, that purpose now being served by the Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin constructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1983. Runoff from the 125 acres between the debris basin and Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below) will be intercepted by the on-site storm channel which will be constructed by Lauren Development before the levee is removed. The County Flood Control District removed their easement in 1986 signifying that the leveewas no longer needed to flood control. In 1990 the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Corps of Engineers and the County Flood Control District all approved a revision to federal flood insurance maps which removed the flood plain designation from the subject property, regardless of the removal of the levee. The City and the County Flood Control District permitted the grading of a 200' wide opening in the levee in 1989, a gap which remains today and through which waters would flow from the 125 acres parcel to the north of Haven View Estates if a 100 year storm was to occur before the completion of Lauren Development's on-site storm channel. The subject property and all of Haven View Estates will be more safe after construction of this project than they are now, not less safe as C.U.R.E. contends. A. 1938 - Earliest Photos of Levee: The earliest photos showing the Deer Creek Interception Levee are from 1938.1 Research to date has been unable to resolve when or by whom the' levee was originally built, however it is doubtful that the levee was designed or constructed to today's standards for 100 year storm protection. B. 1941 - Flood Control Easement Recorded Over the Subject Property: In 1941, an "Easement for Flood Control and Water Conservation" in favor of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District was recorded over properties north and east of the levee, including the subject property. Co 1969 - Levee Overflows Flooding Area of Haven View Estates: Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, the levee was not sufficient to hold back the 1969 storm, which occurred prior to construction of the Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin. The levee did not protect the eastern portion of what is now Haven View Estates and this area was therefore flooded as a result of the storms of January 1969.3 The 1969 storms were generally considered to be closer to a 50 year event than a 100 year event.4 The combination of the Deer Creek Debris Basin, the Deer Creek Channel and the Lauren Development local storm drain are what is necessary to protect these areas. Footnote References ~ Photos dated July 4, 1938 taken by the United States Department of Agriculture and obtained from the archives of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Early maps from 1953 obtained from the United States Geologic Service also show the levee. 2 Instrument # 1487 pa~e 139 of records of S.B. County recorded August 2, ! 94 !. 3 Overflow Limits, Storm of January, 1969 Southwest Portion, prepared by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated May, 1969 4 Mr. Michael Fox, Chief, Water Resources Division, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Telcon, August 4, 1997. D. 1983 - Development of Haven View Estates Approved: Tentative Tract 12332 (the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) was approved in May of 1983.5 Although the Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin were in the process of being completed, the subject property was not subdivided at this time because the County Flood Control District still owned the flood control easement over the subject property. However a conceptual residential layout was prepared for the subject property and included on the approved tentative tract map. Testimony to the Planning Commission in 1983 indicated that the ultimate disposition of the subject property was unknown because "the Flood Control District has not yet made up its mind" about whether it was needed for flood control 6 purposes. E. 1983 - Deer Creek Facilities Constructed: In June of 1983 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin.7 Fo 1983 - Drainage Report Refers to Levee: The Drainage Report submitted to the city in March of 1983 for Tentative Tract 12332.(the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) indicated that "With the Corps of Engineers' Deer Creek Dam and Channel and Hillside Basin and Channel in place, the site [T.T. 12332] is well protected against offsite flows." "Of the approximately 190 acres below the Deer Creek Dam, about 160 acres are intercepted by either the Hillside system [or] the Flood Control District's existing Deer Creek Reception Levee." 8 G. 1984 to 1986 - Flood Control Easement Abandoned by the County: In 1984, the owner of the subject property requested that the Flood Control District investigate relinquishment of the flood control easement because of his desire to develop the property.° After determining that the levee was no longer needed for flood control purposes, the Flood Control District recommended to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors that the easement be relinquished. l0 In January of 1986, the County Board of Supervisors abandoned their easement over the property. ~ As a part of this abandonment, the Flood Control District reserved n._~o rights to maintain or preserve the levee. The owner of the property was required to pay -- and did in fact pay -- San Bernardino County for the value of the development rights to this property in exchange for the County's removal of the ~2 development restricting easement. Footnote References ~ Tentative Tract 12332 was originally approved May I 1, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66); and amendments or extensions were approved on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66A); February 12, 1986 (Planning Commission Resolution 86-23); November 10, 1987 (Planning Commission Resolution 87-196); January 27, 1988 (Planning Commission Resolution 88-53); June 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January ! 1, 1989 (Planning Commission Resolution 89-03). ~' Plannin~ Commission Minutes, May ! I, 1983. 7 Mr. Bob Hall, Chief of Design Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Telcon, 7/28/97. The Deer Creek Channel (North Half) and Deer Creek Debris Basin were officially completed in June, 1983. 8 Drainage Reoort, Tract 12332 included with Initial Study dated March 18, 1983. Letter from Associated Engineers to S.B.Co. Flood Control District, January 9, 1984. ~0 Letter to San Bernardino County Board of Sul~ervisors from Flood Control District dated October 22, 1984. Instrument//86-0 ! 4725 recorded January 20, 1986. Ho 1988 - Development Restrictions on Adjacent Property Also Lifted: Prior to 1988, the Flood Control District owned in fee the land north of the subject property, and an easement over the adjacent property for power line purposes was in place in favor of the Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light. This easement restricted the Bureau's use of the adjacent property due to the potential flooding. In 1988, the Flood Control District sold the adjacent property in fee to the City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, and in doing so, retained no easements or other reservations for flood control purposes over the use of this property, which would been have done ~3 if this property was at all necessary for flood control purposes. 1988 - Approved Hydrology Study Refers to Removal of Levee: The Hydrology Study prepared in 1988 by Associated Engineers for Tract 12332-2 (Phase II of Haven View Estates)clearly anticipated the ultimate removal of the levee. The report stated that "before construction of the [Deer Creek] Basin the earth levee was the only barrier to flows from the north." "For Phase II development of Tract 12332 the levee will remain in place, thus acting as a natural barrier to flows offsite. In the future when the remainder parcel [the subject property] is to be added, and the levee removed, more recent topo will be available and mitigating measures can be analyzed at that time to convey flows from the north." "The existing levee [is] more than adequate [to protect tract 12332-2 from the small remaining tributary area to the north]." ~4 1989 - Major Breach in Levee Approved by the City, the Homeowners Association and the County Flood Control District: Since 1989, the existing levee has been incapable of holding major storm runoff generated from the area extending from the Deer Creek Channel to the subject property because a major breach in the levee of over 200 feet in width was graded through it to provide an easterly emergency access road for Haven View Estates.15 The requirement for this access road was a condition of approval of Tract 12332-2 which was imposed by the City Council at the urging of the adjacent homeowner's association. 16 The gradinc of this hole in the levee was approved by the County Flood Control District.~7 The fact that the city, HOA and Flood Control District have all allowed violations of the levee provides compe!!in~, evidence that the need for the levee has !on~, since passed. Continued maintenance of this road through the levee is a requirement of the adjacent homeowners association CC&Rs.~8 Despite this requirement for ~2 Mr. Ken Williams, Right-of-Way Division, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Telcon July 24, 1997. The payment which Mr. Laband made to the county for development rights was approximately $18,000. ~3 Mr. Ken Williams, San Bernardino County Flood Control District Right-of-Way Division, Teicon 7/24/97. 14 Hydrolo~y Study in the City of Rancho Cucamon~a, Tract 12332 prepared by Associated Engineers, dated August, 1988 (cover undated, however data inside report reflects this date). (Underlinin~ added to cited quotes.) ~5 The breach in the levee graded for the emergency access road is approximately 210' wide at the top and 80' wide at the bottom. Prior to the breach, the levee in this location ranged from 10' to 27' high. 16 See City Council Resolution 88-344 dated June 2, 1988 (approving, on appeal, an extension of time to record Tract 12332-2) requiring the easterly emergency access road. ~7 San Bernardino County Flood Control District Permit No, P-188104 approved on December 6, 1988 an emergency access road through the levee.. ~g Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for Rancho Cucamon~a V - Haven View Estates recorded June 13, 1990 (doc# 90-23 ! 127). continued maintenance, the homeowners association ceased maintenance of the access road through the levee in 1996.~9 The hole in the levee remains however, and any major storm runoff today would freely flow through this opening causing damage to the properties below. Ke 1990 - A Second Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prepared in 1990 by Associated Engineers also clearly anticipated removal of the levee. This report stated: "The tributary area to the north [of the subject property] encompasses approximately 122 acres." "This area is bounded on the north by the Deer Canyon Debris Basin, on the east by the Deer Creek Channel and on the west by an existing earth levee. [This] existing levee runs along the site south border, cutting off access to the second phase [Tract 12332-2]. Therefore, the levee will be removed and flows from the north will be diverted inside the projects north boundary and empty to the east." 20 Lo 1990- T.T. 14771, Grading of Property and Removal of Levee Approved: In November of 1990, the city approved Tentative Tract 14771, the subject property. This approval included a Conceptual Grading Plan which clearly indicated the entire property would be graded, including the removal of the levee.2~ A variance was also granted at this time due to the unusual requirement that the local drainage channel be constructed on site.22 Prior to these approvals, three Neighborhood Meetings and two Planning Commission Public Hearings were held, and recommendations for approval were received by the city's Design Review, Technical Review and Grading Committees.23 All required findings, including those dealing with the safety of properties in the vicinity, were made. The Haven View Estates Homeowners Association recommended approval of the development of the property.24 The City Engineering Department reviewed the tentative plans for the drainage channel, and a number of conditions were imposed to insure that the channel would be properly designed, that adequate safeguards would be in place when the levee was removed, and that the site's protection from flooding would first be proven to the federal government. These conditions included: 25 · The channel design shall be justified by a final drainage study approved by the City Engineer. Footnote References ~9 Letter from Rancho Cucamone:a Fire Protection District dated June 25, 1997 indicates that in 1996 the permit was repealed after outstanding permit fees were paid in full by the adjacent homeowners association. 20 Drainage Re!~ort in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tract 14771 prepared by Associated Engineers, January 1, 1990 (Underlining added to cited ~luotes.) "~ Tentative Tract 14771 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution 90-138). A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved at that time. Removal of the levee was an integral part of the plans for this property. 22 Variance 90-08 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution 90-139). 23 Staff Rei~ort to Planning Commission dated 11 / ! 4/90. 24 Letter from Bruce Ann Hahn, President (then and currently) of the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association, recommending approval of Tentative Tract 14771, dated November 12, 1990. 25 Engineering Division Conditions #1-4. Mo Ne Oo Po · The channel shall be designed to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. · The developer shall prepare reports, plans, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations relating to flood plain boundaries and shall have the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone AO designation removed from the project area by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The drainage channel along the north project boundary shall be operational prior to removal of the existing levee. 1991 - A Third Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prepared in 1991 by Morse Consulting Group again clearly anticipated removal of the levee. This report stated "The levee will be removed and flows from the north will be diverted inside the projects north boundary and empty to the east. These flows will be conveyed eastward along the project's northern boundary via a concrete trapezoidal channel to the existing Deer Creek Channel. The required drainage channel along the projects north boundary shall be operational prior to removal of the existing levee at the projects southern boundary." 26 1991 - Federal Government (FEMA) Changes Flood Insurance Designation for Site: Engineered plans for the drainage channel along the northern boundary of the subject property were submitted to FEMA in January, 1991.27 In August of 1991, after reviewing these local drainage channel plans and taking into account the existence of the new Deer Creek Channel, FEMA issued a Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) which officially changed the federal government flood insurance designation for the subject property from a flood prone designation (Zone AO) to a flood protected designation (Zone C). All of Haven View Estates -- on both sides of the levee -- now shares the same Zone C flood insurance designation signifying that this area is protected from flooding. 2s 1991 - Federal Government (Corps of Engineers) Attests to Safety of Deer Creek Facilities: As a pan of FEMA's LOMR process, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that the Deer Creek facilities were designed to "provide protection for the Standard Project Flood (SPF), which is estimated to have a recurrence interval of approximately 200 years. In addition, the channel was designed to withstand the high velocities in the range of 60 feet per second (fps)." 20 1991 - County Flood Control District Concurs with Change to Flood Insurance Rating: As a part of FEMA's LOMR process, the County Flood Control District indicated that they are "in Footnote References 26 Hydroiog¥ and Hydraulic Calculations -- Offsite Tributary Flows with Trapezoidal Interceptor Channel for Tract 14771 prepared by Morse Consulting Group, dated June I, 1991. (Underlining added to cited quotes). 27 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Case Number 91-07-47P 28 Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dated August, 19, 1991. Zone AO is defined as "Special Flood Hazard Area (Shallow sheet flow of !-3' in 100 year storm)". Zone C is defined as "Area of Moderate or Minimal Flood Hazard (in a 500 year storm.)" 20 Letter from Mr. Robert E. Koplin, P.E., Chief, Engineerin~ Division, Department of the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers, dated March 12, 1991. concurrence with the proposed LOMR request that would change FEMA flood hazard designations on District rights of way south of the Deer Creek Debris Basin." 30 Q. 1992 - Grading of Levee Approved: The owner of the property at this time, Brock Homes, processed through the city Building & Safety Department a Rough Grading Plan for the subject property, consistent with the previously approved Conceptual Grading Plan (see Item "K." above), which included the removal of the levee.31 Just prior to starting the grading, Brock Homes dropped the project. Upon approval of a Rough Grading Plan from the Building & Safety Department, the levee could have been removed in 1992 or anytime since. R. Note Re: Design Capacities: To compare the size of the T.T. 14771 local drainage channel with the long abandoned levee is incorrect. Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, Deer Creek Basin and Channel replaces the levee, not the local onsite drainage channel to be constructed by Lauren Development. As approved by the City, the County Flood Control District, the Corps of Engineers and FEMA, the on-site drainage channel on the subject property is designed to collect water runoff from the 124.8 acres to the north not captured by the Deer Creek Basin and Channel.32 Deer Creek Channel is designed to contain approximately 5,400 cubic feet per second (cfs)33 flowing from the 3.71 square mile (2,374 acre) Deer Canyon Watershed.34 Contrary to testimony by Dames & Moore, the subject properry's local drainage channel is designed to contain 447 cfs emanating from a local 125 acre watershed which is just five percent the size of the Deer Canyon Watershed.35,36 So 1997 - Geotechnical Analysis of Levee Confirms Inadequacy: According to a recent analysis of the levee, installation of the local drainage channel proposed for the subject property will result in an improvement over the existing flood control protection offered by the levee. "From a geotechnical perspective, the proposed storm drain channel and associated slopes are more stable against gross failure than the existing levee." 37 Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, due to the breach in the levee, any water generated by the area north of the property has the potential to Footnote References 30 Letter from Mr. Kenneth D. Guidrv, P.E., Chief, Water Resources Division, San Bernardino CounW Flood Control District, dated June I I, 1991. 3~ Rough Gradine Plan Plan Check No. 91-3535. Planning Department approval of the Rough Grading Plan was granted on March 24, 1992. 32 Hvdrolo~v and Hydraulic Calculations -- Offsite Tributary Flows with Travezoidal lntercevtor Channel for Tract 14771 prepared by Morse Consulting Group, dated June !, 1991 33 At inlet oft 14771 local on-site drainage channel. 34 Hydrolo.e:y Study in the City of Rancho Cucarnone:a, Tract 12332 prepared by Associated Engineers, dated August, 1988 (cover undated, however data inside report reflects this date). 35 2,374 ac / 125 ac = 18.992 36 cfs, acreage confirmed by MDS Consulting, 7/31/97. 37 Stability Analysis, Existin~ and Proposed Retention Berms, Tract 14771, Rancho Cucamon~:a CA, by RMA Group, dated July 9, 1997 flow through this hole in the levee and severely damage the properties to the south. It is important that this local drainage channel be constructed ASAP. LANDSLIDE & EAR...THOUAKE FACT.. SHEET .. . DR_97-1 ! :.Tentative Tract ! 4771 08/13/97 STATEMENT: Erroneous and misleading information has been presented which purports to show the possibility of large earthquakes and landslides occurring in the vicinity of Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below). It is alleged that the location,' size, and direction and distance of fall of these landslides, plu~ the simultaneous occurrence of a 7.5 magnitude earth. quake, plus the simultaneous occurrence of a 100-year plus storm in the Deer Creek Watershed following a significant forest fire, present a safety danger to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Landslides: The erroneous information presented by opponents to the project shows the purported slides to be of the WRONG size, sliding in the WRONG direction and sliding the WRONG distance for a slide of the size which would be expected in this area. All factual landslide information available today was known and available many years ago. There is no factual "new information." Earthquakes: Fault location and intensity information provided by the opponentz is wrong. All · factual fault information available today was known and available many years ago. There is:no factual "new information." LANDSL_!DES A. The L_o_ca_tion of the Landslides Shown on the Map Presented in Testimonies is Not New Information: The location of the slides shown by CURE's consultant were known to exist as far back as 1969~ were most recently mapped in 1987 and are shown on official maps prepared by the County of San Bernardino.~'2 Further, bazed on geotcchnical observation, the regional geologic maps do not show any landslides extending out from the mountains onto Deer Creek alluvial fan? B. The Directio.n_ of Fall of the Slides Shown on the Landslide Map Presented in Testimony is Totally Wrong. Most sigv~_ificantly, the direction of fall of the landslides shown by CUPids consultant defy not only gravity, but the scientific information documented by the County of San Bernardino in their official maps of slides in this area. Based the conical shape of the Deer Creek alluvial fan, possible debris flows, arguing that such flows would even occur, would be directed to the southeast and southwest away from the site.4 C. The Location of All Know~ Landslides are Too Far from the Subject Property to Preaent any Hmrd: According to the RMA Group, C~otechnical Consultants, the subject propert~ is too distant from any known landslides in the San C_rabriel Mountains to present any danger.' Footnote References .... Morton and Stretiz, 1969, Preliminary Reconnaissance Map of Major Landslides, San Grabrial Mountains. Morton and Matti, 1987, USGS Professional Paper 1339 ~ Repotn prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 '~' Holtz and Schuster, 1996, Stabilization of Soil Slopes in Landslides - Investigation and Mitigation. EAR_T_HQUAKE$ A. The Location of the Cucamonga Fault is not accurately known; The Approximate Location and the Fact That it Crosses Near the Deer Creek Debris Basin has been Known for Many Years. The fact that the Cucamonga Fault extends for approximately 30 miles in an east-west direction at the base of the local foothills and crosses under. Deer Creek Charmel, Day Creek Channel and numerous other local watercourses has been known for many years.6 Contrm-y to raisinformation oreseated by Ms. McKeith that the precise location of the fatfit is "right under the Dee~ Creek Debris Ba~_i.of the location has never been pre. gisely naappe~,7 Rather, the Cucamonga fault in the area north of the subject property, is referred to on official maps as "concealed, poorly located or gradational."s The dotted line in no way is meant to imply the precision or certainty stated by Ms. McKeith. Bo Magnitude of Cucamonga Fault Not 7.5. Ms. McKeith states that new information places the probability of an earthquake on the Cucamonga fault at a 7.5 magnitude.9 Thi~ is an untrue statemere_by_Ms. McKeith. Ms. McKeith states that the source of this new information is from Dr. James F. Dolan of ~e Department of]Earth Sciences, University of Southern California.2° .Tb~is is an untrue_statement b]f Ms. McKeith, according to Dr. Dolan?~ Further, Ms. McKeith. includes as evidence of this erroneous statement aportion of a document prepared_ by Dr..Dolan to the County of San Bernardino which references a 7.5 magnitude earthquake.~' __This as an in~.0rgec. t interpre .raft'on of this document. bv Ms. McKeith., and .an inapprovriatc._u~e of a portioRpf~his. letter, according to Dr. Dolan. The truth is that the document of which Ms. McKeith presented 'a small portion in testimony to the Pl~ni_ng Commission was a proposal presented to the County. of San Bernardino to study the location and intensity of the Cueamora fault and, according.t9.Dr., DoIan. "the idea of o_.ccurrence of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake was a hypothe~sis, not a eonclttsion." ~ According to Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative for Supervisor Son Michaels, this proposal was Footnotf~. !~. efere.nce-s city. of Rancho Cucamonga .$a.fety Element Map. Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 a Symbol index to Southern California. Ejq'thClu. ake May prepared by California Divisio0 of Mines & Geology is "Solid [lines] where accurately located; 10ng clanbed where well located; short dashed where approximate or indefinite; dotled where concealed, poorly located or gradational." '~ Le..tter from Ms. MeKeith to James Markman, July 9, I997, page 6. Letter from M~. McKeith to James Markman, July 9, 1997, page 6, footnote 05. ~t .better CE-_M_ail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to Bill Ford, July :21, ! 997. ~' Pr~ot)o.sal to Conduct Paleo-Earthcmake Research on the _C.uc__a~non~a Fault. North £tiwanda Site, Rancho Cucamonga, by James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California. (Portion of front page of this was presented to the Planning Commission by Ms. McKeith, July 9, 1997.) ~'~ Lc_tt_e_r (E:MaiI') from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to Bill Ford, July 2 I, i 997. tbr excavations on the Etiwanda Preserve 2 miles east of the subject property, and the proposed study was never authorized by the County.14 The Latest Information on the Cucamonga Fault was Prepared in 1987: According to Dr. Dolan and the Southern California Earthquake Center at Cal Tech, the latest information on the Cucamonga Fault is presented in a paper published in 1987. ~ The Cucamonga Fault is considered a'normal fault zone with a probable magnitude of between 6.0 and 7.0 occurring at intervals of between 600 and 700 years.no This information was available at the time the Negative Declaration was approved, the tract map for the subject property was approved and the Deer Creek Basin and Channel were designed. D. Fault Information Not New Information: According to John Marquis of the Southern California Earthquake Center at Cal Tech in Pasadena, the existence of the Cucamonga fault, the approximate location, its expected magnitude and all other pertinent data has been known since 1971. Foot~te !~efereace~ - ~4 Telcon, Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative, 2nd Supervisoriai District, August 4, 1997. ~s Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to'Bill Ford, July 21, 1997. Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. John Marquis, Southern California Earthquake Center, California Institute of Technology, August 1, 1997. to Cucamonga Fault Zone dam published by the Southern California Earthquake Center at Cal Tech. 17 L.etter (E-Mail) from Dr. John Marquis, Southern California Earthquake Center, California Institute of Technology, August 1, 1997, TRA.FFI_C IMPACT &_ACCESS.FACT SIt]EET DR 97-1_._!; Tentative Tract _1..47_7! 8/13/97 STATEMENT: Traffic impacts were analyzed when Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" ret~rred to below) was approved. Based on previous traffic studies, the size and layout of the streets in Haven View Estates have more than three times the minimum capacity necessary to handle the volume of traffic projected to be generated by the proposed development. The public record shows that the homeowners association agreed that the streets were adequate. Construction, sales and future resident access is gum'anteed by court supervised settlement agreements recorded against each lot in Haven View Estates in 1990. Traffic Studies Prepared and Considered in 1990: Traffic Studies were submitted to the cid/on September 4, 1990, when the subject property was being considered for subdivision approval. These studies analyzed the impacts of traffic from the 203 lots in tract 12332-I and 12332-2, the 40 lots on the subject property, plus an additional 53 lots on the property owned by the Flood Control District to the east of Haven View Estates. The ultimate tinif'to volume, based on these studies, was 3,110 daily trips on Ringstem Drive and 590 daily trips on Tackstem Street (the two main' private collector streets). Based on these conclusions, a condition was added to the tentative map that no driveways be allowed onto these two streets. Traffic Engineering concluded that the maximum volume which could be accommodated on each of these roads is 10,000 daily trips, which is more than three times the volumes projected to occur when all 243 lots within Haven View Estates are improved with a residence and occupied.l Neighbors Concerned in 1990, Design Changes Made, Then Neighbors Recommend Approval: The issue of traffic was raised by the opponents to this project in 1990 at the time of the processing of the Tentative Tract Map. According to the Planning Dcpm-tment staff report, the applicant made certain concessions rcgarcling the design of some of the lots to mitigate these traffic related concerns of the opponents.2 The adjacent homeowners approved the changes and the President of the homeowners association recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission? C. Up to 45 Homes AgreeA to by HOA: The Haven View Estmes Homeowner's Association entered into a recorded agreement with the owner of the property explicitly agreeing to the construction of up to 45 homes on the ~operty and acknowledging that these homes will not overburden 'the streets in Haven View Estates. D. Homeowners A~ociation Paid $10,000 for Access Rights: As part of the consideration for entering into the recorded agreement to allow access for constraCon of all of Phase 2 of Tract ..- ' ~mff Report to Plann!nq, Commission, September 26, 1990, z M.i_n_ute~L9(Planning Commiss'_t9n Public Hearing. September 26, 1990. !,cttc.__.,! to City from Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, dated Novembcr 12, 1990. This letter is in city files. First Amended and Restated Gr. ant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90-I ! 1246). 101 00 '00 00:00 12332 (which includes the subject property), the Haven View Estates Homeowner's Association was paid $10,000 by the owner of the property? CC&Rs Refer to 42 Lots on Subject Property: The Rancho Cucamonga V CC&R's further state that '~the development of the Properties is a two phase planned development" and Phase II (the subject property) ... will consist of no more than 42 lots...". Both of these documents clearly inform future property owners that this property would be developed and would not overburden the community.6 F, Route 30 Freeway Impacts: Contrary to statements made in public testimony, the new freeway will not add t.mffic to a gate guarded community at the north end of Haven Avenue where only the owners of the lots inside the gates will have access. Access Guaranteed: Access is fully ~rantced in recorded settlement agreements. Construction access is allowed, just as access is currently allowed for the construction of homes on other lots in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development and its contractors are obligated to take care to be safe and good neiF~tbors during the construction period. The recorded settlement agreements specify in great detail the extent of access allowed, even addressing the frequency wMch the developer of the subject property lots will bc required to sweep or wash the streets over which access is taken. Lauren Development Inc. will fully comply with all aspects of thcse documents.7 Lauren Development Inc. has received legal interpretations unequivocally ~upporting our fights of access.~ Access Insured: Access rights to this property have previously been insured by three separate title insurance companies since 1990. Lauren Development has also received notification that its title insurance company is prepared to issue a policy of rifle insurance in the amount of $5,000,000 insuring that access to the property is guaranteed based on all previously recorded documents, agreements, government approvals and maps associated with the subject property. 's ...L~y~Jgper Street Eas~m~t and Maintenance AR.re. ement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No. 89-056050). .Declarations of Covenants, _Cond. i. tions, and Rest.fictions of Rancho Cucamonaa V-Haven View .F.states, recorded on June 8, 1990, Instrument No. 90-231127. ~ Dcvelot~er Street .Easement and Ma~tena,~_At .reement. recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No. 89-056050); the Associatio_n Street Ease_to. ent apd M-,int~_anc~ Aare~ment, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No 89-05605 l): and the First ~endcd .and Res~ated Grant of~.utual Fa!se_ m_e. nts. recorded on March 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90-111246). Reference letter from Jackson, DeMarco & Pecke_~oaugh dated June 25, 1997 (submitted to Planning Commission prior to July 9, 199'7 meeting.). PRIOR ._I~NOWLEDGE FACT SHEET DR 97-1 l; Tentative Tract 14771 8/13/97 STATEMENT: The development of 40 homes in Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below), including the complete grading of the site, was recognized as early as 1983, and approved by both property owners and the City in 1990 after receiving substantial public input. Five separately recorded documents, including three easement agreements recorded in 1989 and 1990, and two sets of CC&R's recorded in 1984 and 1990 for all lots in Haven View Estates clearly refer to the ~esidential development of the subject property. All current property owners have for many yem~ been given information concerning the pending development of the subject property. Over 50% of the existing homes in Haven View Estates also existed in 1990. 50% of the 1990 homeowners, 60% of the lot owners and 60% of those who participated in the 1990 approval m~ings still live or own property in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development contacted both Homeowner Associations early this year and personally met with individuals owning well over half the lots in Haven View Estales. No .one should be surprised at the pending grading of this property nor the construction of 40 homes on the lots. Ao 1983: Haven View Estates Development Approved; Ultimate Development of the Subject Property Recognized At This Time: The first 204 lots in Haven View Estates (Tentative Tract 12332) were approved in 1983 and a conceptual residential layout of the subject property was shown on this map. i Also, testimony at the Planning Commission Public Hearing referred to the ultimate development of the subject property.2 After 1983, T.T. 12332 was reconsidered by the city at least six times and the potential development of the subject property was part of the record on each occasion? 1984: Haven View Estates CC&R's Notify Owners About Development of the Subject Property: The CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (Tract 12332-1) clearly indicate that the subject property may be developed,4 By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in this portion of Haven View Estates. Co 1989-1990: Lawsuit Settlement Agreements Signed and Recorded Which Refer to Development of the Subject Property: In the late 1980's lawsuits were filed and litigation ensued between the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association and the owners of the subject property. Court supervised settlement of these lawsuits resulted in at least two (2) documents, all Tentative Trn_c~L 12332 was approved May I I, 1083 (Planning Commission Resolution 83.66). Planning Commission Minutes, May 11, 1983. '~ T. entat.iv¢ Tfagt 12332 was amended or extended on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66A); l:¢bruary 12, I986 (Planning Commission Resolution 86-23); November 10, 1987 (Planning Commission Resolution 87- 196); January 27, 1988 (Planning Commition Resolution 88-53); June 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January 1 I, 1989 (Planning Commission Resolution 8%03). ~ Dcc_!ara_tions of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Haven Vie_w Est~_tes, recorded on August 16, 1984, instrument No. 84-195405. (Reference Exhibit C theteoO. of which have been recorded in the County of San Bernardino against all lots.s All of these recorded documents allude to the ultimate development of the subject property, and one of the notices recorded against the lots states that the Subject property could be developed with as'many as 45 lots.* D, June, 1990: Rancho Cucamonga V CC&R's Notify Owners of Development of the Subject Property: Similar to the CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (see item B above), the CC&R's for the second,base (150 lots; Tract 12332-2) clearly indicate that the subject property will be developed.. These CC&R's state that the subject property is "currently being remapped" and "intended to consist of 42 rt~4idences." By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in Haven View Estates. E, July, 1990: Public Report for Haven View Estates Notifies Lot Buyers of Development of the Subject Property: The Subdivision Public Report approved by the California Departeat of Real Estate for the second portion of Haven View Estates (the 150 lot Tract 12332-2) refers to the future development of the subject property, clearly referencing the plans for 42 additional 1o~ on this property.s By law, the Public Report must be given to, reviewed by and a receipt signed by each buyer of a lot in Haven View Estates. November 12, 1990: Haven View Estates HOA Endorses Development of the Subject Property: Property owners who are currently on the boards' of both HOAs in Haven View Estates attended and testified at the Neighborhood Meetings and Public Hearings held regarding the development of the subject property, including the grading of the site and removal of the levee.9 The current and then Pre.~id~nt of the Haven ..V. Jew E~tes HOA. on .b~half of__.the property o .wn.. e_rs, recomm_ended in writint, the approva. l_of the development.~° G. Novembcr 14, 1990: The Subject Property Approved For Dcvclopment4 Including Complete Grading: After three Nei~hbgrhood Meetings and two Pl_agnina Commission Publi~ }teatings the subdivision and grading of 40 lots on the subject property was approve. This action was also _adv__egised in the Inland Va!!ev Daily Bulletin as a Public Hearing, the ~jte wa, post..eg!.. and .rl~tices were sent to all prop_e_rtv~ o .mars within 300 feet of the site.I! The grading of the entire site, ~ .Deve!9~[ :~treet Easement and Maintenance A~,r_ee[nent, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No. 89-056050); and the A,.~ocia. tjon Street Easement and Maintennnee__A~'eement. recorded on February 16, 19119 (Instzument No 89- ..... 056051 ). ~ F_irs. t..Ame.nded and Restated Grant of_Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90-111246). 7 Dec!ara. t.i. ons of Covenants. (~n4itions. and Restrictions of Ranctlo.Cucarnonoa V-Haven. V_iew Esgates, recorded on June 18, 1990, Instrument No. 90-231127. (Reference Page :2 thereof). ORE File Number 066828LA-F00 issued July !1, I990 and expired July 10, 1995. (Reference Page 5 thereof). ~ From Pl~l!iP, e. ~0~_mission M inures September 26, 1990 and November 14, 19~0 and ]qRj_e. hborhood_Meetine, ~;i_ml-Up Sheets August 9, 1990: September 4, 1990 and October 16, 1990. to i.etter to City from Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, daled November 12, 1990. This letter is in city files. t~ Staff_Rqpon to the Planning Commission, dated November 14, 1990. including the removal of the abandoned levee, was a clearly recognized part of the hearing process.~2 H! 1990 to 1997: Over Half th_e Homes in Haven Vi._ew Estates in 1997 Were There in 1990, and Half_of. Those. Homes Are Still Owned by the Same.Peor}!.e.: Contrary to testimony that there were "only 10 homes" in Haven View Estates when the subject property was approved, there were in t~ct 31 homes in Haven View Estates at that time, plus an additional 9 JCC homes under construction, which is more than half the total number of homes (55) in Haven View Estates today.~3 Of the 3 ! non-tract homes existing in 1990, 1:5 of these are stil! owned by the snmc people who owned the homes at that time. 14 1990 to 1997: Ove_r Sixty Per. c._ent o[the Lots in theH_a_ven V.[ew Estates HOA Are in 1_997 Owned by the Same People Who Owned Them !_n. ! 990: Of'the 53 lots within the Haven View Estates HO^, 323 of them are today owned by the same people who owned lots when the subject property was approved.~5,~6 1990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent ofThose Who Attended th$_ I~990 City Meefi. np~q sfi!l..Qwn Homes o.r_Lots in Haven View Es.t~_t_es in 1997: At least 19 Haven View Estates property owners attended or testified at the 1990 Neighborhood Meetings and Public Hearings when the development of this site was approved, 12 of' whom still own property in Haven View Estates.~? K, 1996: Lauren Development Inc. Makes Initial Contact With Neighbors: Over a year ago, Lauren Development discussed development of these 40 lots with a board member of the Haven View Estates HOAI8 and in July, 1996 spoke with a board member of the Rancho Cucamonga V I-1OA.~ Since that time conversations continued, and a board member of the Haven View Estates 2O HOA visited Lauren Development's offices in October, 1996 to discuss trails and other concerns. .. ~z T~ntative Tract/4771 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution 90-138), A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved at that time. Removal of the levee was an integral par1 ofthe plans for this property. u From Building, Pe _rmit records, City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of Building & Safety, Dates of Building Permit activity in Haven View Estates prior to approval of Tentative Tract 14771 was as follows: 198:5 = 4 permits; ! 986 - 12 permits; 198'7 - 8 permits; 1988 - 2 permits; 1989 - 3 permits; 1990 '- 2 permits (,plus 9 JCC tract home permits). Totals 3.!..C_UStOm homes plus o .tract..ho.mcs. 1990 and 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Offic~. t~ 1990 and 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office. ~* In 1990, the 151 IOta in Phase II (Tract 12332-2) were owned by Brock Homes, the applicant ofthe owner ofTtact 14771. ~7 1990 att=ndance information from Plannine Commission Minutes September 26, 1990 and November 14, 1990 and Neighborhood. Meetin~ Sie0:Up Sheets August 9, 1990: September 4, t 990 and October 16, 1990. 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the Snn Bernnrdino County Assessors Office. Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn Mr. Bill Angel Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn 101 00 '00 00:00 January, 1997: Both HOA-~ Contact Current Owner: In January, the management company responsible for the two HOAs in Haven View Estates wrote the current owner of the 40 lots requesting his attendance at a joint meeting with the boards of directors of both HOAs to discuss Lauren Development's plans for the property. The owner felt it was not his position to discuss the plans of Lauren Development with the two boards, and suggested the management company contact Lauren Development directly.2~ M. March, 1997: Lauren Development Contacts Both HOAs, Scheduling Meeting for April. HOAs Cancel Meeting: On March 26, Lauren Development wrote the management company requesting a meeting with the two HOAs' board members to hear what concerns, if any, they may have. A copy of that letter was provided the city. That joint meeting was scheduled for April 4. Two days before that meeting, the management company canceled the meeting because of an inability of the two associations to get a quorum. ' N. April 3, 1997: Lauren Development Reschedules Meeting With Both HOP, a: On April 3, Lauren Development wrote a letter to the management company expressing regret that the two HOAs were not able to get together when scheduled, and asked for an alternative date "ns soon as possible." A copy of that letter was provided the city. After numerous phone calls, a joint meeting of both HOAs was then scheduled'for May 16. O. May, 14, 1997: Last Minute HOA Meeting: On May 14 the management company requested that Lauren Development attend a meeting that evenine with the Haven View Estates HO^ to discuss their plans. The management company apologized for the late notice. Due to tl~e last minute notice, Lauren Development was unable to attend this meeting. May 16, 1997: Joint Meeting of Both HOAs: Two representatives of Lauren Development attended the joint board meeting scheduled for May 16. Three representatives of one HOA and two of the other attended the meeting. A copy of the minutes was provided to the city. Q. May 20, 1997: Design Review Committee Meeting: On May 20, board members from both HOAs attended the Design Review Committee meeting and offered testimony. R. May 27, 1997: Neighborhood Meeting: On May 27, a Neighborhood Meeting was held. Board members and other property owners from both HOAs participated in this meeting. S~ 1997: Over Half of All Properties in Haven View Estates Have Been Represented at These Meetings: In all the,above 1997 meetines. owners of 56% oft_he 20~._existimt lots in Haven View Esmt~ have..attended, T. May 29, 1997: Request to Meet Again With HOA Ignored: On May 29, Lauren Development contacted the President of the Haven View Estates HOA (Ms. Hahn) and offered to meet with her and representatives of the other HOA to discuss additional changes to the proposed homes and to tour other high-end semi-custom home developments. Ms. Hahn said she was meeting with Mr. ~-; ~.._tt_erdated January 15, 1997 from Euclid Management Compnny 101 00 '00 00:00 Angel that day, and would get back to Lauren Development to further discuss this meeting. She never called back. U. June, 1997: Letter to All Property Owners: Since the initial Planning Commission Design Review meeting on June 11, Lauren Development sent a letter to every property owner in Haven View Estates inviting them to visit their local office and to discuss their plans in detail. A copy of this letter was provided city staff. _A_.s of the date of this writinc,. qnlv three people respo. r~ded to the i~vita_tio~. The following chronology identifies my correspondence with Malissa McKeith: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 Ms. McKeith called with questions on that nights Neighborhood Meeting, complaining of a lack of adequate notice saying she would not be able to attend because of other commitments. She had questions on the status of the tract and requested a copy of our tract file. I researched the file and called her back to inform her of the copying charge and indicated that it may take several days to complete the copying. Wednesday, May 28, 1997 Sent fax to Ms. McKeith requesting she fill out the "Request to Copy Public Records" form and return to us for our records. Thursday, May 29, 1997 Received fax requesting confirmation of the June 11, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Sent fax indicating the time and place of the meeting. Monday, June 2, 1997 Received fax indicating desire to pick up portion of file copied so far. Requested additional information on local subdivision ordinances and any local CEQA guidelines. Due to the low number of support staff l personally copied the file for Tract 14771. All information in the file was copied, except for the large blue prints. Provided copy of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code regarding subdivisions and indicated that there were no locally adopted CEQA guidelines. Information was picked up that afternoon. Received a call from Ms. McKeith regarding the information provided. She indicated that there was no information regarding the proposal by Lauren Development. I indicated that I misunderstood her request for the file copy and only copied information in the tract file and not the current design review file. I indicated that I would copy the design review file, she stated she did not want any architectural information. File was copied, except for architectural plans and correspondence between staff and applicant regarding a discussion of design issues. Received fax requesting additional information including: the Planning Commission agenda, design review file, tract map, design review procedures, and revised Standard Conditions form. The agenda for the June 1 l th Planning Commission meeting was not available and not provided. Copied the design review file, the tract map by splicing together 8% X 11 sheets to form a full size map. Copied Development Code section regarding Land Development Procedures. Provided copy of current Standard Conditions form. Kathy Wyant came to the Engineering counter requesting a copy of the Traffic Study for Tract 12332, which is adjacent to 14771. Could not locate a Traffic Study in that file. Provide a copy of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Tract 12332 as requested. Wednesday, June 4, 1997 Received fax indicating materials were missing from the tract file. Ms. M.cKeith sent someone to review our files. I went over the letter from Ms. McKeith with her and indicated which department (i.e., Engineering, Building and Safety, Fire) would have the information she had requested because it is not information that is kept in the Planning files. I indicated that she would have to speak with those departments directly. I indicated I could put her in touch with specific persons in other departments to answer her questions. She declined, indicating that she had talked to Ms. McKeith and that she would contact her Council member to find out who on staff would be the best person to contact for the information. I provided her all Planning files for Tract 12332, 12332-2, 14771, and Design Review 97-11. She reviewed them in our library and requested additional copies of information. Thursday, June 5, 1997 Received fax requesting a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and either Fish & Wildlife Service or Department of Fish & Game. Not being familiar with any MOU, I contacted two other staff members who indicated that no such document exists. After letting the Acting City Planner review my response I faxed over a statement indicating that there was no M©U. I also faxed over the June 1 lth Planning Commission agenda which was now available. Monday, June 9, 1997 Received a call from Scott Eliason from the US Fish & Wildlife Service who indicated that there was an MOU and he would send me a copy. I contacted the City Clerk and was able to obtain a copy from City records. I called Ms. McKeith's office indicating I was wrong in my previous correspondence, that there was a MOU, and I would make a copy available for her. I also indicated that previous correspondence from the Fish & Wildlife Service was not in the file information previously provided to her and I would also make this available to her. Tom Grahn, AICP Associate Planner PRIOR KNOWLEDGE FACT SHEET DR 97-11; Tentative Tract 14771 8/13/97 STATEMENT: The development of 40 homes in Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below), including the complete grading of the site, was recognized as early as 1983, and approved by both property owners and the City in 1990 after receiving substantial public input. Five separately recorded documents, including three easement agreements recorded in 1989 and 1990, and two sets of CC&R's recorded in 1984 and 1990 for all lots in Haven View Estates clearly refer to the residential development of the subject property. All current property owners have for many years been given information concerning the pending development of the subject property. Over 50% of the existing homes in Haven View Estates also existed in 1990. 50% of the 1990 homeowners, 60% of the lot owners and 60% of those who participated in the 1990 approval meetings still live or own property in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development contacted both Homeowner Associations early this year and personally met with individuals owning well over half the lots in Haven View Estates. No one should be surprised at the pending grading of this property nor the construction of 40 homes on the lots. ho Bo Co 1983: Haven View Estates Development Approved; Ultimate Development of the Subject Property Recognized At This Time: The first 204 lots in Haven View Estates (Tentative Tract 12332) were approved in 1983 and a conceptual residential layout of the subject property was shown on this map. I Also, testimony at the Planning Commission Public Hearing referred to the ultimate development of the subject property.2 After 1983, T.T. 12332 was reconsidered by the city at least six times and the potential development of the subject property was part of the record on each occasion? 1984: Haven View Estates CC&R's Notify Owners About Development of the Subject Property: The CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (Tract 12332-1) clearly indicate that the subject property may be developed.4 By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in this portion of Haven View Estates. 1989-1990: Lawsuit Settlement Agreements Signed and Recorded Which Refer to Development of the Subject Property: In the late 1980's lawsuits were filed and litigation ensued between the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association and the owners of the subject property. Court supervised settlement of these lawsuits resulted in at least two (2) documents, all ~ Tentative Tract 12332 was approved May I I, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66). 2 Planning Commission Minutes, May I l, 1983. 3 Tentative Tract 12332 was amended or extended on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66A); February i 2, 1986 (Planning Commission Resolution 86-23); November I 0, ! 987 (Planning Commission Resolution 87- 196); January 27, 1988 (Planning Commission Resolution 88-53); June 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January I 1, 1989 (Planning Commission Resolution 89-03). 4 Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Haven View Estates, recorded on August 16, 1984, Instrument No. 84-195405. (Reference Exhibit C thereof). of which have been recorded in the County of San Bernardino against all lots.s All of these recorded documents allude to the ultimate development of the subject property, and one of the notices recorded against the lots states that the subject property could be developed with as many as 45 lots.6 D. June, 1990: Rancho Cucamonga V CC&R's Notify Owners of Development of the Subject Property: Similar to the CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (see item B above), the CC&R's for the secondj3hase (150 lots; Tract 12332-2) clearly indicate that the subject property will be developed.-These CC&R's state that the subject property is "currently being remapped" and "intended to consist of 42 residences." By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in Haven View Estates. go July, 1990: Public Report for Haven View Estates Notifies Lot Buyers of Development of the Subject Property: The Subdivision Public Report approved by the California Department of Real Estate for the second portion of Haven View Estates (the 150 lot Tract 12332-2) refers to the future development of the subject property, clearly referencing the plans for 42 additional lots on this property.8 By law, the Public Report must be given to, reviewed by and a receipt signed by each buyer of a lot in Haven View Estates. Fo November 12, 1990: Haven View Estates HOA Endorses Development of the Subject Property: Property owners who are currently on the boards of both HOAs in Haven View Estates attended and testified at the Neighborhood Meetings and Public Hearings held regarding the development of the subject property, including the grading of the site and removal of the levee.9 The current and then President of the Haven View Estates HOA, on behalf of the property owners, recommended in writing the approval of the development. ~0 G. November 14, 1990: The Subject Property Approved For Development, Including Complete Grading: After three Neighborhood Meetings and two Plannine Commission Public Hearings the subdivision and grading of 40 lots on the subject property was approved. This action was also advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a Public Hearing, the site was posted and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site.II The grading of the entire site, ~ Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Aereement, recorded on February ! 6, ! 989 (Instrument No. 89-056050); and the Association Street Easement and Maintenance Aereement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No 89- 05605 l). 6 First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90-111246). 7 Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Rancho Cucamon~a V-Haven View Estates, recorded on June 18, 1990, Instrument No. 90-231127. (Reference Page 2 thereof). * DRE File Number 066828LA-F00 issued July 11, 1990 and expired July 10, 1995. (Reference Page 5 thereof). 9 From P!annine Commission Minutes September 26, 1990 and November 14, 1990 and Neiehborhood Meetine Sien-UD Sheets August 9, 1990; September 4, 1990 and October 16, 1990. ~0 Letter to City from Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, dated November 12, 1990. This letter is in city files. ~ Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated November 14, ! 990. including the removal of the abandoned levee, was a clearly recognized part of the hearing ~2 process. H, 1990 to 1997: Over Half the Homes in Haven View Estates in 1997 Were There in 1990, and Half of Those Homes Are Still Owned by the Same People: Contrary to testimony that there were "only 10 homes" in Haven View Estates when the subject property was approved, there were in fact 31 homes in Haven View Estates at that time, plus an additional 9 JCC homes under construction, which is more than half the total number of homes (55) in Haven View Estates today. ~3 Of the 31 non-tract homes existing in 1990, 15 of these are still owned by the same people who owned the homes at that time. 14 1990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent of the Lots in the Haven View Estates HOA Are in 1997 Owned by the Same People Who Owned Them in 1990: Of the 53 lots within the Haven View Estates HOA, 33 of them are today owned by the same peop!e who owned lots when the subject . 15 16 property was approvea. , J. 1990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent of Those Who Attended the 1990 City Meetin~,s Still Own Homes or Lots in Haven View Estates in 1997: At least 19 Haven View Estates property owners attended or testified at the 1990 Neighborhood Meetings and Public Hearings when the development of this site was approved, 12 of whom still own property in Haven View Estates.17 K. 1996: Lauren Development Inc. Makes Initial Contact With Neighbors: Over a year ago, Lauren Development discussed development of these 40 lots with a board member of the Haven View Estates HOA18 and in July, 1996 spoke with a board member of the Rancho Cucamonga V HOA. 19 Since that time conversations continued, and a board member of the Haven View Estates 20 HOA visited Lauren Development's offices in October, 1996 to discuss trails and other concerns. m2 Tentative Tract 14771 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution 90-138). A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved at that time. Removal of the levee was an integral part of the plans for this property. 13 From Buildine Permit records, City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of Building & Safety. Dates of Building Permit activity in Haven View Estates prior to approval of Tentative Tract 14771 was as follows: 1985 = 4 permits; 1986 = 12 permits; 1987 = 8 permits; 1988 = 2 permits; 1989 = 3 permits; 1990 = 2 permits (plus 9 JCC tract home permits). Totals 3 ! custom homes olus 9 tract homes. 14 1990 and 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office. ~s 1990 and 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office. ~6 In 1990, the 151 lots in Phase i! (Tract 12332-2) were owned by Brock Homes, the applicant of the owner of Tract 14771. 17 1990 attendance information from Plannine Commission Minutes September 26, 1990 and November 14, 1990 and Neighborhood Meetine Sien-Uo Sheets August 9, 1990; September 4, 1990 and October 16, 1990. 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office. Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn m9 Mr. Bill Angel 20 Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn L. January, 1997: Both HOAs Contact Current Owner: In January, the management company responsible for the two HOAs in Haven View Estates wrote the current owner of the 40 lots requesting his attendance at a joint meeting with the boards of directors of both HOAs to discuss Lauren Development's plans for the property. The owner felt it was not his position to discuss the plans of Lauren Development with the two boards, and suggested the management company contact Lauren Development directly.21 M. March, 1997: Lauren Development Contacts Both HOAs, Scheduling Meeting for April. HOAs Cancel Meeting: On March 26, Lauren Development wrote the management company requesting a meeting with the two HOAs' board members to hear what concerns, if any, they may have. A copy of that letter was provided the city. That joint meeting was scheduled for April 4. Two days before that meeting, the management company canceled the meeting because of an inability of the two associations to get a quorum. N. April 3, 1997: Lauren Development Reschedules Meeting With Both HOAs: On April 3, Lauren Development wrote a letter to the management company expressing regret that the two HOAs were not able to get together when scheduled, and asked for an alternative date "as soon as possible." A copy of that letter was provided the city. After numerous phone calls, a joint meeting of both HOAs was then scheduled for May 16. O. May, 14, 1997: Last Minute HOA Meeting: On May 14 the management company requested that Lauren Development attend a meeting that evening with the Haven View Estates HOA to discuss their plans. The management company apologized for the late notice. Due to the last minute notice, Lauren Development was unable to attend this meeting. .P. May 16, 1997: Joint Meeting of Both HOAs: Two representatives of Lauren Development attended the joint board meeting scheduled for May 16. Three representatives of one HOA and two of the other attended the meeting. A copy of the minutes was provided to the city. Q. May 20, 1997: Design Review Committee Meeting: On May 20, board members from both HOAs attended the Design Review Committee meeting and offered testimony. R. May 27, 1997: Neighborhood Meeting: On May 27, a Neighborhood Meeting was held. Board members and other property owners from both HOAs participated in this meeting. 1997: Over Half of All Properties in Haven View Estates Have Been Represented at These Meetings: In all the above 1997 meetings, owners of 56% of the 203 existing lots in Haven View Estates have attended. T. May 29, 1997: Request to Meet Again With HOA Ignored: On May 29, Lauren Development contacted the President of the Haven View Estates HOA (Ms. Hahn) and offered to meet with her and representatives of the other HOA to discuss additional changes to the proposed homes and to tour other high-end semi-custom home developments. Ms. Hahn said she was meeting with Mr. Letter dated January 15, 1007 from Euclid Management Company Angel that day, and would get back to Lauren Development to t~rther discuss this meeting. She never called back. U. June, 1997: Letter to All Property Owners: Since the initial Planning Commission Design Review meeting on June 11, Lauren Development sent a letter to every property owner in Haven View Estates inviting them to visit their local office and to discuss their plans in detail. A copy of this letter was provided city staff. As of the date of this writing, only three people responded to the invitation. LOEB( ..OEBLLP A LIIM?IEO LIAIILITY p6~?kE~l$14it~ N4I~vE~S 'IN Rgll Direct Dial No. 213,688.3622 e-mail' MMCKEITH~Ioeb.com July 9, i James Markman, F, sq. Markman, Atczynski, Hanson, Curiy& Slough Pos! Office Box 10S9 Brea, California 92622.1059 Cucamongans Unit~ for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") Opposilio_n to Development Design 97-IL Approval Dear Mr. Markman: The following correspondence supplements CURE's June l l, 1997 submission to the Planning Commission.* The purpose of this Supplemental Brief is to highlight new factual evidence bearing upon the "changed circumstatJccs" that necessitate rccirculation of ',he 109~ Negative D~laration or that defeat any ~'mding by the City under its own local ordinances that the Lauren Development Project ("Project") "will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improv~;mcnts in the vicinity," (S~ Proposed Resolution, July 9, 1997 Staff Report at A71, pare. 2(d), Exhibit 16). Characterizing Development Review 97-11 as "routine and v. on- controversial," the City once again attempts to bury this matter on th, Con:~gnt Agenda. (Exhibit 17}.z The huge audience in attanclance at the June 11, 1.997 ~ The June II, 1997 bricf includes Exhibits I through 15. New exhibits will be numbered sequentially beginning with £xhibi! 16. Seven copies will be provided at the Commission Hearing. 2 CItRE also objects to tile City's failure to provide noticc of the Jury 9. L997 Hearing. Staff ju.stitics the lack of notice and Consent Agenda dc. signation by claiming that "[tJhe Development Code requires review and consideration the Planning Commission, but not as a pubhc hearing, and as such was scheduled as a consent calendar item." (Scc July 9, 1907 Ouile, r Memorandum to Planning. (continued...) James Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 2 Development Review Heanng and the numerous ietters to political representatives over the past month underscore just how controversial the City's proposed action ha~ become. Such public QUiCk' soundly undercuts ~u~, argument that this is a Con~cnt Agenda item. Indeed, not a "Id.~ Cucamonga resident has testified in favor of the Project. Despite this groundswell of public opposition and the objections raised by the California Department of Fish and Game und the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Planning Staff continues to recommecd approval. CURI~ urges that the Planning Commission take the responsible stcp of requiring additional environmental and ~afety review :o regain the confidcncc and respect of its citizens m~d to comply with existing environmental laws which rcquire the reevaluation of changed c~rcumstanc~ and new information prior ~.o final Project approval. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IS A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL REQUIRING REEVALUATION OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEW INFORMATION PRIOR TO A PROJECT'S FINAL APPROVAl,. By their ','eD' nature, conditional tcntatWc maps anticipate several points of review in the entitlement process bel~re a project is ultimately approved. In this instance, the Project is not finalir. ed until the Sobdivision Final Map is recorded and permits i~sued. Vu/ious di.~ret~onary actions take place between tentative map approval and the final map recorc~ation. Developmen: Review !s such a discretionary act. Each time the City exerci.~s its discretion, it is required :o consider whether the California £nvimnmentai Quality Act t,"CEQA")is implicated. Where a Negative Declaratwm wa.~ approved seve~ >'ears a~.o_, the Cit~ must consider whether changed circumstances or new information necessitate recirculation of the negative declaration. Attempts to limit thg ~copc of the L)evelopment Review to "architectural" issues ignores the scope of Lauren Develooment's own April 16, 1997 :(...continued) Commission, ITEM A, Exhibit lb}. The fundamental purpo~ of an open meeting is to allow affected parties to comment on and participate in the dec~ston making of i~s SOyeminent official~. Providing public notice in this instance would have cost the City under $50 ~C#2¢289.. 02 James Markn~an, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 3 Application and the City's l~vclopmcnt Code. (,~ Development Code section 1'7.06.010(C)(I) and section 17.00.010(E)(3) and (F)). In its own application, Lauren Development raised a ho~ of issues beyond thc sizc and aesthetics of its homes, including compliance with environmcntal laws, grading plans, and the removal el' the levee. More importantly, tile argument that tonight's Hearin8 should focus on the size and appearance of the hous~ only -- rather than the more serious environmental and safety issues -- ignores the City's ongoing obligations to "maintain the public health,. safcty and general well~e and property throughout the City" (se_.~e s~:tion I7,06010) and the C'ay's express mandate to deny final map recordation if "It]he design of the subdivision or proposed improvcments are likely to cau.~e substantial environmental damage or substantially a~d avoidably injure tish or wildlife or their habitut" or "the d~silgl of the subdivision or the type of improvemevts is likely go cause grious public health problems." CS. re Cucasnonga Subdivision Ordinance section 1616. I iOA). Such ol:!igafions are above and beyond any CEQA requiremeres and ca,mot be ignored by the Cay through an attempt at self-serving and hypenechn~cal ~nterpretation of its own Development ordinances. li, THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF NUMEROUS CIIANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REOUII~!NG ADDITIONA~ CF. QA REVIEW A. No Traffic or Air Oualitv Analysis Has Been Conducted Desire references to some "mystcry" traffic study from the 1980s, none has cvcr been provided by the City or Lauren Development. Nor is any such study reference! in the Initial Study supperthug the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the claimed ~xistenc$ of such a study. numerous changed circumstances require a reevaluation of traffic. noise and air quality issues prior m final approval. Nowhere has Lauren Development even mentioned the traffic, no,se and air quality impaet~ that will r~sult from construction cxc~pt to argue that ~4aven View and Rancho Cucamonga 5 residents granted a construction easement to the Project Parcel. The t~:t that Lauren Development ~ have access through Haven View (which is a point of much disagreement and probable !i:igation) does nol excuse the City from requiring Lauren Development to conduct traffic and air quality studies necet,,~try to mitigate the impacts to the su.,'rounding neighborhood. In 1990, when the Negative Declaration was approved. there were only ten homes constructed m James Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 4 Haven View, most of which were far away from thc proposed Project. Now there are 55 fmnilies living in much closer proximity to the Project. Several of the homes are either within 300 feet of the Project or located on Tackstem which w~11 be a main thoroughfare for Lauren Development's truck traffic. The vast majority of these families have children. No considcratton hlLq been given to the air quality impacts tt~at the massive grading will have on such sen.qitive receptors. The Planning Commission also has received correspondence From several property own¢~ raisin8 concerns about the inadequacies of the substandard $treeta to carry the new traffic (both during and post-cormmction). Etecaus¢ Haven View is a private community, the Planning Commission allowed substandard street.s, the danger, of which ts now becoming more :.red more apparent. An additional 40 homes (that a~e nor part of Haven View) utlll/.ation of the~e ~ame substandard streets will further jeopardize the sat3c~y of residents and particula. rly the children. ^tracheal a.s Exhibit 19 is con'espo~der~ce ttom Cram & Associatc~:. one of the leading traffic engineering firms in the stat~, ad~gsing some of the changed circumstances that require reconsqderatlon of traffic, noise and air qualit),' tbr the Project. B. New Inf~Jrmation Questions the Safety of' I.¢vee Removal The City is the Sole Government ^gcncy with Responsibility for Emurin~ Cilizens that the Levee Relnov~[ is Safo In r¢spons~ to co.cerns raised by local residentg over lev,, removal. Planning Director Bullet has responded that the Army Corps of Engineers a~d tl,.e San Bernardino County Flood Control District have sanctioned the levee removal and the Developer's so.called mitigation measures. (See July 8 correspondence from Estupiman to Army Corps of Engineers. Exhibit 2 ! ). These r~l;}resentations are false. The Army Corps o1' Engineers has confirmed, in writing, that it has not evaluated the issue of levee removal or the effectiveness of Lauren Development'.~ mitigation me, a,sures. Its only determination was that there are no waters w/thin ~ts jurisdiction (Exhibfi 22). The San Bernardino County Flood Control D~strict similarly has not evaluated the effectiven,~s of the mitigatmn measure, or the safety . . ) See Statement of Qualification and resumes of thc Crain & Associates engineers. Exlubit 20. James Markma~, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 5 of levee removal. According to Mr, Kcn Miller, Director of the San Bomardino County Flood Control District, tile onlv issue reviewed by the Flood Control District is Lauren DcYelopment's hookup to the Deer Creek Channel. Mr. Miller stat~ titat th~ City alone is responsible for making de¢i$iun:~ aboul the safety ot' the levee removal and Lauren Development'$ mitigation measures. Statements from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Flood Control District place lhe sole responsibility for levee removal on the City which, adrnittcdiy, does not have an cxpcrt hydrologist on staff. If the Icvc~ is r~noved and mitigation measures fail, the City alone wi',l have l¢~,al _re_spon.~ibilitv t~r the ds.magi, and it will not be able to point the fluget a: other government agencies as Mr. Bullet has aXtemptcd to do. (2) New Information Questions the Safety of the Deer Crock Debri~ Basra The: City and Lauren Development claim that the levee is ineffective and obsolete because, of the 1980's construction of the Dccr Creek Debris Basra. Subslantial evidence has b. ee, submitted by CURE cstablishin8 that the levee swale system provide secondary. prolection for hemcowners from (1) flooding and debris flow on the acreage between the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the levee; and (2) "overtopping" or Failure o£ the debris basin from e~hquakes, hydrophobic conditions, or landslide,. If allowed ~o testify, Mr. Thoma~ Shechart of Dames & Mo~re, a not~ hydrogeologist, will explain to the Planning Commission that the potential for fi~ding and debris remains sigmficant despite construction of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and that the existing s,~'alc and levee provides an important additional mar~in of safety to downgradient residents.' At the time the Dc~' Cre~k Debris Basin and ~iilway channel ~crc designix! in 1978, the Army Corps of Engineers (relying on thcn-cxisling informanon) bum its design specifications on a 4.0 to 5.0 magmtude earthquake. Since 1980, ~he Cucamonga faull has been more fully mapp~, and numerous published studies place ~ CURE reserves the right to submit wri~en testimony if Mr. Shechart is prohibited from testifying, James Markman, F.~. July 9, 1997 Page 6 the probability of an earthquake at a 7.5 magnitude.s The Debris Basin spillway cannot withstand such a quake. Further, numerous studies have documented the accelerated flow rate of debris due to hydrophobic condilions in the event of a fire? No fire has taken place in the area since t970. l[t the event of a bum and subsequent rain, the potential for "overlopping" of the debris basin is a factor that must be calculated in determining the conseqaence or' levee removal or the effectiveness of Lauren Dovelopment's rotligation. No such anaiys~s has been conducted. (3) Debris Basin Failure is Not a "Red Hcmn~" Lauren Development has not presented any substantial evidence relating to the above issues. Instead, it tries to deflect attention from this evidence by argmng that the~ ~.q.~ues are a "red hemng." Debris b~qin "overtopping" and the attendant damage to human hfe and property is wcll documcnled by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District which experienced six debris basra failures :n the I969 and 1978 floods? None of the debris ba.qin.~ actually were full at the time of the "overtopping," and the [.os Angeles Flood Control District has admitted that it would need to design a debris basin to a 30 percent debris cone slope before ail of the 1969 m~d 1078 damaged basins would Debris Buins and Champels, Plate G-a, Plate G-2, VII-2, VII-3, IV-2, IV-3, IV-7. Geologic Mao. Sec. 4 11NIB $ANBAC,,: $ich & Dollre. ' See Erqs!Qn ~ ,5Oimen_.L.Transnorts in Pacific Rim St~eplands, W. Wells. 1981; Soil Heating Ch~.',rral Fires, De Band, 10'79: Soil Wettabilit¥, Krammes & DeBano; Fffects of Fire on the Generation of Debris Flows, W. Wells, 1987. As one Forest Service employee who has witnessed debris flows stated: "It is geologically inevitable. The; unly isaue i,, wh~ i.~ living in the area when it happens." See Feature I)e.qign Memorandum No. 6 Deer Crce, k, Demons, and Hillside ,,, f}~.~ ~l "~ ? Sea= Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Hydrologic Report, Stormns of 1969 Vols. I & li. James Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 7 have held.' The Deer Creek Debris Basin is not designed to a 30 percent cone slope. [n its Design Memorandum of the Deer Creek Debris i-la.,~in, even the Army Corps of Engineers admitted: "The adequacy of' the debris storage requirements is difficult to determine by comparison with recorded debts production in the area because af tnsu~cient data." (See Feature Design M~norandum No. 6, De~r Creek/Demens & Hillside D~bris Basins and Channels ~, 1979) at IX-l, I?xhib~t 23). Attached as Exhibit 24 are, phot<)graphs depicting damage from the 1969 and 1978 floods. If the 'above, information does not lend some "reality" to the sertouaness of this issue, CURE is prepared to have debris basin survivors appear at the City Council meeting. Those l~m~ilies include the Genofil¢s, made famous m the John McPh~ Essay: "Los 3a~geies Against Ihe Mountains," excerpts of which axe altached as Exhibi~ 25. The Genofiles have agreed to Icstify on CURE's behalf. (4) The Mitigation Measures Proposed by Lauren Development are an Inadequate Substitute for the Levee and Sw',d¢ System Lauren Development's "expert" trying to downplay the !eve¢'s significance is me~¢ conjecturc with no supporting evidence: In our professional opinion, the replacement of an aged, unlincd, earthen training [sic] levee that was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until Deer Creek Channel was complete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic and hydraulic standards, is one where the benefit is so obvious that it speaks for itself'. . . By the construction of the concrete channel with Tract 147'71, a maintenance association will be in place to take care of the channel." See MDS June 26, 1997 Consulting Letter.~ s ~ July 13, 1979 Memorandum Concerning Design Debris Cone Slope Modification, Los Angele, s County Flood Conuol District. '~ MDS Consulting rct~cnccs several documents that are not contained in the City's files. CURE previously attempted to obtain those documents from (continued...) James Markman, Esq July 9, 1997 Page 8 The effectiveness of protection provided by the levee cannot be questioned. Attached are aer;.ai photographs from 1969 that demonstrate ho,* the levee protected downi~rudient property owners m one of the worst storms in history. (Exhibit 24). From the aerial photo'graphs, what is obvious is that that "aged" levee held back tremendous water flow in the 1.069 flood. What is also "obvious." to a casual observer, Js that concrete-lined s~ructures are more vulnerable'to danrage than earthen structures in an earthqu~e. The only' other "obvious" point is that the mitigation measures proposed by Lauren Development cannot possibly !~ eo.m. pared with vastly more extensive levee and swale system which has proven to be so effective for years. What is not at all obvious, howcvcr, is whcthcr 40 properly owners (assuming tull occupancy) have either the exlx.~isc or the resources to effectively maintam the proposcd m~gation. Tb.i~_is a crRical chat',ged circumstance. When Brock Homes originally proposed the ProJect, it was assumed that all three homeowners associations (over 2,t0 homes) would bc rzsponslble for maintaining t~,e new culvert. Fhe entire economic burden now rests on a substantially smallcr number of property owners. Moreover, as of this date, no mainlenance plan has been included in the record for review by CURE. Ill. FEDERAl. AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE CITY ICECIRCULATE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COMPLY WITH THE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN On June 23, 1997, the Cali£omia Department of Fish mid Game stated: "[T]he Department believes additional cnvironmental review is now required to fully disclose the project's '(...continued) Associ'aled Engineers u, hich informed CURE that the files were no longer available. No mention of MDS was made nor did the City r~f~r CURE to MDS for documents. All re~h, enced documents have been requested. CURE reserves its rights to provide supplemental evidence in respons~ to :he information contained in those documents. James Markman, Esq. July 9, 1097 Page 9 current potential significant impacts to sensitive wildlife resources. We believe that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, recirculation of the Negative Declaration is warranted because: (1) substantial change has occurred with reject to the ¢ircumatances under ~'hich the projoin is to be undertaken, as the area proposed for development is no,~' within an active Natural Community Conservation Platming (NCCP) area -- o,r which the City ;is a participant and (2) new information of substaatial importance to the project ha~ become available and the project will now have one or more sioniticant effects not previously disc'assed, as the proposed development will r~suit in a .significant impact to tire reduction in the numbers of unique plants and arereals associated with RAFSS, a state significanl natural area/habitat ranked as 'very threatened', (CEQA guidelines, Section 15162.)" S~ June 23, 1997 letter fi'om Patricua Wolf, Acting Regional Manager. D~partment of Fish and Game, Region 5 to Brad Bullet. The Uruted $tat~ Fish and Wildlife Service similarly have advised the City that Lauren D~elopment still has not completed its gnatca. her surveys despite its ~pril 18, 1997 letlet. and request that the City not issue grading permits. The LI.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game are thc government agencies with iurisdiction a~]d authority in the ar~a of plant and wildlife preservation. The City cannot conceivably ignore these two agencies and elect instead to rely on unsupported statements by Lauren Dev¢lopment's enwronmontal counsel, Hew~tt & McGuire, that compliance with the Endangered Species Act is somehow "voluntary" or that th~ potential for gnatcatcher habitat is a fiction, Sub~!uent to June 23. the D~partment of Fish and Game further informed .Mr. Hartzel of several gnatcatcher s:ghtlngs in the area. If Lauren Dcvelopment is ncn,?.t,;~$9, L OZ James M~rkman. Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 10 so certain of the absence ef gnatcatchers.m° Why has it failed to ¢omplcte the studies requested nearly 90 days ago'? The gnatcatcher clearly is not the only Sl~cies at risk. As the Department oi' Fish and Game asserted, numerous other plains and species ate at risk along wilh the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat supporting thes~ species. Even though some of these species m~y h~ve been list~ prior to 1990 {which undergores how pathetic the City's original Negative Declaration was) the vast majority ofspoci~s and plant li£~ was listed subsequently. The City cannot allow Lauren Development to dcsa'oy planl and wildlife without considering the "new information" referenced by the Department of' Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Not only would doing so violate CEQA, it would violate the City's ov, m Ordinances which mandate disapproval final subdivision map where "It]he design of the subdivision or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injur~ fish or wildlife or their habitat," Given the overwhelmin~ evidence that Lauren Development's project does just that, the City will never be in a position to Ic$~11y approve the final Project.~' ~o The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's July 9, 1997 (Exhibit 26) reaffim~s its former ^pri! 18, 1097 letter informing Lauren Development that its gnatcatcher surveys are inedeXlUate. This letter, along with the attachinc'hi to Liam Davis' memorandum, referrace numerous 10~atcatcher sightings. Any cffor~ by Lauren Development Io dealroy the habitat and "risk" an ESA violation will be met with an immediate request for an injunction in state and federal court and any other legal "s~lf-help" steps that CURE memb~'s can ~akc to prcvcnt such destruction. ~ TI~ City also has l~iled to comply with. new .<;enate Bill 901 which requires consultation witti ~c local wa~cr purveyors regarding availability of water supply to the proposed dcvelopmcnt. Of cvcn greater importance, the City has made no effort to comply with its own local ordinance, Development Cod¢ section 1912.043, which requires tha! ~he C'i!y notify the Departmen! of Public Resources prior ~o approvln~ projects that impact recharge areas. James Markman, Esq. July 9, ]997 Page ! 1 IV. NEW INFORMATION CONCERNING DANGERS REI,ATED TO THE PROXIMITY TO Tile SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON POWER ~,INE8 HAVF. NOT BEEN CONSIDERED The proposed proiect is contiguous to, and virtually under, the Southern Edison powerhoes. MilliGaus rcadmgs from some areas were in the 4.0 to 5.0 range which is higher thml the recommended 3.0 MilliGaas. Although there is significant scientific disagreement over the impacts of' Electro Magnetic Fields on humans, patticalmly children, no :malysis of the potential health impacts was conducted. Numerous post-19~X) studies have been written on tMs topic. Additionally, no analysis was conducted on what poten:ial impacts exist to .homeowners in the event c~f tower toppling due to h~gh winds. V, CONCLUSION The City S:aff is recommending approval of Project that is both technically and legally flawed in face of resounding Opposition by its citizenry, substantial evidcncc of significant environmental and sat~:y concerns based upon new evidence, and the rcqucsts by two government agencies to not perrn. it grading unti! a complete erlvironmer, tal review is conducted. Approving Lauren Developmcnt's Development Application, under O~e circum.~tances, is both legally unwarranted and politically unwise. For the reasons, set forth above, C'[,7R.E respectfully requests lhat the Commission deny Development 97-1 I. MHM:pb Enclosures Very truly yours, Mali~sa Ilathaway McK, ~3,.,7 ,..'OE3 & _OE8 =a..,'je 2'3 go~ 7'56 ,u..L-C9 wed ~8:39 ~.997 RESIDENTS SUE CITY OF .RANCHO CUCAMONGA Last week, a 9rcup of Rancho Cucamonga property owners and environmenta2 organizations filed a civil rights suit 2n federal district cour~ against the Czty. while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has previously been applied to local land use and planning decisions, this is the first time it has been used to challenge tenEative ~ract map extensions. The plaintiff, cucamon~a~;s United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) claims that the City, through two officials in its Plannin~ Department, viola%~d the residents' right ~o due process by systematically excluding them from participating in decisions relating ro the subdivision a;~d developmen5 of 25.9 acres of rare habltat and Dy refusing access tc public records granted under the California Public Records ACt. CURE alleges that the proposed development site at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains raises serious safety concerns ignored by ~he City. The development would remove a levee and swale system designed to pro~ect neighboring homeowners from flooding and debrfs flows, thus placing ~heir families and property a= risk. CURE also claims tha~ the environmental lmpact would be s~gnificant, as the property is home to a nu~er of threatened and rare plant and animal species. The s~te has been designated by the m_n~ of F~sh and ~ame as among t~e rarest California Depart - ' and most threatened habitat in the world. No environmental impact study was ever conducted for the proposed project. The C£~y ~entatively approved %he building of 40 homes cn this land in 1990 after it issued .% negative declaration concludin~ the project would not adversely impact the environment. However, the original developer went bankrupt before the project began. Since that zime new seismic ]nfornmtion regarding the Cucamonga ~ault has come to light and biological surveys have revealed the importance of the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat as harboring more than 160 rare, threatened, or endangered species. The CURE su~-t alleges tha'~ the City prevented analysis and public ~iscussion of any such new circu,~stances by (1) granting extenslons of 5he tentative map in violation of local ordinances; (2} violating state and federal law by not providing affected property owners w~th notice and an opportunity to be heard at the times the tentative map was extended; and (3) depriv]l]g access to pi]b]~.c records relating to ~he project. CURE is represented by ~he Berliner Law Offices (Nevada City) and Loeb & Loeb {Los Angeles). Berliner has been involved in public interest land use, planning and ~,34-' LSEB & ~;.,3£5 ¢age 3.3 ,uoc 75,5 J,J_-09 environmental law for over 35 years. In one of its recent notable cases, it ~ucccssfull¥ quashed Disney's proposed ski resort in the Lake Tahoe area. Berliner also successfully sued the White Mouse Council on Environmental Quality to obtaln release of ~mpor~an~ environmental documents under ~he Freedom o~ Information Act. Loeb & Loeb is one of Caiifornia's largest law ~irms. For information . DEAN DUNN-RANKIN CHARLES $. EXON WILL[AM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HAgTm:LL HUGH HEwrl-r JOHN D. HUDSON HEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP ATrORNEYS AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 · (714) 798-0511 (fax) MARK R. MCGUIRE DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER August 12, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL Craig Manson, Esq. Counsel, California Department of Fish & Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Re: Lauren Development - Tentative Tract No. 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamonea, California Dear Mr. Manson: Development ) the This firm represents Lauren Development, Inc. ("Lauren - ", proponent for a 23-acre residential project on the above-referenced property in the Haven View Estates neighborhood in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "Project"). The Project was approved by the City in 1990, in full compliance with CEQA. Lauren Development is preparing to record the f-anal map within the next two months. In May, a resident attorney in the neighborhood organized several neighbors to attempt to prevent Lauren Development from recording the final map for the Project. (See Attachment A - Letter from Cristiano to City of Rancho Cucamonga). Although many specious allegations have been made by this group regarding the Project in an attempt to block, or fatally delay, final recordation (such as false claims regarding resource impacts and earthquake and flood dangers), it would appear that the only real issue is an unsubstantiated belief that the 40 new homes could reduce the market value of some of the existing houses. Normally, such a situation should be of no concern to you or the Department. However, in this case the attorney for the neighborhood group, Ms. Melissa McKeith, appears to have been able to elicit the support of some members of the Department to illegally interfere with Lauren Development's rights and to inappropriately interfere with Lauren's recordation of the final map. (See Attachment B - two letters of Melissa McKeith to the Department). 08-11-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\9?O80025.LIR Craig Manson, Esq. August 12, 1997 Page 2 Specifically, at the request of Ms. McKeith members of the Department have attempted to retract the Department's November 18, 1996 letter to Lauren Development confn-ming that the Department does not require a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the Project. Under the circumstances of this case, such an attempt at reversal of an earlier Department decision is unlawful. Lauren Development complied with the requirements of Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code in the fall of 1996. (See Attachment C - Lauren Development letter to CDFG requesting site visit and determination by the Department as to whether Streambed Alteration Agreement is required). In September 1996, Lauren Development requested that the Department review the development project proposal and determine whether the Project would require a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Department conducted a field inspection of the site in September and reviewed various maps and materials relating to the Project and the site. The Department, by letter dated November 18, 1996, determined that the Project does not require a Streambed Alteration Agreement. (Attachment D). The Project impacts have not changed in the seven months since the Department rendered its decision. My client has, however, substantially relied on the Department's November decision, investing approximately $400,000 or more since November in reliance on the Department's decision. Several days ago my client received a letter dated August 5 from the Department, wherein the Department is attempting to reverse its November decision. (Attachment E). Please be advised that under California law, the Department is not entitled to reverse the November decision. Furthermore, the Fish and Game Code does not allow the Department to reverse a decision once it has concluded that an agreement is not required -- unless perhaps the development impact area changes substantially, a scenario not present in this case. ~ The Department's November decision that Lauren Development is not required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement legally remains in effect and is binding on the Department. I would appreciate your office clarifying this issue with the CDFG Long Beach Office and providing my client with a retraction of the August 5 letter. ~ I might point out that when deciding to revisit the Project site and revisit its decision, the Department never even notified Lauren Development in advance -- as it is explicitly required to do by §1603 of the Cal. Fish and Game Code. Moreover, there is no riparian vegetation on the Project site, and no aquatic habitat exists on the site. The site consists of upland plants and mature alluvial scrub vegetation which will not revert back to earlier successional stages because of hydrologic changes to the watershed made in the 1980's. 08-11-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97080025.LTR Craig Manson, Esq. August 12, 1997 Page 3 Secondly, this firm remains concerned about a variety of incorrect and misleading statements contained in a June 23, 1997 letter issued by the Department to the City. (See Attachment F). Again, the comments and statements made in the letter appear to have been prompted mainly by the urgings of Ms. McKeith (See Attachment B) and Ms. Leona Klippstein of the Spirit of the Sage Council. I have spoken with Department staff on several occasions about the incorrect and misleading information in this letter and recently wrote to the Department about the same. Although staff has orally acknowledged at least some of the letter's incorrect or misleading statements, the Department has not, to date, retracted or corrected these statements in writing. As an example of just how inappropriate many of these statements are, I draw your attention to the Department's incorrect claim that "recirculation of the [1990] Negative Declaration is warranted because... 2) new information of substantial importance to the project has become available... the [Project] will result in a significant impact to [Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub]." Not only does the Department's letter not articulate the appropriate CEQA test for new information, Department staff knew -- or certainly should have known -- that the sensitivity ranking of the vegetation community was made by the Department in 1985, some five years before the Project was approved. (See Attachment G - CDFG memo confirming that sensitivity ranking made in 1985). Equally outrageous is Department staff's claim that when a local jurisdiction elects to consider developing an NCCP or multi-species conservation plan, all previously approved (but not yet completed) development projects must be reopened for reconsideration and additional CEQA analysis. I am certain that this position would come as a surprise to those jurisdictions participating in, or considering participating in, development of an NCCP or multi-species conservation program. As I have explained to Department staff previously, it is inappropriate for the Department to let itself and its credentials be used and manipulated for the personal agendas of neighbors opposing a nearby housing project. (See Attachment H). 08-11-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97080025.LTR Craig Manson, Esq. August 12, 1997 Page 4 I am requesting that you investigate the Department's actions in this matter and counsel the Department to rescind its letters of August 5 and June 23. Please call me as soon as you have reviewed the enclosed. Sincerely, Andrew K. Hartzell AKH/lcc cc: Jacqueline Schaffer (via fax and U.S. mail) The Hon. William Leonard (via fax and U.S. mail) The Hon. Jim Brulte (via fax and U.S. mail) The Hon. Curt Pringle (via fax and U.S. mail) The Hon. Keith Oldberg (via fax and U.S. mail) John Allday (via fax and U.S. mail) Bill Ford (via U.S. mail) 08-11-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\9?O80025.LTR 101 00 ~00 00:00 L~ ~0~ Robert & Cristiano 9 Aurora Irvine, CA 92612 714.854.2398 June 26, t997 Brad BOer City of Rancho Cucamoaga P.O. Box 807 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Lauren Development Design R~view Challenge Tenlative Tract Map #14771 Dear Brad, This tetter is in response to the ~cttcr you ~ from M~tis, m McKieth datecl June 11', t997 s~art to me by ~ I)evelopmertt Unfommate~, I did not receive a copy from her, buII have talked with her al lengttz It was the content of that conversation that disturbs me. As you know, I believe anyone has a fight to erpams thefir opinion abotrt developmerrt thai may ttIec't theta. The city has ample forums for individuals to do just tt~. Wha~ I object to is ulterior motives or hidden agendas. Ms. MclGcth informed me quite brazenly thai it is the interrt of the opposition it) "dcfrat the Lauren proposal and then buy my property for $t00,00D." Specific~y, she mentioned by name a re.mina home builder who bought a nmub~r of lots flora Brock and views Lauren as competition. The- opposition is quite aware that the map expires in Novtuber and stated thai tt~ will '~do whatever it takes to delay a dec/s/m by the city until the map expires", ttms rmdering the prop~y valueless. Ms. McK~h werrt on to say tt~ it was her personal opinion that the Havetwiew pro~ owners should buy my propc-rty to kec'p il from developmc'm. I asked her why no one has ever asked me ifI wrrald ~ it to them. She had no answer. I am d~ by the devious nature of their plans as their true inteations are ncrt voiced in the Loeb and Lo,b letter sent to the c/ty courtall tud city attorney. Ms. McXdth stat~s a number of fact~ in her l~-r thai are simpty not true. I trove attached a pokrt by point realxram to hc-r 16tt~r for your re-view. As a property owner in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, I am concerned. The para:l has generated property taxes in excess of $100,000 since 1989. Brock, lauren and myae. l£ have ~t hundreds of thousands of dollars on the var/ous reports, studies~ improvem~rt, grad/ng, arid home plans required to comply with the city's r~tuirmaents for development_ The issues were well research~ and publically debated during the terrtafive map phase. I hope the city will recognize Ihat the time m de. bate these/ssues is not at deaign review. Thank you for your consid~on. Robert J. Crist/ano for Cristiano Partners I, owner of the propertT Attachment A Page 1 of 2 101 00 '00 00:00 Response to the June 11~ leiter from Malissa McKelth 1) Failure. of the city to prorifle notice of Des'tim Review lieuting Unmie. I am confident the city did not err in this matter. Based on the number of dtizens who were present, it appears that the public was well informed. 2)'F~ilurt: of the city to conduct environmental review for over seven years, Incorrect. Environmental studies are not part of the dexign review process. The city conducted proper study during Ihe tenlative map process. The developer 'tonducted gnatcatcher surveys in January of 1997 and found no birds present. The :25.9 acre property sils immediately adja~rt to the 433,664 azre Cleveland National Forest. 3) Most ofthe homeowners moved into the area after 1300 and had no idea about the.project Untrue. The recess/on of' 1990-1996 slopped most development in California and inside Havendew. Most homes were actually built before 19913. Since I was comau'ted in February of 1997 by Ihe homeowners assodation's management committee and invited to a joint meeting of both boards to d/scuss the Lauren project, it would be improper Io s~y Ihey "had no idea". 4) The city has not ade,luately evaluated safety_ i~tucs concernirig the removal of a I~cr/pheral t:ogtablment levee, Untrue. The t:iood Control District reraoved the/r easement on this property in 1988 fotlov, dag corapt,. ion of the flood corrtrol channel to the north and east 0fthe project. ~'hey would acre ha, ee done so if'the levee was req~red. Further, a condition ofthe final m~p is the construction ufo cohort:re channel to divert excess water to the ~ amy from the property. 5) The project is sitteated as habitat that is Catetory SI,I al~d G,l ....... and .... ~cluIJty constitutes nbo,t 1,5% of the royal remailtirtg habitat for Gnatc~tcher~ on earth. Untrue. This is ~n outrageous attempt to make the property something it is not. The categories mentioned are tabeted on a 2000 scale map, a line on which would be larger than the property. It is arljarx~ to the 400,000+. acre national forest which is a pearinhere reserve. To state this property is 1.5% ofthe gnatcalchers' remaining habitat on earth is tex'firaony of' the author's willingness to use fiction it> stop lhe legitimate process of entitlement. 6) J,auren Development has never provided direct riotice to any homeowner in the area, True. But Lauren has had arepie communications with the homeowners association as hate I dating back to January of t997. I~: is the hmeowners assodations responsit~itity to conmnnficate to individual homeowners. 7) l¥lrs. Hahn t~as 8 conflicl of interesl, A footnote on page 4 (CS) staes that Bill Angel marked thai Ms. Hatm's interest in listing the homes for sale m/ght re. present a curfitter of hrteresC Yet, Ms. McKe~ is silem on Mr. Angel's irrtent of buying the property for $100,000 sier the defeaI ofthe Lauren project. 8) The extension' of the tenlative. map in t~)3 was procedurally olefectivq: Untrue. The footnote ~t the end of page 5 states thru my letter to Beverly Nissen clearly establishes that the application was not receiv~ in a timely manner. My letter was ncrt an application, rather a request for verification that the Senate Bill 428 granted ma atitomatic extension oft he map. 9) Approval of the Design Review App!ic~t/on violat~ CF. OA Unme. ti is the opinion of the city and our env/rom~ consultam, Temptc-'ton Planning Group, tt~ no violation of CEQA rules will occur with Design Review Approval. Attachment 'A Page 2 of 2 BOS-2BS-S867 1234~ t C.,DFG PAGE 02 1007 · O(14,iT', .t~ Attachment B Page i of 5 '/1997 14'13 '~-~-~7 885-285-5867 CDF*G · Jo~ 7'15 Pf~E 8G Jun- 4.D Tue 06: 54 18~7 10. 1007 To gu~an~ a ~ t~, 19~7 ~o the ~ Attachment B Page 2 of 5 /15197 14' 13 805-285-58G7 C~DFG · Ju~.-O7 ti,3~ o7:~t? 1~7 04 i~mNIF.44M ° m ~=.--~ UGI,~I fur I~- -~ F.~~ (Cta~) chal,,~so m L~t~ ~ Ptoj s~, T,:zt~i~ T~ ~ 1~, 14771 Attachment B Page 3 of 5 /i997 14'i3 885-285-5867 CDFG PA~ P~I~ lt14 Job Attachment B 83 Page 4 of 5 '/1557 14:13 · 885-285-586,7 15::31 TO P~ 85 Attachment B Page 5 of 5 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. September 12, 1996 Ms. B~'y Jon~s _Catffom/a ~em 36431 41xt SIIm't'F. axt Palmd81e, CA 93552 .. RE: Subcl/v/sion 2rt Northc"m End oft-lavtm Avenue, City or,nebo Oucamonga : ~)car M.~. Jones' I'haak you for talking to me on th~ phone ycxtc~ ~a:rnoon. A~ you r~~, mmc maps ~ pbotog~p~ of~e ~j~ pm~. ~o~ of bu~g ~ pm~o~y appmv~ ~~on (~, ~y D~~on) ~d ~ now ~ m t~ ~ I ~ ~m ~= ~t~ ~fom I cto~ ~w. ~e of~c Some ~ple have ~~ me ~ ev~ ff~ . ts~ USGS m~, w~c o~ ~~ ~ .D~ ~~ ~c n~ c~c~ ~c ~fom ~ ~ no n~ m d~ ~ F~ v~ mu~5 appr~iatc ~y ~d~cc you ~ · Enclosed are ~e followlug map.s: Thoma~ BrorJacrs Mzp (SubjecI ~m'opcrry o~rJin=.d 952- 53 USGS M~ (Subj~ pm~ o~~ ~ ~) t%6 ~v~ 1988) USGS Map (S~j~ ~~ o~~ ~ ~) 9~ S~ B~~o ~~ Flood ~n~l J991 ~md ~ing ~ .--';~. 2:i- ?_ - -'-. -:., .. ~ give you a bh~ ~mo~ of~e pro~ ~ I ~d~d iz: ?rirrr to 1952 a d/ke was con_qtmctcd across zlm southam ~g= of~c pm~ ~v~g ~m ~e mou~ of Dc~ C~k ~yon m ~= ~u~ ~ ~c sho~ up on ~= ] 952-53 USGS m~ ~d ~1 sub.nero ~. ~ ~ bc s~ on ~= t 9d~ USGS map, a "blue ~" (tin me ~ i~ S-2) is d~icmd ~mning ~ross ~ ~bj~ ~o~ ~hi~d ~c dike ~d a secoaft "bt~ line ~~' (~2) is ~o~ fio~g ~m ~ 1 ~d~y ~ss ~c sire. 1956 ~1oo~ Con~] Di~ map d~ sho~ a ~~ p~, ~~ l ~1 ~1 ~3, ; . imo S-1 Attachment C Page 1 of 3 i01 00 '00 00:00 2cj6 P03 Th= San B~nazdino County Ftood Control Distdc~ co~~d D~ C~k C~=1 in a~m 1980. ~ loc~on of~e ~n~l ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ p~e 1988 ~~ of~e 1966 USGS ~. I~ ~so shows ~ on ~ ~ ~ ~d sid= of ~e pr~o~ G~g Pt~ I ~d ~e USGS ~ ~1o~o (tel~n ~ ~. Sh~ ~ 9B/96) md ~ mid ~ ~ ~al photo ~~ (m:h ~ ~e 1988 ~io~) ~ pm~ 6e USGS do~ ~ mow ~bty om~ i~omfion (m~ ~ blue 5~ ~) ~ ~e o~y p~ of~e ~~ ~ to ~d ~o~on, not c~ old i~omfion.-USGS ~nS~ ~ ~te it ~ ~ble ~x ~c ~dition of~e flood tonal channel ~ntd ~eefivcty h8~ et~t~ ~c bl~ ~e ~ ~tow i~ rmo~g ~ ~ms ~om ~e USGS ~s m~d not o~ ~ a ~1 ~c ~m is ~ffo~ed. Sometime a~er the 1966 mpo maps wen: trmpm~ and before the Deer Creek Chinreel was constructed, the Flood Control District dre. dgcd a 50-60' wide swale across the property, roughly paralleling the dike and S-l, bm a few hundred feet to the north. This sw~e shows up on Ihe base topography ofthe 1991 Cnm:Hng Plan. When the suade was coms'tructed, the cxpom were dumped in the area betwevm the swale mad the rlikc, thus disruptlug even more of the site titan just that affected previously by the dike. I traced the location of S-2 snd S-3 on th/s Gm~/ng Plan and found that only a few hundred feet orz, o of similar topo ~11 eadsts in the uortheasI portion of the site before being etiminatzd by the swale. If you compare the 1966 mpos w/th the 1991 topo, you cem see ttmt the only portion ofthc site which is similar on zll rn~ps (i.e.. still "umuml~) is the comer ofthe property northe~vt of the swsie, which I ~ate m be ~bom 25% of the carlre s/re. Based on the above topo maps alone, I think the following is evident: Fir~ the construction of Vdac swale behind the d/k= diverted may water from flowing through S-]. Ser. oad, the swatc also physirmlly obliterated mosI of S-2 and S-3 from the site. And ~ the construction of the Deer Creek Chinreel diverted the water soume of the swale, S- 1, S-2 and S-3. ha addition to the above maps, I also enclose photographs which I took yesterday. I hiked over r.he s-itc, 1oo~g f~ ~y ~bt~cz of d~ vcg~om t fo~d none. Pt~ note ~ by SEE ~d ~~ for ~g ~ck ~m~ t~. ~ ~ no ~v~ ~d~ i~ m~ for toter, ~d no ~si~ ~~e ~ch woMd be ~~ ff~e ~M~, S-l, ~2 or S-3 ~Pt~e also note ~m ~e ~ m ~e so~ ofo~ ~pc~ is ~ ~pmv~ ~d co~~ 3su~vision. ~o~ blue t~e s~ (S4) sho~ up on ~e 19fidiS8 USGS m~s ~d m~ fight ~rough ~ ~t. Deer ~k C~zl M~ e~t~ ~is ~e ~m. ~s . m~id~on ~ tinge half atto loB, tomy of~ich ~ M~ m of S4 ~ ~t ~d o~y ro~ ~ gmd~. Thee ~ no ~fibte ~d~ ~f S4 ~ ~s s~xSsion. Attachment C Page 2 of 3 9O9 484-186~ FAY,,909.484-18.54 rcsidu~l ~ra~rshed of approx~rrmtety ]36 ~ ~ns ~~ ~ n~w D~ Cr~k C~I ~1 ~i~ c~el ¢2' d~, 6' ~de m ~e) ~g m~~ ~oss ~e no~em one ~f a~c to~ ~ propo~ m develop on ~ ~te ~ not ~ ~ ~d~ ~to ~ ~s ~ 10% st~c of~c T~k you on:: ~ for 1oo~g ~Io ~s m~r. I ~1o~ for M~g m ~rdy, bm I ~md gi~ you a ~mpt~ pic~ of~e ~~. Pt~ ~1 me m ~9 4~1863 ffyou a~ t took forward to your mpty. Vc-ry truty youre, John L. Altd~y Attachment C Page 3 of 3 PANCHO C. UCA~ONGA Ot--TI~ 11i1~ -_ Di~PART~SNT OF FiSH .AND · _:Novem.beI lB, 1996 I Mr. Jah.n All.day L~uren D~velopmem. t Inc. !lOB0 Arrow Route, Suite !02 Rancho Cucamon~a, CA,' 91730-48~5 This letter is re~arSdn~ the subd/vision at the northe_~n end of Haven Avenue, City of 'Rancho Cucamon~a ~_nd ~he need for a SErea~ed ~teration A~eem~t. As ~s~ss at ~he s~te s~ce ~e "blue l~e' strew" has ba~n blocked from the flow regime by the Flood Con~o! Dfstriut's levee. catcher ~eys, per U,S ~ish -- = . _ . ~. ~i!d!ife' Se~ic¢ ~rotoco!, prior to ~st~b~ue of the ~ea. A copy uf the ~=y should be s~mit~ed to ~he .Depa~ment. This letter is h no way an . authorix~tion for the t~ke orb any 5i~E~d species, nor does constitute Deoa~ment of Fish ~d G~me ~dors~m~nt of the proposed operation, or. ass~e ~e Dep~ment's continence with other Debits re,ired. -- If you have any further questions, please contact me at. (805) 2B5-58~7. Sincerely, Rebecca Jones · cc- Liam Davis Attachment D ..' Page 1 of 1 · 88/07/1c:]'57 14:13 885-285-5867 · · . · DEPARTMENT OF FiSH AND GA~E (562) 590-5137 CDFG August 5, 1997 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development Inc. 11OB0 ~krrow Route, Suite 1D2 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-4825 Dear Mr. A21day: This letter is regarding Tentative Tract No. 14771. The Department has received new information and has concluded there are viable intermittent streams on the property ~hich will require a Streambed Alteration A~reement prior to any construction activities. At ~he requtst of Ms. Melissa McKeith, a review of the boundaries of ~he above mention tract was walked on July 28 by Mike Giueti, a fisheries bio!ouist for the Department, and myself. Signs of an active intermittent stream were present alon~ the southeaster~ boundary of the prmper~y anj ther~ appear to be natural clraina~e at=as north of the project site. These streams were in areas not evaluated during our site visit las% year. Enclosed is a Streambed Alteration Notification packet to be complete and submitted to the Department at the address listed ab6ve. If you have any question please contact m~ at (805) 2S5- 5867. Sincerely, Rebecca Jon~ Environmental Specialist Re~ion 5 Mir. Mike Giusti Mr. Cur[ Taucher Mr. Bill Tippets Ms. ~alissa McKeith Attachment E Page 1 of 1 , ~mm: John L. ~da¥ To: A~d~w K~ Ha~ .,~-' ~L=: 6/26/97 ~me: 10:!~'~ ~I ., SE~ BY: R OU~ONGA CO~ D~; 6-26-97 10:18AM; g0~772847 => Lauren Deve[0pmen:; 8612511957 15:32 3185985192 ~-6 R5 Page 3 of 5 #214 PA6E 91 City ot h~ancho Cucamonga Pl:aon~ng ~pa~c~t Dear Tract 14771 and ~.~r-n Oe¥ctopment's Propo--d Project ~lifomi~), 8 f~eral ~reaie~ed a~ ~(e 'Spe~s olSpedal Co-~m (~C)'. ~~ plant ~nd ~Idilfe spades. Th~ am ha~ been des{~na~d ~ Sign~nt ~tural A~ 88Dl10. As curmnfiy understood by the D~pemc~t, approve{ ~ ~4~ development ~~t ~S to ~e ~morandum of Unde~and~Q (MOU) on June ~, 1995. for ~evetopment i~ ~ w~/n an a~ Natu~l Commun~ a~ - o~ ~ ~e ~ Is a pm~~ and ~) Attachment F Page i of 2 ..¢ro~ J~ L Aftday To: Andrew K. Harizet] ~-Dai:=.: 6/26/97 lime: 107'~ &~t '. SENT BY: R CUCA~IONGA CO&t DE'V; ci-26-97 10:1BA&~; 9094772847 => Lauren DeveZopmen'~; ~6/25/1597 !5:32 31859~51~2 ~ R5 PA6E Mr. Br=cl t~ulter June $, 1t;tg7 -~er a:io~ t~t ~tl ~uim approval of ~e C~y, and ~e~ the ~el/~na~ or ~~Ise, a~ ant~md and/or req~md ~fore ~ pm~e~ may p~ed. used in compie{ing the August 14, ~ggo {ni~ml S~udy and Negadva De~a~Eon for ~ pfoJe~. {=~uc {~ fceoived, We took ~o~ to m~n; ~ ~e ~ and Lauren ~ve~op~n: to dt~ss feso~u~or, of our ~n~m~ as so~ as possiOie. ~act Mr. B~I[ Tippets o( out NOCP pro0~m ~ (~19) 467~212. You ~ mail G~me, NCCP Pro~m, 4~9 Vi~ge Avenue, S~n DieOo, g~o~a S2123; 4235. #314 82 Copy: See Attached L.J5 t Attachment F Page 2 of 2 MEMO To: ~rom~ Andrew K. Hartzell, Esq. (Hewin & MeOuffe, LLP) Liam Davis, NCCP Assoc. Wildlife Biologist (California Depmment Fish and Crame) Records of California gnatcatchers along the alluvial fans in southwestern San Bernardino County As prom/seal I have enclosed California Department of Fish and Game (Department) Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) California gnatcatcher (CAGN) records for areas east and west of the Lauren property along the alluvial fan. I distinctly remember the late James S. Burns telling me ~ha~ he had several sightings of CAGN along the Eftwanda fan. I requested James to complete a NDDB form for one of his CAGN sightings at Eftwanda and subm/t to the Department. James also recorded a CAGN sighting in the in press manuscript that we co- authored as well. I am Io believe that you have a copy of this in presx manuser/pt, "Current Status and H/story of the California gnatcatcher (Poliop~ilia c~tifomica catifornica) in San Bernardino County." Bob McKernan, San Bernardino County Museums, would be able Io give you testimony of other occasions where he has personally observed CAGN along the Eftwanda fan. II. Todd Keller-Wolf, Ph.D. (Ve. getation Ecologist, Department Fish and Crarne)left message to me that the State sensitivity ranldng for R/versidean Alluifial Fan Sa~e Scrub as a S 1.1 "very Ihreatened" natural community in sorehem California occurred in 1985. Please contact me ifI can be of more assistance at 619-4674207. b:~ll.rnmem ihd Attachment G Page 1 of 1 H~ Hewrrr I:IEwrrr & McGvm , LLP A'FroR.~'EY$ AT LAW 'PALrL A. August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE and U-S. MAIL Rebecca .Iones Env~ronmen~ Spe~t- Region 5 California Detmrtment of Fish and Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 908[32 Re: L~uren Development-- Tra~t 1~771 in the City of Rancho Curmmonga, C~ifomia Dear Ms..Iones: This fn-m repmscn~ L~uren Development, the proj~zt proponent of appmximamly 23-acre r~id~fi~ d~velopm~t proj~t on ~e above-refcren~ ~ct in ~e City of ~cho Cu~monga, ~ifomia. I under~d ~at yau left a voice m~l m~ge far John Allaay of ~uren D~velapm~t at the ~d of t~t w~ r~u~fing ~at ~uren Devdopm~t ~nmct you. This afternoon I left a message for you on your answer/rig machine noting that was returning your r2.]l on behz17 of lauren Development. Please contact me at yo. ur ezrliest convenienr. c at (714) 798-DID0. Let me ag~n expreas my disappointment that the D .epanment of t:i~h and Game has declined to date to w/thdraw or substrent/ally ctmSfy its June 23, 1997 tellrr ~to Mr. Brad Bultcr ;at the City of Rancho Curmmonga in wr/fing. While the D .epanm~t's oral ctm-/firmt/ons zre apprec/ated, they have timiterl value when not reflected in wr/fing ~ven the written smtcmemts of June 23. As ~[ hay= menfion-~t previously Io BLll Tippets, you and othu-v5 at CDFG, that tei/e'r court/ns both inar. cmmte and mistmding information and slmtements whkh do a disservice boI.h to the Deparlment and Io the public which it serve_s, not to mention the potential pmjudic/al effect which thty could have on the project applirmnt. Onr_.e zga/n, I request that the Depzrrment either withdraw or subxlanfi~dty clarify its trx/er of June 23 in wrking. The Department's letter of June 7.23 suggests that the Depzrlmcnt may be interested in m~t/ng with the City end lauren Development. City staff m-~d L~uren Development would be pleased to meat with Bill Tippets, yours~f and, if zp. prop~Sare, other members of the D~ar~ment. Such a minting should be. held by/r/day, August ]5. Please. inform me of the. Department's interest and availability. 08-05-97 SD21-OOOO2 Attachment H Page I of 2 Rebecca .Iones August 6, 1997 Page 2 Again, I would appreciale your returning my phone call on behalf of Lauren D.eyelopment. I look forward Io speaking win% you soon. Sincerely, Andrew ~/elt Jacqueline Schafer (via regular mail) Craig Manson, Esq. (v/a regular mail) John Allday (v/a regular mail) Wilt/am Tippezs (via fax and regular mail) Brad Bulter (via reg-atar mail) Attachment H Page 2 of 2 101 00 '00 00:00 DEPARTMENT OF FISH .AND GAME 33O GOtDE~ SHC3~.. ~ ~0 (3z0) s 0-$ 38 066 ~ November 18, 1996 1 Mr. John All.day Lauren Development Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA' 91730-4~5 I · ,. Dear Mr. Allday: This letter is regarding the subdivision at the northern end of Haven Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga and the need for a Streambed Alteration A~reement. As discuss at the site visit, a Streambed Alteration Agreement will not be need for the project since the "blue line stream" has been blocked from the normal flow regime by the Flood Control D£strict's levee. Please recall at our meeting.! mentioned the need for gnat catcher surveys, per U,S. Fish mnd ~ildlife' Service protocol, prior to disturbance of the area. A cop~ ~f the survey should be submitted to the Department. This letter is in no way an authorization fQr the take of3, any !i~ted species, nor does iz constitute DePartment of Fish and Sa. me endorsement of the proposed operation, or-assure the Depgrtment's concurrence with oEher permits required. If you have any further questions, please contact me at. (805) 285-5867. Sincerely, · Environmental Specialist. Region 5 cc: Liam Davis · 08/07/i997 14:13 885-285-5867 $TAT~ OF CA[ffOI~NIA~THE ~SOt~C~ AG~ICY . - ~ ._ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME LOe, IG ~ACH. C...A J (562) 590-5137 CDFG -. PAGE 81 !~rE WILSON, .. -. August 5, 1997 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-4825 Dear Mr. Allday: This letter is regarding Tentative Tract NO. 14771. The Department has received new information and has concluded there are viable intermittent streams on the property which will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to any construction activities. At the request of Ms. Malissa McKeith, a review of the boundaries of the above mention tract was walked on July 28 by Mike Giusti, a fisheries biologist for the Department, and myself. Signs of an active intermittent stream were present along the southeastern boundary of the property and there appear to be natural drainage areas north of the project site. These streams were in areas not evaluated during our site visit last year. Enclosed is a Streambed Alteration Notification packet to be complete and submitted to the Department at the address listed above. If you have any question please contact me at (805) 285- 5867. Sincerely, Rebecca Jon~ Environmental Specialist Region 5 cc: Mr. Mike Giusti Mr. Curt Taucher Mr. Bill Tippets Ms. Malissa McKeith mslmlmam m~ 885-285-5867 CDFG PAGE Jun-tO lu. ~) l g~7 L.OE BLu, tm~M ~l~ummm llmm. mm~mm Lain &mem~mm. r,A ~ml~.M~l IWL PmJf~cim Well PROM: !~mdtm 14.dumwoy 1~,4cK~A~k I)~TE: Jura 10, I~ Dmmm ~ Wolf: Ittm~ i~ im m bmSm flmr jambile ~fmmmmt (w ta da my~bimqj. 'lb tmm~ IlmJ~llo mbo~ioo on ~. mmmmr uum in t990 ~,hm a Mp~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~ut 4m,wk~mr, Bm~..k ~. !qmmmdns 8~mfY' Indtm~ ~fmm L,mmm Io ~ to m ~{~m~mJ~' leaor of Novmber ira. t,m,M (mrsmud) qmdrmi U~ely. I~ J. mm ~m tumy ~ ~ ~ .~mm~m~ mt ~ m.mX qwmk m &Min. ,~m~ ~ b impdin4 t~ m~rv~ ~m b~m, ~mmbm4 mm !~l~lt Aim · romp 02 885-285-5867 Me, Petrkl& Wolf' Juno tO, lq47 CDFG Pego 31t7 dol} 716 · PAGE 06 mep, it appears muldpte "blu~ line resurns*' now am~Jled b~ me eximml l~voe ire tfJkcud, l~oes tide i~ormadon slur Fish & Geme'; e0eci~ dut no 9rambed ^1~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ Devebpment? To p~rm · delay of the 8ridinS of the site, M requm Fish & ~ I)ew~ walked dae sias with pmmmml hxn the t~ or P1sh dk (Jams mud m~dy f~ml,~0d mf th~ er~ no ~bbb riFm4sn htbtlms or ~ r~ntldns slt~ ~ that develoM will hBwr uo adverse effect ~ l~lants sod 08707/1~cJ7 1~' 13 8t35-285-5867 CDFG PAC-,E: Jul-07 Mort o?:~?' ~2 84 I~mmm Immm~ ~mmm~ m (:~ UnMd ~ur RaemaMM ,r~.,a,i~: (~) m L~me'l []emtelmlm l~oj.t, T~ T~c ~ No. ldT71 & ~ bn4ee'm ~ ~ i, m,~mdy : M ~ 1~ M~ yeK Id ,,M~ d,k ,kl,~ a~y kin,, tath,m,e:l 08/07/1997 14:13 · · ~$-Mt-3t~2,7 805-285-5867 ~My 7, ttl~ CDFG PAGE ,-- 03 the moPou~m~m and mF, a,m~ ~tr twr dQciMQm. Withou~ Jot~ was ccml~ i ~iU ~ ~t ~ time dl~mdlz~ ~ citeflu eyre md m symm. AMuq~ tt slmuld be olwtmm to othor 'o .~~t tblt I#pm mir no bim~ linc wtt, im~ .~d,3',A'q, cdly 08/07/1'3cj? :].,4' ).:3 885-285-586,7 q, CDFG TO Jot~ PAGE 85 du!-07 ~oM o7:31 11S7 DEPARTMENT OF HSH AND GAME LEGAL AFFAIRS DIVISION 1416 Ninth SWeet, Room 1335 P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, California 94244-2090 {916) 654-3821 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: August 18, 1997 TO: ANDREW HARTZELL OF: HEWITT & MCGUIRE, LLP RECEIVER'S FAX NUMBER: (714) 798-0511 [798-0,q~01 FROM: ROBIN, ASSISTANT TO ~ GENERAL COUNSEL OF: DFG / I.EGAL SENDEWS FAX ~BER: (916) 654-3805 DOCUMENT(S): misc. LETTERS RE: LAUREN DEVELOPMENT TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING TI-HS COVER PAGE): 14 COMMENTS: PER YOUR REQUEST FOR QUESTIONS OR CONCi~/NS PLEASE ADVISE ROBIN AT (916) 654-3821 OR CALNET 464-3821 pRIVI1. ,EG~I'I ANT~ Cf)NFIi~!/NTIAI. AI.I, ~RMATION CONTAINg. r~ IN THl,q TRA~.~'ION I~ INTI~TDEi)_ONt.Y FOR THE FCtR ~ AI}DRg-qN~F~ NAME~ !.!F~REIN AILGVE. ANT~ONE ~,V!:[O REC. F. IV~.q TILelON IN ~'.I~ROR ,~[01TIn NOTIFY. TH!.g OFFIC~ i'!V!'M!~1A~t.Y RY_TEI.~PHON~. ANI~ RETURN THE TRANNMTI~At, VIA THE U.~. PO.STA!. ~qERyICE TO Tlll.g OFFICe. AT ~ ADrtR~.q.q NET FCII~TI:l lIEREIN ABOVE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RF.8OURCF.~ AGENCY I~IFORNIA DEPARTMENT oF mH AND GAME TO'd 0c3'p'[ A6, 8'[ 908£-Izsg-g$6'x~3 AIC[ S~IU33U -1U93q 9_-ICI ~08i~ ~69 9t6 aa:gt ~.6-8L-gnv LOEB~LOEB &TTO~NETI AT LAW T6L~Ia~4UMb: 213.681.34~ F,4~SIMILE: 21 REC :~,~L~ AU6 ! u 1S97 L£C;dIL ~,*,',.;,o OIVI81(}N FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL I)a(e: Augu,~t I R, 1997 Time: 7:S9um -.. Pleu..~ deliver tlic tbllowing S pages (which includc this cover letter)... . . From: Mahs.~u Hathaway McKcith Personal ID: 90089 Clicnt/Rc: 16311,/2407 H. Craig Manson Dept. oi' Fish & Claret Fac.,:imile: (~16) 654-3805 Vuicc: (916) 654-3821 Dircct Dial- (213) 688.3622 Iracsimllc: (213) 688-3460 ... Note: If transmission is not cnmplete. please call our operator at (21.t) 688-3478 Mesaage to Addrc.~.~ce: ~:0 'd 06L-qor 'llds Inllw~'~ iS #1leddeal u,d¥ fiw ~he me otthc Wdw~ ~ e,ttit~ to whi~ ,~ ~ ~Kd, ~ ~ GM ~~ ~ d~m~m. di~rt~fi~ of Cop~i~l of~ ~~l~ i~ S~11y p~l~, if you ~ ~ ~b ~KM~n . la',Lt-~! Z0'd 608E ~'69 9t6 ~:~L Z6-et-~lqV LOEB LOEB LOS ANGILil, CA ~0~7-~47S FA:I~ILi'. 113.6M.3400 Niw Ill: 2)2.40740430 Date: To'- M.F.( M_O BA _l'q D u M URGENT - DELIVER OR FORWARD IMMEDIATELY August 18, 1997 H. Craig Man.~)n, E.~1. General Coun:~i, Department of Fish & Oamc File No, 000000000 Patricia Wolf, Acting Regional Manager C,alifomia Departmcnt of Fish & Game, Region 5 Ms. Ma~ M~/cr California Department of Fi~ & Mr. Olen Black Malissa Hathaway McKeith L:ucamong,'ms Unitcd for Rcuo~blc Expansion (CUR.E) Challenge to the Laurc~ Development Project l~ar Mr. Manson' i. Re~Qj~LbI~ ~g~dlGY !nvhlz$.Gt.c~ As you know, the Department of Fish & Game ("Depmem") informed the City of Rancho Cucamongn ("City") on June 23, 1997, of the Dopartmcnt's opinion that the 1990 Negative E)ccl~aOon should be recircuh~YI prior to final approval of the Lauren Dcvclopmcnt Project ("Projolt") in light of chungod circumstances m3d now information. Spccifically, tho Dclm'unent concluded: "IT]he Department bclicvcs additional environmental review is now required to fully. QW18/97 NNN: ivl ; £0 'd 09z-qor Tfi:PT Z6, 8T 5nu S08£-17fi9-9T6:xe.J ~I(I S~IUJ.JU ]U93q 9-1C[ 606E ~69 9t6 66:6t H. Craig Mansun, E~. Augus~ 18, 1997 Pa~e 2 disclose the project's current potential significant impacts to .~n$itivc wildlife resources. We betieve that pursuant to the Cnliibmia Environmental Quality Act, r~iwulation of the Negative Declaration is warranted because: (1) substantial change has occurred with respect to the circum,~tanccs under which the project is to be undertaken, as lhe area proposed for development is now within all active Natural Community Conservation Plann~g {NCCP) area -- of which the City is a particier and (2) new information of substantial importance to the project has become available and the project will now have one or more 'kj~lificant effects not previously discussial, as the propogd development will result in a significant impact to the reduction in the numbers of unique plants and animals associated with RAFSS, a state significant natural arcs/habitat ranked as 'very threatened', (CEQA guidelines, Scotion 15162.)" (June 23, 1997 letter from Palricia Wolf}. In this letter, the Department further inquired what additional discretionary approvals were requirat so that it could raise these CEQA issues and changed circumstances. On July 9, 1997, as part of the final Planning Commission Hearing on the Development D~ign Approval of the Project, the City Attorney, James Markman, admitted on the record that the I~velopment Design approval hearing was dimerutionary. The Pinnains Commi~4ion approved the Project on July 9, 1997, and CURE appealed to the City Council. The Ci~ Council Hearin8 is on Wednesday, August 20, 1997 at 7:00 pm in Rancho Cuc, amonga. Project lnoponents have put considerable pressure on the Depamnent to withdraw Patricia Wolf's June 23, 1997 correspondcn~:e, and the Department has refused to do ~. In light of the Department's position that further CEQA documentation is required, n~ wall as its August 5, 1997 ~ 170 'd 08z-qor ts.t7t z6, 8t Bnv ~,~ t=~! 1,0 'd ~08£-~9-916'x~J Aid $aIU_~_~U -1U93-1 9JCI ~08t~ I~9 9L$ ~;~:C;L ZG-BL-gR¥ H. Craig Manson, Esq. August 18, 1997 Page 3 requiring streambed alteration alpcements,~ CURE rcquests that the l~partmcnt tbrmally assume Responsible Agency status and conduct a focused EIR on the issues over which the D~patirncnt has jurisdiction. I recopiize that the D~partmont has limited resources, howcvor, the Laun:n Development Project raises issues of state-wid~ concern. With the.improved economy, more and more dormanl tentative maps arc being resurrected tbr development without any additional environmental review. The particular p~ at issue has bcen designated Category S-I-I and G-I (alluvial tkn sage scrub). It has been studied cxtcltsivcly by Mary Meyer o1' your Department as part of the Etiwanda Preserve. A precedent supporting the need for additional environmental review on old tentative maps, based upon changed circumstances and new informath)n, would be of vital importance on a number of proj~;ts around the State. 1~1~,22. nO2 OOOOOOoo0 08~.-qol' 2. R¢Oarge ~ c~,, t,d,t I will be meeting with Kurt Bcrctold, Assistant Executive Officer. Regional Water Quality Control Board at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, Au~xmt 18, 1997. Kurt's telephone numbre' i$ 909-782.3298. CURE's hydrologists estimate that groundwater rech~ile could bc reduced by over 2,000 acre feet pcr year if the Lauren Development is approved and there arc estimates that, if all possible recharge were utilized, it could be over I0,000 acre feet. Recharged groundwater typically is the least expensive, and highest quality water available. Although I believe the Regional Board has independent jurisdiction under thc Porter Colopic Act to evaluate these issues, re~vinB some direction from Fish & Game Agency would bc helpful. . I~. gattmum AssisUm.~l.~t.d~c Augu.~t.~.0, 1 ..997_!-learips If a! all possible, we need Mary Meyer's assistance prior to or at the August 20, 1997 hearing. One of the most important changed _.. ' 'l'he Developer cannot comply ~ith tl~ stream~ alteration ar,!t~nmnt based upon an old negative declaration. Section IB(a) of the Streambed Notification Guidelines specifically requires "applicable s~;tions of tlw final certlfi0d CF.,QA doctmmnl, including thom sootions which address biological and Beoiogical impacts." The 1990 Negative Declaration m~ly checked the "no" box ns to any slg;nificant impacts in these (and air c~h~r) gS:lZT Z6, 81: [inu 1,2. t=~ tO 'd GOS£-IzG9-916'xeJ ~ICI SalU.~_~U -1U93-1 9_d(I 606i: ~'69 9t6 clG:Gt ,L6-OL-~rlv circumstances concerning alluvial fan sage scrub is that recent studies have indicated that this ecosystem carmot bc replanted once it ~8 destroyed. Additionally. Mary has the experrisc to provide information concerning the number of' AFSS acres remaining in thc world and that the a~rea~c has decreased sigmilicantly since 1990. Can the Department please support CURE by providing written or oral communications on these key points? The City advance.~l the Hearing Date from September to Au&,u.~, thereby seriously impeding Ct,~FL1Z's ability to get all critical intSrmation into the administrative record 5etbrc it closes. Please cont~t me at your carllest convenience to disGus$ the above. My home number is 909-989-8?02 and my cellular number is 213-999-4332. 90 'd ~g: 17} 2_6, 8]: 5nl::l ~'/., t-~ 90 '~1 gO8£-lzg9-'9$6:x~_q ~Ifi $8IU-t-tU -]1:19:17 D-ICI G09~ t~9 9L6 ~:~t z6-gt-grl¥ FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 Date: August 1 I, 1997 Time: 10:19am .. To: Please deliver thc £ollowing 8 pagcs (which include this cover letter)... . . ----- -. · ....... ,~t. · - From: Mailab Hathaway McKcith Personal ID: 90089 C. licnt/Rc: 16311/2407 Ii. emil Manson Dept. of Fish & Game Facsimile: (016) 654-3805 Voice: (916) 654-3821 Direct Dial: (213) 688-3622 Facsimile: (213) 088-3460 Note: If transminion is not complete, plea~ call our operator at (213) 6RR-3478 Mesaage to Addressee: 2_0 'd 092-q0r 'l'hts tran~tvd#~O~ iS in~,nded rally tk~r the ug oi' ~ mdi~ld~l or mltity m which ~t is ~d~, a~ ~y c~in inf~ti~ thai is ~vi~, c~ntilf l~ Caa~t leon1 d~k,~ ~ ~T~ah~ ~w. If ~ ~ n?' this ~eiiaMc ix not t~ Mten~d any ~illl~ItW, dJ~t~l~ ~ ~nl H ~ ~kl~ i& s~i~ty pl~,hibi~d. if ~ ~vc ~civ~ ~ c~n,~ .. -._ ~_.1. LOEB & LOEB LOEB StLOEB L,. 252 Aug-ll 13:28 1gO7 By Tclecopier MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 1997 FILE NO: 66666/6686 To: 11. Craig ~n Malis~ Hathaway McKcith Patricia Wolf (b~ tct~:~ic~ w/cnc.) William Tippets tby telecopier w/enc.) Rebecca Jones (by tcl~;upi~r wtcn~.) RE: Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expnnsion (CUI~) Chnllcngc to Lauren Development. Tract No. 14771 Dear Mr. Manson: I am writing in my capacity as counsel for CIJRE. CURE is a non-profit unincorporated association compriscd of property owners and environmental IFoups challenging the residential development of a 7_6 nc.~e parcel. Tho pmrtieulur parcol involves property which has becn cnte$oriz~-'d S-I-I mad O-1 (alluvial fan $agc ~rub). It also i5 on a flood plain dcsigned "AO" by the Federal Emergency ManaEcmcnt Agency. The Department of Fish & (lan~ forwarded correspondence to the City of Rancho Ctr, amonga and Lauren Development on Junc 23, 1997, requcsting that a 1990 nelpttive declarntion be m;irculated in light of changed circumstances and new inlbrmation. On August 5, 1997, Ms. l~bec~ Jones of your Department wrote the dcvch)per informing him that a section 1601 permit wn.4 required and re~inding an earlier contrary decision. ARag~ is a copy of tho June 23 and August 5 correspondence jYt~m the Department. The Auguat 5 l,mer appears to havc precipitated the attached response from Hewin and McOuirc, count! for Laurcn Development. The tone and content of that correspondence .,q~mks for itself. Oivcn the less than subtle threat of litigation, CURE requests that all future meetings between thc Department nnd CIIRE and the Department and Laurin Development be attendcd by leiptl counsel for the Dcpartment_ I would bc I~ppy to discus~ ~his mauer further. I will 1~ at the Colorado River meetings in San Diego today but can bc rcnchcd at 213-999.4332, ! will b~ in the office on the 12~'. 'l'hnnk you in ndvnncc for your consideration. 171: Z6, 81: fintJ 172. t-~t B O'd fi08£-t?fi9-9'[6:xeJ ~gIC[ SaIU.J.JU -1U93-1 9.J(I 6OBE: ~9 9L6 ~6:~t AG-Bt=~n¥ 60'd t7S:17[ 2_6, 8~ Bnu OB~-qor Y~- [-~ 60'd S08£-17S9-916:x~_~ AICI S~IU_d_.dU -1U93-1 9_d(I goB8 Pg9 ~i8 gg:gL ~6-B1-~11¥ OI 'd 17S:tzI 2.6, 81: 6nu S08£-17G9-916:xe_-I AI{:I S~IUJJU -IU9:I-'l 9_-I(] ~09E 1~69 9[$ qq:q[ TT '~ SS: Pl /_6, 81: 6nu It S08S'-PS9-9~6'x~ ~I(I S~IUY_~U -1U9~'1 9~(I mume~o-. ...... . memmmmmm lI jmlq ~ mm J~t S, 3,11'7 1,1,050 Ar2q~ BaGIce, ),,01 RimdI LquamIng8, C~ 11'73o-4t3l 3~1,F nm by JffJm aiumt, L, a f~&mho.b"&ee bf, oXogiml: for mbm Oepmrcmn~, and nyee%f. ILe/ o~ ta m~svo &nCorud, tT, onc mireram me prorot; to be I~u~m:L drat~ago arm no~n of ~nm pro3m~t re&to. Ttmom ecrmam van &n armam no~ evaluated dur&ng omr m~o v~mic lmmc ~miioa s titlee Ot, uIV, t ~ Tauolmr JI 'd SS'IzI Z6, 8I 6nu OBZ-ClOI~ l~Z l-~t ~l S08!;'-17S9-91:6:xe-t AIq S~tlUJJU -IU93-1 9.J(I gO8~ Vg9 916 gg:gI ~6-et-Orlv irvin, CdHImmii irael3 J&v W, ~ AUILmt S. 199/ £T 'd OB2-qoc 9S:IzT Z6, 8T 6nu 908£-tzS9-9T6:x~-] AICI S~IUJ-tU -IU93-1 9-t(] IF2I-~{ (~t'd gOBE t'g9 916 gg:gt 26-BL-OA¥ t;'T 'd 9~'171: Z6, 8~: Bnl:J , *,., · I gOS£-~gg-gIB'X~_~ AlE[ S~IU_~-~U '1U93-~ ¢ONSERVA 7'lOIV GUIOEUAIE. S' P~'e 1 $ Attachment C. Evaluation Logic Row.Chart Refer to text section 5.c. Evaluation Methods for def'mitions. .I RESULT Not relm~nt ~ fon~l~her ~ Higher I~tenttal Value For Long-term ~ Ye~ ~ Conservation · Intermediate Potendad · Value For Long-term Conservation Case by ca~ d '.~sion3. , No I. No ve '~'b-~-. ~, 1 s s 3 Lower Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Allow 02057 CONSE'RV.4 ?fON GUIDE/.JNE$ Pa~'e 7'8 Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas Subregional CSS NCCP Planning Unit Focus Mop Contain funct~ I~:alagir..el units h;cjh ~6on vabe. C, enerc~ shouKI be planned es ind'widud NCCP diviclect into smaller ~ to as~st ptannine aml ~ ,~atio~. ~e rnt ~rna~ focus.area ,d~s~9~lioe and the decitm~l part reflects adm~n~strotJve st~x~.~ '~,,~ of the area. Satellite N'ea$ La~cje open areas surroundincj focus or satellite areas may ;nrJude CSS hatetat, land ~th value as con'idor$ t)uffe¢ lot CSS oncl may include natural communities of co,-derva(ion vakJe. Note: f~ t'oc~ ~ satellite areas o(e based on ~a!~tion o! c~astal sacje scrub v~jetal;on components oho does not reflect crtstxit)ut~)n o~ :sensitive spec;es. Th~s is no~ o rn~l) o[ C~ I~t~taL November 9. 1993 0 2 D 5 6 CONSERV,4 T/ON GUIO££/NES Page 17 Attachment A. Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (~S) ~ Hed~ge ~~. ~~ I~plete. ',. :. C..~e~,c s~. of ~ ~ge ~mb ,~ude ~:: '.< ': :".~ .'. '..~~ spies of ~ge (~ ~~. Sa/~/e~~ ~.~ ': ':'.~ .:.~~~~~ ~/~~). bdm~ush (~/~ f~), sunflower (~gu/em ~ta). ~ b~ts ~n- ~ .--~' :~ -~'~' ~uding Edogonum fa~/cu/atum and Edogonum, ~ ~" -' ~ "~ .... ~n&mum). Eve~gr~n ~le~l~s shrubs such as Ma/o~ ~ud~ ~ ~t~~ ~e often pat~ily di~t~ ~ ~s of ~stal ~ge 10 Miles ~mb. ~ ! November 9, 1993 NORTH 02055 94-220 Resotution # A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING A PROG!::LAM TO CONSERVE W1LDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY. On Novembe: :, 3.994, on motion of Supervisor saves ! duly seconded-by Supervisor wa3,ke= , and carried, the following resolution is adopted by the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, State of California, acting in its official capacity as the legislative body of the County of San Bernardino. WHEREAS, grave concern is mounting throughout the communities in the valley area of San Bernardino County as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) continues the process of evaluating various candidate animal and plant species that are found in the area to determine if they should be listed as being either endangered or threatened pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); and WHEREAS, Section 1539 (a)(2)(A) of Title 16 of the United States Code authorizes the creation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); and WHEREAS, the County, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, public agencies and private enterprises, proposes to prepare a valley-wide multi-species HCP in order to resolve the inherent conflicts between land development and rare, threatened and endangered species preservation; and WHEREAS, a proactive approach to this important issue is essential to ensure the economic welt-being of all interests, both public and private, within the San Bernardino Valley; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive HCP will vastly improve the position of all the jurisdictions to provide for the development needed to create the employment opportunities that are so essential to the economic vitality of the valley area and its citizens; and WHEREAS, fourteen of the r~een cities within San Bernardino Valley have adopted similar resolutions of support for the HCP. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the following testaments are made by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors: 1[/1194 lw #50 Section 1. The County will support the preparation of an HCP for the San Bernardino Valley encompassing the area generally bounded by the county lines between San Bernardino County and Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties on the west and south and the San Bernardino National Forest Boundary on the north and east, and agrees to participate in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or other administrative structure, as deemed appropriate, to implement the plan. Section 2. The County will support this effort both by dedicating county staff time to supply the necessary data required for preparation of an HCP and monetarily, in an amount that is mutually agreed to in a fair and equitable manner among all of the local jurisdictions participating in the HCP preparation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, as the official governing body of the County of San Bemarjino, by the following vote: AYES' NOES: ABSENT: SUPERVISORS: SUPERVISORS: SUPERVISORS: R/orda~, w&lker, Eaves, Turoci None Mikel$ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO I, EARLENE SPROAT, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San aemardino County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the record of the action taken by said Board of Supervisors, by vote of the membe,,'s present, as the same appears in the Official Minutes of said Board of its meeting c; Tuesday, November 1, 1994 . EARLE ~IE SPROAT;' :~:;' .~'!"' ~';; .__ Deputy .... . '.' . . ·.. · '~ .;, ~'~. ..'" · ..6 -' 11/1/94 lw #50 X[ - E;NVIRON¥~NTA[, ANALY$~$ T1-01. :iNTRODUCTiON. .T.n senegal, tim env.l.r'onm~nt and tam £mpaot. a o£ Deme~s, Hillside. an~ Cueamonga c ba~el s and deb~ ls bas in~. in co~llance wl~h the mtate~t in the EIS for ~hm pro~eo~ that "~itt~atlon of wildlife iosaea Will be Pl~opoualy ~evie~ed during Pmeparation of Design Memorandum envir~ental asaes~ent ~il[ be prepared that the project on cultural 11-02. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. In July 1970, bne Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineess routinely notlfled an1 interested Federal, State, and local a6eneiee i~s ln~en~ Co s~udy Lhe ~l~d cOn,eel and resPection aspects Cuesta Crse~. ~o~ after, the Na~io~l Par~ ~ervtoe (NP~) counted to the Co~pa that the project would affect a~oheologloal memouPoem ~d t~t an archeolo6[caL survey should ~ ~de. The NP~ ~reed to obtain a eurvey, as they haC done for ~at Corge' proj~ta In the past. October 1970, the Cor~s authoriz~ the NP3 to spend u~ to $1,~00 to obtain tb~ necessary survey. b. In February 1971, At'theological Reseerch, Inc. completed their survey of the Curamerica Creek ProJe~t Area for t~e MP3 and submitted one-p~e letter report ~tat~ng t~t no ne~ mites had been discovered and AdvXmory Courtell on Hisromic Pmemervati~ counted that the ~ext ~de no ~~ off floral c~rdi~ti~ wi~b ~he State Etarefit OFFicer (SHPO), however t~e State off CalX~o~ia eo~n~ed ~ha~ sections on historical, aro~lo~ioal and cultural sites acceptable. Closer coordination with the $H~ revealed ~bout the esthetic i~acts off a c~annel on the bl~toric Jo~n Raima house. Slides and ~ps detalll~ the houee's ait~tion were florwarded, ~d the SHPO a~eed t~t the project ~uld ~ve ~ effect ~pon the Jo~n Ra~ns ~ouae. c. In April 1975, the ~.om Angeles District requested a letter oF ar'cheologioal clearance .f"mom the NP~ so that it could b~ln construction of the ene~ dissipator' seet2~ oF the Cacaoriga Creek fflood oo~trol project. By then, many questions had arisen over the validity o~ ao~ when 3~CH/133, a recorded archeslogic site which would be afE~ted by the proJect~ ~a en:lrely overl~e~ ~n :he ~port. Upon re-reviewing XI-1 the areheologlcal report for which they had contracted, the NPS was unable to Judge the report as being adequate, and hence, could not write a letter of archeological clearance. d. To be sure that the proposed project would not inadvertantly destroy any cultural resources, the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers contracted with the San Bernardino County Museum to do a survey of the lower ~.5 miles of Cucamonga Creek. In May 1975, the museum's report was complete and was approved by the NPS. In late May, t~e NPS issued a letter of aroheological clearance on the lower 1.5 miles of Cucamonga Creek. e. In October 1975, the University of California, Riverside, Ar'cheological Research Unit began work on a cultural resource survey of the rema~nin~ portt~s o~' Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek, Demens Creek and Hillside Creek. Several possible sites were discovered in or near the 9ropose~ project rig, ht-of-way. Field tests were ~de on each, w~ich revealed only one si~e which would ~e affecte~ by ~e proposed project. The cultural resource survey repo,= was co~leted in April ~976, and revlewe~ by ~he SHPO and the NPS. f. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 63.3, ~e Corps forwarded the required doc~uaenta~lon of SBr-895's qualification for inclusion in the ~atio~al Register of Historic places to the State Historic Preservation Office in October 1977. A letter from the SHPO da~ed ? March 1978 verified ~a~ t~e site meets Mariohal Register criteria. The letter also s~a~ed %ha~ the i~closed cultural resource survey repor~ was satisfactory, the recommendations should be fo~lowed~ and that Native American values within the project area should be addressed. 6. Briefly, t~e data recovery program for $Br-$g5 consists of (1) ~he recovery of a 50 percent sample; (2) analysis o£ the saeple ~ncludl~ radiocarbon da~lng and sourcing, pollen analysis, flora analysis~ and faunal analysis; and (3) an archival study of Hission ~ecords. The total cost of the data recovery program would be approxi- ~tely $60~000. h. In a June 1978 telephone consultation with the SHPO regarding application of t~e criteria set forth in the Advxsory Council's Gui~ellnes for makin~ "Adverse. Effect" ~d "NO Adverse Effect" ~e%er~~lons for A~heolo~lcal Resources Pa~: 800, ~o ~he si~e an~ %he p~oposed data s~a%ed %~ =he ~a mecovery ~ogram mee~s %he c~i~eria fo~ ~lng a "No Advemse Effect" dete~mi~tiom, wi~b the condition :~a~ concurrence is also ~eceived f~m local Native American, s. i. In July 1978, the Corps archeoloBlst met with Mr. Henry Duro, TrXDal ChAirman of the San Manuel Serrano Indian Reservation in San Bernardino County. Mr. Duro toured the s~te, was presented with information .and documentation regarding the proposed cultural resource XI-2 recovery program, and was asked to comment with respect to local Native American values. Mr. Duro concurs with the proposed data recovery program and feels that local Native American values would be properly addressed if artifacts from the site are made ave!labia for an inter- pretative display at the San Manuel ?ribal Center. In accordance with Corps policy regarding interpret&rive displays in appropriate areas for the information and benefit of the pubI£c, a verbal agreement for the ioan of these materials to the ?ribal Center was made. Documentation of the "No Adverse Effect" determination, including coordination with the local Native American group, was sent to SHPO in August 1978. Upon receipt of $H?O's tet~er of Concurrence, the Corps would issue a no ~dverse effect determination, and forward it to the Advisory Count".! for review in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4(d). Upon the aceeptan';e of th~s determinat~on by the Advisory Council, or the passage of 45 ~ays, the Corps woul~ initiate the data recovery program which wou~f be completed prior to the construction of the Hillside Debris Basin. 11-03 · BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a. Natural habitats in the undeveloped foothills, mountain~'~ and canyons of the upper drainage area are dominated by ehaparra~ and coastal sage scrub plant communities. Urbanization has grad.~ally encroached on these plant communities in the foothill areas, but re~,nant areas of semi-natural vegetation still exist adjacent to heavily developed ~reas. In many areas, the vegetation has obscured abandoned historle structures and flood control/water conservation structures. b. In the valley outwash below the foothills, natural ~lant communities are mostly limited to areas in the vicinity of the mod fled stream bed and a few isolated areas where intensive agriculture or .~ban developments have not occurred. The coastal sa~e com~unitf is predominant in these areas, but species characteristic of the cha;~rral community are also found. c. In general, the quality and productivity of habitat in ~he Cucamonga Creek drainage area is low in the area south of Baseline ~oad, Dut increases Eradually toward the foothills and mountains. On6oing urban developments are constantly modifying or eliminatin~ habitat in the readily developable area~ in the drainage area. The degree of development and reduction of habitat in the upper drainage area is dependent on the general plan presently being formulated by the Ci~ of Rancho Cueamonga. 11-0~. IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT. a. About 255 acres of land with minimum vegetative and wildlife habitat value will be permanentl~ altered by construction of the concrete channel sections and service road areas. The construction of four deeris basins in the foothill and canyon areas will have short-term impacts on habitat on about ~3 acres of land. Operation of these debris X1-3 basins will have periodic long-term effects on about 97 acres of land. b. Secondary impacts due to land enhancement discussed in the were based on the premise that institutional constraints requiring flood plain management practices would prohibit development of part of the flood plain. It was stated in the EIS, in response to comments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that "Mitigation of Wildlife losses" would be "rigorously reviewed during preparation of Design Memorandum No. 6." In review of flood plain management implementation in the vicinity of the project, it has been determined that the institutional constraints that were anticipated in the EIS do not exist, that urbanization is proceeding apace without the flood control project, and that there are no secondary impacts on wildlife due to land enhancement. 11-05. MITIGATION OF WILDLIFE LOSSES. a. An average of 50 feet of right-of-way along the flood control channels will be landscaped to accomplish "project enhancement." Selection of low-maintenance native plant species for the landscapin~ will also provide replacement habitat as mitigation of habitat losses as a result of the construction of the flood control channel features of the project. This enhancement, in addition to 18 acres of landscaping in the "greenbelt" area near Baseline Road, will provide about 167 acres of replacement habitat in the channel areas, and will provide a corridor for wildlife movement. Recreation erossinEs compatible with wildlife migration in the Deer Creek project area ~designated in the master plan as future development) will also serve as wildlife crossings. b. About 28 acres of the downstream side of the debris basins will Oe landscaped with native plant species for project enhancement. Vegetation will reestablish on the remaining ~,12 acres of land within the debris basins, but about 97 acres will be periodically disturbed by normal operation and maintenance activities. In order to improve the biological productivity within the debris basins, a wildlife "guzzler" will be constructed in each of the four basins. The "guzzler" is a permanent, self-fillinE water catchment similar to a cistern. The guzzler installation consists of a water-tight tank set in the ground, which is filled by a rain-collecting apron (see pl. 30). This apron collects rainwater and drains it into a tank, where it is stored for use by small wildlife which enter the tank through the open end and walk doom the sloping ramp to the water level. The approximate construction cost of each ~uzzler is $5,000.00. X1-4 The Nc v -'2 ' ' ant ourna_ PROPERTY OF THOUSAND OAKS LIBRARY 1401 E. Janss Road Thousand Oaks, California (805) 497-6282 MC q · · of C clnc Established in 1812 as THE NEw ENGLAND JOURNAL ()F MEDICIXE AND SURGERY ,. VOLUME 337 JULY 3, 1997 - NUMBER 1 ORIGINAL ARTICLES Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Acute Lymphoblastic Lcukcmia in Children ..................................................................... M.S. LINET AND OTHERS Use of Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Risk of Cataracts ..........................................8 R.G. CU,\IMING, P. MITCHELL, AND S.R. LEEDER Treatment of Cryptococcal Meningitis Associated with the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome .................................. 15 C.,'~l. VAN DER HORST AND OTHERS Fetal Alloimmune Thrombocytopenia ...................... zz J.B. BUSSEL, *I.R. ZABUSKY, R.L. BERKOWITZ, AXD I.G. McF,~,RLAND Brief Report: Simultaneous Human Granulocytic Ehrlichiosis and Lyme Borreliosis .................................................. z7 R.B. NADELMAN AND OTHERS IMAGES IN CLINICAL MEDICINE Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis ........................................... 3H D.S. BACH REVIEW ARTICLE Medical Progress: Valvular Heart Disease ............... 3z B.A. CAIC-kBELLO AND F.A. CRAWFORD, JR. EDITORIALS The New Surrogates for Board Certification ~ ~rhat Should the Standards Be? ........................ 43 I.P. KASSIRER Power Lines, Cancer, and Fear .................................... 44 E.W.C.~MP[ON Cataracts and Inhaled Corticosteroids ..................... 46 L.T. CHYLACK, CORRESPONDENCE Prevalence of the Pdckettsial Agent of Human Granulocytic Ehrlichiosis in Ticks from a Hyperendemic Focus of Lvme Disease ........................ 49 Residual Clones in Childhood Leukemia ........................ 5o Venous Thromboembolism ............................................... Massive Pulmonary Embolism .......................................... 53 Shortage of Intravenous Multivitamin Solution in the United States ........................................................54 Physician-Operated Networks and Antitrust Regulations .................................................... Care of the Woman Who Has Been Raped: Correction .......................................................................56 Physician-Assisted Suicide and Patients with HIV Disease ...........................................................56 BOOK REVIEkVS ............................................................57 BOOKS RECEIVED .......................................................59 NOTICES .......................................................................... 6H CORRECTION Care of the Woman ~,Vho Has Been Raped ................... ~6 HEALTH POLICY REPORT The Kassebaum-Kennedy Bill -- The Limits of Incrementalism .......................................................64 R. KL'TTNER INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS .............................. 68 Owned, published, and © copyrighted, 1997, by tHE MASSACHUSETTS MEDIt'Y.L S{)CIF. TY P ~ gO6~/~ 1~97 070397 03.63 9 E ~ I W ~ O THOUSfiND ~KS LIBR S ~ D SER~RLS D~ p ~ I 23~ B0~D RD A ~ c NENBURY PRRK CR ~3~3~6 p A E ~ II,l,,,,,Ih,lh,,I,IIh,,,,Ih,,hllh,,,ll,,,h,II~ S THE NEw ENGLkND JOUP. N~L OF MEDI(INE (ISSN 0028-4793) is published wcckh' fi'om editorial o~ccs at 10 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115-6094. Subscription price: $119.00 per year. Periodicals postage paid at Boston and at additional mailing ot~iccs. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to IV). Box 803, Waltham, SL~, 02254-0803. s. 35O-5 The New England Journal of Medicine ©Copyright, 1997, by the Massachusetts Medical Society VOLUME 337 JULY 3, 1997 / NUMBER I RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO MAGNETIC FIELDS AND ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA IN CHILDREN MARTHA S. LINET, M.D., ELIZABETH E. HATCH, PH.D., RUTH A. KLEINERMAN, M.P.H., LESLIE L. ROBISON, PH.D., WILLIAM T. KAUNE, PH.D., DANA R. FRIEDMAN, PH.D., RICHARD K. SEVERSON, PH.D., CAROL M. HAINES, M.P.H., CHARLEEN T. HARTSOCK, B.S., SHELLEY NIWA, M.A., SHOLOM WACHOLDER, PH.D., AND ROBERT E. TARONE, PH.D. ABSTRACT Background Previous studies found associations between childhood leukemia and surrogate indica- tors of exposure to magnetic fields (the power-line classification scheme known as "wire coding"), but not between childhood leukemia and measurements of 60-Hz residential magnetic fields. ~t,/~tho~ We enrolled 638 children with acute lym- phoblastic leukemia (ALL) who were under 15 years of age and were registered with the Children's Cancer Group and 620 controls in a study of residential expo- sure to magnetic fields generated by nearby power lines. In the subjects' current and former homes, data collectors blinded to the subjects' health status meas- ured magnetic fields for 24 hours in each child's bed- room and for 30 seconds in three or four other rooms and outside the front door. A computer algorithm as- signed wire-code categories, based on the distance and configuration of nearby power lines, to the sub- jects' main residences (for 416 case patients and 416 controls) and to those where the family had lived dur- ing the mother's pregnancy with the subject (for 230 case patients and 230 controls). ~$ul~ The risk of childhood ALL was not linked to summary time-weighted average residential mag- netic-field levels, categorized according to a priori criteria. The odds ratio for ALL was 1.24 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.79) at exposures of 0.200 /~T or greater as compared with less than 0.065 The risk of ALL was not increased among children whose main residences were in the highest wire-code category (odds ratio as compared with the lowest category, 0.88; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.63). Furthermore, the risk was not significantly asso- ciated with either residential magnetic-field levels or the wire codes of the homes mothers resided in when pregnant with the subjects. Conclusions Our results provide little evidence that living in homes characterized by high measured time- weighted average magnetic-field levels or by the high- est wire-code category increases the risk of ALL in children. (N Engl J Med 1997;337:1-7.) ©1997, Massachusetts Medical Society. RESULTS of investigations of a possible link between childhood leukemia and res- idential exposures to magnetic fields at a frequenc,v of 50 to 60 Hz from nearby power lines have been inconsistent? In a recent comprehensive report,~0 consistent two- to threetbld excesses of leukemia among U.S. children were asso- ciated ~vith surrogate indicators of residential mag- netic-field exposure?,s such as the Wertheimer- Leeper power-line classification scheme?,~ herealter designated "wire coding." These surrogate indicators use visual assessments of power lines near homes to estimate magnetic-field measurements within the homes. Wire coding includes characteristics of power lines such as distance from the home and physical configuration. An excess incidence of leukemia in Swedish children was linked to estimated electrical current flow, derived from historical records of power companies and the configuration of high-voltage power lines close to homes where the children lived at the time of diagnosis.6 However, the risk of child- hood leukemia has not been correlated with residen- tial measurements of magnetic fields made shortly af- ter the time of diagnosis.3'~ The shortcomings of earlier epidemiologic studies have been extensively reviewed.~°,~245 Inconsistent From the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Can- cer Institute, Bethesda, Md. (M.S.L., E.E.H., tLA. IC, D.1LF., S.W., R.E.T.); the Children's Cancer Group, Arcadia, Calif. (L.L.R., R.K.S.); the Division of Pediatric Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (L.L.R., R.K.S. ); EM Factors, Richland, Wash. (VqTF. K.); Westat, Inc., Rockville, Md. (C.M.H., S.N. ); and Intbrmat/on Management Services, Rockville, Md. (C.T.H.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Liner at the Division of Cancer Epidcmiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza North, Suite 408, Be- thesda, MD 20892-7362. Investigators and institutions participating in the Children's Cancer Group are listed in the Appendix. The New England /ournal of Medicine findings, discrepancies between results based on proxy estimates and those based on direct magnetic-field measurements, and the absence of supportive labo- ratory evidence or a plausible biologic mechanism of disease causation~°,~° have resulted in uncertain- ties about the relation, if an5,, between childhood leukemia and exposure to magnetic fields. 'Wide- spread concern and the limitations of previous studies led us to evaluate residential exposure to magnetic fields in a comprehensive case-control study of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in childhood, con- ducted by the Children's Cancer Group. METHODS Subjects The methods of this study are described in detail elsewhere? Briefly, a group of the 1914 children with ALL and the 1987 controls participating in a nationwide telephone-interview study conducted by the Children's Cancer Group was eligible for the assessment of residential exposure to magnetic fields. Eligible case children received a diagnosis of ALL before the age of 1 $ years, between 1989 and 1994. and were registered with the Children's Cancer Group. Eligible controls were selected bv random-digit telephone dialing~" and were indMduallv matched to the children with ,~LL according to the first eight digits of the telephone num- ber, age. and race. Eligibility for the assessment of magnetic-field exposure was restricted to the 851 case patients and the 825 con- trols who participated in the initial telephone interview Irepre- senting 96 percent and 75 percent, respectively, of those who were eligible) and who resided in one of nine states (Illinois, In- diana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylva- nia, and Wisconsin) on the reference date, defined as the date of diagnosis of ALL /br each case patient. The same date was as- signed to the case patient's matched control for the purpose of determining which children's residences would have magnetic- field assessments. Mothers of 98 percent of the children with ALL (832 case patients) and 97 percent of the controls (n = 801~ who responded to the telephone interview also provided lifetime resi- dential histories tbr the subjects. Because we did not evaluate 65 of these case patients and 76 of the controls further, once the sample-size goals had been achieved, 767 case patients and 725 controls were eligible for measurements of residential magnetic fields.i- For each child under the age of five years, we attempted to measure magnetic fidds in all the homes the subject had lived in for at least six months and required that at least 70 percent of the child's life have been spent in the measured homes. For each child over the age of five, we measured one or two homes, provided that the child had lived in them tbr at least 70 percent of the five years immediatdy preceding the retErence date. We chose the five- year re~i:rence period closest to the date of diagnosis because of J~ypothesized cancer-promoter effects, since no evidence exists that the low strength of residential magnetic fields can induce genotoxic effects?~0 Overall, 78 percent of the eligible patiertts participated (83 per- cent participation among the 767 case patients eligible for resi- dential measurements times 98 percent participation in the life- time residential history times 96 percent participation in the initial telephone interview ;, as did 63 percent of the controls (86 percent participation among the 725 digiNc controls times 97 percent and 75 percent, respectively), resulting in a final study population of 638 case patients and 620 controls. Reasons tbr nonparticipation included rcthsal by the child's parents, inability to locate the child or too maiw changes of residence, lack of ap- proval by the hospital institutional review board tbr the magnetic- field measurements, and rcthsal by the child's physician (this was a thctor onh' tbr the children witJ~ cancer). Some subjects could not be included because the current occupants of subjects' tbrmer homes denied permission for the magnetiofield measurements. We ascertained the residential wire-code category for a sub- group of the pairs of children with ALL and their controls who were eligible for magnetic-field measurements. We restricted as- sessment of wire codes to pairs in which both the case patient and the matched control had "residential stability" -- that is, both paired members had lived in one home tbr at least 70 percent of the reference period (this residence is hereafter designated the "main residence"). Among the 428 such residentialIv stable pairs identified, 12 pairs were excluded because the technician could not locate the home or accurately diagram nearby power lines at one of the residences. Technicians assessed most homes eligible for wire-code classification even if they could not obtain permis- sion to measure magnetic fields, since access to the residence or the surrounding propers' was not necessary for wire coding. To evaluate the risk of ALL associated with the subject's residential wire code during the mother's pregnancy with the subject, tech- nicians evaluated residences in which the subject's family had re- sided for at least five months during the index pregnancy ("resi- dence during pregnancy") for all subjects under the age of three years (151 matched case-control pairs) and for those whose homes were assessed as part of the wire coding of the main resi- dence, for a total of 230 case-control pairs. Measurement Protocol Magnetic-Field Measurements Technicians blinded to the subjects' case or control status used an Emdex-C meter (Electric Field Measurements, West Stock- bridge, Mass. ), which measures extremely-k)w-frequency magnet- ic fields (40 to 300 Hz, a range that includes $0-Hz and 60-Hz levels, frequencies evaluated in prior epidemiologic studies) with a three-axis induction-coil sensor.~ Derived from two personal- exposure studiesd~.2° the standardized measurement protocol in- cluded a 24-hour measurement in the child's bedroom (with the meter placed under or adjacent to the bed); 30-second measure- ments · in the center of the child's bedroom, the family room, the kitchen, and the room in which the mother slept during the index pregnancy; and a 30-second outdoor measurement made within 0.9 m (3 ftl of the front door? Wire Coding Technicians (who were unaware of whether a case patient or a control currentIx' or ~brmerh' lived in each residence evaluated) drew diagrams and recorded systematically the distance ~¥om the home of any overhead power lines within 46 m (150 ft) of the res- idence, inciuding transmission lines, thick and thin three-phase primary-distribution lines (which cam' electric power from substa- tions to surrounding neighborhoods}, an,,,, open (with separated wires) or spun (with wires bound together) secondary distribution lines, and first-span secondary distribution lines? On the basis of the diagrams, a computer algorithm assigned a wire code to each residence according to the five-category Wertheimer-Leeper classification~.-~.~ and the modified three-category Kaune-Savitz scheme.2~ As in earlier studies? we found that measured magnet- ic-field levels (i.e., the arithmetic means of24-hour measurements f?om 8:38 residences) rose with increasing Wertheimer-Leeper~.~-~ and Kaune-Savitz2~ wire-code categories (unpublished data). Statistical Analysis Magnetic-Field Measurements For each eligible residence, a summary magnetiofield level was calculated from a weighted average of the room measurements. The weights were derived f?om the personal-exposure study and based on the estimated time spent by children according to age.~7.~.~° If measurements were not obtained in all rooms, then the weighted average was based on a standardized hierarchy of measurements? The primary measure of exposure ~br each subject was an average 2 · July 3, t997 RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO MAGNETIC FIELDS AND ACUTE LYMPHOSLASTIC LEUKEMIA IN CHILDREN of the summary level for all the digiNc measured homes, weighted according to the duration of residence. We used odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals to estimate the risk of ALL.22 Before undertaking any case-control comparisons, we identified tbur ex- posure categories tbr residential magnetic-field levels 1<0.065 /aT [the reft:renee group], 0.065 to 0.099 ~T, 0.100 to 0.199/aT, and ~>0.200 ~T), based on the distribution of measurements in the control homes. These categories were similar to those used in ear- lier investigations.3'~'° We calculated results using unmatched analy- sis as well as analysis of matched case-control pairs.-'2 We used stratified and Iogistioregression analyses to explore the effects of age at the reference date, sex, race (tiaough the very small number of nonwhites limited this evaluation), socioeco- nomic status (indicated bv t]amilv income, the mother's and ther's educational level and occupation, home ownership, and thmilv size), temporal t~ctors (year, season, and time of day when the measurements were made), demographic characteristics (de~ gree of urbanization and type of residence), and dose-response relations using continuous measurements.2~ We also evaluated birth order, birth weight, the mother's age at the child's delivery, and medical x-ray studies during pregnancy as potential contbund- ing t~ctors. We excluded nine case patients and one control who had Down's syndrome, since this disorder has been linked to 10- to-40-tbld increases in the risk of acute leukemia.-'~ We included 629 case patients and 619 controls in the final unmatched anal- ysis, and 463 case-control pairs in the matched analysis. Wire Coding Because the relation between power-line configurations and magnetic-field strength may vary geographically,~.24 we retained the matched design of the initial nationsvide phase of the study for the wire coding of the main residence. The Wertheimer-Leeper wire- code categories used in the analysis include underground (buried) power lines plus verv-low-current configuration (the reference group), ordinary low-current configuration, ordinarv high-cur- rent configuration, and very-high-current configuration3a.~t The modified Kaune-Savitz wire-code categories were as tbllows: low (the reference group), medium, and high.2~ We used matched-pairs analysis to evaluate the risk of ALL in relation to the wire-code category of the main residence (including 408 case-control pairs, after the exclusion of subjects with Down's syndrome) and the residence during pregnancy (a total of 225 pairs, including 149 pairs of subjects under the age of three, after the exclusion of sub- jects with Down's syndrome); conditional logistic regression was used to control for socioeconomic and demographic tkctors and other potential cont~unders.-'2 RESULTS Characteristics of the Subjects The controls were similar to the case patients (Ta- ble 1), except for their higher total familv income (P<0.001). ALL was not associated with the moth- er's age at delivery of the subject, the number of children in the family, the birth order of the subject (data not shown), the type of residence, the degree of urbanization, home ownership, or the interval be- tween the reference date and the date of the meas- urements (data not shown). All estimates of risk have been adjusted for the age of the subject at the reference date, the subject's sex, the mother's educa- tional level, and ~hmily income. Summary Measures of Residential Magnetic-Field Exposures Risk estimates based on the summary residential magnetic-field exposures for a priori measurement categories did not differ significantly f?om unity ei- ther fbr all the subjects (629 case patients and 619 controls) or tbr the 463 matched pairs (Table 2), nor did risk increase significantly with increasing summarv magnetic-field levels (P for trend=0.22 for the unmatched analvses and 0.12 for the matched analyses). Risk was higher with estimated summary exposures of 0.300 /aT or more (odds ratio, 1.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.86; 45 case patients and 28 controls); however, risk did not increase significantly with increasing exposure when exposure ~vas evaluated as a continuous vari- able (P fbr trend=0.15 for the unmatched analvsis and 0.09 for the matched analysis). ~Vhen the analysis was restricted to subjects who lived in a single home during the study period or to those who lived for the entire reference period in homes for which we obtained 24-hour bedroom measurements, the risks differed little from those shown in Table 2 (data no~ shoxvn). The results were also virtually unchanged if a partial time-weighted average bedroom measurement tbr less than 24 hours (i.e., 4 p.m. to 6 a.m. or 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) was sub- stituted for the full 24-hour average to reflect more accurately the specific period of time subjects spent in their bedrooms. Also, risk estimates were similar after adjustment for differences between case pa- tients and controls in the calendar year, season, or time of day of the measurements. We found no con- sistent pattern in the relation of summarx' residential magnetic-field levels to the risk of ALL according to family income, parental educational level or occupa- tion, birth order, or other socioeconomic or residen- tial characteristics. Main-Residence Wire-Code Patterns For the main residence, ~ve found no association between the risk of ALL and residence in a home clas- sifted in the highest wire-code category according to either wire-code classification (Table 3). There were no positive or statistically significant dose-response trends, and results were not materially changed when adjusted for potentially contbunding variables. Magnetic-Reid Levels and Wire Codes of Residences during Pregnancy As regards the homes resided in during pregnancy by the mothers of 257 case patients and 239 controls, the odds ratio for ALL was 0.75 (95 percent confi- dence interval, 0.45 to 1.24) for a magnetic-field level of 0.065 to 0.099/zT, as compared with the reference category (<0.065/zT); 1.32 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.81 to 2.15) for a level of 0.100 to 0.199 /zT; and 1.24 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 2.23) for a level of 0.200 /zT or higher (P for trend=0.25). Among the 225 matched pairs whose mothers' residences during pregnancy were wire-cod- ed, the odds ratios for ALL were 1.20 (95 percent Volume 337 Number 1 3 The New England Iournal of Medicine TABLE 1. CHARACTER/STICS OF 629 CHILDREN WITH ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA (CASE PATIENTS) AND 619 CONTROLS W/TH MEASUREMENTS OF 60-Hz RESIDENTIAL M_~GNETIC-FIELD L£XHLS .~ND 408 M~TCHED C^s£-CONTI~OL P~I~ OF CHILDKEN WITH STABLE RESIDENCES AND WIRE-CODING DATA. CHARACTERISTIC MAGNETIc-FIELD MEASUREMENTS* WIRE COOING1' CASE PATIENTS CONTROLS CASE PATIENt'S CONTROLS (s=629) (N=619) (s=408) (.~ =408) number II~ercent) Age at diagnosis or reference date (yr)~; (2 65 (10.3) 81 (13.1) 52 (12.7) 68 (16.7) 2-4 304 (48.3) 273 (44.1) 184 (45.1) 165 (40.4) 5-9 169 (26.9) 182 (29.4) 110 (27.0) 116 (28.4) 510 91 (14.5) 83 (13.4) 62 (15.2) 59 (14.5) Sex Male 329 (52.3) 323 (52:2) 204 (50.0) 218 (53.4) Female 300 (47.7) 296 (47.8) 204 (50.0) 190 (46.6) Mother's education (12 yr 43 (6.8) 23 (3.7) 32 (7.8) 16 (3.9) High-school graduate 204 (32.4) 218 (35.2) 132 (32.4) 164 (40.2) Some college or post-high-school 215 (34.2) 197 (31.8) 133 (32.6) 112 (27.5) education ~,Co/lege graduate 167 (26.6) 181 (29.2) 111 (27.2) 116 (28.4) Annual family income ($) (20,000 96 (15.4) 71 (11.5) 63 (15.6) 42 (10.4) 20,000-29,999 117 (18.8) 83 (13.5) 65 (16.0) 51 (12.6) 30,000-39,999 141 (22.6) 105 (17.1) 90 (22.2) 75 (18.5) 40,000-49,999 102 (16.3) 111 (18.0) 62 (15.3) 75 (18.5) ~>50,000 168 (26.9) 245 (39.8) 125 (30.9) 162 (40.0) Mother's age at birth of subject (yr) (25 178 (28.3) 154 (24.9) 106 (26.0) 102 (25.0) 25-29 251 (39.9) 257 (41.5) 162 (39.7) 165 (40.4) 230 200 (31.8) 208 (33.6) 140 (34.3) 141 (34.6) No. of children in family 1 90 (14.3) 67 (10.8) 56 (13.7) 41 (10.0) 2 280 (44.5) 265 (42.8) 190 (46.6) 184 (45.1) ~>3 259 (41.2) 287 (46.4) 162 (39.7) 183 (44.9) Type of residence Single-family home 509 (83.2) 485 (81.8) 326 (83.2) 319 (82.2) Apartment 24 (3,9) 25 (4.2) 17 (4.3) 16 (4.1) Other 79 (12.9) 83 (14.0) 49 (12.5) 53 (13.7) Home-ownership status Owned home 486 (80.2) 499 (84.6) 325 (83.5) 335 (86.8) Rented home 101 (16.7) 77 (13.0) 58 (14.9) 45 (11.7) Other 19 (3.1) 14 (2.4) 6 (1.5) 6 (1.6) Degree of urbanization Urban 152 (24.2) 126 (20.4) 117 (28,7) 89 (21.9) Suburban 278 (44.2) 289 (46.8) 161 (39.5) 192 (47.2) Rural 199 (31.6) 203 (32.8) 130 (31.9) 126 (31.0) *Data were missing on income for 5 case patients and 4 controls, on type of residence for 17 case patients and 26 controls, on home ownership for 23 case patients and 29 controls, and on degree of urbanization for 1 control. Percentages are of subjects with data available. See the text for details of magnetic-field measurements. 1'Data were missing on income for 3 case patients and 3 controls, on type of residence for 16 case patients and 20 controls, on home ownership for 19 case patients and 22 controls, and on degree of urbanization for 1 control. Percentages are of subjects with data available. See the text for derails of wire coding. · :l:The reference date for each control was defined as the date of diagnosis in the corresponding matched case patient,/ .-' / confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.95) for the Wert- heimer-Leeper code-configuration category of"ordi- nary low"; 1.07 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.61 to 1.86) for "ordinary high"; and 1.49 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 3.37) for "very high," as compared with the reference category of "under- ground plus very low" (P for trend=0.07). For chil- dren under the age of three whose mothers' homes during pregnancy were wire-coded (149 matched pairs), the odds ratios were not significantly elevated and the risks did not increase significantly with higl~er wire-code categories (P for trend=0.19). 4 July 3, 1997 RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO MAGNETIC FIELDS AND ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA IN CHILDREN TABLE 2. RISK OF CHILDHOOD ACUTE LYMPHOBI.~TIC LEUKEMIA ACCORDING TO TIMEA, VEIGHTED AVEKAGE SL'blMARY LEVELS OF 60-Hz RESIDENTIAL ,~L~GNETIC FIELDS IN THE UN3, L-~TCHED AND i~u.kTCHED t~NALYSIS.* MAGNETIC-FIELD LEVEl. I~T) UNMATCHED A,'~M. YSISt MATCHED ANALYSIS:I: NO. OF CASE NO. OF NO. OF CASE NO. OF PATIENTS CO.%rROLS OR (95% CI)~I l'.~TI£.xq's CONTROLS OR (95% CI)~{ <0.065 267 285 1.00 206 ,-' 21~ 1.00 0.065-0.099 123 117 1.10 (0.81-1.50) 92 98 0.96 (0.65-1.40) 0.100-0.199 1S1 143 1.10 (0.83-1.48) 107 106 1.15 (0.79-1.65) ~0.200 83" 70*° 1.24 (0.86-1.79)t? 58" 44'° 1.53 (0.91-2.S6)tT 0.200-0.299 38 42 0.92 (0.57-1.48) 29 26 1.31 (0.68-2.51) 0.300-0.399 22 17 1.39 (0.72-2.72) 14 11 1.46 (0.61-3.50) 0.400-0.499 14 5 3.28 (1.15-9.39) l0 2 6.41 (1.30-31.73) ~O.500 9 6 1.41 (0.49-4.09) 5 5 1.01 (0.26-3.99) *The analysis used a measure tbr each subject that was based on the time-weighted average summary values for each eligible home (including measurements in the child's bedroom, family room, and kitchen or outside the front door, weighted according to the age of subject); these values were weighted according to the number of years the subject spent living in each residence36.~9,2° '['Five case patients and tbur controls tbr whom information on confounders was missing are excluded. ~:The controls were matched to the case patients according to age at the reft:renee date, race, and telephone number (first eight digits). ~OR denotes odds ratio, and CI confidence interval. ~[Odds ratios have been adjusted tbr age at the reference date, sex, mother's educational level, and timiN income. {{Odds ratios have been adjusted tbr sex, mother's educational level, and [i~milv income. **The numbers of case patients and controls are based on four exposure categories. ~'~'The risk estimates are based on tbur exposure categories selected a priori. DISCUSSION ~Ve found no significant excess risk of childhood ALL associated with time-weighted average summary residential magnetiofield levels of 0.200/zT or great- er, nor did we observe any significant dose-response trends. There was a tendency for the risk to be higher among subjects with summary exposure lev- els of 0.300/zT or more, but the number of chil- dren with such high levels was small. The risk of childhood ALL was not associated with high wire codes for either the subject's main residence or the mother's residence during pregnancy. Adjustment for socioeconomic, demographic, or other poten- tially confounding variables had litfie effect on the risk. In contrast to three earlier U.S. studies,la,s we found no association between the highest wire-code category and an elevated risk of childhood ALL. Our data demonstrated a significant correlation be- tween measured magnetic fields and wire codes (un- published data), as was found in previous stud- ies.2~-26 The lack of association between childhood ALL and wire-code categories is particularly note- worthy since public concernx° has been driven pri- marilv by the excess risks linked with surrogate or historical estimates of residential magnetiofield exo posure. 1,3,5,6 T~st~ 3. RISK OF CHILDHOOD ACLWE LYMPHOBL~STIC LEUKEMIA .~dV!ONG 408 ./~TCHED PAIRS OF CHILDKEN WITH STABLE I~SIDENCES, ACCORDING TO THE WERTHEIMER- LEEPER AND MODIFIED KAUNE-$AVITZ WIRE-CODE CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE MAIN RESIDENCE. ~' W~-Co~ ~ No. o; CAT~C,O~Yt PAw~rrs Com~ocs OR (95% Wcrthcimer-Lceper UG +VLCC 175 175 1.00 OLCC 116 I14 1.07 (0.74-1.54) OHCC 87 87 0.99 (0.67-1.48) VHCC 24 26 0.88 (0.48-1.63) Kaune-Savitz LWC 237 249 1.00 MWC 114 105 1.22 (0.85-1.7~) I-IW¢C 51 48 1.04 (0.65-1.66) 'Because of missing data for some variables, the numbers of subjects do not total 408 in each group. ~'UG denotes underground or buried power lines, VI. CC very-low-current configuration, OLCC ordinary low-current configuration, OHCC ordinary. high-current configuration, VHCC very-high-current configuration, LWC low wire code, M~,VC medium wire code, and HWC high wire code. ~:OK denotes odds ratio, and CI confidence interval. These odds ratios have been adjusted for sex, mother's edu- cational level, and family income. Volume 337 Number 1 The New England /ournal of,\lcdicin¢ The results of our measurements of magnetic- field levels, like those of four earlier investigations? also show no significant increase in the risk of ALL among children whose residences had measured mag- netic-field levels of 0.200 /aT or higher, based on a priori categories. The small increase in risk at esti- mated exposures of 0.300 $zT or more derived from a significant excess incidence of ALL at the interme- diate level of 0.400 to 0.499/aT, but the odds ratios were close to unity for estimated exposure levels of 0.500/aT or greater, and the P value for trend was not significant. Wk: cannot exclude the possibility of a small increase in risk among children in homes with very high magnetic-field levels, as suggested in stud- ies using historical estimates of residential magnetic- field exposure.4.6.7 We designed our investigation to address the lim- itations of earlier studies, particularly the length3, in- tervals (typically years or decades) between the diag- nosis of ALL and measurements of magnetic fields. In our study magnetic fields were usually measured within 24 months after the date of diagnosis in the children with ALL.~7 Previous studies also included fewer cases of childhood leukemia, measured fields during a smaller proportion of the reference period or lacked a standardized reference interval for the evaluation of magnetic fields, and evaluated fexver potential confounding variables. Some of the earlier studies selected controls who moved less frequently than the case patients or failed to blind data collec- tors to the case or control status of the subjects liv- ing in each residence evaluated.~°.~2'~ We measured residential magnetic-field levels for nearly four times the numbers of case patients and controls in the largest previous investigation.* An important strength of our study was that magnetic-field measurements covered more than 95 percent of the reference pe- riod for 77 percent of subjects and more than 90 percent of the reference period for 83 percent of subjects.~7 ¥Ve made a major effort to achieve a high rate of participation in the study, despite the substantial bur- den for families (an average of three hours for inter- views and measurements). Overall, 78 percent of eligible case patients and 63 percent of eligible con- trols participated. Many of the reasons for not par- ticipating were unrelated to refusal by the subjects or their parents; they included refusals of permission for testing by current occupants of former residences or the failure of subjects to me, et %ligibility require- ments (such as residential stability). To address concern about possible response bi- as,27-29 we instructed the technicians to diagram the homes of 119 children who were identified during random-digit dialing as potential controls but whose parents declined permission for participation; we tbund that the proportion of these homes assigned by the computer algorithm to the highest wire-code category was similar to that among the subjects in our study37 Moreover, the technicians diagrammed virtually all eligible residences of subjects whose fam- ilies refused permission for magnetic-field measure- ments, since neither residential nor property access was necessary for assigning wire codes to residences. Residential mobility was similar for case patients and controls in this study, in contrast to an earlier inves- tigation,~ which has been criticized because the case patients changed residences considerably more often than the controls.~0,~245 Additional strengths of our investigation included the collection of the expo- sure data on a blinded basis; the personal-exposure studies to develop~9 and evaluate20 the measurement protocol; the routine calibration of all magnetic-field (Emdex) meters; the lengthy initial training, retrain- ing, and site visits of measurement staff; the inde- pendent rediagramming of a substantial proportion of residences, which showed good concordance of assigned wire codes (unpublished data); and the reg- ular review of all measurements, with detailed inves- tigation of potential errors.~7 A limitation of our investigation and all previous studies is the absence of measurements for individual residences in the years preceding the diagnosis of cancer. It is not known how well a single 24-hour measurement characterizes contemporary exposure, much less magnetic-field exposure years earlier. Very limited data suggest a moderate correlation between repeated spot measurements taken in the same resi- dential location several years after the initial meas- urements.~° To examine the reproducibility and sea- sonal variation of magnetic-field measurements, we initiated a detailed longitudinal study of 50 homes in Detroit and Minneapolis. The preliminary results suggest good reproducibility and relatively little sea- sonal variation over a one-year period (Banks K, et al.: unpublished data). Repeated measurements in a large sample of homes over a longer period would help to resolve this issue. The selection of controls by random-digit dialing has known weaknesses? but the use of alternative control groups was not fea- sible? The only major difference between the case patients and the controls ~ a higher family income among controls ~ was probably due to the use of .controls obtained by random-digit dialing,27 but this difference did not confound the relation between magnetic-field exposure and childhood ALL. In summar5~, our comprehensive case-control in- vestigation did not find significantly increased risks of ALL associated with time-weighted average sum- mary residential magnetic-field measurements or with residence in homes characterized by a high wire-code category during the five years immediately preceding the diagnosis of ALL or during the index pregnancy. The finding of a tendency for risk to be higher at measured magnetic-field levels of 0.300 /.iT or greater was based on small numbers and h/as July 3, 1997 RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO MAGNETIC FIELDS AND ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA IN CHILDREN not characterized by a consistent pattern or a signif- icarit trend. Our results provide little support tbr the hypothesis that living in homes with high time- weighted average magnetic-field levels or in homes 'close to electrical transmission or distribution lines is related to the risk of childhood ALL. Supported in part by a grant f?om the National Cancer Institute (RO1 CA48051) and by the University of Minnesota Children's Cancer Re- search Fund. We are indebted to the members of the Advisory Committee (in- cluding Dr. Lawrence Fischer, director of the Institute for Experi- mental Toxicology, Michigan State Universi~ [chairperson]; Dr, Ron Brookmeyer, Department of Biostatistics, ]ohm Hopkins Uni- versi,ty School of Hygiene and Public Health; Dr. Raymond Green- berg, vice-president for academic affairs and provost, Medical Uni- versi ,vv of South Carolina; Dr. Martin Misakian, National Institute of Standards and Technology; and former member Dr. Howard Wachtel, Department of Electrical Engineering, Universi,vv of Col- orado) for their guidance and their numerous constructive sugges- tions on all aspects of the study. We are also indebted to Dr. John Boice, Jr., former chief of the Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Na- tional Cancer Institute, for his support in all phases of the study; to the staff of Westat, Inc., Rockville, Md. (including Beth Bridgeman, Kathy Deutchman, Susan Engleharr, Susan Gardner, l~ckie Griffis, ~ferra Hailu, Barbara Hood, Nancy La Verda, Pat Leonard, Judy Light, Bob McConnell, Pat Mueller, Arbarna Nathan, Margaret Pacious, Michelle Tanenbaum, Shirley Tipton, Susan Ditl7 Van-Till, and Freda Wentz), $br data collection and data-management sup- port; to the employees of Enertech, Campbell, Califi, for wire coding (Bob Worklet and Esther Workley) and for programming meters (Richard [r~ye); and to Mr. Jan Erik Deadman, School of Occupa- tional Health, McGill Universi,vv, Montreal, for advice on the assess- ment of magnetic field exposure. APPENDIX The principal investigators and participating institutions in the Chil- drews Cancer Group iwith grants from the National Cancer Institute in parentheses) were as follows: W.A. Bleyer, A. Khayat, H. Sather, M. Krailo, J. Buckley, D. Strata, and R. Sposto, Group Operations Center, Arcadia, Calif. (CA13539); 1L Hutchinson, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor (CA02971); S. Shurin, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hos- pital, Cleveland (CA20320); E. Baum, Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago (CA07431); F.L. Johnson, Wyler Children's Hospital, Chicago; F. Ruymann, Children's Hospital of Columbu& Columbus, Ohio (CA03750); J. Mirro, Children's Hospital, Pittsburgh (CA36015); W. Woods, Univer- sity of Minnesota, Minneapolis (CA07306); A. Meadows, Children's Hos- pital, Philadelphia (CA11796); P. Brittfield, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis (CA13809); R. Wells, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati (CA26126); IL Tannous, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clin- ics, Iowa City (CA29314); G. Gilchrist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. (CA28882); and M. Donaldson, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Camden. REFERENCES 1. Wertheimcr N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and child- hood cancer. Am I Epidcmiol 1979;109:273-84. 2. Fulton JP, Cobb S, Preble L, Leone L, Forman E. Electrical wiring con- figurations and childhood leukemia in Rhode Island. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:292-6. 3. Savitz DA, Wachtel H, Barnes FA, lohn EM, Tvrdik JG. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:21-38. 4. Tomenius L. 50-Hz electromagnetic environment and the incidence of childhood tumors in Stockholm County. Bioelectromagnetics 1986;7:191- 207. 5. London SJ, Thomas DC, Bowman JD, Sobel E, Cheng T-C, Peters JM. Exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields and risk of childhood leukemia. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134:923-37. [Erratum, Am j' Epidemiol 1993;137:381. ] 6. Feychting M, Ahlbom A. Magnetic fields and cancer in children residing near Swedish high-voltage power lines. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:467- 81. 7. Olsen JH, Nielsen A, Schulgen G. Residence near high voltage facilities and risk of cancer in children. BM! 1993;307:891-5. 8. k~:rkasalo PK, Pukkaia E, Hongisto MY, et al. Risk of cancer in Finnish children living close to power lines. BMJ I993;307:895-9. 9. Tvnes T, Haldorsen T. Electromagnetic fields and cancer in children re- siding near Norwegian high-voltage power lines. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145:219-26. ,' 10. Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Bio- logic Systems. Possible health effects of exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996:113-87. 11. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Adult cancer related to electrical ~ires near the home. Int J Epidemiol 1982;11:345-55. 12. Savitz DA, Pearce NE, Poole C. Methodological issues in the epidemi- ology of electromagnetic fields and cancer. Epidemiol Key 1989;11:59-78. 13. Poole C, Trichopoulos D. Extremely low-frequency elecmc and mag- netic fields and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1991;2:267-76. lag. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Panel. Health effects of lowfire- quen%' electric and magnetic fields. Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1992:V-I-V-18. (Publication no. 029-000-00443-9.) ~$. Electromagnetic fields and the risk of cancer: report of an advisory group on non-ionising radiation. In: Documents of the NRPB. Vol. 3. No. 1. Didcot, United Kingdom: National Radiological Protection Board, 1992:54-80. 1~. Tenforde TS. Interaction of ELF magnetic fields with IMng svstems. In: Polk C~ Postow E, eds. Handbook of biological effects of electromag- netic fields. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 1996:185-230. 17. Kleinerman KA, Linet MS, Hatch EE, et al. Magnetic field exposure assessment in a case-control studv of childhood leukenua. Epidermology (in press). 18. Robison LL, Daigle A. Control selection using random digit dialing for cases of childhood cancer. Am I Epidemiol 1984;120:164-6. 1~. Kaune WT, Darby SD, Gardner SN, Hrubec Z, Iriye IC'q, Linet MS. Development of a protocol for assessing time-weighted-average exposures of young children to power-frequency magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1994;15:33-51. :~0. Friedman DR. Hatch EE, Tarone R. et al. Childhood exposure to magnetic fields: residential area measurements compared to personal do- simetrv. Epidemiology 1996;7:151-5. 21. Kaune WT, Savitz DA. Simplification of the Wertheimer-Leeper wire code. Bioelectromagnetics 1994;15:275-82. 22. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. I. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980:122-279. (IARC scientific publications no. 32.) 25. Robison LL, Neglia J'P. Epidemiotogy of Down syndrome and child- hood acute leukemia. In: McCov EE, Epstein CJ, eds. Oneology and im- munology of Down syndrome. Vol. 246 of Progress in clinical and biolog- ical research. New York: Alan IL Liss, 1987:19-32. 2ag. High Voltage Transmission Research Center. Survey of residential magnetic field sources. Vol. 1. Goals, results, and conclusions. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 19936-1-6-118. 2~. Kaune WT, Stevens RG, Callahan NI, Severson KK, Thomas DB. Residential magnetic and electric fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1987;8: 315-35. 28. Barnes F, Wachtel H, Savitz D, Fuller J. Use of wiring configuration and wiring codes for estimating externally generated electric and magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1989;10:13-21. 2?. Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK, Mandel IS. Selection of controls in case-control studies. II. Types of controls. Am ! Epidemiol 1992;135:1029-41. 28. Jones TL, Shih CH, Thurston DH, Ware BJ, Cole P. Selection bias from differential residential mobility. as an explanation for associations of wire codes with childhood cancers. J CLin Epidermol 1993;46:545-8. Z~. Gumey JG, Davis S, Schwartz SM, Mueller BA, Kaune WT, Stevens R.G. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: a study of potential selection bias in case-control studies. Epidemiology 1995;6:31-5. 30. Dovan T, Kaune WT, Savitz DA. Repeatability of measurements of res- idential magnetic fields and wire codes. Bioelectromagnetics 1993;14:145- 59. Volume 337 Number The Ncw England Journal of Medicine ing-education programs and self-assessment pro- grams and involvement in continuous-improvement projects) are not indicators of quality, and some oth- er standards are based only on reports from the phy- sicians being evaluated.~2'~:~ Membership in a medical society that promotes ethical behavior is also not a rigorous criterion by which to judge the quality of care rendered by physicians. Given the nature of the supplementary standards, even physicians who are not board-certified and those who have not com- pleted a full training program can still be accredited under the AMAP. The Effective Medical Management Certification Program offered bv the American Society of Internal Medicine (ASIM) has similar limitations. It is also administered by an organization with a stake in the success of its members; it consists of a self-assess- ment examination taken at home that all candidates will pass; and it has a practice audit component with no site visit.~,~s The standards in this certification program also lack rigor. The idea of merging the completion of training, board certification, and measures of physicians' per- formance into an overall mechanism for the assess- ment of physicians is attractive, and the goals of the AMAP are laudable. In particular, the plan could streamline a now cumbersome and redundant creden- tialing process. Although the AMA could have an im- portant administrative role in credentialing physicians, I believe that it should relinquish the responsibility for administration and standard setting for the re- mainder of the AMAP to an independent, free-stand- ing entity. Because only rigorous, well-tested criteria should count toward accreditation, credit should not be awarded for self-assessment examinations, the audit of self-selected charts, society memberships, or participation in continuing medical education. More- over, process and outcome assessments should be applied only when they become valid measures of performance in the diverse settings of physicians' practices (something that is unlikely in the time frame being considered~). Finally, I believe that the public interest will be best served by the disclosure of all reliable information on individual physicians, rather than of a set of facts selected by a single organi- zation. Are the AMA accreditation program and the ASIM certification program merely self-serving efforts to enhance the organizations' i'alue in the eyes of phy- sicians and shore up their sagging memberships.,' A lack of strict standards does foster the impression that these programs are designed principally for mem- bers who are not board-certified. This appearance re- flects the intrinsic conflict created when membership organizations try to apply evaluative standards to their members. As a former director (and a former chairman) of the American Board of Internal Medicine and as a representative of this board to the ABMS, I am con- vinced that the high testing standards of the mem- ber boards serve to protect the public. The board examinations are administered by independent ex- perts, and success is based on time-tested, widely accepted criteria. We should be wary of inferior sub- stitutes, and we should be careful not to degrade the value of board certification. In the interest of the public, we should insist that an5' organization accred- iting or certifying physicians apply rigorous standards. JEROME P. KASSIRER, M.D. REFERENCES ~. Gramling A. Health plans want to know: are vou certified? Managed Care. May 1994:39-41. :L McIlrath S. Board-certified only need apply. American Medical News. December 12, 1994:1, 29. 3. Prager LO. YPS: more to qualiB, than board certification. American Medical News. December 23/30, 1996:16. ~. Kelley MA. Do high standards for certification reflect exclusivity or ac- countability? In: Professional responsibility, professional accountability,: what is the ABIM's role? Report of the 1996 ABIM Summer Conference. Philadelphia: American Board of Internal Medicine, 1997:85-7. $. Randolph L, Seidman B, Pasko T. 1996-1997 Physician characteristics and distribution in the US, Chicago: American Medical Association, 1996: A44. (Table B-12.) $. Report of the Council on Medical Education. CME report S-I-9& Phy- sicians without specialty, board certification. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1996. 7. Norcini JJ, Grosso LJ, Shea JA, Webster GD. The relationship betxveen features of residency training and ABIM certifying examination perform- ance. J Gen Intern Med 1987;2:330-6. 8. Ramsey PG, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGeffo lP, Wenrich MD. Predictive validity of certification by the American Board of Internal Med- icine. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:719-26. $. Norcini JJ, Webster GD, Grosso LJ, Blank LL, Benson JA Jr. Ratings of residents' clinical competence and performance on certification examina- tion. J Med Educ 1987;62:457-62. ~0. Prager LO. Massachusetts first up in AMA plan for doctor accredita- tion. American Medical News. December 9, 1996:19. 1~. Peck P New self-assessment test to be unveiled by ASIM. Internal Medicine News. November 15, 1996:17. lZ. American Medical Accreditation Program (AMAP) implementation plan. Chicago: Asnerican Medical Association, February. 1997 13. ANLaff' accreditation standards. Chicago: ,~nencan Medical Associa- tion, 199Z 14. AMA begins approving self-assessment programs for AMAP: first step in A/~L~..P implementation will benefit patients and physicians nationwide. News release of the American Medical Association, Chicago, February 24, 1997. 15. Peck P. ASIM expands its focus to medical careers. Internal Medicine News. November 15, 1996:67. 15. Angcll M, Kassirer IP Quality and the medical marketplace -- fbllow- ing elephants. N Engl J Med 1996;335:883-5. ©1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.. POWER LINES~ CANCEK~ AND FEAR OVER the past 18 years, there has been consid- erable interest in the possible link between electromagnetic fields and cancer, especially leuke- mia. The story of this highly publicized research has been marked by mystery, contradiction, and confu- July 3, 1997 EDITORIALS sion. When something as ubiquitous and misunder- stood as extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields is accused of causing cancer in children, peo- ple's reactions may be driven more by passion than bv reason. Each vcar in this countrv about 2000 children are given a diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common childhood cancer. De- spite the remarkable advances in treatment, ALL still carries a 30 percent mortality. Other than exposure to ionizing radiation, its cause remains a mystery. ALL is more common among whites and children of higher socioeconomic class, and for unclear reasons the incidence of ALL has increased bv about 20 per- cent in the past two decades.~.2 During the past 50 years, per capita use of electricity has increased more than l0 times. Some investigators have claimed that IMng close to major power lines causes cancer, par- ticularly leukemia in children. In this issue of the Journal, Linet et al.3 report the results of a major study showing that the risk of ALL does not increase ~vith increasing electromagnetic- field levels in children's homes. This study has several strengths. It was large, including 629 children with leukemia and 619 controls, and it included measure- ments of electromagnetic fields, made bv technicians blinded to the case or control status of'the subjects, both in the houses ~vhere the children had lived and, in 41 percent of cases, in the homes in ~vhich their mothers resided while pregnant. Liner et al. also found no relation between the risk of ALL and res- idential wire-code classifications, again determined bv technicians blinded to the children's health status. The wire-code classifications are important, because several of the earlier positive studies relied on these proxy indicators rather than on actual measurements of electromagnetic fields. This whole saga began xvhen two Denver research- ers, puzzled by small clusters of cancer in children, came to believe that living in close proximity to high- voltage power lines was a cause of leukemia? The analysis they published in 1979 was crude and relied on distances from homes to power lines and on wir- ing configurations rather than on direct measures of exposure to electromagnetic fields. They found that the risk of childhood leukemia was more than dou- bled among children living near such power lines, a finding that led to more studies and more concern. Soon activists and the media began to spread the word that electromagnetic fields cause cancer. The hypothesized cause was exposure to extreme- ly-low-frequency magnetic fields generated by the electrical current in power lines. Physicists under- stand these invisible fields well, but most physicians, parents, and patients do not. The movement of any electrical charge creates a magnetic field that can be measured.s Even the 60-Hz residential electric cur- rent (50 Hz in Europe) creates a very ~vcak oscillat- ing field, which, like all magnetic fields, penetrates living tissue. These 1ow-t?equency electromagnetic fields are known as nonionizing radiation, since the amount of energy in them is ~hr below that required to break molecular bonds such as those in DNA. One ironic fact about low-frequency electromag- netic fields is that we live and worry about them within the Earth's static magnetic field of S0 which is hundreds of times greater than the oscillat- ing magnetic field. produced bv 110/220-V current in houses (0.01 to 0.0S ~T)?' Even directly under high-voltage transmission lines, the magnetic field is onlv about 3 to 10/xT, which is less than that in an electric railway car and much weaker than the mag- netic field close to my head when I use an electric razor (about 60/a.T). Although most physicists find it inconceivable that power-line electromagnetic fields could pose a hazard to health, dozens of epidemiologic studies have re- ported weak positive associations between proximity to high-voltage power lines and the risk of cancer.6'7 The negative or equivocal studies did not end the controversy. Fear of leukemia is a powerful tbrce, and the media response amplified the perception of dec- tromagnetic fields as a health hazard. In 1989 The New Torker published three articles by journalist Paul Brodeur that described in mesmerizing detail how maverick researchers had discovered a cause of cancer that the establishment refused to accept.s'~° Like many of the epidemiologic studies themselves, these widely quoted articles described biologic mechanisms of action for electromagnetic fields that were hypo- thetical, even fanciful. Brodeur went so far as to claim that the search for the truth about the hazards of electromagnetic fields was threatened most by the "obfuscation of industry, the mendacity. of the mill- tar]/., and the corruption of ethics that industrial and militarv money could purchase from various members of the medical and scientific community."s Suspicion spread to many other wavelengths on the nonionizing electromagnetic spectrum, producing fkars about oc- cupational exposure to electricity. as well as exposure to microwave appliances, radar, video-display termi- nals, and even cellular telephones. Dozens of studies looked tbr associations with brain cancer, miscarriag- es, ~k:tal-growth retardation, lymphoma, breast cancer, breast cancer in men, lung cancer, all cancers, immu- nologic abnormalities, and even changes in the be- havior of animals. When people hear that a scientific study has impli- cated something new as a cause of cancer, they get worried. They get even more worried when the ex- posure is called radiation and comes from dangerous- looking high-voltage power lines controlled by gov- ernment and industry., ~vhich some distrust deeply. Such exposure seems eerie when people hear that electromagnetic fields penetrate their homes, their bodies, their children. The worried citizens took Volume 337 Number 1 45 The Ncw England Journal of Medicine action. Frightened people, including parents of chil- dren with leukemia, undertook their own epide- miologic studies and fought to get high-power transmission lines moved away from their children. Congress responded with large direct appropriations for wider research on the effects of electromagnetic fields. After a large apparently positive study in Swe- den,7 the Swedish government came close to mandat- ing the relocation of schools to at least 1000 meters from large power lines. But cooler heads prevailed once it became clear that the absolute incremental risk was small at most, the conclusions were based on a tiny fraction of all Swedish children with leukemia, and the increase in risk was found only in relation to some estimates of magnetic fields, not to the actual fields measured in children's homes. Serious limitations have been pointed out in near- ly all the studies of power lines and cancer?u2 These limitations include unblinded 'assessment of expo- sure, difficulty in making direct measurements of the constantly varying electromagnetic fields, inconsis- tencies between the measured levels and the esti- mates of exposure based on wiring configurations, recall bias with respect to exposure, post hoc defini- tions of exposure categories, and huge numbers of comparisons with selective emphasis on those that were positive. Both study participation and residen- tial wire-code categories may be confounded by so- cioeconomic factors. Often the number of cases of ALL in the high-exposure categories has been ver.v small, and controls may not have been truly compa- rable. Moreover, all these epidemiologic studies have been conducted in pursuit of a cause of cancer for which there is no plausible biologic basis. There is no convincing evidence that exposure to electromag- netic fields causes cancer in animals,6 and electro- magnetic fields have no reproducible biologic effects at all, except at strengths that are far beyond those ever found in people's homes. In recent years, several commissions and expert panels have concluded that there is no convincing ev- idence that high-voltage power lines are a health haz- ard or a cause of cancer.°'~a And the weight of the bet- ter epidemiologic studies, including that bv Linet et al., now supports the same conclusion. it (s sad that hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into studies that never had much promise of finding a way to pre- vent the tragedy of cancer in children. The many in- conclusive and inconsistent studies have generated worry and fear and have given peace of mind to no one. The 18 years of research have produced consid- erable paranoia, but little insight and no prevention. It is time to stop wasting our research resources. We should redirect them to research that will be able to discover the true biologic causes of the leukemic clones that threaten the lives of children. EDWARD W. CAMPION, M.D. REFERENCES 1. Pui C-H. Childhood leukemias. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1618-30. 2. Ries LAG, Miller BA, Hankey BF, Kosary CL, Harras A, Edwards BK, eds. SEER cancer statistics review, 1973-1991: tables and graphs. Bethes- da, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 1994. (NIH publication no. 94-2789.) 3. Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, et al. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1-7. 4. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical ~4ring configurations and child- hood cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1979;109:273-84. $. Hitchcock RT, Patterson KM. Radio-frequency and ELF electromag- netic energies: a handbook for health professionals. New York: Van Nos- trand Reinhold, 1995. 6. National Research Council. Possible health effects of exposure to resi- dential electric and magnetic fields. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997. 7. Feychting M, Ahlbom A. Magnetic fields and cancer in children residing near Swedish high-voltage power lines. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:467-81. 8. Brodeur 12. Annals of radiation: the hazards of electromagnetic fields. I. Power lines. The New ~brker. June 12, 1989:51-88. ~. Idera. Annals of radiation: the hazards of electromagnetic fields. II. Something is happening. The New ~brker. June 19, 1989:47-73. 10. Idem. Annals of radiation: the hazards of electromagnetic fields. III. Video-display terminals. The New Yorker. June 26, 1989:39-68. 11. Sas4tz DA, Pearce NE, Poole C. Methodological issues in the epidemi- ology of electromagnetic fields and cancer. Epidemiol Rev 1989;11:59-78. ~. Poole C, Trichopoulos D. Extremely low-frequency electric and mag- netic fields and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1991;2:267-76. 13. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Panel. Health effects of low-fre- quency electric and magnetic fields. Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1992:V-I-V-18. (Publication no. 029-000-00443-9.) ©1997, Massachusetts Medical Society. CATARACTS AND INHALED COKTICOSTEKOIDS 'N this issue of the Journal, Cumming et al. report . an association between the use of inhaled cortico- steroids and the development of posterior subcapsu- lar and nuclear cataracts.! Although this association was not unexpected ~ the use of systemic cortico- steroids is a risk factor for cataracts ~ published sur- veys of smaller groups have not demonstrated a link bet~veen inhaled corticosteroids and cataracts. Baren- holtz2 recently concluded that corticosteroids ad- ministered by nasal inhalation have no effect on the risk of posterior subcapsular cataracts. Abuekteish et al) concluded that screening for cataract was unnec- essary in children receiving inhaled corticosteroids alone. Using modern ophthalmologic techniques, Cureming and his collaborators surveyed a large co- hort of Australians with a median age of 65 years and found 370 with a history of current or past use of inhaled corticosteroids. They could evaluate the risk of cataract in participants who used inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids. The crvstalline ocular lens is an avascular, transpar- ent, slightly yellow organ located immediately behind the iris. It is one of two lenses in the eve (the cornea is the other), and its size and shape are much like those of an M&M chocolate candy. The MSdvl has a sugar coating; the lens has a transparent collagenous 46 July 3, 1997 ':EucH'd _ Management --.Gompany- I .. NO.veatb~r "12, 1990 Plann$~g Coatat$ss~oner The C~ty of Rancho Oucaaonga P.O. Box 80? Rancho Cucamonga, Ca, 91730 Dear Commissioner, The Haven V~ew Estates Homeowners Assoc~ation Board of D~rectors have met with Steve Shepard, project man&ge~ of M.J. Brock & Sons Inc., several times regarding the f~ve lots on Tackstem and a request which was made to increase front on garages from 25~ to 40~. Brock has mitigated our concerns w~th the five lots by creating a cul-de-sac thereby removing potential parking problems on Tackstem. Brock w211 require a varSance ~n lot size ~o accomplish this, wh$ch we hope you will grant. After much discussion the board .agreed that 33~ front on garages ~ould be an acceptable compromise. We hope you wLll consider these recommendations and approve t~e cul- de-sac design w~th the variance as well ae the 33~ fron~ on garages. Respectfully, HAVEN VI~ ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Pres-~dent 125 South Mountain Ave. Suite .. Mailing Address: Box ~d Upland, CA 714/981-4131 . . . .... Upland, CA 91785 00:00 00, 00 ~0~ houses fronting on Tackstem, but none of the alternatives would work. He requested that the equestrian trail not be required along Ringstem because there is an existing trail on the south side of Ringstem and the remainder of Ringstem has an equestrian trail only on one side of the street, not both. He asked that the number of permitted front-on garages be changed to 40 percent instead of the indicated 25 percent, in order to be consistent with what had been approved on a previous tract. He stated that requiring FEt4A response to remove the Zone AO designation prior to final map recordation would be a hardship because he felt FEMA does not respond that quickly; therefore, he requested that the Conditional Letter of Map Revision be required only prior to issuance of building permits. He stated his consultants were available to answer any questions. Chairman McNiel asked how they felt about the results of the neighborhood meeting$, Mr. Shepard stated he felt they had mitigated some of their concerns. He said they had agreed to provide on-site turnGrounds for Lots 1-5 so that traffic exiting to Tackstem could head out. Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the basic issue was the five driveways fronting onto Tackstem, She said in the entire tract there are only two driveways fronting onto Tackstem and none onto Ringstem. She stated that the CC&Rs restrict parking on Tackstem and Ringstem and she felt if driveways were placed on Tackstem, it would encourage guests to park on the street. She said that because it is a private community, enforcement is up to the homeowners. Ms. Hahn stated that Tackstam is steep and she felt parked cars could pose a safety problem. She suggested that the Commission could perhaps approve the project minus the five lots in question. She showed a proposed layout that would avoid driveways fronting onto Tackstem, She said the Homeowners' Association would have to live with whatever is approved, so she felt it would. be fair for the Commission to delay the applicant a short time in order to be sure the driveway and parking issues were properly mitigated. She said the homeowners did not have any objection to the Variant, request. She stated that the Homeowners' Association has an "Associatio~ Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," which states that the th~ Association will cooperate with Brock in an effort to annex the Brock property as it is developed in order to merge the two developments. She stated that would be easier if the developments are consistent in their design. She said that the agreements call for access through the gates and the traffic report states there will be 3,100 car trips out of Ringstem on a daily basis. She questioned if the gates can accommodate such a large number of operations, or if a new gate would be needed. She was concerned because currently Brock is paying for · the gate maintenance but the Homeowners' Association will eventually be paying. Ms. Hahn stated that in their development their architectural committee does not like front-on garages, and tries to eliminate them wherever possible. She said that Brock would not be building the houses but .is planning to sell off the lots to individuals and asked if that meant the first 25 people would be entitled to front-on garages. Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 26, 1990 ~0~ 8~ 00:00 00, 00 ~0~ To: Bill Ford, LaurenDev From: INTERNET:dolan@earth.usc.edu, INTERNET:dolan@earth.usc.edu Date: 7/21/97, 4:01 PM Re: Re: Cucamonga Fault Sender: dolan@earth.usc.edu Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.2) with ESMTP id TAA19623 ~-~- " for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:01:36 -0400 (EDT) From: dolan@earth.usc.edu Received: from earth.usc.edu (earth.usc.edu [128.125.253.158]) by usc.edu (8.8.4/8.7.2/usc) with ESMTP id QAA27237 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:01:32 -0700 ( Received: from [128.125.23.113] (dolan.usc.edu [128.125.23.113]) by earth.usc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4/usc) with SMTP id QAA22191 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>;' Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:01:33 -0700 ( · Message-Id: <199707212301.QAA22191@earth.usc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.'0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:07:05 -0800 To: Bill Ford <LaurenDev@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cucamonga Fault Dear Mr. Ford, Sorry to be so long in getting back to you. I've been in the field most of the summer. This letter is in response to your request for a copy of the proposal I sunbmitted to San Bernardino County to conduct paleo-earthquake excavations of the Cucamonga fault. I am at a bit of a loss as to who is distributing this proposal, since the county turned down my request to conduct excavations on their property. Or at least I never heard back from Ms. Vivian Null, the site manager for the County property to whom I submitted the proposal two years ago. She had promised to submit the proposal to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, but I never heard back whether this was done or not. If you don't mind my asking, who forwarded the proposal (or part of the proposal) to you? To clarify one point, the major focus of the proposal (as with much of our work in the greater metropolitan area) was to determine whether or not the Cucamonga fault breaks by iteslf in moderate to moderately large earthquakes (magnitude 6.5-7), or whether it ruptures together with other faults in much larger (magnitude 7.5) earthquakes. I must emphasize that this was the question we were trying to address, and the idea of occurrence of M 7.5 earthquakes was a hypothesis, not a conclusion. --~The best avai~_,.~~~,~~Qr the C~a~ong~ Morton J '~ ~ ~- ~',~. ~~.~,.~/.~.~ii~GeoAogfcal Survey .Profese~a~l~-ap~r 1339, y publis~T~~' Mo~~'a]~' Uinversity Geology libraries (e. g., Caltech and UCLA; US~ o~'~ not have a Geology library) will have a copy of this. "That article contains detailed maps of the fault zone across Day Canyon fan in Rancho Cucamonga, which sounds as if it is your area of interest. I hope the article helps you. The fault is currently zoned as active by the State and should therefore be considered as a possible seismogenic source. Beyond that, about all we can say with certainty at this point is that the fault appears to exhibit at least two, and possibly three, active strands (strands B, C, and 'Etiwanda Avenue scarp' of Morton and Matti, 1987). We would know more about the earthquake potential of active faults in southern California if City, County, and State agencies were more receptive to allowing excavations on their publically held land. Without such investigations our hands are tied. Jim Dolan /' James F. Dolan Assistant Professor Dept of Earth Sciences University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 phone: 213-740-8599 fax: 213-740-8801 , AULT ZONE http:,,'www.scecdc.scec.org,'cucamong.htmi CUCAMONGA FAULT ZONE TYPE OF FAULTING: thrust LENGTH: about 30 km NEAREST COMMUNITIES: Claremont, Upland, Cucamonga SLIP RATE: between 5 and 14 mm/yr INTERVAL BETWEEN MAJOR RUPTURES: estimated at roughly 600-700 years PROBABLE MAGNITUDES: MW6.0- 7.0 MOST RECENT SURFACE RUPTURE: very recent Holocene OTHER NOTES: Typical ground rupture per major event estimated at 2 meters. Slip rate (and thus recurrance interval) is somewhat disputed. If fastest slip rate is assumed, surface rupture interval may be as short as 150-200 years. This zone of faulting dips to the north. The Cucamonga fault zone is part of the same fault system, marking the southern boundary of the San Gabriel Mountains, as the Sierra Madre thult zone. Sometimes it is included as part of the Sierra Madre fault zone, as is the San Fernando fault zone far to the west; here we refer to each as separate fault zones, as it is not clear that rupture may progress from one to another. Perhaps the best way to rectify the difference in nomenclature is to refer to the Cucamonga fault zone, Sierra Madre fault zone, and the San Fernando fault zone as the Sierra Madre fault system. REFERENCES MOJAVE FAULT SOUTHERN FAULT LOS ANGELES MAP M__A~ FAULT MAP :i~[ ALPHABETICAL FAULT INDEX · i of l 7/23/97 12:36 PM To: (unknown), LaurenDev From: John Marquis, INTERNET:warrior@ugcs.caltech.edu Date: 8/1/97, 4:56 PM Re: Re: SCEC DC Feedback and Comments -- Sender: warrior@ugcs.caltech.edu Received: from envy.ugcs.caltech.edu (envy.ugcs.caltech.edu [131.215.128.135]) by arl-img-l.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.2) with ESMTP id TAA25057 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu [131.215.128.131]) by envy.ugcs.caltech.edu with ESMTP (8.8.5/UGCS:4.44) id QAA09796 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:56:20 -0700 (PDT) From: warrior@ugcs.caltech.edu (John Marquis) Received: by avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (8.8.5/UGCS:4.43) id QAA26036; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199708012356.QAA26036@avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu> Subject: Re: SCEC DC Feedback and Comments To: LaurenDev@compuserve.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:56:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, The answer to your question about the Cucamonga fault zone is not an easy one -- the earlier source I've seen in writing specifying the probable magnitudes of an event on the Cucamonga fault zone is a paper by Wesnousky, S.G. (1986), in the Journal of Geophysical Research , Vol. 19, No. B12, pp. 12587-12631~ -- The fault zone was known to be active well before then, however. It appears on the 1975 fault map by Charles Jennings as active in Holocene time, which means that people could have stated that it could rupture with a certain magnitude well before Wesnousky put it in his giant table of faults. All you really need to know to say how large a quake you can get on a fault or fault zone is the length of the segment that could rupture, its dip (if it is not vertical), and the depth to its base. From these, you can roughly calculate the size of the largest quake it could produce. That's really all Wesnousky did. I'm not sure when that area-to-magnitude relation was first realized, though, or when the depth of the Cucamonga fault was first determined. Tracing active faults really didn't become such a hot field until after the 1971 Sylmar/San Fernando quake, when the threat of fault traces was revealed in a very graphic way, and government funding suddenly became much more readily available for such pursuits. Thus, I'd doubt the first determination of the figures you're asking about came before 1970... but I'm not positive they didn't. A summarized answer: The theory to make these calculations may have been around as early as the mid-1950s. The data to make them may have been available by the 1960s. The drive to do so came after 1971. It was definitely mapped and could have been done by 1975. The first references I know of begin in the 1980s. Wesnousky published the first chart of such values (that I know of) in 1986, though his estimate may have been small (it also depends on the magnitude scale you're using -- ML is not the same as Ms or Mw) . The figure cited is from Putting -- Down Roots in Earthquake Country_, 1995. question to answer .... :) Thanks for visiting the site (and for helping to teach your children about earthquakes)! John Marquis SCEC Data Center webmanager markwis@gps.caltech.edu LOEB OEBLLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1 800 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 TELEPHONE: 213-688-3400 FACSIMILE: 213-688-3460 CENTURY CITY 10100 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARO SUITE 2200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-41 64 TEL: 310-282-2000 FAX: 310-282-2192 NEW YORK 345 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10154-0037 TEL: 212-407,4000 F~X: 212-407-4990 NASHVILLE 45 MUSIC SOUARE WEST NASHVILLE, TN 37203'3205 TEL: 615-749-8300 F~X: 615-749-8308 W&SNINGTON, D.C. 2100 M STREET, N.W. SurrE 601 W~SN~NGTON, D.C. 20037-1207 TEL: 202-223'5700 F~: 202-223'5704 F~OME Pl~7.~ D~G~3NE, 1 00197-RO~aE ITALY TEL: 011-396-808-8456 F~X: 011-396-674-8223 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~loeb.com August 7, 1997 Via Facsimile Ms. Gale Sanchez City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re; Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") Au.~ust 20, 1997 City Council Hearin~ Date Dear Ms. Sanchez: I learned yesterday evening that the hearing before the City Council on CURE's appeal from the July 9, 1997 Planning Commission approval of Lauren De:,elopment Design 97-! ! has been scb, edu!ed fcr August 20, 1997. Over the past several weeks, Peggy Glorius of my office has had several conversations with you in an effort to confirm the hearing date. In your most recent conversation of July 25, you stated that the transcript would not be complete until August 13, and therefore the hearing would not be scheduled until after August 20, 1997. Based upon your statement, I calendared judicial evaluation hearings on behalf of the Governor's Office the evening of August 20, 1997. GLP11307.L02 Ms. Gale Sanchez August 7, 1997 Page 2 Under the circumstances, CURE requests a continuance of the hearing date. In exchange for a continuance, CURE is willing to accept the second City Council meeting date in September in order to accommodate vacations City employees may be taking in conjunction with the Labor Day holiday. Please advise me of the procedure for getting a ruling on CURIE's request for an extension. Very truly yours, . Malissa Hathaway McK'~ MHM:mgc GLP11307.L02 SENT BY :TRANS/FLOOD CONTROL ; 8-20-~7 ; 16'36 ; TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT- SURVEYOR 825 East Third Street · 5an Bernardino, CA 92415..083,5 · (t~01)) 387-211~ Fax (90~) ,la7-2~7 August 20, 1997' SAN BDNO COUNTY -, 9094772849;# 2/ 5 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO File: 1-502/1.00 Mr. Joe O'Neil City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 RE: DEER CREEK SPREADING GROUNDS TRACT 14771 Dear Mr. O'Neil: I am providing this letter in response to conversation with Mr. Dan James of your staff regarding Deer Creek Dam, Deer Creek Reception Levee, and Tract '14771. In a letter of July 9, 1997, to a City resident, Ms. Melissa Hathaway McKeith, copy attached. I provided some information relative to recent review by the District of Lauren Developments' plans to connect drainage to the District's Deer Creek Channel, and also to the Distdct's action in 1985 to release an easement over a portion of proposed Tract 14771. The Deer Creek Dam and Basin, plus an outletting channel from the Dam, were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In general, the purpose of this construction was to intercept and control water flow including earthen sediment at the mouth of Deer Canyon. and to provide a conveyance system for flows outletting the Dam. The Corps used its normal high standards for the design and construction. The facility was sized to handle a "standard project flood event', wl'tict~ for this facility was estimated to be a '200-year return event'. Upon completion of construction, the District took over the responsibility for ongoing operalion and maintenance of the Dam and outlet channel. As part of our maintenance program, regular reviews of this, and all other Districl facilities, are conducted. Maintenance activities are accordingly scheduled when warranted, including removal of sediment that may have been deposited behind the Dam. it is also noted, that due to the height of the Dam and the basin capacity, the Deer Creek Dam is considered a 'jurisdictional" Dam by the State Department of Water Resources through its Division of Safety of Dams. Accordingly, the State previously has cedified the Dam and makes annual inspections to assure that the Dam meets State guidelines. If the State, in its annual review, determines that any maintenance deficiencies exist, they notify the District to take appropriate actions to correct such deficiency. £SNT ..Y'T~ANS/FLOOD CONTI~0L ; 8-20-97 ; 16:36 ; SAN I~)NO COLNFY ~ 9094772849;# 3/ 5 Mr. Joe O'Neil August 20, 1997 Page Two With canyon flows controlled by the Dam~ the proposed tra~ would be generally subjected only to flows that develop below the Dam, essentially local drainage. The Deer Creek Reception Levee remains to ttte north and west of the tract. This levee will continue to intercept and direct local drainage to the northerly tract boundary where the devOeloper has pmpose(~ a new channel to accommodale both the local drainage intercepted by the~ Deer Creek Reception Levee, and drainage that would be directly intercepted by the new channel. If you have any further questions or commenls, please call me at (909) 387-2623. Sincerely, KEN A. MILLER, Director KAM:nac DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS PO BOX 532711 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 August 11, 1997 Office of the Chief Design Branch Mr. Joe O'Neill, City Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. O'Neill: Refierence a telephone call from Dan James to Bob Hall of my staff on August 5, 1997, requesting information on Deer Creek Debris Basin. Specifically, he had questions about the seismic design of the basin. In the conversation with Mr. James, and prior conversations Mr. Hall had with a developer named Jolm Allday and a private citizen named Melissa McKeith, a question arose regarding the seismic design of the basin. The issue concerns whether we considered seismic conditions originally when we designed the basin in the early 1980's and whether recent information on faults and potential seismicity in this area would cause a problem for the embankment. Mr. Hall's initial response, in each case, was that the debris basins are not subjected to the same criteria as reservoirs because they don't permanently store water. The joint probability of a basin full ofxvater and a major earthquake is very remote. He also pointed out that this type of embankment has historically performed very well during earthquakes. Mr. James asked if the Corps could provide some specific information on the original seismic considerations for the embankment. Jim Farley, Chief of the Soils Design Section, provided the following information originally presented in the Corps' report, "Deer Creek, Hillside and Demens Debris Basins - Embankment and Foundation Seismic Evaluation - Supplement to Feature Design Memorandum No. 6", dated June 1979 and revised in October 1980: 1. The debris basin was statically evaluated tbr two seismic events, a magnitude 8 on the San Andreas Fault and a magnitude 6.4 on the Cucamonga Fault. The analysis indicated the embankment would perform adequately under both earthquake conditions, maintaining its integrity and functiorl.,as a debris basin. 2. The joint probability or' a 100 year flood event and either earthquake is very rare, approximately 3.4 and 2.8 chances in 100,000, respectively. -2- Based on the review of this information, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers affirms the Deer Creek Basin to be safe from failure during a major earthquake on either the San Andreas or Cucamonga Faults. Sincerely, Robert E. Koplin, P.E. Chief, Engineering Division August 20,1997 Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, On November 12, 1990, Euclid Management sent a letter to the Planning Commission stating that the Board of Directors of the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association was in agreement with the proposed tract 14771. We were unaware that the General Plan designation on this property was Open Space, nor were we aware that it was in a streamside, woodland, & water recharge area under the Open Space Plan of the General Plan. With the new information regarding the removal of the levee and the safety impacts it would have on the community, the board of directors hereby rescinds its support of the project. Respectfully, HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Bruce Ann Hahn President SFfNT BY:MICHAEL BAKER CORP ; 8-20-97 ; l'09PM ; MICHAEL ~ CORP~ 8004772848;# 2/ 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 AUG2,01991 The Honorable William Alexander Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamon~t, California 91729 Dear Mayor Alexander: This responds to a letter datui August 19, 1997, to tim Federal Emergency Management Agency from Mr. David T. Williams, Ph.D, P.E., of WEh~ Consultants, lr~., re~g a challenge by Cuoamongans United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) of a development in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mr. Williams stated tlmt he believes tbe ~ removal of ~. levee section and swale system ns part of the developmere will increase flood risks in downslope areas.. In light of the pro~ removal of the levee section and swale system, Mr. Williams stated that WEST Consultants, Inc., and Locb & Loeb, L.L.P., on belmlf of CURE, wish to request a remnpping of affected areas to a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) designated 'l, on~ AO, at a minimum. SFHAS a~o are~ that would be in,,n4~ted by the flood having a l-percent chance of being equaled or exce~d~ dur'mg any given year (base flood). Mr. Williams stated that his letter would be supplemented a~ soon as possible with the appropriate technical data to support the revision request. ~ Mr. Williams' letter correctly indicated that we i~ued a Letter of Map Revision revising the SFHA boundary delineations based solely on certification by the U,S. Army Corp~ of Engineer~ that the debris basin provides base flood ~on. We are cons~riug Mr. Williams' letter as a request for a revision of the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for tim City of Rancho Cucnmonga, California, under the provisions of Part 65 of the Nationnl Flood Insurance Program !regulations. Within 2 weeks of the date of this letter, we will notify you by letter of the minimum data s~l initial fees roqui~ for us to begin our detailed technical review. Please note that we will req~ro, at a minimum, th~ submittal of an analysis of the icv~ and swale system as part of this request. Cbpies of our acknowledgment letter will be provided to Dr. William~ and Ms. McKeith. If you have any questions regarding this marmr, please coreact me in Wuhin~ton, DC, either by telephone at (202) 646-2770 or by facsimile at (202) 6464596, Since~ly, ~"~"/F-~~Chief od-'Hazard Identification Branch Mitigatlbn Direetornte Mr. David T. Williams, Ph.D, P.E. WE,5'T Consultants, Inc. Ms. Malissa McKeith Loeb & Loeb, L.L.P, FROM ' CRL~QCB-REGION 8 PHONE NO. ' 909 7816288 Au9. 20 1997 84:46PM P1 STATE OF CALiF ._ORNIA--~&LIFORNIA ENVIFIONMENT .N_.._PROTEC'FtON AGENCY .. 'CAU~ REGIONAL WATER ~ CONTROL BOARD SN~AANA REGION 3737 MAIN STREET. SUITE 500 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501-3339 PHONE: (9o~) FAX: (9o9) August 20, 1997 The Honorable William Alexander Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 PETE WILSON, Governor ~'1~"*"*~ -- Po~t-lt TM brand fax transmittal memo 76/1- LAUREN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TENTATi~ TRACT MAP NO. 14771 · Dear Mr. Alexander. It has come to our attention that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is reviewing the subject residential development located in the.Deer Creek drainage area. This project is not ¢urrently before the Regional Water Quality Control Board for any form of regulatory review. The primary duty of the Regional Board is to protect the quality of the waters within the Region for all beneficial uses. In the Regional Boer's Water Quality Control Plan, Deer Creek has a designated bermficial use of intermittent groundwater recharge, Thus, elimination of a recharge area could affect this beneficial use and would be of concern to us. In the course of the City's review of this project, the City should consider any effects that the project could have on groundwater recharge. Board staff would be happy to assist the City in that regard. If you have any questions, please call me at (90g) 782-3286. Sincerer, Ted Cobb, SWRCB - Office of the Chief Counsel Malissa Hathaway McKeith, Loeb & Loeb Andrew Hartzell, Hewitt & McGuire SFJ~IT rff:TRANS/FLOOD CONTIrOL ;8-20-97 ; 16:37; l:RAI SPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT- SURVEYOR -. Third Street · 5~n Berrmrdlno,, CA ~415-0,35 · ((~9) 387-2000 ~ (909) 387-2667 July 9, 1997 SAN l~NO COUNTY 9094772849;# 4/ 5 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC SERVICE80~)UP _.. ,. '-I ........ " KEN A. MILLER File: 1-503/1.00 Ms. Malissa Hathaway McKcith Loeb and Loeb · 1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475 Dear Ms. McKeith: Ppcfcrcncc is made to our telephone conversation earlier today as well as your l~:tters of July' 2 and July 9, 1997. ' ,- Due to the limited time available since receipt of your letters, it has not becn poraible to research our files for all of the information you reClUeateA. I am, how{:ver, able .to provide the following information regarding the project site, Tract No. 14771, owncc. by Lauren Development. Our latest correspondence to Lauren Devclopmcnt, a letterdated May 29, 1997, is attached. The focus of our latest review has bccn the c.ormccfion era $7-inc]:I diameter rcinforccd concrete pipe, par/. o£ a drainage intc;rccpt system along the north side of Lhc development. into our Dccr Crock Channi::l. Our review in this instance has concentrated or~ the east end of' the: developer's drainage nystcm and its impact on the District'-< property anc~ channel. Thc Corps of Engineers has also reviewed the channel cotmcction to assure tl~t it mec~s their requirements and standards. This Corps review is required in all ea.~es where the Corps ~s previou.5. ly constructed a flood control facility aff~t ti~med it over to a local agency for operation and maintenance. As you are aware, the Tract site noted above has had several owncrs over the last twelve to fir teton years. The District levee, known as Deer Creek Reception Levee, traverses the site gencrally from northwest to southeast. The District previously hcld an cascment over the site for the operation and maintenance of the levee. In 1985, at the request of the owner at the time, Walter Laband, the District reviewed the need for the flood control easemcnt and the levee. Due to the existence of the Deer Crock Dam and Basin, plus the improved outlet channel that had been constructed by thc Corps of Fatginr, ot~, it was do~ormine~ by. the District that thc casement was no longer necessary for use in controlling regional floods. Accordingly, following r6c. eipt of compensation from thw, pmperty ownva', the District quitclaimed its easement interest in the property. Since the quitclaim of tM: ca.~ment right in 1985, the District has from time to time corresponded with several landowners and cnginra:rs repr~ent:ng th~c landowners. In general, I . I~/AlIIi' tl DAVt:; ...... i;tr,~l LqM~it;t lll:tilll'; .IF:fillY ~./~V£.Ci ................. I till! I I*111111 Ill'; II~.l SENT BY 'TRANS/FLOOD CONTROL ., ; 8-20-97 ; 16:87 ; SAN ISDNO COUNT'Y -~ 9094772849'# 5/ 5 .Inly 9, 1997 Page Two believe we have tried to convey in our correspondenco that local drainage originating. southerly of the debris dam would still need to be handled in development of the sit~, that permits from the District would be required for any encroachment onto District fight-of-way, that drainage improvements for the site should be eoordinatrat with the City of Rancho Cucamonga since the site is within the City, that any required modifications to the National Flood Insurance Program maps should be coordinated through the City, etc. As previously indicated, thee has not b~mn ample time to address all of your comments and .. requests in more depth. If you desire further amplification or. additional information, please call so that we can discuss more precisely the information that would bc most helpful to you. / Sincerely, KEN A. MILLER Flood Control Engineer Attactunent as noted cc: Charles S. Scolastico bo:: Suparvi~Jr Joa ~ikals ~UG-l~-i997 ZEPHYR PARTNERS LLC Robert J. Cristiano 1151 Dove St. #295 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1714) 476-0101 (714) 752-0667 fax 714 ?52066? P.O! From: Date: William J_ Alexander, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga Robert J. Cristiano August 15, 1997 Design Review Appeal to City Council Tract 14771 - Lauren Development, Inc. VIA FAX: 909-.477-2849 (2 pages) RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION AUG 1 8 1997 As a property owner in the City of Rancho C-c~monga for more than ten years, I have l/red within the rules, regulatiom and laws '=of our city. In that time, I have paid over $100,000 in pmpe~ taxes and over $200,000 for fees, reports, studies, and engineering. In return the city has gran~ the entitlement to build 40 homes on Tmct 14771 subject to the Conditions of Approval outlined in the tentative tzact map approval process..~ My relafionnhip with the city is excellent, and the process, In the fall of 1996, I entered ~ a contract to sell Tract 14771 to Lauren Development, Inc. I selected Lauren du~ to their wiiling.~ to adhe~ to tl~ city's strict requ/rements for both contour grading alld design g, ide. li~, .-~. On Jt!ly 9~, the Plnnnin~ Commission voted five to zero to approve the Design Rtwiew Application presented by Lauren. This ullal~imous vote has been appeal~ to the city council by three parties and is scheduled to be heard on August It has come to my attention that the city council has been asked to extend this hearins. I strongly oppose the request for the extension and hope that you will hear the mntter Ils scheduled. There are compelling reasom for this' :request. The first appellant, W'dliam Angel, opposes the project as it represents direct competition to his custom home building business.. His issues were addressed at the July 9a phannirq: commi.s.qion hearing. The five to zero vote answered his complnints. He I~ts addressed no new "design review" issues [It his appeal. : I i ', The second appellant, Rangho Cucamon§a V Homeowners Association, has no "design review" issues either. Their claim is that my property does not have legal access. This would be a violation of the Subdivision Map Act if it were true. It is not. Access is guaranteed by recorded instruments. It is not a design review issue. The thhd appellant, Ms. Mcl~ith, is known to me personally. She has sued the city charging ,,,., ~nspiracy. She has no "d~ign rmricw" issues in her appeal. Accordin~ to your city attorney, and my own. this appeal (and an extension ) must be limited to design review marten only. Therefore, the extension should be alemeal, anct the appeal he, a~d on those grounds exclusively. Ms. McKeith informed me by telephone that she will do "whatc~er it takes" to stop L~ Development. I resent her unwilling~ts to play by the rules and accept the laws of our city. This project was approved under very strict city procedures in 1990. She now wants to rewrite those rules. , I1! r, Most troubling is hm' campaign of disinfommtion. For example, she has fi'ighted local residents into believing they are in danger from flooding fithe dyke on the property is removed. She fails to mention that this dyke was breached in 1990 by a one hundred foot opening at the request of Haven View homeowners to provid~ a third exit mute in the event of a earthquake and fire. She has stated in her letter of July 23, 1~r/that I personally have a problem with the city council. No such problem exists. She states ina~urately in her letter of Julie ] 1~ that "1tie alluvial fan sage scrub ..... on the property is part of one of the only eight rc-mn{,ining areas on earth." Again untrue. None of her complaints are "design review" issues. Please do not he influenced by the threats of political retribution made by IVls.:McKeith. Please do not open the design review process up to unrelated matters. Please allow Ms~ McKeith to play by the same rules imposed upon me for over 10 years. Please deny the request for extension of time and hear the appeal on August 20~. Thank you. C 'nstiano Panners Robert I. Cristiano General Parmer CITY ~B~ R_A.NCHO CUC,~d,,,...ONGA 5'IE O t .-k N D UM CONFIDENTIAL DATE' August 20, 1997 TO: Mayor nd Members of City Council , AICP, City Manager FRO rad Buller, City Planner REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE JECT%. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 OF HEARING ON APPEAL FOR One of the appellants has submitted to staff a request for continuance on the above appeal. There are several inaccuracies in that letter, including the claim that they were told the hearing would not be set until after August 20. That information is not accurate and a response was forwarded to the appellant confirming the wording used was that the hearing would not occur until at least August 20. Staff has had several phone conversations with the appelant's staff confirming how and when hearings are set and that requests for continuance must be considered by the City Council. Should the City Council grant a request for continuance, there are no staff conflicts with the first meeting in September. BB:gs Attachment: Loeb & Loeb letter dated August 7, 1997 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT Document Index I Document Letter from Planning Consultants Research to Lauren Development, dated February 28, 1997 Letter from USFWS to Lauren Development, dated April 18, 1997 Letter from Spirit of the Sage Council to USFWS, et al, dated June 6, 1997 Tab No. 1 Letter from Loeb & Loeb to Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curly & Slough, dated June 5 11, 1997 Fax transmittal from USFWS to Hewitt & McGuire (with Etiwanda Preserve and open 6 space maps), dated June 13, 1997 Letter from CDFG to City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated June 23, 1997 7 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to USFWS, dated June 25, 1997 8 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to USFWS, dated Jun 26, 1997 9 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, dated 10 June 27, 1997 Memorandum from CDFG to Hewitt & McGuire (with NDDB and CAGN records for areas 11 east and west of Lauren property along alluvial fan), dated July 2, 1997 Fax transmittal from Planning Consultants Research to Hewitt & McGuire, dated July 2, 12 1997 (with recent siting information) Cucamongans United For Reasonable Exvansion Complaint, etc. filed July 2, 1997 13 Fax transmittal from CDFG to Hewitt & McGuire, dated July 8, 1997 (with draft report on 14 Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher in San Bernardino County) Voice mail transcription -- Telephone call of July 8, 1997 from Bill Tippets of CDFG to 15 Andrew Hartzell Letter from Army Corps of Engineers to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning 16 Commission, dated July 9, 1997 Letter from USFWS to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, dated July 9, 17 1997 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to San Bernardino County Museum, dated August 5, 1997 18 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to CDFG, dated August 5, 1997 19 Letter from Loeb & Loeb to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, dated 20 August 7, 1997 Letter from Army Corps of Engineers to City Engineer, dated August 11, 1997 21 Letter from RMA Group to Lauren Development, dated August 14, 1997 22 Letter from US Department of Agriculture to Spirit of Sage Council, dated August 15, 23 1997 Memorandum from Loeb & Loeb to CDFG, dated August 18, 1997 24 Planning Consultants Research Environmental, Economic, and Development Research for Land Use and Real Estate Decisions February 28, 1997 Mr. John Allday LAUREN DEVELOPMENT 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: REPORT FOR FOCUSED CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Mr. Allday: At your request, Planning Consultants Research (PCR) has conducted four (4) surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) at your Rancho Cucamonga project site. No individuals of this species were observed or otherwise detected on site or within adjacent habitat areas during any of the survey efforts. We offer the following report of our survey activities and results. Location The project site encompasses approximately 25 acres near the northern terminus of Haven Avenue within the City of Rancho Cucamonga (see Exhibit 1). As shown on a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, the site lies within the Etiwanda alluvial fan at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and may be referenced as being within the northeast comer of Section 24, TIN, R7W on the Cucamonga Peak 7.5 minute quadrangle (see Exhibit 2). The project site elevation ranges from 2,145 feet above mean sea level to 2,299 feet above mean sea level. The entire site and the area within approximately 500 linear feet of the site boundaries was considered to represent the study area. Plant Communities Soils over the entire site appear to consist of alluvium composed of sands, gravel, rocks and occasional boulders. These conditions support a somewhat heterogeneous community of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Approximately one half of the site supports a fairly uniform stand of this community dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonurnfasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana) and California sage (Arternisia californica). Thickleaf yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium) and deerweed (Lotus scoparius) are also common in these areas. These shrubs grow 939 Glennerye, Suite B Laguna Beach - CA 92651 Tel: (714) 497-0144 FAX: (714) 497-0158 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 130 Santa Monica - CA 90401 Tel: (310) 451-4488 FAX: (310) 451-5279 Planning Consultants Research John Allday February 28, 1997 Page 2 to three feet in height and form a canopy of 80 to 90 percent cover. The remaining one half of the site supports the same species with the addition of mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), golden current (Ribes aureum) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) which become dominant components of the shrub cover. These larger shrubs and small trees grow to heights of 10 to 12 feet and add an additional dimension to the physical habitat structure. Canopy cover in these areas is also generally 80 to 90 percent; however, areas of 100 percent cover may be found. The vegetation on site and in adjacent areas appears to be healthy and in a mature stage of development. Of note, it is doubtful that the alluvial sage scrub on site will ever revert to either a pioneer or intermediate stage. This is due to the fairly recent construction of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel which have removed the area from its natural hydrologic regime. Methodology Surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted by Messrs. Steve Nelson and Ruben Ramirez under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit numbers 782272 and 780566, respectively. Methods employed were in conformance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. This included: surveys no less than seven (7) days apart between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise and 1130; coverage of no more than 25 acres per investigator per hour; and, slowly walking over the entire site and stopping every 200 feet and playing a tape of recorded California gnatcatcher vocalizations. The tapes were played for several seconds only at each station followed by a brief period of listening for a response. A summary of the surveys follows. Survey 1 - Conducted by Nelson on January 4, 1997, commencing at 0830 hours and ending at 0945 hours; route was generally around the perimeter of the property and along an unimproved access road transversing the center of the property which enabled a survey of the entire property; temperature at the beginning and end of the survey was 44 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were overcast with a slight breeze. Survey 2 - Conducted by Nelson and Ramirez on January 13, 1997, commencing at 0817 hours and ending at 0930 hours; the route taken by Nelson was similar to Survey 1; in addition, Ramirez followed meandering transects generally zigzagging over the property; temperature held at 45 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were cloudy and it began to drizzle during the last five minutes of the survey; there was no wind. Survey 3 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 21, 1997, commencing at 0910 hours and Planning Consultants Research John Allday February 28, 1997 Page 3 ending at 1010 hours; route used was a crisscross generally in a north-south direction; temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the survey; skies were cloudy with a light mist and no wind. Survey 4 - Conducted' by Ramirez on January 28, 1997, commencing at 1000 hours and ending at 1110 hours; route was similar to Survey 3; temperature throughout the survey was 58 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were clear with a slight breeze. Results No California gnatcatchers were observed or otherwise detected on site or in the adjacent areas during any of the four survey efforts. In addition, no brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) were observed in the study area. Generally, bird activity was fairly high during each of the surveys. with a number of species being observed or detected on each occasion. A list of these is attached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, CONSULTANTS RESEARCH :gteven G. Nelson Director of Biological Services Ruben S. Ramirez Senior Ecologist EXHIBIT 1 ., North Vicinity Map Scale: 1" = 5,280' ~acer North -2°0° ........ '~./ ..... . ..... ./ : I. EXHIBIT 2 Topographic Map Scale: 1" = 2,000' Planning Consultants Research LIST OF BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED ON SITE OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE Scientific Name/Common Name Jan. 4 Jan. 13 Jan. 21 Jan. 28 Catharres aura turkey vulture Aquila chysaetos golden eagle Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Falco sparverius American kestrel Zenaida macroua mourning dove Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Sayornis saya Says phoebe Aphelocoma california western scrub jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corex common raven Psaltriparus minimus bushtit X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Planning Consultants Research Scientific Name/Common Name Thyromanes bewickii Bewick's wren Chamaea fasciata wrentit Mimus polyglonus northern mockingbird Toxostorna redivivum California thrasher Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Pipdo crissalis California towhee Pipdo maculatus spotted towhee Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowne~ sparrow Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Aimophila ruficeps rufous-crowned sparrow Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet Jan. 4 X X X X X X Jan. 13 X X X X X X Jan. 21 X X X X X Jan. 28 X X X X X X X X From: Thomas S, Maran To: ANDREW HAR'I'ZELLDate: 04/23/97 Time: 5:37:10 PMPage 3 of 4 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 23-97 2:56PM; 909 477 2847 => 1-909-484-1864; #2/3 / United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological $¢rvJcc~ Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loimr ^ventw West Carlsbad. Califoraia 92008 RECEIVED APR ~ 1 1997 Gity of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Div/sion April 18, 1997 Mr. John Allday Lauren Devclopmcnt 11030 Arrow Route, suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Report for Focused CaJifomia Gnatcatcher Surveys in Rancl:m Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (1-6-97-HC- 146) Dear Mr. Allday: Thc U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Scrvice) is in r~.cipt of the February 28, 1997, coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila caltfornica californica) sm-vc3r results, conducted by Planning Consultant Research for Latu~n Dcvclopmcnt. Tiaa property surveyed is approxima~Iy 25 acres and is located near the northern t~rninus of Haven Avenue within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site is wiggn the Etiwanda alluvial fan at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in relatively close proximity of known coastal California gnatcatcher sightings, and boarded by extensive slancis of quality sage scrub habitat. Although recent coastal California gnatcatcher survey guidelines, daryl February 28, 1997, for determining the presence/absence allow some deviation from the survey protocol for projects prior to adoption, the Service has been rccommending seven and n/ne surveys, for the breett/ng and non-breeding seasons respectively, for over one y~r in areas outside of active Natural Communities Conservation Plarm/ng (NCCP) judsd/ctions. Only surveys conducAen/by permitted biologists who gave proper notice to the Service prior 1:o conducting surveys and who wcm instructed on the n-mb~r of surveys to conduct in are~ in and outside era NCCP will bc accepted for the 1996 breeding season. At issue is the number of surveys conducted for the ~:oastal Califo~ gnatcatcher at this site. 'l~e Service met with you at an impromptu meeting at ~he Carlsbad Field Office in the later par~ of I.~)6. At thai time Jeff Newman and Mary Beth Woulfe of this office explained, in detail, the coastal Califo~a gnatcatcher guidelines for determining presence/absence of this species on your property. They recommended gaat you have a pemaitted biologist conduct seven surveys during the breeding season or nine surveys during the non-braeding season. However, a.s stated in the survey report, you requested that your biological consultant conduct only four surveys. As discussed with you and your consultant, new biological studies indicate that more .surveys an: nece~s&ry to determine the absence o£coastal California gnatcatchers. From: Thomas S. Maran To: ANDREW HARTZELL SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 23-97 2:56PM; Date: 04/23/97 Time: 5:37:10 PM 909 477 2847 => 1-909-484-1864; Page 4 of 4 #3/3 The Service cannot accept the survey results as being complete for determining t~ absence of the coastal California F, natcatcher on the subject property. The known California gnatcatchcr sightings in the vicinity and the cxtcn.sivc habitat indicate that four surveys do not provide a reasonable basis for concluding that the California ~n8t~tchers are absent from the property. Therefore, three additional survcys arc ncc~o4 to adequately survcy this sitc for the coastal California g,~tcatchcr. These additional survey days should be mined immediately upon giving notice to the Service, and spaced one week apart to adequately address our concerns. The Servic~ appredaies your cooperation in this matter ~ is willing to work with you to fully a,t~ potential impacts to federally sensitive and listed species, especially with regards to the coastal California tF, s*eatchcr. Plcasc contact Mary Both Woulfc of ~ia office aI (760) 431-9440 if you have any questions. 1..6..97-HC-146 cc'- CDFG, San Diego, CA (Attn: Bill Tippets) CDFG, Long Beach, CA (Attm Patty Wolf) Hewitt & McGuire, LLP, Irvine, CA (Arm: Andrew Hartzell) Planning Consultants Research, L-vine, CA (Atto: Steve Nelson) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept., CA (Atto: Brad Bullet) SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COld DEV; -10-97 10'lOAM; 9094772847 -,> L ~n Developmen1:; _ #1 Vera Rocha, Co-Founder Leeone lCltppsl~in, Co-t:ounder Co~ervaTlnn Pro~e'at~s Ll~rector Douglas Do~pke, Treasurer Pollo7 Pro,,ferris t:oordi~mtor £lizabeth Francis, Public Af~irs At Jell),. Wildlife Bioto~is~ · %n 9erm,,.'di.o Yetlay Coordlnatnr LLdo W'aid, Public Education Interfeitl-. OuLreac~ Coordlr~t~r LRD._D_.~50~'t" J~fEMBFRS; June 6, 1997 Pete RoteriSOn U.S. Fish & Wildlite Service 2730 Lokat Avom.~ West cadsbad, CA. ~2008 FAX (~S) 431-9624 Bill Tippert CDFG NCCP Program 4949 Vie~.widge Avenue San Diego, CA. 92123 FAX (619) 467-4233 Valerie PRmer, Pla~n~ ' County of S~ L~ernatd[no Planning Depa~ment 383 N. Ar~~ A~, 3~ lq. San ~ematdi~, ~. 92415 FAX (909) 387~099 Brad Bullet, Planner City of Rancho Curamen ~t~a Plainins Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. FAX (909) 987-64~ S~m Bernardino Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSttCP) Memorandum of U~rst~ding (MOU) ~d violalions oF {he izd f~th ~r~t for proj~t r~iew. Spirit Or the.S~q~e Council is formally Teque,~i,g that the rcfere~ccd responslbie lead agencies comply with the derms of lhe MSHCP MOU mtd ensure agency review of pmpOsc~ projects within the id~fifi~ plm, ting area. It has como to our at/ent~o~ that once sEain signa(o~ cities are not in compliance v~th die MOU ~d that the state nod federal signetotters a~ not er~orcing compliance. This lack of cnforceme~:t perpetuates ~e Sage Council's criticisms of so-~ll~ mgiona[ ~~tion pla~ing, the NCCP Program ~d Multi~S~ias ~CP~ Jasper Carlton. Director Paul Watson, Direct'or Sea 51',ph~'.rd C'.<~.w.,'vatim'~ .~,.J.y Dr. Ed Grumbine, Oire~or '~hc Sage Council has previously complainer[ to the state and f~cmt lead ag~c[~ filet to~ 8ovemm~t (Ci~ ~d Count) ~nl~ue to approve dev~opment pmj~ ~out ad~uafc biologic! and cultural su~s, i~lu~ng inappropriate mitigation. t~cal jurisdiafio~ that REre~m~ts ~d aw~c of su~y proton[ are ~ ~olatiOn, y~ dm state and f~e~ p~lic Im~ ~tnci~ turn a blind eye by failing {o ~Corcc. S~h failure of ~forc~t is ~rprct~ by the Sage ~uncil ~ ~[i~ous neEicc~ ~ a violalion or ~c public t~us~. It has been ~ y~ aSo Ihat ~e Sa~ Co~ci] complained about ~Jupmen[ epprov~ ~d gmd~g (~11~ng of ~mpe~iled tmbi~at) Ci~ of Eo~tana at H~m~s ~d~. 5titl lh~ tJS~S ~& CDFG ~CCP have ~ailed to ~tc{y ~tre~ ~e eelions. ~o la~t problem ~n~mpli~ of the MS]]CP MOt/is widfin lhe City of 101 00 ~00 00:00 13~ P05 SENT BY' R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 10-97 10:tOAM; 9094772847 -> L ~.n Deve~.opment; · · ., .,, RE: S~u~ Bcmaxdino MSt[CP NlO(1 viQtallons aor~, ~e Deer Creek Ch~nel to tim e~t ~d fan an~ ~in ~o O~r C~cck~V~h ~etsh~ ~d fl~d~n to 1~ x~t of the ~or~ Eti~oda Rc~. and sJlould receive ~e stlpulat~ agency ~vlew'~d "g~d f~th" effort that ~s a~ce~ ~n ;n the MS~CP ~OU. It is the Sago Couucil'e ~dc~taading that the tiara ~d fe~ra[ the ~uto and fdcml public ~ agcaci~ ~for~ realstoW ~mpiJan~ or ~ held in cogtempt of t~e ~rblic~ l~lst ~d in violanob oF CEQA, C~A, Native Pl~t Protectran Act, NCCP. Occauze of the $erlousn~s~ of ttds matter and that the ~ o£ Rancho Cucamonga ia sehodulcd to approve the/.,auren Development on t&e Sane I 1, lg~J)7 "oor~-ent ca{~ without public coremcoL the S~e Council requ~ lhat 1he O~S, CDv~ County and Ci~ The Sage Council recommends ~hat IJSFW$. CDFEl'and County contact 1he City ~4£ Rancho Cucamonlia immediately and demand that the Laure,~ Development project be removed from the C~ly'a eo~t calendar and agenda unti.[ there relBd~io~y ul~enCie:~ to en~u~c compli~ ~tk ~o terms of ~o MS~CP MO~ Asrec~l~cnt. 101 00 '00 00:00 11/18/~ 14:0~ "~71~ '7 0158 PCR 139 P06 1~028'. ATTACHMENT F INTERIM PROJECT REVIEW GUIDELINES This document establishes an agreement among the U.S. Fish 'and Wildlife Service ('Service"), the California Department of Fish and Game ('Department') and all other federal, state and local agencies participating in the San Bernardino Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) pertaining to an Interim Project Review Process to be utilized during the preparation of the Plan. The Interim Project Review Guidelines (IPRG) have two related purposes: (1) to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and the Department so that.p_.r..ojects which coutd preclude the successful development of the MSHCP witl be identified at the eadiest possible point in the development review process, and (2) to provide a opportunity for d~ogue between the lead agency, the project applicant and the regulatory agencies to explore alternatives or mitigation measures which could minimize and mitigate potential proiect L-npacts. Local Agencies have identified that significant problems have arisen in the past when comments on proposed projects am not received from the Department of Fish and Game or the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Senace until very late in the lead-agency's decisio~ making process. To address this problem with respect to projects which may have the pote~ to preclude long-term conservation strategies addressed in the MSHCP or impact the viability of biological resources, the Service and the Department am committing to meet with the appropriate project proponent at the earliest feasible point. Early identification of potential impacts will assist in the pmparaUdn of environmentaJ documen~ for the project and provide ~he oppo~ to iden~ po~ntial project alternatives and mitiga~n measures for consideration in c~T~pltance with Public Resources § The IPRG specifically does not create an additional layer of project review nor to confer any additional authority on the DepamTtent, the Service or lead agency. The recommendations of the Service and Department are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency pursuant to existing laws. Guidelines for Projects to Be Included in the Review Process Each lead agency and/or project proponent shall determine w/tether a project should be reviewed pursuant to the IPRG. Generally, the lead agency or pr~ect proponent may consider that a project as defined by CEQA § 21065, except those projects statutary or categorically exempt from CEQA, located within the sensitive habitat areas of the MSHCP boundaries, has the potential to preclude long term preservation ptanning or impact the viability of biological resources, and it is appropriate to utilize the IPRG. The lead agency retains the discretion to derart'nine that a project wit..hin the plan area, because of the projects characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. F-1 101 00 ~00 00:00 ~I/15/96 ' 14:07 ~714 ' 0158' I~R LAGUNA ~P B. Overview of the Pro~ ess]Relationship to CEQA and N A The Service and the Department shall each identify a lead person for project review and meeting attendance. The lead person for the County and each city shall be the Planning Director or the Planning Director's designee. Other Participating Agency wilt be determined on an as-needed basis. The Planning Director/designee or project proponent shall initiate consultation by notifying the designated representative of the Service and the Department of the need for a review meeting for one or several specified projects. Where the project proponent is a private landowner/developer, the Planning Director for the lead agency shall also be notified. Prior to the project review meeting. the Planning Director/designee or project proponent shall provide basic information (as delineated under 'Procedures' below) to the Service and the Department. For purposes of CEQA, the project review meeting and any related acttv'Ries (site visits, follow-up correspondence etc.) shall constitute a consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code §2'1080.3(A). If poasibie at the mc,~cting, but otherwise in not more than 30 days following the meeting or such shorter period of time as shall be necessary to enable the lead agency to comply with Title 14 Caltfoenla Code of Regulations §15102, the Service and the Department shall provide input to the lead agency as to whether either agency believes the project may have the potential to preclude long-term preservation planning or impact the viability of a biological reso~me. The Set~fk~ and the Depadment shall also indicat~ specific issues which either. believe should be addressed; suggest any studies they believe may be necessa~ to assess project impacts to-spec/fic biotogi~l resources; and propose any mitigation measures or project altematives which they believe should be considered, which may incJude such incentives to land holders as density a-ansfem, land swaps within the MSHCP area, 'Debt for Nature° exchanges, tax incentives through gifts, donations and cortservat~on easements, mitigation banks and purchase of affected property. When either the Service or the Department identifies the potential for a project to pmolude tong-term p~tion planning and that the project will have a significant impact on biological resources and identifms either project alternatives and/or mitigation measures, which am add~ in a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Draft Environmental Impact Report, the lead agency/project proponent, the Service and the Department may agree to schedule an additional meeting to discuss the Negative Declaration or the Draft Environmental Impact Report within 30 days alter the preparation and release of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and within 45 days afar the preparation and release of a Draft Environmental lmpa~ Report. It is recognized that implementing the IPRG is a voluntary'coop.emtive prnc,~. ~ and neither confers any authority not granted by existing planning and environmental laws, nor negates any authority so granted. The IPRG is intended only to facilitate cooperation among the lead agencies, the resource agencies and project applicants to ensure timely review of pro~ects which have the potential to preclude long term preservation planning and to facilitate the resolution of issues which might affect the successful preparation of the MSHCP. F-2 101 00 ~00 00:00 .~1/1.8/96 ;14: 06 '~714 ' 0158 PCR LAGq/NA 139 P08 , . PROCEDURES At least three weeks prior to the desired IPRG meeting date the Planning Director/desigr, cc or project proponent shall notfly the Service and the department and the MSHCP contact person in writing of any project(s) which the lead agency or pro/ect proponent wishes to have reviewed at the IPRG meeting. For each project, the lead agency/project proponent w/il transmit two copies of e~ch of the f~llowing: a iocat/on map on a 7.5' quad sheet identifying the project site · a site plan or other Illustration dep'~ting the project as proposed · the project application or other summary sheet Ident/~ng existing general plan designation and zoning, and any proposed changes; existing land use on the s/re; and the type and Intensity of land use proposed. · the ln/ttal Study or Environmental Assessment and a biological resource survey if one has been prepared; if one has not been prepared then a descfi0tion of the site including vegetation, presence of a floodplain, blueline stream, or other environmental resource, hazard or constraint, and a list of sensitive species which have the po/enl/al to occur on site. · Any other inforotation deemed pertinent by the lead agency. The lead agency or project proponent shall be responsible for notifying the other party of the date, time. and location of the IPRG review meeting, if the attendan(~ of the project appr~ant is desired. At the review meeting, the lead agency. pro/ect proponent, the ~ and the' Department wi/I have the opportunity to d~c~,~ .the project, answer etc. A representative from an ~djaoent jurisdiction which may be affected by the proposed project may also attend the meeting at that jur/sd~'s discretion. At the review meeting if possib/e, othem/sa in not more fi~an 30 days after the review meeting, the Service and the Oepatlment representatives shall provide the fo~ informat/on to the lead agency arid the ploject applicant: · A statement as to whether, in the agency's opinion: The project will not preclude long term consenter/on ptannincj or · The project has the potential to preclude tor~..tram co~~n planning or advemely impact the viahairy of a spedes and additiom~l studies on spec/fic spades may be neo~a-~, and project alternatives and/or mitigation measures need to be assessed in the env/mnmental review process. A project may be scheduled for an add'fcional IPRG meeting at an appropriate date If there is a need for the Service or the Departn~nt to respond to a Draft Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration. I-3 47 LOEB "- LOEB Pege 2/3 Job 258 Jun-04 We~ 13'23 1997 LOEB( :LOEB LL. Lo:~ Arteel. re. CA g~1017-247~ ~ :~200 moo M D~ect Dial No. 213.688.3622 c-mail: MM~@loeb.com June 4, 1997 Via Facsimile ivY. Thomas Crmhn City of Pumcho Cucamonga Piauning Couunissiou 10500 Civic Ccutcr Drive Rancho Cucamong~. Califorrda 91737 Rc: Lau:cn Development Proposed Project Tract M,y 14771 Dear Tom: - · As my gect~ m~ntioncd to you ycatcxday, 1 will be s~d~g romeone to review all files relating to any aspect of the above development. If thor: is a table or dc:sk that shc can work at, I would zppreciale your too{dug arrangerecurs. Scver~ important documents appear to be missing from the matc~'ial~ produced on Tm:sday, Most uot, bly, wc do not appear to lmve Lauren Dcvelopmcnt's (o: its predecessor's) original applications. Certs_in documents may have been misfiled umier Tract File 12332 duc to changes in the Tract numbering midway ttu~u~ =he pmcc~. Therefore, please have the Tnu:t 12332 files avaJlublc. We also would l~ke to rm~icw all files couceming Haven Viuw mind RC-5. In addi6on to the above, I would like :o know where we cam locate the foRowlng: Fire lane standards; fire safety overlay district; ~pprovals fo~ emergency ~:css from the fire control dis~ct. The Fire Dcpm'uncut alma specifically request~ rtMcw and approval of Lots 1, 2, 3, ] 0, l 1. 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33 and 34. XArherc axe those approvals'? Documents concerning Latn'en Dovclopmcnt's compliance with 50 C.F.R. 17:11 (1993). ,47 101 00 '00 00:00 LOEB ~ LOEB P~ge 3/~ 139 P10 Job 258 Jun-04 Wed 13;23 1997 Thomas Grahn $u~c 4, 1997 Page 2 3. Do~am~ts ~ m and the CEQ^ Mitig~on Me~torff~ plan. . Documents pert-i~ing to L,,ureu Dcveloprncnl' s application/cmuplianee with the United Sales Army Corp. of En~neers regulations pertaining to modific~ons of the levy and flood control charmel. , Documents ~rtaining to letter, of agreeanent from both szahool districts. ~ 6~ Documents, if any, r,:satdJng maintenance of the drainage channel through Mcllo-Koo~ or other funding mc:h,nism. Documents concerning Los Angeles Waier & Power approval of g;tat:l'~g ~ . Documentz pertaiain8 to aptnovels of cxtmslon of variance. ~,1~ '9. Documents eonce. ming the ~par~t change in number of lots from 40 to 42 and change in size of houses. Original documents. Even if all of these documents are not available today, we would like to get szarted with d~c L~m~n Development rite review, including ~c original T~:t Map and the a~chitect'u~ aud grading blue pfinLs. To avoid any further confusion or dclays, pleaso cot, ztrue this request a.s broadly as possible. Thank you for your help. V¢~-y truly yours, ]v~:pb [Dictated, t'tot read] f~2,4 lY. fl. L02 101 00 ~00 00~00 1~9 Pll By Tel¢oopier To: Tom Gran From: Malism McKeith Date: June 2, 1997 Re: Lauren Development Dear Tom.' Further to our discussion xhis evening please oopy the followin8 document. s: (1) June 11, 1997 Plarm/~ Commission Agenda (2) c~py of the entire design rex'Jew file for th, Lauren Des.'dopment project. I do not want a copy of the. arr,,hit~ctm-al blueprints. (3) A copy of the Tentative Tract Map (4) The local desitin rex'ie~,- l~ru~dares. (5) You mentioned that the City had r~se.d its ~ tentative map corditiona in the mid-1990s. May I get a oopy of both the old a~d new conditions. Please give me a call when the documems am ready and I will send someone with, c. heck to pick them up on Tues~y. 'thanlos for your help. 101 00 ~00 00:00 2./.3- fl,Sfl- 3927 - 212 78-3927 Page 2 J, 905 Jun-02 Mon 23:15 1997 Lc~ ~m. Es 2].3-688-36~ e-n'~ l: MMCKEITHI~Iocb.com Thomas Grahn City of Rancho Cucamonga Jun~ ~ I~7 Dear Tom: Further to our discusdon this ewr/ag,, ple~.~ copy the followin~ documents: i. June 11, 1997 Planning C, ommLs~ion ~ Copy of the carlin &:sign review ~le for the Lauren lJe~elopmcnt project. I do not want a c~py of the archit~tural blueprints. ~ c, opy of the Tent~v¢ TI'I~ Ma:p. The 1ocel design review proccdm-es. .,)~"" You mcmioned ~hat the City had revised its ~t, mdard t~ta~ive map conditions in the mid-1990s. May I get a copy of both the old and new conditiom. Ploas~ ~ivc mca call when the docum~ts am ready and I will send someone with a check to pick them up on Tuesday. Thenlra for your help. Vmy truly yours, MI-IM:gfl 101 00 ~00 00~00 !39 ~1~ LOEB ,.LOEBLLp ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 WILEHIRE ~OULEYARO SUITE 1800 LOS ANe~LES, CA 90017-2475 TELEPHONE: 213-688-3400 FACStU~Le' 213-588-3460 C;~ruff~ Crr~ 10100 S~.A MO~CX surt~ 2200 LO6 A~GELE~. CA g0~7-4 ~64 TEL; ~1 ~2&2-~0 F~: 31~2&=,2192 N:w yOI~K NEW YO~. NY I01544~0'/ TO; 212-401-~3~3 ;,x' 232-aO7.4~g0 W~.t~m~;'t~. D.C. 2100 M S'raL~r.N.W. W~"rO~. D.C. 20037-'~2~77 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCK~ITH~Ioeb.com May 28, 1997 Via Facsimile Mr. Thomas Grahn City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91737 gc: Followup to May 27, 1997 Correspondence Loren Development Proposed Project Tract Ma-o 14771 Dear Tom: I am still awaiting the confirmation requested yesterday concerning the specific time and location of the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 1997 for the above development. Thank you for your fax acknowledging receipt of my Federal Express package containing payment for the xerox of the file, and I would appreciate your advising if the file will be ready by June 2, 1997. ~ased upon our conversation yesterday, it appears that a negative declaration was issued in 1990 for this project based upon a minimal evidentiary. record, and I need to review that information to determine if sufficient changed citeinstances have occurred since 1990 to warrant further or additional CEQA compliance.~.Until I have a copy of the file, I cannot determine whether experts will be required at the June 11, 1997 meeting. Having only learned of the June 11, 1997 meeting during our call, it is imperative that the file be copied immediately since you have indicated that the file cannot be removed or copied on the premises by outside services. If an extra cost is involved for faster service, please let me know. M[M24124.102 - 101 00 ~00 00~00 139 ~1~ Mr. Thomas Cnahn May 28, 1997 Page 2 Thank you. MHM:pb Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss thc above. Very truly' yours, M/~issa Hathaway McK~,'~ N£N2/., 12/,. L02 POINT-BY-POIlNT DISCUSSION OF ISSUES MAY BE RAISED BY MALISSA McKEITH ISSUE: This Design Review application opens the door to a discussion of numerous tract related issues, such as traffic 8erieration. RESPONSE: Tentative map 14771 was conditionally approved November 14, 1990 and said approval was to expire if the map was not recorded within 24 months, or by November .14, 1992. · An initial 12 month extension was granted on October 28, 1992, with no new conditions added at that time, until November 14, 1993. · A second 12 month extension was granted on October 23, 1993, with no new conditions added at that time, until November 14, 1994. · A law was enacted during 1994 or 1995 (?)* which automatically extended all unrecorded maps in California for one year without the possibility of local government adding new conditions. · A third 12 month extension was granted on October 30, 1995, with no new conditions added at that time, until November 14, 1996. · A second law was enacted during 1996 (7)* which again automatically extended all unrecorded maps in California for one year without the possibility of local government adding new conditions. · The current expiration of the tentative map is November 14, 1997. (I I~iieve no additional extensions will be permitted, except unless another statewide extension is granted by the state.) ° (771 get exact dates2 A~ording to the Subdivision Map Act, conditions affecting a map may only be plar~d on a map when it is originally approved or when an extumsion of the maps expiration date is considered. On those occasions when the map was extended, no conditions were changed or added. Thus the original conditions rtnnaJn in place. Enclosed f'md Section 17.06.010 of the city's Development Code, which summarizes the Design Review Process. Design Review focuses on the architecture, landscaping and precise grading of the property. (7-faring said that however, notice that the enclosed pages do in fact give the city wide latitude to consider many items - some of which are quite zntbjective - in their review, thereby giving them a lot of room to write negative findings in support of a project's denial.} The Design Review application must be consistera with the previously approved tentative subdivision map (and conditions) and also, approval of the Design Review application cannot cause a de fat:to revision to ~e Tentative Tract map. Issues which were or should have been considered when the tentative map was considered cannot be altered or reconsidered when the Design review application is considered. When Tentative Map 14771 was approved, a Conceptual Grading Plan was also approved and a condition was added which states that the final grading must be consistent with the Conceptual Grading Plan. The grading plan prepared as a part of our current Design Review application is consistent with the 1990 Conceptual Grading Plan. When Tentative Map 14771 was approved, the amount of traffic to be generated by this project was considered, and the number of units and the street pattern was approved. So although the Development Code allows the Planning Commission, during Design Review, to consider "requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress, and traffic circulation", they could not change the number of units or the street pattern approved by the Tentative Map. ISSUE: The city has failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in their processing of this application. and, The prior Negative Declaration issued for Tract 14771 has expired. RESPONSE: (This is the city's response, as it is their duty to comply with CEQA, and this is their position, as I understand it. I don't have a copy of CEQA or the state Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA with me, so I'm winging it here.) CEQA requires all government "projects" (and a private project such as a subdivision that is government entitled is considered a "project" in this regard) which may have the petertrial for having impacts on the environment to be reviewed for environmental consequences prior to approval. State and local governments have developed lists of numerous environmentally inconsequential "projects" (such as backyard patios, minor code revisions, street re-paving, etc.) to be "Catego3ically Exempt" from having to be reviewed for environmental consequences every time they are approved. When an agency considers a project to be a "Categorical Exemption" project, they simply make a finding to this effect and no further environmental review is necessary. The next level of review occurs for the rest of the projects. In these cases, usually, the city prepares an "Initial Study" (a questionnaire type study) and if after reviewing the I[fitial Study the agency finds the project has no potential for possibly having an effect on the environment, they issue a "Negative Declaration" and no further environmental review is necessary. They can also issue a Negative Declaration if a former (larger) project of which this project is a part was subjected to environmemal review. (There are Iota of variations on this pr6eess here, which [ won't go into.) If the agency determines that there may be potential environmental impacts from the project which have not been previously addressed, they shall require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The city of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study on Tram 14771 in 1990 and based on their review &same, issued a Negative Declaratiou for this project. (All proper filings and postings of the ND were done.) The city of Rancho Cucamonga does not consider Design Review approval to be a "project" subject to CEQA. They do not consider DR approval to be a categorically exempt project. They do not consider a DR approval to be a project adequately revered by a prior EIR or ND. They do not consider DR to be a "project" at all. They contend that "since all the issues with any potential impacts on the environment were considered when the tentative map was reviewed, and all we are now considering is the houses, fences, landscaping and precise grading which will be ~onsistrnt with that tentative tract map, there is no aspect of the DR approval which could in any way effect the environment. Therefore it is not a project per CEQA." The city files no notices in this regard. The city does not mention CEQA or anyth'mg having to do with why DR projects are not subject to CEQA in their staff reports or approving resolutions. Negative Declarations do not "expire." The underlying project approval may expire, and if re-processed, the agency may say that the prior ND (or EIR) has expired due to new evidence or more environmental sensitivity to some aspect o~a site, and therefore require a new Initial Study, ND, or EIR. But NDs don't expire. Our Tentsrive map is still alive, that is what counts. ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 101 00 ~00 00~00 139 l .) Fire Lane Standards... Fire Safety Overlay District... Fire Deparmaent review and approval of certain [o~. Where are these approvals? RESPONSE: These are all building design issues. All applicable sections of the Fire Safety Overlay District will be incorporated into construction drawings. We have discussed these items on numerous occasions with personnel from the Rancho Cueamonga Fire Protection District and they indicate they will, as a standard course, review all the plans and the noted lots as a part ofhhe construction drawing review process. City a~rees with this ~)osition. - ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 20 compliance with CFR 17:11 (1993) (Endangered Species Act) RESPONSE: Andrew Hartzell, an attorney who specializes in ESA matters, has reserved Wednesday evening. We may have him address this issue. lie has helped us in the past on this issue. The ESA says we cannot "take" certain endangered or threatened species or their habitat_ The US Fish & Wildlife Service could require us to do certain surveys to insure them that there is no such species or habitat on our site if there was a local government condition requiring sam~ (which there is not) or if the federal government had any other approval authority (a "hook") over our project (which they do not.) As such, we cannot be forced to comply with their survey guidelines. Nevertheless, we did hire a biologist licensed by FWS m do surveys on our site. That biologist performed surveys consistent with FWS guidelines in effect at the time during January and Febn~ary of this year, and found no evidence of any endangered or threatened species or their habitat. That biologist provided his survey results to USFWS. Shortly thereafter (2-28-97), USFWS changed their survey protocol (increased the number of surveys) and they prefer that we do additional surveys, even though the new survey guidelines state that surveys performed during prior breeding seasons will be honored. The USFWS informed the city of Rancho eucamonga that they felt additionat surveys were necessary, however the city of Rancho Cuearnonga says that USFWS has no authority to delay city DR approval because of their displeasure. Background: Lauren Development walked the site with personnel from the California Departmere of Fish & Crame in September, 1996 and subsequently received correspondence stating that there are no viable riparian habitats or watercourses remaining on the site and that development will have no adverse affect on plants or animals protected by the state. Secondly, we also walked the site with personnel from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the agency responsible for protecting wetlands and watercourses under the Federal Clean Water Act) and they too have issued a statement indicating the proposed development will have no adverse effect on riparim~ habitats or watercourses under their jurisdiction. Thirdly, a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by a company licensed to perform such surveys, and no unfavorable environmental toxins or hazardous wastes were found on or adjacent to the property. 101 00 '00 00:00 13S P1S ].~-tiy, as stated above, we commissioned surveys to be performed on the site by biologists licensed by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service in order to evaluate the prt. seuee/absence of the California gnatcatcher, a species listed as "threaTened" by the federal government. These licensed biologists performed mukiple surveys consis'~ent with, and exceeding the number of s~lrveys required by, U.S. Fish & Wildlife protocol in effect at the time and found n__~o California ~natr, atchers on the site or in the immediate vicinity. In accordance with their licensing responsibilities, a written report of their findings has been submitted to the United Stat~s Fish & Wildlife Service. All the above government and private sector professionals we have consulted have concurred that the site has b~n severely degraded by the berm, swale and the construction of the nearby flood cootrol improvements. The four_site investigations described above wen: voluntarily commissioned by Lauren Development. Inc. as part of our own pr~-acquisition review of the proverty and were (and continue to be) not required by any Rovernmental aa:ency. Ciw aKrees with the above stated position. ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 30 CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Plan RESPONSE: This falls under the "variations" glanced over during the above discussion of CEQA. This has to do with subsequent projects where a prior EIR or N'D conditioned that certain miligation measures be implemented at later stages of the project, and that compliance be monitored. In any case, the city tells me that none was ever required for this project. I will check the conditions and files to see if the city is correct. ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 4.) Documents pertaining to LDI compliance with the Corps of Engineers. RESPONSE: Has no bearing on the DR. Part of the city Engineering EMpamnents review requirements of the improvement plans. City agrees with this position. ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 5.) Documents re letters from the school districts RESPONSE Has no bearing on the DR. A prior-to-recordation requireanent. City aerees with this position. ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 6.) Documents re maintenance of the drainage channel · RESPONSE Has no bearing on the DR. Part of the city Engineering Departments review requirements of the improvement plans. City agrees with this position. ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 7.) Documents re LADWP approval of grading. RESPONSE Has no bearing on the DR. Part of the city Engineering Departments review requirements of the grading plans. C~tv agrees with this position. ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 8.) Documents pertaining to approvals of extensions of variances. RESPONSE Has no bearing on the DR. A variance (VA 90-08) was granted when the original tract map was approved (11/90) and each time the map has been extended, the variance has also been extended. City.. a~r~_ s with tiffs position. 101 00 '00 00:00 139 P20 ISSUE: June 4 e-mail from McKeith to city 9.) Documents pertaining to change in number o£]ots from 40 to 42 and changed in size o£houses. RESPONSE Tentative map approved tbr 40 lots. Recorded documents referred to the possibility of as many as 42 lots on this site, but the only approved map for this site shows 40 lots in the current configuration. The prior applicant did not submit any house plans to the city for review and approval. No "siz~ of houses" has been approved or otherwise decided by any agency. (Notes found in city files indicate that at a "neighborhood meeting" the prior applicant stated that the homes would be ']crrobably be comparable" to the 5,200 - 5.800 sf tract homes being built by another company nearby. These meeting minutes were forwarded to the Planning Commia'sion when the tract map was being considered.) Has no bearing on the DR. City agrees with this position. ISSUE: June 2 telephone call from McKeith to city The only inquiry of note is # 5 where she asks to see the difference between the city's old standard conditions (presumably in eft~ct when Tract 14771 was first approved) and the new standard conditions (in effect when the extensions were granted.) RESPONSE Perhaps what she is getting at is that if the standard conditions changed, then why didn't the city impose new conditions when the extensions were granted. My guess, if in fact the standard conditions did change, is that while the city could apply the new conditions to an old map, they simply elected not to, which is their option. ISSUE: June 2 e-mail from McKeith to city RESPONSE This is a duplicate of the above June 2 telephone call reXlUeSL 101 00 ~00 00~00 1~9 ~1 ISSUE: June 2 FAX from McKeith to city She asks for local ordinances concerning subdivision map act requirements and a copy of any local procedures concerning CEQA. RESPONSE Sh~ knows what she's after. The state adopts and periodiv. ally amends the Subdivision Map Act, and the local agencies adopt "Subdivision Codes" to implement same. The state has adopted CEQA. The state also prepared CEQA Implementation Guidelines, and local agencies adopt "CEQA Procedures" to implement same (or they can just adopt the state guidelines). She is looking for these codes and procedures. If she gets these, she will be looking for any possible way the fiity has tripped up in the processing of the tentative map and the CEQA issue/non-issue. ISSUE: May 29 FAX city to McKeith RESPONSE nothing worth responding to ISSUE: May 28 e-mail from McKeith to city She says "it appears that a ND was issued in 1990 for this project based upon a minimal evidemiary record, and I need to review that information to determine if sufficient changed circumstances have occurred since 1990 to warrant further or additional CEQA compliance. Until I have a copy of the file I cannot determine whether experts will be required at the June 11 meeting." RESPONSE As I said above, I have never heard of NDs "expiring" or circumstances changing which would necessitate a revised EIR or revised ND for an already approved project_ I agree that if DR was a CEQA project and a new ND or EIR was required, that an earlier EIR or ND, if outdated by changed circumstances could be no longer valid and therefore would have to be upch~ted. But that is not the case here. Leona Clipstein, an environmentalist who is fighting us on the gnate. ateher issue, also used the term "expired ND" in her first communication with us. It is the city's position that NDs don't expire; they go with the project, and as long as the project is alive, the ND is still valid. 101 00 ~0 00~00 LOEB~EBLLP J, TTOlq#[V$ AT L~w _ ~ T~'*LEPHON~: 213-&~1-3.400 7e.. 212..~o7.4cIx3 W~, t v -.,',"to4. D.C. Direct Dial No. 213.688.36~., c-mail: MMCKElTH~loeb.com Jux~ 11, 1~97 . Via Tclecopicr and U.S. MaU James Mark.man, Esq. Mark:man, A.rczyB,~kJ, Hanson, Curly & Slough Post {Y/Ticc Box 10.~9 Brca, California 92622- ! 059 Cucamonga,xs United fer Reasonable Expansion ("o..rR.E") Opposi_tion to Laud-'. Desi~:n Development Approvzl Dear Mr. Markman' The following corr~)ondencc and evidence (the "Opposition") is submitted on behalf' of Cucamoogans United for Reasonable Expansion ("cLrRE") in opposition to Lauren Devclopmsnt's proposed construction of 40 tract hom~ on 25.9 acres located at Ring~em. and 'l'ac~em in Rancho Cucamonga (the "Project").' This challenge is based upon severa~ pottads inciuding, but not limited to' (1) the failure of the CiW. of Echo C'uc. amooga ("City.") to Frovide not:ce to impacted parlies of Lhe June 11, 1997 Design Review Hear/rig l~"Freaxing") :bus depriving impacted parlies of lheir duc proc, e~ rights to noticr and an opporvxaity to be heaxd; and (2) the failure of the CitT or the Developer to conduc; any environmental review of the Project for over seven y~u~s despite documented changed :ircumstmxces and new information not previously av'aJlabie at the :imc '.he 1990 Negative Dex:laration was approved.2 t The original and 5 copies of this Opposition will be filed with the Planning Commission on June !I, 1997. 2 CURE incorporates by reference ils toner of Jtme 10, 1997. to .lames Marman, Cizy Attome)', raising objections to the Pls.m-,.ing Department's production of documents. (Exhibit ] ) CLrRE's ability to pr~"T~are for zhc J'tme 1 I, I997 znee:d.ng (=on,-inued...) ,'~42417~. L 12 101 00 '00 00:00 James Marianan, Esq. .lime 11, 1997 ?age 2 As evidenced by the number of individuals who will be in aliendance aI the Hearing and the arlached Petition ha Opposition w the Developmcneil the Lauren Development Project is saything but "non-con,'ova" and, therefore, it~ inclusion on the Consent Agenda is entirely haappropriale.' CURE formal~ requested tha: this manet be removed from the Con.sent Agenda on May 28, 19~7, and renews that request now (Exhibit 3). CI. IR.E further requcsls that the Plsmaing Commls,~icrn defer reaching any decision on the Development Review Approval until utter the City reclreulates 1he 1990 Negative Declaration and otherwise f'ally comt, hcs ,~Sth CEQ^. Most of the homeowners h~4ng in the vicinity of the Project moved to Itae area after 1990, and they had no idea aborn the Project until approximately weeks befor= today's Hearing. CURE's members genuinely are concem~ ~ the City has not adequately evaluated safety issues concerning the removal of a peripheral con*_,~i-ment levee that currently reduces the risk of flooding to downgradient Fropcr~ owners. Attached io this Opposition is a Dcclarafio~ from Bruce Collins, a civil engineering expert from Dames & Moore, tcsti.Sring thai this peripheral coataiument levee provides important safety to residents, particularly in the event of an earthq~_;a~e '(...conlinued) was significantly hampered by the difficulties encountered N our attempts to locate and cop)' relevmq. t documents. For this reason alone, ~e Planuing Commi-,~ion shoulck at a minimum, defer a decision until a more thorough presenta6ou can be provided. 3 A Periflora of over 100 names in opposition is artached. (Exitbit 2) a Both CURE and Spirii of the Sage Council have reques'.ed thai the matter be removed from the Consen: Agenda (Bxhibiks 3 and 15). The Ralph M. Brown Act, Goretureen! Code §§ 54950-54962 details the requiremc~s 1o be followed by local bodies, including city ~otuncils ~ plam~g corerfission. The inlent of the Bro,ma Act is stated in Government Code § 5a950 in pertinent part, that "lilt is the i.utent of the law that their aclions [city councils, pla~ng commSssions, etc.] b= taken opera)' and that their deliberanons be conducted openJy." Exce-p.t trader specific circumstances not applicable here, the Brown Act requires thin meetings of ciD' bodies shall bc open mad public and all per,ohs ehall be permitted to attend any such meetings. Gov't Code § 54953. "Every ag_~ta for regular meetings shall prowlde an opportunity for members of the pubMr. to direrely address the lcgislmt:i~c body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the ilern." Gov't Code § 54954.3. ~Iames Mark. man, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 3 a~maging the De~r Creek Debris Basin Channel to the Norah (Exhibit 4). CURE members also believe that flirther lraISc, noise and air pollution studies are necessitated by the funding and approval of the Highway 30 corridor. On the environmental front, the California Gv. atcat~er was listed as an endangered species on Mav-,,h 30, 1993 ',e2er the Negative Declaration was approved. As recently a~ June 10, 1997, the Urdted Stat~ Department of ~ateri~r, Fish and Wildlife Sentice ("Wildlife Sertic~") has advised the Ci~ that the Developer has not complied with the ~g~ed Spe~es Act and that tao gradinn lmay eo~menc~ until Wild~ife Service_~pro~,'al ia granted (Exifibit 5). Moreover, the Developer has not conduct~ shy new CEQA compliance in r.~,spon.sc 7o the California D,s-da:tment of Fish ~md-Gaino's ("Fish and Game') recent designation of the area in w-hich the Lauren Developm~-nt ,r~roject is situated as h-,tbital that is Caxego,"y "51.1" anti "G.I". Th~ designation signifies tt',a! the Project property contains the rarest and most threatened type of' habitzl/natural community, and this ranking is oniy assigned when less ~ba,~ 2,000 a~,-res remain in the world (Exhibit 6). According to a leading ext~ert on alluvial fan sage scrub, the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat at issut, on the Lauren Development Project pxoperry is pan of one of only eight remair, ing areas of its type on ea:'th (Brennan Declaration, Exhibit 7'). Thus, although Lauren Dev,-!opment's destruction of 25.9 acres of rare habitat may initially appear imigmficant, it aclually constitutes about 1.5 percent of the total remaining habitat for Gnatcatchers on earth. Despite th: importaac~ of ttds habitat, th:, Devetopt-r has not been required to, nor is he taking, any mitigation measures. Rather, the entire protxa%' is proposed to be graded, and this rare habitat peram,uc~tly destroyed. Lauren Development has never provided direct notice to any homeowner in the area, and yet it has gone lo great lengths lo document the "supposed" lack of in~erest by reddems. As recently as May 28, 1997, Laurea Ekvelopment '-innoc~.tiy" questiota/ why %0 few p~mple are cartsing so much concern and alleging so much ca~stropbe" (Ex..~'Jb,.'t 8). The logical answer is tha: the vast majority of residents fu~ learned of the Developroe'n! the weekend of May 25, 1997. when Euclid Manageme-a! finaily sent a nondescript notic~ about the proposed May 28, 199'~ pros,rotation by Lara'e~ Development on the Project:s architectural design (Ez..hibit 9). Although Lauren Development appears to have bet'v. s'ee, ak~g with Brace A:m Hahn, the ?resid~t o~' Haven V~ew Es',atea, and Eaclid 101 00 ~00 00~00 -- lames Markman, E~. ju~e 11, 199'7 Page 4 Max~gement, neither Euclid Management nor Ms. Raim have any le~l ~athoriiy to represent or act on behalf of lm~perty owners i.n conn,:lion wi~ the DeveSt.s Any effort by Lauren Development Io ~e itself as',he "victim' of a last minu:e enviro.-,anental sinbush should be ignored. Until tb. is point in time, Lauren Development and City Staff entirely controlled the process and al a~ time could have opened mailers up to wider commellt arid negogatim~. ~ D~v¢lopm~t's fidlure ta provide ~ m~:~ti~gful notice was nothing more than an obvious str~leg~, to avoid the incurable pubhc outcry that has now o~ Tl~t strategy has badefired ad Laure~ Developmen£ ~ r. ow have ta face t~c level of' scrutiny required by CEQA and necessitated by the serious environmental and safety risks posed by ttte Proje,.,'-t. I. PROJ'ECT BACK~ROI~ The 25.9 acre Project originally was proposed by Brock Homes in 19S9. A NegaIive Declaration was approved on November 14, 1990 aa well a.s Tentalive Tract Mag No 14771. As the Pl~,r-'.ing Commisaiou likely is aware, such a Map ordinarily would have expirod in November 1992; however, ~e Plamfi~g Commission first gran:ed a 12 month cxt~,.sion on October 25, 1992 and slale legislation subsequently wa.s pa.sscd that would have allowed Crlstia~o 1o automatically extend th-. life of dac Tentalive Map ~nothcr 24 months.* In s Lauren l~vclo;mcnt also is sw-axc of conc, cm~ expressed by Bill Angel., an RC-5 developer, that Ms. Hatm ha~ a potential comq. ict of interest. Lauren Development has been caxe~l to document for Planning Slyif'the f~t lhat 'Ms. Hahn · .. a local Realtor... has brought potential ls~l deais to us in the past.." ~ "Chronology of Events Leading up to This Meeting" aXT, sched to May 28, t997 .mrrespondent. e to ~he Planning Commissioll." (Exhibi! 10) In a letter to Planning Staff dat~'d May 16, 1997, Laur~ also domiw. cnted th~: fact that "Ms. Hahn a.skecl what price they {the horn~] were going to sell for. We said they would st:11 for as much as the marke~ would be~r. Ms. Hahn, a broker, asked if we were going to list the homes with brokers. At this, Bill Angel remarked Ia her that might r~presc-a! a 'conflict of inte'n:st.'" s CLr'KE object~ to and returns the right to challenge these extemiot~ as the Pl:~nning Department file was incomplete and the extension document~ were ~ot produced. From paperwork in the 5 te. it appears that Cristiano, the eu..,'rent prope~' (eontinueO...) June 11. 1997 Page 5 September 1996, Lauren Development resurrected the Tentative Map and began processing the Project ,.ow-',,rd final approval of the Development Design and the ultimate filing of the F~rml Map. On April 16, 1997, iauxen Development submitted its "Design Review Application - Trazt 14771" (Exhibit 12). As discu--sed below, this domanent was never circulated for public comment, does not srtdxe~ "~nged dmmmtance~~ of teacfro raised ~ lh~s Oplrosit/on, and ~ontaim either false or misleading comments concemL'~g I.,mxtcn DeYelopment's coraplismce with federal and state environmental laws. MLrLTIPLE EXTENSIONS OF TIlE TEINTATIVE MAP AN"D FAILURE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTiC3~ OR A~N OPPORTUI~TrY TO COMMEN"r ON '[HE DESIGN RE.~.'IEW APPLICATION VIOLATE THE SUBSTA~TIVE AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF IMPACTED PROPERTY OWNERS Failure to Provide Notice o! the Extension of the Tentative Map Deeprived Affecteel Property Owners of Due Process '~ The unnoticed mad procedux~lly defective exte:~ons o f Tex~tafive Map 14771 have served to deprive affected property owners of due process of law. Speaking dire~ty to the due process right~ of va:ljal:ent pro,perry owners ia the context of lcmativc map approvals, the California Supreme Court emphasized that "lax~d use decisions which 'mbstamialty afteel' the propetri .4g.hts of o~m~'. s of adjac~ p~rcels may constitute 'd~rivations' of property with/n the con~xl of procaxtural due process." Horn v. CounW of Ventura. 24 Cal. 3d 605 (1979). The City, moreover, cannot claim that its posting oFth~ agerata purluaut to the Goremin.-hi Coch: satisfied duc process.7 According to the Court, prior notice must. at a minimum. be reasonably calculated te afford alTected person: the realistic opporttmily to lXOtec. t s(...continued) owner, did nol file for extem4ot: per the reqx:irementa in Rancho Cucamonga's Subdivision Map Orrinrace. Section 16.20. I C~ provides "The application stla14 be filed not less rhan. 60 days prior to the expixalion date .... " Oztober 14, 1993 correspondence from Cristiano m Beverly Nissen cte~-ly est~blishe, -clot the application was no~ received in a timely fgshion suet: that ,..hc subsequent appmxatl of an extension of t.he Tentative Tr'as:t Map violated the ordinance. (Exjaibit 11) * 11 appears that even propert)' owners -,x. itt-jn 300 feet of the Projoct did not rec~ivc notice. ~,C#~4'176. L'12 Ismcs Markman, Esq. June 11, 1997 -t~age 6 their haterests." ~ at 617 citing ~cott v. City of Indian Wells. 6 Cal.3d 1~41 (I972). Procedural due process r~q~~ts apply ~qually !o extension ~f t~tative maps. "It goes without saying that a decision extending a tentative map invokes the same policy concema as a decision approving a tentati~'r map; . . ." C,!dffi$ v. County of Mop. o, 163 Cal. App. 3'd 4t4 (1985). Although the coat in Griffi:~ dismissed petitioner's chslleng: '.n a defective cxtermion based upon the 90- day ~tute of limitations in Government Code $~cfioa 66499.37, the tx'titioncr in Griffi$ had had nstice of the c-xtmsion hearings. No mr. anin~-fut notice was provid~ h~re. The due procr. ss requixemeals set forth ill ~orn are "not rooted in statute but are compe. lled by the strongre' forte ef constitutional principle" aad thus e. annol be etiminat~ by the LegMature~ pszsag.- of' Gov.-m',rnent Cod-- s~ction 66452.6._' ~ su_vr~,_ 616 Cal. 3d a~ 616. The procedural due process infumitie~ ~lso support CLq~E's position that the 90-day statute of limitations has been tolled under the "discovery talc' or oth~-wise is unramstirufional as applied here. The Cit3"s November 1993 aol~oval of Cristiano's extension was defective and thus the Tragt M~ is Lavalick The Ci,'y's failure m compl7 with its o,~en regtfiafior~ vend--rs the 1993 extension Lavalid ~md thus the Tentative Map expired as a maiter of law. ' Th~: same irJ'u-mitics ~ill ~aply ff formal notic~ is not provided before the Developer's attempts to ~le its Final Map as that decision also is disa~onsry pus,suam to local ordinance. See..qav~ El Toro Associ~ v, Bays, 74 C..al. App. 3d 6~ (1977). The Ci:y of Ran~o Cucamonga ordinances mandate thai the City Counsel shall disapprove a Fired Mtp under 16.18.110 if '[qhe design of the subdivision or prcrposed improvements are ilkely to cause mbstantial ~-,r~iromnental damage or substantially and zvoidsb!y injure fi-.'h or wildlife or uhcix habitaI" or "the design o'f the subdivision or the type of improvements is l'ikely *.o cause serious public. health problems." ~ Cucamonga Subdivision Ordinancn Sec:ion 16.16.110A. Cucamonga's Land Deveiopmexrt Review Code section 1'7.95.010 specifically states: "It is the purpose of th:s section to mt, lnl:,i~ the public health, ~feey snd general welfare and property throughout the Cid.' Approving the removal of the levee givcD ~e current ._,-ec. ord would expose the City to tort claims in the ¢~,ent tbst flooding uttLmalely darnag~ resid~ts downgradient of or living at the Lauren DcvctopmenL 101 00 ~00 00~00 15~ P08 Jua¢ 11, 1997 PaEc 7 Be F,iJure of the City ~ Provide Notice t~ AiTec~ed Property O,mers of the ]~eve!onmemt I~J.~ He~ri,W ¥iohtes Due Prq~ms. The policies oulliacd in ot1!..91I! similarly apply to the City's f'ailur~ provide nolice to affected p~opc:iy owners of the instant Developmeat Design approval. This omission is tr~ticularbj e~rc~ious given the gasrage of ,orca and the scope and detail of the Desig~ Review Application and the passage o{' years smcc the public has had an opportunist to comment. ProceedinS to cvakm~e this matter on tbx merits on .lunc 11, 1997 givcrl the complexity of the Dcvelopcr'~ applicaIion is pa.-ticularly unfair because of the difficukics CLrRE has experienced in obtaining cornplot= zecords from Plazming Staff. CURE incorporates by r~fer,mce correspoadeace to Mr. ivl~ dsicd ,Tune 10, 1997 (and az;compaayi~g cxtu'bPa) conc,=ning the de/ays cre_.,e~t by Pi~oning Staff'. The Commissio,~ should not catcru~ ~e Developer's application o,: the merits this cv~ing giv~-n tt~ oompl~W of tl~ D~gn Appli~tio~, th~ short time m respond, and ~c ctiffic~tty of obtaining APPROVAl., OF TI~ DE.SIGN APPLICATION VIOLATES THE CAI,IFOBNIA ENVIRONlV~NTAI, OUALrI~ ACT The June 11, 1997 R~luested Approwl Is "Discretionary" ,ud T~u~ Subiec~ to CEOA Review Under ~%e Calif~nia Envi~nmcnial Quality. Act ("CEQA~), both public and private projects which may have a signifyant environmental effect reqttire the pzeparaxion of an environmemal impact report ("EIR'). Pub. Res. Code 9 21165. Friends of M~ntmoth v. B~ard of$~sor~ 8 Cal. 3d 247 (1972). An ac6v~ty is a "project" whm it causes citi~r a direct physical change in the c'nvimnmeot or a reasonably forcseeablc indirect physical ctumge in the environmere and which is an activity ~hat [m'oive.s issuance to a persou of a permit, 'U~ or other ent~deme-m. Pub. Res. Code § 210~5, CEQA appli~ to all d_i.'scr~onaz3, approvals. A discrcdonm~ project is one wkich r~quires lhe public agca:y to cxcrc,.'se judgment in deciding whether to a~rove or disapprove :he particular ~ty. I__d. § 21080.(a). i.~ ~ CEQA Gu/deiincs (Cal. Code Regs. tit. i4 § 15357). The i:ading case of Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. Ckv of LosAn~lcle~, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 268 (19S7~ a'~x~ thai "It]he ess~atial clement ot'a rni~tcri~ act is ',ha the a~proviag agency does no'. have the legal authcri,"y to relhse a quaii/i,~x:l a.ppl~c.~nt or to in3is: upon modificaMor. s or 156 ~09 June 11, 1997 Page 8 chang~ in his project . . . °' (Eanphuis ~ original.) Thus, who-re the agency can &my or condition a proiect, it ia ~scrctionary and CEQA at~lies. Hcr~, the Dcvctopmmt Dmign approval process :¢t foxth ha the Rancho Cucamonga Dcvdopment Code, Land, Developmorn, Review, empowe~ ~e Planning Commission to approve or dray applimtion.s and to impose comlitions upon any such approval, clczxly bringing it within the defirrition of a discretionary project, and CEQA therefore al~pllc~. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code § 17.06.010(C)(1) states on its f~e that "[t.]he Planning Commission ts authorized to approve or deny' applications and to impose reasonable conditions upon ~uch approval, subject to appecl." [Bmphasis added.} That same cxxte sectleto gocs on to l/st the many possible types of conditions that may be imposed on the Project. The section concludes by stating fl~t the Commission may impose any additirm~d condilions "as the Commission may deem necessary to casur¢ compatibil~ with surrounding uses... to preserve ttac public hcalti:h safety and wolfaxe." ~ ~ Rancho Cur. amonga Dcveiopracat Code § 17.06.010CE)(3) and 17.06.0100r). Bascxt on the prov/sions in flu: Rancho Ctw. amonga Development Code, the Pl~,mir~g Commission has the rigfit to deny or izapose conditions, which maRes the Proice! discretionary ~ subject Io CEQA. B, Changed Clrcumstanc~ and .'New Informetlon No( Prcvtously Available at the 'I'tme of the 1990 Negative Declaration Trigger Further CEQA Rev~w .- The EmSmnm~ntal Initial Study A~lication fil~ in August I990 i~ nothing more than a form ch~ldisI ~ith conclusory statements, the support for wkich is nowhcr~ to be found (ExMbil 10). The PlaJming Commission file for this Project does not contain a c~py of a traffic study or any l~iological or wildlife study supporting the "no impacIs" conclusion. CIJR~ is not artexiting to challenge the many inade. quaci~ in, the ofigix~ Negative Declaration al this juncture, however, the absence of careful analysis at that lime on issues of Good control sade.w. endangered specie, wildlife habitat, and traffic and air qualily camrot be iga:r~d in ~alua~g the need for further CEQA compliance bmqed upon new informaxion and demonsn-atcd chartgod cL~cumst. anccs. The Planming Com_mi-,-eion should not ignore ~9c p~r/ o[' m.formation supporting :he Negative Declaration in evaluating the imi:~ort~uce of the sabstantial evidence submined herein to establish changed cixcums~anc~. Otherwise, the Planning Commission is eta,roy/rig a ?rojc,:t xhat fisl~ substantial injury to Jttt~ 11, 1997 Page 9 residents and impacts to plm"tt ~md wildlife in violation of f~k=al, ~ aad local law? Multiple changed circ,,rn~ces apply: (1) New Listed Pn,4-ng~ed Species The federal listing of th~ Cali~mia Gnatcatcher occurr~ gubr~xtuent to t~Se 1990 Negative Declaration atypmval m March 1993. Despite Lauren Development's misleading claima i~ ks .4,pHi !6, 1997 letter m Design Application (Exhibit 12) tllat comp~aace with the t~ndangcrcd Sp~:cles Act is "voluntary" and has occurred, the Wildlife Set'rice contimed on June 10, 1997, the Developer is not in compl/ance. as~d that gr~-'.vg may not be pesmiRerI until Wildlife Service approval is granted (Exlfibit ~ The substantial evidence submitled by CURE more than satisfies requirements of CEQA section 21 I66 and I2EQA Guidelines section 15162 ~eq' 'azdng supplemenial CEQA review. Subpazt (aX2) of the Ouidcline, requirtzs further CEQA analysis where (2) rabstatttial chang~ occur with respect m the circumstances under which ~c ptoj~t is undevt~en which will re, quire major revisions in the EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant envirom'ne. mal effects or a substantial increase in the severity of' previously identified s/grfifican! effects. Lavrel Heir. his v. Rei, cnu~, 6 Cal. 4th lii2 (1993). CURE submits, however, that Section 21166 and Laurel Iqc~i~-ts does not control recirculation of a negative declaration and that the 'fair argumenI" s*.andard should apply ir.,stca~. First, the very langtmgc of section 21166 and CEQA section 15162(8){2) references prcviomly idcntifie,:[ tignificent en, Srotune. n'.ad effects. Quite reanark~ly, tm significant enviror. mentz[ effects were identified in the 1990 Initial Study. Second, the holding in Laq,rcl Hc/zfit~ is limited to "certified-ErRs." The policy emroelated by the Supreme Court tt~ protect developers from constant reopening of ,.he CEQA record was based in large part on the type of detailed £IR that previously l'~x.4 been conducted and the extensive public comment recei~tu:! before it was certified. in contrast, the r~ord is devoid of any technict! seadies to support, th= many 'no il~pa.ct" commtml~ the Irfiti81 Study. Under :he circumstances, CU-.q.E ~ that the appropriate legal stand--~'d for anal)sis of' changed circumsuu',ces requiring rc-cimulation of the Negative D~tarafion is the "fair ~gurntml" standard. No Oil Inc. v. Ci.W of Los .4ragties, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75 (1975). See aim CEQA Section 210900=) and (d). Jum: 11, 1997 Page 10 (2) D~ignation of~ as S.I.I ttabilat The boom development years from the mid- t980's u~ the early 1990's resulted in such rapid destruction of alltrvial fan sasc scrub habilats dmt Fish aud Game has now dcsignalcd the area as SI.I and G.I. This designation by definition is "very threatened." These ucw designatious require CEQA analysis aid identification by Lauren Development of proj~i altm-rmtives and mitigation (3) Traffic, ~dr quality ~nd nci~ muat be r~valuat{xi in ligt~t of increm,:d d~vclo?mmt and approval of Highway 30 Although there are rr.J'~ in the file a "traffic study", none was 1ocaiM. That traffic study, however, could not have considr.,md the approval and immin~t construction of Highway 30. Exhibit 13' is confirmation fix~m the San Berrmrdino Associated Gov~rnmcms datod June 6, 1997 stating that the 1-~Jgh~ay 30 EIR was cer'.ified and that the I-tave~ View exqt has bc~m approval. Acee~ at Haven View will significantly increase traffic in tl:e area. Of obvious impact to rhx: Laurrn Development Project is th-_ new access thst the public w/11 have to the National ForesL Additionslly, humcrofts other developments ~ the immcdislc area have octre'reel sinca 1990 thai were not considered. Traffic alone from the Smialay congregational services at two ~ _m'c_iLcs_. _on_.l-Ixa_ yea north ot'H!~side ha.v~ si'gnificamly incrcas~ weekend traffic. Moreover, the r~xd cont~in~ no e,,-idenc~ concerning ttm impsets that the Development will have during construction on existlag homeowners. When the 1990 Negative D~claration w~s approved, less than 15 homes were built in Haven Vk-w and RC-5. Now over 50 homes tre lived in with the attendant p~dtma4an traffic. None of these chang~ cim~ces have been consider~ and require further analysis under CEQA. ,o Contrary to the rrprcsentations of Lauren Dcv~opmcnt in i~s At~i] 16, 1997 correspondence that the .h~bitat condition of the property was degraded, Michael Brm-man, leading exlxrrt in ailud,.l fan sage scrub habitat, has concluded "In my opinion the property Within T~lltltti¥¢ ]~l~cl NO. 14771 is prime h~bim~ area to support a widc range of wildlife, including the California Gnatc~u:her, which is a feder,,lly-listed environmental sper:ies. Additionally, the subject property can support the San Diego Horned Lizard ~v.d Plummer's Maripom Lily." (Brmnan Decl. 3). ~.~10~1 00 ~00 00:00 156 PI~ James Markman, Esq. June 1 I,'1997 Also direcfiy bearing on new traffic impacts not considered previously are potential disputts betwO::l Latm~ Dm'ctopment, R.C-§ and Haven Vi~ c.o:~.,eminl/access. In its April 16, 1997 Design Review Application (Extn'bit 12), Lauren Devclopra~t inco,'T~fiy claims that"recorded agreements stipulate ttlat excess to these ~ture homes will not time significant traffic impacts upon the existing Haven View Estates cemm'.mity." Although ~e easement agreemeat~ cli~r,s sex;es.s, there is absolu.te~ no discussion about traffic or other CEQA impact-type ~,m~hfses. More importantly. the Developer is aware that Rancho Cucamonge-5 has questioned its access figlaB o~ter RC-5's ea.scm~ (Exhibil 12).~t Were R.C-5 to prevail on any guch claim, Lauren Development trtt'fic would be conceaatnated over Clove~ and Tackstem in Haven View. This issue must bc res~lvt:d and the changvd condition addressed b.*fore final approval of the Project Saf~-'ty Kirks of the P:riph.n'al Containment of Kernoval of L~vce MusI Be Rc~wduated A.rguably the most serious impel that the L~urcn D~'elopmcnt Projcat could hay: on surrounding dovn3gradient rcsidcn,.s (as well as future purc_h,_scrs of Laure:a Dex-e!opment ixom~) is the r:moval of ~e existing peripheral cotaminmcnt levee. Lauren Development has ~ustificd its removal by claiming thn*. the Deer Creek Channel, more than one mile to lhe north, is sui'ficiem to protee: Haven View tnd 1:[C-5. Lauren Development concludes (withou: any u:chnical support cited) that the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Deer Creek Cha~tr, el obviate "lht ucr. d for the bcrm and swale. making the site d~vctopable" (Exhibit i2). Arach~i is the Decl~a.5.on of Brace Collins, a civil eagineer with Dam~s & Moore, one of the largesl gootectmical and --'ngin~ firms i.u the world (Exhibil 4) Mr. Collins, who has particular expertise in flood control proje,:as, has concluded thzt the rem. eval of the periphe~l containment levee reduce~ tl~ safety of downgradient msiden~ and inc'm,a$~ po~ble flooding. (Collins Decl. at '[ 3) He tim. her concludes that the midgaxio~ measures proposed by Lam-en Dm,'clopment axe not an adequate substitute for the peripheral c..grltalnment levee. As it is, Mr. Ccalti~ points out that the Deer Creek Channel do~s not pro-fide absoluic pro, on for downgra,4ien! homes. (Collins Decl. at 1 3) "The K~:ordcd Ea~emeat Al~m~nt Nos. 056050 and 056051 are in the. Planning File. Other relevant ~ relaiexi eaxement ag3eements referenced i~ the ~le w,zre not located. MOp24176. L12 101 00 ~00 00:00 J~mes M~tkman, Esq. June 1L-'199'/ Page 12 Since the original Negative Decl~on was issued, far more is the fact t.hat post- 1990 informalion coac~,ning local ear~uake fau!t~ has ~t beem r~mid~'ed. The existint/Dee~ Creek Ch,wqel is in dose pmx/mity to that f'~t and could thus be impacted in an eat~l,.quatcc. (Collins Decl. ~i ~ 5) D~n~ upon the extent of the repairs r,quired, the d~bris b~in might noz be fully op,m~tiomal.n When removal of the lev~ v,-~ first .rotdressed in 1990, the D~cloper, Brock Homes, was involved. Brock wes a local devclop~ with a proven trar. k record in Cu,arrtonga and appears to have: had substantially mor~ ass~ than Laxtren Development.J~ DowntFadient rca/dt~rlts of ~ Developmeant must rely on Lauren Dcvelopm:nt's fintucial wherewithal to comptctc the Proje~ct and m,_ the future 40 homeo,s,e. rs to maintain the iev~. This latter point is ofparticular concern as vaNous :ran.merits in Platming d.ocumenls appeax t~ assume that all Harem View and RC-5 property owuers will shar~ in :he cost of maintaining the flood "improvements" built by Laurc~ Development. If this is the Cily's assureprioR, it net the undtxstanding of Hav~n View pmpex~ o,~mcr$ tnd it is not supported by the existing. easemen! or access agrta:m~nts on recerd. IV. CONCI-USION Approx-al of Development Review 97-11 violates ~e ~c ~~ cl~ of~e U~d Smtm ~ ~ffo~a ~timtiom ~ ~foma ~iB' Act ~d ~hc Fed~ ~g~ S~i~ Act Givm the i~cl of pu~c c~v~ s~~ng t~s ~j~ ~~ by ~c ~~g Co~~on of It~ No. 9~ 11. c~tly on the ~~t Ag~ ~ould nol ~. ~~ ~e Pl~g Co~i~ion musl recimul~e ~e Ne~e D~I~, ~uke m~h~e ~ ~ The safety issu~ ~ removal of the lev~ are not liraitel ~o compliance with CEQA but also m~t be r~,-iew~ .-der ti~ safcls'_~i~n ..~ri~g dc, ima cdter/a set fo.-th by Cu_?monga (~)rdinan~. AtTecle. d prol~rty owners have z~ol had sufficient time to evaluate the engineering d~ign -.dad D~'eiop~ blue prints on these issues. u Public information concerning Dcv¢lop~'s resourc~ is limitext; howev~:'r. the aUachod Dun & Bradstre~t shows minimal .a,~sets. Addxesses provided by Lauren Ln public recards do uot show a Cucamonga ioc~on and thc Agota-a addresses are a juice bar and a rcsidcacc (Exkibit 14). The name of :k,¢ business located at the addres_~ provided by Lauren on Arrow Rmae is C.~ifomia Con.strucIien Corp. James Mar_~man, ti~. J~mc 11, 199'7 CEQA. and allow suI'fir. ient lime for affcct~ property owners to comm~mt on fl~ other t~u~tivc map condilio~ and com?tianc¢ ~ that could not bc ag~h~t~xi in the time alioncd.~4 Maliss~ Hathsway Attorney for Cucamonga~ IJnitcd For Resso,robie The Honorable Cu~amonga City Council: Thf: Honorable ~rtlliam J. Alexander'" The Hooorable Diane W'dliams The Honorable Paul Biea¢ 'rbe Honorable James V. The t-Ionorablc Rex C. nni~ Ms. Lccona Klippstcht, Spirit of the Sage Couacil I..m'ry Sitvet, Esq., California F.,ovir~nmental Legal Fund Scott Eliason, United Sta~ Department of the IMerior, Fish and 'Wildlife Service Liam Davis, California Dcpa_m'ocnt of Fish and Game Frank--Clifford, The Los Anl, e!cs Time., ~' CUKE reserves all ri~ts ~ challenge the Development once the complete record is obtained and reasonable time to respond is provided. (~ar c. ouccras include, but are no' liraJt'-.d to, cicvaxion eav~t:~p¢ as it eppca~ ~,ai, as of _~uuc 4, 1997 review, L~-rcr. Development is still not in compliance with Resolution ~90- IS3. Addifon',dly, CUKE rcsc~c~ the right To ct'm.ltcr:ge trader the rccluircmc'nts of Hillside Development Regulaxioos Sccrior, 17.24 cf the Dc-vclopmcut Code. 101 00 '00 00:00 156 P15 Jam~s M~krnan, Esq. June 11, 1997 Pa~ 14 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - June 10, 199] Me. Keith letter to James Markman Exhibit 2 - Petition Exhibit 3. May 28, 1997 Me. Keith letter to Tom Gmhn Exhibit 4- Exhibit Bruce Collins Declsmfion June 10, 1997 letter from U.S. Dc'-partmenI of Interior to Tom C_azhn Exhibi! 6- California Depa.mmmt of Fish and Game Element R~ki~_g ~ud Diversity Database Notation Exhibit 7- Micha~l Brennan D~t~tion Exhibit 8- :May 28, i997 letter from Commission Lauren Development to Pla_r, nlug Exhibit Exhibit 10 - May 20, 1997 Euclid Marmgemen! Notice Initial Study Checkli~ and Negative Declaration Exhibit 11 - October 14, 1996 letter from Crisfiano to Nissen Exhibi[ 12- April 16, 1997 Lmrren Developmere letter re Dexign Review Application Exhibit 13- June 6, ! 997 San Bcmardino Associated Govcmm~nt~ C~nd~m:c re Highway 30 .agrpmval Exhibit 14- Exhibit 15 - June 6, 1997 Investigation Report of Larry Troxcl June 6, 1997 letter f:mm Spiri! of the Sage Council 101 00 ~00 00:00 __ · 156 PIG Michael Brennan, declare and state as follows: 1. I havc ~ Bachclot of Scicnccs Dcprc¢ in Biolo~icml Sciences fzo~ the Callforn/a Skate Polytechnic Univ=rsity and I am ~re~ently completing a Masters Depree program at California Polytecnic Pomona in Fire Ecology of Alluvidl F~ul Sage Scz'ub. I 7 currently a,,, tBe lead biologist commissioned by the California Department of Fi=h & Came to develop consez~ation and management 9 guidelines for all remaining Alluvial Pan !~a9'e EcruB L~ the State lO of California. I have ext~ive experience evaluatin9 wildlite 11 and plant habitat and I have specific expertise in the Alluvial 12 Fan Sa~e Scrub habitat. 13 2. I have walked the boundaries of Tentative Tract No. 147T1 which I understand is proposed for tract home 15 development. The statements made herein are in support of 16 Cucamongans Unified for Reasonable Exl~ansion'= ("CURE') 17 opposition ~o that development without an updated and appropriate e~¥1ronm~ntal impact study. The s~ate~ent~ made herein are of my 19 personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would and could 20 test~ fy to the truth thereof 21 3. In my opinion, the property within Ten~ative Tract 22. No. 14771 is prime habitat area to support a wide range of 23 wildlife, including the California Gnatcatcher which is a 24 federally listed endangered sp~cie~. Additional ~he subjcc~ ' ' 25. property can support the San Diego Hor~ed Lizard and Plummer's , Mariposa Lily. 2~ 4. Moreover~ the subject property and surrounding 28 area is one of the eight remainin~ and the second largest ~tand .... · . _ _ ,, 1, O~ AFSS in the worl~ and therefore its preservation is critical. 2 In my opinion, the proposed development would cause substantial 3 environmental damage and ~ub.tantially and avoidably injure and, ~ in fact, destroy wildlife and their habitat. 5 5. I have not had the opport~nity to review the 6 biological ~uz'vey. '~u~ueedly' coilducted by the developer v because they are not available in the City of Rancho Cucamomga 8 file~ and neither tI~e California Department of fish & Game or the 9 U.S. Fish & Wildlife have be~n able to locate the report tha~ ~he 10 developer claims to have filed Without access to those surveys, 11 I cannot deterede whether they were cornducted correctly usin~ 12 valid sciensific methods nor can T determine if the consultant 13 conduc%ing the survey was qualified to evaluate =h~ unique 14 Alluvial Fan Sage Scz~lb. I ha~e reviewed correspondence from 1E Lauren Development dated ;tpril 16, 1997 concluding "that the area 16 of the sit~ degraded by the beta, swale and exc~es dir~ dr~dged 17 from the swale covers over 75 percent of the site. S~e a result, 18 the proj)erty is largely disrupted ~rith little (if any) left in 19 its natural condition. Former wa:er courses, bo~h chose 20 immediately at the bas~ of the berm in the swale and those 21 draining into it, no longer function due to the presence of ~he 22 near deer creek ch~nnel to the east." 23 6. ! dima~ree with these conclusion ba.ed upon my 24 personal observations. First, virtually 99 percent of the =its )'q hao regenerated to a m~tur~ A/luvial Fan' Sage Scrub community. 26 Tkis is indicated by the pres=ncu of scc~Lllng recruitment of 27 chaparral species such as Chamise (Adenos~ome fasciculatum), 28 Birchleaf Mountain Maho(3any {Cercocarpus be~uloides, Ceano~hus 101 00 ~00 00:00 156 ~1~ _ - , 1 cras~ifolius, ar~, most i~rtantly, the premance of matuz% 2 plante of scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum) . I alma di.~agree 3 that the part of Deer Creek Wash running through t_he proposed % develo~nent "no longer functions'. There is fresh alluvial 5 deposit of sand in addition to the prep-nee of broo~ baccharis. 5 both of which are cD~racter±s~ic o~ fhu%ctioning intermitta,~[ 7 water courses. 8 7. At the tima of the initial study checklist for the 9 ' negative declaration in the kate 1980s, the property may not have 10 had maturu alluvial growth as it appears that the site was graded 11 in the mid-1980s. The character of the v--getation on the 12 proper~y appears to have significantly changed since that time 13 and now supports a wide range of species an~ plant life. These 1% changed circu,u~tances necessitate the develo~e~t of an actual ~5 environmental impact study to a~sess alterna%ive projects ~nd to 16 identify mitigation meaeurers to appropriately reduce th~ impact 17 to plants and wildlife and their habitat. 18 B. ! am prepared to show slides and to testify on 19 th=ee issues at =he June 11, 1997 hearin~ if permitted by the 2~ Planning Commission. 21 I declar= under Denalty of perjury that the forego!n9 22 is tl-ue and correct and that this Declaration was execu%ed at 24 25 26 27 28. Rancho Cucamonga, california, on June 8, 1997. ~Ui~et3-S7 ?i[ 9'47 :AM ?WS ~AX M0. 6IS 431 United Sta~es Department of ~e Interior FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORAI Call to have picked trp Tune N,,mher of pages including this TO: Fax No.: Phone No.' Fax No.- (760) 431-961S 431-5902 Phone No.: (760) 431-9440 [please note thst our ~re~ code hss been dmnged to (760)] CO~S: JD'N~IB-S7 FAX NO. 619 431 5902 f- i " -.~ 0 4 FAX. i~0. :m~rovemen~ Zone OS-'. SA/~ EIER~ARDI.NO I;OUNI'T SURYETOR 3B5 H. Afro,heed. S.B.. £A 92415 Format ion o{ D~lg 3-17-94 County Scr~}c~ Are~ 7D GENrRXt Orq~'~,n, ..... · LARRY [. COlTOff Co of Son Bernardino iDEPUIY .. -iV)i-[3-97 '~R[ 9'52 .At ~,4'S ' I l ''l From: John L. Allday To: Andrew K. Ha zell Dale: B/26/97 lime: 10:?e AM SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; d-26-97 10'18AM; 9094772847 => ........... , ...... , ~ ~,uuV~Ol~ ?--' I1 L,;UL;AIII~NC~A ~(,/I I,~I~V; ~1 06t25/1~97 15:32 3105905192 CI)F6 R5 Laur"en Deve].opment; DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Pegion 5 ~ ~en s~om, su~a ~ L~g Bea~, ~iffo~a e0802 Page 3 of 5 #2/4 PAGE 81 Mr. Brad Butler, Planner City of !~anc.~ Cucamonga Planning Depart~nt 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California g1729 June 23, 1997 .o.,-.-.....,. ~- Co. Dear Mr. i~tulicr:. Tract 14771 and Lauren Development~$ Proposed Project ,San Bernardino County The Department of Fiah and C~ame (Department) has reoently been advLsecl of the potential for Lauren Developmerit to proceed with con~r~tJcN1 ol Tract 14771 wJfflout any further or addltlona! review pumuant to ttm California Environmonte! Quality Act (CEQA). This area within rJ3e City of Rancho C. ucemonga (City), now lo be developed, is of Sl~Cffic concern to the Department. l'nis area hal 13een identified as Rivemidian Alluvial Fan ~go ,~crub (RAF~i$) fiabitm with t13e potential tO lupport the California gnatcatcher (F~ollopgla cel~Yorrtice califomica), a federal threatened and state "Species of Special Corm~m (CSC)', among other plant and wildlife $pe~ea. This area has been designated as Significant Natural Ar~a 88D110. As cun~ntly understood by ttle Department, approval of thim development proposal iS based upon a tentative subdivi~on map foe wtlictl an initial Stu~ and Negaave Declaration were complete and approved. However, the Californ~ gnatc~tcher wa~ listed as threatened in 1993, and the City acknowf~ its parUc~patlon in the San Beermrdino V·Ney Mulfi-SDecies Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), of whictl this development are· ta wtlhin. by it~ signature to the Memorandum of tJndamtandin.q (MOU) on June 8, 1995. As such. the Department believes additional environmental review ia now required to fully d~scJose the praject's current potential slgnLficant impacts to sensitive wildlife resources. We believe that pursuant to file California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA), rec, ir~lation of the Negative Dec~aration is warrentea Decousa: 1) $ubltantial change haa occun'ad with ~sspect to the c. Jrcumstanc~ under which the !:~ojed is to be undertaken, as the area proposed for development I~ now within an active Natural Community Conse~vatio~ Planning (NCCP) ate3 - of whict~ the C~ fa · partk=tp~nt and 2) new information of subatantial impofrance to the proiect has become available and the project will now ha~e one or significant effe~c:ts not previously dis4=us;ed, as the proposed deYetopmant will r~sult significa13t impact to the reduction in the numbers of unique plants and animals associated with RAF$$, a state significant natural area/habitat ranked as 've~ threatened', Guidehne$, Section 151 From: J hn L. lday To: drew K. Ha etl Date: 6 6/97 ae: 10:27 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; ~-26-97 10:18AM; 9094772847 => Lauren Deveiopmentj e6/25/1597 15:22 31~59e51~2 ~6 R5 P~6E Mr. Brad Bullet June 23, lgg7 Page Two Ther~fona, we respectfully request the City to advise the Department as ~,oon as possible regarding the c, arrant status of this project and any remaining i~n~s. reca~'(:latlon, or other actions that will r~lUire approval of the City. and whether the api3roYa~ is ~ to be 'clisc~etionary' by the City. Please advise us of the a131:~oximate date(s) when these approvals. discretienary or otherwise, are anticipated and/or sctteduled. If ttle City believes no fu~er discretionary approvafs or decisions are required, please advise the Department of arty other I(nown permJt~ or approvals by ott3~' agentis,a, such as San Bernardino County FI¢:~:I Cotltrol or I~egionel Water Quality Contr~ Board, that are required before this project may proceed. Also, please ei[her provide us witt~ copies or instruct us as to how copies may be obtained for the initial and current project tiesign and proposal, the Negative Declaration. Notfee of Determination and any documents, reports or information used Jn completing the August 14, 1990 Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project. we am hopeful Lauren Developmane will be abie to complcte the additional gnatcat~er su~eys rcqaired by ~e U.~. Fish ~nd ~ldlife Sewl~ (US~), and by the Department, to determl~ presea~ or absen~ i~ ~is area (m: USFWS le~r ~ Mr. Tom G~hn dated June 10, lg97). Unders~nda~y, due to ~e ~ent pm~n~ ¢ threatened" habitat and the length of t~e ~h has ~nspired be~n ~ in~ai study of the tentative subdtvts~n map a~ ~ a~ual proposed deve~pment, ~ere may be so~ con~sion on our pa~ as to how this pmje~ has already D~ approved. In c~mtion ~h ~e measures identified ~ the ~n Bernardo Valley M~t~pedes Habitat Consedation Plan MOU. we respectfully mque~ n~ gmd~o ~ffs be Issued by the ~ for this p~J~ until t~ts iss~ is resolved. We t~k fo~ to m~fing ~ ~e C~ and Lauren ~iop~nt to dismss resolu~or~ o~ our ~ms as soon ~ Thank you for your time and additional consideration regarding this development, if you hav~ any questions or concerns regardrig tl~ letter, please feel free contact Mr. Bill Tippets of our NCCP program at ({519) 467-4212. You can mail tl~e requested information directly to Mr. Tippets at the following address: California Department of Fish and Game, NCCP Program, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, California 92123; fax (019) 4235. Page 4 of 5 #3t4 82 Copy: See Attact~ed List ctlng Regional Manager · From: J~n L. ~lday To: ~drew ~ HoWell Date: 6/26197 ~me: 10:23'~ ~I SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEVj a-26-97 10:19AMj 90~772847 => Launen Deve~opmentj REC~v~0t ~-25 g7; 4:2gP~; ' 3105g~5192 => ~ CU~A~0NGA C0~ DEV; ~ ~6/25/i~7 i5:32 3185~B5i~2 ~G R5 P~ , MI', Brad Iguiler June 23, lgg7 Mr. John Allday Lauren Developmeat Rancl~o Cucamonga, California Mr. Cur( Taucher Department of Fish ariel Long Beach, California Mr. Bill Tippets Department of Fish and Game San Diego, California Mr. Bruce Kinney Department of Fish and Game Bishop. California Page 5 of 5 #4/4 O3 DEAN DUNN-RANIGN CH~ S. EXON WIL~A~ E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZ~t{- HUGH HEWI7T JOHN D. HUDSON HEWITT & McGumE, LLP A'I'rORNEYS AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 * (714) 798-0511 (fax) June 26, 1997 MARK R. MCGUIRE DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALCIqIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. TWOM~Y JOHN P. YEAGER VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Mr. Jeff Newman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re' Lauren Development, Inc. Tract No. 14771 USFWS Letter to City of Rancho Cucamonga dated June 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Newman: Thank you for speaking with me earlier this week. This letter is to memorialize our conversation of Monday, June 23, 1997 concerning the above-referenced letter. A copy of that letter is attached. During the course of our conversation regarding the above-referenced letter I asked for the basis for the Service's assertion that: 'The [project site] is adjacent to known occupied California gnatcatcher habitat." I noted that I had requested documentation regarding this statement from the Service earlier, on June 11, from Mr. Scott Eliason and Ms. Mary Beth Woulfe of your office. You informed me that you had had the opportunity to discuss this matter with Ms. Woulfe recently and had learned the following: 1. The Service statement is based on a single, oral report relayed to the Service in the course of a telephone conversation from an unknown individual. 2. The Service has no written record of this observation or report; data on this alleged observation does not exist in Service files. 3. The Service does not know the identity of the individual who reportedly saw one or, at most, possibly two gnatcatchers in San Bernardino County, the alleged observation which forms the basis of the above statement. 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060031.LTR Mr. Jeff Newman June 26, 1997 Page 2 4. The Service does not know if this individual was a biologist or, if so, what his or her qualifications are, as the Service does not know the identity of this individual who made the alleged sighting. 5. This information, which the Service received orally via telephone, may not have been from the actual observer but may have been from an individual once or twice removed from the alleged observation. 6. The "observation" of one gnatcatcher or two was allegedly in or adjacent to the North Etiwanda Preserve property (an area of approximately 760 acres containing potentially suitable habitat for this species). 7. You are uncertain as to whether this "observation" was made in 1997 or in 1996, but believe the observation was likely made last year. To summarize, the Service cannot provide me with any documentation to enable this fu-xn to assess the validity, or understand the exact nature, of the "observation" which forms the basis of this serious Service allegation. I would like to point out, however, that this "observation" was not made on my client's property or immediately adjacent to it. The North Etiwanda Preserve property lies approximately 1 iA miles from my client's property. Gnatcatcher territories typically range from 3 to 20 acres. Thus, if a gnatcatcher was seen in the North Etiwanda Preserve it undoubtedly has more than sufficient habitat on the 760-acre preserve. Given the above information from the Service, I do not believe that it is in any way possible for the Service to support the statement contained in its June 10 letter to the City of Rancho Cucamonga that grading of the Lauren Development site at this time would constitute a prohibited take of the California gnatcatcher. To quote the Service directly, the Service has stated that "any site disturbance prior to a determination of absence... approved by the Service would be considered to be a violation of the Take prohibition of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act." I also note that on June 11, Scott Eliason of the Carlsbad field office informed me that he believed that there were possibly historical records of one, two or possibly three gnatcatcher pairs having been seen in the North Etiwanda Preserve area some time ago. Mr. Eliason did not have any dates for these observations, nor was he able to provide me data from Service files to support this claim. I did ask for the Service to provide me with copies of any data which would address the validity of these observations. To date, no such information has been provided to me from the Service. 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060031.LTR Mr. Jeff Newman June 26, 1997 Page 3 I also inquired as to the reason for the Service asserting that the City should not issue a grading permit to Lauren Development - a statement contained in the June 10 USFWS letter. You responded that your understanding of the statements in the June 10 letter were simply meant to "initiate a dialogue" between the Service and the City. Should you believe me to be in error regarding any of the above statements from our phone call, please notify me by the end of this week. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Andrew K. Hartze AKH/clt Enclosure CC: Gail Koberich (w/encl. - via facsimile) Sherry Barrett (w/encl. - via facsimile) John Allday (w/encl. - via facsimile) Michael Spear (w/encl. - via facsimile) 06- 26- 97 3021 - 00002 S: \D0C\161 \CORR\97060031 . LTR ~T t United States Department of the Inter/or FISH AND WI1.DLI:FE $ERVIC~ C~bbad F'~d ~30 Lo~r Aveft~ Cat=l)~l, Califomi- 92008 June 10, 1997 City of Rancho Cuc~monga Planning Depmcnt 10500 Civic C~ Drive Rnncho ~ong~, C. alifomi~, 91729 Subject: California Grmtcatel~z Surveys for Tram 14771 Dear Mr. Gralm: This letrex follows a phone convcrsmion between yourelf .rid S~ Eli~ ~d M~ Be~ Wolfe offs o~ on J~c 10, 1997, ~ which ~ U~. F~ ~d Wi~life Sewi~ (Sc~i~) m~c d~ ~ s~e~ for Califom~ 14771 ~te not ~c m ~e l~e~ ~ Ap~l 18, 1~7, ~ ~e ~i~ ~o~-A~y Bf ~~ ~~p~t. T~s lcttc~ d~~ al~e ~ not ~~e Surv~/proto~m_ 1..a~thc tim~ the S~wice's discuasions ~ Jo~ All~y ~ ~eir ~n~ng if o~~ of ~c'-b~-'~g ~n. ~ ~c~ ~~~ ~ Sc~ ~ ~p~ a rcvis~ pm~l, ~ugh ~ ~11 h~ ~e ~lier pm~l for proj~ i~fi~ pr~r m t~ F~ 28, 1 ~7 ~on. Un~l Au~ 30, ~ ~o~ 3 ~s ~ ~r~, ~ ~a~ by m 1~ one ~k m bhng ~ m~ m ~. A~ A~i 30, ~ ~i~o~ 5 ~1 ~ ~~. B~uw ~s ~ ~ ~ ~~in~ ~ ~ s~mblc ~ifo~a ~~ ~i~: by ~i~ biolog~ ~d o~m. ~ ~u~ ~ pr~y i, p~.~-Ot m kno~ ~uvi~ ~lifoma G~c~ habim, ~y si~ di~~ pfi~ m a ~~i~ti~ of sb~ r~v~ ~ 4ppm~ ~ ~e S~ ~uid ~ ~mide~ to ~ ~ violion of~ T~c pmhibi~on of 9 ofl~ En~eer-~ .~i.. A~. ~emfore no g~ing miu ~d ~ ism~ ~ the ~ ' ~iil ~is ~ is ~lved. If you ~ve ~y qu~do~ ~ ~is or ~la~ mat~ plc~ Scoa Eli~on or M~ B~ Woulfe of this office. /Ficl Sunisot . ~" _ . '. 10 DEAN DUNN-RANKIN CF,.~dU.r~ S. ExoN WILLIAM E. HA! ! ~ HUGH Hk-wn-r JOHN D. HUDSON HEWlTT & McGUIRE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 Mar. Arthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 - (714) 798.-0511 (fax) M~m< R. McGuiP.~ DENNIS D. O'Nr~L JAY F. PALCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WIIJ. JAM L. TwO~£¥ JOMN P. YEAGER June 27, 1997 The Honorable David Barker Chairman, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Development Review 97-11/Lauren Development (Tract 14771) Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: Th/s firm represents Lauren Development, Inc. ("Lauren") in connection with the above-referenced project. We are writing to respond to certain specific issues and allegations raised in written submissions to the City of Rancho Cucarnonga ("City") by certain homeowners near the project site, acting under the recently named group Cucarnongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE"), and The Spirit of the Sage Council CSSC") regarding compliance with certain natural resource statutes, regulations and a~eements and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Regrettably, both CURE and SSC have elected to rely on misrepresentations and misstatements as the foundation and basis on which to claim non- compliance with, or a "violation" of, the federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding the possible development of the San Bernardino Valley-Wide Multi-species Conservation Program. Both claims are wholly without merit. Moreover, both CURE and SSC demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of CEQA and its requirements as they pertain to the Planning Commission's role in the design review of this approved subdivision. Planning Commission Approval of Lauren's Desiron Review Apvlication and Implementation of the Project Will Not Result In An? Violation of the Federal Endaneered Species Act. Independent of, and irrespective of, its local entitlements to construct the residential project, Lauren remains subject -- along with every other lot owner of an undeveloped lot in the City or within Haven View Estates - to the provisions of the ESA. However, given the facts and circumstances of this project, the ESA imposes no restriction on Lauren or the City with respect to design review, issuance of grading permits or the grading of the property. 06-26-97 3021-00002 $: \DOC\161 \CORR \9706003D. LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 2 Simply put, the ESA prohibits Lauren from killing or injuring any federally listed species -- including the coastal California gnatcatcher ("Gnatcatcher") -- in connection with grading its property.x If grading the property would result in such injury, Lauren would need to obtain an incidental take permit (Section 10(a) permit) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("Service") prior to grading its property. As well-counseled project developers typically do, Lauren has consulted with biological experts in advance of grading to determine whether any listed species exist on its property. Through such consultation Lauren learned that the only listed species which could conceivably be located on the site was the Gnatcatcher, although the probability of one or more Gnatcatchers occupying the site was quite low. Although Lauren had no legal obligation to conduct surveys or provide such information to any agency, it elected to survey its property for the Gnatcatcher in an abundance of caution. (A copy of this survey report is attached.) The biologists surveyed the 25-acre site and immediately adjacent habitats completely on four separate occasions in January of this year. As the enclosed report notes, the surveys were conducted by qualified biologists in conformance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. No Gnatcatchers were observed or otherwise detected. Since Gnatcatchers do not occupy the site, Lauren does not need to obtain an incidental take permit (or any other authorization) from the Service and is under no particular obligations with respect to the ESA, the Service, the Califorrda Deparunent of Fish & Game or others. In fact, it would have been rather surprising to find any Gnatcatchers at the site. Only a very few individuals of this species have ever been recorded to have been observed in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County is considered to'lie at the very fringe of the range for this species. The Service letter of April 18 to Lauren Development and its June 10 letter to the City appear to be primarily based on various misunderstandings. The Service appears to believe that Lauren, by sending to the Service its survey results (as required under the biologists' federal permits), is requesting an "incidental take" permit from the Service. Lauren is not making such a request. Alternatively, the Service may believe that Lauren is requesting a written statement from the Service regarding its site; again, Lauren is making no such request. It is even possible that the Service is under the false impression that the Negative Declaration for this project contains a condition requiring a letter of approval from the Service prior to issuance of a grading permit. Again, no such condition exists. ~ 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (1996). 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060030-LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 3 What we do know is that since at least 1993, the Service has accepted three surveys of a site as conclusive of the presence or absence of the Gnatcatcher for individuals requesting permits from the Service. The Service announced a change in this policy in March of this year (copy attached). Under its new policy, three surveys will suffice in some local jurisdictions, whereas the Service will request more in others. Ironically, most past surveys using the three visit methodology have been "grandfathered" in by the Service as "acceptable." As this is a new and changed survey policy, the Service has welcomed comments as to whether it is actually appropriate and justified, and the regaalated community is awaiting the release of the study allegedly supporting this change for comment. In any event, the decision regarding how many surveys to conduct in this instance is a matter solely within Lauren's discretion. Lauren has also appropriately requested more specific information from the Service regarding the allusions in its two letters regarding Gnatcatcher sightings in the area. In a recent phone conversation with Mr. Jeff Newman of the Service, Mr. Newman informed the undersigned that the basis for the Service's June 10 claim that "the property is adjacent to known occupied California gnatcatcher habitat" consists of a verbal report from an unknown individual that last year one bird believed by that unknown person to be a Gnatcatcher was seen in or near the North Etiwanda Preserve -- approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the project site.2 To date, the Service has not responded to our request for copies of all written reports, if any, of Gnatcatchers currently living anywhere near the project site, and .it is not clear that any such reports exist. Thus, this undocumented, anonymous, unconfirmed sighting appears to form the basis for the Service's concern. Even if the Service could establish credible documentation to support this rumor -- which to date it has failed to do -- the existence of a single bird a mile or more away from the project site would not give the Service a basis to request anythin~ from the City or Lauren Development. The San Bernardino Valley-wide Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan MOU Does Not Require the City to Conduct Any Further Biological Review of the Project Site. The SSC's assertion that the San Bernardino Valley-wide MSHCP MOU somehow obligates the City or other governmental entities to conduct some sort of further environmental review of Lauren's project is simply incorrect. 2 In addition, Mr. Scott Eliason of the Service has suggested to the undersigned that there may be historical records of one, two or three pairs of birds formerly occupying the North Etiwanda Preserve at some earlier time. Of course, historic reports are of little relevance to the Service's statement. 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 4 It is rather telling that the SSC does not cite any specific set of provisions in the MOU which require such additional review. In fact, SSC could not do so, since the MOU is designed specifically to preclude any such mandatory obligations. The major purpose of the MOU is to establish some initial conceptual frameworks for a possible multiple-species conservation plan for a portion of San Bernardino County. The development of such a plan is expected to require a m'mimum of several years at best. (A copy of the MOU is attached.) SSC's first error lies in assuming that the MOU's Interim Project Review Guidelines ("Guidelines") apply to projects which have already been approved and analyzed under CEQA, such as the project at hand. The Guidelines do not contain provisions for retroactive application. In fact, the Guidelines specifically indicate that they are meant to be applied -- and applied at the local jurisdiction's and project applicant's sole election - to projects which are just beginning the entitlement process. According to the MOU, the Guidelines are meant to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and [Department of Fish and Game] so that projects which could preclude the successful development of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in the development review process .... MOU Attachment F, at F-1. This voluntary review process is offered to "[eliminate the historic problem in which] comments on proposed projects are not received from the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service until very late in the lead agency's decision- making process." MOU at F-1. Thus, the review process requested by SSC does not even apply to a proiect such as Lauren's that was approved years ago and where the City has only limited additional discretion over narrow aspects of the project's implementation. Nevertheless, even if the Guidelines could be consumed to apply to an approved project such as Lauren's - which they cannot - the interim review is a totally voluntary process. Therefore, the City will be in compliance with the MOU even if it chooses not to subject any projects to the Guidelines' agency consultation process. The [Interim Project Review Guidelines] specifically do not create an additional layer of project review nor confer any additional authority on the Department [of Fish & Game], the Service or lead agency. The recommendations of the Service and Department are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or 06-26-97 5021-00002 $:\DOC\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 5 deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency pursuant to existing laws. Each lead agency and/or project proponent shall determine whether a project should be reviewed pursuant to the [Guidelines] .... The lead agency retains the discretion to determine that a project within the plan area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. MOU Attachment F, at F-1. III. CURE's and SSC's Assertions Concerning CEOA Completely Misstate the Facts and Law. The assertions of CURE's environmental counsel, Malissa McKeith, concerning the City's compliance with CEQA are factually and legally wrong[ Ms. McKeith contends that because the Planning Commission exercises discretion in connection with design review applications, it must reexamine whether there are changed circumstances requiring additional environmental documentation under CEQA regardless of whether the circumstances have anything to do with the type of discretion the Planning Commission exercises during design review. In addition, in complete contradiction to published appellate court decisions, Ms. McKeith argues that she and other project opponents must only make a "fair argument" that changed circumstances are present. First, the fact that the Planning Commission exercises some discretion when considering design review applications does not mean that the Planning Commission must evaluate the current circumstances surrounding all aspects of a residential subdivision that already has complied with CEQA in connection with tentative map approval. As a leading CEQA treatise states: CEQA does not apply to an agency decision simply because the agency may exercise some discretion in approving the project or undertaking. Instead, to trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability to "shape the project" in order to minimize environmental impacts. Remy and Thomas, Guide to CEOA, p. 42 (1996 Edition) (emphasis added). 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CDRR\9?O60030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 6 The very case Ms. McKeith selectively quoted from in her letter to the City Attorney makes the same point: "The touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape the project in any way which would respond to any of the environmental concerns which might be identified in an environmental impact report." Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 267 (1987). Of course, Ms. McKeith failed to quote this sentence in her letter. Here, the Planning Commission's discretion in the context of design review has absolutely no bearing on the alleged environmental concerns raised by CURE. To paraphrase the Assistant City Attorney, the'decision whether the homes will be French Provincial or Spanish Colonial has no relevance to the alleged environmental concerns raised by project opponents. CURE's alleged environmental concerns revolve around four topics: (1) vegetation/habitat impacts; (2) flood control; (3) traffic; and (4) air quality. While we believe each and every one of these "concerns" is a complete red herring (and will explain why below), the Commission is certainly familiar enough with its role to know that none of these proposed concerns are addressed or addressable as part of design review. One easy way to illustrate this is to point out that the property owner could record his final map, obtain a grading permit, clear the development portion of the site of all vegetation, rough grade the 40 buildable lots, install all subdivision improvements, including roads, sell the lots to forty (40) different individuals, and then submit up to 40 separate design review applications. Completing such tasks would moot all of the concerns raised by CURE and SSC but would not preclude the Planning Commission from exercising the type of discretion it exercises in connection with design review. To reiterate, the mere fact that the Planning Commission still has some discretion over a narrow aspect of the project does not mean that the city can or must reevaluate all impacts that will result from implementing existing project approvals. None of the alleged environmental concerns involve aspects of the project that can be modified in any relevant way as part of the design review process. Ms. McKeith knows this; if she does not know this, she is grossly unfamiliar with the applicable law. III. Even If Design Review Triggered Reevaluation of the Entire Project Under CEOA, the Alleged Changed Circumstances Are All Red Herrings. Assuming solely for the sake of refuting C URE's other factual and legal misstatements that the City had the authority to reconsider all aspects of the project in connection with its design review process -- which it does not -- there are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. CURE's allegations that changed circumstances are present do not withstand scrutiny. 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 7 First, the listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher could only conceivably be a significant new circumstance if the site contained Gnatcatchers, which it does not. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's letter claiming that removal of "suitable habitat" would violate the ESA severely overstates the Service's authority. This issue is addressed above. There have been numerous species placed on the endangered species list since 1990 in addition to the Gnatcatcher; this project will not impact any of them either, and their listing does not constitute changed circumstances either. Second, the vegetation type that will be impacted has not changed since the tract map was approved. It was known as a sensitive habitat type even in 1990, although completion of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel have removed the site from hydrological events that keep the vegetation dynamic and healthy over time (see p. 2 of the attached Gnatcatcher Survey Report). Presumably, the City determined that the small amount of acreage impacted and its location in a residential development area made the impact less than significant. Rightly or wrongly, a determination of insignificant impacts was made at the time the Negative Declaration was adopted and even Ms. McKeith acknowledges that the time to challenge that determination has long since passed. Third, CUR.E's allegations of change in circumstances with respect to air quality, traffic and noise do not relate to the project at all and do not create any potential for the project to have significant new impacts in those areas. The development consists of 40 homes, which will generate a relatively small amount of traffic. Finally, the claim that the always contemplated removal of the existing berm and swale on the site is a significant new issue because Lauren Development may not have as many assets as the prior developer Brock Homes takes the cake. The City will require bonding for subdivision improvements and will have the benefit of all mechanisms typically available to ensure proper performance of the project. Ms. McKeith's attempt to characterize her assertion that the Project might not be implemented properly as "significant new information" is novel and a distortion of what CEQA requires. CURE has attempted to create the appearance of real and serious new issues where none truly exist. CURE also contends that it does not need to show "substantial evidence" that these new alleged issues are significant; CURE insists that only a "fair argument" need be made. CURE cannot provide any substantial evidence of significant changed circumstances and CURE's counsel conveniently omitted. from.her voluminous letter any references to the published cases that expressly state that the substantial evidence test applies even when a Negative Declaration was the initial form of CEQA compliance. See, e__,~*., Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991); Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Rancho California Water District, 43 Cal. App. 4th 425 (1996). These failings 06-26-97 3021-00002 $:\DO£\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 8 compound the fundamental error that CURE has made, which is that design review does not trigger CEQA review of the entire project. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the very distorted representations made by CURE, SSC and others. Thank you for your consideration of the above. Should you have any questions, please contact Mark McGuire or the undersigned at (714) 798-0500. Andrew K. Hartzell Enclosures CC' William Bethel Peter Tolstoy Larry McNeil Richard Macias Gail Kobetich Ralph Hanson, Esq. Jeff Newman John Allday Bill Tippets 06-26-97 ~021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\9?O60030.LT2 Planning Consultan Research Environmental, Economic. and DeYelopmen~ Research for Land Use and Real E~ate Decisions February 28, 1997 Ms. Mary Beth Woulfe U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: REPORT FOR FOCUSED CALIFOl:hNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Ms. Woulfe: At the request of Lauren Development, Planning Consulants Research (PCR) has conducted four (4) surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Poliopdla californica californica) at their Rancho Cucamonga project site. No individuals of this species were observed or otherwise detected on site or within adjacent habitat areas during any of the survey efforts. We offer the following report of our survey activities and results. Location The project site encompasses approximately 25 acres near the northern terminus of Haven Avenue within the City of Rancho Cucamonga (see Exh/bit 1). As shown on a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, the site lies within the Eriwanda alluv/al fan at the base of the San Gabriel Mountaim and may be referenced as being within the northeast comer of Section 24 , T1N, R7W on the Cucamonga Peak 7.5 minute quadrangle (see Exhibit 2). The project site elevation ranges from 2,145 feet above mean sea level to 2,299 feet'above mean sea level. The entire site and the area within approximately 500 linear feet of the site boundaries was considered to represent the study area. Plant Communities Soils over the entire site appear ro consist of alluvium composed of sands, gravel, .rocks and occasional boulders. These conditions support a somewhat heterogeneous community of R/versidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Approximately one half of the sire supports a fairly uniform stand of this community dorn/nated by California buck-wheat (Eriogonurn faxcicalarurn), white sage (Salvia apiana) and California sage (Ar~emisia californica). Thickleaf yerba santa (Eriodicryon 939 Glennerye. SuiTe B Laguna Beach - CA 92551 Tel: (71.4) 497-01.44 FAX: [71.4) 497-0158 233 Wilshire Blvd.. Suite 130 Sanla ~Monlca - CA 9040 l Tel: [310) 451-4.488 FAX: [3'1 O) 451-5279 Planning Consul nts Research Mary Beth Woulfe February 28, 1997 Page 2 crassifolium) and deerweed (Lotus scopariux) are also common in these areas. These shrubs grow to three feet in height and form a canopy of 80 to 90 percent cover. The remaining one half of the site supports the same species with the addition of mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), golden current (Ribes aureum) and laurel sumac (Malosrna laurina) which become dominant components of the shrub cover. These larger shrubs and small trees grow to heights of 10 to 12 feet and add an additional dimension to the physical habitat structure. Canopy cover in these areas is also generally 80 to 90 percent; however, areas of 100 percent cover may be found. The vegetation on site and in adjacent areas appears to be healthy and in a manare stage of development. Of note, it is doubtful that the alluvial sage scrub on site will ever revert to either a pioneer or intermediate stage. This is due to the fairly recent construction of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel which have removed the area from its natural hydrologic regime. Methodolog'y Surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted by Messrs. Steve Nelson and Ruben Ramirez under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit numbers 782272 and 780566, respectively. Methods employed were in conformance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. This included: surveys no less than seven (7) days apart between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise and 1130; coverage of no more than 25 acres per investigator per hour; and, slowly walking over the entire site and stopping every 200 feet and playing a tape of recorded California gnatcatcher vocalizations. The tapes were played for several seconds only at each station followed by a brief period of listening for a response. A summaW of the surveys follows. Survey 1 - Conducted by Nelson on January 4, 1997, commencing at 0830 hours and ending at 0945 hours; route was generally around the perimeter of the property and along an unimproved access road wansversing the center of the property which enabled a survey of the entire property; temperature at the beginning and end of the survey was 44 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were overcast with a slight breeze. Survey 2 - Conducted by Nelson and Ramirez on January 13, 1997, commencing ar 0817 hours and ending at 0930 hours; the route taken by Nelson was similar to Survey 1; in addition, Ramirez followed meandering nansects generally zigzagging over the property; temperature held at 45 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were cloudy and it began to drizzle during the last five minutes of the survey; there was no wind. Planning Consultants Research Mary Beth Woulfe February 25, 1997 Page 3 Survey 3 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 21, 1997, commencing at 0910 hours and ending at 1010 hours; route used was a crisscross generally in a north-south direction; ~emperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the survey; skies were cloudy with a light mist and no wind. Survey 4 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 28, 1997, commencing at 1000 hours and ending at 1110 hours; route was similar to Survey 3: temperature throughout the survey was 58 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were clear with a slight breeze. Results No California gnatcachers were observed or otherwise detected on site or in the adjacent areas during any of the four survey efforts. In addition, no brown-headed cowbirds (Molozhrus ater) were observed in the study area. Generally, bird activity was fairly high during each of the surveys with a number of species being observed or detected on each occasion. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH Director of Biological Services Ruben S. Ramirez Senior Ecologist co: .Iohn Allday, Lauren Development DEAN DUNN-RANKIN CHARLF. S S. EXON WILLIAM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZELL HUGH HEWITT JOHN D. HUDSON I-IEWITT & McGUIRE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 · (714) 798-0511 (fax) M~RK R. McGutm~ DENNIS D. O'N~L JAY F. PALCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. TWOMEY JORN P. YEAGER June 25, 1997 Via Fax and U.S. Mail Mr. Gail Kobetich U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re' USFWS Letter Dated June 10, 1997 to City of Rancho Cucamon~a Dear Mr. Kobetich: Transmitted herewith is a copy of a letter from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to the City of Rancho Cucarnonga dated June 10, 1997. This letter concerns a proposed development project of our client, Lauren Development. This letter raises serious issues regarding Service actions and statements which need to be addressed immediately. I would appreciate receiving a call from you or Sherry Barrett today to discuss this letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, , AKH/Icc cc: Sherry Barrett (via fax) Jeff Newman (via fax) 06-25-97 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060029.LTR EXHIB IT 1 North Scale: l" = 5,280' Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 2 North Topographic Map Scale: 1" = 2,000' 03/05/g? WED The Service w~i]l honor coastal Ca]ifon~a gna/catcher surveys cornpicked during prev~ou~ brce. ding Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polloptila calif o rnica cahf o rnica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines February 28, 1997 .. The coastal Od/fomia gnatcatcher (Polioptila californt. ca calij~rnica) was listed as three.nod on March 25, 1993, under the ~--daaeered Species Act o£1,773, as amendaa (Act). The f~ rule for,hi~ action was pllbli~hot in the Fcdeaal ~ on ~ 30, 1993 (58 Federal Register 16742). On Do-,-~ber 10, 1993, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, the U.S. Fish and grfidlife Service (Service) aefi-,~ specific conditions associa~ with cerm/n land use activities under which inci,t~-~rml mira of coastal California gnatc~rtchrrs and their habitat would not be a violation of section 9 ofth~ Act (58 Federal ~ 6~088). The coastal C~1ifirmi~ 15~-W~rcher, a small gray songbh-d, is a r~dent of scrub domin-ted plant commtmities from ~ Vcntma County ~oathward throut~ I.z)s -~-geles, Orange, R./ver~de, San Bea:nardino, and San Diego Cottatics, ~omi8 into Baja Califor~i-. Mexico, to appmx/mstely 30 dc~o~ North ~ near E1 Rosario (American Om/thologists' Union 1957; Atwood 1980, 1990; Jom:s and Ramirez 1995). The coastal California l/7,alx'atchrr is strongly The majority of plant species found/n ,age scrub m*c low-growing, drought-deciduous stm~bs and sub-shrubs, including California sagebra~ (,,lrtemi~la caliybrnica), California hw. kwheat (Ert~gonum fasciculatum), m~d sages (SaiWa rn~llg~ra, $. apia,,a) (HoUand 1986, Sawyer and K~l~-Wolf 1995). Other commonly oc~r~ species im:ludc lcmonadetxa~ (///ms /ntcgr/fol/a), coast goldmab~ (Isocoma met~.'esiO, (Lyc/um spp.). cliff spurge (Euphorbia trdsera), and jojoba (~.immonds/a c/n~u~ns/.v). Succulent species,' such as cacti (Opuntia littoralis, O. prolOrera Ferocactus vO'idescens), arid Dudle3~ spp. are -¢p~ in maritime sur. adort and sorehem coastal bluff scrut~ Sage sciub often occurs in a 1J~/~y, or mogaic, distrl'btrt/on prtterrl throt~out ~ rallg¢ of~ c, oas~ California g~x--~rher, Coastal California l~atc~..tchers also use chsparral, gragstmwt, and 'ripedan p12mt. communiti.s where they occur adj~ent to or tm~ixed with sage scrub. Although quantil~/ve data may ~ relatively little about 'coastal. ,c. aiifoml, g~mtcher use of these other habit__ % these areas may be c~/tical mxms ~ ind~an~nt conditions (r_g. droughI). Breeding tczrit~ies slso have been ~ocum~ in non-sage scrub hab/~ The breeding s~mson of the coastal C_.alifomia g, otc~tcher ~ from about February' 15 tilrough August 30, with the l:~k of nesting activity octira/rig from mid-Mamh through mid- May. Incuba/ion talam 14 days. The young fledge at 8 to 13idays ofag¢ and are depenrl~rt upon their pmamts for as little as thrcc to four ~ ('ERCE 1990)} but fiedglin~ rrmy associm= with thor pamms far several momhs. This protocol is based on the best aviahie scicn~c information regarrllng the detectability of the coastal C. alifomi~/p, atc-~tcher and is subje~ to change pending receipt of additional pcrtinc=rt 03/05/97 BIA OF SO CALIF ~003 ~ ~,,~t' tltt C. omml California (7n,,'tcat,-he.r From Mazuh 15 through $un~.30, a minlmlllI1 of six (6).~ shall bc conducl~:cl a~ toast one wt-~k apart The protocol fur the brt~ing sehson was design~ to pm'v{~ a 95% confid,-nc¢ lcvcI of~g coastal California gnatc.,~'tr~-h~rs'm a 0~/05/97 ~ED 15'~0 FA~ g0g~ J?l BIA OF SO C.~LIF ~004 Survey Pro~,ocolfor t/~ ¢om'ta/C~y'orn/a Gn,~cm'c/~¢r From J'uly 1 through Mm~ 14, a mi~mum of nine (~) survc'y~ shall be c, onduct~ aI least tw~ w~eks apm~ · Survey~ shall be conduct~ ~ 6:00 a_uz and 12.00 p.m. Surveys shall ~void. perio~ of~ssi~ or -hnorm~l hea~, win4 ~ fog, or other inclemem w~ber. Taped coastal Cal/famia ~,~c~ch~r vo~H~*1o//s shall be used only unfiI indiv/duals have been in/tially locaterS. Tapes shall not b~ us~ frequently or t~ ¢l/cit further Surve~ saatl b~ conductexl by slowly w~ldng surv~ rout~. Sit~s wi~ d~p canyons, nldge..~ ~ ~ .and ttgck shrub covez should b~ ~ mor~ slowly. Prev~ng site conditions ,,-4 prof~i~l judEmere'must b~ appti~l ~ de~mfin~ ~ppt~p~[~ ~ ~ ~ ~e c, ove~-,.d p~ day. Th~ factors may clic~__~ tha~ the maxim~ daily cow.age specified below'is not p~ under cm'min conditions. Jurisdictions r~cipa~, in the NCCP i.l~-~m s~-'tion ~(d') ~oc~a: o No mor~ than 100 acres (40 ha) shaI1 be mn-veyed per biologist per day. All o*h~r jurisrlictions: - No more than 80 acr~ (32 tin) shall be m.u'vcycd per bioloi/ist t~ day. No ~%c~npts ~ be ~ l:o closely approach or ex~rnln¢ coast~ C. aliforn~ ~s~-;rt~her ne~cs unles~ auItxoriz~ by S~rvice pennira. Th~ ~ aball .l:a'ovid~ ttm following iafonnafion in a r_-port tu ~ Carlsbad Field Ofii~ and th~ Califo,-ala ~ of Fi.~b. and C, mm= within 45 days fullowing th~ ~ location of the ~ ~ d~line~*e~ on a 7.5 mir~m? U-S. ~eological Survc'y topographic map aa: 1:24,000 and 1'.200 scale. B4 Nm'-es of all biolo[/i~ and associ~md personnel with refermc~ m ~ section 0(a)(1)(A) ~ numbs. A complet~ d~:ription of survey methods, inch,flirts, th~ n~ of acres surv~ed per biologist per hour and how many ~ acr~ surv~-~ed l~r day per biologist, th~ number and dar~ of mrvc~, ~an-t stop ~'imc of ~ ~n'~ey rout~ ckiincs~:d on maps, th~ umn~ and w~r c. onditiona ~ th~ b~-.~ng and ~ud of e.a~h ~urvcy, and how fr~lu~ntly t~ voc~H~'.~ons ~ ~ 03/05/97 WED 15'31 FAX g0g3~,. .571 BIA OF SO CALIF ~005 Sttrvey Protoc~ for the ~ C~,!ifornia Gnatcatcher Ce mapped qual/taliv~ de_~lptious of plant ~omxnunifie:s sgec~s and l~abitaz qualm) on and adjac~at to the a~a surveyed. De The -,--t~r, age (adult, iaaqx~a-,,tb~veaitr, dep~a,~ jtrvenilr, zec .,~t~y fledgedjuvem'le, rustling, ,,,,~,,own); sex of all coastal Califo~ ~-t~m~h;rrs, and color band info~z~on (from top t~ boaam and fzom ldt to zJght) if any. These data also shall be plotted on 1'.24~600 and 1:200 scale maps of the survey E. firm) ahall be s~b~ m tim C. azisbad Fie/d Office imm,-di,awty upon ~lmion. Raw/~.ld dam, not~ and otht:r.info,-~,,lioa ~ting form wo~ c,n,,d,,,nt~l tmd,:r th~s peamir shall be submi~ to ~J~ This grotocol ~nm ~ by the Sexvice's C. mdsbad Field Office, 2730 Loia:r Aveaxue West, Cadsbad, C..aEfornl _~ 92008. If you hav~ any quedohs regarding ~h¢ protocol please call 619-431-9440. O~/O$1g? WED 15'31 FAX 90939b~o71 BIA OF SO CALIF 006 Sttrvey ~col for ti~ Coast~ California Gnatcatcher Cited American Or-lthologists' Union. 1957. Cb-ckli~ of North American birds. 5th ed. American OmithologisIs' Union, Washi~~ D.C. .. Atwood, J. 1980. The United Slaws disuibuiioa of~ California blac. k-~ed Crnstx~tchcr. ~"e..n'ern B/rds 11: 65-78. Atwood, J. 1990. Status ~'~,i~w ofthe California g~tc-m~h~ (Poliopttla callforntc~). Manomit Bird Obs:rvaa~, Maaom~ Braden, G. a~. ~ B. Woulfe. 1995a. Observations on breeding. season detectability and a-urve~j~r tl~ Calij~rnia gnatcatcher (~dlioptila cali.~rntca cattforrdca). Unpublished mammmipt submitt~ to Western Rivcxaide Multiple Species Reserve Management Bradc~ G. and M. B. Woulfe. 1995b. Observan~ns on non-breeding season detectability and surveysj~r the Callfornta gnatcatcher (2~olioptita catifornica acdOrorrdca). Uvimblishexi ,,mnuscdpI submfi~i to Wesram l~vcrsidc MuRiplc Spcci~s ~ Manager Bnmsa~ P. F, NL S. Gilpin, J. F. O'I.,~aty, D. D. Murphy, and R. F. Noss. 1992. Coastal Sage Scrub Survw Guidclincs. Southern Califo,~ia Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Paxw. L Envirom~rml and Energy Servic~ Company. 1990. Phase I Report Ambcr Ridgn: O, tlfornl- Cmatc-t~-h-r Study. F. cp rt for ~h~ Counxy of San Diego Departm~t ofPis--inE and Laud Use Eavimnrn~aml ~ Dividom San Diego, California. Hollm~ R. 1986. A Description of~ Te. ctc~l~ial Natural Comm, m~es of C-nlifomia. California ~~at of Fi-_h and Cram~ October. Jones, C,. and R_ ~ 1995 Sigb6ng of California Cmatca~h~ in Veatura Cotmty. Po~ter p .tx~a:nt~t ~t th~ Synxposirrm on fll~ Biology of tim California Cr-ntc,~tchcr held 15-16 . S~pmmb~r, 1995, Univaxity of California, Riva~de. Mock, P. J., B. L..Ioncs, and J. K_onen~. 1990. California (},~stca~cher Survcy Guidelin,~. ERC Earira-mental and Enm~ Scrvic.~ Company, San Diego, California. Sawy~, J. and T. K~x:lcr-Wotf. 1995. A Manual of California ¥egemdon. Califo~ Nativc Plant Society. JERRY £AVES SUPERVISOR. FIFTH DISTRICT April 25, 1995 All HCP Steering Committee Members Re: VALLEY-WIDE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Dear Commi~ee Member: Enclosed is the final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). We have made the final changes that were discussed at the Steering Committee meeting on April 12, 1995. For those of you who will be signatories to this MOU, please process this document through the appropriate channels so that it will be signed by the proper individual. If possible, I request that this document be signed and returned by May 15, 1995. Should you have any questions, please contact Randy Sco~ of the County Planning Department at (909) 387-4146 or County Economic and Community Development Director Tom Laurin at (909) 387-4593. Sincerely, Enclosure JE:js _°2415-01 10 - !7-'D-31 .3.S7-zSG5 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERST~,,DING BY AND BETWEEN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, THE FIFTEEN AFFECTED CITIES IN SOUTHWESTERN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND ADDITIONAL UNDERSIGNED PARTICIPATING AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY. This Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum) is made and entered into as of the date of signature by and among the County of San Bernardino and the undersigned cities, state and federal agencies and other participating local ag. encies. The signatories collectively are referred to as the "Participating Agencies.' The Participating Agencies for the purposes of this Memorandum are those that have local land use authority, are self-governing local agencies or are state or federal agencies with land management authority and/or jurisdiction over plant and animal species and natural habitats which are the subject of the Habitat Conservation Plan. WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies are among the local governments, self-governing agencies, and state and 'federal agencies that have administrative responsibility or regulatory authority over lands within the planning area that are subject to Federal and State statutes including the Endangered Soecies Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quali~ Act (CEQA), the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Federal Fish and VVildlife Coordination Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, state planning and zoning laws, and local ordinances, and, WHEREAS, these statutes direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") and the California Department of Fish and Game ("Department") to conserve, protect, and enhance plant, fish, and wildlife species and their habitats from adverse effects resulting from public and private development and actions, and, WHEREAS, the various statutes and sources of authority under which the Participating Agencies function do not empower any individual agency to implement a comprehensive, mufti-agency program for long-term viability of species of concern, and, WHEREAS, the Pad. icJpating Agencies recognize the need for comprehensive and coordinated protection of species of concern, and the need to integrate their responsibilities and authorities in a coordinated manner to ensure successful, timely, and mutually beneficial resolution of issues involving species of concern, and, WHEREAS, the sta~e and federal agencies padicipating in this Memorandum will ensure thai their regulatory decisions and land use practices will comply with state and federal , u,_s and regulations and that their manaoement environmental and endangered soecies star actions will promote appropriate use and protection of sensitive biological areas under their jurisdictions, and, 2.1 Protecf;io,, of Covered Species. To conserve and protect covered species and the ecosystems on which they depend in perpetuity within southwestern San Bernardino County pursuant to the ESA and CESA, and not preclude recovery of listed species. 2.2 Provide ~qu'rb/ in Regulation. To provide a comprehensive means to coordinate and standardize mitigation and compensation requirements so that public and private actions. will be regulated equally and consistently, reducing delays, .e:<penses, and regulatory duplication.. It is intended that the ptan will eliminate uncertainty in developing private projects and will prescribe a system to ensure that the' costs of compensation and mitigation are applied equitably to all. " .. ., · 2.3 Reduce Cumulative Fifeors. To prescribe mitigation measures for private development and agency actions to lessen or avoid cumulative impacts to the covered species and eliminate, whenever possible, case-by-case review of impacts of projects when consistent with the mitigation and compensation requirements prescribed by the plan. -. 2.4 incideni:al Take Permit. To obtain the necessary permits or take authorizations from the Sewice and the Department to authorize the incidental take of tisted speci.es covered in the ptan in connection with otherwise ta~rful' activities within the area subject to the ptan as provided by Section 10(a) of the ESA and Section 2081 of the CESA. · ..... . _ ' '-' .. 2.5 Conservation (Pre-tistina) Aoreements. The MSHCP is intended to provide for the long term preservation of covered species not currently listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the ESA or CESA such that should they become listed, the umor..s....n or exlraordinary" conditions, Department and the Service shall, barring aLrthorJze incidental take for the species. 'To accomplish this, all non-listed species being considered under this plan ~11 be treated as ff they are already listed. "Unforeseen or extraordinary" conditions shall be defined in the MSHCP and its implementation Agreement, but such conditions, for the purposes of this MOU, are generally understood to be: (1) environmental, demographic and/or genetic stochastic circumstances that were not and coutd not be anticipated during the preparation of the Pianl oi' (2)information developed during. MSHCP implementation'monitoring that identifies consequences of MSHCP implementa~.ion procedures that may jeopardize the Continued existence of the species... ," ~ -; · .:; . 2.6 Provide Oversight. Control Measures and Standards of Success.. 'To establish a means in which the MSHCP mill provide appropriate and successful methods of: (1) reporting; (2) accounting audits' (3) funding (shor~-and long term)' (4) periodic and independent biological evaluation' and' (5) opportunities' for adequate public participatic)n. ' ' CESA by incorp..~ting "Pre-listing" commitments ir,,.~ the Agreement. It is intended that the Agreement will be entered into by all Pa~icipating Agencies approving the conservation plan, and any private party having an obligation or role in. implementing the conservation plan. The Agreement will provide specific mitigation commitments for private parties and Public Agencies conducting otherwise lawful activities, and assurances by the Participating Agencies to prevent the imposition of inconsistent or overlapping mi~igation/compensat!on requirements under any Federal, State, or local - 3.4 .' CFQA AND NFPA Compliance. Concurrent with preparation and release of the draft and final .plans, a joint environmental review document will be prepared and released which will satisfy Federal and State requirements. - . , · . _ 3.5'. Decision..-The acceptance of the plan, the CEQA and NEPA'environmental documents and the Section 1O(a) permit applications and the signing of an Implementation Agreement by the Service will result in the issuance of Section 1O(a) permits, pursuant to Section-11::)(a) of the ESA, to the local agencies that are participants in the planning effort for the public and private tands involved. · The acceptance of the plan and the CEQA environmental documentation and the signing of an implementation Agreement by the Department will result in the issuance of 2081 take authorizations for the covered species that are adequately protected by the plan pursuant to the CESA to local agencies that are participants in the plan for the pub]ic and private lands involved. Other appropriate decision documents will be issued by the Participating Agencies. .. 3.6 Implementation. Following or concurrent wffh the issuance of the biological opinion, adoption of the plan, and receipt of the 10(a) pen-nits and 2081 take authorizations, the signatories will revise their land use plans and policies to conform wi~h the plan and the 10(a) permits and 2081 take authorizations or withdraw from the program. Take authorizations may not be in effect until land use ptans are amended. Should any participant:withdraw from ~he program, ~t may adversely affect the pJan area and covered species list and ~herefore may require appropriate modifications of the plan...The signatories will also ensure that future plans, policies, and actions will be in cor~formance wiSh-the-plan-and the Section 10(a) perrafts and 2081 take ..~ , . authorizations.-. - -'' -~-:-. ....: " -' _'- F',~ .~:' · ' -- - - Should the need arise to amend the plan in accordance'with established procedures .. , due t~)i'inew information or .the development of more effective management prescriptions or techniques, such amendment will occur through a cooperative effort involving the agencies and the public in the southwestern San Elernardino County thai · are subject to 1O(a) permits 'and 2081 take authorizations or biological opinions that may have already been issued. · _ - 3.7 Conservation Strateoy... The plan shall maximize the use of appropriate publicly'-o~vned lands, comply v~ff~h legally mandated conservation measures, and provide incentives for conservation of private lands (land acquisition, density transfers, land svJaps, tax incentives, mitigation banks, etc.). 4.3 Plan Cc ,finance. In order to be ape. .~tee, Participating Agencies will ensure that their land use plans and ::olicies are revised to conform with "~ , m.. approved plan and the 10(a) permits and 2081 take authorizations, and any other applicable regional, state or federal resource management plans. 4.4 Plan Preparation Funding. Funding for this plan will come from a variety of sources- Participating Agency contributions, endowments from private or non-profit entities, matching grant programs such as offered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and other State and Federal funds such as those established by the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), Traffic Man. agement Environmental Enhancement CI'MEE) program and Land and Water Conservation Fund program. The Participating' Agencies will also provide a fair share contribution to funding the plan preparation and implementation by allocating appropriate staff and support sen/ices. 4.5 Proposed Schedule_. Signatories acknowledge that time is of the essence and hereby agree to make their best efforts to complete and obtain final approval of the plan by a target date of June 30, 1995. A timeline setting forth specific dates for the completion of each identified task necessary to complete the plan is contained in Attachment D. 4.6 Environmental Compliance. In recognition of the goal of achieving the timely preparation' and approval of the plan, all Participating Agencies hereby agree that they will submit any and all comments on the appropriate environmental documentation on a timely basis, unless otherwise provided by law. 5.0 ROLE OF THF COUNTY The County of San Bernardino agrees to provide the following resources and to perform the following func--d:ions according to the funding mechanisms agreed to by the cities, local agencies, county and other interested pardee: .5.1 J end Aoencv. Act as lead agency for the plan. As lead agency, the County will provide overall leadership and coordination among the Participating Agencies in the development of this plan. This includes functioning as Local Lead Agency in complying with the CEQA in conjunction with the Department and coordinating NEPA compliance in coordination with the Service. 5.2 Planninq Team Personnel. Provide the primary members of the planning team. 5.3 Facilities Eouipment. and Support. Provide office facilities to house the planning team and orovide necessary support such as off'ice machine supplies, etc. The County also agrees to orovide automated support, such as word processing and geo~oraphic information system products directly or through contracts. 5.4 Data. Provide any relevant data in its mossession for the use of the planning team and the Pa~icipating Agencies and secure additional data on public lands as olan and its ulti~. .e implementation, the Participat,,.~ Agencies will utilize the Interim Project , ,_v~_~,, Process, included as Attachment F to consider the po~en~al effects of individual projects on the MSHCP. 6.3 Issuance of Section 10(a~ Permits and 2081 Take Authorizations. The Service and the Department agree to issue the required permits and take authorizations for listed species to the local agencies upon finding that the plan and permit/authorization applications meet the ~:riteria for issuance of an incidental take permit and authorization contained in Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA and Section 2081 of the Public Resources Code for those species through the establishment of a preserve system that conserves adequate habitat and provides for the retention and management of such preserves in perpetuity. The Service and the Department also agree to provide for. expedited issuance of Section 10(a) perinks and 2081 authorizations for Covered Species not currently listed pursuant to the ESA or CESA in the event that a non-listed covered species Js listed in the future. 6.4 Assurances to Plan Padici~ants. The approved plan shall provide assurances to Participating Agencies and landowners that if the pian is implemented as proposed, no additional land or financial compensation will be sought from them w~hout their consent if "unforeseen" or "extraordina,W" circumstances should arise with respect to ekher listed or unlisted species that are covered by the properly functioning plan. tt is understood that species not covered by the plan will not be afforded the same assurances as those that are covered. However, in the event that a species not addressed in the MSHCP is listed at some future date, the Service and the Depaf~ment agree to use the MSHCP as a forum for addressing the conservation needs of the species as required by the ESA and CESA in the same manner that Covered Species have been addressed. All Participating Agencies will make every attempt at accommodating the conservation requirements of the newly listed species wffhin the existing conservation strategies and preserves of the MSHCP. 7.0 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Good Faith. This Memorandum is entered into freely and in good faith by the signatory agencies. Each agency affirms that execution of this document is within its legal purview and agrees to fulfill the role slated herein and any other tasks and responsibilities incumbent upon Participating Agencies. All of the Participating Agencies by signature to this Memorandum agree to diligently pursue completion of the subject MSHCP and endorse consensus decisions of the Steering Committee as long as the proposed actions are within the statutory and regulatory ability of their res:)ective agency. 7.2 Interim Project Reviews and Approvals. All Pa~icipating Agencies recognize that planning efforts undertaken pursuant to this Memorandum can be prolonged beyond anticipated planning schedules due to various unforeseen circumstances. All parties agree that interim land use actions shall be considered on a case by case basis within '~'~ ~.- ~n~ purview of each agen~';'~s: individual jurisdiction and in com.~liance with existing laws and regulations. The MSHCP ~)lanning effort shall not be cause to create a "de facto" moratorium for on-c~oing, otherwise legally adequate programs and IN WITNESS WHEREC, , THE PARTIES HERETO have executed this Memorandum, on the date(s) set fod. h belowi' as of the day and year first above written, ,. By Date Chair, San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and Flood Control District San Bernardino, California - ._ - ..~ .. By Date Mayor, City of Chino Chino, California By Mayor, City of Chino Hills .... Chino Hills, California By Mayor, City of Cotton Cotton,' California Date Date By Mayor, City of Fontaria .... Fontana', California By Mayor, City of Grand _Terrace Grand Terrace, California By Mayor, City of Highland Highland, California Date Date 11 By Mayor, Ci~ of Yucaipa Yucaipa, California Date By. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon By California State Director, Bureau of Land Management Date By District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers By Forest Supervisor, San Bernardino National Forest U.S. Forest Service ~y Director, California Department of Fish and Game ~3y Region Director, Southern California Edison Company Date District Manager, Southern California Gas Company Date ~y Regional Director, Metro[}otitan Water District Date 13 ATTACHMENT A BOUNDARIES OF THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLaN _ . The Habitat Conservation Plan for the San Bernardino Valley will encompass the area generally' bounded by the county lines between San Bernardino County and Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties on the west and south and the San Bernardino National Forest Boundary on the north and east. Species Status Federal State Coast homed lizard Phrynosoma coro~atum blainviltei San Bernardino ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatu~ modestus Coastal rosy boa J ichanura triviraata rosafusca Coast patch-nosed snake Satvadora hexalipi~ vir~uffea Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii Birds White-tailed kite FJanus leucurus FC2IFSS FC2/FSS FC2/FSS .. FC2IFSS FC2IFSS . ,. CSC CSC CFP Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Sharp-shinned hawk Acci~iter striatu,~. ' Cooper's Hawk AcciPiteT cooperil'. FeTTUginous hawk ~uteo reoati~ Golden eagle Aquila chry, saetos canadensis American peregrine falcon Falco ~)ereorinatus Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus o FSS FSS FC2 FE FSS CFP CSC CSC .......... · . , CSC .. CSC SE CSC B-2 Species Status Federal State San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit I epus calffomicus bennettii _ Los Angetes pocket mouse Perognathus tonoimembris brevinasus San Diego pocket mouse ChaetQdipu.5 fallax fallax San Bernardino kangroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus. ramona San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma tepida intermedia FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 CSC .. 'CSC CSC _ CSC CSC_ _ CSC_. ' ' ' Family Federal Status State CNPS _ ._ Many-stemmed dudleyea Dudteya mutticaulis .. Santa Ana River woollystar Friastrum densifolium sanctorum CRS FC21FSS PLM FE SE Hot Spring fimbristylis Fimbristytis thermalis California bedstraw Galium ¢alffornicum primum CYP.. FC3B RUB FC2 SR lB Los Angeles sunflower Heliathus nu~atlii parishii Smooth tarplant " 'Hemiz~nia p.~'r~aens' taevis Southern California black walnut JugJans califomica catffomica Coulter's goldenfields I asthenia ptabrata coutteri AST FC2 AST ..... FC2 JUG AST FC2 1A 18 Robinson's peppergrass I e~)idium viroinicum robinsonii BRA OCetiated Humbolt I ilium humbotdtii oceltatum - ...... LIL ......FC2 . Parish's desert-thorn I ycium Darishii . . Pafish's bush mallow Matacothamnus prishii SOL MLV FC2 Pringte's mortardelia Monardella ~)rinatei ]_AM FC2 California spinefio~ver Mucronea californJca PLG -. - lB 1A 1A ATTACHMENT C LIST OF PARTICIPATING GENCIr-S AND POINT OF CONTACT A San Bernardino County - Cffy of Planning Department Randy Scott, Planning Manager 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415--0182 (909) 387-4146 _. (_909) 387-3223 (FAX) · . . _ .. , . - China -.. Community Development Department Jerry Bium, City Planner... . 13220 Central Avenue China, CA 91708 (909) 591-9812 Ext. 520 (909) 591-6829 (FAX) City of Chino Hills Community Development Department Eric Name, Senior Planner 2001 Grand Avenue China Hills, CA 91709-4869 (909) 590-1511 Ext. 223 (909) 590-5646 (FAX) c~ of Cotton Public Works Department John C. Hutton, Director 650 North La Cadena Drive Cotton, CA 92324-2893 (909) 370-5055 (909) 370-5154 (FAX) . Cffy of FontohO Planning Division Dennis Woods, Associate Planner 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontoho, CA 92334 (909) 350-6724 (9139) 350-7691 (FAX) City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department Patrizia Materossi, Communky Development Director 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 (g0g) 824-6521 (909) 783-7629 (FAX) City of City of Highland Planning Department Steve Walker, C~y Planner - 26985 East Base Line Avenue Highland, CA 92346 . _. (909) 864-6861 Ext. 215 .- ,* (909) 862-3180 (FAX) :. · . Lama Linda '- Planning Department Dan Smith, Director of Community Development 25541 Barton Road Lama Linda, CA 92354 (909) 799-2810 (909) 799-2890 (FAX) City of Montdair · Community Development Department Rob Clark, Community Development Director 5111 Bonita Street Montdair, CA 91763-0808 (g0g) 625-9431 (9o9) 621-1584 (FAX) C'rty of Ontario Planning Departmenl Otto Kroutil, City Ptanner 303 East *B' Street, Civic Center Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 39%2506 (909) 391-0592 (FAX) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Departmen[ Scot~ Murphy, Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91'730 (COg) 989-1851 (909) 948-1s48 (FAX) City of Redlands Planning Depar~men~ Jeff Shave, Planning Direr, or 30 Calan Stree[ Red,ands, CA 92373 (909) 798-7555 (g0g) 7.82-7503 (FAX) C-i o -o ..--, Z ~j,- ,_~ .E~ -'r- .o...~ r-- o C) rJ3 rd Or-> ,_ _-- ~u ~ "" ~ ;--_-6' ~ ~- r'J 0 E Aq-i"ACHMENT F ,, INTERIM PROJECT REVIEW GUIDELINES This document establishes an agreement among the U.S. Fish and W~ldiife Service ("Service"), the. California Department of Fish and Game ("Department") and all other federal, state'End local agencies participating in the San Bernardino Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) pertaining to an Interim Project Review Process to be utilized during the preparation of the Plan. · ' '' :-L '- ' ...... °' .. The Interim Project Review Guidelines (1PRG)t~a~e tws'related purposes' (1)to ensure eady review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and the Department so that projects which could preclude the successful development of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in the development review process, and (2) to provide a opportunity for dialogue between the lead agency, the project applicant and the regulatory agencies to explore alternatives or raJtigation measures which could minimize and mitigate potential.project impacts. .. · ... Local Agencies have identified that significant problems have arisen in the past when comments on .proposed proje~s are not received from .the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.: Fish and Wildlife Service u.0til very late in the lead agency's decision- making process.'-' -To address this problem with respect to projects which may have the potential 'to preclude !o~g-term conservati~)ri strategies addressed in the MSHCP or impact the viability of biotogica!. resources, t. he Service .and the Department are committing to meet with the appropriate project proponent at the earliest feasible point. Early identffqcation df potential impads will assist in the preparation of environmental documents for the 'project and pTovide the opportunity to identify potential project alternatives and mitigation measures for"consideration in compliance with Public .. . Resources § 21DB0.3(a). ...... . :'..~ . ':;-,-: The IPRG specifically does not create an add~ionai layer of project review nor to confer .. · any additional authority. on the' Department, the _Se.rvice:.~or-. lead agency. '-The recommendatidns of the.'iSe.~Jce 'and Department are advisory; the final decision'of whether to a'pp~:ove,' rnod'rby,.or' deqy'a project remains Jn the.hands of the lead agency pursuantto existin laws.' : _ :.~.. - .- --' -- ..- -_ ;..-. · :..-.. L.r..: ::°;~.? ........ :--.~... ..... . ..... A. Guidelines f~'~.Pr~j~c~:~:'(0 Be included in the ReView Process'- .-'-. Each lead agency' and/dr project proponent shall determine whether a project should be r..vt..w..d pursuant to the 1PRG. Generally, the lead agency or project proponent may consider that a prpj.ect as defined by CE©A § 21065, except those projects statutory or categorically.exempt 'from CECLA, located ~ithin ~he sensitive-habitat areas of the MSHCP boundaries, has'the potential :[o precJude long term preservation ptanning or impact the viability of biological resources. and it is appropriate to utilize the tPRG. The lead agency retains the discretion to de~e,-mine that. a project within the' plan area, because of the ,~rojects characteristics, has no Jinx)act on the .viability of biological resources and would not oreciude long term preservation planning. -i C. o . o PROCEDURE ~1~' At least three weeks prior to the desired IPRG meeting date the Planning Director/designee or project proponent shall notify the Service and the department and the MSHCP contact person in writing of any project(s) which the lead agency or ¢roject proponent wishes to have reviewed at the IPRG meeting. For each project , the lead agency/project proponent will transmit two copies of each of-the following: a location map on a 7.5' quad sheet identifying the project site a site plan or other illustration depi~ing the project as proposed the project application or other summary sheet identifying existing general plan designation ahd zoning, and any proposed changes; existing land use on the site; and the type and intensity of land use proposed. the Initial Study or Environmental Assessment and a biological resource survey ff one has been prepared; if one has not been prepared then a description of the site including vegetation, presence of a floodplain, blueline stream, or other environmental resource, hazard or constraint, and a list of sensitive species which have the potential to occur on site. Any other information deemed pertinent by the lead agency. The lead agency or project proponent shall be responsible for notifying the other party of the date, time, and location of the tPRG review meeting, ff the attendance of the project applicant is desired. At the review meeting, the lead agency, project proponent, the Service and the Department will have the opportunity to discuss the project, answer questions, etc. A representative from an adjacent jurisdiction which may be affected by the proposed project may also attend the meeting at that jurisdiction's discretion. At the review meeting ff possible, otherwise in not more than 30 days after the review meeting, the Service and the Department representatives shall provide the following information tO the ~ead agency and the project applicant: statement as to whether, in the agency's opinion: The project will not preclude long term conservation planning or adversely impact the viability of a species. The project has the potential to preclude long term conservation planning or adversely impact the viabJJi~h/' Of a species and additional studies on specific species may be necessary, and project. attema~ibes and/or mitigation measures need to be assessed in the environmental revie~¥ process. A project may be scheduled for an additional IPRG meeting at an appropriate date if there is a need for the Service or the De~aflment to respond to a Draft Environmental Impact Repor~ or Mitigated Negative Declaration. F-3 JERRY EAVES SUP£~VI$OR. FI,'-TH DISTRICT August 14, 1995 All HCP Steering Committee Members Re' VALLEY-WIDE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMENDMENTS Dear Committee Member: Now that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed by the majority of participating agencies, the County is moving forward to also approve the document. I believe this is an appropriate point at which to improve the organizational formality of our coalition. County Counsel has drafted some changes to the MOU language that will accomplish this objective by formalizing the Coordinating Commi~ee and identifying its composition. This committee would consist of two representatives from the County and one representative from each other signatory agency. There also would be oppodunity to appoint representatives from other interested groups as deemed appropriate. The MOU is being presented to the Board of Supervisors for adoption in this revised form. I am asking all the agencies that have already signed the MOU to review these · changes and present the revised MOU to the appropriate approving authority for adoption. Attached is a clean copy of the revised MOU. A strike-out and underlined version of the affected sections is provided for your reference. Should you have any questions, please contact Randy Scott of the County Planning Depa~ment at (909) 387-4146. Sincerely, ES Supervisor, Fifth District JE:js Attachments A'i-FACHMENT C LIST OF F;~RTICIPATING AGENCIES AND POINT OF CONTACT San Bernardino County Planning Department Randy Scott, Platming ~anager 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182 (909) 387-4146 - (909) 387-3223 (FAX) City of Highland Planning Department Steve Walker, City Planner 26985 East Base Line Avenue Highland, CA 92348 (909) 864-6861 Ext. 215 (909) 852-3180 (FAX) City of City of City of C~y of City Chine Community Development Department Jerry Blum, City Planner. 13220 Central Avenue Chine, CA 91708 (g0g) 590-5520 (909) 59%6829 (FAX).. Chine Hills Community Developme_nt Department Jeff Adams, Planner I .. 2001 Grand Avenue . Chine Hills, CA 91709-4'869 (9Og) 590-1511 Ext'. 286 .. (909) 59o-5645 (FAX) Cotton Public Works Depaf~men[ John C. Hutton, Director 550 North La Cadena Drive Colton, CA 92324-2893 _ · . (909) 370-5055 (909) 370-5154 (FAX) ' ' ., Fontana : , _ Planning Division .-. Charles LaClaire, Deputy Planning Manager 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontaria, CA 92334 (909) 350-7627 (909) 350-6513 (FAX) Grand Terrace Community Developmen[ Department PatrJzia Materassi, Commun~y Developmen[ Director 22795 Badon Road Grand Terrace, CA 9231 3 (909) $24o5521 (909) 783-7529 (FAX) City of Loma Linda Planning Departmen[ Dan Smith, Director of C~mmunky Development 25541 Barton Road Loma Linda, CA 92354 (909) 799-2830 (909) 799-2890 (FAX) City of Montctair --- Communff, y Development Depadment Rob Clark, Communfty Development Director 5111 Senfro Street Montclair, CA 91763-0808 (909) 525-9431 (909) 521-1584 (FAX) City of Ontario Planning Department Otto Kroutil, City Planner 303 East 'B' Street, Civic Center Ont. a,do. CA 91764 (909) 391-2506 (909) 391-0592 (FAX) City of Rancho Cucamonga -- Planning Department ..... ' Scott t~urphy, Associ;~te Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga; CA 91730 (909) 989-1851 (909) 948-1648 (FAX) City of Redlands Planning Departmenl Eric Norris, Principal Planner 30 Cajon Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 798-7555 (909) 798-7503 (FAX) C-i ' AMENDMENTS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING "' BY AND BE I-WEEN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, THE FIFTEEN AFFECTED CITIES IN SOUTH. WESTERN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND ADDITIONAL .. . - UNDERSIGNED PARTICIPATING AGENCIES · . . . . FOR .THE P. URPOSE ' OF DEVELOPING 'AND IMPLEMENTING A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY. -. . __ -- Page 2, First Paragraph and First "WHEREAS" .. . _ ., This Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum) is made and entered into as of the date of signature by and among the County of San Bernardino and the undersigned cffies, state and federal agencies and other participating local agencies and public utilities. The signatories collectively are referred to as the "Participating · Agencies."-The Participating Agencies for the purposes of this Memorandum are public utilities and those aoencies that have local land use authority, are self- governing local agencies or are state or federal agencies with land management authority and/or jurisdiction over plant and animal species and natural habitats which are the subject of 1he Habitat Conservation Plan. · WHEREAS, the ' o. overnmental PaeJcJpating .Agencies are among the local governments, self-governing agencies, 'and state and federal agencies that have administrative responsibility or regulaton/authority over lands within the planning area that are subject to Federal and State statutes including the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Federal Migratory Bird'Treaty AcL the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, state planning and zoning laws, and local ordinances, and, Page 2, Section 1.0 1.0 PURPOS?S OF MFMORANDUM The oovernmental Participating Agencies have administrative and/or regulatory responsibilities over species of concern in the southwestern San Bernardino County. They have voluntarily entered into this Memorandum for the following purposes' Page 6, Section 4.1 4.1 General Roles and Responsibilities. The Coun~ of San Bernardino shall act as the functional lead agency utilizing "-'- . ~n.. assistance, support and coooeration of the '4, '..,~ cld_s and local agencies in preoaration of the plan. The count. , c~es and local To' From: Re: MEMO Andrew K. Hartzell, Esq. (Hewin & McGuire, LLP) Liam Davis, NCCP Assoc. Wildlife Biologist (California Department Fish and Game) Records of California gnatcatchers along the alluvial fans in southwestern San Bernardino County I. As promised I have enclosed California Department of Fish and Game (Department) Natural Diversity Data Base (2XrDDB) California gnatcatcher (CAGN) records for areas east and west of the Lauren property along the alluvial fan. I distinctly remember the late James S. Bums telling me that he had several sightings of CAGN along the Eftwanda fan. I requested James to complete a NDDB form for one of his CAGN sightings at Eftwanda and submit to the Department. James also recorded a CAGN sighting in the in press manuscript that we co- authored as well. I am to believe that you have a copy of this in press manuscript, "Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptilia californica californica) in San Bernardino County." Bob McKeman, San Bernardino County Museums, would be able to give you testimony of other occasions where he has personally observed CAGN along the Etiwanda fan. H. Todd Keller-Wolf, Ph.D. (Vegetation Ecologist, Department Fish and Game) lef~ message to me that the State sensitivity ranking for Riversidean Alluvial Fan Saee Scrub as a S 1.1 "very threatened" natural community in southern California occurred in 1985. Please contact me if I can be of more assistance at 619-467-4207. b:tmtlzell.mmem lhd ** California Department of Fish and Game ***** Natural Diversity Data Base ** * POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA * California Gnatcatcher * Status * Federal: Threatened * State: None * * ---Habitat Associations--- NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Other Lists CDFG: Special Concern Audubon: CNPS List: CNPS RED Code: * General: OBLIGATE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BELOW 2500 * * FT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. . * Microhabitat: LOW, COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN ARID WASHES, ON MESAS & SLOPES. * * NOT ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ARE OCCUPIED. * *** Element ID: ABPBJ08080 **************************************************** Occurrence Number: 468 Quality: Good Type: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Main Info Source: BURNS, J. S. 1994 (OBS) --Dates Last Seen-- Element: 1994/06/17 Site: 1994/06/17 Quad Summary: Cucamonga Peak (3411725) County(ies): San Bernardino Location: BETWEEN THE MOUTH OF EAST ETIWANDA CANYON AND DAY CANYON WASH, 3 MILES NORTH OF ETIWANDA. Lat/Long: 34d 10m 04s / 117d 31m 55s Township: 01N UTM: Zone-ll N3780724 E450968 Range: 06W Mapping Precision: SPECIFIC (80m Mile) Section: 17 SW Qtr Symbol Type: POINT Meridian: S Group Number: More Information? N Acres: 0 Map Index Number: 26335 More Map Detail? N Elevation: 2275 ft Threats- ALTHOUGH PARCEL IS A MITIGATION PURCHASE, TRESPASSING, VANDALISM, DUMPING, SHOOTING, AND ORV ACTIVITY OCCURS. Comments: Distribution Notes - BIRD OBSERVED ON AN ALLUVIAL FAN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PAVED ROAD BELOW THE ENTRA~NCE GATE. Ecological Notes - HABITAT CONSISTS OF RIVERSIDEAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ON AN OLDER, ROCKY ALLUVIAL TERRACE; DOMINANT PLANTS INCLUDE SALVIA MELLIFERA, ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM, SALVIA APIANA, AND ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM. General Notes - 1 ADULT FEMALE OBSERVED CALLING AS IT MOVED THROUGH WHITE SAGE. ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THE SURROUNDING AREA IS TARGETED FOR DEVELOPMENT, THIS PARCEL WAS PURCHASED AS MITIGATION FOR STATE ROUTE 30 IMPACTS TO DOWNSTREAM HABITATS. Owner/Manager - UNKNOWN RareFind Report Date of Report- 07/02/97 Government/Conservation Client Date Information Purchased: 01/15/97 Page 1 o c.% uua-..t.3 .-~rnia Department. of Fish and Game ***** Natural Diversity Data Base ** * POLIOPTILA CALI FORNI CA " California Gnatcatcher * Status * Federal: Threatened * State: None * * ---Habitat Associations--- NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State- S2 Other Lists CDFG: Special Concern Audubon: CNPS List: CNPS RED Code: * General: OBLIGATE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BELOW 2500 * * FT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. * * Microhabitat: LOW, COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN ARID WASHES, ON MESAS & SLOPES. * * NOT ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ARE OCCUPIED. * *** Element ID: ABPBJ08080 **************************************************** Occurrence Number: 36 Quality: Good Type: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Main Info Source: ATWOOD, J. 1980 (LIT) --Dates Last Seen-- Element: 1994/02/12 Site: 1994/02/12 Quad Summary: Ontario (3411716) County(ies): Los Angeles Location: ROBERT J. BERNARD BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION/RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN, N OF HWY 66 & E OF MILLS AVE, CLAREMONT. Lat/Long: 34d 06m 32s / 117d 42m 37s Township: 01S UTM: Zone-ll N3774282 E434444 Range: 08W Mapping Precision: SPECIFIC (0 Mile) Section: 03 SW Qtr Symbol Type: POLYGON Meridian: S Group Number: 02841 More Information? N Acres: 78.5 Map Index Number: 02841 More Map Detail? N Elevation: 1300 ft Threats: THREATS INCLUDE SURROUlXrDING URBANIZATION AND POSSIBLE CONVERSION OF THE FIELD STATION INTO MORE COLLEGE BUILDINGS. Comments: Distribution Notes - FIELD STATION IS IN VARIOUS STAGES OF RECOVERY FROM DISTURBANCE - FROM INTRODUCED GRASSES TO GOOD COASTAL SAGE SCRUB. Ecological Notes - SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT, ON AN ALLUVIAL FLOODPLAIN. HABITAT IS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB, DOMINATED BY ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA, ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM, SALVIA MELLIFERA, AND SAMBUCUS MEXICANA. General Notes - 5-10 PAIRS ESTIMATED DURING A 1980 STUDY. ON 12 FEBRUARY 1994, 3 INDIVIDUALS WERE OBSERVED. Owner/Manager - CLAREMONT UNIVERSITY RareFind Report Date of Report: 07/02/97 Government/Conservation Client Date Information Purchased: 01/15/97 Page 2 ,/nia Department,of Fish and Game ***** POLIOPTiLA CALIFORNICA California Gnatcatcher * Status * Federal: Threatened * State: None * * ---Habitat Associations--- NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Natural Diversity Data Base ** -Other Lists * CDFG: Special Concern * Audubon: * CNPS List: * CNPS RED Code: * * General: OBLIGATE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BELOW 2500 * * FT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. * * Microhabitat: LOW, COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN ARID WASHES, ON MESAS & SLOPES. * * NOT ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ARE OCCUPIED. * *** Element ID: ABPBJ08080 **************************************************** Occurrence Number: 104 Quality: Unknown Type: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Main Info Source: WFVZ (MILS) --Dates Last Seen-- Element: 1918/05/12 Site: 1918/05/12 Quad Summary: Ontario (3411716) County(ies): Los Angeles Location: INDIAN HILL, CLAREMONT. Lat/Long: 34d 06m 59s / 117d 42m 45s Township: 01S UTM: Zone-ll N3775092 E434294 Range: 08W Mapping Precision: NON-SPECIFIC (1/5 Mile) Section: 03 NW Qtr Symbol Type: POINT Meridian: S Group Number: 02843 More Information? N Acres: 0 Map Index Number: 02843 More Map Detail? N Elevation: 1380 ft Threats: Comments: General Notes - EGG SET FROM A NEST IN CHOLLA CACTUS. Owner/Manager - UNKNOWN RareFind Report Date of Report: 07/02/97 Government/Conservation Client Date Information Purchased: 01/15/97 Page 3 J~l, 2. t997 i0'05,~ N~. 9245 ?. i/2 .~o,2 t- 7_ PCR Planning Consul~an[s Researck Irvine To: ~'~ 4--,~p~..~_ Date: Company: ~~xl" g. Az/-,~qz~ From' ~..,T~ k'~:.~'5o~ Job No: Remarks' Hard Copy " .I will £ollow ~ '~will not follow Number of Pages ~' I Fax Number I l,~ff ~ ~,,~ - 0~'~ PCR PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH 18881 Von Karman, Suite 650 IrvMe, Cali/omia 92612 (714) 752-5452 FAX (714) 752-1307 MODEM (714) 752-11 I0 Note: If there are any problems with this fax t,'ansmission, p/ease call Jul. 2.1gg7 ~0'05AM b'o. 9245 ?. 2/2 101 00 '00 00:00 212 P02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA~$ U~ITED.-FOR ~EASONABLE =XPAN$ION. a ~on-profit unincorporated association PLAINTIFF (S) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; BRAD individual, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS GRAkIN, an individual, in Does 1-20 CVw g?- 4a2 GHK(CTx) SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S), You are .hereby summoned and required to file with this court and sex-re upon MALISSA MATHAWAY McKEITH Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is: LOEB & LOEB LLP ~000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los. Angeles, California 90017-2475 an answer to the complaint which is herewith served u~on you within ~5 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. JUL I) 2-199 f DATE: CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT By Deputy Clerk (SEAL OF THE COURT) c-v- ~.A (~_/e'7) SUMMONS 10! 00 '00 00:00 R-~ZO Joo-59Z 212 P0,.3 07~03197 ':59A~;Jef'F-4~ ~4cq3;Pa?e :/2 PROOF' O~' SEt..vIEZ OF St,f~. OK~ AN~ ~u~ua~t CO F.~.C~v.P. 4(c3 and chac ~ ~vcd ch~ ~u~n~ and (%"yl, lz oR PRXN"I') 5. kdd~¢~a, City and s-.a~e: UPC~ A 5TA,T:Z: OR .Kt~[CIP~L C~X~O~A~ICl~ OR OZ~R GOV~~AL ~IZATI~ 5U~ ~ SUIT, C.C.P. 415.30{a) J F.R.Ctv.P. 4(d) {4) , ~ deliveglnq 4 ~ o~ thin F ~ MA~L A/~ ~~ of no~ice a~ c~4il fetegrid CV-4I B {L1/83) C~ncinu~ o~ I~erie 101 00 ~00 00~00 2~2 P04 U~O~ A :X]FL~ST:C OR FOR~IG~ COR~ORATZ~14 OR U~ A P~~RIP O'R ~ _~___, tbil day o~ ZlC ~5ed~£07# J,~a,~jaf':H¥6~,E Z6iCO/ZO !~zR~ 101 00 '00 00:00 THE BERLINER LAW OFFICES ERIC BERLINER (STATE BAR NO. 175352) LAWRENCE D. SANDERS (STATE BAR NO. 173411) 224 Main Street Nevada City, California 95959 Telephone: (916) 265-5585 . FILED LOEB & LOEB LLP MALISSA ~ZAT~IAWAY McFdEITH (STATE BAR NO. 112917) 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, California 90017-2475 Telephone: (213) 688-3622 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURJ3") 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTR3~L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 CUCAMONGANS UNITED FOR REASONABLE ) CASE NO.9 EXPANSION ("CURE"), a non-profit ) · 15. unincorporated association, p!a'intiff, 17 V · 7- 48? GHK' · (CZx) ) ) 1. Violation of 42 U.S.C. ) § 1983; ) 2. Violation of 42 U.S.C: ) § 1985; and ) 3. Violation of § 6256 of ) the California Government Code 18 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; BRAD BI/LLER, an individual, in his 19 individual and official capacity; ) T~OMAS GRA/4N, an individual, in 20 his individual and official capacity; Does 1-20, 21 Defendants. 22 23 ) ) ) DEMAND FOR J//RY TRIAL ) ) ) ) 24 25 26 28 JI~RISDICTIONA/qD VE~TUE 1. This is a civil rights action authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 to redress the d~privation under color of law of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by ~he )' i Constitution of the United States. This Court has subject matter 2 jurisdiction. Furthermore, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant 3 to 28 U.S'.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a) (3) and (4). 4 .'_7 2. This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 5 action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 6 Fed. R.- Civ. p. 57. Injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.s.c. 7 § 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Fed. R. Civ. p. 65. Jurisdiction 8 for the pendent State claim is authorized by 28 U.$.C. § 1367. 9 3. The Defendants named herein reside in, maintain an 10 office in, or are responsible for enforcing the laws relevant to 1i this litigation in the Central District of Cali'fornia. 12 13 pARTIES 14 4. Plaintiff, Cucamongans United for Reasonable 15 Expansion ("CURE") is registered with the State of Cal'ifornia as' 1~ a non-profit unincorporated association. CURE is comprised of 17 property owners residing in the Central District of California. 18 5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CITY OF R3tNCHO 19 CUCAMONGA ("City") is located in the'Central District of 20 California. 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant BRAD BLrLLER 22. ("Bullet") is the Director of Planning for the City. In his capacity as the Director of Planning, Buller has been responsible for implementing and promulgating departmental policies and 25 customs. At all times material, Bullet has been the most senior 26 employee in the City's Planning Department where he supervises 27 and is responsible for overseeing all decisions of the plaruning 28 MCM24241.P12 Or ~000 O, 97 ~M:j.1 101 00 '00 00:00 2.1~ PO? staff. Plaintiff alleges that Buller lives in the Central District of California. 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant THOMAS GRA/{N ("Grahn'~$ i.s an Associate Planner for the City and at all times ._ · material, reported to and was supervised by Bullet. Plaintiff further alleges that Grahn works and resides in the Central District of California. . PRELIMINARY STATEM~%~f 10 8. This case involves the potential destruction of 11 25.9 acres of a rare and threagened habitat located at the base 12 of the United States National Forest in the San Bernardino 13 Mountains (the "Property") . The California Department of Fish & 14 Game has designated the Propert~ as S-l-1 and G-l, a category 15 reset-red for the rarest and most threatened habitat in 5he world. 1G 9. In addition to the irreversible impacts on ~nimal 17 and plant life, development of the Property would involve the 18 removal of a levee and swale system that currently p~otects 19 downgradient homes from potential flooding and debris flow. 20 Removal of the levee could resulu in the loss of millions of 21 dollars in property damage and could threaten the safety and 22 lives of downgradient families. Buller's, Grahn's and the City's 23 (collectively ,'Defendants") conduc~ in preventing any public 24 notice or comment on the Project allows Defendants to ignore new 25 information and changed circumstances that render the Project 26 substantially more dangerous than originally claimed. These 27 circumstances include, but are not limited to, the delineation 28 00r 90 101 00 '00 00:00 ~1~ F~08 and designation of the Cucamonga Fault as a probable 7.5 2 magnitude fault. · 3 10. This case involves an unwritten policy or cusuom by Defendants of'enticing developers to build in the City by ._ ensuring that other affected property owners and interested parties, including CURE members, have no meaningful notice or 7 input into the planning process. This case tests the limits of a 8 local planning staff's ability To unlawfully facilitate 9 development by (1) granting extensions to a tentative Cract map 10 ' in violation of local and state law; (2) failing to provide 11 notice and an opportunity to be heard by affected property owners, including CURE members, in violation of the state and 13 federal constitution; and (3) depriving access to documents by withholding and/or denying the existence of numerous relevant · 15 documents concerning non?complianCe, among other matters, wi'th 16 the federal"E~dangered Species Act ("ESA") in an effort by 17 Defendants to thwart any challenge to ~he proposed project· The 18 implications of this case go beyond the pending matter. Recent 19 amendments to the California Subdivision Map Act create certain 20 loopholes that allow local municipalities and developers to build 21 projects years after the initial environmental review was 22 conducted. The facts of the instant case are particularly 23 compelling because of the rare nature of the habitat and the 24 potential of serious risk to life and property. 25 !1. At issue is a 25.9 acre parcel, the developmen5 of 26 which has escaped any serious environmental or engineering review 27 due to Defendants' wrongful conduct. The const,~uction of 40 28 homes on the property was first proposed by Brock homes in the ~Cl~24 24 ~. P12 3000' -'"00 !0~ 0~ 'E)~ 00:00 ~ ~2 P09 1, la~e !980s ("Project"). At Chat time, the City concluded that 2 there was no significant impact to the environment resulting from . 3 construction of the.'40 homes. No biological, engineering, or 4, traffic-studies were completed at the time. Although public ,_ 5 notice was provided, fewer than ten homes were located in tke 6 area at that time, and therefore comments to the proposed Project 7 were minimal. The negative declaration and Tentative Tract Map 8 No. 14771 ("Tentative Map") were approved in November 1990. 9 Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Initial 10 Study, Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination and it is i1 incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. In 1993 12 Brock Homes filed for bankruptcy, without having begun any 13 development. 14 12. Under California's Subdivision Map ACt, tentative 15 ~ract maps ordinarily would expire two gears after'approval 'if 16. cohstruction had not commenced. Because of the downturn in 17 California's economy, the sza~e legislature enacted laws to 18 permit extensions of tentative tract maps under certain specific 19 circumstances. The purpose of this legislation was to protect 20 developers who had expended funds to prepare the tentative tract 21 maps but who, at that time, were not financially able to commence 22 const~n/ction. In 1992, 1993 and 1995 the City, through Defendant 23 Bullet, approved the extension of the Tentative Map at issue 24 here. Each of those extensions were unlawful in that Defendants 25 (1) failed to 'provide notice to affected property owners as 26 rectuired by federal and state law, and (2) granted extensions in 27 ' violation of local ordinances. 28 ~C~24241.P12 )7, 7 1 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 2 alleges t~at, in or about 1996, Defendant Bullet, on behalf of · 3 the City and in conjunction with Defendant Grab_n, enticed 4 develope~rs to locate projects in the City by assuring developers ._ 5 , that existing tentative tract maps could be finalized without any 6 further environmental review or public hearing. In september 7 1996, Lauren Development, a completely new developer, resurrected the Tentative Map and began processing the Project toward final 9 approval. No documents were ever circulated for public comment 10 nor did the City or Lauren Development provide any notice co 11 affected property owners. The last public notice relating co the 12 Project was in 1990. 13 14. On or about May 23, 1997, residents in the area, 14 including CURE members, learned of the Project for the first 15 time. Since 1990, approximately 45 additional homes have been 16 constructed in ~h~ area and most of the residents moved to the 17 Project area in the past four years. CURE immediately contacted Defendant Grab_n, the planner assigned to the Lauren Development 19 Project, zo inquire about the status of the Project. Defendant 20 Grahn, under the supervision of Bullet, falsely informed CURE 21 members that: (1) Lauren Development had received all regulatory 22 approvals and permits for the project; (2) that it was "too late" 23 to challenge the development; and (3) the Planning Commission 24 would approve Lauren Development's "Development Review 25 Application" on a Consent Agenda and that no public comment would 26 be permitted. A specific request also was made that CURE members 27 be added to the public notice list for matters concerning Lauren 2B NCMZ4241.P~2 000000000 07 '97 !01 00 '00 00:00 212 Pll Hr_.H2~2.41 ,~1 ~ ~7'~ ~1,~: jul 1 Development. Grahn refused to do so, sta~ing that no formal 2. notice wa~ required. 3 15. On May 27, 1997, CURE requested from Grab_n, in 4 writing~.-a .complete copy of the Lauren Developmen~ file. Receipt 5 of that request was acknowledged on May 29, 1997 in a memorandum 6 from Defendant Grahn reaffirming that the Development Application 7 approval would be heard on the Consent Agenda and that the file 8 might be available on June 2, 1997. Because of the urgency, a 9 local resident went in person to Defendant Grakn and'requested 10 ~he Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the ProjecT. 11 Defendant Grahn provided a Negative Declaratio~ for an unrelated 12 development. On June 2, 1997, only portions of the file were 13 produced with key documents missing, including a copy of the 14 actual Tentative Hap and any documents from the Development 15 Design Application Review file relating to the June 11 Hearing. 16 Documents from unrelated projects were produced instead. Besween 17 June 2 and 5, 1997, several additional letters were forwarded to 18 Defendant Grahn specifying which documents wer~ missin~ from the 19 fi!~ and stressing tha~ iramediate production of ~hose documents 20 was critical to prepare for ~he June 11, 1997 h~arin~. Missin~ 21 documents included: 22 · 23 . 24 . 25 ~ 26 · 27 · 28 Fire lane standards; Approvals from fire control district; Compliances with 50 Code of F. R. 17.11; Attachment A and B to Negative Declaration; Documents pertainin~ to the CEQA; Mitigation Monitoring Plan; ¢oooooooo · 1 o Documents pertaining to Lauren Development's 2 approvals/compliance with U.S. Army Corps of 3 Engineers regulations regarding levee removal and 4 -- flood control channel; 5 - Documents pertaining to letters of agreement from 6 both affected school districts; 7 · Documents regarding funding mechanism for proposed 8 drainage channel; 9 , Documents concerning Los Angeles Water and Power 10 approval of grading in their easement. 11 In particular, CURE was interested in documents concerning 12 comDliance with the Endangered Species Act and a Memorandum of 13 Understanding entered into by the City, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 14 Sea-vice, and the California Department of Fish & Game, setting 15 forth certain requirements' that the City must follow-prior to 16 disturbing rare habitat area. On June 5, 1997, Defendant 'Grahn 17 sent correspondence denying the existence of any Memorandum of 18 Understanding. 19 16. On June 10, 1997, CURE wrote to the City A~orney 20 for the City identifying what documents had been wrongfully 21 with_held including, but not limited to, correspondence from 22 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Sea-vice to Lauren Development and the City 23 dated April 18, 1997, stating that Lauren Development had not 24 complied with ~he Endangered Species Act. Also missing were any 25 documents concerning extensions on variances and several 26 documents relating to the extension of the Tentative.Maps. In 27 each instance, the missing documents were potentially fatal to 28 the developer's ability to proceed with the Project. k~tached a~ EO~ £IE £66-qor [ZG-a ZO 'd 00:00 00, 00 '1;0T OG:7. l ZS-SO-'lnl' ,. 1 Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the June 10, 1997 . . 2' correspondence to the City Attorney, with attachments Exhibits 3 . A to I, which is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth 4 fully...-~h~ above documents have not been produced and the City 5 has neither acknowledged nor responded to the June 10, 1997 6 letter. 7 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 8 alleges that the conduct of Defendant Grahn in failing to produce 9 the requested documents or in producing documents entirely 10 unrelated to ~he subject parcel was done under the direction of 11 Defendant Bulmer, with the intent of preventing Plaintiff from 12 discovering documents demonstrating that the Project is unsafe 13 and in non-compliance with state and federal environmental laws, 14 among others. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Buller 15 and Grab_n, as is customary of the'City, have repeatedly attempted 16 to limit public ~omment about' the Project by, among Other 17 wrongful acts: (1) not providing any public notice in seven 18 years; (2) providing misinformation about the Project when 19 requested; (3) discouraging interested parties from Qbjecting ~o 20 the Project by claiming that it was "too late" to object;' (4) 21 claiming that approval of the Project' is ministerial and a matter 22 for the Consent Agenda; and (5) stating that the developer is in 23 compliance with all regulatory requirements. Plaintiff is 24 informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Bullet 25 and Grahn were aware that these statements were false when made. 26 18. By failing to provide public notice of the 27 Tentative Map extensions, by obstructing Plaintiff's efforts to 28 obtain relevant documents concerning the Project, and by £0~ £66-qor tZG-a EO'd 00:00 00, 00 I0I O~:~.t ~ts-BO-'lr~r HC~241.P:12 12 15 .' 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22' 23 misleading interested parties, including CURE members, 2 believing. that no legal avenue was available to challenge the 3 Project, Defendants/ and each of them, have deprived Plaintiff of its right to due process under the state and federal constitutions. 7 CLAIM~ FOR 8 FIRST CLAIM FOR R~LIEF 9 (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against All' Defendants) 10 19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realleg~d and 11 incorporated herein by reference. 20. Section 1983 of 42 U.S.C. provides that: [e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State . · subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen .' " of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and'laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper- proceeding for redress. 21. Acting under color of law,. Defendants have acted 24 to deprive Plaintiff of the opportunity to be heard, and deprived 25 Plaintiff of access to the courts by failing to provide public 26 notice for the three extensions of the Tentative Map, thus 27 violating the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth and Fifth 28 Amendments of the United States Constitution. 10 ~Oci £'TE 00:00 00, 00 TO'T £66-q0(' LZ6-~I t,O'cl 0~;:~. [ ooooooooo 0?/02/9? 1 22. Acting under color of law, Defendants further have 2 withheld public documents in an effort to thwart Plaintiff's 3 ability to exercise its legal rights to challenge the Project 4 before..D~fendants and the Courts, thereby depriving Plaintiff of 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 z5 16 ~ 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' 28 its Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process of law. 23. As a result of Defendant~' failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, Plaintiff may be subject to the construction of a Project that places Plaintiff at risk of property damage and bodily injury and otherwise deprives Plaintiff of its rights to provide input on and to challenge projects at the administrative and judicial level as'secured by the state and federal constitutions'. 24. The rampant level of obstructionism reflec[ed by Defendants' conduct demonstrates a policy or custom of deprivation of Constitutional and statutory r%ghts. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Against All Defendants) 25. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 26. section 1985 of 42 U.S.C. provides that: [i]f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of t. he equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, Ehe party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or 11 00:00 00, 00 TOT 1 deprivation, against any one or more of his 2' conspirators. 3 '27. As part of an ongoing conspiracy, City officials, 4 includ%~ hut not limited to Bullet and Grahn, have failed to 5 provide notice of numerous hearings as required by federal, state 6 and local ordinances; have approved extensions of th~ Tentative 7 Map in violation of state and local ordinances; have mislead interested parties into believing that the Project could not be 9 challenged; and have withheld and/or denied the existence of 10 relevant documents. CURE is informed and believes and thereon 11 alleges that Defendants' conduct was in furtherance of a 12 conspiracy to ensure that developers, including Lauren 13 Development, could easily complete projects without public notice 14. and input. 15 28. By engaging in the wrongful conduct described 16 above, Defendants 'have conspired ~o deprive Plaintiff of its 17 constitutional rights and access to the courts. 18 29. In carrying out the conspiracy described above, 19 Defendants have acted maliciously, arbitrarily, capriciously, and 20 in bad faith. 21' 22 T~IRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 23 (Violation of California Government Code § 6256 24 Against All Defendants) 25 30. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realleged and 26 incorporated herein by reference. 27 31. Section 6156 of the California Government Code provides that: ,,qCH. 1. p 1'2 OOOOOO0~O £6g-qol' 90'd 12 00:00 00, 00 TOT Og:~.t I6-BO-9Igr ooooooooo. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 [a]ny person may receive a copy of any identifiable public record or copy thereof. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so .... Each agency, upon any request for a copy of records shall determine within 10 days after the receipt of such request whether to comply with the request and shall immediately notify the person making the request of such determination and the reasons therefor. 32. On May 27, June 4, June 5 and June 10, CURE recfu~sced documents pursuanz to the California PubliE Records Act 13 and otherwise not exempted from production under California law. 14 As of the signing of this complaint, many of the requested 15 documents have not been p~oduced including, but not limited to: 16 documents r=lating to compliance with the Endangered Species AcE; 17 all documents relating to applications for and extensions of the 18 Tentative Map and variances; and engineering plans and 19 ' specifications concerning removal of the levee. 20 33. Defendants neither complied with document'requests 21 submitted by Plaintiff, nor notified Plaintiff of the reasons for 22 their non-compliance. Defendants thus have violated § 6256 of 23 the California Government Code. 24 25 26 27 28 13 LOd £IE 00:00 00, 00 IOT ooooooooo a7ia2/97 ~:jul PRAYER FOR RELIEF (First claim for Relief) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against Defendant ~s follows: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . 6 . For actual damages according to proof; For a declaration that extensions of the Tehtative Map were in violation of federal and state law and thus of no effect; For temporary/, preliminary and petraanent injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the Project until such time as Plaintiff is provided with a complete copy of all relevant documents, constitutionally mandated notice and an opportunity to be heard; Costs of suit; Attorney fees; and For such other relief as this Court deems proper. (Second Claim for Relief) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement agains~ ,, Defendanu as follows: ~ 1. For actual damages according to proof; 2. For a declaration that extensions of the Tentative Map were in violation of federal and state law and thus of no effect; 3. For ~emporal-y, preliminary and permanent I injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from . proceeding with the project until such time as 14 80cl £'TE 00:00 00, 00 '1:0T 1 2 3 4 5 . 7! 10 11 12 13. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 · OOOOOOOO0 07;02/97 M##.' jul o Plaintiff is provided with a complete file, notice and an opportunity to be heard; Cost~ of suit; Attorney fees; and For such other relief as this Court deems proper (Third ClaSh for Relief) ._ 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against 9 Defendant as follows: 1. For actual damages according ~o proof; 2. For declarator%; relief, requiring Defendants to produce all requested documents, and all documents properly requested in the future. 3. AttorneyS' fees; 4. Costs of suit; and' 5. For such other relief as this Court deems proper. 15 60cl £'[E: 00:00 00, 00 ]:0I £6c~-qo~ lZ6-~t 60'~1 OG:2. L 9 10 11 12 13 DEMA/qD FOR JLTRY TRIi~L _ Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on the Claims for Relief set forth in this Complaint. DATED: 'Ju~y '2, 1997 · .. THE BERLINER LAW OFFICES ERIC BERLINER LAWRENCE D. SANDERS 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LOEB & LOEB LLP MALISSA HATHAWAY McKEITH / Attorneys for/P'~intiff · Cucamongans U~fted for .Reasonable E~ansion ("CLTRE") HCIq...41 .P1Z OOOt)0000O OL 'd 16 00:D0 0~), 00 I0I O~:.Zt .Z6-BO-9nr 101 00 ~00 00:00 P.11 IMPORTANT- Lauren Development Update Thanks to widespreyed commtmi .t3' support, Cucamongan., United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) was able to delay the Planning Commisston's flrml appro~'al of 40 tract homes north of Havenxtew until lids tortting !a'ednesda.v, .Italy 9, 1997,. Vv'e need you to attend this critical meeting. : The Lauren Development tract homes are priced in the $270,000 range which will have a devastating impacl on our propert)' values by creating: io~' "eomps". A bu?vr ~n~dl look at comps from similarly sized Lauren homes prt.eed an>nvhere from S40,000 (o $100,000 less than your propers3' and tills wffi substantially reduce nvhat a bu?~r is willing to pay for your home. The area Impacted by Lauren Den'elopment's low comps would be rmrth of ~A'ilson and west of th.e Deer Creek Chasmel to Beryl. Lower property values is not the only way ).'ou rna.~ be affected. As taxpayers, all of us may end up paying: large jtad_..o~nents from lawsuits a~ainst the Cid' if the City permits remoa~l of n levee that protect~ aU of us. Expert ci,~il eltgineers have testified that removal of the levee reduces our protection from flooding and debris flow and that Lauren's "so-called" mitigation measures are inadequate. For those of)~u who aren't familiar with debris flow, take a look at the boulders in your bacio'ard. Those boulders came down in a debris flow. The enclosed map demonstrates just how much protection the levee has given down-gradient property owners over the years. Approval of the l.auren Development Project is only the bei:bu~in~ of the Planning Commission's lar~er agenda to develop tht~ entire area. There already are approvals for a number ofttact developments east of Deer Creek that may impact your property. values, increase traffic, and create more potential for flooding. Most of ct~ have a~'orked hard to llve in a nice area and we must be vigilant to make sure this is not changed by the P -lanni~g Commission's approval of one small project at a time. Don't let O~e city ~_overnment permi! the construction of an unsafe development of irtexpen.nin'e tract homes. Please show your support by bringislg )our friends and family to the meeting. For further information, contact l~athy ~'3'ant at 980-8960. if you cannot attend, please sign CURE's petition opposing Lauren Development. Time: Place: July 9, 1997 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers. City Hall 10500 East Cixdc Center Drive (East of Haven between Arrow and Foothill) JUL-OS-gY I~:50 101 00 '00 00:00 213 P01 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Date: July 8, 1997 To' Distribution List Below From' John Allday Total pages incl. this page' 23 Fax' (909) 484-1864 ,: Phone' (909) 484-1863 ....' RE' Lawsuit filed Against City of Rancho Cucamonga by C.U.R.E. on July 2, 1997. This material was just provided by the city. The complete lawsuit consists of 54 pages, including 32 pages of exhibits. All I am faxing at this time are the first 22 pages (without the 32 pages of exhibits). The exhibits you are not receiving with this fax are materials we have all seen previously (staff reports, prior letter from Malissa McKeith, etc.). The complete package will be mailed to you this date. DISTRIBUTION: Bill Ford Lauren Development, Inc. Jeffrey Boren, Esq. Gipson, Hoffman & Panelone' Andrew Hartzell, Esq. Hewitt & McGuire Robert Cristiano Cristiano Partners I Fax' Voice' Fax' Voice' Fax' Voice' 818 991-3904 818 991-3680 310 556-8945 310 556-4660 714 798-0511 714 798-0500 Fax 714 752-0667 Voice' 714 476-0101 17' June 2 and 5, 1997, several additional letters were forwarded to i8 Defendant Grahn specifying which documents were missing from ~he 19 file and stressing that immediate production of those documents 20 was critical to prepare for the June !!, 1997 hearing. Missing 21 documents included: 22 , * Fire lane standards; * Approvals from fire control district; 24 25 26 27 28 100000000 }?/02/9? ~HH:j~I ~-mp!iances wi~h 50 Code of ~. R. 17.11; Attachment A and B Co Negative Declaration; Documents pertaining to the CEQA; Mitigation Monitoring Plan; STATE OF CAIIFORNIA__1Hf RESOURC£S "%ENCY -- --- . DEPARTMENT OF FISH /~,qD GAME TO: FROM: DATE: FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Arroyo Southwestsin Toad E~IRO~~ SERVICES DIVISION (SO~E~ ~I~O~IA) NA~ CO~I~ CONSERVATION P~ING (NCCP) 4949 VIE~I~E A~~ S~ DIEGO, ~IFO~IA 92123 TELEPMO~ (6~9) 467-4251 FAX (619) 467-4235' TIME No. o~ ~^~Es ss~ n~~Ns ~Ns~?~ sm~.~/'-/- - ' ' I ' . ~. · . . ._, ~- IF YOU DO NOT RECEI~ ~L OF ~ PAGES I~I~TED. PL~E C~L T~ SE~ER AS SOON ~ POSSIBLE. Slate of' Cai|fomia. - Department of Fish a"cl Game Eh~i~onment~l S~rvtoes. Pivleion Natural Cor~ll~y Coneerv&tion Planning 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California 92123-16J. l Liam H. Davis, Associate Wildlifo Biologist (619} 467-42 AT$S G 7]4-42 FAX (619) 467-42 DEPT. FISH F~ND GAME ID'~19-467-4235 ? 02 3UL ~q '97 15:39 No.013 P.02 Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) in San Bernardino County by Liam H. Davis California Department of Fish and Game Natural Community Conservation Planning 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 USA' Tel. (619)467-4207;Fax:619-467-4235 Robert L. McKernan San Bernardino County Museums County of San Bernardino 2024 Orange Tree Lane Redlands, CA 92347 USA Tel. (909)798-8570;Fax:909-798-8585 James S. Burns '(deceased) U.S. Fish and wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 USA Tel. (619)431-9440;Fax:619-431-9624 ', "' t 5',50 DEPT. FISH AND GAME ]:D '~19-467-4255 ]UL ¢q'97 15:40 No.013 P.03 Abstract.. The 1990 to 1995 California .gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) site locations for southwestern San Bernardino County are presented. This extends the currently known northern range distribution for a P.c. californica nesting population. Collated surveys report P.c. californica located within Riversidean coastal sage scrub and in both upland and wash areas o~ . Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. P.c. californica historical site location records are presented with current site location records. Keywords. San Bernardino County; California gnatca%chef (Polioptila californica californica); historic/present distribution; Riversidean coastal sage scrub; Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Introduction. The California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica Muscicapidae) is considered an uncommon bird primarily from historical and current habiEat destrhction. The species is an obligate resident of coastal sage scrub (Atwood 1980; 1988). Rapid and pervasive urbanization has resulted in decimated and fragmented coastal sage scrub habitat throughout southwestern California. Coastal sage scrub is considered "one of the fastest disappearing types of vegetation" (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977). As little as 10-15% of coastal sage scrub remains in California and the habitat continues to be the fastest disappearing veggtation in the nation (Westman 1987). Historically P.c. californica range was northward in California throughout the coastal sage scrub areas of southern Ventura County extending southward to.approximately 30oN in Baja California, M~xico (Atwood 1990; 1993). The northeri] range distribution of the species has been dramatically reduced by urbanization in Ventura, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties (Atwood 1993). Initially San Bernardino County reported (Atwood 1980) only pre-1960 historic site locations. Atwood later (1990; 1993) noted a single bird observed in 1990 near the confluence of Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek Wash (Fig. 1). Atwood also noted (1993) "one or two California gnatcatchers" reported during four San Bernardino Valley Christmas Bird Counts during the "late 1960's and early 1970's" (Audubon Field Notes 1969, 1970; American Birds 1971,.1973). Atwood considered these reports "hypothetical" because of field identification difficulties attributed to the species. Atwood (1990; 1993) suggested a P.c. californica extirpation scenario for San Bernardino County but concluded that the Lytle Creek Wash area and the Jurupa Mountains (aka Jurupa Hills) could possibly still contain P.c.californica. Since 1990 there have been substantiated six P.c.californica site locations in southwestern San Bernardino County. These areas include portions of Lytle Creek Wash and Jurupa Hills. Recent P.c. californica site locations are presented with the historical records. Study area. The study was conducted in southwestern California in DEPT. FISH AND GAME IP '6!9-~67-~235 ?04 3UL ^q'97 15:40 No.013 P.04 southwestern San Bernardino County in what is referred to as the San Bernardino Valley (approximately central to 34O5'N and 117o25'W) which is approximately 110 km east of the Pacific Ocean. The San Bernardino Valley is'generally bounded by the county lines between San Bernardino County and Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties on the west and south and the San Bernardino National Forest boundary on the north and east. Elevation ranges from about 180 m to 210 m on valley floors near Chino and gradually increases to about 360 m to 420 m near San Bernardino and Redlands. The climate is Mediterranean with cool, wet winters and dry, warm summers. Annual sunshine is 70% to 80%. Average daily maximum temperature is approximately 33oC to 37oC in midsummer and approximately 18oC in winter. Varyin~ mean annual precipitation is about 30.5 cm to 50.5 cm. Approximately 90% annual precipitation is received from November to April. (woodruff and Brock 1980.) The San Bernardino valley is situated south of the Transverse Ranges below the eastern San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains. Predominate vegetation in the San Bernardino Valley is 1) Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub that intergrades at higher elevations with chaparral at 600 m to 700 m and 2) Riversidean coastal sage scrub. Other vegetation consists of a patchwork of valley grasslands, riparian, oak woodlands, and mixed hardwood forests with nearly closed canopies that border the San Bernardino Valley on the north and east. The San Bernardino Valley is extensively urbanized. Methods. The historical compilation up to 1990 for San Bernardino County P.c. californica site location information (Atwood 1990; 1993) was consulted. For a 1990 to 1995 compilation other field biologists' reports and the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted. This data was collated with our 1994 and 1995 field surveys. Long duration P.c.californica sightings of over an hour followed spot-mapping technique (International Bird Census Committee 1970; Ralph et al. 1993). Study plots .were polygon delineated onto USGS 7.5 minute series topographic maps. censusing was conducted during the breeding season and early in the.day. Some censusing was. conducted over two breeding seasons at the same P.c.californica site locations. Some compiled P.c.californica sightings were incidental and involved averages of three to five minutes. A few sight locations were collated from field biologists that the authors deemed reliable after personal interview. Most P.c. californica site locations were made by the authors. A description of the habitat size, elevation (United States Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps 1966 - 1967), vegetation (Holland 1986; Hickman 1993), and soil types (Woodruff and Brock 1980) was compiled. Results. m) historic. Historic P.c.californica locations for southwestern san Bernardino County (Fig. 1) are cited by Atwood :LiL-08-97 !5:50 DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID' 619-467-d255 3UL ¢q'97 15:41 No.013 P.05 (1990, 1993) . b) rec~nt. 1990 to 1995 P.c.californica locations for~ southwestern San Bernardino County (Fig. 2) are cited below: 1. Confluence Lytle and Cajon Wash date: 6 September 1990. source: Douglas R. Willick (P & D Technology) and Ray. Vizgirdas. habitat: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. D]~vatinn: Approximately 440 m. associate plant ~ec~s: "buckwheat, open chamise, Malosma, Prunus, Yucca whipplei" (Willick per. comm. 1993). moil: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. co~r~ents: "The bird was female plumaged" in "mature alluvial sage scrub on a high, stabilized bench in the center of a wash" (Willick per. comm. 1993). This site was destroyed (removed) in 1994 by gravel mining operations. 2. Sycamore Flat (at Lytle Creek) d~te: 16 March 1993. · ~OUrCe: Steven G. Nelson (Michael Brandman Associates). hab4ta~: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. ~levat4on: Approximately 600 m. assDclate plant ~D~c~: "Salvia apiana and Lotu~ scoparius" (Nelson per. comm. 1994). ~ol]: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. ~omments: "One adult bird" (Nelson per. comm. 1994). 3. Etiwanda Fan "The Etiwanda Fan represents the densest concentration of White sage (Salvia apiana) known within the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub community" (Mary Meyer per. comm. 1995). (a)date: 16 April 1994. mource: San Bernardino County Museums. hab4tat: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. ~]evati~n: Approximately 580 m. a~soc.~Bte p].an~ sgec~ e~: Salvia apiana, Artemisia californica, Eriogoniu~! fasciculatum, Yucca whipplei. ~oi]: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: One adult ~emale. (b)dat~: 3 June 1994. source: Russel B. Dunkin (SouthWest Biologists, Tucson, AZ). habitat: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. D]~vat4on: Approximately 580 m. a~oc~ate D]ant ~cie~: Salvia apiana, Artemisia californica, Eriogonium fasciculatum, Yucca whipplei. soil: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: One adult male and female. No nest observed. About DEPT. FiSH AND 6AME IB 'q19-46?-4235 P O~ JUL ~q'97 15:42 No.013 P.06 30 m distance from sight location (a). (c)date: 17 June 1994. -ourme: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ~abi~at: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. elevat%on: Approximately 700 m. as~oo.~ ate p] ant~ f~.ci ~_~: Salvia apiana, S. mellifera, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Adez~ostoma fasciculatum. ~O~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. commerces: One adult male. 4. Jurupa Hills (Declez Pass) dahe~: Spring 1994 and 1995. sourc-: San Bernardino County Museums, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. hab~ tat: Riversidean coastal sage scrub. e] evat~on: Approximately 335 m. amsoc4ate p]an~ mnec~ms: Salvia apiana, S. reellifers, Arremisia californica, Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens. sO~]: Cieneba-Rock outcrop comp].ex. comm~ntm: Two to three adult male and female individuals seen each spring on different occasions. No nest observed. 5. Jurupa Hills (Alder Avenue) dat~.~: Spring 1994 and 1995. ,~ource: San Bernardino County Museums and California Department of Fish and Game. hab.~ tat.: Riversidean coastal sage scrub. D] ~.vat.~ Qn: Appr~oximately 365 m (1994 site) , approximately 550 m (1995 site). ~ssoc~ate 9] ant. s9~.c~s: Salvia apiana, S. reellifers, Artemisia californica, Bromus madri~ensis ssp. rubens. so, I: Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex. comm~tn: In 1994, one adult male feeding a juvenile adjacent to Alder Avenue. In 1995, approximately one half kilometer west of Alder Avenue, five nesting pairs in an area of approximately 40 hectares. 6. Santa Aria River, east ~ighland (Fig. 3) daT~: 28 June 1995. ~ource: San Bernardino County Museums. habitat: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. e]evat~nn: Approximately 460 m. aNgo~4ate plant ~u~ec4es: Salvia apiana, Eriogonium fasciculatum, Lotus scoparius, Eriodictyon trichocalyx. ~o~]: Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. co~f~ents: One juvenile bird. Discussion. The six P.c.californica site locations in San Bernardino County are represented in two subassociations of coastal sage scrub: Riversidean coastal sage scrub and both upland and wash areas of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (~olland 1986). JUL-0~-~F 15:50 DEPT. FISH AND GF~ME ~ll~ 4~F 4235 ID' ~19-d67-~235 JUL "'~ '97 Job-SFB 15:42 No.013 P.07 Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, the predominate subassociation of coastal sage scrub in San Bernardino County, is a designated state of California listed SI.1 (Keeler-Wolf 1993). "threatened" plant community by the California Department of Fish and Game. Over 75% of this plant community has been extirpated from southern California (Todd Keeler-Wolf per. comm. 1995). This report is not inclusive for P.c. californica San Bernardino Valley site locations. Additional surveys are warranted, particularly for other nesting site locations, throughout the larger contiguous pieces of coastal sage scrub in San Bernardino Valley. The three 1994 sightings on the Etiwanda fan involved both adult male and female birds and could indicate possible nesting. The 1995 sighting in the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash along. the Santa Aria River, east Highland, was a juvenile bird. There are no known curren~ P.c.californica nesting site locations in Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. The Jurupa Hills nesting site location in Riversidean coastal sage scrub extends the currently known northern range distribution for a P.c.californica nesting population. This site is located a few degrees latitude further north of the Chevron Montebello population in Los Angeles County (California Department of Fish and Game 1995, Dudek & Associates, Inc. 1995 ). Summary. O'Leary (1990) stated that Jn southern California "the present decade likely represents an 'eleventh-hour' period" for the "imperiled" coastal sage scrub plant community. Gap analysis, utilized for conservation risk assessment for plant communities in the southwestern region of southern California, lists "coastal sage scrub" and "Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub" as at risk from extirpation (Davis et al. 1994; Davis etal. 1995). Census data in 1990 shows a 16,539,858 population (56% of the total California population) residing in southwestern California (Goodenough 1992) . From 1980 to 1990 the population of San Bernardino County grew at a rate of more than 50% (Goodenough 1992). The estimated population for the San Bernardino valley in 1990 was 1,107,582 inhabitants (Southern California Association of Governments 1995). Hester (1967) and Hayes (1991) concluded that habitat destruction was the major cause of species decline. In the San Bernardino Valley habitat loss from urbanization and agricultural expansion has influenced decline of P.c.califoI72ica. The nesting population in the Jurupa Hills is approaching urban isolation and vulnerable to stochastic events. .It is not certain if the Jurupa Hills nestJ.ng population represents recent immigration or a continuing decline of an extant population. Much of the Jurupa Hills have not been surveyed although fifty years ago there were substantial populations of P.c.californica throughout the Jurupa Hills (Eugene Cardiff per. comm. 1995). 'Ground and aerial surveys reveal an existing fragmented corridor linking the Jurupa Hills eastward to the coastal. sage scrub habitat along the Santa Ana River. Although the use of corridors in conservation biology is new and controversial (McEuen 1993) it is prudent strategy whenever possible (Frankel and souls 1981:109) and could DEPT. FISH RND GRME ID -~19-~67-~255 R-~11 Joo-Si'~ .JUL r'q'97 15:43 No.013 P.08 be effective when linking fragmented and decimated arian habitat (Soul~ etal. 1988; Bolger etal. 1991). Most small populations of birds have an intrinsic potential to rebound from sever reductions in numbers (Pimm etal. 1988). san Bernardino County has begun habitat conservation planning (HCP) efforts in the San Bernardino Valley. Protecting coastal sage scrub habitat is the obvious way to preserve the encroached peripheral northeastern range of P.c.californica. Arian recoveries involving severely decimated populations require resource agencies to focus. equal attention on acquiring both occupied and adequate unoccupied habitat (Belovsky etal. 1994; Reed 1995). Recovering P.c.californica populations would be expected to disperse to unoccupied habitat when exploiting available resources. In HCP · planning allowing for some degree of development in less sensitive areas could have a positive impact, if the development mitigation serves to generate funds for both habitat acquisitiQn and restoration in designated reserve areas. The issue will be whether the extent and nature of the HCP conservation measures offer ' adequate protection for the threatened Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, Riversidean coastal sage scrub, and the associate rare and sensitive species. Acknowledgements. The authors thank Gerald T. Braden, Eugene Cardiff, and Marni~ S. Crook, San Bernardino County. Museums, and Kay Stockwell, National Audubon Society, for their contributions. Liter&ture cited. American Birds 1971. 25:504-505. American Birds 1973. 27:526-527. Atwood, J.L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tail gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65-78. Atwood, J.L. 1988. Speciation and geographic variation in black- tailed gnatcatchers. Ornithological Monographs 42:1-74. Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished technical report, Mahomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. 79 p. Atwood, J.L. 1993. 'Califo~]ia gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: the biological basis for endangered species listing. Pp. 149-170. in J.E. Keeley,. editor. Proceedings of the symposium on the interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, California. Audubon Field Notes 1969. 23:423-424. Audubon Field Notes 1970. 24:454. DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID' ~19-z~67-4255 3UL nq'97 15'44 No.015 P.09 Belovsky, G.E., J.A. Bissonette, R.D. Dueset, T.C. Edwards, Jr., C.M. Luecke, M.E. Ritchie, J.B. Slade, and F.H. 'Wagner. 1994. Management of small populations: concepts affecting the recovery of endangered species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:307-316. Bolger, D.T., A.C. Alberts, and M.E. SoulS. 1991. Occurrence patterns of bird species in habitat fragments: sampling, extinction, and nested species subsets. American Naturalist 137:155-166. California Department of Fish and Game, and California Resources Agency. 1993. Southern California coastal sage scrub natural communities conservation plan: scientific review panel conservation guidelines and documentation. D.D.. Murphy, J.F. O'Leary, P.F. Brussard, M.S. Gilpin, and R.F. Noss. California Department of Fish and Game and the California Resources Agency. 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814. 469 p. (11 sections) California Department of Fish and Game, and California Resources Agency. 1995. Natural Diversity Data Base. 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, and D.M. Stoms. 1994. Distribution and conservation status of coastal sage scrub in southwestern California. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:743-756. Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, D.M. Stoms, M.I. Botcherr, and A.D. ~ollander. 1995. Gap analysis of the actual vegetation of California. 1. The southwestern region. Madrolo Vol. 42. No.1, 40- 78. Dudek and Associates, Inc. 1995. Existing conditions biological resources report for the Chevron Montebello property Los Angeles County, California. 605 Third Street, Encinitas, California 92024. 18 p. (3 appendices) Frankel, O.H. and M.E. SoulS. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 327 p.. · Goodenough, R. 1992. The nature and implications of recent population growth in California. Geography 77: 123-133. Hayes, J.P. 1991. How mammals become endangered. Wildlife Society · Bulletin 19:210-215. Hester, J.J. 1967. The agent of man in animal extinctions. Pp. 169- 192. in P.S. Martin and E.H. Wright, Jr., editors. Pleistocene extinctions: the search for a cause. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID P 10 R-SII Job-Siq JUL 0q'97 15'44 No.013 P.10 Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual. Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 p. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 156 p. International Bird Census Committee. 1970. An international standard for a mapping method in bird census work recommended by the International Bird Census Committee. Audubon Field Notes 24:722-726. Keeler-Wolf, T. 1993. Rare community conservation in. California. Pp. 43-50. in J.E..Keeley, editor. Proceedings of the symposium on the interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, California. Kirkpatrick, J.B. and C.F. Hutchinson. 1977. The community composition of California coastal sage scrub. Vegetatio 35:21-33. McEuen, A. 1993. The wildlife corridor controversy: a review Endangered Species Update 10:11 & 12 7 p. O'Leary, J.F. 1990. California coastal sage scrub: general characteristics and considerations for biological conservation Pp. 24-39. in A.A. Schoenherr editor. Endangered plant communities of southern California. Special Publications No.3. Southern California Botanists, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens, Claremont, California. Pimm, S.L., H.L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the ri~k of extinction. American Naturalist 132:757-785. Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel. P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research station, Albany, California. General Technical Report PSW- GTR-144. 41 p. Reed, J.M. 1995. Ecosystem management and an arian habitat dilemma. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3):453-457. SoulS, M.E., D.T. Bolger, A.C. Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sourice, and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conservation Biology 2(1):75-92. Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. 1995. SCAG93 Regional Growth Forecast data base. Southern California Association of Governments. 818 W. Seventh Street, 12 Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. DEPT. FISH NND GNME ID 3UL he'9? 15:45 N0.015 P.11 United States Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps: Cucamonga Peak 1966. Devote 1966. Fontana 1967. Redlands 1967. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Westman, W.E. 1987. Implications of ecological theory for rare plan~ conservation in coastal sage scrub. Pp. 133-140. in T.S. Elias, editor. Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants: proceedings of a California conference on the conservation and management of rare and endangered plants. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Woodruff, G.A. and W.Z. Brock. 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County, southwestern part, California. Soil ConBervation Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 64 p. B: \CAGNSY~4P. PAP 10 DEPT. FISH RND GRME 619 487 4235 ID '~19-467-4235 P 12 R-gll J ob-57fit .~UL r'q'9? 15'45 No.013 P.12 DEPT. FISH GND GGME ID P.13 3UL ~q'97 15'z~5 No.01~ P.i$ DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID '~19-467-4235 JUL nq'97 15'd6 No.013 P.14 15 ,~ %. July 9, 1997 3021-00002 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Andrew K. Hartzell Telephone Message from Bill Tippets - July 8, 1997 Hi, Andrew. It's Bill Tippets. I'm sorry i was on vacation on Monday and today I talked actually with the [Service]--to [CDFG] Region 5-- and explained concerns about the letter. They felt, along with me, that we didn't need to send a new letter, but that I would talk with the Planner Brad Buller rather to explain your concerns about how the letter might be interpreted and our discussion of last week regarding the clarification. I did talk with him regarding page 1, paragraph 3, subheader 1 about the "substantial change" expressing to him that if this project were still subject to CEQA for whatever reason, that we feel there is significant new information, because resources that may not have been considered significant by the City may be now considered significant because they are planning for multiple species, multiple habitat concerns. But I told him that if CEQA is no longer relevant because of time limitations and the rest, that we are not requesting or requiting, nor would we require, that there be a complete new re-evaluation and rewriting CEQA based on the participation in the MSHCP. So he is clear on that, about the interpretation on that statement. Also, I explained to him that on page 2, paragraph 3 that whatever the Service's protocol is (and the Service will clarify that to the City), whatever that protocol is for gnatcatcher surveys, we certainly would expect that the City would make sure that protocol was adhered to, if it's going to be part of the clearance for the project. He was clear on that too, that we are not saying that the gnatcatcher surveys are required because that's a call by the Service, but that if they are required they meet the protocols established by the Service. He was clear on that too. 07-09-97 3021-00002 $:\DOC\161\CORR\97070016.MEM I didn't talk much about the significant natural area except to explain that you wanted clarification when that designation was applied, and I'm trying to f'md out from my staff if they've gotten that information to you yet or not. Also, I want to make sure that Liam faxes the manuscript that you did not receive. As far as I know, the City still considers CEQA a dead issue at this point. I guess we will hear about that after tomorrow's Design Review because I'm sure its going to come up with some of the locals to get clarification from the City's perspective on CEQA. As far as we are being told, CEQA is not a relevant issue at this point. That's it. I'll probably be talking with you sooner or later. 07-09-97 ~021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\9?O?OO16.MEM 16 Office of tJ~e Chief Reg-Ldatory Brand~ DEPART~,,IENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEVEN OAKS DAhl F~SIDE~N"r OFFICE 32230 SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD HL..qHLAND, CALIFORNIA ~2246 j'uly 9, 1,a97 Mr. Brad Butler City of Rancho Cucamzmga Plaz~ng Comm. 10500 Civic Center Drive Ra_ndxo Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr.. ]3uder: It has coma to our attention that correspondence from our office to Lauzen Development regerdir~g a proposed b. ous~g development in your dry (Tentat/re Tract 1-J.77J.; Corps f/Je rm. 97-30016-AJ'S) may have been m/s~nterpreted as prm,'~dL-~g a deterrnin~dor~ d~at is beyond the scope of our re,dew under the Co~$ of E.n~neers Regulatory Program. This let~ez. ~s in. tended to clarify ~ur responsqb/fi~ and involvement with ~gard to th~s project. Our letmr of February 7, 1997 (copy attached), ordy provided a determLnadon that the proposed proiect would not recIuJre a permit from our of.~ce pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Wa.ter Act. Section. 404 reg~dates the discharge of dredged or fiji materiaJ into waters of the United States. Waters o;~ the Urdted States g~=mera/ly do not include areas that onJy flow during extreme flood even~, ].00-year floodplains or areas of sheet flow. The focus of d~e 404. progra~,-n is d~e protection of the physical, c.~emical and biologica[ int%~4ty of the nation's warors. tn reviewing the proie'zt site we de*~rmJned th. eze were no jurisdict~onat waters of the United States witi'dn tt~e bom~d~fies of ~he propo~d trod anal that the project as propo~d would not result in. any disdzarge of fill into waters, therefore no permit wou~d be required from. our office. This was the extent ~f our de~rmJrtadon. Tim Corps' Reguiatory Branch has not made any as~rfions or expressed any opL~ons as to the adequacy of flood con~-~rv] £eatures of the project, including safe? issues suzrotmdSng tt~e removal of the e.',Jsdng levee running along the southzrn boundary of the pried s~te. Our deterrrdnadon relates only to the presence/absence of ju.rJsdict-iorral ,,,'at~rs of the United States. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRIOT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEVEN OAKS DAM RESIDENT OFFICE 3~30 S~NTA ANA CANYON RCAD HIGHLAND, CAUFORNfA Q234~ FE9 - 7 La u.ren Development Arm: Zohn MJday 11030 A_rzcrw Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cuc2monga, CaJi£ornia 91730 Dear M.r. AJlday: Re£a-~ce is made to yo~ request (No. 97-30016-A]5) of February 3, 1997 £or a De?art'm._m~t of the Army Perrrdt ~ co~ct ~act ].4~]., a residenffal hous~g d~'e~opm~ near ~e Deer Canyon ~~1 in ~~ Cucamonga, S~ Be,~r~o Co~', C~ifo~a. Based on the irfformadon 6arrdshed to our offd. ce and a site visit by our sta£f, we have deterrrdned tkat your proposed project does not discha.r. ge ds. edged or fiji material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland. Therefore, the project Js not subject to our. jurisdiction ~nder Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Section 404 permit is not reqsdred from our office. The receipt of you; request is appreciated. If you h~ve an)' questions, please contact Antat Sziji o£ my staff at (909) 794-/-704. Sincerer)', CF: ~le C~py CYeUow) - g7-30016-AlS CUpboard C.o~- Lo; Anseles Mark Durham Chief, South Coast RegnaJato:T Branch ,t 5Z;TI c-_-5~..co.xs TOTAL P.~4 City Council Wi!lialn J. Alexander Paul Biane James V. Curatalo Rex Gutierrez Diane Williams Planning Commission E. David Barker Bill Bethel Rich Macias Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy JUL 0 9 1997 June 20, 1997 Re: Optx~sition to Lauren Development Prqiect Dear Properrs.' Owners' Ifvotl did not attend the meetings on June 19 or 22, 1997, we still need your help. Attached are self-addressed envelopes to political representatives. We need you to write letters prior to the July 9. 1997 Plam~imz Commission Heari,m so that our elected officials understand that app~,ovai of the I.auren ........ Development Prqject will have l',:4itical consequences for them. You shot, ld touch upon the bullet points on the attached list since these are tl~e legal issues most likeIv to delkat the project. Without ,,'our help. the Lauren Development tract homes will be approved on JuN 9. 1997 and the satiety and qualib' of our conm~unitx' xvill Ibrever change. Get involved. If you have questions, please call Kathy Wyant at 980-8960. Please include your address and telephone number on each letter and send a cop.,,' to Cucamongans I/aired Ibr Reasonaisle Expansion ("cI.rRE'") P.O. Box 1419. Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729-1419. We need copies of your letters tbr the administrative record. ~ . Cucamongans United For Reasonable Expansion ('CURE') ("For Every Bad Development There's a CURE'~) THANKS FOR GETTING INVOLVED The Planning Staff Report for this evening recommends that the Project be carded out despite our objections. Although. we hope that the Commission acts more responsibly and listens to its citizens, CURE is fully prepared to lose this evening. An immediate appeal will be taken to the City Council. WE NEED YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT You can support CURE's efforts by: writing your local City Council Members, Congressman and Senator (self- addressed envelopes are available) working with CURE's political action group which will be visiting local representatives pdor to the City Council Hearing -- attending the City Council Meeting - no(ice of the date will be circulated - contributing time, effort and money to the cause For more information, call Kathy Wyant at (909) 980-8960 or write Cucamongans United For Reasonable Expansion ("CURE"), Post Office Box 1419. Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729-1419 .~24291 .X~2 1 {~{~ 0 WIL3HIf"I~ Su~r~ 1600 T(~.t'P.O,~i: Zl 3-e88-,3400 F4Cs,~aJ~E: 213-688-3460 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail' ~.(MCKEITH~Iocb.com July 9, 19f.)7 James Markman, F~. . Markman,/u'czynski, Hu~son, Curly & Slough Post Office Box 1059 Brea, California 92622- Cucamongans Untied for Reasonable Expansion {"CURE") Opposition to Development Design 97-1L Approval Dear Mr. Markman: The following correspondence supplements CURE's June 11, [~i97 submission tn thc Planning Commission.~ The purpose of tiffs Supplemental Brief is to highlight new factual evidence bearing upon the: "changcd circumstanccs" that necessitate rccirculalion of the 109~ Negative Declaration or that defeat any fi~ding by the City under its own local ordinances that ~he Lauren Dcvclopment Project ("?rojcet") "will not be detrimcntal to thc public health, safety, or welfare or ma:crially injurious to properties or improvvmcnts in ~.hc victory.' (S~ Proposed Resolution, July 9, 1997 Staff Report a~ A7I, para. 2(d), Exhibit 16). Characterizing Dcvclopme~i! Review 97-1l as "routine and non- controversial," the City once again altempts to bury this matter o~l die Consent Agenda. (Exhibit 17}.' The huge audience in attendance a~ the June 11. 1997 ' The June l l, 199,'7 bricf includes E~.hibits I fitrough 15. New exhibits will be numbered sezluentJally beginning with Exhibit 16. Seven copies will be provided at the Commission H~ring. z CIYRE al.~n objects to the Ciiy's failure to provide notice of the July 9, i997 Heaxing. Staff justilics thc lack of ~mticc and Con~nt Agenda designation by claiming that "[tJhe Development Code requires rcvicw and consideration by' the Planning Commission, but not ~.s a public h~-aring, and as such was sched~,lcd as ~ conscn~ catendar item." (Scc July 9, [9U7 Bullet Memorandum Io Planning (cominucd...) James Markman, E~I. July 9, 1997 Page 2 Development Review Heanng and the numerous letters to political representatives over the past month underscore just how controversial the City's proposed action has become. Such public outera' ,oundly undcrcut~ any argument tha! this is a Consent Agenda item. Indeed, nol a single Cucarnonga resident has re,tided in favor of the Project. Despite this groundswell of public opposition and the objections raised by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Planning Staff continues to r~ommend approval. CURE urges that the Planning Commission take the responsible stcp of requiring additional environmentai and satiety review :o regain the confid~cc and re, peet of its' citizens aaxl to comply with existing environmental laws which require the ruevaluation of changed circumstances and nw,v information prior to final Proiect approval. DEVEI,OPMENT REVIEW IS A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL REQL'IRING REEVALUATION OF CHANGED CIRCUMST~kNCES AND NEW INFORMATION PRIOR TO A PROJECT'S FINAL A P PROV.& !. By their very nature, conditional tentalive maps anticipate several points of review in the entitlement process betbre a project is ultimately approved. In this instance, the Project is not finalized until the Subdivision Final Map is r~orded and permils issued. Various di~tetionary actions take place between tentative map approval and the final map recordation. Development Review is such a discretionary act. Each time the City exercises its discretioa, it is requirt:d to consider whether Ihe Catif'orals Environmenta~ Quality Act t,"CEQA") is implicated. Where a Negative Deelaratinn wa.,; approved seven )'ears ago, the~ City muir conalder whether changed circumstance~ or new informanon necessitate recirculation of the negative declaration. Attempts to limit the ~copc of the Development Review to "architectural" issues ignores the scope of Lauren Develo~ment's own April 16. 199'7. :(...continued) Commission, ITEM A, E~hibit 18). The fundamental purpose of an open meeting is to allow affected parties to comment on and participatc in the decision making of ifs 8ovemment officials. Providing public notice in thi~ instance would have cost the City under $51). James ~aricman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 3 ^pplication ~xnd the City's Development Code. (.q~ee Development Code section 17.06.1) 10(C)(1) and section 17.06.010(E)(3) and (F)). In its own application. Lauren Development raised a ho~ of issues beyond the size :xnd aesthetics of its homes, including compliance with environmental law's, grading plans, and the remov.~l or' the. levee. More importantly, the ~rgument that ~onisht's Hearing should focus on the size and appearance of the hous~ only -- rather than the more serious environmental and safety issues -- ignores the City's ongoing obligeions to "maintain the public health, safety and general wcil~c and proper~y throughout the City" (see sect:on 17.06.010) and the C~ty's express mandate to deny final map recordation if "tribe design of the subdivision or proposed improvements me Ilkeli, to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially ~d ~voidably injure tish or wildlife or their habitat" or "the design 'oI' the $ulxiivision or the type improvemet~.ts is likely to caus~ serious public hcallh problems." {See Cucarnonga Subdivision Ordinance section 1616.110A). Such obligations are above av, d beynnd · ny CEQA requirements ,"red ca, mot be ignored by the C~ty through an attempt at self-serving and hypenechnic~l interpretation 0£ its own Development oralinc. rices. II, THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF NUMEROUS C!IANGED CIRCUMSTANCES R£OUIRING ADDITIONAL CEOA REVIEW A. No Traffic or Air OutJify A. nalv. sis Has Been Conduzted Despite references to some "royster3'" traffic study from the 1080s, none has ever been provided by the City or Lauren Development. Nor is any such study referenced in the Initial Study supportb~ff, the Negative Declar~v.'ora. Rega~-dles,s of the claimed existence of such a study. numerous changed circums:~nces require a reevslualion of traffic. noise aml air quality issues prior rs) final approval. Nowhere has Lauren Development even mentioned the traffic, noise and ~ir quality impa~ts ~ha~ wii[ result from construction c~cept to argue that ~aven View and R~ct~ Cucamong~ 5 residents granted a construction easement to the Project P~'cel. The t~:t that Lauren Development ~ have ~ccess through Huven View (which is a point ofmu. ch disagreement and probable litigation) does not excuse the City from requiring Lauren Developmen~ ~o conduct traffic ~d air quality stud!es necesse. ry to mitigate the impacts to the su.,'z"o'anding neighborhood. In 1990, when the Negative Decimation was approved. there were only ten homes constructed in fireroes Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page. 4 Haven View, most or' which wcrc far away from the proposed Proj~t. Now there are 55 fs.milies living in much closer pror, imity Io the Project. Serial of the homes are either within 300 feet of file Proj~t or I~ared on Tackstem which will be a main thoroughfare for Lauren Deveiopment's truck traffic. The vast majority of the.~ farnili~ have children. No consideration has been givc~ m the air quality imp, cts d~ar the massive grading will have on such sensitive recepmrs. The ?lanning Commission also has received correspondence from seversl property owner~ raising concerns aborn ~hc inadcqua~:ies of the substandard strmts to csrry the new traffic (bmh dur/ng and post-construction). Because Haven View is a private community, ~hc Planning Cornmiss/on allowed substandard s~reets, the danger, of which is now becoming more '-,nd mnre apparent. An addilional 40 homes (:hat are nor purl of Harem View) uIiliz~tion of these r,,~mc substa. nd~d s~r~ts will furlh~ jeopardize ~hc sali:~y of rcsidoms and particularly tim children. Attached as Exhibit 19 is conespondcncc fi'om Crain & Associatc~~, one of the leading tr;,ffic enginccnng fim~s in the state, addressing sumc of the changed circumstances that require rcconsideration of traffic, noise and air qualily for thc Project. New lntbrm~fion Outslions the Safe~v of' l.cv~ Removal (~) The City is the Sole Government Agency w/lh Responsibilily for E~urin~. Citizens ~ha~ ~he Leve~ l~moval is Safe In res!~onse to concerns r~is,~! by local residents over levee removal Planrang Director Boiler has responded fire! thc Army Corps of Engine:rs and ~e S~m Bernardino County Flood Control District have s,mctioned the levee removal ,and the Developer's ~o-called mittgroton measures. (See July g correspondence from Estupinian to Army Corps of Engineers. Ex.l'ubit 21 ). These r~resenta:ions are false. The Army Corps of Engim:~.'rs has confirmed, in writing, that it has not evaluated zhc issue of levee removal or the effcetiven~ of Lauren Developmere mitigation measures. Its only determination w~ that them an: no waters within its jurisdiction (Exhibit 22). The San Bernardino County Flood Control District similarly has not evahza~ed the cffecdveness o.c the mitiga/mn mea.,mre~ or the ~ See, Statement of Qualification and resumes of ~hc Crain & Associ~les engineers. Exhibil 20. ~Z4Zfl9. L02 Jam~ Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 5 of levee removal. According to Mr. Ken Miller, Director of tile Sa~ Bernardino County Fined Control District, the only issue reviewed by the Flood Control District is Lauren Dcvelopment's hookup to the Deer Creek Charmel. Mr. Miller sic. ted that the City alone is responsible for making decisions aboul the safety of the lcvce removal and Lauren Dcvclopmcnt's mitigation measures. Statements from the Army Coros of Eng~eers and the Flood Control District place lhc so1¢ rc~pon:~ibilitv for levee removal on the Ci:y which, ~iltcdly, does not havc ~ cxpcH hydrologis~ on staff'. If the Icv~ is r~oved ~d ~hc initiation mc~es fail, the City alone will have lc~al responsibility tbr the ~ it will not be able to point the finger a~ o~er government agencies ~ ~. Bullet h~ ~cmptcd to do. (2) New Information Qucstions the Safety of the Deer C..rcck Debris Bashi The: City and Lauren Development claim' thai the levee is ineffective and obsolete because, of the 1980's construction of the Ek:cr Creek Debris Basin. Substantial evidence h~s bee, .~uhmitted by CUT,.E cstablishin8 that the levee and ~walc system provide secondary protection for hemcowncrs from [1) flooding and debris flow on the acreage between the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the ie~,ee; m~d (2) ~'overtopping" or failure of the debris basin from car'rhquakes, hydropF. obic soil conditions, or landslide. If' allowed :o test/f-y, Mr. Thomas Sheeha.n of Dames & Moore, a noted hydrogeologist, u,,i[l explain to the Planning Commission if, at the potential for flooding and debris rem~ns significant despite construct/on of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and that the existing su,'alc and !tree ¢rovides an import,'mt adchtional margin of safely xo downgxadient residents.~ At the time the Deer Creek Debris Basin and spillway channel v, ere designed in 1978, the Army Corps of Engiecers (relying on then-exisling informarran) based its design specifications on a 4.0 to 5.0 magm:ude earthquake. Since 198/3, the Cucamonga faull has been more fully mapped, and numerous published studies place a CURE reserves thc right to submit written Icstimony if Mr. Shechun is prohibited from testifying. Jam~s Markman, F..~. July 9, 199'7 Page 6 the probability of ~n earthquake at a '7.5 magnitude.: The Debris Basin spillway ca.,mot withstand such a Further, numerous studlea have documented the accelerated flow rate of debris due to hydrophobic conditions in the event of a fire.* No fire has taken place in the area since 1970. In 1Re even! of a bum and subsequent rain, the potenti'd for "overtopping" of the debris basin is u factor thut must be calculated in determining the consequence of levee removal or the effectiveness of Lauren Dovelopment's mitigaticm. No such ar. aiysis he.s been tonducted. (3) Debris Basin Failure is Not a "Red Herring:" Lauren Development 'has not presented any substantial evidence relating to :he above issues. Instead, it tries to defle:t attention from this evidence by ~'gu:ng th,,t the~ s.~,;ues '-~e a "red herring." Debris basin "overtopping" and Ihe attemtv,,nt damage ~ human h fe and property is well documcmcd by Ih:: Los Angck,"s Ceunty Flood Control District which experiermed six debris basin failures in the 1969 and 1978 floods.~ None of the debris basins actually were full at the time nfthe "ovennpping," and the [.os Angeles Flood Control District has arlmitted tha! it v.'ould need to design a debris basin to a 30 percent debris tone slope before all of the 1969 and 10'78 danaaged basins would s See Feature Design Memnrandum No. 6 Deer Creek, Demons, and Hillside Debris Basins and Champels, Plate G--e, Plate G-2, Vll-2, VII-3, IV-2, IV-3, IV-7. Geologic Map, Sec. 4 tlNTB S,af4BAG; Sich& Dolan. ' See Prosi~n ~ Sediment_..Transoorts in Pucific Rim $~ol~nd,s. W. Wells. 1981; Soil Heating Ch~nrral Fires, De Band, 1979; Soil Wenabiiiw, Krmmmes & DeBano; Effects of Fire on the Generation of Debris }-'lows, W. Wells. 1987. As one Forest Service employee who h~s witnessed debris flows stated: "It is geologically inevitable. The only issue i~ wh~, is living in the area when it happens." ~ See Los Angeles County Flom:l Control DistricL Hydrologic Reporl, Ston;~s of 1969 Vols. I & 11. ~C#242~9.L~2 James Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 7 h~v¢ held.* The Dcc~ CrccR Debris ~in is not designed to · 30 percent cone slope. In its D~sign Memorandum of the Deer (.'reck Dcbr/s l-i~.sin, even the Army Corps of Engineers admitted: "The adequacy of the debris storage requirements is difficult to determine by comparison with recnrded debris produclion in the area b~caum o f insufficient data." (See Ft,:alurc Design Menmrandum No. 6, Deer Creek/Dpmens & Hillside Debris Basins and ChanneLs {1979) at IX-l, F. xhib~ 23). A!tachcd as Exhibit 24 are photographs depicting damage from the 1969 and 1978 floods. If lhc above in£ormation does not lend some "reality' to the sehousness of this issue, C.U'RE is prepared to havc debris basra survivors appear at the City Council meeting. Titos: families include the Genofilcs, made famous in the John McPhee Essay: "Los .Angcl¢s Against the Muuntams," e..xccrpts of which arc attached a.s Exhibit 25. The Gcnofii~s ha¥c agre-,.d to t:stify on CURE's hchatt: The Mitigation Measures Prupos,,:d by Lauren Dcvctbpment are an Inadequate Substitute for the L.-vee and Sw',dc Lauren Development's "expert" trying to downplay the levec's significance is mere conjecture with no supporting evidence: In our prot~ssional opinion. the replacement of an aged, unlincd, earthen training [sic] levee tha! was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until Deer Creek Channel was complete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic and I~ydraulic standards, is one where the benefit is so obvious thilt it speaks for itself. By the construction of the con~rete channel with Trac't 147'7 I, a maintenance association will be in !~lace m hake care of the channel." S(~ MI)S June 26, 1997 Consulting Letter.~ July 13, 197'} Memorandum Concerning De.,iign Debris Cone Slop~ Modificmion, Los AJ~geles County Flood Conuol District. '~ MDS Consulting rcikrcnc'~s scvcral documents that are not contained in the City's files. CURE previously attempted to obtain those documents from (continued...) James Ma~k.,'n,'m, Esq .ruiy 9, 1997 Past 8 Thc ¢£tq:r. tivcncss of' protec:~on provided hy the levee cannot be questioned. Attached are aer;.al pholugraphs from 1969 ~a! demonstrate how the levco pmtcct,:d downgr~i~t property owners m one of' thc worst storms in history. (Exhibit 24). From the aerial photographs, wha! is obvious is that that "aged" levee held back tremendous water flow in the 1969 flood. What is also "obvious." even to a ca.~ual observer, rs that conerrOr-lined slructures art more vulnerable'to damagc than earth.n s[ructurc~ Jn an earthquake. Tht only' other "obvious" point is that the mitigation mcas'.~rcs proposed by Laurtn Dcvelnp. ment c.'mv. ot po~hly he c, emparcd with vastly more extensivc !cvcc and swale $ysttra which has i~roven to be. so effective lbr years. What is not at all obvious, howcvcr, i3 whcth~ 40 propc-try owners (assuming tull occupancy) hav¢ either the exlx-rtise cr the resources m effe¢tivtly maintain the proposed mitigation. Tl',is is a critical char..ged circumstance. When Brock Hom~ originally propo.¢~d the Project, it was assumed that all thrcc homeown, rs associations (over 240 homes) would bc rcspoasiblc for maintaining the new culvert. The cnfirc c¢onomic burden now rests on a substantially smaller number o£propcrty owners. Moreover, as of this date, no maintenance plan has hc¢n included in the record for review by CURE I!1. FEDERAl. AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE CITY RECIRCUL,4,TE THE NEGATrVE DECLARATION AND COMPLY WITH THE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION' PLAN On June 23, 1997, the California Dtparnncnl of Fish aid Gent stattd: "iT]he Department believes additional cnvironmental review is now requi~d to £ulty disclose the proje. ct's ~'(...continued) Associazed Engineers .~hich informed CUI:LE tk, at the Iilcs were no longer avadlable. No mention of b,LDS was made nor did the City refer CURE to MDS lbr documents. All rilL-rented documents have been requested. CURE reset'es its rights to provide supplemental :videnee in response to :he in~brmation contained in those documents. ~l~2~.2E~. L02 James Markman. Esq. July 9, 1997 Page: 9 current potential significant impacts to .qensitive wildlife resources. We believe that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, rccirculation of the Negative Declaration is warranted because: (1) substantial change h~ occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to bc undertaken, as lhc arm proposed for development is no~,' within an active Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) area -- of which the City ;is a participant and (2) new information of' subst:mtial importance to the project h~ bccomc available and the project w~11 now have one or more significant effects not l~rCviously discussed, as the proposed development will result in a significant impact to d~e reduction in the numbers of unique plants and ~u'umal$ associated with RAFSS. a state sis'nificant natural area~'habitat ranked a., 'very fiu'eatened', (C. EQA guidelines, Section 15162.)" $cc Jtmc 23, 1997 Icttcr fi'om Patricia Wolf, Acting Rcgional Manager, Depar, ment of Fish and Game, Region 5 to Brad Bullet. The, Urnted State~ Fish and Wildlife Service similarly have advised the City that Lauren Development still has not corr. pieted its gnatcatcher sum'cys de,~-pite its 4pril 18, 1997 letlet. and request thz. t the City not issue grading permits. The LI.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game arc the gevemmcnt agencies with jur/sdicfion aa~d authority in the area of plant and wildlife preservation. Ih¢ City cannot conceivably ignore these ~'o agencies znd elect instead tr~ rely on unsul~ported statements by Lauren Development's environmental counsel, Hew!tI & McGuire, that compliance with the Endangered Species Act is somehow "voluntary" or that the potential for gnatcamber habitat is a fiction. Subsequent to June 23, [t~e Department of' Fish a~u:l Game further informed Mr. Hartzel of several gnatcalcher s~ghtings m tt-.e area. If Lauren Development is James Markman, Esq. July O, 1907 Page 10 so c:rtaJn of the ~bscnce c f gna~catchcrs.~° Why has it f'ailed to complct¢ the studic:~ reque~ed nearly 90 days ago'? The gnatcatcher clearly is not the only specics at risk. As the Department of'Fish and O~me asserted, numerous other plants and species arc at risk along with the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat supporting these species. Even though some of these species may have been listed prior to I'~¥0 (which underscores how pathetic the Ci:y's original N'egadve Decimation was) the vast majority ofspecies and plan~ life was lis~ed subscqucmly. The City can.not allow Lauren Developmenl to destro)' planl and wildlife without considering the "new information" referenced by the Department Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Not only would.doing so violate CEQ^, i! would violate ~he City's ow'n Ordinances which mandate disapproval o1' a final subdivision map where "it]he design of the subdi~4sion or proposed improvements are likely to cause suhsaantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat." Given lhe overwhelming evidea~cc that Lauren Devclopment's project doe:~ just that, the City will never be in a position to legally approve the fin,,l Project.~' ~4289.L02 ~o The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's July 9, 1997 (Exhibit 26) reaffim~s its former Apr'i! 18, 1997 letter informing Lauren Development :hat its gnatcatcher surveys are inadequate. This letter, along with the attachment to Liam Davis' memorexlure, reference numerous ffamtcalchcr sigl)fings. Any effort by Lauren Development to destroy the habitat and "risk" an ESA violation will be mel with an imm~liate r~luest for m~ in. iunction in state and federal cour~ and any other legal "self-help" steps lhat CURE members can t~c to prcvcnt such destruction. ~" The City also has failed ~o comply with new Senate Bill 901 which requires consultation with the local wa~cr purveyors n:g~rding availability of water supply to the prt:z~se~ development. Of even greater importance, the City has made no effort to comply with its own local ordinance, Development Code section 1912.(~43, which requires ~hat the City nodfy the Department of Public Resources prior ~o approving projects that impact recharge are=. Jamcs Markman, Esq. July 9, 1997 Page 11 IV. NEW INFORMATION (;ONCEPiNING DANGERS RELATED TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON POWER LINES HAVE [NOT BEEN CONSIDERED The proposed project is connguous to, and virtually under, the Southern Edison powerlines. MiiliGaus readings from some areas were in the 4.0 to 5.0 range which is higher till the recommended 3.0 MilliGaas. Al',hough there is significant scienlific disagrcement over :he impacts of Electro Magnetic Fields on humans, particularly children, no analysis of the potential health impacts w,,s conducted. Numerous post-19(K) studies have been ~'r'itttm on this topic. Additionally, no analysis ~a~ conducted on what po[en:ial impacts exist to homeowners in the event of tower toppling due to hqgh winds. V. CONCLUSION The City Staff is recommending approval of Project that is both technically and legally flawed in face of resounding opposition by im citizenry, substantial evidence of significant envu'onmema! and sat~:y concerns based upon new evidence, and thc rcqucsts bv two government agencies to not permit grading unti! a complete environmenial review i~ conducted. Approving Laur~ Developmcn~'s Developmen! Application. under the circumstances. is hnlh legally un~,'arrantcd and politically unwise. {:or fi~e reasona, set forth above, CtJR. E respectfully requ~l:~ that the Commission deny Development 9'7,-11. M.l~l:pb Enclosures Very truly yours, btali~.sa tlathaway McK '~ ~ . RESIDENTS SUE CITY OF .RANCH0 CUCAMONGA Last week, a group of Rancho Cucamonga property owners and environmental organizations filed a civil rights suit zn federal disgrict cour~ agains~ the cit. y. While the Civil Rights Ac~ of 1964 has previously been applied to local land use and planning decisions, this is the first time it has been used to challenge tentative tract map extensions. The plaintiff, Cucamonga~;s United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) claims that the City, through two officials in its Plannin~ Department, violated ~e residents' righ~ to due process Dy systemat!cally excluding thsm from participauing in decisions relating ~o the ~ubdivisicn a::d developmenc of 25.9 acres of rare habitat and by refusing access to.public records granted under the California Public Records Act. CURE alle9es that the proposed developmen~ ~itc at the base of the San Be~lardino Mounta!ns raises serious safety concerns ignored by 5he City. The development would remove a levee and swale system designed to protect neighboring homeowners from ~1ooding and debris ~iows, thus placing. ~heir families and property a: risk. CURE al~o claims that the environmental impact would be significant, as the proper~y is home to a nu,~er of threatened and rare plant and animal species. The s!te has been designated by the California Department of F~sh and Game as among the rarest and most threatened habitat in the world. No environmental impact u~udy was ever conducted for the proposed project. The C!~y =entativel~; approved building of 40 homes cn this land in 1990 after it issued a negative declaration concluding the project would not adversely impact the env!ronment. However, the original developer went bankrupt before the project began. Since · that -_ime new seismic ~.~for~mtion regarding the Cucamonga fault has come to light and biological surveys have revealed the importance o~ the alluvial fan sage s_-rub habitat as harboring more than 1~0 rare, threatened, or endangered species. The CURE su!t alleges tha~. the City prevented analysis and public discussion of any -".uch new circu.n,-tances by granting extensions of 5he tentative map in violation of local ordinances; (2} violating sta~e and federal law by not providing affected property owners with notice and an opportunity to be heard at the times the tentative map was extended; and (3) depriving access to p~b]ic records relating to ~_he project. CURE is represenned by ~he Berliner Law Offices (Nevada City) and Loeb & Loeb (Los Angeles). Berliner has been involved in public interest land use, planning and environmental law for over 35 years. In one of its recenL notable cases, it succcssful!y quashed Eisney's proposed ski resort in the Lake Tahoe area. Berliner also successfully sued the Whi~e ~ouse CDuncil on Environ,~ental Quality to obtain release of Zmoor~an~ environmental documenEs under - the Freedom of Information Act. Loeb & Loeb is one of Caiifornia°s largest law ~irms. For informazion . 17 JUL- g-g7 NED 15' 41 FISH i~ND WILDLIFE F~ NO, 71504319624 P, 01 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILD~ SERVICE ~ Held Office 27'50 ~ok. er Av==~c Wcat Cad.fi)ad, Cttff'omia 92008 July 9, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic C~nter Drive R~cho Cucamonga, Cali£omia ~1729 Subject: o. Clarifica~on ofthe U.S. Fish ~ W'fidlife Service's letter of June 10, 1997, to the City ofltJmcho Cucamonga (1-6-97-HC-240) Dear Mr. Grahn: The U.S. Fish mad W'fidlife Service (Service) is writing to clarify our letter of June 10, 1997, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga ~g Tract 14771 by Lauren Development. We understand, through Lauren Dt~elopment's attorney, that the following areas concerning the Service's letter have arisen and need clarification: 1) The Service understands that Lauren Development i~ not a_.~e~4ng a section 10(a) permit pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The first paragraph in the lct'tc~ was merely meant to miterate the Service's letter of April 18, 1997, which stated that the surveys to determine presence/absence for the threatened coastal California gnatcalcher (Polioptila californica californica) were not sufficient to determine absence of the bird on the project site. Coastal California gnstc~tchers are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project (see attachment). 2) The fffih sentenc~ in the second paragraph ~hould read, "...approved by the Service could result in a violalion ofthe T~e prohibition of svazfion 9 ofthe Endanger~l Species Act." The Service is hopvaeul that the above provide~ rarity to the City mud the project proponent regsrding the Sendee's letter oflune 10, 1997. We remain available to work with the project proponent ~ud the City to avoid impacts to federally sens/tive ~nd listed species. Please contact i FAX TRANSMITTAL · ~ ...... JUL--- 9-97 NED 15:42 FISH ~ND I~ILDLIFE F~X NO, 76r~4319624 P, 02 Beth Woulfe, Scott E1/ason, or leftNewman of this office a! (760) 431-9~0 J~ you have Sincerely, -~~C. Kobedc~ Field Supervisor 1-6-97-HC-240 Enclosure CDFG, San Diego, CA (Arm: Bill Tippets) Hewitt and McCndre, T.LP, I.rv/ne, CA (Attn: Andrew Hartzell) JUL~ 9-97 NED 16:42 FISH P~ND WILDLIFE FRX NO, 7694319624 18 HEwrrr & MeGuric, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 * (714) 798-0511 (fax) MARK R. MCGUIRE D~$ D. O'NEIL JAY F. PAJ..L-'HIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIA~ L. TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Robert McKeman San Bernardino County Museum 2024 Orange Tree Lane Redlands, CA 92347 Re: Information Pertaining to Map Supplied by USFWS Regarding Gnatcatcher Sightings in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties Dear Mr. McKeman' I am enclosing a map provided to me by Mary Beth Woulfe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mary Beth supplied me with this map recently and informed me that I would be able to obtain additional information regarding the data contained on this map from you. She could not provide me with any additional information; apparently, the Service does not have additional information regarding this map. In particular, I am interested in knowing the following regarding each marked location on the attached map: 1. The identity (name, occupation, relevant professional qualifications) of each individual(s) making the alleged sighting; 2. The location of the sighting; 3. The general weather conditions existing at the time of the sighting; 4. The number of gnatcatchers allegedly seen at that location; 5. The date (day/month/year) of the alleged sighting; 6. The title of the document wherein that sighting is recorded; and 08-05-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97080014.LTR Robert McKernan August 5, 1997 Page 2 7. The nature of the activity (e.g., formal focused biological survey, anecdotal observation, etc.) which led to the sighting. I would appreciate your providing this information (to the extent such information is known) at the earliest possible date. As you can see from the attached, the information contained on this one-page map from the Service is rather difficult to decipher. I understand from the Service, however, that this information derives from your records and that you are in a good position to provide clarification on the necessary points. I thank you in advance for your time in providing needed clarification to this map. August 13. contact me. I would greafiy appreciate receiving this additional information by Wednesday, Should you have any questions regarding my request, please do not hesitate to Sincerely, AKH/clt Enclosure cc: John Allday 08-05-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97080014.LTR JUL- 7-97 NON l l'18 BT/'BT/~.~97 88: ~ FISH AND MILDLIFE ':jf]':J7'::Jl~F '~ FPA NO, 7604319624 P, 02 // lg Huc,~ HL~'WrTT ~0+!~ D. HEwrrr & McGumE, LLP A'I'rOgNEY$ ~,T 19900 M~Axtahur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 ('714) 79g-lY500 - C/14) 798-0511 (fax) ~ R. D ~,~ ~,'t.~ D. J~Y F. P~Ia'L A. ROWE W~ L.~ Ionia P. YE,~C;ER August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIA'III.,E and U.S. MAIL Rebevw. a Jones Environmental Specialist- Region 5 California Department of Fish and Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Lauren Development- Tract 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamon£a. C~ifomia Dear Ms. Jones: This firm represents Lauren Development, the project proponent of an approximately 23-acre residential development project on the above-referenced tract in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. I understand that you left a voice mail message for John Allday of Lauren Development at the end of last week requesting that Lauren Development conact you. This afternoon I left a message for you on your answering machine noting that I was returning your call on behalf of Lauren Development. Please contact me at y.our earliest convenience at (714) 798-0500. Let me again express my disappointment that the Department of Fish and Game has declined to date to withdraw or substantially clarify its June 23, 1997 letter to Mr. Brad Bulter at the City of Rancho Cucamonga in writing. While the Department's oral clarifications are appreciated, they have limited value when not reflected in writing ~ven the written statements of June 23. As I have mentioned previously to Bill Tippets, you and others at CDFG, that letter contains both inaccurate and misleading information and statements which do a disservice both to the Department and to the public which it serves, not to mention the potential prejudicial effect which they could have on the project applicant. Once again, I request that the Department either withdraw or substantially clarify its letter of June 23 in writing. The Department's letter of June 23 suggests Ihat the Department may be interested in meeting with the City and Lauren Development. City staff and Lauren Development would be pleased to meet with Bill Tippets, yourself and, if approphate, other members of the Department. Suzh a m~fing should be held by Friday, August 15. Please inform me of the Department's interest and availability. s: \DDE \161 \EORR \c)7011I]O13. LTR Rebecca Jones Au=mast 6, 1997 Page 2 Again, I would appreciate your returning my phone call on behalf of Lauren Development. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Sincerely, Andrew K. Hartzell AKH/clt co: Jacqueline Schafer (via regular mail) Craig Manson, Esq. (v/a regular mail) John Allday (via regular mail) Wilt/am Tippets (via fax and regular mail) Brad Bullet (v/a re=malar mail) 0B-05-97 SO21-00002 S:kOOC\lGl\CO~R\g7080DlS-LTR LOEB .LOEBLLP :213-6aS-346Q DLr,:ct Dial No. 213.688.3622 c-mail: MMCKE~~loeb.com August7,1997 Via Facsimile Ms. Gale Sanchez City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Departinc-at 10500 Civic C~nter Drive Raacho Cucamonga, California 91729 Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ('CUR.E") Au~,ust ~-0, 1997 City Council Hcaxmg Dat~ Dear Ms. Sanchez:. I loameel yesterday evening that ~c hearing t~:forc the City Council on CURE's appeal from the July 9, 1997 Planning Commission approval of Lauren Development Design 97-11 has been sch~ul~ for Augus~ 20, 1997. Over the pas~ several we~'ks, Peggy Glorius of my office has had several convcrsagoas with you in an effort to cm~m the hearing dale. In your mosI recent conversation of ]'uiy 25, you stated that the transcript would no! bc complete until August 13, and therefor= the hearing would not bc scheduled until aft_..~ August 120, 1997. Based upon your statement, I calendareel judicial evaluation hearings on behalf of the Governor's _~.' Oftice the evening of August 20, 1997. GLP11307. LO2 Ms. Gale Sanchez August 7, 1997 Pagc 2 Um/t:r th~ drc,,n,~,anc;~ CURE r,wt, i-"', a c. on~in,,~ncc of the i eating date. In exchange for a cont/auanc~, CURE is w/lling to accept the ~w~and City Coundl meeting date in S,:ptu-ml~'r in ord,=' to acc. onunodam vacat/o~ City emtaioyee$ may b~ taking in conjunction with the Labor Day holiday. Pleaae advis~ me of the procedur~ for getting a ruling on .CURE's request for an extetmion. V~y t~!y you~, /~"% ' . -~_ Malis~ Hathaway MHM:mgc 21 From: L. Alklay To: Andrew K. Hartzell Cit~, Date: 0/97 Time: 10:29:42 Hal 1 I D, S0S~t77284S August I1, 1997 3 of 4 PAGE 2/3 Office ofthe Chief' Dcsi~n Branch Mr. Joe O'Neill, City Enginccr 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dezr Mr. O'Ncilh Reference a tel~phone call from Dan James to Bob'Hall of my staff on August 5, 1997, req~g information on Deer Creek Debris Basin. Spe~ifically, he had questions about the seismic design of the basin. · In the convcrsat/on w/th Mr. James, and pt/or conwrmtions Mr. Hall had with a dcvdoper namext John Allday and a private citizen named Melissa McKeith, a question arose regarding the seismic design of the basin. The issue e. onceans whethex we consideav. d ~.isrnic conditions orilsin~lly when we dksigaext the basin in tl~ early 19g0's and whoher tee(rot information on faults and poteatial s~/smicity in this area would cau~ a problem for the embankmexa. Mr. Hall's inidat response, in each case, was that tim d~)fis basins are not subjeetezl to thc same cdtexia as reservoirs bexamse they don't peamaaneatly sto~ water. The joint probability of a basin fulI of water and a major earth~c is very remote. He aIso pointed out that this type of emhmkment has historically pexfotmed veay well during earthq,~es. Mr. James asked if tim Corps could provide some spex~c information on the original se;-~nic considemtioas for the embankxheaxt. Jim Farley, Chief of the Soils Design Sexaion, provided the following information originally l~,..v',,t~t i~ th~ Corps' x~port, "Deer C. mek, Hillside and Demeas Debris Bas/as - Embankment and Fo,,~,-ion Seismic Evaluation- Supple. meat to Feature Design Memorandum No. 6", dated June 1979 and revised in October 1980: 1. The debris basin was statically evaluatexl for two seismic events, a m~g~itude 8 on the San Andreas Fault and a magnitude 6.4 on the Cucamonga Fault The analysis imticated the embankment would perform adequately under both earthquake conditions, maintaining its integrity and function as a debris basin. 2. The joint probability ofa 100 year flood eveat and either e~tuak¢ is very rare, approximately 3.4 and 2-8 chanc~ in 100,000, ~y. Fro~ Jo~ L. Allday To: Andrew K. Har~, AU~-20-S7 09, 17 FROM,RC Hal 1 Date: 8/20197 Time: 10:29:42 ~1 I D, 80~4772848 · -.._.~ Page 4 of 4 PACE 3/3 -2- Based on the rcvi~ of this i~formaiion. thc U.S. Army Corps of ~.-~ncers affirms thc Deer Creek Basin to be safe frmn failure during a major eartlutuakc on either the San Andrcas or Cucamonga Fadis. Sincerely, Robert E. Kopiiu, P_F.. 22 101 00 '00 00:00 ~9 P02 ., .,, 10851 EDISON COURT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730' (909) 989-1751 ' FAX (909) 989-42~7 ' August 14, 1997 Lauren Developmere Inc I 1030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Tom Maran Subject: Engineering Geologic and GeotechJncal Evaluation of Landslides Tract 14771, Vicinity of Haven Avenue and Tacksten Street Rancho Cuatnonga, CA Gentlemen: In response to your request, we have made an engineering geologic and geotechnical evaluation of the potential impact of landslides in the San Gabriel Mountains on the proposed residential development of Tract 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The scope of our work consisted of field reconnaissance, review of pertinent geologic and seismic literature, review of aerial photographs, engineering geologic and geotechn/cal evaluation of the compiled data, and preparation of this report. Tract 14771 is located near the center of a conical shaped alluvial fan that emanates from the Sa~ Gabriel Mountains (Figu~ 1). The base of the San Gabriel Mountaim is located about one mile to the north-northeast and ~A mile to the northwest of the tract. The fan is composed of coarse- ,grained sediments ranging from silty sands to boulders that are on the order of 1,100 feet thick (Fife and Rodgers, 1974). Gradient of the fan surface in this area is approximately 5 to 7 percent. The primary source of the alluvium is Deer Canyon. Nearby smaller canyons are comparatively small sources of sediments. The San Gabriel Mountains are composed of a complex mixture of igneous and metamorphic rocks including mylonites and quartz diorite (Morton, 1974, and Bortugno and Spittler, 1986). The structural boundary between the San Gabriel Mountains and the alluvial deposits to the south is the Cucamonga fault. Based on its relatively young geomorphic expression and on seismic evidence (particularly the 1971 San Fernando earthquake), the Cucamonga fault is considered to be active (Fife et. al., t976). The Cucamonga fault is a reverse fault, approximately 28 krn in length, with a shp rate of 5 mm/yr. (± 2 mm/yr.), and is beheved capable of generating an earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude of 7.0 (Petersen et. al., 1996). Recurrence ~nterval of large earthquakes along the Cucamonga fault is thought to be on the order of 700- years (Morton and Matti, 1987). G OUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ,.. Lauren Dcvelopment~ Inc. Tract 14771 Pancho Cucarnonga, CA August 14, 1997 In the vicinity of Tract 14771, youthful alluvial sediments conceal the Cucamonga fault and its exact location is unknown. Some earlier regional geologic maps (e.g. Morton, 1974) show the Cucamonga fault crossing the Deer Canyon alluvial fan about 1,000 to 1,500 feet north of Tract 14771. Later maps (e.g. Morton and Matti, 1987, and Bortugao and Spittier, 1986) show the fitult further to the north, at the base of the mountain front in the Deer Creek area (Figure 1). However, neither location has been confirme& Several regional geologic maps depict landslides that are thought to exist in the Deer Canyon and nearby areas. A statuary of these landslides is presented on Figure 1. All these landslides occur completely w/thin the mountainous terrain of the San Gabriel Mountains. None of the landslides arc shown to extend outward onto the alluvial fan surface, and no debris flow lobes extending onto the alluvial fan suxfaces were observed on aerial photographs reviewed or during the field reconnaissance. Based on the information summarized above, we conclude that landslides originating in the San Gabriel Mountains will have no adverse impset on residential structures within or to the south of Tract 14771 for the following reasons: Regional geologic maps do not shown any landslides w/thin or south of Tract 14771, or any landslides extending out from the mountains onto the Deer Canyon alluvial fan. Further, we observed no evidence of landslides extending from the San Gabriel Mountains out onto the Deer Canyon alluvial fan on aerial photographs or during the field reconnaissance. 2. One method of mitigation of landslide hazards is to locate a development at a sufficient distance from landslides so that the developmere will avoid the hazard (I-loltz and Schuster, 1996). The location of the site ~A of a mile or more from the base of the San Gabriel Mountains provides such mitigation from landslides within the San Gabriel Mountains. o Debris flows deposit sediments at gradients of about 20 percem or less (Campbell, 1975). Since the gradient of the Deer Canyon fan is about 5 to 7 percent, should any debris flows reach the fan ~, they would be deposited near the mountain front where the stream gradient changes prior to reaching the site. RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page 2 G Om p GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS . Lauren Development~ Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga~ CA August 14, ! 997 , The conical shape of the Deer Canyon ~11uvial fan directs runoff and possible debris flows at the base of the mountains to the southwest and southeast away from the site, with the except/on of runoff from Deer Canyon itself (Figure 1). However, a debris basin and concrete lined drainage channel have been constructed to control dra/nage from Deer Canyon. 0nly the area south of the debris basin drains toward the site. It is our professional opinion that special mitigation measures to protect stxucmms within or dix~tly to the south of Tract 14771 flora landslides originating within the San Gabriel Motto' tains are not needed owing to the distance to the mountain front, the location of the property near the center of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan, the gradient of the alluvial fan, and the existing flood control improvements. This report has been prepared solely for evaluation of landslide hazards related to development of Tract 14771. It has been prepared ming generally accepted en~neering and geologic principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. We trust this report will serve your needs at this time. If you have any questions or require any further information, please not do hesitate to contact us. RespectfixHy submitted, RMA Group GarS; Wallace Engineering Geologist CEG 1255 Ed Lyon, PE Vice-President GE 2362 WALLACE E~ 001255 CERTIRED ENGINE~ING . ~.~,. ~.. ,~ ,~* ~e~O~c~~~ Attachments: Appendix A- References Figure 1 - Regional Geologic Map RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page 3 101 00 '00 00:00 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX A 101 00 '00 00:00 339 GJ MIp GEOTECI~2~ICAL CONSULT ANTS ....... : .............. ~.,, ,,,,.--~ ,, Lauren Developmcnt~ Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 . . , , , . . Bortugno, E.J. and Spittier, T.E., 1986, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 3A Campbell, R.H., 1975, Soil Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorms ha the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 851. Fife, D.L. and Rodgers, D.A., 1974, Generalized Map Showing Thickness of Fresh-Water Bearing Alluvium i_.n Geologic H~rds in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113. Fife, D.L. et. al., 1976, Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113. Holtz, R. D. and Schuster, ILL., 1996, Stabilization of Soil Slopes h! Landglides - I~vestigation and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board Special Report 247. Morton, D. M. and Streitz, IL, 1969, Preliminary Reconnaissance Map of Major Landslides, San Gabriel Mountains, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 15. Morton, 1974, Major Landslides and Generalized Relative Slope Stability Map Ln Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California Division of lvfines and Geology Special Report 113. Morton, D. M. and Matfi, J. C., 1987, The Cucamonga Fault Zone: Geologic Setting and Quaternary History in Recent Reverse Faulting in the Transverse Ranges, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339. 9. Petersen, M.D. et. al., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic ~d Assessmere for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 96-08. 10. U.S. Geological Survey, 1966, Cucamonga Pe~ 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, photorevised ] 973. RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page A1 · . 101 00 ~00 00:00 · GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development, Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamong..~. CA August 13, 1997 SOUFee 1 1 ! 2 $ olffg~5 ~ 1. 2. ~I~.RIAL PHOTOGRAPHS UTILIZED i, - Flight Date .......... F .!~..h_tNo. 4-20-96 c-528 7-1-91 c487 2-25-86 c450 1-21-78 c-279 2-7-70 c297 2-27-69 C295 1-30-69 C-293 1938 W-68 8-3-89 1834 .~. -. San Bernardino County Flood Control District U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center Phot_~ .og~...~1i ~o. 213,214 204,205 177, 178, 179 156, 157 74, 75, 76 18, I9, 20 49 E-3-6,7,8 E-2-11 153, 154. RMA Job N° 96..207-11 ,-- ... Page A2 .... ,..., GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS .,. Lauren Development! Inc. Tract 1477 l Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 igneous and etamorph/cBedrock Landslide (arrows show direction of movement) · Debris Basin ION A;ro -]" J' :"" "" · /.-:'-~i::"..--!---'~- Direction of ~m flow .-- .- "hi ....... · , :, .......... .- ~. _- ~ ..~ ,' / - . .... , ~ ~ . .. . ~ '~ .. . , . , Aliuwum(Qal) .~ ~., ,' "'~ ~,. ~.. :'. '-... ~ n ' --. --*nn ~ ~ ' . .~' .;~... · /x.' · ", t . %,,, ~ ....../ :~: ~.~.:~' =x: .,.. 'lb, .-'" -~'--~ ,")~-- .'~ '/ ~_"":. ~:~ :'=:. : .'" .... ' ' ' w~ *' ~ / .......... / ~ w~ .~ ,'.' ' ~ a " ~..,''"'-' /' ~.:'. ~*l :~ 9 ~ / [ .. -..~ ~. . ...... . ~ ~, /; ~ ~. ii. ~. ' IIk . i ] "- - '~ ..........~' ....~ .....'"' ~- '""'~" Imnroved Channel · /" .7 , ~ucamonga fault, dashed where approximate, do~ed where concealed...' {' .' '/~...t, . ........... ~', ~ ' ~ / ~ ", .....:.-.~..~ .......~4~ ,' ,~.~ t ;.'~.-~IL'~':~ ..' 19 ) '. '.;. _?:.'~aT:k~ o,..~ , ~ ~ ........ ~ ...' .,~..., ,~..:.:.,...:::,~,<,. ~. : , ............ ~GIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Sere: 1"- 2,000' Sources: References 4, 6, 7, 8 and Aerial Photographs ~ _. RMA Job N° 96-207-11 FIGURE 1 101 00 '00 00:00 339 P09 LEVEE FACT SHEET DR 97-1 !~ Tentative Tract 14771 (8/~3/97) 'I STATEMENT: The levee no longer offers protection from flooding from the 2,374 acre De¢~ C~ reek f Watershed, that purpose now being served by the Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin constructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1983. Runoff from the 125 acres between the debris basin and Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" r~ferred to below) will be intercepted by the on-site storm'channel which will be constructed by Lauren Development befor~ the lev~ is removexl. The County FlOod Control District removed their easement in 1986 signifying that the leveewas no longer needed to flood control. In 1990 the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Corps of Engineers and the County Flood Control District all approved a revision to federal flood insurance maps which removed the flood plain designation from the subject property, regardless of the removal of the levee. The City and the County Flood Control District permitted the grading of a 200' wide opening in the levee in 1989, a gap which remains today and through which waters would flow from the 125 acres parcel to the north of Haven View Estates if a 100 year storm was to occur before the compleiion of Lauren Development's on-site storm chennel. The subject property and all of Haven View Estates will be more sa~, after · construction of this project than they ar_e now, not less .va~ _as C.U.R.E. contends. - - A. 1938 - Earliest Photos of Levee: The earliest photos showing the Deer Creek Interception Levee are from 1938.~ Research to date has been unable to resolve when or by whom the levee was originally built, however it is doubtful that the levee was designed or constructed to today's standards for ! 00 year storm protection. B. 1941 - Flood Control Easement Recorded Over the Subject Property: In 1941, an "Easement for Flood Control and Water Conservation" in favor of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District was recorded over properties north and east of the levee, including the subject property.2 1969 - Levee Overflows Flooding Area of Haven View Estates: Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, the levee was not sufficient to hold back the 1969 storm, which occurred prior to construction of the Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin. The levee did not protect the eastern portion of what is now Haven View Estates and this area was therefore flooded as a result of the storms o£ January 1969? The 1969 storms were generally considered to be closer to a 50 year event than a 100 year event.4 The combination of the Deer Creek Debris Basin, the Deer Creek Channel and the Lauren Development local storm drain are what is necessary to protect these areas. Footnote Re£erenc~s i Photos dated July 4, 1938 t~,ken by the United States Department of Agriculture and obtained from the archiv~ of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Early maps from 1953 obtained from the United Stat~s Geologic'Service also show the levee. 2 lns_u'. ument # 14.87. pag_~ 139 of records of S.B- County r~cordecl August 2, 194 I. "Overflow Limits, Storm of Janqarv, 1969 Southwest Portion, prepared by fi~e San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated May, 1969 ~ Mr. Michael Fox, Chief, .Water Resources Division, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Telcon. August 4, 1997. 101 00 '00 00:00 D, 1983 - Development of Haven View Estates Approved: Tentative Tract 12332 (the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) was approved in May of 1983. ~ Although the Deer Creek Channel : and Debris Basin were in the process of being completed, the subject property was not subdivided at this time because the County Flood Control District still owned the flood control easemerit over the subject property. However a conceptual residential layout was prepared for the subject property and included on the approved tentative tract map. Testimony to the Planning Commission 'm 1983 indicated that the ultimate disposition of the subject property was unknown bemuse "the Flood Control District has not yet made up its mind" about whether it was needed for flood control purposes.6 t5. 1983 - Deer Creek Facilities Constructed' In June of 1983 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Deer Creek Charmel and Debris Basin.7 Fo 1983 - Drainage Report Refers to Levee: The Drainage Report submitted to the city in March of 1983 for Tentative Tract 12332 (the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) indicated that "With the Corps of Engineers' Deer Creek Dam and Channel and Hillside Basin and Channel in place, the site [T.T. 123321 is well protected against offsi.te flows." "Of the approximately 190 acres below the Deer Creek Dam, about 160 acres are intercepted by either the Hillside system [or] the Flood Control District's existing Dccr Creek Reception Levee." s G. 1984 to 1986 - Flood Control Easement Abandoned by the County: In 1984, the owner'of the subject property requested that the Flood Control District investigate relinquishment of the Ttood control easement because of his desire to develop the property? After determining that the levee was no longer needed for flood control purposes, the Flood Control District recommended to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors that the easement be relinquished.*° In January of 1986, tS_e County Board of Suocrvisor~ abandoned thcir casement over the property.zl As a part of this abandonment, the Flood Control District reserved n._~o rights to maintain or preserve the:levee. The owner of the property was required to pay - and did ~ fact ray - San Bemardi. no C0t/nty for the value of the developrnentn_'ghts to this property in exchange for the County's removal 0fthe development restricting easement, Footnote References -. - ~ Tentative Tract 12332 was originally approved May 1 I, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66); and amendments or extensions were approved on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66A); February 12, 1986 (Planning Commission Resolution 86-23); November I 0, ! 987 (Planning Commission Resolution 87-196); Janu .~y 27, 1088 (Planning Commission Resolution 88-53); Jura: 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January f l, :1989 (Planning Commission Resolution 89-03). * .!'lan_ ,_ing Commission Minutes, May I 1, [983. ~ Mr. Bob Hall, Chief of Design Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Telcon, 7/28/97. The Deer Creek Channel ('North Half) and Deer Creek Debris Basin were officially completed in June, 1983. .Drainage Report, Tract [233.2 included with Initial Study dated March 18, 1083. ' I.cttcr from Associatc. d Engineers to S.B.Co. Flood Control District, January 9, 1984. to l,et_tcr to San Bernardino Cou_ntv Boa_rd.of Supervisors from Flood. Cont_ml District dated October 22, 1984. ~t Instrument#.86-014725 recorded January 20, 1986. 101 00 '00 00:00 ~ F~11 J. 1988- Development Restrictions on Adjacent Property Also Lifted: Prior to 1988, the Flood Control District owned in fee the land north of the subject property, and an easement over the adjacent property for power line purposes was in place in favor of the Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light_ This easement restricted the Bureau's use of the adjacent property due to the potential flooding. In 1988, the Flood Control District sold the adjacent property in fee to the City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, and in doing so, retained no easements or other reservations for flood control purposes over the use of this prol~erry, which would been have done if this property was at all necessary for flood control purposes. 1988 - Approved Hydrology Study Refers to Removal of Levee: The Hydrology Study prepared in 1988 by Associated Engineers for Tract 12332-2 (Phase II of Haven View Estates) clearly anticipated the ultimate removal of.t_he levee. The report stated that "before construction of the [Deer Creek] Basin the earth levee was the only barrier to flows from the north." "For Phase II development of Tract 12332 the levee will remain in place, thus acting as a natural barrier tO flows offsite. In the future when the r _emainder parcel [_the subject property] i$ to be added, and'i~e levee reinoverly. more rcc_.ent topo will be available and mitigatin~ measures cao_ be analyzed at that time to convey flows from the nort3." "The existing levee [is] more than adequate [to protect tract 12332-2 from 'the small remaining tributary area to the north]." t4 1989 - Major Breach in Levee Approved by the City, the Homeowners Association and the County Flood Control District: Since 1989, the existing levee has been incapable ofhoid~g major storm runoff ~enerated from._ _the area extending from the...Deer Creek Chartnet to the ~bject Dr0perty because a major breach in the levee of over 200 .feet in wide. was graded throu~ i.-"t to provide an easterly emergency access road for Haven View Estates.~* The requirement f6r this access road was a condition of approval of Tract 12332-2 which was imposed by the Cit3,. Eouncil at the urging of the adjacent homeowner's association.~6 The grading of .lhi..'s hole in the lev _~_ was approved by the County Flood Control District.i* The fact_that the city, HOA and Flood Control District have all allowed violati0ns_.of the levee pro_rides compelling evidence that the need for the levee has Ionl~ since ~assed. Continued maintenance o~'this road tlxrough the' levee is .. . a requirement of the adiacc'nt homeowners associ_ation CC&Rs.:8 Despite this requirement for ._ ~2 Mr. Ken Williams, Right-of-Way Division, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Teicon July 24, ~.99b/. The payment which Mr. Laband made to the county for development rights was approximately $18,000. ~'~ Mr. Ken Williams, Sero I~mardino County Flood Control District Right-of-Way Division, Telcon 7/'24/97, ~a Hvdrg!0gY Study in the City of_Rancho .Cu. camonga, Tract 12332 prepared by Associated Engineers, dated August, 1988 (cover undated, however data inside report reflects this date), (Underlinin~, added .t. 0 cited quotes.) ~ The breach in the levee graded for the emergency access road is approximately 210' wide at the top and 80' wide at the bottom. Prior to the breach, the levee in this location ranged from ! 0' to 27' high. ~t, See City Council Resolution 88-344 dated June 2, 1988 (approving, on appeal, an extension of time to recocd 'i'ract 12332-2) requiring the easterly emergency access road. :* San Bernardino County Flood Control District Permit No, P-188104 approved on December 6, 1988 an emergency access road through the levee.. te Declaration 0fConditions, Covenants and Restrictions for Rancho Cucamonga V - Haven View .Estates recorded June 13, 1990 (doc# 90-231127), 101 00 '00 00:00 339 P13 Uo Ne O. Pi The channel shall be designed to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. · The developer shall prepare reports, plans, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations relating to flood plain boundaries and shall have the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone AO designation removed from the project area by the Fedend Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). * The drainage channel along the north project boundary shall be operational prior to removal of the existing levee. 1991 - A Third Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prepared in 1991 by Morse Consulting Group again clearly anticipated removal of the levee. This report stated "The le_yee will be removed and flows from the north will be diverted inside the projects north boundary and empty to the east. These flows will be conveyed eastward along the project's northern boundary via a concrete trapezoidal channel to the existing Deer Creek Channel. The required drainage.channel al_one the projects north boundary 8ball be operational prior to removal of the existitn~ levee at the projects southern boundary." 26 1991 - Federal Government (FEMA) Changes Flood Insurnnce Designation for Site: Engineered plans for the drainage channel along the northern boundmy of the subject property were submitted to FEMA in January, 1991.27 In August of 1991, after reviewing these local &ainage channel plans and taking into account the existence of the new Deer Creek Channel, FEMA issued a Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) which officially changed the federal government flood insurance designation for the subject property from a flood prone designation (Zone AO) to a flood protected designafon (Zone C). All of Haven View Estates - on both_ sides of the levee - now shares the same Zone C flood insurance_designation signifying that this area is protected from flooding. ~ 1991 - Federal Government (Corps of Engineers) Attests to Safety of Deer Creek Facilities: As a part of FEMA's LOMR process, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that the Deer Creek facilities were designed to "provide protection for the Standard Project Flood (SPF), which is estimated to have a recurrence interval of approximately 200 years. In addition, the channel was designed to withstand the high velocities in the nmge of 60 feet per second (fps)." 29 1991 - County Flood Control District Concurs with Chnnge to Flood Insurance Rating: As a part of FEMA's LOMR process, the County Flood Control District indicated thin they are "in ~Fo.otnote References "a Hydroiogy and Hydraulic Calculations.._-_ 0ffsite Tributary Flows wig Trapezoidal _l_nterceptor Channel for Tract J 4771, prepared by Morse Consulting Group, dale. d June 1,199 l._(Underlining added to cited ouotes~, .2? U,S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Case Number 91-07-47P '-~ Letter of Mao Revision (L.OMR) from u.s. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dated August, 19, 19~1. Zone AO is defined as "Special Flood Hazard Area (Shallow sheet flow of' 1-3' in 100 year storm)". Zone C is defined as "Area of Moderate or Minimal Flood Hazard (in a 500 year storm.)" v, Letter from Mr. Robert E, Koplin, P.E., Chief, Eneinee. ring Division, Deoartment of the Army, Los A. ngeles District Cotos .0._f.Engineers, dated March 12, 1991. Q. Ro S, concurrence with the proposed LOMR request that would change FEMA flood hazard designations on District rights of way south of the Deer Creek Debris Basin." 30 1992 - Grading of Levee Approved: The owner of the property at this time, Brock Homes., processed through the city Building & Safety Department a Rough Grading Plan for the subject property, consistent with the previously a_pproved Conceptual Grading Plan (see Item "K." ~,bove), which included the removal of the levee.~ Just prior to starting the grading, Brock Homes ~lropped the prqject..Uoon.approv~d of a Rough Gradi'n~ Plan.from ..the Building & Safety Department. the !evee co_uld have been removed in 1992 or anytime since. Note Re: Design Capacities: To compare the size of the T.T. 14771 local drainage channe! with the long abandoned levee is incorrect. Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, Deer Creek Basin and Channel replaces the levee, not the local ohsitc drainage channel to be cometed by L.auren Development. As approved by the City, the County Flood Control District, the Corps of Erlgineers and FEMA, the on-site drainage channel on the subject property is designed to collect wate~ runoff from the 124.8 acres to the north not captured by the Deer Creek Basin and Channel? Deer Creek Channel is designed to contain approximately 5,400 cubic feet per second (cfs)33 flowing fr~m the 3.71 square mile (2,374 acre) Deer Canyon Watershed.34 Contrary to testimony by Dames & Moore, the subject pmperty's local drainage channel is designed to contain 447 els emanating from a local 125 acre watershed which is just five percent the size of the Deer Canyon Watershec~?,36 1997 - Geotechnical Analysis of Levee Confirms Inadequacy: According to a recent analysis of the levee. installation of the local drainage channel proposed for the subject property will result in an improvement over the existing flood control protection offered by the levee. ,From a geotechnical perspective. the proposed storm drain channel and associated slopes are more ~'table against ~oss failure than the existing levee." 37 Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, du~ to the breach in the levee, any water generated by the area north of the property has the potential to Footnote References .~0 Letter from Mr. Kenneth D. Guidry, P.E., Chief, Water Resources Divisio_n, San Bernardino County Flood C_on6'o! District, dated June 11, 1991. "'~ Rou~:h Grading PJan plan Check NO. 91-3535. Planning Department approval of the Rough Grading Plan was granted on March 24, 1992. :"~ Hyd_rology.and. Hydraulic Calculations --- Offsite Tributary Flows with Traoezoidal Interceptor Channel_ _for Tract 1477.1_ prepared by Morse Consulting Group, dated June 1, 1991 :~'~ At inlet oft 14771 local on-site drainage channel. ~ Hvdrolo£v Study in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tract 12332 prepared by Associated Engineers, dated August. 1988 (cover undatecL however data inside report reflects this date). ~ 2,374 ac / 125 ac '-' 18.992 ?~ cfs, acrr, age confirmed by MDS Consulting, 7/31/97. · ~"' Stability Anal¥_sis_, Exist. lag and Proposed Retention Betres, Tract 14771, Rancho Cucamonn:a CA, by RMA Group, daled July 9, 1997 101 00 '00 00:00 continued maintenance, the homeowners association ceased maintenance of the access road through the levee in 1996.19 The hole in the..lev. ee remain_s however, and anymajor storm mnoff.t0glay would_freely flow through this_ openinc causing damage to the. properties b~_l. ow. 1990 - A Second Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prepared in 1990 by Associated Engineers also clearly anticipated removal of the levee. This report stated: "The tributary area to the north [of the subject property] encompasses approximately 122 acres." "This area is bounded on the north by the Deer Canyon Debris Basin, on the east by the Deer Creek Channel and on the west by an existing earth levee. [This] exLs'ting levee runs along the site south border, cutting off access to the second phase [Tract 12332-2]. Therefore, the levee will be remov.ed and flows from the north will be dive _rted inside the prol.ect_ s north boundary and emptv to the east.~ 2o " 1990 - T.T. 14771, Grading of Property and Removal of Levee Approved: In November of' 1990, the city approved Tentative Tract 14771, the subject property. Th~$_approval included a Conceptual Grading Plan which clearly indicated the entire.property would be maded. including the removal Of the levee.2~ A variance ~ also granted at this time due to the unusual requirement that the local drainage channel be constructed on site? Prior to these approvals, three Neighborhood Meetings and two Planning Commission Public Hearings were held, and recommendations for2.a~proval were received by the city's Design Review, Technical Review and Grading Committees. All required findings, including those dealing with the safety of pr6.'perties in the vicinity, were made. The Haven View Estates Homeowlaers Association reeonu~_efid~:d - approval of the development of ~e property.24 The.City EngiR ..eerin~ Departmere reviewed _the tentative plans for th.e_.drainage channel, and.a_ number of conditions .were imposed_to .imuri that the channel would be properly designed, that adeouate safeguards wo_u!d be in ol~ce when the levee was removed, and that ..the site's protection from fioodi_n~ would first be proven.to the' federal government. These conditions included: 2~ The channel de,sign shall be justified by a final drainage study approved by the City Engineer. Foomot_e References -- '" betler from Rancho Cucamon~a Fire Protection Dis.tri~ dated June 25, 1997 indicate~ that in 1996 the permit was repealed after outstanding permit fees were paid in full by the adjacent homeowners association. _Drainage Report in the Ciw of Rancho Cucamonga, Tract. 14771 prepared by Associated Engineers, January 1, 1990 (l, JnderlininR Mded to citegi quotes.) :~ Tentative Tract 14771 w~ approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning CommL~ion Resolution 90-138). A Co.nceptuai Grading Plan was approved at that time. Removal of the levee was an integral part of the plans for this property. Variance 90-08 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commisaion Resolution 90-139). Staff Report to Planning; Commission dated ! I I 14/90. .u l,etter from Bruce Ann Hahn..P~. ident (then and _currently) of the Ha_ven View F.,statts Homeowners Association., recommending approval of Tentative Tract 14771, dated November 12, 1990. Engineering Division Conditions #1-4. 101 00 '00 00:00 flow through this hole in the levee and severely damage the properties to the south. important that this local drainage channel be constructed ASAP. LANDSLIDE & EAR.THOUAKE FACT SHEET . DR 97-11: Temative Trac~ 14771 08/13/97 _ - STATEMENT: Erroneous and misleading information has been presented which purports to show the possibility of large earthquakes and landslides occurring in the vicinity of Tentative Tract 14771 (the ."subject property" referred to below). It is alleged that the location,: size, and direction and distance of fall of these landslides, plus the simultaneous occurrence of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake, plus the simultaneous occurrence of a 100-year plus storm in the Deer Oreck Watershed following a significant forest fire, present a safety danger to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Landslides: The erroneous information presented by opponents to the project shows the purported slides to be of the WRONG size, sliding in the WRONG direction and sliding the WRONG d/stance for a slide of the size which would be expected in this area. All factual landslide information available · today was known and available many years ago. There is no factual "new information." Earthquakes: Fault location and intensity information provided by the opponents is wrong. All factual fault information available today was known and available many years ago. There is:no factual "new information." LANDSLIDES A. The Loc_ ntion of the Landslides Shown on the Map Presented in Testimonies is Not New Information: The location of the slides shown by CURE's consultant were known to exist as far back as 1969, were most recently mapped in 1987 and are shown on official maps prepar.' ed by the County of San Bernardino.~': Further, based on geotcchnical observation, the regional geologic maps do not show any landslides extending out from the mountains onto Deer Creek alluvial fan.3 B. The Direcg'_on of Fall of the Slides Shown on the Landslide Map Presented in Testimony is Totally Wrong. Most sigoificantly, the direction of fall of the landslides shown by CURE's consultant defy not only gravity, but the scientific information documented by the County of San Bernardino in theix official maps of slides in this area. Based the conical shape of the Deer Creek alluvial fan, possible debris flows, arguing that such flows would even occur, would be directed to the southeast and southwest away from the site.4 C:. The Location of All Known Landslides are Too Far from the Subject Property to Present any Hazard: Accordi_n__g to the RMA Group, C_motechnical Consultants, the subject prop~ is too distant from any known landslides in the San Gabriel Mountains to present any danger.' Footnote References ' Morton and Stretiz, 1969, Preliminary Reconnaissance Map of Major Landslides, San GrabHal Mountains. Morton and Marti, 1987, USGS Professional Paper 1339 Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 '~' Holtz. and Schuster, 1996, Stabilization of Soil Slopes in Landslides - Investigation and Mitigation. 101 00 '00 00:00 EART_HQUAKES m. The Location of the Cucamonga Fault is not accurately known; The Approximate Location and the Fact That it Crosses Near the Deer Creek Debris Basin has been Known for Many Years. The fact that the Cucamonga Fault extends for approximately 30 miles in an east-west direction at the base of the local foothills and crosses under. Deer Creek Chanael, Day Creek Channel and numerous other local watercourses has been known for many years.6 Contrary to misinformation D.resented by Ms. McKeith that the precise location of the fault is "ri~J~t under the Deer Creek Debris Basin~" the location has never been precisely mapp~.1 Rather, the Cueamonga fault in the area north of the subject property, is referred to on official maps as "concealed, poorly located or gradational."s The dotted line in no way is meant to imply the precision or certainty stated by Ms. McKeith. B. Magnitude of Cucamonga Fault Not 7.5. Ms. McKeith states that new information places the probability of an earthquake on the Cucamonga fault at a 7.5 magnitude.° ThLS, is an untrue statement bv Ms. McKeith. Ms. McKeith states that the source of this new information is from ... Dr. James F. Dolan of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California.~° This is an untrue .statement by Ms. McKeith, according to Dr. Dolan?! Further, Ms. MeKeith. includes as evidence of this erroneous statement aportion of a document prepared. by Dr. Dolan To the County of San Bernardino which references a 7.5 magnitude earthcluake.~2 _This is an incorFect interpretation of LhJs document by Ms. McK¢ith, and an iaapprovfiatc ~ of a portloB of:his letteL according to Dr. Dolan. The truth is that the document of which Ms. McK¢ith presented 'a small portion in testimony to the Planning Commission was a proposal presented to the County of San Bernardino to study the location and intensity of the Cucamonga fault and, according.to_Dr. Dolan. "the idea of oec .urrence of a mamaitude 7.5 earthquake was a hypothesis, not a conclusion." ~ Aecord~g to Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative for Supervisor ,Ton Michaels, this proposal was Footaote ~Referenc~ City. of Rancho Cucamonga _Safety Element Map. 7 Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 a Symbol index to Southern C, alifomia.£.arthcluake May prepared by California Divisioo of Mines & Geology is "Solid [lineal where accurately located; long dashed where well located; short dashed where approximate or indefinite; doued where concealed, poorly located or gradationai." '~ Lette. r from Ms. McKeith to James Markman, July 9, I997, page 6. Letter.from Ms. McKeith to James Markman, July 9, 1997, page 6, footnote #5. ~t better (E-Mail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to Bill Ford, July 21, 1997. ~" Prooosat to Conduct Paleo-F_.ar~quake Research on the _C_u.c_amonL, a Fault. North Etiwanda Site, Rancho Cucamonga, by - James Fi Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California. (Port/on of front page of this was presented to the Planning Commission by Ms. McKeith, July 9, 1997.) ~'~ LcL!er (E-Mail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to Bill Ford, July 21, 1997. D, ~br excavations on the Etiwanda Preserve 2 miles east of the subject property, and the proposed study was never authorized by the County.~4 The Latest Information on the Cucamonga Fault was Prepared in 1987: According to Dr. Dolan and the Southern California Earthquake Center at Cal Tech, the latest information on the Cucamonga Fault is presented in a paper published in 1987. 15 The Cucarnonga Fault is considered a normal fault zone with a probable magnitude of between 6.0 and 7.0 occurring at intervals of between 600 and 700 years.16 This information was available at the time the Negative Declaration was approved, the tract map for the subject property was approved and the Deer Creek Basin and Channel were designed. Fault Information Not New Information: According to John Marquis of the Southern California Earthquake Center at Cal Tech in Pasadena, the existence of the Cucamonga fault, the ap~?ximate location, its expected magnitude and all other pertinent data has been known since 1971." £ootaote Referenc~ - 14 Telcon, Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative, 2nd Supervisorial District, August 4, 1997. ~s Letter (!~-lV[ail) from Dr, James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to'Bill Ford, July 2 I, 1997. Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. John Marquis, Southern California Earthquake Center, California In~tute of Technolo~y, August 1, 1997. l, Cucamonga Fault Zone dam published by the Southern California Earthquake Center at Cal Tech. t7 L.etter (E-Mail) from Dr. John Marquis, Southern California Earthquake Center, California Institute of Technology, August l, 1997. TRAFFIC IMPACT &_ACCESS FACT SH'EET ... DR 97-11; Tentative Tract _147_7! 8/13/97 STATEMENT: Traffic impacts were analyzed when Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below) was approved. Based on previous traffic studies, the size and layout of the streets in Haven View Estates have more than three times the minimum capacity necessary to handle the volume of traffic projected to bc generated by the proposed development. The public record shows that the homeowners association agreed that the streets were adequate. Construction, sales and future resident access is guaranteed by court supervised settlement agreements recorded against each lot in Haven View Estates in 1990. Traffic Studies Prepared and Considered in 1990: Traffic Studies were submitted to the city on September 4, 1990, when the subject property was being considered for subdivision approval. These studies analyzed the impacts of traffic from the 203 lots in tract 12332-1 and 12332-2, the 40 lots on the subject property, plus an edditional 53 lots on the property owned by the Flood Control District to the east of Haven View Estates. The ultimate traffic volume, based on these studies, wa~ 3,110 daily trips on Ringstem Drive and 590 daily trips on Tackstem Street (the two main' private collector streets). Based on these conclusions, a condition was added to the tentative map that no driveways be allowed onto these two streets. Traffic Engineering concluded that the maximum volume which could be accommodated on each of these roads is 10,000 daily trips, which is more than three times the volumes projected to occur when all 243 lots within Haven View Estates are improved with a residence and occupied.~ Neighbors Concerned in 1990, Design Changes Made, Then Neighbors Recommend Approval: The issue of traffic was raised by the opponents to this project in 1990 at the time of the processing of the Tentative Tract Map. According to the Planning Detntrtment staff report, the applicant made certain conchsions regarding the design of some of the lots to mitigate these traffic related concerns of the opponents.2 The adjacent homeowners approved the changes and the President of the homeowners association recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission? C. Up to 45 Homes Agreed to by HOA: The Haven View Estates Homeowner's Association entered into a recorded agreemere with the owner of the property explicitly agreeing to the construction of up to 45 homes on the ~operty and acknowledging that these homes will not overburden 'the streets in Haven View Estates.' D. Homeowner~ Association Paid $10,000 for Access Rights: As part of the consideration for entering into the recorded agreement to allow access for construction of all of Phase 2 of Tract Staff Ret~ort to Pinnn!ng Commission, Sc-ptember 26, 1990. Minutes of Planning Commiss'~n Public Hearing. September 26, 1990. I.ett__..,~ tO City from Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, dated November 12, 1990. This letter is in city files. First Amended and Restated Gcant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90- ! 11246). 12332 (which includes the subject property), the Haven View Estates Homeowner's Association was paid $10,000 by the owner of the property? E. CC&Rs Refer to 42 Lots on Subject Property: The Rancho Cucamonga V CC&R's further state that '~the development of the Properties is a two phase planned development" and Phase II (the subject property) ... will consist of no more than 42 lots...". Both of these documents clearly inform future property owners that this property would be developed and would not overburden the community.6 Route 30 Freeway Impacts: Contrary to statements made in public testimony, the new freeway will not add traffic to a gate guarded community at the north end of H~ven Avenue where only the owners of the lots inside the gates will have access. Access Guaranteed: Access is fully guaranteed in recorded settlement agreements. Construction access is allowed, just as access is currently allowed for the construction of homes on other lots in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development and its contractors are obligated to take care to be safe and good neighbors during the construction period. The recorded settlement agreements speci~ in great detail the extent of access allowed, even addressing the frequency which the developer of the subject property lots will be required to sweep or wash the streets over which access is taken. Lauren Development Inc. will fully comply with all aspects of these documents.7 Lauren Development Inc. has received legal interpretations unequivocally supporting our fights of access.s Access Insured: Access rights to this property have previously been insured by ~ separate title insurance companies since 1990. Lauren Development has also received notification that its title insurance company is prepmext to issue a policy of title insurance in the amount of $5,000,000 insuring that access to the property is guaranteed based on all previously recorded documents, agreements, governmen~ approvals and maps associated with the subject property. .. . Developer Street Easement and Maintenance ARtcement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No. 89-056050). Declarations of Covenants, _Conditions, arid Restrictions of' Rancho Cucamonea V-Hav~ View .Estates, recorded on June 8: 1.990, Instrument No. 90-231127. ? Develoi~er Street Easement and Mainrenan _c.e ~reement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No. 8%056050); the Association Street F~ement and Main .tenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989 ([nstrumen! No 89-056051 ): and the First Amended nnd Restated Grant of Mutunl Easem__e. nts, recorded on Mnrch 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90-111246). . , s Reference letter from Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenoaugh dated June 25, 1997 (submitted to Planning Commission prior to July 9, 199'7 meeting.). PRIOR KNOWLEDGE FACT SHEET DR 97-1 I; Tentative Tract 14771 · . STATEMENT: The development of 40 homes ia Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below), including the complete ~-ading of the site. was recognized as early as 1983, and approved by both property owners and the City in 1990 after receiving substantial public input. Five separately recorded documents, including three casement agreements recorded in 1989 and 1990, and two se~s of CC&R's recorded in 1984 and 1990 for al_!l lots in Haven View'Estates clearly refer to the residential development of the subject property. All current property owners have for many years been given information concerning the pending development of the subject property. Over 50% of existing homes in Haven View Estates also existed in 1990. 50% of the 1990 homeowners, 60% of the lot owners and 60% of those who paxticipated in the 1990 approval meetings still live or own property in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development contacted both Homeowner Associations early this year and personally met with individuals owning well over half the lots in Haven View Estates. No one should be surprised at the pending grading of this property nor the eonstrucfon of 40 homes on the lots. ._ - · . Ao 1983: Haveu View Estates Development Approved; Ultimate Development of the Subject Property Recognized At This Time: The first 204 lots in Haven View Estates (Tentative Tra~ 12332) were approved in 1983 and a conceptual residential layout of the subject property was shown on this map.~ Also, testimony at the Planning Commission Public Hearing referred to the ultimate development of the subject property? After 1983, T.T. 12332 was reconsidered by the city at least six times and the potential development of the subject property was part of the record on each occasion? 1984: Haven View Estates CC&R's Notif~ Owners About Development of the Subject Property: The CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (Tract 12332-1) clearly indicate that the subject property may be developed.4 By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in this portion of Haven View Estates. Co 1989-1990: Lawsuit Settlement Agreements Signed and Recorded Which Refer to Development of the Subject Property: In the late 1980's lawsuits were filed and litigation ensued between the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association and the owners of the subject property. Court SUl~rvised settlement of these lawsuits resulted in at least two (2) documents, all ' Tentative Tra_c_t 12332 was approved May ! l, !q83 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66). Planning Commission Minutes, May ! !, 1983. 3 Tentative Tract 12332 was amended or extended on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66A); February 12, I986 (Planning Commission Resolution 86-23); November 10, 1987 (Planning Commission Resolution ~96); January 27, 1981g (Planning Commission Resolution 88-53); June 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January 1 I, ! 989 (Planning Commission Resolution 89-03), : Dec. lara_tions of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Haven View Esta_tes, recorded on August 16, 1984, Instrument No. 84-195405. (Reference Exhibit C thereof). 101 00 '00 00:00 D, of which have been recorded in the County of San Bernardino against all lots? All of these recorded documents allude to the ultimate development of the subject property, and one of the notices recorded against the lots states that the Subject property could be developed with as'many as 45 lots.~' June, 1990: Rancho Cucamonga V CC&R's Notify Owners of Development of the Subject Property: Similar to the CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (see item B above), the CC&R's for the second,phase (150 lots; Tract 12332-2) clearly indicate th~,,t the subject property will be developed.. These CC&R's state that the subject property is currently being remapped" and "intended to consist of 42 residences." By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in Haven View Estates. E, July, 1990: Public Report for Haven View Estates Notifies Lot Buyers of Development of the Subject Property: The Subdivision Public Report approved by the California Department of Real ~te for the second portion of Haven View Estates (the 150 lot Tract 12332-2) refers to the future development of the subject property, clearly referencing the plans for 42 addifiooal lots on this property.a By law, the Public Report must be given to, reviewed by and a receipt signed by each buyer of a lot in I-Iaven View Estates. F. November 12, 1990: Haven View Estates HOA Endorses Development of the Sabject · Property: Property owners who are currently on the boards of both HOPs in Haven View Estates attended and testified at the Neighborhood Meetings and Public Hearings held regarding the development of the subject property, including the grading of the site and removal of the levee? The current and then President of the Haven View Esta_ res HOA. on behalf of the property owners, · recommended in wr~.itin~ the approval of the development.~° G. November 14, 1990: The Subject Property Approved For Development/Including Complete Grading: After three Neiehb0. rhood Meetings and two Pl_anning Commis_sion Public Hearings the subdivision and grading of 40 lots on the subject property was approved. This action was also advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a Public Hearing, the _site was posted and ngtices _ . were sent to all prop_ertv owners within 300 feet of the site.I~ The grading of the entire site, ~ .Developer _S~'. eet F, aseme~ and Maintenance Atr.eement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No. 89-056050); and the A~.~ociation Street Easement and Maintenance_ An:reement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instrument No 89- 056051 ). 6 l~:irst..Amended and Restated Grant of.Mutual Easements., recorded on March 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90-111246). ? Declarations of Covenants. (~..onditions, and Restrictions of Rancho Cucamon[a V-Haven View Estates, recorded on June 18, 1990, Instrument No. 90-231127. (Reference Page 2 thereof). s DRE File Number 066828LA-F00 issued July 1 !, 1990 and expired July 10, 1995. (Reference Page 5 thereof). ~ From Plan_ning_Commission Minutes September 26, 1990 and November 14, 1990 and _Ne_ighborhood_Meetins~ S_ ign-Up Sheets August 9, 1990; September 4, 1990 and October 16, 19q0. so i~:tter to City from Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, dated November 12, 1990. This letter is in city files. t t 5taff'_Report to the Planning Commission, dated November 14, l q90. Hi including the removal of the abandoned levee, was a clearly recognized part of the hearing process.12 1990 to 1997: Over Half th_e Homes in Haven Vi_ew Estates in 1997 Were There in 1990. a_nd Half ofThose. Homes Are Still Owned by the Same Peord_e: Contrary to testimony that there were "only 10 homes" in Haven View Estates when the subject property was approved, there were in fact 31 homes in Haven View Estates at that time, plus an additional 9 JCC homes under construction, which is more than half the total number of homes (55) in Haven View Estates today.ta Of the 31 non-tract homes existing in 1990, 15 of these are still owned by the same people who owned the homes at that time.~4 1990 to 1997: Ove_r Sixty Percent of_the Lots in theHa_yen Vi_ew Estates HOA Are in 1_997 Owned by the Same People Who Owned Them in 1990: Of the 53 lots within the Haven View Estates HOA, 33 of them are today owned by the same people who owned lots when the subject property was approved.j5 ~6 · Jo 1990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent of Those Who Attended the !990 City Meetin~q Still ..._Own Homes or Lots in Haven View Esta_tes in 1997: At least 19 Haven View Estates property owners attended or testified at the ! 990 Neighborhood Meetings and Public Heatings when the development of this site was approved, 12 of whom still own property in Haven View Estates.t? K, 1996: Lauren Development Inc. Makes Initial Contact With Neighbors: Over a year ago, Lauren Development discussed development of these 40 lots with a board member of the Haven View Estates HOA Js and in July, 1996 spoke with a board member of the Rancho Cucamonga V I-1OA.t~ Since that time conversations continued, and a board member of the Haven View Estates 2O HOA visited Lauren Development's offices in October, 1996 to discuss trails and other concerns. ~z Tentative Tract .14771 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commissio~ Resolution 90-138). A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved at that time. Removal of the levee was an integral part of'the plans for this property. u From Buildin£ Permit records, City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of Building & Safely. Dates of Building Permit activity in Haven View Estates prior to approvnl of Tentative Tract 14771 was as follows: 1985 ~ 4 permits; 1986 - 12 permits; 1987 -. 8 permits; 1988 ,- 2 permits; 1989 - 3 permits: 1990 -' 2 permits (plus 9 JCC tract home permits). Totals 3 ! .qus.tom homes plus 9 .tract .homes. ~4 1990 and 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office. ~ 1990 and 1996/97 ownersMp information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office. t6 in 1990, the 151 lots in Phase 11 (Tract 12332-2) were owned by Brock Homes, the applicant of the owner of Tract 1477 i. ~ 1990 attendance information from Plnnnin~ Commission Minutes September 26, 1990 and November 14, 1990 and Neighborhoo_c!.Meetin~ Sie@-_Up Sheets August 9, 1990; September 4, 1990 and October 16, ! 990. 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the Snn Bernnrdino County Assessors Office. Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn Mr. Bill Angel 20 Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn 101 00 '00 00:00 L. January, 1997: Both HOAs Contact Current Owner: In January, the management company responsible for the two HOAs in Haven View Estates wrote the current owner of the 40 lots requesting his attendance at a joint meeting with the boards of directors of both HOAs to discuss Lauren Development's plans for the property. The owner felt it was not his position to dijcuss the plans of Lauren Development with the two boards, and suggested the management company contact Lauren Development directly.2~ M. March, 1997: Lauren Development Contacts Both HOAs, Scheduling Meeting for April. HOAs Cancel Meeting: On March 26, Lauren Development wrote the management company requesting a meeting with the two HOAs' board members to hear what concerns, if any, they may have. A copy of that letter was provided the city. That joint meeting was scheduled for April 4. Two days before that meeting, the management company canceled the meeting because of an inability of the two associations to get a quorum. N. April 3, 1997: Lauren Development Reschedules Meeting With Both HOAs: On April 3, Lauren Development wrote a letter to the management company expressing regret that the two HOAs were not able to get together when scheduled, and asked for an alternative date "as soon as possible." A copy of that letter was provided the city. After numerou~ phone calls, a joint meeting of both HOAs was then scheduled for May 16. O. May, 14, 1997: Last Minute HOA Meeting: On May 14 the management company requested that Lauren Development attend a meeting that eveninn with the Haven View Estates HOA to discuss their plans. The management company apologized for the late notice. Due to tl~e last minute notice, Lauren Development was unable to attend this meeting. May 16, 1997: Joint Meeting of Both HOAs: Two representatives of Lauren Development attended the joint board meeting scheduled for May 16. Three representatives of one HOA and two of the other attended the meeting. A copy of the minutes was provided to the city. Q. May 20, 1997: D~ign Review Committee Meeting: On May 20, board members from both HOAs attended the Design Review Committee meeting and offered testimony. R. May 27, 1997: Neighborhood Meeting: On May 27, a Neighborhood Meeting was held. Board members and other property owners from both HOAs participated in this meeting. S, 1997: Over Half of All Properties in Haven View Estates Have Been Represented at These Meetings: In all the _above 1997 meetincas, owners of 56% of the 209 ¢xistin~ lots in Haverl View Estat~ have. a _ttended. T. May 29, 1997: Request to Meet Again With HOA Ignored: On May 29, Lauren Development contacted the President of the Haven View Estates HOA (Ms. Hahn) and offered to meet with her and representatives of the other HOA to discuss additional changes to the proposed homes and to tour other high-end semi-custom home developments. Ms. Hahn said she was meeting with Mr. ~-~ Letter dated January ! 5, 1997 from Euclid Management Company 101 00 '00 00:00 Angel that day, and would get back to Lauren Development to further discuss this meeting. She never called back. U. June, 1997: Letter to All Property Owners: Since the initial Planning Commission Design Review meeting on June 11, Lauren Development sent a letter to every property owner in Haven View Estates inviting them to visit their local office and to discuss their plans in detail. A copy of this letter was provided city staff. __As of the date of this writing. only three people responded to the i3avitati_'o~.. 23 From: John L. Allday To: ,~drew K. Har~ii From: Tom Maran To: 4841864 SilNT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; Date: 8/18~97 ~me: 12:48:22 PM Date: me: 12:20:46 PM 8-18-97 12:13PM; 9094772847 => Lauren Development; Page 2 of 3 Page 1 of 2 #1/2 ted States L~epar tmen t of A~icul tu t'e Fo~es t Service S~n Be~na~di no National. Fo~es t 1209 Lytle Creek Rd. bytle Creek, CA 92~5~ FAX: (909) 887-8197 909 887-2576 TDD File Code: 1560/6270 Date: ^u~usL 15, ]997 Leeohs Klippstein, Conservation Diz~ctor Spirit of the Sa~e Cotmcil POB 77027-~02 CA 91107 DeaL' l.eeona: This ]ette~ responds to your 8-5-97 Freedom o~ /nfo~ation Act (FOXA) ~equest, which you f~xed to me on ~-6. You asked for two ~tems: 1) "a copy of an~ documents. information ~nd mm43s that the Fo=est Service h~s in it~ ~'iles on this parcel. including a copy of the deed and title" (you were r~fe~in~ to a small p~rccl Gary Earney had discussed with you in a recent phone conver$stion); and 2) "any ~dmeoloK~c~l ~epo~ts fOP Deer Canyon sr~a that the For~t S~rvice has on file". RE #1 Gary was partially mistaken in his phone conversation with you r~centlx ~e~a~din~ the National Forest parcel In NE/NE/SE/SE Sec 1~, TIN B7W . CoTTact in that the panel is located ~ut 1/~ mile no=~ of the City ~cho Ouchone's 7T lg771 (~u~n ~velo~t). Hoover, he Incorrectly desci, i~d that paz, cel's histo~ (he confused it with o~ in ~o~er does not have a deed or title with ~est~ic~s. Inste~ it eventually ~c~e p~t of this National Fc)~t ~ause or l~ o~i~i~l 12-23-1907 ~moval the gener~ lm~ds of the U~t~ States by Presidenti~ P~cl~ation. pm~l~tion placed it into ~e Rescued ~blic ~ain (~ optsod to public doreen l~ds which the ~ve~ent w~ted to disuse of), ~d it late~ -. ~c~c pa~t Of t~ national foist I a~ attaching copies of two pa~es f~om our L~nd Status Atlas that show ~he l~gal status o~ the l~d in question (these a~ ~e only reco~s th~s Forest h~ ~ega~ing this l~d): a) a map showing its location (h/~li~t~ in yellow). ~d b) the_accomp~yin~ description of that l~d (s~ Line No. 20, for the 10 sc~ parcel (also h~.Ehl~ht~ in yellow). ~e small Jso]st~ mgtla~e is 2.5 acmes; the ~ct~z~a~ parcel t~edistel~ to its e~t is 7-5 ac~es; to~ether they total 10 mc~es. If you h~ve difficulty inte~et~ this fnfo~maLion, ple~e feel ~ to call me. !.'S-6200-2aL, (?/86) From: Jo~n L. ~day To: Andrew ~ Ha~zell From: ]0m Main To: 4841864 S~NT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; Date: ~18J97 ~me: 12:48:22 PM Date: ~1~7 ~me: 12:20:46 PM 8-18-@7 12:13PM; 9094772847 => Laur'en Development; Page 3 of 3 Page 2 of 2 #2/2 RE #2 ~ Forest ha.% no A~'chaeological Repo~.ts Fo[' the Deer' Canyon aren. Since. docu~e~:s do not exist, I am fo~e~dfr~ thet portion of your request ~o Rogionml Foro~ter For his reply. The San B~rnardino Cour~ty Nuse~ would be your bes~ source Fo~ ~his inFo~mation. Sincerely, ELLIOTT [.. GRAHAN District Ranger attachments: Land Status Atlus. T1N R7W pa~cs 24 A?TQItlIIYI &T ~W 1000 WILSIIIqC TCLCPIIONg: FAC~IM~ L[: ~13 488.3460 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED AUG Dire: August 1 I, 1997 Time: 10:19am -- To: Please deliver the following 8 pages (which include this cover letter)... -. · . H. Crllg Mamaon Dcpt. of Fish & Game Facsimile: (916) 654-3805 Voicc: (916) 654-3821 · ,. From: MaliMa Hathaway McKcith Personal IT): 90089 C. iicnt/Rc: ! 6311/2407 Direct Dial: Facsimile: (213) 688-3622 (213) 08S-3460 -. Note: If transmission is not complete, plr, a.~ cnll our operator at (213) 688-3478 Message to Addtin: ZO 'd OB~-qor .. 'l~ts wan~mitlJOn is intgndgd mtly fief Ihc ug 01' ~ mdi, id~l or mi6ty w which ~t is ~d~d. i~ ~y c~mln inf~t~ .. -.. t LOEB & LOEB · Page 2/8 252 Aug-11 Mon 13:28 lg97 LOEB [-OEB L,. ~ Utdri'L'~ I,.,k~m.f,r~ IIICLUOIm3 I)1101~11011AL By ']'clccopi~ MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 1997 FILE NO: 66666/6666 To: 11. Craig Maz~n Malissa Hathaway McKcith co: Patricia Wolf (by fciccopier w/c~c.) William 'l'ippals tby colecopier w/one.) Rebecca Jones (by tcl~upi~ w/~n~.) RE: Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expnnsion (CURE) Challenge to Lauren Development, Tract No. 14771 Dear Mr. Maason: I am writing in my capacity as counsel for CIJRE. CURE is a non-profit unincorporated association comprised of property ownc~ and environmental groul~ challenging the residential developmcnt of a 26 ncfe parcel. The particular parcel involves property which has becn calel~oriz~xi S-I-1 and G-I (alluvial fan sage ~crub). It also is on a flood plain ticsigned "AO" by the Federal Etaergency IV[almgcmcat Agency.. The Department of Fish & Oamc forwarded corrcspondcnce to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Lauren Development on June 23, ! 997, requesting that a 1990 negative decimation be recirculated in light or changed circumstances and new infbrmation. On August 5, 199.7, Ma. Rcboc~ Jones of your Department wrote the developer informing him that a ~.ctlon 1601 permit w~s required and re.~inding an earlier contrary d~ision. Attached it a copy of the June 23 and August 5 correspondence £rom the Department. 'l~c Ausust 5 letter appears to have proclpilated the attached response from Hewitt and McOuir~, count! for Lauren Development. The tone and content of that correspondence .~uks for it.self. Oiven the less than subtle threat of litigation, CURE requests that all future meetings between thc Department nnd CTJRE and the Department and Laurin Development be attendcd by legal coun.qcl for the Lh:~ent. I would be happy to discuss this matter further. I will l~ at thc Colorado River Board meetings in San Diego today bu~ cnn ix: reachcot at 213-999-4332, I will be in the office on the 12~. Thank you in ndvnncc for your consideration. 17'[ 2_6, 8I Bnu ~,~ t-~ 60' d gO8£-Izg9-916:xe-I AIa SalUJ_~U -1U93-1 9JCI ~06£ ~'G9 9L6 66:~L 9EPT. OF FISH & 6RME 60'd tzc~:t~I Z6, 8~ 6nu ~08£-~9-916'x~J AI~I S~dlU_d-~U -IU9E]-I 9_~CI 0'[ 'd 'P'S' 17'[ Z6, 8T 6nv OB,L-qo r y~ t-~! O l'd S08£-VS9-916'xe-I AICI S~tlU_~-lU -1U93-1 9-tCI LOEB .OEB LOll LkP ANOILil, CA ~0~7-147S T~LiP.~; el ~,1~.3400 M_ MO RAn o u M URGENT- DELIVER OR FORWARD IMMEDIATELY Date: August 18, ! 997 FRe No, 000000000 To: H. Craig Man.~)n, Escl. cc: General Coan:,zl, Department of Fish & ~anlc From: Patricia Wolf, Acting Regional Manager C,alifomia Department of Fish & Garnc, Region 5 Ms. Mary Meyer California DepamT~nt of Fish & Game Mr. Oicn Black Malissa Hathaway McKeith Cucamong.-tas United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) Challenge to the Lautca Development Project Dear Mr. Manson: 1. Rcsvomiblc ...*..g~dlGY !nvnlvent.cp3 As you know, the Department of Fish & Game ("Dcpafiznent") informed the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") on Junc 23, 1997, of thc Del)artmcnt's opinion that the 1990 Nesative Declazation should be mcimulated prior to final approval of the Lauren Development Project ("Proja;t") in light of chunge~ circumstances and new information. Specifically, the Dc~t concluded: "IT]he Dcpartmcnt bclicvcs additional cnvironmcnt~ review is now rcquiz~d to fully. 14CI~aa2~_NG2 0e118197 WM:ivl $~:~I Z6, 8I 6nu S08£-V~9-916:x~3 ;~I[I $~IU_~_~U -IU93-1 93CI H. Craig M,'mson, E~. August 18, 1997 P~ge 2 discto$c the project's current potential significant impacts to .,~msitiv¢ wildlife resources. We l~iieve that pursuant to the Calilbmia Environmental Quality Act, r~irculation of' the Negative Declaration is warrant~l I~cause: (1) substantial change has occun~ with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, as lhc area proposed for devclopm~t is now within an a,--five Natural Community Conservation Planning ('NCCI') ar~a-- of which the City is a participant and (2) new information of substantial importance to the project has become available and the proj~t will now have one or more 'l~jg~tific. nnl eff~'~,s not prcviously discussed, as the pmpogd d~velopmcnt will r~sult in a significanl imps0t to the: reduction in the numbers of unique plants and animals ass~iated with RAFSS, a state significant natural area/habitat ranked as 'very threatened', (CEQA guidelines, Section 1:5162.)" (June 23, 1997 letter from Patricia Wolf). In this letter, the Department further inquired what additional discretionary approvals were requh-~ so that it could rsise these CEQA issues and chanl~:l circumstances. On July 9, 1997, am part of' the final Plmming Commission Hearing on the l~ve[opmcnt D~ign Approval of the Project, the City Attorney, James Markman, admitted on the record that the Development Desi~ approval hearing w~ discrutionar~. The Planning Commission approved the Project on July 9, 1997, and CURE appealed to the City Council. The Ci~ Council Hearing is on Wednesday, August 20, 1997 at 7:00 pm in. Rancho Cueamong.. Project proponentq have put considerable pressure on the l~partment m s~4thdrnw Patricia Wolf's June 23, 1997 correspondence, and the Dcl~'tmenl has refused to do so. In light of the D~partmcnt's position that further CEQA documentation is rcquired, ns well as it.~ Aught 5, 1997. r.~ce 170 'd oez-qor ~S' 175 Z6, 8'[ 6nt::l 1~2 t-~ ~O'd cjo8£-Vcj9-91:6: xe-I 2/10 $~IU-t-IU 9U939 9_-10 ~08g HiB 9t6 ~i:~it 2. t~-~I-Dnv H. Craig Manson, E~. August 1 $, 1997 Page 3 requiring strcambcd alt~'ation alpcements,~ CURE rcquests that thc Department tbrmally assume Responsible ^gcncy status and conduct a focused EIR on the issues over which the l~¢nt has jurisdiction. I recogn~ that the D~artmcnt has limited resources, however, the Lauren Development Project raises issues of state-wide concern. With the.improved economy, more and more dormant tentative maps an: hcing resurrected tbr development without any additional cnvironmcnt~l review. The particular property at issue has bccn desi~ated Category ~-1-1 and G-I (alluvial tim sal~e scrub). It has been studicd cxtcts,~ivcl:y by Mary Meyer ol' your Departmcnt as part of the Etiwandn Prescrvc. A precedent supporting the need for additional environmental review on old tentative map.~, based upon c~anged ci~umstances and new in£ormati(m, would be of vital importa~cc on a numlx:r of proj~ct~ mound the, St~tc. 2. Recharge I will be meeting with Kurt Bcrctold, Assistant Executive Officer, Rcgionnl Water Quality Control Boa~l at It);00 a.m. on Monday, August 18, 1997. Kurt's tclcphonc number is 909-71~2-3298. CURE's hydrologists estimate that groundwntcr recharge could hc reduced by over 2,000 acre feet per year if the Lauren Development is approved and thcrc are estimates that, if nil possible recharge were utilized, it could be over I0,000 ncn: feet. Recharged groundwater typically is the least expensiv~ and 'highest qtmlity water available. Although I believe the Regional Board has independent juri.gdiction under the Portcr Cologne Act to evaluate these issue~, receiving some direction from Fish & Game Agency would be l~lpful. . l~partmer~1 A~sist~.~t thc Autu~t 70, 1997 Hc-~i[i~ If at all possible, we need Mary Meyer's assistance prior to or at the August 20, 1997 hearing. Onc of the most important changed ' 'l~e Developer cannot comply with the streambed alu.-ration a~0~mertt rinsed upon n~ old negative d~la~stion. Section lB(a) of the Streambed Notlflcalion Ouidelim:s specifically requixes "applicable s~tion~ of th~ final c~rtifi~! CF.,QA docmn~l, inclMing those sections which address biological nnd geological tmpmm~ts." The 1990 Ncgative Declaration increly checked the "no" box as to any atSxt~cant impacts in thcse (and all othcr) m~a~. f~:~I /_6, 8I Bntd 1~2 t-~ ]0 'd cjO8£-~7cJ9-916:xe--I Aid S~1IUJ:tU 91:19':1] H. Craig Manson, Eaq. August 18, ~997 Pa~e 4 citcumstanccs conceming alluvial fan sagc scrub is that recent studies have indicated that this ecosystem carmot bc rcplantcd oncc it is destroyed. Additionally, Mary has the experrisc to provide information ¢on¢cmin8 the numbcr of AFSS acres remaining in thc world and that the areage has decreased signilicantly since 1990. Can the Department plcas¢ support CURE; by providing written or oral communications on these key points? The City advanced the Hearing Date from $ep. tember to August, thereby seriously imlx:ding CI,tRE's ability to get all critical intbrmation into the administrative record betbrc it closes. Please contact me at your carllest convenience to discms the above. My home number is 909-989-$?02 and my cellular number is 213-999-4332. 90 'd 0t~/=qoF ~c~- Iz'[ Z6, 8]: 6nu t.Z t-~l 90' d S08£-lzcG9-'g]:6'xe-t Sift S2JlId-I-Itd 9U939 9-1CI Fl. Craig Manson, Esq. August 18, 1997 Page 3 requiring strcambcd alteration agreements,~ CURE rcquests that the Department tbrmally assume Responsible Agency status and conduct a focused EIR on the issues over which the l~ent has jurisdiction. ! recognize that the Department has limited resources, however, the Lauren Development Project raises issues of state-wide concern. With the~improved economy, more and more dormant tentative maps arc being resurrected tbr development without any additional environmental review. The particular prolgt~ st issue has b(:en designated (_:ategory ~-1-1 and G-I (alluvial tim sage scrub). It has been studied cxtmsivcly by Mary Meyer ol' your Departmcnt as part of the Etiwanda. Preserve. A precedent supporting the need for additional environmental review on old tentative maps, ha.sod upon changed circumstnnces and new in£ormati(m, would be of vital importance on a number of projects around the. Ststc. 2. Recharge I will be meeting with Kurt Bcrctold, Assistant Executive Officer, Regional Water Quality Control Boa~l at 10:00 a.m. on Mosday, August 18, 1997. Kurt's telephone numb0r is 909-?g2-3298. CURE's hydrologists estimate, that groundwater recharge 0ould he reduced by over 2,000 acre feet per year if the Lauren D~velopment is approved and there arc estimates 1hat, if all possible recharge were utilized, it could be over I0,000 acrt: feet. Recharged groundwater typically is the least expensive, and highest qtmlity water available. Although I believe the Regional Board has independent jurisdiction under the Porter Cologne Act to evaluate these issues, receiving some direction from Fish & Game Agency would be h~lpful. . D~partmenl Assis~c~ W. lhc August 9.0, 1997. If at all possible, we need Mary Meyer's assistance prior to or at August 20, 1997 hearing. One of the most important changed oo00ooo00 OBZ-qor ' The Developer cannot comply with the streambed alto-ration ar. to~mr~tt based upon an old negative dex:l~stion. Section lB(n) of th~ Streaml~"d Notification Guidelines specifically requixes "q)plioablc s~;tiom of tl~ final oertlfi0d CF:,QA doeumenl, including those sections which address biological n~d geololic,~l impacts." The 1990 Negative Declaration mct~ly checked the "no" box as to any significant impacts in these (and all other) mr. as. I)2 t-~ ~0' d gO8£-iz~9-956' xe3 hIC[ $~IU3~U 9U939 9_aCI ~OBE t?~9 9LB §~:~it 2B-Bt-Ol'tY H. Craig Man.,~n. Esq. August I$, ~997 Pqe 4 citcumstm~ccs concerning alluvial fan sage scrub is that recent studies have Indicated that this ecosystem cannot be replanted oncc it is destroyed. Additionally, Mary has the expertisc to provide information concerning the number of AFSS acres remaining in the world and that the aGraage has decreased sil~milicantly since 1990. Can the Department please support CURE by providing written or oral communications on these key points? Thc City advan¢cd the Hearing Date from September to Augu.~t, thereby seriously impeding CI~RE's ability to get all critical intbrmation into the administrative record betbrc it closes. Please contact me at your carlicsx convenience to disGuns ~c above. My home number is 909-989-$702 and my cellular number is 213-999-4332. 90 'a 0e2-qor ~: 7'~ Z6, 81: 6nu I~2 t-~l 9 0 'd S08£-tz~9-'9~6:x~_a ~Ifi S~]IU_a_~U -1Ugqq 9_aCI S01~£ W9 9[6 ~:~t 2S-et-~nv DEPT, OF FiSH II, r~MMI;, ZU:~-~rz-zzu# · 1~'[ 'd og -qor SiS: 1~ P~. l-~ Z6, 8~ 6nv it'd S08£-tzs9-g~6:xe-~ (~IO S~IU~U 9U93- ~06~ ~'~9 9L6 1'0; 1 ~'AalE f 1 "'? ~' m ea mmm, mmm m (SlI! It0-,S137. J~gult S, 3.111'7 3,1,030 An'ou 1ou, r,,e, I~:l.'r,e ,1,01 ~ L'giCI~, C3b 11730-413S Oc: NZ. NilCa O&uw~A 14r. ~ Tauolmr ~l~ 'd SS' ~zT Z6, 81~ Bn~ OB~t-qo ? py. (_~ Z~ 'd ~08£-~9-916.x~j AICI S~IU-~-fU -]U939 9JCI ~OBE: i~9 9L6 ~:~l Au&ust $. 1997 wes meufuiml your (mU on INdiadr of l. iurm t)oudopmem, Pissso ionurn mo Bt yew earlIra convcidefum it ~14) '}N.Q~O . LOt me nithi erprus my dlmtppdm~ 11~ b PeFmM of Fish end m ~ m ~ ~ m~y ~ its J~ ~, 1~ ~ m ~. £$ 'd O6~-qoi' 9<:3: t~T Z6, 8'1[ '13nU ~2. L-~ E t'd gO8£M7%9-91:6-xej ~Ifi S~tlU-I.JU -1U93-i 9-tCI 60BE ~'69 9LB 6G:61 2B-Bl-O~¥ ,Tdm A4kt~ ¢v~ ~ eldre) wlttll~ ~ (vii ell ~ Iqnkr tm~) oB~-qor 2_6, , #( · I l 60B~ ~9 9LB ~g:~i ~B-Bt-On¥ DEPT, UF F~$H & (3Hf'11; Bred Idler 1~ 1: 'd c_;c~: ~ [ Z6, 8'[ 6nu S08£-t~$9-9~6-XeJ ~I~ SUIUJJU -1U933 9Sa ~iOl~; ~19 9[t~ ~:~il J.i~-i~l-91qV memmmmmm Aiigue~ S, 1,8Ualn oevo:l, open~ :rj~. 3.1.030 Ar'rou loGCa, Ilu:Lt:e %03 ~ ~laomon~, C:A ~3,73a-4t3S aegioa s )Gr. Nike Oiuw~A air. C~rt Tauober Jl 'd cs(J:lzl Z6, 8I 6nu OB~-qo r ~,,z l-~f Z 1 'd §08£-t7cj9-9[6'x~-d AICI S~IUJ_-tU '1U939 93Q ~OBE Y~9 9l$ ~:~l VIA TAL'~IMILZ m.d LT,.S,. MA q, .... Allday a4r ~ Developmeat at the eric of Jul wseic rfq~ tho, t LAumfi Z)evdopfumt ~qidmont. ~ I mibil Iluuld be held by :F~, AUlUl~ 13, j,impo mMrm me amo f'$ 'd 9g'~: Z6, 8[ 'Einu 'P,L k-~l ~ L 'd ~08£-t~g9-9T6:xm3 AIO $~IU~U -IU93-1 609~ tc~9 9L6 GG:C;L ,Idm ~ ¢vb ,q~ m41) ~l~'d 9S:t?I /__6, 8~ Bnv OB2-qor YX l-~ Yl 'd SO$£-t7G9-9];6:x~-t AIC[ S~IU_~_~U -1U93-1 9_~CI c~08~ ~9 916 ~i:~il