Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/10/15 - Agenda PacketI CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. October 15, 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 Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 477-2700 I City Council Agenda October 15, 1997 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. Roll Call: A. CALL TO ORDER Alexander Biane , Curatalo Gutierrez , and Williams __ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Recognition of Eagle Scouts and their achievements. Presentation of a Proclamation proclaiming "Second Chance Week" and "Make a Difference Day" for the week of October 18 - 25, 1997. Presentation of a Proclamation proclaiming National Food Bank Week during the week of October 13 - 17, 1997. Proclamation declaring October 23 -31, 1997, as Red Ribbon Week in Rancho Cucamonga. Presentation of Certificates to Red Ribbon Week Design Winner and Honorable Mention Recipients. 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: September 17, 1997 Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of September 30, 1997. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 9/24/97 and 10/1/97 and Payroll ending 9/4/97 for the total amount of $1,994,030.40. 6 City Council Agenda October 15, 1997 o Approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Multihazard Functional Disaster Plan in accordance with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). Approval of a Resolution to submit the Used Oil Opportunity Grant Application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board in conjunction with the cities of Chino Hills, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rialto and Upland. RESOLUTION NO. 97-157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A USED OIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CHINO TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS A USED OIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICANT AND ADMINISTRATOR Approval to open escrow for the sale of the surplus property at the Grove Avenue Yard facilities. (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 3, 1997) Approval to appropriate $44,710 for Fund 23-4637-9120 for General City Master Plan Drainage Reimbursement Agreements for fiscal year 1997/98. Approval of the Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Improvement and Maintenance Agreement for the Storm Drain Channel and Emergency Access Road, and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tentative Tract No. 14771, located north of Ringstem Drive, east of Haven Avenue, submitted by Lauren Development, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 97-158 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 14771, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE STORM DRAIN CHANNEL AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD 14 16 18 19 22 23 25 City Council Agenda October 15, 1997 3 10. 11. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 97-159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 14771 Approval to authorize the execution State-Local Agency Transportation Partnership Program Agreement No. SLTPP-5420, Supplement No. 009 (CO 97-050), for the Improvement of Milliken Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. Approval to award and execute the contract (CO 97-051) for the Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Program, located on Base Line Road to 19th Street, to Laird Construction, in the amount of $102,421 ($93,110, plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Engineering Prop 111 Funds, Account No. 10-4637-9605. Approval of a request to summarily vacate Railroad Avenue south and the unnamed alley (east collector street), otherwise known as Hanley Avenue, located to the north and east respectively of vesting Tentative Tract Map 15766. RESOLUTION NO. 97-160 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND THE UNNAMED ALLEY (EAST COLLECTOR STREET), OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HANLEY AVENUE, LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND EAST RESPECTIVELY OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15766 Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, and ordedng the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract Map No. 15797-1, generally located south of Highland Avenue and east of VVoodruff Place, submitted by Tava Development Company, a California Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 97-161 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 15797-1, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY 26 29 3O 32 34 38 4O City Council Agenda October 15, 1997 4 13. RESOLUTION NO. 97-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15797-1 Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract Map No. 15796-1, generally located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane, submitted by Tava Development Company, a California Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 97-163 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 15796-1, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. RESOLUTION NO. 97-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15796-1 41 47 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. No items submitted. City Council Agenda October 15, 1997 5 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. No items submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No items submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. APPROVAL OF DESIGN STRATEGIES TO REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PUBLICLY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING TO BE ADOPTED AS POLICY THROUGH MINUTE ACTION. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE AND WITH INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 5O 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. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE A. PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1) Lions East 2) Lions West 3) RC Family Sports Center 4) Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Items not identified at this time. APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE FOR RAILS TO TRAILS - SOUTHERN PACIFIC LINE 63 69 City Council Agenda October 15, 1997 6 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 October 9, 1997, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. September 17, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reaular Meeting A. CALLTO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, September 17, 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 7:05 p.m., by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager; Mitch Slagerman, Sr. RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Lieutenant Lau, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to the San Bernardino County Fire Department proclaiming Pollution Prevention Week, September 15 - 21,1997. Proclamation presented to "RC Coyote." B2. Presentation of Proclamation to the Vineyard Little League Major Division commending them on their Championship victory. Proclamation presented to Vineyard Little League Major Division. B3. Representatives from Etiwanda High School, Alta Loma High School and Rancho Cucamonga High School marching bands were present to invite the City Council to the Chaffey Joint Union High School District Band Spectacular to be held on Saturday, October 11,1997, 7:00 p.m. at Chaffey High School. Councilmember Gutierrez commented on the quality of the kids that participate in the band programs and thought the Council should support them. City Council Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 2 C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Cl. Gary Kenddck brought up comments made at the last Council meeting regarding eliminating some bands from the Founder's Day parade, and stated he did not agree with this and felt it was important. C2. Tracy Park, Route 66 V'~:,itor's Bureau, talked about information regarding Route 66 that was distributed to the Council. Mayor Alexander suggested the map and one of the fliers be extended out so to include Rancho Cucamonga. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: August 14, 1997 August 18, 1997 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 8/27/97 and 9/3/97 and Payroll ending 8/7/97 for the total amount of $2,596.291.49. D3. Approval of County of ~an B~mardino's Schedule "A" for Law Enforcement services for City of Rancho Cuca,,~ongs for $9,.~89,.~80 to bc paid from Acct. 01 4451 6028. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA, D4. Approval to ratify Library Board's action to amend the Library Foundation's Bylaws to replace the position of Library Board Member as directed to "At-Large" Community Member and Re-appoint Paula Pachon and Rene Barnett to the Library Foundation Board of Directors. D5. Approval to appropriate $28,060.00 from Fund 21-4647-9120, pursuant to Reimbursement Agreement SRA-23, for the construction of median island landscaping along Base Line Road, west of Etiwanda Avenue. (Work has been completed.) D6. Approval of the Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security, and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Conditional Use Permit No. 97-05, located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Ninth Street, submitted by Searing Industries. RESOLUTION NO. 97-133 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND SECURITY FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-05 RESOLUTION NO. 97-134 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-05, APN: 209-012-17 D7. Approval of Map and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance Distdct Nos. 1 & 6 for Parcel Map 15029, located on the east side of Center Avenue north of Foothill Blvd. (APN: 1077-401-34), submitted by Deer Creek Partnership, a California General Partnership. City Council Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97-135 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 15029, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 97-136 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 15029 DS. Approval of Map and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Parcel Map 14376 for condominium purposes, located at the northwest corner of Rancheria and Red Hill Country Club Drives (APN: 207-123-05), submitted by Longwell Investments, Inc., a California Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 97-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 14376 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 97-138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 14376 D9. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 and Vacation of Jonquil Drive, east of Teak Way for Parcel Map 15519, located on the east side of Teak Way, north of Victoria. RESOLUTION NO. 97-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15519, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 97-140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 15519 RESOLUTION NO. 97-141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF JONQUIL DRIVE City Council Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 4 D10. Approval of Traffic Safety Project Agreement (CO97-046) and directing the City Engineer to execute said agreement with the California State Office of Traffic Safety and a reimbursable grant to create a computerized Collision Data Base and Analysis System. RESOLUTION NO. 97-142 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR CREATION OF A COMPUTERIZED COLLISION DATA BASE AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM Dll. Approval of contract (CO97-047) with the Communications Support Corporation to conduct a performance/technical audit of Marks Cablevision. D12. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for improvements on Napa Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $179,000.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond L/C $ 17,900.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-143 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS ON NAPA STREET AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar with the exception of item 3. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS FOR VANGUARD TOOL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. A TAX EQUITY AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING CERTAIN FACILITIES OWNED AND OPERATED BY VANGUARD TOOL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. Staff report presented by Mitch Slagerman, Sr. RDA Analyst. Norman Coker, Union Bank of California, described the bond structure. City Council Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 5 Councilmember Curatalo asked if what they are doing is allowing them to have a tax exempt bond. Mitch Slagerman, Sr. RDA Analyst, stated yes. Councilmember Biane asked why this is being done as a public hearing. Mitch Slagerman, Sr. RDA Analyst, stated this is being done this way because it is required by law. James Markman, City Attorney, stated this is a cost free way for Vanguard Tool and Manufacturing to get financing. He stated staff has investigated this and feels it is good thing at no cost to the City. Mayor Alexander pointed out that Resolution No. 97-145 mentions the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and that it should reflect the "Rancho Cucamonga City Council." Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Bob Skitteran, President of Vanguard Tool and Manufacturing, stated they are glad to be in Rancho Cucamonga and hoped the Council would approve this. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINING OF THE . CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 97-144 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY C. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS RESOLUTION NO. 97-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS (VANGUARD TOOL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.) MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution Nos. 97-144 and 97-145. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No Items Submitted. City Council Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 6 H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1. UPDATE FROM ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE H1. Staff report presented by Rick Gomez, Community Development Director. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing the City Council was: Jane Bradshaw, commented about the parking situation at West Beryl Park and that it had been stated at their last meeting the problem was corrected. She reported there is still a problem at this park relating to the parking situation. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated it is a programming issue and that they are working on this. He stated they will have to monitor the activity at the park. He stated this is an ongoing issue and will keep looking at it. There being no further response, public comments were closed. ACTION: Report received and filed. I1. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS APPROVAL TO OPEN ESCROW FOR THE SALE OF THE SURPLUS PROPERTY AT THE GROVE AVENUF YARD FACILITIFS (Continued from September 3, 1997) Staff report presented by Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer. Councilmember Williams asked who this would be opened up to. Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated it would be open to anyone and stated it would be advertised in the newspaper. Mike Porteous stated the other party who had previously been interested in this have now decided they want to withdraw their offer and are not interested in the property. He asked that the Council now approve his offer. He added the City's broker could confirm this. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated he would still recommend the Council go with the process that staff is recommending. He also confirmed that Mr. Porteous' statement was correct. Jim Ridens, the City's broker, confirmed that the other buyer is not interested any longer and does not want to get involved in this transaction. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve staffs recommendation. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 12. RAILS TO TRAILS - SOUTHERN PACIFIC LINE James Markman, City Attorney, pointed out there is no conflict of interest for Councilmember Williams as was pointed out in the newspaper. City Council Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 7 Councilmember Williams presented the report information and gave the background on this subject. She also pointed out 3 recommendations. She also added that at no time does she want to put this before any of the City's already planned capital projects. The Council concurred. MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to approve the recommendations suggested by Councilmember Williams. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 13. UPDATE ON LEGISLATION FOR "GROUP HOMES" Staff report presented by Councilmember Gutierrez, who stated they could not find very much on this, but felt the City should be in contact with our legislators about this matter. He felt cities have little voice with the placement of sex oftendere. He felt there needed to be better guidelines regarding this. He felt the police should be notified when an offender is placed in the City. He stated he would be working on this to come up with something to present to the legislators. He advised he would bring back a report to the Council in one month. 14. CONSIDFRATION TO APPROVE LICENSE AGREEMENT ¢CO 97-048) WITH JAVA CONNECTION Staff report presented by Councilmember Biane. MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Williams to approve the license agreement (CO 97-048). Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Robert Francis, President of Java Connection, stated they are anxious to come into Rancho Cucamonga. 15. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE A. PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1) Etiwanda Creek Park 2) Lions East 3) Lions West 4) Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center 5) RC Family Sports Center 6) Spruce Avenue Skate Park 7) Stadium Field Renovations 8) Replacement of Landscape Material 9) Replacement of Play Equipment 10) Capital Purchases COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1) Sports 2) Youth/Teen Programs, Classes & Events 3) Seniors 4) Community Special Events ACTION: Report received and filed. City Council Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 8 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Councilmember Williams stated she would like a report on the number of liquor stores being allowed into the City and what authority the City has for letting them in. J2. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like a report on investing RDA funds for affordable housing for seniors in mobile home parks. He stated he would like staff to examine the RAMROD deal in Rialto and let the Council know how it works. Mayor Alexander felt this should possibly be a special workshop to discuss this. Councilmember Williams stated she felt staff would need more than 30 to 60 days to get this information. She asked if there were other cities that were doing this same type of thing. James Markman, City Attorney, stated Bill Curley has done this for Brea. The Council concurred that 90 days or the first of January, 1998 would be a good time frame to bring this back for a special workshop of the Redevelopment Agency and to bring outside people in to discuss this. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO Stacy Hahn stated Texaco lied on their application. She stated the pumps will not be as far away from the homes as they first indicated. She stated she wanted to inform the Council of this. She also informed the Council she is not against the Texaco at Elm and Foothill. Mayor Alexander stated there is a letter on file indicating the original error. Stacy Hahn stated she hoped the Council would reconsider this project. K2. Gary Kendrick talked about using RDA money for a car dealership. He felt it was silly to bring a car dealership into Rancho Cucamonga and did not think the Redevelopment Agency money should be used for this. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Approved: * Debra J. Adams, CMC CityClerk 10/06/1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PM - 1 PORTFOLIO MASTER SU~Y~RY CITY SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 CASH AVERAGE ---YIELD TO MATURITY--- PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAYS TO 360 365 INVESTMENTS BOOK VALUE PORTFOLIO TERM MATURITY EQUIVALEi~T EQUIVALENT Certificates of Deposit - Bank ............... $ 8,825,532 . 20 12 . 98 390 216 5. 957 6. 040 Local Agency Investment Funds ................ $ 9,573,017.45 14.08 1 1 5. 612 5. 690 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon ............... $ 49, 3 95,156.25 72.65 1,618 1,182 6. 432 6. 522 Mortgage Backed Securities ................... $ 197,420.99 0.29 6,519 2,610 8. 903 9. 027 TOTAL INVESTMENTS a~d AVERAGES ............. $ 67,991,126.89 100.00% 1,245 895 6.262% 6.349% ============================================================================== CASH Passbook/checking Accounts ................... $ 2,450,707.46 1.973 2.000 (not included in yield calculations) Accrued Interest at Pu3~chase ................. $ 18,497.90 TOTAL CASM and PURCHASE INTEREST ............. $ 2,469,205.36 ============================================================================== TOTAL CASH and INVESTMENTS ................. $ 70,460,332.25 ============================================================================== MONTH ENDING FISCAL ToTAL EARNINGS SEPTEMBER 30 YEAR TO DATE Current Year $ 357,920.72 $ 1,109,774.37 AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE EFFECTIVE RATE OF RA'fURN $ 69,883,894.80 $ 71,587,131.81 6.23% 6.15% DATE I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in co~formlty with the investment policy adopted August 20, 1997. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated expenditures. The month-end market values were obtained from (IDC)-Interactive Data Corporation pricing service. 10/06/1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PM - 2 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVeSTMeNTS CITY SEP'r~v~B~R 50, 1997 CASH INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM =-- MATURITY DAYS NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT C~RTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK 00975 SANWA 05/22/96 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 6.000 6.000 6.083 05/26/98 237 00986 SANWA 03/05/97 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.830 5.830 5.911 03/05/98 155 00990 SANWA 04/29/97 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 6.240 6.240 6.327 04/29/98 210 00998 SANWA 08/06/97 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.800 5.721 5.800 08/06/98 309 00999 SANWA 09/16/97 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 5.720 5.720 5.799 03/16/98 166 SUBTOTALS and AVERAGF~ 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 5.957 6.040 216 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND SUBTOTALS and AV~P, AGES 9,796,350.78 9,573,017.45 9,573,017.45 9,573,017.45 5.690 5.612 5.690 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.667 5.589 5.667 ............................................................ 9,573,017.45 9,573,017.45 9,573,017.45 5.612 5.690 i F~DERALAGENCY ISSUES - COUPON 00964 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 00969 FED]~%L FARM ~IT B~ 00973 ~L F~ ~IT~ 00978 ~ F~IT~ 00983 ~ F~ ~IT~ 00988 ~L F~ ~IT B~ 00993 ~F~IT ~ 00996 ~E~L F~ ~IT B~ 00922 ~L HO~ ~ B~ 00940 ~L HO~ ~ ~ 00962 ~L HO~ ~ ~ 00971 ~ HO~ ~ B~ 00974 ~HO~ ~B~ 00982 ~E~ HO~ ~ ~ 00989 ~ HO~ ~ B~ 00991 ~E~ H~ ~ ~ 00997 ~ HO~ ~ B~ 00957 00967 00968 00994 00995 00947 00959 00960 00981 Ol/16/96 03/05/96 os/2o/96 lO/O3/96 12/23/96 03/27/97 04/29/97 o7/17/97 12/19/94 04/06/95 12/1~/95 o3/19/96 o5/21/96 12/3o/96 04/02/97 04/29/97 07/30/97 ~ZDmU~ HOM~ LOaN .0RT~. CO 11/20/95 F~Dm~AL HOM~ ~ ~R~. ~ 03/06/96 ~ ~0~ ~ ~R~. ~ 02/22/~6 ~ ~ ~ ~R~. ~ 06/25/97 ~ ~0~ ~ ~R~. ~ 06/30/97 ~ ~Tn ~G ~SN 05/08/~5 ~~T5 ~G~SN ~ ~Tn ~ ~SSN ZZ/2~/~5 ~~TL ~ ~SN 11/29/96 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,985,625.00 6.030 6.030 6.114 01/16/01 1,203 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,988,750.00 6.165 6.165 6.251 03/05/01 1,251 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,003,125.00 6.500 6.500 6.590 05/20/99 596 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 6.610 6.610 6.702 10/06/99 735 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,312.50 6.700 6.700 6.793 12/24/01 1,545 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,018,125.00 6.620 6.620 6.712 03/27/02 1,638 1,993,125.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.310 6.499 6.590 04/01/99 547 1,999,375.00 2,000,000.00 2,008,125.00 6.240 6.247 6.334 07/17/02 1,750 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,005,312.50 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 79 942,968.75 1,000,000.00 994,062.50 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 425 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,985,000.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 12/18/00 1,174 995,312.50 1,000,000.00 1,000,312.50 5.880 6.053 6.137 03/19/99 534 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,008,750.00 7.025 7.025 7.123 05/21/01 1,328 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 999,062.50 6.195 6.195 6.281 06/30/00 1,003 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,015,625.00 6.540 6.540 6.631 04/02/01 1,279 1,000,312.50 1,000,000.00 1,005,000.00 6.518 6.500 6.590 04/21/99 567 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,003,750.00 6.544 6.544 6.635 07/30/02 1,763 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,495,312.50 6.290 6.290 6.377 11/17/00 1,143 1,998,750.00 2,000,000.00 1,983,750.00 5.990 6.005 6.088 03/06/01 1,252 1,985,312.50 2,000,000.00 1,971,875.00 5.695 5.867 5.948 02/16/01 1,234 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,030,000.00 6.630 6.628 6.720 01/24/02 1,576 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,002,812.50 6.450 6.450 6.540 06/30/00 1,003 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,515,468.75 7.170 7.270 7.371 05/08/00 950 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,987,500.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/28/00 1,154 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,312.50 5.970 5.970 6.053 11/25/98 420 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,988,125.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/29/01 1,520 2 10/06/1997 CITY OF PANCHO CUCA~ONGA PM - 3 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMENTS CITY SEPTEMBI~R 30, 1997 CASH INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS N6'MBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FAC~ VALUE MARKET VALUE BATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPON 00984 FEDERAL NATLMTGASSN 12/12/96 00992 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/05/97 SUETOTALS a.nd AVI~AGES 50,129,979.17 1,980,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,986,250.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,044,375.00 49,395,156.25 49,526,718.75 49,500,000.00 6.160 6.378 6.467 12/14/01 1,535 7.070 7.070 7.168 05/08/02 1,680 6.432 6.522 1,182 MORTGAGE HACKED SECURITIES 00071 00203 00002 00069 SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES FEDERAL HOME LO/~ MOR~. CO 02/23/87 FEDERAL NATLMTG ASSN 09/21/87 OOVI~LI~41~NT NATIONAL MORTG A 06/23/86 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG A 05/23/86 199,058.53 36,384.94 37,354.49 28,361.97 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 1,553 72,811.29 78,821.42 77,982.78 8.500 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 4,718 65,403.48 66,315.32 53,441.39 8.500 8.621 8.740 05/15/01 1,322 22,821.28 22,373.80 2,616.00 9.000 8.534 8.652 03/15/01 1,261 197,420.99 162,402.14 204,865.03 8.903 9.027 2,610 TOTAL INVESTMENTS and AVG. $ 67,991,126.89 68,087,670.54 68,950,920.68 68,103,414.68 6.262% 6.349% 895 10/06/1997 CITY OFRANCHO CUCA~ONGA PM - 4 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DE'fAILS ~ CASH CITY SEPTI~MBER 30, 1997 CASH IN~STMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS ~II3MBER ISSUER BALANCE DATI~ BOOK VALI/E FACE VALUE MAR/iET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT C~ECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 2,417,368.85 2.000 1.973 2.000 00979 BANK OF AMERICA 0.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 00985 ~ OF Ab~RICA 33,338.61 2.000 1.973 2.000 SUETOTALS and AVERAGES 932,974.13 2,450,707.46 1.973 2.000 Accrued Interest at Purchase 18,497.90 TOTAL CASH $ 2,469,205.36 TOTAI~ CASH alld INVESTMENTS $ 69,883,894.80 70,460,332.25 10/06/1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA/WONGA PM - 5 PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE CITY SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 - SEPT~ER 30, 1997 CASH STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES TYP~ INV]~STMENT # ISSUER RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS BALANCE CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK BEGINNING BALANCE: 00987 SANWA 5.700 09/16/1997 1,810,532.20 00999 SANWA 5.720 09/16/1997 1,810,532.20 SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE 1,810,532.20 8,825,532.20 1,810,532.20 8,825,532.20 LOCALAGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS (Monthly Summary) 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST ~ 5.690 00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.667 SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE 1,ooo,ooo.oo BEGINNING BALANCE: 1,400,000.00 9,973,017.45 1,000,000.00 1,400,000.00 9,573,017.45 CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (Monthly S%ummary) BEGINNING BALANCE: 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 3,642,000.00 2,421,000.00 00979 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 00985 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 SUBTOTALS and ~NDING BA3~ANCE 1,229,707.46 3,642,000.00 2,421,000.00 2,450,707.46 F~DItRALAGENCY ISSUES - COUPON 00938 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 7.420 BEGINNING BAI~/qCE: 09/23/1997 1,002,031.25 50,397,187.50 49,395,156.25 MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES 00071 FED]~%L HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 8.000 00203 F~DE~ALNATL MTG ASSN 8.500 00002 C~DVEP/~M~NT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500 00069 ~OV~ NATIONAL ~40RTG ASSN 9.000 SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE BEGINNING BALANCE: $ BEGINNING BALANCE: 09/~5/97 1,~05.78 09/25/97 495.71 09/16/97 1,442.86 09/03/97 52.61 200,517.95 0.00 3,096.96 197,420.99 70,625,962.56 6,452,532.20 6,636,660.41 70,441,834.35 ======================================================================== 7 v A A A // ee /Z .J I,- E,.) 1, g r. A ~t c $ q I] t, & q & b L C' q ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 15, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council, FROM: L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief BY: Marti Higgins, Emergency Management Coordinator SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Multihazard Functional Disaster Plan in Accordance with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Multihazard Functional Disaster Plan for Rancho Cucamonga as the official emergency response plan for multi-agency and/or multi-jurisdictional emergencies and disasters. BACKGROUND: As a result of the devastating Oakland Fire in 1993, the State of Califomia proposed legislation which established by regulation, a standardized emergency management system (SEMS) for use by all emergency response agencies throughout the State. SEMS include all of the following systems as a framework for responding to and managing emergencies and disasters involving multiple jurisdiction or multiple agency response: The principles of the Incident Command System. (The Fire and Police Agencies throughout California will continue to use ICS in the field as previously developed by the FIRESCOPE Program.) The goal is coordination of all emergency response agencies including those once considered non-traditional such as Public Works, Red Cross, Water and School Districts. 2. The multi-agency coordination system as developed by the FIRESCOPE Program. The State Master Mutual Aid agreement, as defined in Section 8561, and related mutual aid systems such as those used in law enforcement, fire services and coroners operations. The Operational Area concept, which is an intermediate level of the state emergency organization, consisting of a county and all political subdivisions within the county area. San Bernardino County and all its jurisdictions signed a Operational Area agreement in 1996 in compliance with SEMS. /f Disaster Plan October 15, 1997 Page Two (Individual agencies' roles and responsibilities agreed upon and contained in existing law or the state emergency plans are not superseded by this article.) By December 1, 1996, each local agency, in order to be eligible for funding of response related costs under disaster assistance programs, will use the standardized emergency management system to coordinate multiple jurisdiction or multiple agency operations. In October of 1989, Rancho Cucamonga approved a Multihazard Disaster Plan for the City. By October 31, 1997, each jurisdiction must adopt revised disaster plans to include the requirements of SEMS. ANALYSIS In any emergency or disaster, agencies must coordinate their response through communications and planning to avoid duplication of services. SEMS requires all responding agencies to be represented in planning meetings so common goals and objectives are known by every agency and therefor carried out. This same coordination is required at all five designated levels of government; Field, Local Government, Operational Area, Regional Area and the State. By using the same management system and similar terminology, communication between these levels of government will be enhanced and resources needed at the local level, will be handled in a more efficient manner. Local government must use SEMS in order to be eligible for state funding of response-related personnel costs occurring in response to an incident. All state agencies will use SEMS to coordinate multiple jurisdiction or multiple agency emergency and disaster operations. Compliance with SEMS will be documented in the areas of planning, training, exercises, and performance. Applicants requesting reimbursement for disaster response-related personnel costs, are required to self certify. This self-certification will be submitted in writing at the time the application for reimbursement is submitted to the State. Over the past year Rancho Cucamonga has been providing SEMS training for our response personnel and will continue to train on a regular schedule. An annual exercise on the Disaster Plan is required by SEMS. Rancho Cucamonga's next scheduled exercise will be in November. Respectfully submitted, L. Dennis Michael Fire Chief CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Wast Coordinator APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF USED OIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing the City of Chino on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prepare, submit and administer a Used Oil Opportunity Grant. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS AB 1220 authorizes the California Integrated Waste Management Board to offer a competitive grant program with funds available statewide, for new and expanded Used Oil Recycling programs. The program prioritizes new programs in under served areas, provides for expansion of existing programs through collection of additional waste types, aides implementation of innovative programs, or expanding public education services; and provides support to regional Used Oil Recycling programs. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has applied for a grant based on the needs of this City specifically, through the Used Oil Block Grant program. The Block Grant funds are used for distribution of public education/information for use at schools and community events. The west end cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rialto, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland are proposing to submit a regional application. Funds are being requested for public education activities, market analysis of current programs and developing a direction for future programs which may include; printing of a standardized promotional brochure and flyer, that will be translated for non- English speaking people and creation of materials for county wide schools. All the participating cities are part of the county wide Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste program and this grant will provide a consistent message and reduce the overall cost of public information and educational programs. As a regional grant this application will increase the chance of the cities receiving a grant. Having it will not effect the efforts of each individual city to apply for a site specific program. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT OIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT October 15, 1997 Page 2 The City of Chino has offered to act as the lead agency on this grant. The City of Chino currently has a "grant - funded oil recycling" intem who will be assigned the task of implementing this grant if received and will coordinate with the other agencies. Our participation in the regional effort will not effect the outcome of our local grant funds. An approved authorizing Resolution must be sent with the Grant Application to the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board by November 15, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Neil ' City Engineer Attachments WJO:BZ:dlw /'7 P, ESOLUT O 4 40. q 7-/-5 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A USED OIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CHINO TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS A USED OIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICANT AND ADMINISTRATOR WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act that provides funds to cities and counties for establishing and maintaining local used oil collection prograins that encourage recycling or appropriate disposal of used oil; and WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted Assembly Bill 1220 (Eastin, 1993) that grants to local govermnents to establish and implement waste diversion and separation programs to prevent disposal of household hazardous waste, including household hazardous waste, in solid waste landfills, and WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by cities and counties under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for the development of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California authorizes the submittal of an application for the California Integrated Waste Mm~agement Board for a Household Hazardous Waste Discretionary Grant. The City Manager of the City of Chino is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Cucamonga all necessary applications, contracts, agreements, amendments hereto for the purpose of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO ESCROW FOR THE SALE PROPERTY AT GROVE YARD FACILITIES OF SURPLUS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve entering into escrow for the sale of the Grove Yard with Mr. Mike Porteus using Chicago Title and Ridens and Associates Real Estate Brokerage for clearance of legal documents. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the disposal of the vacant corporate yards located at 111 N. Grove Avenue, Upland, on May 7, 1997. The site is within the city limits of the City of Upland. The County of San Bernardino acquired the site in 1928, and the City from the County in 1981. This property was used as the street maintenance yards by the County and the City until 1989. At that time it was replaced by the current City facilities on 9th Street. Since then the Grove Yard has been used for storage of maintenance materials and tool and vehicles. The County Environmental Agency issued a permit for removal of the fuel tanks and declared the site free of contamination. The site received a hazardous waste phase one on environmental clearance on October 8, 1996. The revised appraisal has placed the value of the property between $65,000 and $80,000, depending on requirements for improvement by the City of Upland. At the September 17, 1997, Council meeting, staff was authorized to solicit sealed bids for the sale of the subject property with a minimum bid the City would accept being $80,000. At that time, only two people were interested in purchasing the property. They were Mr. GillJam and Mr. Porteus. Since September 17, 1997, Mr. Ridens, real estate broker for the City, has informed staff that only Mr. Porteus is interested in purchasing the property. Mr. Ridens contacted Mr. GillJam on October 6, 1997. Mr. Gilliam informed him he was no longer interested in purchasing the subject property (see Mr. Ridens' letter to Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, dated October 7, 1997). /9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SALE OF GROVE YARD FACILITIES October 15, 1997 Page 2 Our City Attorney, Mr. Markman, has reviewed Mr. Ridens' October 7 letter and has indicated to staff that in light of Mr. Gilliam's bid retraction and the fact that no other bidder has come forward, it would be appropriate to open escrow with Mr. Porteus. Respectfully submitted, W illiamJ. 'N~eil~/~~ City Engineer Attachments WJO:MO:sd RIDENS & ASSOCIATES Commercial Real Estate October 7, 1997 Joe O'Neil City Engineer - City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 re: 111 Grove Avenue, Upland Dear Joe, As you are aware the city of Rancho Cucamonga received two (2) similar offers on the above mentioned property. It was at that time it was decided that the property should be sold by way of a sealed bid. One of the two interested parties then told myself that he was no longer interested in acquiring the property. On October 6, 1997 I again called this individual to inquire whether or not they had any further interest in purchasing the property. Again , I was told that he was no longer interested. As of this time we have one (1) individual who is still interested in acquiring the property. Please contact myself if you have any further questions. Sincerely, RIDENS & ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ,/fi~m Ridens Owner~roker 10700 Jersey Blvd., Suite 610 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 · Telephone (909) 989-8080 Fax (909) 989-8881 2 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Shelly Maddox, Engineering Aide APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $44,710.00 FOR FUND 23-4637-9120 FOR GENERAL CITY MASTER PLAN DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR FY 1997/98 RECOMMENDATION It is recmnmended that the City Council approve an appropriation of $44,710.00 for Fund 23-4637-9120 for General City Master Plan Drainage Reimbursement Agreements for FY 1997/98. BACKGROUND~NALYSIS General City Master Plan Drainage Reimbursement Agreements are based on the net General City Drainage funds received each fiscal year. Consistent with the reimbursement agreements, $44,710.00 of the $178,837.82 received from last year's revenue needs to be appropriated for reimbursements. The remaining funds will be utilized for City projects. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:SM:sd 22 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF THE MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE STORM DRAIN CHANNEL AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD, AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT NO. 14771, LOCATED NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE, EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY LAUREN DEVELOPMENT, INC. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 14771, accepting the subject Agreement, Securities, Improvement and Maintenance Agreement for the Storm Drain Channel and Emergency Access Road, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreements and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map 14771, located north of Ringstem Drive, east of Haven Avenue in the Very Low Residential District, was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990, for the division of 25.9 acres into 40 lots. The Developer, Lauren Development, Inc., is submitting an agreement and securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: Labor and Material Bond Monumentation Cash Deposit $758,700.00 379,350.00 4,500.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 14771 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT, INC. October 15, 1997 Page 2 As part of the plan check process, the Developer is also submitting an Improvement and Maintenance Agreement for the proposed storm drain channel and the emergency access road. Letters of availability and compliance have been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. CC&R's have also been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver of Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's office. As part of the tract improvement a concrete lined channel is required on the northerly boundary of the tract. As originally proposed, the developer was required to do grading on the property north of the tract which is an easement owned by the Los Angeles Depamnent of Water and Power. By letter dated August 18, 1997 the Department stated they will not issue a permit at this time for grading on their property due to environmental concerns. In response, the developer has met with staff and provided an alternate design to accommodate drainage flows from the north without encroaching on the Department of Water and Power property. The Developer has indicated he will continue to pursue the encroachment per,nit with the Department of Water and Power which will allow the original design of the drainage facilities. However, should the Department not be willing to reconsider their position, the alternative design which constructs the drainage facility entirely are on the Lauren property will be utilized. Respectfully submitted, WilliamZl. O'Neil City Engineer Attachments WJO:WV:dlw 2¢ RESOLUTION NO. q 7- / ~' ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 14771, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE STORM DRAIN CHANNEL AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 14771, submitted by Lauren Development, Inc., and consisting of 40 lots located north of Ringstem Drive, east of Haven Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on November 14, 1990, and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 14771 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Securities by Lauren Development, Inc., as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon and said Improvement and Maintenance Agreement for the storm drain channel and emergency access road. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Improvement and Maintenance Agreement submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Tract Map No. 14771 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. 2.5 RESOLUTION NO. 9 '7" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT NO. 14771 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIST-RICT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND '0 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~"~ EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: TRACT 14771 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 --- S2 13 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L2 38.646 Turf Non-Turf S.F. S.F. Trees Ea. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel DU S1 S2 L1 N/A 40 40 40 40 Annexation Date: October 15, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. ,O'Neil, City Engineer Michael D. Long, Supervising Public Works Inspector APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION STATE-LOCAL AGENCY TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP- 5420, SUPPLEMENT NO. 009, FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the subject agreement and authorize its execution by both the Mayor and City Clerk BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The agreement authorizes funding for the project to be shared with the State in the amount of 6% of the project award amount. The project consisted of constructing Milliken Avenue between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MDL J DATE: TO: CITY OF RANCttO C, UCAMON(iA STAFF REPORT October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council ,rack Lain, AICP, City Manager ~FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer ~ '~ SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF TI IE CONTRACT FOR THE AMETItYST AVENUE PAVEMENT REIIABILITATION PROGILAM, LOCATED FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO 19TII STREET, TO LAIRD CONSTRUCTION, 1N THE AMOUNT OF $102,421.00 ($93,110.00, PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO BE FUNDED FROM ENGINEERING PROP 111 FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4637~-9605 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize tbr execution the contract for the Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Program, located from Base Line Road to 19th Street, to the lowest responsive bidder, Laird Constructiota in the amount of $102~421.00 ($93,110.00, plus 10% contingency) to be lhnded ti'om Engineering Prop 111 Funds, Account No. 10-4637-9605. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on September 23, 1997, for the sub. ject project. Laird Construction is the apparent lowest bidder, with a bid amount of $93,110.00 (see attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was $114,733.03. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and tinds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachment Z Z Z 0 ~,..,, 0 (~ ..-toO 0 i.."~ t"-- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. OtNeil, City Engineer Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND THE UNNAMED ALLEY (EAST COLLECTOR STREET) OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HANLEY AVENUE LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND EAST RESPECTIVELY OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15766 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the summary vacation of Railroad Avenue South and the unnamed alley otherwise known as Hanley Avenue described and shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On November 13, 1996 and continued to January 8, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, per Resolution No. 97-01, approved Vesting Tentative Tract 15766, for the development of a condominium subdivision of one lot for 264 apartments on 22.2 acres of land. As a condition of approval Railroad Avenue South and the unnamed alley are required to be vacated. The Planning Commission along with the approval of the vesting tentative tract made a finding that the vacation is consistent with the General Plan. Section 8331 of the Streets and Highways Code states local agencies may summarily vacate a street or highway if for a period of five consecutive years, the street or highway has been impassable for vehicular travel and no public money was expended for maintenance. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAD:dlw Attaclunents: Vicinity Map Exhibits "A" and "B" - Legal description and plat Resolution V-140 Map VICINITY MAP i." TRACT 13873 MB 227/15-19 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 PM 11838 PMB 144/60-61 CITY OF I~NCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ITEM: VIC1NITY MAP TITLE: VACATION 140 PROJECT: VTT 15766 RESOLUTION NO. 9 "/- I/~ O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND THE UNNAMED ALLEY (EAST COLLECTOR STREET) OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HANLEY AVENUE LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND EAST RESPECTIVELY OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15766 WHEREAS, by Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8331, of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate Railroad Avenue South and the unnamed alley otherwise known as Hanley Avenue, herein more particularly described; and WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that said Railroad Avenue South and ununamed alley are unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes, it has not been used for more than five (5) consecutive years, and no public money was expended for maintenance of same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby makes its order vacating Railroad Avenue South and unnamed alley otherwise known as Hanley Avenue, as shown on Map V-140 on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which has been further described in a legal description and plat which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and "B", and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2: The subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations and exceptions, if any, for existing utilities on record. SECTION 3: That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, said Railroad Avenue South and unnamed alley otherwise known as Hanley Avenue no longer constitute a public street. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution and exhibits to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. SECTION 5: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force. V- 140 TRAC1 NO. 11934 M.B. 167 / IOO-IO.1 Al(~lX~m) U COIII~IX~ NO'12'27"E 40,00,~,.~ I N._.89'..,,,~12' 23" W §15,49_.~.' __ -"~89"'~ 2'23"W I 785.5'~'-T ---"-'~i NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 SECIION LINE OI~AI~®FE LEI~P~I~IE AC~E$ ~ ~ I ~.B. 20/1 I "' Z I I I ._J b z LOT I IRACI' NO. 13073 M.B, 22? / I§-17 REMAINDER PARCEL P.M, 11030 P,M.B, 144 / 60-61 ~o' iernaro~No 11/25/~9~ .er ' ~ ~. _~ ' O.R. 922/206. ~ I o ~ II L...---SIREET EASEMENT x~ ~ I~.~. ~ I I Per INST. NO. go- BASE LINE ROAD CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION ITEM: Vacation Map TITLE: V- 140 RAILROAD AVE. SO. & UNNAMED ALLEY EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET VACATION RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND UNNAMED ALLEY Legal Description: THAT PORTION OF RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH, 40.00 FEET IN WIDTH, ADJOINING LOTS 29, 30, 31, 32 AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 28, OF ORANGE EMPIRE ACRES AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 20, PAGE 1 OF MAP BOOKS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY, 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH, ADJOINING SAID LOT 32 ON THE EAST, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF ORANGE EMPIRE ACRES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF LOT 28 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 68, PAGE 73 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 28, 29, 30, 31 AND 32, SOUTH 89012'23" EAST, 785.57 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST 'CORNER OF SAID LOT 32; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 32, SOUTH 0005'07" WEST, 830.27 FEET TO A POINT 265.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 32; THENCE EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTH 89054'53" EAST, 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTER SECTION LINE OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID UNNAMED ALLEY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTER SECTION LINE AND EAST LINE OF SAID UNNAMED ALLEY, NORTH 0005'57" EAST, 869.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH, NORTH 89012'23" WEST, 815.57 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SAID LOT 28, THENCE SOUTH 0°12'27" WEST, 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. G.t399\OO~LEG ALS\RANCUCA DOC CITY ~ 'B" OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET VACATION TRACT NO. 11934 M.B. 161 I IOO-IO3 SCALE 1"=200' NO' 12'27' E 4o.oo'-_.~'-'-'- .~.~9.,,/~5~ "'"'Or N89'12'2Yw I { N89"I2'2YW 815.49_..~' __ 7~5.5~-T' 50' I~.L~'©/~ I I I I I I I I 3~ z NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 SECTION LINE PER INST. NO. 90- P.~.~. 144/60-61 I J 296957' -"/ ~ ~9~""/.~-~' ' S'LY 20.00' OF LOTS 18 TO 52 ~, 30' ', ~ N~49'23"E CONV~ED TO COUNW OF SAN ~ -- ~l I' ' 50.00' BERNARDINO 11/25/1933 PER '~ ~ ~ ST SENT oR g~/2o~ ~ RE~ ~ ~ " '~ ~<~'] ~P[R ,NST. UO. ~0- ICH L.S. 4695 DATE EXP. 9/50/99 CONJUl. TINg ~7 REI~iAINDER PARCEL LO1' 1 'J'RACT NO. 13873 M.B. 227 / 16-11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 15, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil. City Engineer BY? Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15797-1, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EAST OF WOODRUFF PLACE, SUBMITTED BY TAVA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract Map No. 15797-1, accepting the subject agreement and security, and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 3, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement; and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the City Engineer to present the Tract Map to the County Recorder to be filed for record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Tentative Tract Map No. 15797, generally located south of Highland Avenue and East of Woodruff Place, was approved by the Planning Commission on 26th day of February, 1997, for a residential subdivision of 61 single family Jots on 12.4 acres of land in the medium residential designation within the Victoria Community Plan. Tract Map 15797-1 is the first of two phases, being a subdivision of 36 lots on 7.57 acres of land. The Developer, Tava Development Company, a California Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: Labor and Materiahnen Bond: Monumentation: $949,82500 $474,912.00 $4,200.00 Copies of the agreement and security, and the Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer are available in the City Cierk's office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments RESOLUTION NO. q 7- / ~' / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 15797-1, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 15797, submitted by Tava Development Company, a California Corporation, consisting of 61 lots, generally located south of Highland Avenue and East of Woodruff Place, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on February 26, 1997; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 15796-1 is the final map of the first phase of two phases for the division of land approved, consisting of 36 lots on 7.57 acres of land as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate for Street, Highway and related purposes, per Instrument No. 90-068978, recorded February 22, 1990, shall be abandon pursuant to Section 66499.20-½ of the Subdivision Map Act, with new dedications with the filing of this map; and WHEREAS, monumentation security has been provided; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security, by Tava Development Company, a California, as developer; 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 Tract Map No. 15797-1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City Clerk to attest; and that said Tract Map No. 15797-1 be and the same is hereby approved and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the City Engineer to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. q 7'-/d o~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15797-1 WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No.2, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXtlIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 STREET LIGilTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 3 t fi', 11 II AN( ) ' ~qll~Pl~111 , ;!\, IIII t1111~11'I ~ IIIit" tl} ,'t LEGEND 111h~ql I'^11 NEW STREET LIGHTS 12 ea ~"//////"///'////~ L M D AREA 1.306 ac I t , .,it 'xc / ,, '/ ..... kt, ",,, . , J FUTURE ' " TILACT 15797 ..... ;;/ , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT 15797-1 File: h:\forms\assnmnap '/2 EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: TRACT 15797-1 STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF LAMPS Dist. 5800L 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 2T500L S1 ............... S3 12 ............ LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Dist. D.G.S.F. S.F. S.F. Ea. L2 N/A * * * N/A N/A N/A 37 LMD Area Interior Streets * Quantities to be determined at time of approval of the Landscape Maintenance District Plans. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District S1 S3 L2 36 36 36 Parcel DU N/A 36 Annexation Date: October 15, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 15, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTR1CT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15796-1, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VICTORIA PARK LANE, SUBMITTED BY TAVA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract Map No. 15796-1, accepting the subject agreement and security, and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement; and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the City Engineer to present the Tract Map to the County Recorder to be filed for record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Tentative Tract Map No. 15796, generally located at the northeast comer of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane, was approved by the Planning Commission on 26th day of February, 1997, for a residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the medium residential designation within the Victoria Community Plan. Tract Map No. 15796-1 is the first of two phases, being a subdivision of 50 lots on 10.232 acres of land. The Developer, Tava Development Company, a California Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: Labor and Materialmen Bond: Monumentation: $873,336.00 $436,668.00 $4,9OO.OO Copies of the agreement and security, and the Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer are available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAD k,._Attach~nents ' ';I ~: :'i'~? TRACT 15796 i~ . . ',;, ,, ..... / : ' _ .- , .:'"~: · '-- :' ' '- '"'-~,!1' Vf.'COURT'., ' : ii t! .... . . , ,,, ,~.- ' ~,, .'~ i~ ~ ~ x~ ':=~=:.'~i: ~'~ ' , .Irnl- " --. .... ='~,'~ II . '-" * .' £ C::, "2, -' ' , ~., %x ca .-~" -'.. .I ..' ,~'F -' .t 0°:, --I=p RESOLUTION NO. ~ 7"- ]~'3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 15796-1, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 15796-1, submitted by Tava Development Company, a Califomia Corporation, consisting of 94 lots, generally located at the northeast comer of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on February 28, 1997; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 15796-1 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, monumentation security has been provided; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security, by Tava Development Company, a California, as developer; 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 Tract Map No. 15796-1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City Clerk to attest; and that said Tract Map No. 15796-1 be and the same is hereby approved and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the City Engineer to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. ~ 7-/~ q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15796-1 WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No.2, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maimenance District No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. q7 EXI!IBIT "A" SPRING MIST DRIVE , . . '. , . ~,-.___:_~.~---- - .. .. ': ......I '~ ~ ~ I ~-... -' ~=. .... ~ I I. i : 'i,'--= ..... '~ ~ ':~.'i It, 't',;'--:~'~"~ :~,~_ ~X ~;'J~ ~ .....' ....... .:' ~. '7 ~_,~_~ .~ , ~ ' ~ ~.'~., ) I - " ,~-,~ ' '9~ ~'/' ~Z,~ z - ~" " :1.. ~- '" 2]., . ...... _ , :-.': o ..... ASSESSMENT DIAGi(AM LAN DSCAI'E MAINTENANCE DISTIZ, iCT NO. 2 STlgl,;i,71' Li(;I ITING MAINTENANCE I)iSTRICT NOS, I AND 3 LEGEND · NEW STRI:,ET L1GI ITS 18 ea ~////~//~//~ LMD AREA 0.584 ac TIL'kCT 15796- I v~ClO~J~ PAI1K ' ' CITY OF IL~NCIIO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT 15796- 1 File: h:\101'ms\assmlmal~ qY EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: TRACT 15796-1 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 .... S3 18 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L2 N/A N/A Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. N/A N/A 65 LMD Area Interior Streets * Quantitites to be determined at time of Approval of the Landscape Maintenance District Plans. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel DU S 1 S 3 L2 N/A 50 50 50 50 Annexation Date: October 15, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Laura J. Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer APPROVAL OF DESIGN STRATEGIES TO REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PUBLICLY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING TO BE ADOPTED AS POLICY THROUGH MINUTE ACTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE AND WITH INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council review the attached design guidelines along with comments from the Planning Commission and adopt the measures as policy through minute action. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In response to Proposition 218, the City has recognized a need to reduce Maintenance and Operations costs within the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD) and other publicly funded areas. On August 14, 1997, the Public Works Subcommittee reviewed and approved the attached measures to reduce maintenance within publicly maintained parkways. These measures were presented to the Planning Commission for input on September 10, 1997. The Commission's comments are included with this report. Historically, design policies applied to LMD plan reviews have promoted attractive, water conserving, low maintenance solutions. From time to time, these goals have been compromised to accommodate development objectives or other concerns determined to have more importance. The passage of Proposition 218, which requires any assessment increases CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT October 15, 1997 Page 2 within an LMD to be put to public vote, obligates the City to take a hard look at not only what type of landscapes our districts absorb into their work programs, but also the amount and location of landscape improvements. More than ever, public works landscape areas merit careful consideration with regard to their long-term impacts on the community both financially and aesthetically. To keep operational cost increases as low as possible, adoption of the attached measures will assist staff and the development community in providing attractive, enduring landscapes which can be responsibly maintained. Additionally, these measures will promote a consistent City image while supporting the environmentally responsible goals of water conservation, reduced chemical applications and green waste reduction. This policy will be administered by the Engineering Division of the Communitiy Development Department. The attached document "Design Strategies to Reduce Maintenance Costs" (and related exhibits) identifies several design approaches which would help to anticipate and offset likely cost increases within the districts. The suggestions are directed at new and existing landscapes and also propose a public information campaign. Many of these concepts are already in practice, and staff is requesting formal support. Others, such as the suggested mandatory use of hardscape or the use of curb-adjacent sidewalks, are new and perhaps controversial, but are a direct result of an immediate need to conserve resources in order to minimize assessment elections. As a significant policy decision, the issue of hardscape is examined more closely through the attached exhibits. Although the mandatory use of hardscape will provide the most relief to the districts, its initial appearance and cost (approximately $6.00/sf for mortared rock cobble) may be of concern to the development community. With this in mind, the Subcommittee supported the recommended 40% as a target for all projects, with flexibility allowed as determined necessary from a design standpoint. For example, a transitional design with less than 40% might be appropriate adjacent to a pre-existing lush landscape theme. The Public Works Subcommittee concluded that the focus of these measures is to keep the LMD's "revenue-neutral" so as to avoid assessment increases, and that overall, these measures could be implemented attractively. Upon reviewing the recommendations of the Public Works Subcommittee, the Planning Commission also reviewed the policy. The Planning Commission identified issues similar to those raised by the Public Works Subcommittee. The Commission expressed some concern regarding the 40% hardscape figure and how such quantities of hardscape would affect community image. They suggested, to the greatest extent possible, staff promote creative and flexible solutions to accomplish reductions in landscape (i.e. utilizing a 5' wide S/ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT October 15, 1997 Page 3 sidewalk instead of a 4' sidewalk to reduce the amount of decorative hardscape required.) The Commission also recommended the Planning Division have input regarding the decision making process. Staff notes the Planning Division jointly reviews landscape projects with Engineering staff. Similar to the issue raised by the Public Works Subcommittee, the Commission suggested curb-adjacent walks be adjusted to reflect guidelines as to where such walks could be best suited. The Commission suggested that consistency with established sidewalk patterns be taken into consideration. The Commission also suggested that the Policy be reviewed after a period of one year to evaluate the merit of the design strategies. Staff will bring this issue back to the Public Works Subcommittee in one year to review the effectiveness of the policy. Lastly, as a general policy issue the Commission expressed concern that using existing relationships of area per assessment unit as the control point would tend to limit certain areas of this City aesthetically. These costs are shown in the August 4, 1997 memo (attached). The Commission pointed to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 as an example. In response to the general policy issue, the existing relationships of square feet maintained per assessment unit are the primary factors by which assessments are driven, and are a necessary benchmark for evaluating the impact of a project on a district. If these relationships change so as to increase the amount of landscape area "sponsored" per unit, the maintenance costs must be borne either by the City or the taxpayers through an election. To compare individual districts is not appropriate, as each district offers different benefits. LMD 2 (Victoria) and LMD 4 (Terra Vista) assessments cover more landscaping area because that is a benefit for which the residents are currently willing to pay. A homeowner paying into LMD 1 may not wish to increase the assessment to subsidize new developments with elaborate landscaping. Each district will be evaluated with regard to the number of units vs. landscaping each year and opportunities for increased landscaping can be identified if the ratio results warrant. This effort will be done in conjunction with the annual evaluation to monitor the cost benefit of the proposed design strategies and will be incorporated into the annual City Engineer's Report for each district. However, we note fixed costs to the District such as electricity and water are going to continue to increase. It is necessary to get control of landscape areas now so that the Districts are not in a position of requiring a voter election on rates each year. Both the Subcommittee meeting and the Planning Commission meeting were attended by Griffin Development, which is developing Tract 15727, the Cornerpointe project. The developer requested the City explore the possibility of creating new districts which might address cost increases through a preapproved annual rate increase. Staff believes the creation of new districts will put the City in a position similar to managing localized homeowner's CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT October 15, 1997 Page 4 associations. Continually forming new districts creates additional administrative time and would not be cost effective. The preferred alternative to forming additional assessment districts is the creation of homeowner's associations. This will give the residents the opportunity to control their own destiny in regards to the amount of landscaping and the amount of dollars they would be willing to put into maintaining their environment. Based on the direction of the Public Works Subcommittee and input from Planning Commission, staff recommends that the City Council approve the design strategies to reduce maintenance costs for publicly maintained landscaping. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:LB:dlw Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4,~ 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Laura J. Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer~ LMD ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE USE OF HARDSCAPE In an effort to keep LMD (Landscape Maintenance District) costs in check, we are considering hmv much and what should go into our districts. To reduce planted and irrigated areas without sacrificing the overall landscape area needed to accommodate setbacks and grading needs, staff is proposing a mandatory use of 40% hardscape, preferably mortared rock. Aside from the obvious benefit of less area to maintain, the following information may be useful in further supporting the use of hardscape in the LMD's. To help stabilize the district assessments, and therefore minimize the occasions for assessment increase elections, the City might employ the strategy that new development landscaping should not exceed the current ratio of landscaped area per assessment unit, listed below. These figures are based upon current Engineer's Reports for the districts and have excluded parks, as locations vary and the maintenance is specialized. Further analysis could fine-tune these results, however, there is a basic premise that the ratios represent an average relationship for that particular district and that, although the numbers may have fiuxed a bit with every additional tract or project, the basic ratio is representative of the "intensity" of landscaping for a particular district over time. LMD MAINTENANCE FIGURES -- COMPARISON OF SQUARE FOOTAGE CURRENTLY MAINTAINED PER ASSESSM~,NT UNIT (DATA BASED ON 97-98 ENGINEER'S REPORT) LMD # ASSESSMENT TOTAL UNITS TOTAL SF RATE/UNIT* PER DISTRICT LANDSCAPE (FOR REFERENCE PER DISTRICT ONLY) 1 $92.21 9,981.00 1,140,836.40 :2 $422.00 4,082.27 3,889,472.40 3a $4 l 3.74 8.00 6,098.40 3b $352.80 1,711.56 575,427.60 4 $252.50 4,439.50 652,528.80 5 $113.29 44.00 14,374.80 6 $246.97 1,249.00 1,075,060.80 7 $307.05 1,044.00 503,553.60 8 $151.45 108.00 16,117.20 * Last rate increase for all districts was in FY 93/94 RATIO OF LANDSCAPE SF PElt ASSESSMENT UNIT 114 SF/UNIT 953 S FFLINIT 762 SF/UNIT 337 SF/UNIT 147 SF/UNIT 327 SF/UNIT 861 SF/UNIT 482 SF/UNIT 149 SF/UNIT As an example, consider that LMD 8 is slated to increase by 300 assessment units, and the developer is proposing to add 80,000 sf of landscaping. Since the one assessment unit supports 149 sf of landscape area, 300 units each suppoGing 149 sfwould allow 44,700 sfofthe proposed 80,000 sfto be landscaped without disrupting the current ratio, and the remaining 35,300 sf could be hardscaped or maintained by another mechanism, (i.e., an H.O.A.) This actually works out to be 44% of the landscape area, a percentage range we are considering for hardscape. Were the areas not reduced by some means, and the full 80,000 sfadded to the district, the landscape area "sponsored" by each unit would increase from 149 sf to 236 sf. This would translate into increased maintenance costs which would either have to be borne by the City or be put to the voters for approval. If we were to be really conservative (in anticipation of utility and other expected cost increases) perhaps 75% of the current area per unit should be allowed. While the 40% hardscape areas will reduce maintenance costs proportionately, the percentage will not appear as substantial as plants are allowed to cascade or grow over wherever possible. To accommodate special or unusual design circumstances, the percentage could be modified at the discretion of the City Engineer. cc: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer Wait Stickney, Associate Engineer ..5'5 LARGE- PARKWAY- 30' WIDE WITH 6' CURB-ADJACENT WALK AND 40O/o HARDSCAPE ., ..... ._ WITH 4' M~NDERING WALK- AND 40% HA~DS~PE "~ X, ~' '-~'~"~ ..... ~,.,_..~ '~ ,",.~ ....:.~ . ..~d SMALL PARKWAY- 12' WIDE WITH 6' CURB-ADJACENT WALK AND 40% HARDSCAPE SMALL PARKWAY- 12' WIDE WITH 4' CENTRAL WALK AND 40% HARDSCAPE AN EXAr'.'IPLE: EXCLUDING THE ROCKSCAPE IN THE MEDIAN NOSES, THE I".'11LLIKEN AVENUE I"'IEDIAN$ REPRESENT A LANDSCAPE UTILIZING 33% HARDSCAPE. DESIGN STRATEGIES TO REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS Page 1 of 3 NEW DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPES 1. TAKE LESS IN TO AVOID NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON THE DISTRICTS to Limit the areas LMD'S are responsible for - reduce the scope, not necessarily the area (smaller areas are often less efficient to maintain). No side yards, fewer remote Lot locations, no "freebies" (city maintenance of landscaping adjacent undeveloped land). Where conflicts would not occur with existing street themes, use curb-adjacent sidewalks to simplify and consolidate areas. Sidewalks bisecting small parkways create even smaller parkway planter areas, which require more intricate irrigation systems, limit tree size, and require smaller plants in greater quantities. Curb-adjacent walks, six feet wide, automatically reduce landscape areas by 2 feet. They also promote simplified planting and irrigation solutions which will are easier to maintain, and have more visual impact through the use of larger plant materials. Since most LMD areas are reverse frontage situations, these curb adjacent walks would not conflict with drive approaches, and can swing away from the curb occasionally to provide visual interest. See attached exhibit. 2. WHAT DOES GO INTO THE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE VERY LOW MAINTENANCE Continue with the little or no turf policy for independent developments. Introduce the policy through transitions in master-planned developments with established turf themes (Terra Vista, Victoria, and also Beautification Master Plans). Turf can be replaced with low, carpet-like groundcovers, or with rockscape. Be Discontinue acceptance of, or limit, special facilities such as project entry monumentation, accent lighting, and other similar features. Required design amenities should be "bulletproof", constructed of enduring materials that facilitate easy maintenance. Continue with water conserving plant materials with greater emphasis placed on dryer palettes, which could withstand occasional lapses in water application. For example, more emphasis should be placed on the use of California natives, or equally durable materials from similar climates. Continue with high quality, state-of-the-art irrigation systems. These systems not only save water, but also reduce the man-hours necessary to monitor and repair the City's 300-plus irrigated landscapes, improve the longevity of landscapes through proper water application and reduce the City's exposure to liability. DESIGN STRATEGIES TO REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS Page 2 of 3 Go Reduce landscape areas by increasing hardscape areas. This should occur through wider sidewalks and decorative hardscape such as rockscape or pavers. Establish a minimum amount of required hardscape from an approved hardscape palette- 40% is suggested as a target requirement. If special circumstances warrant an adjustment, the hardscape may be reduced at the discretion of the City Engineer. See attachments. Minimize pruning/trimming requirements. Space plants based on mature size, and consider using shorter-lived species as infill. Promote natural looking landscapes. Continue employing best horticultural practices which encourage landscape longevity such as: · grouping plants with matched water requirements · avoiding monocultural planting schemes · design emphasis on long term appearance... short-lived interim plants giving way to maturing long-lived plants Continue proactive measures against vandalism and graffiti. EXISTING LANDSCAPES IDENTIFY, EVALUATE AND REMEDY LMD AREAS WHICH ARE COSTLY TO MAINTAIN Program corrective measures as necessary: · irrigation retrofits · alternate plant material · hardscape installation Update City Standards as necessary to keep pace with Green Industry technology and also feedback from field personnel regarding successes and failures of various design elements. EDUCATE, INFORM AND INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IF WE ARE TAKING IN LESS. THEN OUR RESIDENTS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE. PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITE Provide landscape information through newsletters, flyers (i.e., tree care) and the City's Internet Home Page. DESIGN STRATEGIES TO REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS Page 3 of 3 Increase street tree/community tree plantings, which green our community through private maintenance endeavors. Explore the possibility of tree sponsorships. Pursue the installation of Demonstration Gardens - currently proposed for the unfunded projects Central Park, Don Tapia Park, and Metrolink Park. The Fire District is also pursuing grant funds to support these projects. Promote community involvement projects. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager Karen McGuire-Emery, Associate Park Planner 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 Community Center: · Clean-up of the Lions East Project is continuing. Service Master completed final cleaning on 9/23. Drywall has been replaced and is being replastered. Once the drywall has been repainted, cabinets will be replaced followed by flooring removal and replacement, replacement of the base material and duct work cleaning. Fire extinguishers were serviced on September 29. Lions West Community Center: · 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. · Fire extinguishers were serviced on September 29. Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center: · Restroom partitions are scheduled for installation the week of October 20. · The expanded parking lot construction project is scheduled for approval to advertise on the November 5th City Council Agenda. · Currently in the process of testing the Ansul Fire Suppression System for annual certification. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 17, 1997 Page 2 RC Family Sports Center: · Construction is close to completion on this facility. Finish materials have been installed. The Pro Shop installation is approximately 50% complete. It is estimated that renovations will be completed by late November 1997. Rancho Cucamonga Public Library: · Beginning engineering on HVAC installation for study rooms. The tentative start date for work is mid-December. · Carpet tiles to carpet the base of the statue were ordered on October 2. Civic Center: · The front part of the civic center lobby is scheduled to be painted on October 10. Metrolink Station: · Completed installation of power for coffee vendor at the Metrolink station. Eftwanda Creek Park: · Staff has prepared a proposed plan for location of the Pop Warner trailer and submitted it to Pop Warner and City Departments for review and comment. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Fall Quarter Programming Updates Sports: · Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center - Staff is currently taking registration for the Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center which anticipated to be completed in November, 1997. Winter programs will be the first sports programs added to the Community Services computer registration system for the Family Sports Center. They include: Youth Indoor Soccer Leagues (boys and girls divisions), Youth Racquetball Classes, Teen Wallyball Leagues, Adult Basketball Leagues (full court, 3-on-3, men's and women's divisions), Adult Volleyball Leagues (men's, women's and coed), Adult Racquetball Leagues (men's women's and coed), and Adult Racquetball Classes. Youth Sports - Registration for Youth Basketball Leagues, Pee Hockey and Pee Wee Basketball are currently taking place. Pee Wee Soccer began September 29, with 501 children registered. Adult Sports - Adult Softball Leagues (men's, women's and coed) will run from September 19 through December 12. Last year's Fall program had 2,356 participants; this Fall season's CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 17, 1997 Page 3 enrollment will approach 2,500 players. Softball rental tournaments take place every Saturday at the Epicenter. This year 3,168 players; last year 2,100 players. Adult Flag Football Leagues started September 29 and will continue through November 18. One hundred and forty (140) players will participate in this Fall season's leagues; an increase of 20 players from last year's Fall season. Adult Soccer Leagues are currently taking registration: Women's Fall Field Soccer League: Anticipated Enrollment: 315 players; Last year's Fall season: 240 players. League play dates: September 19 - December 14. Women's 6-Aside Soccer Leagues: Anticipated Enrollment: 88 players; Last year's Fall season: 55 players. League play dates: September 30 - December 14. Men's Full Field Soccer Leagues: Anticipated Enrollment: 210 players; Last year's Fall season: 225 players. League play dates: September 14 - December 7. Men's 6-A-side Soccer Leagues: Anticipated Enrollment: 242 players; Last year's Fall season: 198 players. League play dates: October 2 - December 14. Coed Full Field Soccer Leagues: Anticipated Enrollment: 90 players (New Program) League play dates: October 10 - December 19. Youth Programs: The Playschool program is hosting two fund raisers this month. A book fair was held at City Hall on October 2. Later in the month a local photographer comes to the program to do portraits of each child and the classrooms. Parents have the option of purchasing these portraits and the program receives a percentage of the sales. Approximately $1300 - $1500 is expected to be raised between these two fund raisers for the purchase of books, toys educational items and other program equipment and supplies. Teen Programs: · Teen Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) - TRAC kicks off the year with their first meeting in October. TRAC meets the third Wednesday of each month at 4:00 p.m. at Lions Park Community Center. The teens plan community service projects, snack bar operations and recreational programs. First on the agenda: sign ups for Founder's Day snack bar and planning of a recreational calendar for the rest of the calendar year. · Night On The Town - The popular Night On The Town Babysitting Service returns in October. This service runs October through May and offers babysitting to the community CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 17, 1997 Page 4 on the first Friday and third Saturday of each month, from 6:00 p.m. to midnight at Lions Park Conununity Center. Teen volunteers (supervised by City staff) entertains the children with crafts, games and movies. Events: · College Fair - Our first College Fair, scheduled for Wednesday, October 22 from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. is a result of a collaboration between the City, the three local high schools and Lewis Homes Management Corp. Approximately 90 Colleges from all over the country are expected to be represented. Attendance is projected at 1,200 students and parents. A flyer is attached. · Pumpkin Carving Workshop - The annual Pumpkin Carving Workshop is scheduled for Saturday, October 26, at Red Hill Park. Two workshop sessions are scheduled, one at 10:00 a.m. and one at 11:30 a.m. Thirty children can be accommodated in each session and both sessions are currently full · Founder's Day Parade - Saturday, November 8, 1997, is the date for the 20th Annual Founder's Day Parade and Celebration. This year the theme is "Celebrating Twenty Years of Heritage and Progress." The parade kicks off at 9:30 a.m. at Baseline road and Vineyard and continues down Baseline Road to Archibald. The Grapevine: · Winter Issue - Production on the 1997/98 Winter Issue of the Grapevine begins in October. The 40 page magazine will cover articles of interest to the community and include the recreation schedule for the months of January through March. The Grapevine goes to print in November and is delivered to residents in December. Trips & Tours: · Big Bear Oktoberfest - October 4th, 1997. Entertainment, fun and games at the 27th annual Oktoberfest (Trip sold out). · Julian Apple Country - November 1 st, 1997. An afternoon to stroll the small streets of picturesque Julian (Trip sold out). Human Services Programs: · Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center - The shrubbery surrounding the new West Parking lot has been trimmed and the area cleared. Maintenance has done an excellent job. · The Dr. is in Seminars - November 18th, 1997 Topic: Food Poisoning - can your holiday turkey effect you? · Elder Law Seminar - November 21st, 1997 Topic: Health care options for Seniors. · Living. Learning, and Laughing - October 8th Senior Fire Safety with Susan de Antonio, Newby, and Battalion Chief Ralph Crane CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 17, 1997 Page 5 Senior Health Fair - October 17 - 10:00 - 1:00 p.m. Information and free services. There will be Health Services for Seniors, Health screenings including Breast Cancer, back; hearing and Bone Density. There will also be a focus on Health, Exercise, and wellness. Over 500 Seniors are expected to attend. Flu Shot Clinic - October 17 - 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. Flu shots ($5.00) will be available through the County of San Bernardino, Department of Public Health Services. Pneumonia, Tetanus and Diphtheria shots will also be available for a fee. Commodities Distribution - USDA surplus food will be distributed to low income. Rancho Cucamonga residents between 550 - 600 residents usually participate. Proof of income and residency is required. Distribution dates: First Monday of the month 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Community Special Events: · Community Concert - Friday, October 10, 1997 8:00 p.m. Live concert at the Epicenter featuring The Guess Who. Added attractions include: John Cafferty, Mitch Ryder and Shadows of Knight. Tickets will be on sale beginning Monday, September 15 in the Community Services Department or through TicketMaster. Ticket prices are: $12 - Grandstand Seating; $15 - General Floor Seating and $25 - Front Floor Seating. This concert is a community special event and fundraiser benefiting local non-profit youth sports organizations. · 1997 Founder Day Celebration - Saturday, November 8, 1997 10:00 - 4:00 p.m. at the Epicenter. Key elements of the day include: Rancho Grande Kiwanis Pancake Breakfast 7:00 - 11:00 a.m.; Rancho Grande Kiwanis Classic Car Show and Antiques; Certified Farmers Market; Amusing Children's Theater (puppets, magic, clowns and musical entertainment); main stage entertainment (Ronnie & the Classics - Rock Classics 10:00 - 1:00 p.m.; Parade Awards - 1:00 p.m.; The Silverados - Pop/Rock/Country 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.); Community Stage (karate and gymnastic demonstrations, ballet folklorico, Hawaiian dance and line dancing); 150 craft/business vendors, 6 food booths, kiddy rides, petting zoo, and walk around entertainment. The Chan~ber of Commerce reports that plans for their Holiday Extravaganza are going well. It will be held during the Founders Day weekend at the Exchange Center at the comer of Base Line and Carnelian behind the McDonalds Restaurant. They will have many commercial vendors similar to the Bus Expo. Equestrian Center Events: 09/28/97 10/11/97 10/12/97 Grand Cheval Hunter Show (Sponsored by RSET*) 8am-5pm ALRC ** Play Day RSET Schooling Show 8am-lpm CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 17, 1997 Page 6 10/13/97 10/25/97 10/30/97 11/01/97 11/02/97 Rancho Rebels 4-H General Meeting 7pm-9pm Rancho Rebels 4-H Benefit Halloween Horse Show 8am-5pm ALRC Halloween Party 7pm-9pm Grand Cheval Dressage Show (Sponsored by RSET 8am-5pm Grand Cheval Hunter Show (Sponsored by RSET) 8am-5pm *RSET = Rising Stars of equestrian Therapy **ALRC = Alta Loma Riding Club Re~pe/~'y'~mitted, Co~nnhamityqffevelopment Director Suzanne Ota Community Services Manager RG:SO:KME CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 15, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Bullet, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner RAILS-TO-TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council appoint Mayor Alexander and Mayor Pro Tem Williams to the subcommittee to work with SANBAG and staff. BACKGROUND At the meeting on September 17, 1997, the City Council received a report and recommendations concerning development of a Community Trail along the Southern Pacific Railroad Line. This multi- use trail will include a Class I Bike Path and a hiking/riding trail. Staff anticipates that the next several months will be a learning time for the City as we explore priorities and resources for a rail trail. The subcommittee will discuss trail design and priorities in relation to other recreation projects and identify potential funding sources. City Planner BB: DC/jfs SCRIPT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CFD 85-1 President Alexander announces this will be a public hearing for the annexation of territory to Community Facilities District No. 85-1 and authorization to levy a special tax. Chief Dennis Michael presents the staff report. Questions of staff are asked at this time. President Alexander will open the meeting for public hearing, and close the public hearing after all public comments are heard. President Alexander should entertain a motion to approve Resolution No. FD 97-017. President Alexander should request a recess of the Fire Board at this time for the purpose of the distribution of the ballots to the property owners, and for the voting and canvassing of the ballots. The meeting will reconvene after the City Council announcements/presentations are made to take further actions for this process. ~"~After the City Council announcements/presentations are made, the Council will recess, and the Fire Board will reconvene. L~ President Alexander will announce the results of the election from the information the Fire Board Secretary has given him. w~//President Alexander should entertain a motion to approve Resolution No. FD 97-018. The Secretary shall read the title of Ordinance No. FD28. President Alexander should entertain a motion to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. FD28 for the November 5 meeting. LOEB&LOEB,,P A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ~NCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION8 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1800 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 TELEPHONE: 21 3-688-3400 FACSIMILE: 213-688-3460 CENTURY CITY 10100 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SUITE 2200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-4164 TEL. 310-282'2000 FAX: 310-282-2192 NEw YORK 345 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10154-0037 TEL; 212-407-4000 FAX: 212-407~t990 NABHVlLLE 45 Must(; SQUARE WEST NASHVILLE, TN 37203-3205 TEL: 615-749-8300 FAx: 615-749-8308 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2100 M STREET, N.W. SUITE 601 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037' 1207 TEL: 202-223-5700 FAx: 202-223-5704 ROME PIAZZA DIGlONE, 00197-ROME ITALY TEL: 011-396-808-8456 F~x: 011-396-874-8223 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~loeb.com R~,; CiTY OF Ar'~, ~ ¢, c- ':'PAt iON October 14, 1997 OCT 1 6 1997 VIA TELECOPIER The Honorable William J. Alexander, Mayor The Honorable Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem The Honorable Paul Biane, Councilmember The Honorable James V. Curatalo, Councilmember The Honorable Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember City Council Offices City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Approval of Final Map for Tract No. 14771 Dear City Councilmembers: Currently scheduled for the consent agenda on October 15, 1997, is approval of the Final Map for Tract No. 14771. For the reasons set forth below, approval of the Final Map is in violation of the City's Development Code, the California Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and, given the City's continued efforts to railroad this project to approval with the least public input, a violation of its citizens' civil and constitutional rights. For the reasons set forth below, Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") urges that the City Council deny the Final Map. 1. CURE incorporates all comments in the correspondence dated October 8, 1997 by Mr. Richard Stone of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, counsel for Haven View Estates and RC-5. In that letter, Mr. Stone reminds each City Councilmember that they have personal liability if they proceed to approve a Final Map that is patently inconsistent with the General Plan, the City's Development Code, and the California MCM24658. L02 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 2 Subdivision Map Act. Such approval is rendered even more suspect by Staff's repeated failure to provide notice to interested property owners and the City Council's apparent approval of this process. The last minute telephone notice to counsel for CURE on October 7, 1997 (four business days before the hearing) was nothing more than a transparent attempt to "act" as if proper notice were provided when, in fact, the real goal is to minimize any preparation time available to the opposition.} If the City Council elects to condone the lack of evenhandedness exhibited by Staff's conduct, then members expose themselves to the very personal liability outlined in Mr. Stone's letter. 2. Approval of the Final Map, under the City's Development Code, is discretionary and thus subject to CEQA. Save El Toro Association v. Days, 74 Cal. App. 3d 64 (1977) (approval of Final Map is discretionary leased upon City Council's power to reject if certain findings are made). As council is well aware, the proposed development involves removal of the 40-foot high levee and construction of a concrete channel on the north end of the project. That channel must be completed prior to the levee removal. Under the original tentative map, the developer was to receive an easement from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("DWP") to grade on DWP's easement as part of the channel construction. On August 18, 1997, DWP terminated those negotiations. In the Staff Report, William O'Neill, the City Engineer, acknowledges these changed circumstances but "claims" that the developer "has met with staff and provided an alternative design to accommodate drainage flows from the north without encroaching on the Department of Water and Power Easement." See Staff Report at 2. The decision to accept an altemative design that is material to the safety of the project is a discretionary act that requires CEQA compliance and public review. A "rush" proceeding to review these important alternatives is unlawful. The record before the City Council in connection with Development Design 97-11 contains substantial evidence of the risks associated with the levee removal and the t Because the City was closed on October 10 and 13, 1997, telephonic notice on October 7 essentially meant that CURE had four business days to review files and prepare for the heating. Council for CURE reviewed City files on October 6, 1997 (including the files for Tentative Tract No. 14771 and there was absolutely no reference to the October 15, 1997 heating nor were any of the documents referenced in the Staff Report received on October 10. The approval of a Final Map has a direct impact on adjacent property, and therefore written notice to all affected property owners and a reasonable opportunity to be heard is required. MCM~4658.L02 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 3 inadequacies of Lauren Development's then existing mitigation measures. That evidence, including the declarations of Drs. Sheahan, Williams and Henyey, cannot possibly be ignored in light of the serious risk to residents living beneath the levee. In the face of that evidence, this Council is being asked to blindly approve a Final Map containing completely new revisions to drainage flow without requiring any additional study or without providing any opportunity for the public to comment on such revisions. The lack of notice associated with the hearing has prevented CURE's experts from reviewing the relevant documents and testifying to their adequacy. Only last week, a debris basin failure from a minor rainstorm led to several million dollars in damage in Highland/San Bernardino. Property values of homes in Deer Creek and Haven View Estates are substantially greater than in the area impacted there. Nevertheless, City Staff is recommending approval of a dangerous project based upon a precipitous and "back room" review of entirely new plans. Given the risks of liability to the City, approval should not be permitted without careful review. 3. Under Title 16 of the Development Code, "The City Council shall deny approval of the final map upon making any of the findings contained in section 16.16.110. Section 16.16.110, in turn, mandates denial of a map if it finds: "That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury fish or wildlife or their habitat; or "that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems." Section 16.16.110 (5) and (6). On August 20, 1997, the City Council watched a video depicting the extensive habitat that will be destroyed if this development goes forward. The Department of Fish and Game has confirmed with the City that the parcel is globally threatened habitat, and both the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have requested that the City not proceed with this project. Neither the Developer nor the City has complied with the Department of Fish and Game's June 23, 1997 and August 5, 1997 letters nor has the Developer complied with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' June 10, 1997 and July 9, 1997 correspondence. The Developer has not adopted a single mitigation measure to protect the habitat. Therefore, the City cannot make mandatory finding 5 and must MCM2465§.LO~ City Council October 14, 1997 Page 4 deny the Final Map. CURE incorporates by reference all of the documents submitted by it in connection with Development Design 97-11, including all submissions by the Spirit of the Sage Council. The fact that the City inappropriately approved the Tentative Map in 1990 despite the destruction of habitat does not legally permit the City to make a patently erroneous finding on the Final Map. Nor can the City ignore the overwhelming evidence that this development can affect public health if more detailed studies and adequate mitigation are not adopted to protect against debris flow. Quite remarkably, the Developer has never presented a single expert at the many public hearings to answer questions on hydrology, earthquakes, or debris flow. Neither the Army Corps of Engineers, the San Bernardino Flood Control District nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency have approved removal of the levee or commented on whether its removal is prudent. Indeed, the Army Corps of Engineers' original design memorandum for the Debris Basin contemplated that the levee would remain and be fortified, and all of the above agencies have disavowed any responsibility (and thus liability) associated with the levee removal. Cucamonga's City Engineer lacks any qualifications to evaluate these issues because he is not a registered hydrologist or geologist, nor does he have any expertise in seismology or debris flow. In the end, City Council is relying solely on an engineer without expertise in the area and apparently the developer's underqualified (and undercapitalized) consultants to support a decision that potentially could result in millions of dollars of liability to the City. The San Bernardino Flood Control District actually underscored the City's sole liability for drainage decisions in its letter to Lauren Development dated May 29, 1997. According to the San Bernardino Flood Control District: "Since the storm drain ultimately will be operated and maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, issuance of a permit will be withheld until the hydrology study and improvement plans have been reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Also, a letter from the City accepting full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the storm drainage is required prior to permit issuance. See letter from Kenneth C. Eke, P.E. to Lauren Development (attached). MCM24658.L02 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 5 The City Engineer publicly admitted that he has never evaluated the effectiveness of the developer's proposed channel versus the levee in a debris flow. Mayor Alexander received correspondence from FEMA on August 21, 1997 stating that the levee was rated for 100 year flood protection in 1983. No one can possibly argue that the proposed channel would withstand a 100-year flood. The only argument that the City has to discredit the levee's integrity is to argue that a small portion is breached. That breach (which is less than 5% of the total levee) was created by the property owner himself and, more importantly, could be easily repaired. Any continued reliance on this minor breach to argue that the developer's drainage plan is superior is absurd. 4. Four separate law firms have questioned the advice of City Attorney, James Markman, in connection with Development Design 97-11 and, more recently, his advice concerning consistency with the General Plan. Repeated requests have been made for the City to obtain a second opinion in an effort to avoid further litigation in connection with this matter. The City has elected to take a hardline position against the request of its residents in favor of an out-of-town developer based upon extremely questionable legal advice. In the event that the Project is constructed and damage results, it will be the City and its Councilmembers in their individual capacity that may shoulder the cost of those damages in light of the irresponsible conduct exhibited thus far. Proceeding in such a fashion without a full hearing on the technical aspects of the "new" drainage plan simply invites even more litigation against the City which readily could be avoided by allowing for a properly noticed, fair hearing on the merits. CURE urges that the City renotice and recalendar this matter to permit such a hearing. MHM:jc2 MCM24658.L02 Respectfully submitted Malissa Hathaway McKeith of Loeb & Loeb Attorneys for Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") MCM24658.L02 TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT- SURVEYOR May 29, 1997 Flll~ 1.551/2,O4 [.ouron Developmll~t, Inc. P. O. Box 790 Agou~ll Hilla, CA 91376 Attention: John L. Allday RE: ZC)NE 1, DEER CREEK CHANNEL, - PERMIT NO. P-1970Z0 Oe~ IVlr. Allday: The District i~ in receipt of your lettel' dated March 26, 1 ~O?, requesting · pe~'~it to connect gl 57-inch RCP storm drain to the Di~tr~'$ ~ Crook Charmel, northeemt of Hidden Trail Drive, in the City el Rancho Cucamonga. The District ha~ reviewed your submittal end o~ers the fetiDwing comments. Show t~ structural ~ctio~ of the emergency access road on the plan. Will the access roadbe paved? The c, onstr~cllon of the emergehey access road will be included in your permit, however, a permit win be r~ulf~d by The City of Rancho Cucan~ngll Fire Department for the u~e and maird~ance after the road il 0onstruct~d. A letter from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department m~:~ting maintenance reepon$ibilitiee for the eo~esa road is required. 3. Detail A, sheet I - the vertical wall section tntc, knm needs to be shown. 4. Relocate propeleel transition atructum ancl tral:)esoidal channel ~ectior off of District debt-of-way and instil child proration bars at the inlet to the propos4~'J 57. inctl RCP: 5. Install Oi~tdct algPegvad fen~ng or biDok wall in lieu of the propo~d PVC rail fence along the De,trier8 welt right.of-way line. ,~heel & ~ ,% - lndlcalO staleDnine W~!l limits of existing wait removal shown on the plan anti elevaTJofi views. g347 LOEB & LOEB LAUREN DEVELOPMENT, INC. May ;~, 1997 Page Two ~3~m alqgle 01 entry of the 57-inch RCP cannec3tion shall not IXCIIcl 30 due to the high vetor,/ty in the plea. B. Show tl'm delign Q Imel anticipated velocity on the plans. 9. D~rict right. o~-way shall be clearly thown and labeled on the plans. 10. Please resubmit conflulnoe analyell,, I~atecl on bulkecl Q, fM the p~opot, ed cormr~ctlon, 11. The hy(;ll'eullc audy thltl be ~ on a (3 of 446.8 cfl. 12. The ol~ite hl~lmlogy study ware prepped g~mMally in a~ordance with the 1986 Sea Bernadine County Hyarete~y Manual. The maulting Q .ppear$ mllOntble led ~ bee~ bubed acc~dingty. 13. Since the ska'm drain will ultimately be o~er.ted and mainWined by the City Ranel~o Cuc4monga, iliuanc, e of a permit will be withheld until the hydmlogy ~tUdy end improv~rrent plans I~ve I)~n reviewed and al~ov~l lay, the City of Rancho Cuclmong.. Allo. · letter from the City acoll)Ong full responsibility em operaion and meintmnarme of the ~torm d~ain is requked prior tO leermet After the above r, omment~ have laeen incoria~'ated into your plans, the Di~tr~ will reClUim fo~ set~ o1 revved plane, ~ree ~etl of rivi~ecl hyclrolc~/ and hydraulic calc~laltJenl, and I mtt leltlr addrifling the Ol~trk~'l commeeltl for further review. Pleaee Mew three to leur week, for mia review. If you hive en~q~m~ionl reglKting file above, please mntagt the unclereigned al (g09) 3e?.2633. K N~~HC~."El(E, P.E. I~lood Central Permit Enginee~ jCid/~f Rangha Cucamonga Fire Oepa~rne~t GMS REALTY, LLC October 1, 1997 Howard Hawkins PO Box 535 La Verne, CA 91750 Route 66 7965 Vineyard Ave., suite F5 Rancho Cucamonga, CA De~ ~h. Flawlm~: Please accept this letter in response to your inquiry on behalf of Route 66 to store items after the termination of the 30 Day Notice dated SelXember 12, 1997 and served on September 16, 1997. As indicated to your client in earlier correspondence, due to our leasing activity within the center, it is no longer feasible to accommodate Route 66 as a non-paying tenant nor their request to store items within the center for any period of time after the termination date. Therefore, your client will need to find another location to store items during the interim. We have acted within the terms of our agreement with Route 66 and wish them suc__,'_,'_,'_,'_,'_,'~ in their new location. Please remind Route 66 that they will need to coordinate with my office to turn the keys over on or before October 16, 1997. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Prope~ M~-~ger SITE UTILIZATION I~P TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.X lONG,, PL.\NNING DI\' LSION TITLE: [ F'x'.~$,~ ~N/~p F_X!{IBIT: ~ SCALE: Tear off potion above the double line before returning ballot in the Voter Identification Envelope. MARK CROSS (+) ON BALLOT Number of Votes Eptitled BALLOTS MAY BE MARKED WITH to be Cast: .5t7t PEN AND INK OR PENCIL OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION NUMBER OF VOTES ENTITLED TO BE CAST: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 LANDOWNER ELECTION OCTOBER 15, 1997 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS To vote on any measure, mark a cross (+) in the voting square after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All marks, except the cross (+) are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear or deface this ballot, see the Election Official to obtain a second ballot. MEASURE SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS PROPOSITION A RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIAL TAX LEVY Shall Community Facilities District No. 85-1 be authorized to levy a special tax on properties within the boundaries of Annexation No. 97-1 to (a) pay for authorized public facilities and public services and (b) to modify the Article XIIIB appropriations limit for Community Facilities District No. 85-1 to equal the maximum authorized special taxes which may be levied in any fiscal year in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, including the territory within Annexation No. 97-1 thereto? YES NO Number of Votes Entitled to be Cast: Tear off potion above the double line before returning ballot in the Voter Identification Envelope. MARK CROSS (+) ON BALLOT BALLOTS MAY BE MARKED WITH PEN AND INK OR PENCIL OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION NUMBER OF VOTES ENTITLED TO BE CAST: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 LANDOWNER ELECTION OCTOBER 15, 1997 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS To vote on any measure, mark a cross (+) in the voting square after the word "YES" or at~er the word "NO." All marks, except the cross (+) are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear or deface this ballot, see the Election Official to obtain a second ballot. MEASURE SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS PROPOSITION A RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIAL TAX LEVY Shall Community Facilities District No. 85-1 be authorized to levy a special tax on properties within the boundaries of Annexation No. 97-1 to (a) pay for authorized public facilities and public services and (b) to modify the Article XIIIB appropriations limit for Community Facilities District No. 85-1 to equal the maximum authorized special taxes which may be levied in any fiscal year in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, including the territory within Annexation No. 97-1 thereto? YES NO ETIWANDA ;'.;{ , ..- '['"*..:. '~.HISTORICAL SOCIETY Post Office Box 363, Eftwanda, CA 91739 October 15, 1997 Mayor Wilham J. Alexander City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Mayor Alexander: Enclosed is a Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society on October 14, 1997. We would like to encourage your City Council to adopt a similar one. A copy of the chronology of George Chaffey is enclosed. Thank you for your continued support of the Etiwanda Historical Society and for your consideration of the placement of a similar resolution on the next agenda for the City Council. Sincerely, Carolyn Ho~e, President '~ The Etiwanda Historical Society /ab Enclosure The Etiwanda Historical Society is a non profit organization (33-0012231) CALIFORNIA GOLD DISCOVERY TO STATEHOOD SESQUICENTENNIAL Whereas, a sawmill construction superintendent by the name of James Marshall, while inspecting the flow of water in a millrace on the south fork of the American River, discovered gold on January 24, 1848; and, Whereas, during the time of the Gold Rush of 1849, the first Constitution under which C~llfornia was admitted to statehood was drafted in Monterey;, and, Whereas, California's economic and geographic importance to the United States was such that California became the 31st state in the Union on September 9, 1850; and, Whereas, the Honorable Governor Pete Wilson issued Executive Order W-74-94 on January 24, 1994, establishing the California Gold Discovery to Statehood Sesquicentennial Commission to coordlnote and oversee the 150th anniversary of these monumental events, from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000; and, Whereas, George Chaffey was one of the ten most influential pioneers in the development of the state of California; and, Whereas, on Jom~ry 23, 1998, a commemoration of the sesquicentennial of the birthday of George Cbnffey will be held at the historic site famed for hospitality since 1848, now known as the Sycomore Inn in Rancho Cuc~2mouga, C~llfornia; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Eftwanda Historical Society urges all members to join in the observation and commemoration of this momentous time in C~lifornia's history;, and be it further Resolved that the Etiwanda Historical Society will create events and progr~m~ for their constituents in conjunction with the C~lifornia Gold Discovery To Statehood Sesquicentennial Commission's established three-year themes. Passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society on October 14, 1997. Carolyn I~olke President EVENTS COMMEMORATING GEORGE CHAFFEY JR.'S 150TH BIRTHDAY January 28, 1998 The Etiwanda Historical Society in conjunction with The Museum of History and Art in Ontario A 150th Birthday Luncheon for George Chaffey, Jr. Friday, January 23~ 1998 at the Sycamore Inn "Famed for Hospitality Since 1848~ 8318 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga 11:30 Reception 12 Noon to l:30p.m. Luncheon $50.00 per person Governor Pete Wilson, the Ambassadors from Canada, Australia, and Mexico have been invited, along with the many Chaffey family descendants. Tickets may be purchased through the Etiwanda Historical Society by calling 899-8432 or the Museum of History and Art at 983-3198. The Etiwanda Historical Sodety is publishing a limited edition 1998 George Chaffey Jr. Commemorative Calendar Depicting the many achievements of our founding father This old-fashioned pictorial rendition of his life and accomplishments can be purchased by mailing a check or money order for $10.00 to the Etiwanda Historical Society, P.O. Box 363, Etiwanda, CA 91739 or calling 899-8432. Also available at the Chaffey-Garcia House beginning November 9?nd. The Etiwanda Historical Society celebrates George Chaffey Jr.'s 150th Birthday Arc Light Dedication Chaffey-Garcia House 7150 Etiwanda Avenue Etiwanda, CA (January date to be armounced) In the Spring of 1882, George Chaffey Jr. lit the first Arc Light in Southern California. This tower of light was over 70 feet tall and could be seen as far as Riverside. The Senior class at Webb School has been commissioned to produce a replica tower/light for George's 150th Birthday celebration. CHRONOLOGY OF GEORGE CHAFFEY JR.'S LIFE 1848 1869 1869 1874 1875 1876 1877 1879 1881 1882 1883 1886 1887 1889 1890 1891 1897 1898 1900 1901 1902 Jan 28 May 31 - 1874 April 9 Oct 21 Sept 24 Nov 24 May 9 October Nov 23 Dec 4 Dec 11 Mar 17 Spring Sept 12 January Oct 21 May 31 Aug 16 October May 7 Jan 10 June Summer April 3 May 4 George was born in Brockville, an Ontario Province in Canada Married Annette McCord Designed 20 passenger and freight ships for lake trade. Birth of their first son Andrew The ship "Geneva" was launched The "Geneva" was on the cover of Scientific American Magazine Birth of their second son Ben The ship "Sunbeam" was launched Purchased the Chaffey-Garcia House from Captain Garcia The Etiwanda Water Company was formed (tae am M,~.,-~ w,t~ Co. inCalifomia) Purchased 6,216 acres of land that was to be Ontario and Upland. San Antonio Water Company was formed 0o,~ ~ e.~aa ^v~.,,.d ~ ~ ~ today) Started the first Ontario newspaper called Ontario Fruitgrower The 70 foot Arc Light was lit at the Chaffey-Garcia House Los Angeles Street Lights were lit (am m~jo, ~ty ~, t~e woadta~t w~ ei~tria~) Laid the cornerstone for the original Chaffey College on Euclid Avenue Built a house for his Mother, Anne Chaffey and sister Emma (the house is known as the Isle House today, canner of Etiwanda and Highland) -Birth of their son third John Burton (while they lived in the Chaffey-Carcia House) Family left for Austraila to found Mildura. Signed agreement with Victorian Government (Prov.) Indenture of 50,000 acres plus 200,000 acres optional Renmark agreement with South Austrialian Province George and family move in at Paringa George's little sister Emma married Peter McLaren. Shire of Mildura formed (the first of two counties George would start) After remodeling paddle steamers with cabins, electricty, galleys and classy dinning rooms using his former ship building expertise, George built the P.S. Pearl at Mildura to further increase Murray River trafiSc. Left Sydney for Florida with wife Annette and youngest son, John Burton. Returned to Ontario as consultant for San Antonio Water Company. Increased water flow with series of wells and tunnel. Purchased 35 acres at Red Hill for water. Cleared $75,000 in sale to Ontario. Signed contract to bring water to Colorado Desert. Telegram a.m. Chaffey, L.A. "Water turned through gate at 11 a.m." Today this project, the Imperial Valley, is over one million acres, the largest in the world. Founding president of First National Bank of Ontario; builder with son Andrew of the Hydro Electric Plant in San Antonio Canyon (still produces for SCE) and filed suit against USC, on behalf of the people, to return Chaffey College. Purchased an iracrest in the East Whittier & LaHabra Water Company. This, later allows for the founding ofLaHabra & Brea. His son John Burton managed the water company. Chronology of George Chaffey Jr. s Life Page 2 1905 1901-1920 1917 1919 1920 1921- 1927 1928 1929 1930 1932 Feb 29 Mar4 1942 George and Andrew founded the First National Bank of Upland and Sierra Securities. George started the town of Manzanar. For more than 25 years it produced lots of apples, but L.A. finally acquired most of the water rights. George and Andrew opened more than 25 banks. In 1920 they became the California Bank with Andrew as president and George as director. Annette Chaffey dies in Whittier, CA. George was devastated and begins withdrawing from business. Moves to Balboa - two doors from the Pavillion; designs and has built, the '~/Iildura," a 50 t~. yacht. Buys a Hudson chasis, designs and has built an early RV called "Sally Brown". Does a detailed diary of his trips through the West. California Bank now has 50 branches; George retires as director - age 80 George designs and has built, at San Diego, the 100 if. yacht, '~Mildura II" too big for Newport, so he moves to San Diego. George helps start the City of Imperial Beach - "For my friends in Imperial County." George dies in San Diego - age 84. He had planned to be at Ontario's 50 year celebration in May. Buried at Bellme Cemetary, Ontario, California. The "USS George Chaffey" was launched - a WWlI liberty ship. TOTALS 12 towns, 2 counties and 1 college; dozen plus ships, numerous banks, an R.V., 2 yachts, three water companies; one wife and three sons. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1997 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS I. Recognition of Eagle Scouts and their achievements. *Special Announcement by nFORnF M4TIASnK (MA-TY-A-SIK). (84 years old) Was one of I00 persons to receive a Scout Master Key in 1925. RECIPIENTS: ANY CURRENT EAGLE SCOUT OR A!~ILT SCOUT LEADER OR ADULT WHO ONCE WAS AN EAGLE SCOUT. 2. Presentation of a proclamation declaring the week of October 5- I I, 1997, as "Second Chance Week" and "Make a Difference Day." RECIPIENT: BOB ZETI'ERBEBIG 3. Presentation of a proclamation proclaiming National Food Bank Week during the week of October 13-17, 1997 to Survive Food Bank. RECIPIENTS: DARYL BROCK & HIKE YARDERPOOL 4. Presentation of a proclamation declaring October 23-3 I, 1997 as Red Ribbon Week in Rancho Cucamonga. RECIPI. ~UZANNE~ OTA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR 5. Presentation of Certificates to the Red Ribbon Week Design Winner and Honorable Mention Recipients. RECIPIENT:. WINNER: GINA FERRAIL~ 6TH GRADE, RUTH MUSSER MIDDLE SCHOOL Mayor Alexander: In. formation.for Red Ribbon Week Presentations-- 10/15/97 The purpose of the Red Ribbon Celebration is to present a unified and visible commitment toward the creation of a Drug-Free America. The Red Ribbon Celebration began when DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) Agent Enrique Camarena was murdered by drug traffickers in Mexico in 1985. Red Ribbons are worn during Red Ribbon Week each year to demonstrate commitment to a healthy drug-free lifestyle. Traditionally, each year the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopts a Proclamation proclaiming the last week of October (October 23-31) as Red Ribbon Week in Rancho Cucamonga. It gives me great pleasure to read to you this years proclamation. (Read Proclamatio~ As a part of the City's Red Ribbon Week activities, each year the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department and Rancho Cucamonga Citizens Against Substance Abuse (R.C. CASA) sponsor a Red Ribbon Week button design contest. Entries are submitted by elementary, middle and high school students throughout Rancho Cucamonga. The entries are reviewed by R.C. CASA and five finalist entries are selected. The Park and Recreation Commission then reviews the finalist entries and selects the design winner design. This year over 33,000 Red Ribbon Week buttons will be worn by school aged youth throughout the · City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to school aged children, City Hall employees, Police and Fire Department staffs will also be wearing Red Ribbon to show 'their support for a drug-free community. At this time I would like to introduce to you the 1997 Red Ribbon Week Button Design Finalists and Award Winner: (Call up each individual and present them with their certificate and copy of the City's 1997 Red Ribbon Week Button) INDIVIDUAL Annie McMillian AWARD Honorable Mention RECEIVING Certificate Plus Button Joshua Shepard Honorable Mention Certificate Plus Button Ashley Wiesner Honorable Mention Certificate Plus Button Gina Ferraro Design Winner Certificate Plus a $100.00 Savings Bond Plus Buttons OTHER HONORABLE MENTIONS NOT PRESENT: Ryan Lytle Kelly Gregory (Next is the Kodak opportunity for parents to take pictures of their youngsterswith City Council) Thank you - Paula Pachon LOEB & LOEB Pa§e 1/8 Job 971 0ct-!4 Tue '7:36 '997 LOEB .LOEB LOEB/Y,. LOEI LLF ATTOR NEYI AT 10QO WlL~,HIRE BOULEVARD Los A~OELCS, CA 9001 TELEP~(ONE: 213 680.3400 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Date: October 14, 1997 Time: 5:0Spin To: From: Please deliver the following 8 pages (which include this cover letter)... Rex Gutierrez City of Rancho Cucamonga - Council Facsimile: (909) 47%2849 Voice: (909) 477-2700 Malissa Hathaway McKeith Personal ID: 90089 Direct Dial: Clicnt/Rc: 16311/2407 Facsimile: (213) 688-3622 (213) 688-346O Note: If transn~ssion is not complete, plcas~ call our operaor at (213) 688-3478 Message to Addressee: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE ATTACHED TO MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMEMBERS. THANK YOU. 1997 ~ is ~vi~. ~[~filal Ad eAeqt ~ dt~l~ ~ ~ Law. If ~ rear Of this n~a~ 1s Me ~ intn~ any di~, ~ ~ c~ing of Iha ~uantemn ~s s~tly p~ibi~. lfy~ have ~ceiv~ this go~i~bon in c~, p~ ~ US i~ly by glc~c ~ m~m ~ ~8inal ~ge m us g ~ a~vc 3dd~ vii ~ US_ P~l LOEB & LOEB Page 2/8 dOb 971 0Ct-14 Tue '7:36 !997 LOEB&LOEBLLP & LblIIITED LI&IILIT¥ PIIT#ERImP I#CL901NG PItQFEIiiQIML CGIPOI~,TPO#1 SUITE llOQ Los ANoEL[I, CA g0017'24Z& TELEPHONE: 213-6Ba-3,40Q F~cslm~E: 213-Gee-3460 Nri Yoiii 345 ImpItS M ~ ¥om. NY Fu ata.4aT,4~Q WAmT~I, D.C. .2100 Id ~n~'v. N.W. 2Qg~J'. 1~7 IrA,I; Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: Ml~{~ITH~loeb.¢om October 14, 1997 VIA TELKCOPIER Thc Honorable William J. Alcxandcr, Mayor The Honorable Oianc Williams, Mayor Pro Tern The Honorable Paul Blanc, Councilmember The Honorable James V. Curatalo, Councilmember The Honorable Rex Gutierrez, Councilmcmbcr Cit~ Council Offices City of Rancho Cucmnonsa 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Califorma 91729 Re: )q)DrovaJ_of Final Map for Tract No. 14771 Dear City Councilmembers: Currently scheduled for the consent agenda on October 1 $, 1~97, is approval of the Final Map for Tract No. 14771. For the t~som ~ forth bclow, approval of tim Final Map is in violation of the City's Development Code, the California Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and, Siren the City's continued efforts to railroad this project to approval with thc least public input, a violation of its citizens' civil and comtit~onal rights. For the reasons set forth below, Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE') ur$cs that the City Council dcny the Final Map. 1. CURE incorporates all comments in the correapondcncc chttcd October 8, 1997 by Mr. Riclmrd Stone of Shappwd, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, counaei for Haven Vicw Eatatcs and RC-$. In that letter, Mr. Stone reminds each City Councilmember that they havc i)crlo~=i liability if thcy procced to approvca Final Map that is patently inconsistcnt with thc General Plan, the City's Developmint Codc, and the California IqO4246,~,~. L02 LOEB & LOEB Page 3/8 ~ob 971 0c~-14 Tue 17:36 ~997 City Cormell Ocmber 14, 1997 Page 2 Subdivision Map Act. Such approval is rendered even more suspect by Staff'. rcpcatcd failure to provide noticc to interestad property owners and the City Council's appm'cnt approval of this process. The last minute telephone notice to counsel for CURE on October 7, 1997 (four business days before the hearing) wu nothing more than a transparent attempt to "act*' as if proper notice were provided when, in fact, thc real goal is to minimize any preparation time available to the opposition.I_ If the City Council elects to condone the lack of' evenhandedness exhibited by Staff's conduct, then members expose thornselves to the very personal liability outlined in Mr. Stonc's letter. 2. Approval of thc Firutl Map, under thc City's Development Code, is discretionary and thus subject to CEQA. Ravc Pi Toro Association v. Days, 74 Cal. App. 3d 64 (1977) (approval of Final Map is discretionary leased upon City Council's power to reject ifcertnin f'mdings a~ made). As council is well aware, the proposed development involves removal of the 40-foot high levee and construction of a concrete channel on the north end of thc project. That channel must be completed prior to the levee removal. Under the original tentativc map, the developer was to receive an casement from the Los Angeles Deparm'~ent of Water and Power ("DWP") to Igad~ on DWP's casement as part of the channel construction. On August 18, 1997, DWP terminated those negofintiont In the Staff Report, William O'Neill, the City Engineer, acknowledges these changed circumstances but "claims" that the developer "has met with staff and provided an altcrnativc design to accommodate drainage flows flora the north without cftcroaching on the Dep~t~acnt of Water and Power Easement." S~e Staff Report at 2. The decision to accept an alternative design that is material to the safety of th~ project is a discr~onary act that requires CEQA compliance and public review. A "ru~" proceeding to review these important alternatives is urdawful. The record before th~ City Council in connection with Development Design 97-! t contains substantial evidence of the risks associated with the levee removal and the #~12~n. L02 ~ Re~auue the City was closed on October 10 and 13, 1997, telephonic noticc on October 7 e~s-~ti~lly meant that CURE had four business days to review files and prepare for the bearing. Council for CUR.E reviewed City files on October 6, 1997 (including the files for Tentative Tract No. 14771 and there was absolutely no reference to the October 15, 1997. heari,~ nor were any of the documents referenced in the Staff Reilofi received on October 10. The approval of a Final Map ha~ a direct impa~t on adjacent property, amt therefore written notice to all affected property owners and a reasonable opportunity to be heard is requffed. LOEB & LOEB Page 4/8 ~ob 971 0ct-!4 Tue '7:37 !997 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 3 N~Z~5A.L02 il~adcquacies of. Lauren Dcvclopmcnt's then existing miti~,ation measures. ~t cvid~ inc!~i~ ~c d~l~atious of Drs. Sh~, Willi~ ~d H~yey, c~ot ~bly ~ i~ in light of the ~6ous n~ m ~idcnts living ~n~ ~c lcv~. In ~c f~ of ~ ~id~ ~is Co~cil is ~g nk~ to blindly ~ove a Final M~ ~tm~ng completely n~ ~visions to dr~c flow wi~out ~~ ~y ~dido~ ~y fir wigout providing ~y op~fi~ for the public to cogent on s~h ~sio~. ~c I~k of notice ~i~ wi~ ~e ~g ~ p~ent~ ~'s cx~ ~m ~i~ thc ~l~t d~~ ~ t~df~ng ~ ~e~ ~y. Only last week, a debris basin failur~ ~rom a minor rainstorm led to several million dollars in damage in Highland/San Bernardino. !~operty values of homes in Deer Creek and Haven View Estates arc substantially ~.,iter than in the ares impacted there. Nevertheless, City Staff is recommending approval of a dangerou project based upon a precipitous and "back room" review of cntirely new plans. Given the risks of liability to the City, approval should not be permitted 3. Under Title 16 of' the D~-vetopment Code, "The City Council shall deny approval of the final map upon makin8 any of the findinp contained in section 16.16.110. Section 16.16.110, in turn, mandates denial of'a map if it finds: "That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvcmcnC~ arc likely to causc substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury fish or Midlife or their habitat; or "that the desitin of the subdivision or the typc of improvcmcnts is likely to cause SCfiOtLS public health problcrns." Section 16.16.110 (5) and (6). On Au~'t 20, 1997, the City Council watt. hod a video d~picting the extensive habitat that will be destroyed if this development goes forward. Th~ Ocpartment of Fish and Game has continned with the City that the parcel is flubally thrcatened habitat, and both the Depar~nent of Fi.~h and Game and thc U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ~ve r~uested that the City not proceed with this project. Neither the Developer nor the City bas complied with the Deparnnent of' Fish and Oamc's June 23, 1997 and August 5, 1997 letters nor has the Developer complied with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' June 10, 1997 and July 9, 1~97 correspondence. The Developer has not adopted a sinsic mitigation mea.qurc to protc~t tl~ habitat. Therefore, the City cannot mak0 mandatory finding 5 and must City Council October t4, 1997 Page 4 deny the Final Map. CURE incorporates by rcfcrcncc all of the documents submi~t by it in conn~-~ion with Development Design 97-l 1, including all submisaions by the Spirit of the Sage Council. The fact that tho City inappropriately approved the Tentative Map in 1990 despite the destruction of habitat does pot legally penrot the .............................. City ~o-uaska a-pcam~ ....... f,,,...O. iag ,,,, ",o ~,,-~ M_-,-~ Nor can the City ignore the overwhelmtull evidencc that this development can affect public health if mor~ detailed mtudi~s and adequate mitigation ~ not adopted to protect ~ainst debris flow. Quite remarkably, the Developer has never p(~. '~1 a ~inv!e expert at the many public bearings to answer questions on hydrolog]t. earthquakes, or debris flow. Ncith~ the Army Corps of Engineers, the San Bernardino Flood Control District nor the Federal Emerguncy Management Agezm-y have aplmmved removal of the levee or commented on whether its removal is p~ ~ the Army Corps of Engine~s' origiual design memorandum for the Debris Basin eontemplated that the levee would remain 'and tn: fortified, and all of the above agencies have disavowed my responsibility (and thus liability) associated with the levee removal. Cucamonga's City Engi.neer lacks any qualifications to evaluate these issues hecausu he is not a registered hydrologist or geologist, nor does he havc any cxp~ise in s6smology or debris flow. In the end, City Council is relying solely on an enginere' wi~mut expertise in the area and appareatly the developer's traderqualified (and undercapitalized) consultants to support · decision that potentially could result in millions of dollars of liability to the City. Th~ San Bem~no Flood Control Dinxlct actually underscored the City's mole liability for drainage decisions in its letter to Lauren Devclopment dared May 9-9, 1997. ~ing to the San B~mmrdino Flood Control District: "Since the stomm dram ultimately will be operated and w,,int~,il{ed by Ik City of Rimoho Ctlga~ollg·, iSStl~¢c of · permit will be withheld until the hydrology study and improvement plans have been reviewed and aiIiIroved by the City of Rancho Cue, amonigt Also, a ~ from the City accepting full ~.,~n~bili~ for th~ operation and maintenance of the storm drainage is r~!uired prior to l~aait issuance. See I~ter from Kenneth C. Eke, P.E. to Lauren D~wlopment (attached). HC~Z4,6SS.L02 LOEB & LOEB Page 6/8 Job 971 0ct-14 Tue *7:38 !997 City Council October 14, 1997 PaSt 5 The City Engineer publicly admitted that he has never evaluated the effectiverim of the developer's proposed channel versus the levee m a debris flow. Mayor AlexandS-received correspondence from FEMA on Augtin 21, 1997 stating that the levee was rated for 100 year flood protection in 1983. No one can possibly arsue ttmt the proposed channel would withstand a 100-year flood. The only argument ~ the City has to discredit the icrco's integrity is to argue that a small portion is breached. That breach (which is less than 5% of the total levee) was created by the property owner himself and, more importantly, could be easily repaired. Any continued reliance on this minor breach to argue that the developer's drainage plan ks supm'ior is absurd. 4. Four separate law firms have questioned the advice of City Attorn~, James Markman, in cormec~ion with Development Desisn 97-11 and, more recently, his advice concerning consistency with the General Plan. Repented requests have been made for the City to obtain a second opinion in an effort to avoid further litisation in connection with this matter. The City has elected! to take a hardline position a~mt the request of its residents in favor of an out-of-town developer bam~d upon mm-mncly qu~ationable legal advice. In the event that the Project is consum:ted and dama~ resul~ it will tm the City and its Councilmembers in their individual capacity ~ nmy ~houlder the cost of rhone darnages in tight of the irresponsible condu~t exhibited thus far. Proceeding in ~uch a fashion without a full hearing on the technicel aspects of ~ "nmv" drainage plan simply invites even more litigation against th~ City which readily could be avoided by allowing for a properly noticed, CURE urges that the City renorice end rccalcndar th~s matter to permit such a ~. R~tfully ~ubmitted Maiissa Hathaway McKeith of Loeb & Loeb Attorne~ for Cucamongans United for Res~nsbl¢ Expansion ("CUI~") MCM24~$.L02 LOE6 & LOEB TRAN$; O R?ATiON/FI. OOO CONTROl. DEPARTMENT- SURVEYOff Page 7/8 JOb @71 Leame P.O. Agourn &lllntlg~. .Ighn L. Nklly liE: ~ 1, O~R ~ C~ANNEI,, · ~ NO. P-III711Q ~e (xmt~ is i. ~ of Foer kdS,~ died M.rm ze. 1,17. re ~m~ · peff~d to ~nea~ a e7-mch ACP eeonn drl~ Io N~e ~ 13W ¢md Oh-and. no~ of Hidden Trll Orive, m the C(11F d KIncJ'm Cucarlio~l. TI~ aon~1~lillOfi Qt I1~ eff14r~r!~ eccl~l road wil be inckilled m ~ pwmit, 3. O.lll&lhNI1 -thevldkJllWldllallO~UIQkn..llll:lllol~lhQWl~. 4. RIliNI plaiNNed If~ l#udum led Irl(.ll.:J/ ChlMII NdlOfi off Dt~ol Heht-ed~ and kltll ~ ~f~ ~t'.l~ ~ d the Inll Io the proposed 6. .'.'.'gruel & at $ o IndlCalQ $talioning wi~, limb of erating Wml mmwm shown on the pro. Iml e4mmllQn vilal. LOEB & LOEB LO~! & LO~.B Page 971 0Ct-14 Tue ~7:38 'gg7 I.~,,IR~N C)E¥~LOPM~qI', INC,. end lalseled 11. ?ho hydrodie M ohol be hinted ee e Q d 446.8 db. A&lr thO IlJmm ,,Os"ki'&i~b I~lWO ~ incoq)q~'mlOd ~ ~¢adr Oiltin, ~e C)irb'k~ requiaO four ~ of r~d~od iPefiL UrN N~ of rvviOed h~,drdow end I'wydm.llc el~, lid lB ~ JillOf '1 J/tltli.,j M ~! ~ for ~ ~f ~ ~ ~~lm,~ regam~g the eboN. pleme onrdfd me .pom'~Jin~d Msyor September 24, 1997 DWP File P-72489 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development, Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. Allday Grading Agreement Lugo Junction-Firestone J~nction Transmission Line Right of Way No. 25B Vicinity Haven Avenue and Ngrth of Tackstem Street, Rancho Cucamonga This is in response to your request for a letter defining our position regarding the requirements to allow grading on the above-referenced Department of Water and Power (Department) property. The Department is not opposed to issuing a grading permit provided all environmental requirements for such use of Department property are first met and all environmental documents are prepared at the sole expense of Lauren Development (Lauren). Lauren shall also provide a minimum security deposit of $50,000 or more To assure continued and adequate maintenance of the Department's proDg~ty~ Lauren will be required to file CC&Rs' to be recoTded against the subdivided tract, stating that the future Homeowners Association of the subdivision will forever defend and indemnify the Department against any lawsuits and losses incurred due to resolution of any environmental issues or any damage caused to the Department's or private property by the proposed grading and/or drainage system. We are aware of the current controversy regarding the environmental issues expressed by attorney Ms. Malissa Hathaway McKeith, et al, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Department is also opposed to becoming involved in any disputes between a Water and Power Conservation... a way of I 11Nor~ Hope 5trot, Lo~ Angeles, California Cl~o~g~$:Box~llll, Lo~Ar~lz~OSl-O1(X) T¢~phv..g: (213) ~74211 C~ a~: DEW~ FAX: (213) 367-3~7 r~~ ~ 101 00 ~00 00~00 0~ PO~ Mr. John Allday -2- September 24, 1997 private developer and neighboring residents. These issues must be resolved by Lauren Development bef0re any grading agreement is finalized or executed by the Department. Sincerely, RB:gr A/TNE E. FISHER Chief Real Estate Officer TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT- SURVEYOR May 29,1997 Flll~ 1.551/2.O4 Lauren [}evelopm~nl, Inc, P.O. Box 790 Agoura Hills, CA 9137~ Attention: John L. Allday ZONE 1, OEER CREEK CHANNEL, . PERMIT NO. Dea~ Mr. Allday; The District is in reoeipt of your letter dated March 26, 19~7, requesting · permit to conneot · 5Z-inch RCP storm drain to the Dt~tri~'$ ~ Creek Channel, northeast of Hidden Trail Drive, in the City of Rancho Cucamong& The District ha~ reviewed y~r submittal end o[fe~ the following commer~. Show :he structural ~ctiorl of tl~a emergency access road on ~he plan. Will the access road' be paved? The c, onltruc#on of the emergehey acceu road will be included in vour permit, however, a permit will I~ required by ~ City Of Rancho Cu~amongl Fire Department for the u~e end maintenance after ~e ~oad ie 0onslructed. A letter from the City of Ranc,11o Cucamonga Fire Depa~ment accep(ing maintenance r®eponsibilities for the e~ese toad is required. 3. Detail A, sheet t - the vertical wall sectloft thtoknm needs to be shown. 4. Relocate proposed transilion ~tr~cture ana tral~e=oidal channel ~<=tlen off of District right.of. way and instil child probation bert at the inlet to the propos~ inch RCP, 5. Install Oi~nct ap13rgvad fen~ing or tileok well in lieu of the proposed PVC raft fence aJong the Distrlcte welt righi-of-way line. Sheet & of $ - Indicalo stationing wit!~ limits of existing wait removal shown on the plan encl elevation viewe. LOEB & LOEB Ju: · t t LAUREN OEVELOPMENT, INC. May 2g, 1697 F)~ge Two The angle o~ entry of the 57-incl~ RCP canrmcXjon shall not exceed 3(3 Clearsee, due to the high veto~ty Jn the pipe, 8, Show tl'm design Q lind anticJpaled velocity on the plans. g. Dillriot right.o~-way shall be clearly shown and labeled ~ the plans. 10. Pieram rem~bmit confluence analysis, ba~e¢l on bulked (3, far the proposed cor~tmcfJon. 11. 'The h~rauli¢ study shah be bared on a Q of 446,8 ell 12. The ofl~ite hydmlogy study wee I)mpmed generally in maGordanc. with the 1986 SEE Bernardino Oourdy HySf'ology Manual. The resulting Q appears ma~onable Ind his ~ bu~k~d acC4)rdingly. 13. Since Ihe starm drain will ultimately be operated end main~ by ~ Ci~ ef ~ Cu~ngl, ~luan~ of a ~mR aa ~ w~he~ until t~ hydro~y ~t~ .~ ~pr~ent glens ~ ~n ~Wwe~ and Wov~ ~y ~ Ci~ of Ran~o C~m~. ~. a ~er f~ t~ C~ a~~ ~ r~n~i~ ~r Aler the above c. omment~ have 13sen incorporated inlo yo~ p~ns, ~e Diswatt will ~m ~ se~ of ~ld pans, ~me ~ of mv~ h~m~ e~ hydra~ ¢m~m, a~ I ~w ~tlr ~re~ing t~e ~'8 c~~ for ~er rev,~. p~ ~me m ~ur~ ~ t~Jl r~, if you hive an~q~mmtiona reglraing the above, pteam~ cantaGt the unclesigned at (909) 367.2633. $irlcm'dy,/// .,. I~1ood Control Permit l~ngineef Fr¢!.~: John L. AJlday To: Mark McGuire Date: 10115/97 Time: 2:49:20 PM Page 3 of 3 The grading of this hole in the levee was approved by the Flood Control District.7 The hole in the levee was dug sometime in early 1989. Continued maintenance of this road through the levee is a requirement of the adjacent homeowners association CC&Rs.'8 A 1991 letter to the fire district from the homeowners association supports the alignment of the road (through the levee).9 The letter also indicates they will "institute a program of periodic inspection and repair if necessary . . . to assure the ongoing condition of this road" and that all costs of maintaining the road will be borne by the HOA. Despite the city council imposed condition of approval requiring the road, and the CC&R requirement for its maintenance, it is my understanding that the homeowners failed to reimburse the fire district the annual permit fee (which the fire district had to pay to the flood control district to cross their property) and as a result in 1996 the requirement for the road was "repealed and the access road vacated" unilaterally by the fire district without consultation with the planning or engineering departments,~° (As an aside, the planning department informs me that the fire district has no authority to in effect repeal a city council condition.) The point of this is that the level of flood protection provided by the unbreached levee, albeit minor, is now nil due entirely to the demand by the homeowners association that a road be cut through it. The city council required this road be built in response to the request of the adjacent homeowners. These same homeowners are now saying that we and the city should be liable should the levee be removed and they flood. 7 San Bernardino County Flood Control District Permit No, P-188104 approved on December 6, 1988 an emergency access road through the levee.. s Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for Rancho Cucamonga V - Haven View Estates recorded June 13, 1990 (dec # 90-231127). 9 Letter dated August 5, 1991 from Trent Pulliam, President, Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowners Associatior~ ~0 letter to flood control district from fire protection disthct, dated June 25, 1997. ;roin: John L, AJlday To: Mark McGuire FROM : CRWQCB-REGION 8 Date: 10/15/97 Time: 11:59:24AM PHONE NO. : 909 ?816288 Page 2 of 2 1997 11:12AM P1 $'rAYE OF CADFORNIA--GAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY cAB'FoRNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA F1EGION 3737 MAIN ~'REET, SUITE RIVERSIDE, CA ~.501-3339 PHONE: (909) 71g~-4130 FAX: (909) 781 PETE Wl .LS~q,., Gouem~r October 8, 1997 John Allday Lauren Development, Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF SEPTIC TANK-SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 11030 ARROW ROUTE, TENTATIVE TRACK NO. 14771, APN 1074-541-21 AND 1074-351-10, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Dear Mr. Allday: This is in response to your S~ptcmber 23, 1997, submittal regarding the above-refereacexl project. A report of Waste Discharge was also submitted. You are proposing to subd/vide APN 1074-541-21 and 1074-351-10 (Tcntafivc Tract No. 14771) into 40 lots. The total area of the sulxlivtslon is 25.35 acres and a single family residence will be constructed on ~agh lot (gross average demity = 0.63 ac~/dwellin$ unit). The site is located at the northeast comer of Rin~em & Tackstem in the Rancho Cucamonga area of San Bernardino County. There is no sanitary sewer line within 200 feet of the proposed development and on-sit~ septic tank-subsurface disposal systems will be utilized for disposal of sanitary wastes. A soils percolafion report for the above-referenced project was prepared by RMA Group. The report was approved by San Be~ Cottory Department of Environmental Health Services on September 22, 1997. Our review of the percola~on report indicates that the soils are suitable for subsurface disposal systems and are consistent with the Regional Board's "Guidelines for Sewage Disposal from Land Developments." Pursuant to the California Water Code, Section 13269, the Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 969, waiving waste discharge requirements for various types of discharges. Your project This lc~r constitutes our conditional waiver for this project. Should any conditions change from those stated in your submittal, thl. waiver may be revoked, and you must notify this o//ice immedialely to derre-mine a further course of action, Picare be aware that this waiver does not relieve you of the responsibility to comply with the laws and guidelines of other regulatory agencies involved with this projec~ , ~ -2- October $, 1997 .. ,,ou have any questions, please contact Jawed Shami at (909) 782-3288. ~-.~ :~i~-~.:i'.~- San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services. Scott Maass San Bernardino County Building and Safely Department - Leon Read San Bc~natdino County Planning/Land Management Department - Bill Adams City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department - Brad Bullet JIS/Lauren.clr Fro. i: John L. Allday To: Mark McGuire Date: 10/15/97 Time: 2:49:20 PM Page 2 of 3 Date: To: From: October 9, 1997 Mark McGuire, and Andrew Hartzell Hewitt & McGuire John Allday LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Total pages incl. this page' Fax: Phone: Fax: Phone: (714) 798-0511 (818) 798-0500 (909) 484-1864 (909) 484-1863 RE: History of the Hole in the Levee Much is being made of the "liability of the city" with regard to the potential flooding of Haven View Estates. A brief history of the current hole in the levee' Overall Haven View Estates (Tentative Tract 12332 -- 204 lots) was approved in 1983~. After the first phase (12332-1 -- 53 lots) recorded in 19842, the balance of the map expired. In 1986 a new TT 12332 was approved for the remaining 151 lots3. In 1988 the Planning Commission approved an extension of time to record this new tentative4, however the extension was appealed to the City Council by the Tract 12332-1 homeowners association~, one of the reasons of the appeal being the supposed need for secondary emergency access out the back of the project. The council denied the appeal, however in doing so the city council added a condition requiring an additional access on the eastern side of the project for emergency vehicles subject to specific design approval being obtained by the city fire district, the county flood control district, and the city engineer. This city required road is what caused the current hole to be graded into the levee.6 ~ May 1 l, 1983, Resolution 83-66. z August 16, 1984. 3 February 12, 1986, Resolution 86-23. 4 Mar~h 9, 1988, Resolution 88-53. ~ Technically, the appeal was filed by a council member "on behalf of" the residents in 12332-1. s The breach in the levee 8reded 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. Frcm: John L. Allday To: Mark McGuire Date: 10/15t97 '15rne: 2:49:20 PM Page 3 of 3 The grading of this hole in the levee was approved by the Flood Control District.7 The hole in the levee was dug sometime in early 1989. Continued maintenance of this road through the levee is a requirement of the adjacent homeowners association CC&Rs.'8 A 1991 letter to the fire district from the homeowners association supports the alignment of the road (through the levee).9 The letter also indicates they will "institute a program of periodic inspection and repair if necessary . . to assure the ongoing condition of this road" and that all costs of maintaining the road will be borne by the HOA. Despite the city council imposed condition of approval requiring the road, and the CC&R requirement for its maintenance, it is my understanding that the homeowners failed to reimburse the fire district the annual permit fee (which the fire district had to pay to the flood control district to cross their property) and as a result in 1996 the requirement for the road was "repealed and the access road vacated" unilaterally by the fire district without consultation with the planning or engineering departments.~° (As an aside, the planning department informs me that the fire district has no authority to in effect repeal a city council condition.) The point of this is that the level of flood protection provided by the unbreached levee, albeit minor, is now nil due entirely to the demand by the homeowners association that a road be cut through it. The city council required this road be built in response to the request of the adjacent homeowners. These same homeowners are now saying that we and the city should be liable should the levee be removed and they flood. San Bernardino County Flood Control District Permit No, P-188104 approved on December 6, 1988 an emergency access road throuF, h the levee.. Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for Rancho Cucamon~a V - Haven View Estates recorded June 13, 1990 (dec St 90-231127). Letter dated August 5, 1991 from Trent Pulliam, President, Rancho Cucarnonga V Homeowners Association. ~0 letter to flood control district from fire protection district, dated June 25, 1997. LAUREN DEVELOPMENT Document Index [ Document [TabNo. Letter from Planning Consultants Research to USFWS, dated February 28, 1997 1 Letter from USI~VS to Lauren Development, dated April 18, 1997 2 Letter from Planning Consultants Research to Lauren Development, dated February 28, 3 1997 Letter from Loeb & Loeb to Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curly & Slough, dated June 4 11, 1997 Fax transmittal from USFWS to Hewitt & McGuire (with Etiwanda Preserve and open 5 space maps), dated June 13, 1997 Letter from CDFG to City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated June 23, 1997 6 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to USFWS, dated June 25, 1997 7 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to USFWS, dated June 26, 1997 8 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, 9 dated June 27, 1997 Memorandum from CDFG to Hewitt & McGuire (with NDDB and CAGN records for 10 areas 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, 11 1997 (indicating the distance of reported gnatcatcher sightings in San Bernardino County from Tract 14771 -- sightings contained in draft paper prepared by Davis et al., and located at Tab 13) Cucamon~ans United For Reasonable Exl>ansion Complaint, etc. filed July 2, 1997 12 Fax transmittal from CDFG to Hewitt & McGuire, dated July 8, 1997 (with draft report 13 on Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher in San Bernardino County) Letter from Army Corps of Engineers to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning 14 Commission, dated July 9, 1997 Letter from USFWS to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, dated July 9, 15 1997 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to San Bernardino County Museum, dated August 5, 1997 16 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to CDFG, dated August 5, 1997 17 Letter from Loeb & Loeb to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, dated 18 August 7, 1997 (requesting a continuance of the City Council Hearing) Letter from Army Corps of Engineers to City Engineer, dated August 11, 1997 19 Letter from R/VIA Group to Lauren Development, dated August 14, 1997 and additional 20 fact sheets regarding Tract 14771 Letter from US Department of Agriculture to Spirit of Sage Council, dated August 15, 21 1997 Memorandum from Loeb & Loeb to CDFG, dated August 18, 1997 22 Letter from James F. Dolan, Assistant Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, 23 University of Southern California to Bill Ford, dated July 21, 1997. Document USFWS Recommended Gnatcatcher Guidelines for Surveying dated February 28, 1997 Letter from I-Iewitt & McGuire to Rebecca Jones, CDFG, dated August 5, 1997 Letter from Lauren Development to Rebecca Jones, CDFG dated September 12, 1996 Letter from CDFG to Lauren Development, dated November 18, 1996 Letter from MDS Consulting to Lauren Development, dated June 25, 1997 Letter report from RMA Group to Lauren Development, dated July 9, 1997 Letter from Robert .I. Cristiano to Brad Buller, City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated June 26, 1997 Letter from Lauren Develo!~ment to William J. O'Neil, City Engineer, City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated August 14, 1997 and copy of RMA Group report dated August 14, 1997 regarding engineering geologic and geotechnical evaluations concerning Tract 14771 Tab No. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ?lannin Consultants February 28, 1997 Ms. M.a. ry Be~ Woulfe U. S. FISH gaND WILDLIFE SERVICE Carlsbad Field Of'rice 2730 Loker Avenue Wes~ Carl~bad, CA 92008 P_E: R.EFORT FOR FOCUSED C.&L1TOt:hNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS, R.-XNC~O CUC.-~¢O NGA D-~r Ms. Woulfe: Ar the r:qu=sr of Lauren Development, Plan.n/ng Consutmnts =onduzt=d four (4) surveys for ~.he corral C2lifom/a califoraic~) ~t ~:ir ~nzho C~camonga projet: obs:rvrd or o~:~ise detected on si~e or ~in adjac=m h~bi~c ar=2s during any of ~e surv:y =~%~. We offer ~e following r~on of our su~y Location Avmu~ ~ ~= Gi~ of~o Cu~ong~ ¢m E~it 1). ~ sho~ on ~ U.S. G:otogir~l Gabh=l Moun=i~ and may b= r:fcr:nc=d ~ ~g ~n ~= no~h~ =om~ of S==ion 24 , T1N, R7W on ~ Cu~onga P~k 7.5 min~m quad~gt= =t:~fim ~g~ frm 2.145 fret ahoy: m~n s~ trv=l ~o 2.299 f:zr'zbov: m~ s~ t=vel. The ~fir~ si~= ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~prox~am¢ 5~ l~r f~r of ~n: hm bound~i=s ~ co~id=rtd m r~rm=m ~= study Plant Communities Sol Jr ow'r .~e enzire size appear ro consist of alluvium :omvos:d of sands, gray=l, .forks and accolanai bould:rs. Thee conditions suppo~ a somewhat h:r=rogtn:o~s ao~uni~y o[ ~versid~ ~lu~qal f~ sagz scrub, ApproxL~r:ly on: ~lf of ~q: ~z= suppor~ a fairly uNfo~ s~d offs co~u~W do~md by ~J/fo~ia buckshot (Znooo~mI~c~c~&zam), whir: sage (5~lvi~ ~pi~ns) and California sage (.4rzemix2~ cm'J}brm'ca). Thiz1~f yzrba santo (Er2'odz'~on T~I: (7 la) Plannin "" Consut nts Research Beth Woulfe Febm~,7 28, i 997 Page 3 Strrv~y 3 - Conducted by Ramir~ on January 21, 1997. commencing at 0910 hours and ~nding at 1010 hours; rout: used was a crisscross ge~r'&liy ~ a norn¥somh direction; mme. mmre ~ 50 degre~ Fahrtn.heit ~xoughout she surv~.y; ski~s were cloudy wish a light mist and no wind. Survey 4 - Conducted by Ramirez on 3~muary 28, t997, commencing at 1000 hours and ~ndin§ at 1110 hours; route was similar to Sur~:y 3; temperature nkroughout the survey wa~ 58 degrees Fahrenhei£; skies were cl~r wish a slight breeze. Generally, bird ac6viry was fairly high during ~:h of the surveys ~Ssh a numb-'r o[ species being observed or d:lsc~ed on -;oh occ_~ion. If you have any qu-_viion~, pi-~.se f--=l fr:: ~o conrac.[ us. Sincerely, PLA_NN'hN'G CONSIYLTAaN-T$ RESE.~RCH Dire=or of Biological Sm-¥ic:s Rn'~n S. P,m-nir:z S.--N or .E:ologis£ .~ ::: 3ofin Allflay, Lauren Dcvetopmem Sea!e: 1" = 2,000' Topogzaph~c Ma.~ From: Thomas S, Mmn Te: ANDREW HARTZELL · SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DE'V; 23-97 2:56PM; Date: 04/23/97 ~me: 5:37:10 PM Pa~ 3 ~4 909 477 2847 => 1-909-484-181~; #2/3 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological $crvicc~ 2730 Lokcr ^veauc Wea~t Carlabad, California 91008 RECEIVED City of Rancho C~camortga Planning Divie~n April 18, 1997 Mr. John Allday Laur~m D~v~lopment 11030 Arrow Route, suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Su~j~t: Report for Focused Cahfomia Gnatcatcher Surveys in Rancho Cucamoaga. San Bernardino County, California (1-6-97-HC-146) Dear Mr. Allday: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is in receipt of the February 28, 1997, caa.sml California gnatcatcher (Poh'optila eali~rnica californica) survcT re.suits, conducted by Planning Consultant Research for Lauren Dcvclopment. The property surveyed is approximar~Iy 25 acres and is located neaz the northern terminus of Haven Avenue w/thin the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site is within the Etiwanda alluvial fan at the base of the San Gabriel Motmtai~ in relatively close proximity of known coastal California gnatcatcher sightings, and boarded by extensive stands of quality sage scrub habitat. Although recent coastal California gnatcatcher survey guidelines, dated February 28, 1997, for determining the presenceJabs~nce allow some deviation ~om the survey l~otocol for projects prior to adoption, the Service has been rec~mmpnrjlng seven and nine surveys, for the breeding and non-breeding seasons respectively, for over one year in areas outside of active Natural Communities Conservation Plarming (NCCP) jurisdictions. Only surveys conducted by permitted biologists who Save proper notice to the Service prior to conducting surveys a~d who wcrc instructed on the numb~ of surveys to conduct in ar~as in and outside ofa NCCP will be accepted for the 1996 br~__~ing season. At issu~ is the numberr of surveys conductext for the txm.stal California gnatcatcher at this site. ll~e Service met with you at an impromptu meeting at the Carlsbad Field Office in the later pari of 1.996. At that time $effNewnmn and Mary Beth Woulfe of this office explained, in detail, the coastal California gnatcatr. aer guidelines for determining presenceabsence of this species on your property. They recommended that you have a pemaitted biologist conduct scvca surveys during the breedlxxg season or nine surveys during the non-breeding season. However, ~s stated in the survey report, you rra4uested that your biologic~d con.suitant conduct only four surveys. As discussed with you and your consultant, new biological studies indicate that more surveys are necessary to determine the absence of coastal California gnatcatchers. F~ Thomas S. ~ To: ANDREW HARTZELL ~ENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DE-V,; 23-97 2:56PM; Date: 04/23/97 ~me: 5:37:10 PM 909 477 2847 -> 1-909-484-18~4; P~ge 4 ~ 4 #3/3 The Service rannot accept the survey results as being complete for determining the absence of the coastal California ~,nalcamher on the subject propeaty. The known California gmatcatcher sightings in the vicinity and the extensive habit~ ~,,rl_i~_~ that four surveys do not provide a reasonable basis for concluding that the California gv~*t'~_!chea~ am absent from the property. Therefore, three additional staweys are needed to adequamly sur~ey this site for the coastal Californ/a g,atcatcher. These ad~it/onal survey days should be smrte. d immed/ately upon giv/ng notice to the Scrv/ce, and spaced one week apart to =_d~q,_~*.~ly address our concerns. The Service appreci~t_,~ your cooperation in this matter mad is w~iling to work with you to fully -,q,q~ potential impa~s to federally semsitive and .listed species, especially with regards to the coastal California glmtcalcher. Please contact lVtm'y Beth Woul£e ofthi~ office at (760) 431-9440 ff you have any quintions. 1-6..97-HC- 146 cc; CDFG, San Diego, CA (Attn: Bill Tippets) CDFG, Long Besch, CA (Attm Patty Wolf) Hcwitt & McGuin:, LLP, Irvine, CA (Attn: Andrew Hartzell) Plaxming Consultmats Research, Irvine, CA (Arm: Steve Nelson) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept., CA (Arm: Brad Bullet) 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 0PCR) 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 Eftwanda alluvial fan at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and may be referenced as being witl'fin 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 (Eriogonumfasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana) and California sage (Arremisia californica). Thickleaf yerba santa (Eriodicryon crassifolium) and deerweed (Lotus scopan'us) are also common in these areas. These shrubs grow 939 Glennerye, Suite 13 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 Plannin§ 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 i - 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 Plannin§ Consultants Research John Ailday February28,1997 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 kigh 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, ~iven~G. NGe CONS ULTANTS RESEARCH lson Ruben S. Ramirez Director of Biological Services Sen/or Ecologist EXtIIBI T 1 North Vicinity Map Scale: 1" = 5,280' 'l" EXHIBIT 2 Topographic Map Scale: I" = 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 Cathartes 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 Comus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus coro~c common raven Psaltriparus rninimus 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 polyglottus northern mockingbird Toxostorna redivivum California thrasher Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Pipilo crissalis Califorrda towbee Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Zonotdchia 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. X X X X X X Jan. 21 X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 LOEB~.OF_.BLLP I I Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 ~-mail: MMCKEITI4~loeb.com Jun~ 1I, 1997 Via T¢lccopicr aad U.S. MaLl James M~kman, Esq. Marman, A. mzyndd, Hansen, Curl5' & Slough Post OIIiac Box 1059 Brca, California 92622-!059 Cucamongam U~i~ £er ~nabtc Exp~msion ("CLrpcE") O~uosit:on to Laurr..n D~izn Development Am3rox';{ De~r Mr. Mm'kman: The £ollowing corrcs~ndencc and evidence 0he "Opposition") is submitted on behalf of C-camoagans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CLrR.E") in opposition to Lauren Developm~t's proposed consreaction 0£40 tract tmm~ on 25.9 acres located at Ring~c:'n ired 'l'acl~cm in Rancho Cuca.monga (the. 'Proj~t~).x This challenge is t~sed upon several grou_udl including, but not li.mit~ to: (1) the f~lure of the Cily of R2.ncho Oa~tllouga ("City.") to Frovide not:c~ to ~mp~ct=d parties of the June 11, 1997 Design t~view Hearing f".Nemfng") 'ahu~ depriving i~npaclmt parlie~ of lheir duc prr~.t::r~ right~ to notice mad ,,n opporr,.m.ity to be he~d; and (2) the fa/tum of the CiD' or the Devetoocr to condue: any environmental review of the Project for over seven ycm"~ dc~ite doctamcntcd changed r. ircumstaacr. s and new information not previously available at the :ira= '.he 1990 Negative Dccla."ation was approved) t The o:-i~nal and 5 copies of this Oppositio'n will be flied xqdth the Planning Commission on June ~ 1. 1997. CURE inco,-porat=s by reft-renee its loner of Jtme 10, 1997. to .iames Mmk:rnan, CiD' Agome)', raising objeclion~ to the Plr='~-,ing Depm'm,=n!'s p.,'oduc~on ofdocurnents. (Exhibit 1) CL.FR.E's zbility to pr~pa~e for thr jtmc 1 I, 1997 me~fi. ng (con,-inu=d...) l~l 00 ~00 00~0 156 ~0~ 3ames Maz~ Esq. $un¢ 11, 1997 Fag: 2 As =videneed by tN: aumbcr of L~d{v~dua~ls who will be ~ Developer ~oj~t is ~ing but "~n<on~ov~" ~c]~ion on ~e Con~cnt Ag~ is ~ly ~p~H~e,4 r~u=l~ ~at ~s ma~ be r~v~ ~ ~e ~t Ag~ on ~y 28, 1~7, ~d r=~s that r~u~t now ~bfl 3). ~ ~er r~uc~s ~at ~e P~g ~i~ dcfc~ ~c~g ~y ~i~ion ~ ~e ~v:lopm~t R~cw A~ =ill ~ ~e Ciw rec~ula~es ~he 1990 Neg~ D<l~fion md o~se ~4m CEQA. Most of ~= homeowners living in the vicinity of ~e Project mov~ to lhe area after 1990, and they had no idea aborn the Project .until approximately two weeks be£om today's Hearing. CURE's members genuinely an: conr. eraed tl~ the City has not a~lequatety evaluated ~.Cety is.m~es c. oncemi~g [he reznoval ofaperiphcral coW_,i,~mmat levee that currently r~daccs the risk of flooding to down~r~d~c-at tmapcn'y own~s. Attached lo this Opposition is a Declatin'ion fi'om Bruce Colli~ a civil engineering expert fi'om Dames & Moore:, tc..~fying thai thia peripheral eoatmmment love= provides important safety t~ reeidmt.% particularly in the ex'emt of an earthquake 2(...confinu:d) was significr~ntly hampered by ~c difficulties encotmtered i.n our attempt~ lo 1oc.~te and cop]' relevant doau.ments. For this rr. ason alone, lb.c PtarmSng C_.o~mi,t~ion shoalCL at a miramum, defer a decision until a more thorough presenartion ram provided. : A Petition of over 100 names in opposition is attache. (Exhibit 2) ~ Both CU]~ and Sp;_rit of the gage Ccuncil have reques'.ed that tim roarer be removed from the Consmat Agenda (ExJxJbif.5 3 and 15). The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code §§ 54950-54962 details ~e requirerot-ms to be followed by tocal bodir~. including city :ouncils m,u:l plataxing corrm'~i~sions. The inlent of~e Brown Act is stated in Government Code § 5a950 io peninet pan, that "lilt is the intent of the law that their actions [city cotmoiLs, planning comm/ssiorts, etc.] b= taktm and that their deliberations be conductext opemty." Exc=p.t under circumstances not applicable here, the Brown Act :v, quires that me=tings of city bodies shall be open mad public u,nd ~lj perxor. s ~hv. ll be permitted to atetrod may such meetings. Gov't Coge § 54953. "Ev:Ty ag_~tda ftrr regular meezings xhalJ an opportunity/'or members of lhe public to direoily addtins the legisl*tiv¢ body on ~.ny {tea'n of interest to ~he public, before or du,-ing the t~-7,i~tatiYe body's consideration of the ilem." Gov't Code § 54954.3. !0i 00 '00 00:00 3am~ Mazkman, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 3 th: De~ Cr~ck D~bri~ ~ Ctmxmel to the Nor~_h ~=~h~bit 4). ~ also believe that ~ ~c, noi:e und air pollution ~mdie~ are n~u-essita~ed by the funding and ~mproval of the Highway 30 corridor. On the er, vironme'asz~ front, the California Croatcat=her w~s li~t~xt as an cndangtved M~ecies on N~tl-..h 30, 1993 ~az~¢r the N~ga:iv= Declaration was ~pproved. As recently a~ 5tme 10, 1997., the Urdlta:l Stat~ Depa.rtment of Iaterior, Fifla and Wilttitle Service ("Wildlife Service") hzs advised the City tha~ tim Developer bas not complied with re Enc~g~ed Spe6es Act and that no ~ ~a¥ commence until Wildlife Service a~prov'/d i~ Danted ('Ex:h.ibit 5). Moreova, the Developer has nol conducted ~y t~ew CEQA compliance in r=.s'~u.~ Cal.iforr~a D~a:trnenl o£ Fish a~l. Ga.me's ["Fish ~d Game') recast designation of ae ar~ in ,~'b_irgn the Lztaen Develogm~-nt Proj~t is situated as habital l.bai is Ca.tego~ "SI.I" an~ "G.~". This des. ignafion signifies tt-,a~ the T~rojec~ ~m~i,~ u~e rarest and mos~ tt,.rea;en,xl type or habit~/mat'ar~ cosru'nunity, ~ad rmki~g is onty resigned when less than 2,000 as'res ~main in the werld fEtal:tibet 6). A:eo~ing to a leading exoea-~ on ~11uvial fan .~g¢ scrub, the a~luvial fa.~ .~tge h2bitat at issue on ~he Lauren Devclopm~t Project pmpt'rt7 is par~ of one of eight remaLv, ing as~a.s of its type on ea:th (Brerman Decla.,'ation, Exhibit 7). Thus, although Lauren Dev.-!opmt'nt's de~"tu:tion o.r 25.9 ares of rare habila. t may inifi~]y 29pr. a.r msigrdficant, it aclually eunstimles about l.fi percent of the toutl remaining habitat for Gna~iehers on e:~r~h. Defile fia: ia'npot"~nc~ of this habitat, Developer has not been requi.r~ to, nor is he takL,ng, any mitigation me~.sures. Rather, the endse progerry is proposed to bc greed, and th~s rar~ habital de=rtroyed. Lauren Dsvclopmen; ha~ n~.'cr provided d~ nofi~ lo ~y homager in ~e ~ md yet it h~ gone ~o ~t l~s to d~t ~c "s~p~" l~k of in~:~ by r~d~. .~ recently ~ ~y 28, 1997, ~ ~velopm~t '~oc~Iiy" qu~o~ why "~ f~ ~p~e ~e ca~g ~ much conc~ ~d allc~ng so much -=f~p~e" (E~Jb~t 8). ~c 1o~ca: ~ is ~a: Lhe v~t majofiW of r~sid~ ~ t~ed of the Dev~to~ ~e w~k~d o[ May 25, 1997, wh~ Euc',id M~em~t ~aily s~t a noad~fipt nofic~ ~m ~e pro~d May 28, ]997 proration b7 [.~en D~eJopment on ~e ~j~t's ~c~t~ desi~ (Erabit 9). ~ou~ Laden ~'etopm~t ~p~ to ha~e ~ ~g ~th Bmcc ~ H~ ~e Pr~id~t oF Haven V~ Es~t~ ~d Eaclid 76. L 1 ~ 101 00 ~00 00~00 156 ~05 James Mackman, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 4 Management, neither Etalid Management nor Ms. Hahn have any }egal ~ufiaori~y ~o repre~ or a~i on behalf of ~ owners i~ comaectio~ with the Develolma~m.s Any effort by l.,am'en Development to ~e itself as lhc ~ricfim~ of a i~ minuze ~v~o~ml ~b~ ~uld be i~or~. Unfi[ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~velo~t ~d Ci~ S~ ~1~Iy con~oll~ ~ p~c~ ~d ~ ~ ~e ~d ~ve o~d maa~ ~ ~ ~ mmm~l ~d n~afi~. Devcl~m~t's f~l~c m pm~ ~ m~g~l n0fi~e w~ no~ng ~ ~ ~ o~ous ~tc~ to avoid ~e ~ble pubic out~ ~t ~ ~w o~ ~t ~e~ ~ b~md ~d ~ D:vcl~mcn[ ~ now have m ~c ~c l~cl o~ ~y required by CEQA ~ ~t~ by mc ~ous ~~ md ~ ~s~ pos~ by ~e Pmj~m. I. PROJECT BACKGROUND The 25.9 acre Project originaliy was proposed by Brock Homes in 1989. A Ncgafive Declaration w-a, approved on November 14. 1990 ~ w~11 a~ Tentalive Tract Map No 14771. Az the Planr2ng Commi~iou likely i5 aware, such a Map ordinar/ly would have c:rp/red in Novarobin' 1992; howt~ver, the Plm.nning Commition firm gran:ed a 12 month extraasian on Oclobcr 28, 1992 and s~.tc legi~laI/on :mb~quc'ntly wa_~ ~ that would have allowed Cr~i. aoo to automatically extend the life of the Tentmire Map -,.nother 24 mooth. s.° In ' L,,uren Development also is aw'arc of conccrn.~ cxpr~sccl by Bill Angel, RC-5 developer, that Ms. Hatera b~s a potera/a[ conflict of intcrc-~. Dtwelopment ha~ been careful to docum~t for Planning Surff the fazt that "Ms. Hahn · . . a local Realtor... has brought potmtial lm'u:l deals to u~ in the l~m.." (See "Citronology of Events Leading up to Th~s Meeting" ~J:hed to DL~y 28, t997 ..~orre~pond~nee to the ?Iaaarag Commit/on." (Exhibit 10) In a letler taa $talT dated .'May 16, 1997, Lau.~m ai$o docd~.ented the fart that 'Ms. }'I~d:m ~kod what price the)' {lht hom~] were going to sell for. We said they would nil for much sm the market would hoax. Ms. Hal:m, a broker, asked if we v-ere going to list the homes wSth brokers. At this, Bill Augel remarkczl ta her that rrfight rmprescat a 'conflict of interest.'" ~ CU-KE objects to and re itah~ the rJg5~ to challenge these extensions a.s the planning D~par'lzncnt file was incomplete and t_Se extexxsion doc~tmenB were r~ot produced. From pape,'-wark in the file, il appears th~ Cristiano, the ca.wen! praperU.' (continu~...) 1~1 ~0 '~ 00:00 156 P06 - Jane 11. 1997 Page 5 Scpt=nl~r 1996, Lauren l~velopmcm resma'ect~cl the Tm~vc M~ ~d ~ ~g ~e ~j~t m~d ~ ~pmvM of ~c Dcvclo~mt D~ ~d ~ ~atc fi~g of~e F!ml Map. ~ ~dl 16, 1~7, La~ ~cl~t ~b~ iB "D~ Revi~ Appli~don - T~ 1a771" ~bit 12). As dis~ below, ~ do~t ~ n=v~ cim~a~ for public m~ ~s no: ~ ~c "~g~ dmmt~ce~~ of mnc~ ~ h~ ~s ~pu~n, ~ mn~ ~ ~sc or misl~g m~ts ~a~g ~cn Dcvcl~mmt's comp~cc ~ fe~ ~d state enxqronmm~ laws. MULTIPLE EXTENSIONS OF TIEE TENTATIVE MAP AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE OR AN OPPORTUNI]-Y TO COM'!xiENT ON '][HE DESIGN REVIEW A.PPLICATION VIOLATE THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDLrRAL RIGHTS OF I1V[PAC'I~D PROPERTY OWNERS Failure to Prov/de Not/c¢ of the Extension of Ihe Tenting'ire Map Dgprlved Affet-tvcl l~ro~cr~y Owt:crs of Due Process .k The urmoticcd ace groccd~lly defective exl~>_~'/or-~ of Tentative Map 14771 have s~ to d~dve ~ ~pc~ o~ of d~ p~ of law. Sp~ng direrely to the due pr~ h~ of~j~mt props' o~s ~ ~ matcx[ of Ientahve map approvals, ~c ~fo~a S~reme Court emph~iz~ ~aI "[~ ~ dmiaio~ w~ch 'sabstamiaty ~' ~e propeW/hgh~ of e~i o f ~j~ p~,ls may co~imte 'd~gvafions' of pmpc~ ~n ~e ~nmxt of pr~ duc p~.~ Horn v. Co~ of V~ 24 ~al. 3d 605 (1979). ~e Cid, mor~ver, c~ot c~ ~at iIs po~ing of~z ag~ p~u~at ~ ~c ~v~mml ~ m~fied duc ~esi.* Actatalin/ m ~e ~ prior notice m~t. at a rainimp. be r~a~ty mlcuhtcd ~ aff~d ~t~ ~n: ~: r~isfic o~W to ~teci ~(...continued) owner, did nm rite for cftc:as/m; p~ the requircrae,ats /n ~cho ~mga's Sub~sion Map Ordin~ce. Station 16.20.1C~ pmhd~ "~e ~plimon s~ be fit~ nm [ess :h~ 60 days prior to ~e ~p~alion date .... " ~to~ 14, 1993 ~ond~ from Cd~i~o m Bcv~ly Ni~ ci~ly c~blish~ ~l ~e ~pli~fion w~ nm regeivcd ~ a ~cly f~on suzL ~at me subsequent ~pmx~ of ~ ~tcnsion of the Tentative T~t Map vi~lat~ the otdm~c. (E~bit 11) * It appr2zs that even propert3' o,~mcrs witl'Jn 300 feet of the Project did not reoeivc notice. I,.,,,cs Markman, Esq. Jane 11, 1997 '-Fa§c 6 their interests." Jd at 617 cith~g ~c. ot't v. Ciiv of Indian Welts, 6 C. alJd 541 (I9q2). Procedural due proccs~ rcquis-eramts apply ~u~y !o ~vc m~s. Ut go~ ~out ~g ~I a d~isiou mtm~g a ~vokes ~c ~c ~li:y c~:~ ~ ~ ~ision a~g a t~ti~ ~, v. Co~m oF Mo,o. 163 ~. A~. 3d 4t4 (1985). Al&ouO ~ dimi~ed p~ifioner's c~l~g: m a dcf~tive m~ion b~ ~y ~mte of limi~tions in ~v~n~t ~: s~fioa ~99.37, the ~ffis ~ h~ notice of~e ~t~on h~gs. No m~g~l notice h~e. ~e due proem mq~mmm ~ fo~ in ~o~ ~c "not rated ~c com~t~ by ~c s~ng~ f~ ef ~mfiou~ ~cipte" ~d ~m e~l~ by ~e Legisla~ ping, of ~v~l C~= s~tion 6(~52.6.~ mp~ 616 ~. 3d a~ 616. Tit, procedunsl due proca:ss Jar'ran/ties ~lso sup~rt CLqLE's that the 90-day s~2mtc of [imiuttiom tins been rolled trader the "d/scovcry raJc" or oth~--~dse is tinconstitutional a.s auppli:d here. The OixT's November 1993 appzoval of Cristiano's extension was dcf~tiv~: ~1 ttaas the Tra~t Map is invalid. The failme :o comply with it~ own rcgulafiom m-ncLws the 1993 cx'~emion Lavalid ~nd thus the Tentative Map expired as a matter of lzw. a Thcs~ same ird"umifics will g~ply if formal notice is not pro,,4ded berlin: the Developer's ancmpls to rite i~ Fim.l Ms.p as that decision also is ~on~ry pursua.m Io local o~dinmcc. ~ S~ve El Toro A.xsodatio~ v, Bays. 74 Cal. Ap~. 3d 64 (1977). The Ci:y of Rancho Oucamoaga ordiaances tramdate ~ the City Cotm.sel shall digapprove a Final Map ,under 16.18.110 if "It]he de~ig~ o[' the subcLiv/sion or proposed improvements are likely to cause rabstantial cremenat damage or ~bslanfially and ~voidably injure fi-zh or ~ildlifc or ~eLr t-.abital" or "the dchgn of the subdivisio~ or the ty~ of Lrr~mvements is likely to cause se:rio ,us pubLJ£ health problems." ~ Cucam~ag'~ Subdi~-ision Ordinance Section 16.16.110A. Cueare. enga's Land D~veioprn:~rt Review Code section 17.06.010 specifically startes: "it is I.hc pm-pos: of this section to msizttzio the public health, m,.~ty mad general welfare and property throaghout the Ci-D'.' Approving the reinowl oCthe tev~ giv~o t,Se currein .~.ord wou!d expose the City to met claims in the cxent tt~t to<cling uttLmalzly dv_m~ge: rcsid~t$ do,~'ngradimt of or living at 15~ Lauren Dcvetopmtmr. ~2~4176. L 12 loi eo '80 ;, 1997 F,ilure .f~e C~ty to P~v~de Notice ~ Affected Property The policies oudin~l ha ~ similarly ~xrpiy to the City's f'~hxr~ to provide notice to a£fectcd praperw owners of the ~t Dcvelopm~mt Design ~pprov~l. Ihi~ omission is p'~'aicul~iy egregious gi~,e~ the passage of ~cvcn y~u-s ~zud the scope and detail of the Deaign Re'view A~lic.~tion mad the passage of ~-cn y~rs since the public has had ~n opportus2iry to comment. Proceeding to cvttu~e tiffs mater on ~he merits on Jun~ ll. 1997 given the cornpie:dry of the I)c~,ctopc;'~ appti~ion is pz-t/cularly unfair bo:ausc o£thc diffcuttie~ CURE h~ experienced in obtaining cornplctz ~ecords fi-om ?l~txming Stmff. CURE incorporates by r~e:'mce correepondencc tu Mr. Ma.,'im~ &tied .rune 10. 1997 (an4 ar. companyi~g cxtn'bils) concerning the delays cr,'~,,'4 by P~uaing Staff. The Commissima should not cntcrta/n the Developer's application on the mcr/ts this evening givcu tim oompl~ry of the Design A~Licatiou, th: ~aort tim: to respond, and the diFficuky of ob~,~ng pertinent ~lcs. A.PPROYAL OF TE[E DESIGN .'kPPLICATION VIOLATES ~ CALIFORN/A ENVIRONMlt..NTAI. OUALITY ACT The Juue 11, 1997 Requested Approvtl Is "l){~crctio,,.ry" ,,rid Thu~ Subleer tO CEOA Review Under the Califnmia Environmental Quali~ Act ["CEQA"), both public and private projects which m~y have a significant ~nvironxncntal effex:t reeltrite th~ pxepm~xion of an environmearl~l impa~t report ['EIR'). Pub. Res. Code § 2] ]65. Friends of Marnmoxb v. Board ofStroervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247 (1972). An activ/ty is a "project~ when it causes cithm a direct physical change in the crtviromnex~ or a re-~nabty foreszeabie indLr~'z; physical change/n the ~mvironmem ~d which is an · ctiv/~y that ~volves issuance to ~ persou of a pcrnfiL ticoust or other cnfitlcme-ni. Pub. Res. Code § 210fi5. CEQA applies to all di.'scrctionary approvals. A discretionary project is one wh/ch requires ~hc pubJic ,,gcacy ~o cxcr, c,~ judgment i.n deciding whether to approx--.. or disapprove the particular ar..tSAty. ]_~d. § 21080.(a). ~ec also CEQA Ou/dciincs (Cal. Code Regs. tit i4 § 15357). The luading case of Friends of Westwood, Jnc. v. Civ: of Los .4.ugclc~, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 268 (]997)states that "It]he e-~cntial elamcut ot'a rni~s-teritl act Js ~al Ibe approving agency does no: have the legal authcri,'7 to relhse a quahEed a,ppl/czut or to insis: u~on modific. mffon~- or June ! 1, 1997 chang~ in his project . . ." (F~pha_~ in ofig4na.L ) Titus, wh~c the ag, mcy can d~y or condition a project, it ~ d~aca~i~nal-y and CEQA a~l~. H~n'~, the Dcvclopmrat D,:aiga approval proc~s -~ct forth in the Rancho Cucau'nonga D~,elot:rm,mt Code, Land, Devr. topm,mt, R~'i~-w, ~ Planning Coramission to approve or deny apglP-~fiotm and to Lmpose conttido~ upon any $ur.h approval, cl~xty bringiag fl w~th~n the defi~fifioa of a discmfioam-y project, and CEQA ~hcr~fotc agpll,a. · Rancho Cuc,~oaga D~clopmcat Cod: § 17.06.010~C)(l) s~at,'s on its face that "[t]he Planning Commission is aulhOrized to approve or deal,' ap?lican'ons and to impose r~asonable conditions upon approval, subject to appeal." CEmphasis addod.) That same c~,- stefan goes oft to List the many po~ibl: typ~s of conditions that may be imposext on the !~rojetrt. section concludes by sta*ing ~ the Commi~ion may impose may addititmal condilions "~s the Commi~sio~ may deem n~cesx~ry to ca~ar¢ comp~tibil/ty ~-itb sun'ound/ng ~ . . . to prcscrv~ the public heattk, ~¢~5' ~ad wellre't:.' ~l~a:, Rancho Cucamonga D:vdopmtxtt Code } 17.06.010(E)(3) and 17.06.010(F'). Basecl on th~ prov/sions in the Rancho Cuzamonga D~.-velopment Code, the Commission ha~ the right to deny or impos~ cond/fiorm, which mak~ th~ Projec! d/scr;tionary and subject m CEQA. Chaaged Circum~tsncta alII .~w Information Not P~oaab' Availabt~ at the T~c of lhe 1~0 N~afive Declara~a Tdg~r Funher CEOA R~w Th-- Em-ironmentaJ [,-tidal Stud5, Atrplication filed in August I999 i~ uoth/ng more tha~ a form ch~:lttlst ,~-ith coru:lusory staxe:ments, the support for wklch is nowhere to bc found (Ex/'2bil 10). Th~ Planning Commission file for this Project does not cor~taln a =epy of a traffic study or any biological or wildtalc ready su~port/ag th~ 'no impacts" conelasion. CUR~ is not att~vting to chall--nge the maaay inadextuaci~ ~ ~c on~ Negative Dmt~ion at ~s j~, ham'or, ~c ~s~e of ~1 ~is at ~at time on i~ues of fi~ co=~ot s~e~. m~g~ ~, ~t~ife ~i~, ~d ~ffic ~d ~r qu~/~' ~t be i~zmd in ~'al~g ~e n~ f~ ~er CEQA ~mpli~ce b~ed u~n ~ ~o~ion ~d d~ons~ ch~ c~cmsmcc~. ~e Plyming ~mmi~on s~ould net i~orc ~he P~7 oC ~om~ion supposing the Ne~w D~l~m[on ~n cml~g ~e ~m~ of ~e s~smfi~ evidmce sub~n~ ~em to ~bl/sh c~g~ c~cu~c~. ~e Pl~g Co~ssion is ~mmg a Pmjmt ~al ~s~ ~bs~6~ ~j~' to ~1 00 ~00 00:~0 Junell, 1997 Page9 residents aad irapacts to pla~t and w;.ldlifc ~n violation of federal, sia~c alad local law/ Muh~ple changed r. irc~e~ apply: (1) New Lisle~i P_.udaug~rod Species The federal ;tistag of tM California Grimcatcher oc~,urrcd subr,~qttent to uhc 1990 Negative Declaration approval in March 1993. Despite lauren Dcvelopmcnt'; raiste~limg claims in its Apri] !6, 1997 l~tte-r r~ Design Application (E~hibit 12) "volu~ut,~-y" and has oceur:ed, the Wikllifc Sex',,'icc co~:~me, d on Amc 10, 1997, thai ~ Devctopex is not in compLia~cc. ~ that grax:~g may not b~ pca:xitr.~ u:atil Wild. life Service approval is ' The substantial evidence submitted by CLrP,.E more than satisfies the :cquixernenti of CEQA section 21166 and IZEQA GuidelLues section 15162 Teq' 'aw. ug suppk~rnental CEQA review. Subpart (a){2) of the Guidclinc~ rcquir~ further CiEQA analysis where (2) ~abs-~z~fial chang=s occur with r~pe~-t to the circuzn~ta.rices under which t,hc peoj~:t is u~dcrta.k~n wt-lch will rex:tuirc major rod/ions in the EIF, or Negative Declaraxion tiue to the involvemere of significant environmental effects or a subst~u~al inarr. ase i.u the se,,'~'iry of previously identified si~ficanl eff~ts. La,~reI Heights v. Regen;s, 1 i 12 0993). CURE submits, however, thac Seeton 2[ 166 and Lau.rcl does not control ro:irculafion of a negative deelaraliou and that the 'fair axgument" s*.andard s'nou{d appi'y i~stcag. Fi~t, the very laxlgtmgc of s~ctiou 21166 and CEQA scc6on 15162(a)(2) references prcvio~iy identifieA signific:at ~*nvirortme. n:at effects. Quile ~e. mazP. xbiy, oo significant em'iror. rnent~ ¢ffetrta were ide. ntifi~,l in the 1990 Initial Study. Second. the holding in Laxt~l Ht:iz~a~; is limited to "certified-ElRx." The po',icy emrovialed by the Strpreme Caurt prot~; developtn-s from consliner reopening of '.he CEQA n:~.~rd was based in lazgc part on the iype of detaiiod EIK that previously ka_fl b~=n a~v. ducted ~ud extenM,,'~ public camroe-at received before it was certified. Lu contra.st, the is devoid of any technica! smdie~ to suppore the m~ny 'no impact" the Lrfilial Study. Under :he circumstancca, CU-K.E ~ that the [ega] stand-.~d for analysis of ch~ged circamsu,.r, ces r~quiring re-circulation of the Negative Declaration is the "fair axgum::nI" siandard. No Oil Inc. v. C.i.W of Los .~, 13 Cal. 3d 68, '7,5 (IS75). S~ also CEQA Section 21090(h) and (d). 10i 00 '00 00:00 156 Pll J~u~ 11, 1997 Page l0 (2) Designarima of Prol~rty ~ S.I.I HabitaI The boom development years from she mid- 1980's to the eauly 1990's resulted in such rapid destrtmtion of allu'vi~ £an ss$¢ scab habitats that Fish ~ Game has now designalecl ~he ~ a~ SI.I and G.I. This designation by definition is "very threatened." These new designations require CEQA analysis and idcnlifimafion by Lauren Development of project alternatives and mitigation O) Traffic, air qual/ty ~.ud neise mu~ be ~eevaluated in light of increased devctor-m~t and approval of t-Lighway 30 A. lthough there axe rc.fcrenc~ in the file a 'traffic study", ~-ne was localext. That traffic study, however, could not have considered the approval and knminent conswaetion of Highway 30. Exitbit 13 is comem:nahon from the San BcmardL'~o A.ssociated Governtattoo; dated June 6, 1997 s',aling tkat the Highway 30 ~ was cer. ifi,xi a~d tb.~t tiaa t-!sven Vie~' e.xi: has Seen appro~'~. Actre= ai Haven View will significantly increase walfic in ~e ~e.a. Of obvious impact to fi~ L~uren Development Projet! is the new access that the public will have to she NaI/onal ForesL Additionally, num~ous other developments in the immedislc ~ have octre-red since 1990 thai were not e. onsidcrcd. Traffic alone kom the Sunny zongzcgadonal services a two r..btw-'-,-~ on Hayca north o~'ia4.~sidc ha.v~ sil~;n~. :~mtly increased weekend traffic. Moreover, the record conradns no w,'idence concerning ~ impacts that the Dev¢lopmerrt will have during con_x~clion on existlag homeo~,'ner~. Whtm ~he 1990 Negative D~laration v,~ ~provcd, less shah 15 homes were built i~ Haven X'i~t and RC-5. Now over $0 homes ~re lived i~ wit lhe attend~mt pedestrian ~l:fic. None of thcse chaniD:d circumstances have bcc-n c~nsidered and r~uL-e further z.~elysis under CEQA. ,o Contr'a.ry to the reprcsentatioms of Lauren D~vetol~ment ~ i~ ~] 16, 1~7 co~ondence zhal ~c.~i~t ~fion of ~e prop~ w~ dc~, ~c~l Br~, l~div. g e~ ~ ~lu~ ~ ~ge ~b h~i~, h~ ~nclud~ "~ my op~on ~hc propc~ ~hi~ T~dvc ~rac~ No. 14771 is pHmc h~i~ ~ I~ support a wide r~ge of ~l~fe, ~clu~g ~e C~fo~a G~h~. w~ch is a f~ally-lisied ~ent~ ~ies. Addifio~ly, ~he mb~t pro~ ~ ~p~ ~e S~ Diego Hom~ Li~d ~d Pl~'s ~ Lit)'." ~t~ ~1. al ~ 3). ~1~1 00 '00 00:00 ...... 15G June 11,-1997 Also directly bcm'ing on a~w traffic imparts uot c0nsidcrcd prc~io,-qy am lxrtenlial disDults betwcen Lam~ Dm'de>lrmCat, R.C-5 and tDevcaa View co~rning acc~s~. In its April 16, 1997 Design R~i~w Application (Exln~it 12). Laar~ Dcvclopmm3t inco.'r~lly cl~/.ms thaI'~rccDrde~ agreemeats ~ul~tc 1~ ~ecs~ io ~ future homes will not cans= s/gnilicant tm_qic impact tipoil tht ~xisting there is ~1 ,t.Tel~ no discur. sion about traffic or other CEQA Mar~ [mportamty. ~he Developer is aware that Rancho Cucamonga-5 ta,as questioned its arcess rights over RC-5's ca.scmrn!.s ('Exhibit 12)," any ~ach claim, Lauren Dcvelopn~at ~sl'fi¢ would la~ coUr~ut:,ated o¥cr Ciov~ and T~tem/n Haven View. This is.me mum be rr.mtv~ ~(i the chtug."od contrition addrcss~ b:fore f'mal approval ofgae Project (4) Safe'ty Risks of ',.he P:riph.-ral Couta/nment of P.t'mov~ of Levco Must Bc Kc~v,.l 'uatcd A.~guably u% mo~t serious impact ~t could Mvc on s~ounding do~~t r~dmB (~ wrll ~ ~c ~~ of La~ D~'c!o~t ~om~) is ~c r~val of tfie cxi~g ~fiph~ mn~nmcnt tcvec. ~mm Dcwlopm~t h~ j~ficd im mox~l by clalmi,g ~a~ ~e ~ C~k Ch~tl, mort th~ one mile to ~c ~o~, is mfficiml D~ Creek Debris B~m and ~ C~ ~mmel obqa~ "~t u~ f~ ~c ~ ~d ~ale. ~ng L% site dercirCle" ~bit Attached is the Dcctm-~on o1' Bruce Col'Ar~, a civil engiceer with Darers & Moore, one. of the largest lz~otectmical and engineering firms in the world (Exhibit 4) Mr. ColIres, who lass parricula~ expertise in flood control !m-ojea:az, haq concluded _tt-.zt the rc:m. ov-g of the periph~a-al conteic'n~en! levee reduces t.~ .s~fery of downEradicn. t r~iden~ and increasea po~"iblc flood.~g. (Collins Da:l. at 'I 3) He further concludca that the mitigaIio-2 mcasurc~ proposed by ~ Development are mat an adequate ,mbslirum for the peripheral containment levee. As iris, Mr. C.~]Lins points out that th~ Deer Creek Channel does not pro'fide absolulc prot..~-fion for downgradient homes. (Collins Deel. a~ '~ 3) t, The Keeordexi Easem~mt Agra-turret Nos. 056050 and 056051 are iu t~c Planning File. Other relevara :sad relat*d ¢axemea-tt agieeraen~s refcr=ac.~l in uhe file were not located. 101 00 ~00 00~00 &me Page 12 Since the origimd Negative I~eclaratkm was issued, f~ mc~c i~ the facI chat post- ~. 990 information c,mccming local carth~lu~ faults ha~ n6t ~ns~dm'~!. The cxi~ug I)e~r C, rc~ Channel is in close tm~x~ty t~ thin fanIt could thu~ bc impacted in an eaChquake. (Cullira Deck a~ '~ 5) D~di~ u~xm the extcm of the rcp~ix-s required, the dd:n'is b~ nfight not bc fully opcr~m'tal)' When removal of the levee was first add_~ss~d in 1990, ~ ~m ~ ~ord ~ Cupola ~d ~s ~ ~vc h~ sub~d~iy mo~ ~ ~ ~ D~,:l~m~t?~ Do~mt ~d~ts of ~ ~v~topm~t m~ mty on ~ Dcvclopm~t's fi~ whelm to complete ~c Pmj~ ~d m~ ~c ~c 40 hom~ to ~a~ ~c I~. ~s la~ ~t is ofp~ ~ '~ro~U" built by La~ ~vcl~m~l. If ~s i~ ~e Ci~'s ~om it is net ~c ~d~d~ of Hav~ Vi~ p~ o~m~s ~d it ~ ~ su~ by ~c CONCLUSION Appror--I of Development Review 97-]] ~ol~ ~e ~c ~c~ ~i~' Act ~d ~hc Fed~l ~g~ S~i~ AcL Giv~ ~c I~1 of pubic con~v~ s~ng l~s ~j~k ~ by ~c E~g Co~ou of I~ No. 94-11. c~xly on the ~t Ag~ ~ould not ~. ~ ~e Ping Co~i~ion musl rcci~ula~c ~c Negate D~I~, ~uhc ~~ ~ ~ The s~fcty :,ss~,cs s'urrmmdh~ .,*c'movM oFthe levee ~e not limited ~ compliance xvith CEQA bu~ aim must bc reviewed ,,,uicr the s~fer~' mt, i'n~zring ~Jc:sil~n cFileria set forth by Cu~'-monga O~dinanc~. Afi'cc~cd property owners have nol h~ safilo!one time ~o ev~lume the tmgincc~g dcsi~ ~ D~'clopcr bluc prints on these issues. t3 Public informw. ioa curtccrp. ing Dcvctop~'s resources is tiroltad4 howeve-r, the a~tachcd Du~ & Bradserect ~ho~ mi~ima', ~ts. Adxtxcsscs providc~ by Laden i~ public recards do no~ show ~ Ouca.monga IocaE.'ou ~ uhc Agoura ~td.rcsses are a juice b~ v. nd a res~&mcc OExh/bit 14). The name of~,c located at the address t~rovid~ by Lau.re~ o~ Arrow Route is Con_struc:icn Corp. 101 00 '00 00~0 J~mcs Martm~-~, Esq. June II, 199'/ CEQA, and allow suffid~nt lime for s.ff~t~xt lxopcrty owners to comment other te.~Ialivc map condilion~ and co~iiancc cor~t-r~ that could nol b,c ~ in ~ Iimc ,11onc~lJ' Rcspecrfulty ~ubmim:d. Malis~a Hathllway Mc~'~ Attorney £or ~o~ IJnit~:l Fcrr The Honorable Cucamrmga O~y Council: Tim Honor, hie William J. Alexander'"' The Honorable Diane W'dliam~ The Honorable Paul Blame The Honorable James V. L-'Sm'alalo The Honm'abl: Rex Clm/crrc2 M~. Lccona Klippstcin, Spirit of th~ Sage Council Larry Sil,'cr, Esq., C. alifomia En~,Smnmtmral Legal Fund S~o~ Eliason, United States Dcm'tm~nt of the Luteflor, Fish and Wildlife Sm',ti~ Liam Davis, Califorrd~ D~arrm~:nt or Fish and G~rn¢ Franle-ClilTord, The Los Anirclc~ Tim:,. ~ CURE reserves all fi~hI~ t~ challenge the Dcvclopmc,nt once the complete rcr. ord is obta. ined and rea.,~nablc tlmc to respond is provided. Our couccras include, but are .no: lirrfit'-.d to, elevation envelope as it al~,~ar~ ~at: ~s of lu~c 4, 1997 review, I_m, rcr. Development is st/l[ n~t in compliance w/th Rcsot. ution 1S3. Addition~ly, CURE rcsan'~ca the right ro chaltcr~ge tmdc-r the ef Hillside.De~;~topment Regulations Sc~tior, 17.24 cf the Developing:at Code. James .Markman, Esq. June 11, 1997 Page 14 Exiffbit 1 - Exkibit 2 - Extxibit 3 o Extxibi1.4 - Exhibit 5 - Exhibit 6 - Exifibk 7 - Ext:fibit 8 - Exhibit 9 - Exhibit 10 - Exhibit ] 1 - Exhibi£ 12 - £xl-fibi~ 13 - Exhibit 14- Exhibit 15 - rJ~'-f OF £XI-IIBITS 3tme 10, 1997 Mr.~eith |ett~r to Jame~ Maxk~an Petition May 2B, i~7 ~d~ i~ ~ Tom ~ B~cc Colfins D~on 1~e 10. 1~7 I~ ~m U.S. D~~ of ~t~ m Tom ~ ~ifo~a ~~t of F~ ~d G~c El~t ~g ~d Di~iw Dat~ NoVon ~chael B~ ~on ~y 28, i997 I~ ~m L~ ~topm~t to Pl~g May 2D, 1997 ~chd M~sg~t Notc= I~6al Sm~y ChUm ~ N~ative D~l~6on ~obzr 14, 19~ 1~ ~om Crisco ;o Nis~ ~fil 16, 1997 ~ D~elopm~; lea= ~ D~ Renew ~ptication J~e 6, !9~7 S~ B~o ~oci~ ~v~m C~nd~c re Highway 30 ~ J~e 6, 1997 ~v~g~an R~o~ of L~ Troxel 3~c 6, 1997 l~ ~m Sp~l of~c Sage ~:il 101 00 '00 00:00 ~.~-~z. 1 $ 7 9 10 11 12 13 22 23 24 25 27 28 ~0 I, Michael Brennan, declare and suets ~s follows: 1. I havc o Bachclot of Scicncc~ Dc~rc¢ in Biolo~icul Sciences from the Callforn/a State Polytechnic Unlv=r~ity and I am ~r~ntly ~l=t~g a Masters ~gree priam at California Pol~ecnic P~na in FAre Ecol~y of Allu-i~l F~ Sage Scrub. I currently am thu lead blol~ist co--lesioned by the Califo~ia ~tdelinee for all remmlnin~ Alluvial Pan Sage of ~lifo~ia. I have e~ive e~erience evaluating wildlite ~d pl~t habitat ~d I have specffi~ e~ertise in the ~luvial F~ Sa~ Sc~ habitat. 2. I ~ve walked the boundaries of 1~, NO. 14771 wh/ch ~ u~derstand is proposed for tract home 15 dev=lop~ent. The statements ~ade herein are in support of 16 Cucamongane Unified for Reasonable Expansion'= ("CURE') 17 opposition ~o that dev~lo~ent ~ithou~ an up,ted and a~Dropriate 18 envlronmcntal l~ac5 E~Udy. Th~ state--mrs made herein are of my 19 personal ~owledge and, If called as a witness, I ~utd and could 20 t~s=lfy to th= t~th 21 3. In ~ opini~, ~ property within Tentative Tract No. 14771 i~ prime ~itat ~ea to eup~rt a wide range of wildlife, includin~ the ~ifo~ia Gnatcatcher which is a federally list6d ~dangercd s~cies. Addiuio~l, the pro~rty c~ suppo~ the San Di~o Ho~ed Lizard and Plummer's Mariposa Lily. 4. Moreover~ the s~ject p~rty and surrounding area is one of the eight re~inin~ mnd the second largesz stand 101 00 ~00 00:00 156 Pi? ! 2 5 6 7 9 11 ~2 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 Of AFSS in t-hE world and therefore its pr~serwation is critical. In my opinion, the Droposed develop)mete would cause substantial e~vironmental damage an~ ~ub~tantiall¥ and avoidably injure aud, in fact, destroy wildlife end their h~itat. 5. I have not had the opportunity to review the biol~iual euz',ey~ -~u~poeedly' collduc[~d by the d=v=loper because they are ~ot available in the City of Rancho Cucamonga fil¢~ and n:ith=r ~he California Department o~ fish & Garae or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife have b=cn able to locate thc report Zhm~ [he developer claims to have filed. Without access to those surveys, I cara~ot deter~-ne whether =hcy were conducted correctly using valid ,cien~ific methods nor cron I ~etermine if the consultant conducting the survey was qualified to evaluate the unique Alluvial Fen Sage Scru3o. I have reviewe~ correspondence fr~m Laure_~ D~velo?~ent dated A~ril 16, 1997 concludin~ 'that the area of the sit= degraded by t~h= balm, swale and excess d/r~ fro~ the ~wale covers ou=r 75 ~rcent of th~ site. the property is la~cly dis~pted ~th little (if any) left its natural condition. Foyer water courses, ~h draining into it, no l~g=r function due to the presence ~f n=~ d~r creek c~nel to the eae~." ~rs~al obse~a~ions. First, virtually 99 ~rcent of the ~itu ha~ rcgcncratcd to a ~turc Alluvial F~ Sage Sc~ c~unity. Tkis is indicated by the prcsenc= of scc~g rcc~itmcnt of chaparral species such as C~miee (Adenos~o~e fasciculatum), Bitchisel ~ountain ~ah~y {Ccrcoca~ b~uloide~, Ce~o~hue 101 00 '00 00~00 1 2 3 5 7 9 1O 11 12 13 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 ~,~;~7 .Im'~: ~c 1 cras~tfolius, ar~. most i~r~tly, the presence of ~tuza pla~[s of scml~broo~ (Lepido~partum ~a~tum). I also disagree that ~e ~r% of Deer ~eek Was~ ~n~ ~h~ugh ~s pro~ed d~elo~en~ 'no l~ger f~ctioa,". There is f~sh all~ial deposi~ of sand in addition Zo the presence of b~ ~cc~ris. ~h of which ar~ cRaracteri~ic o~ f~ctionin~ ~te~ttan5 7. At the =i~ of the initial study checklist for the n=gativ~ declaration in ~e kate 1980s, the property ~y non have had ~turt alluvial gro~h as it appears that =he site was graded in the mid-1980s. The c~racter of the v=getati~ on the prope~y ap~ars to have si~ifi~tly ch~ed since that time and now sup~rts a wide range of species a~ plant life. These c~d circu~tanc=s nec=~itate th= dtvelopm~ of ~ act~l enviro~ntal impact ~tudy to a~=~s alt~rna%ive project6 ~nd to identify misigati~ meaeurere to appropriat=ly r=ducc th~ i~act to plants and wildlifu ~ their habitat. 8. I am pre~d to ~h0w slides ~d to teeti~y on ~h=e= ieeu=s at [he June 11, 1997 hearin~ if p=~itted by the Pla~ing Co~ission. i~ t~e and correct and that this Declara~ion was ~ecuted at ~ncho ~camon~a, califo~i=, ~ Jun= 8, 1917. United States Department of the Interior Call to have picked up TO: [ ,/'] FACSIggrr .~ TRANSMI'fTAI. ~FORNf lane Nnmher of pages including lhis Phone No.: (-~t) -~fig- o500 Fax No.: (760) 43t-9615 431-5902 Phone No.: (760) 43 t-9440 [please note that our arm code lag been ch~ged to (760)]. C OiVA'VliENTS: X i-tope -e~,'a c/~..-c,'6'e_s · -~ 0-~--w, w-~t~ ~t~ ~-{ oo-.,-l FA]~ ~0. ~19 431 5902 ?. 2 Improvement Zone '08-1. S&N BERNARDINO COUNIY SURVEYOR 385 N. Arro,heod. S.B.. CA 92415 F~Fm~tion of DATE 3- 7-94 County 5<rvic< A~e~ 70 LARRY £. COllOH County Surveyor ¢DEPUIY r ~ II II d .L From: John L. ~day To: ~drew ~ ~eO ~[e: B~BIg7 ~me: 10:27'~c ~l Page 3 of 5 SENT BY: R CUCA~ONGA COM DEVj ~-26-97 10:1~A~; g0~772847 => Lauren Development; ~2/4 86/25/1997 15:32 31~5985192 ~G R5 P~GE 81 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 Qe~den SRom, suite 50 Mr. Brad Buffer, Planner Ctty o1' f~encno Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Canlet Drive Rancho Cucemong=, Callfomia 01729 June 23,1997 Dear Mr. BuNcr. Tract 14771 and Lauren Oeve{opment~$ PFopo~d Project San E!emardino County The poten~l for ~uren Development ~ ~ ~ ~~ of T~ 14~t ~ any area ~thin ~e (RAF55) ~abltm ~ the po~nfial ~ =uppoff ~e Cal~om~ gnarler (~top~la ~li~mice ~ifomi~), e f~eral ~mat~ a~ ~te 'S~s of Spatial Con~m (~C)'. ~g o~F As cuffs.fly under. toad by tile Deparlrnent, approval of ~im developmere HaDdar Consolation Plan (MSHCP). ~ ~ ~tS deveJo~ent area iI ~n. to ~e Memorandum of Unde~ndin~ (MOU) on June 8. 1995. A~ such. the Oe~)artment believes addSlanai environmental nayJew is now requi~ed to fully c~scio~ the projeers c. un~nt potential rdgnLficant a-npacts [o sensltWe wficlllfe resources. We be{ieve that pursuant to ttte Ca#f(xnia Environmental Qualtty Act (CEQA), recin:utaNon of the Negath/e Declaration is warranteel DeCau~a: 1) lubstantial chinlee has occurred with proposed for development te rto~ within an ac~ve Natural Community Conservation Ptannin0 (NCCP) ar'e~3 - of which t~e City {ea pertlc~lpmnt and 2) n~' information of ~ubatantlal importance to the proieCt has b~come avaiiabha and the proiec. t will now have o~e or mor~ significant effects not previously di~.cu[sed, a~ the pmpo~ed c~evelopment will result in a significant impact to the reduction in the numbers of unique plants and animals essodated with RAFSS, a state significant natural area/habitat ranked m5 'very threatened', (CEQA Guidehnes, Section 15102). P~C~E Page 4 of 5 #3/4 e2 fvlr, Br~d Bullet June 23, lgg7 Page Two Therefore, we respec~ully request the City to ~dvise the Department as ~oon as possible regarding the current status of thi~ m-oject and any rerr~ning I~wmite. mc~'¢la~1on, or other actions that will require approval of the City, and whe~er the appm,,,a~ is t~ved to be 'discletionary' by the City. I~ease advise us of the a~D~Oxlmate date(s) ~hen these atoproyals. d'~crefionary or otherwise, are anticipated and/or sc~edulecl. I1' tiaa City believes no further d~scm'fionary approvals or decisions are reqtlired, please advise the Department of any crier known permit= or approvals by other agencies, such as San Bernardino County FIoad Control or f~egionmt Waist Ouafity CoT,~,~ ao.~, that are required before this project may proceed. Al~o, please either provide us with copies or instruct us as to how copies may 13e obtained for the inmal and current project de.~ign artcl proposal, the Negative Declarer;on, Nottee of Determination'arid any document;, reports or irtfomla~lon used in completing the August 14, 1990 Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project. We e~ fiopeful Lauren Develolamen~ wfil be able to rampicts ~e addlionel gnatcat~er ~eys required by ~e U.~. Fish end ~ldiffe Se~t~ (US~), ~y ~e Department, to deter~ne presen~ o~ absen~ i~ ~is area (m: USFWS Tom G~hn ~ateo June 10. lg97). Unders~ndably, d~ ~ ~e ~ent pm~n~ threeteneO" habitat and the length of time ~ has ~nsp~red be~n ~ i~i s~dy of the tentafiv~ sub~tv~s~n me~ and ~ aOual proposed dev~pment, there may be so~ con.sion on our pa~ as to how this p~je~ h~s already D~n approved. In c~tion ~h MOU. we respe~fully reque~ no graded ~its be issued by the C~ for th~ pmj~ until i~s~ i~ resolved. We t~k ~o~ (o m~fing ~ ~e ~ an~ Lauren ~[op~nt df~ss resolu~n of our ~ms as ~on ~ possible. Thank you for your time and additional consideration regan:llng th~ proposed development, if you have any questJons or concerns r~garaing trtis letter, p~ease feel free to contact Mr. B~ll T~ppets of our NCCP program at (619) 467-4212. You can mail the requested information dlrectty to Mr. 'i~ppets at the following address: Califomla Department of Fish and Game, NCCP Program, 4949 Vie~idge Avenue, San Diego, Ca~ornJa 92123; fax (~lg) ~-67- 4235. Copy: See Attac~ed List .//~"~ {Acting Regional Manager . F~m: J~ L. ~day To: ~dr~ ~ ~eO Date: 6~6~7 ~me: 10:23'~ ~,1 ~ge 5 of 5 · SENT BY: R CUCAUONGA COM DEV; u-26-g7 10:1gA~(; 90~772847 -> L~uren DeveZopment; ~4/4 86125/1~7 15:32 3!65985i~2 ~G R5 e~ 03 Mr. Brad Bullet June 23, 1997 Page Three Copy:. Mr. John Allclay Lauren Development Rancho Cucamonga, California Mr. Curt Talcher Depa~ent of Fieh anti Game Long Beach, California Mr. sal T~ Department of ~=h and Game San Diego, California Mr. Bruc~ Kinney Department of Fish and Game Bishop. California 7 HEWITT & McGumE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 M~.rt~ur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 · (714) 798-051! (fax) MARK R. McGUIi~ DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F, PALCFIIKOFF PAUL A. ROSVE W~LLI~ L. Two~£y JO~8 P. June25, 1997 Via Fax and U.S. Mail Mr. Gall Koberich U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: USFWS Letter Dated June 10, 1997 to City of Rancho Cucamonea Dear Mr. Koberich: Transmined herewith is a copy of a letter from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 anention to this matter. Sincerely, t ' Andrew K Hartzeg----/ AKH/Icc Sherry Barrett (via fax) Jeff Newman (via fax) 06-25-97 $:\DOC\161\CORR\97060029.EIR United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WI1.DLL~ SERVICE C~bbad F~Jd 2'7,30 bolmr Jur~10,1997 City of P,~ncho Cuc~monga Pierming Depm-tmcnt 10500 Civi= Center Drive Rmw. ho C'ur..m'aong~, C_~ifomi~, 91729 Svbject: Califomi,, C.m,~t;:hez Sur~ey$ for Trot 14771 Dear Mr. Gridre: Thi~ letrex follow~ ,, phone convcrs*tion beyween yonIfad Smt Elijah ~d M~ Be~ Wolfe offs offi~ on d~ 10, 1~97, ~ which ~ U.S. Fish ~d Wildlife Se~i~ m~c el~ ~ s~c~ for C~lifom~ Gn~m~mhc~ mn~d by ~cn ~clopmcm f~ 14771 were not ~te m ~ cl~ce ~ ~e ~g~ S~i~ Act. ~fcr~cc ~'~ protocol. ti~ugh ~ *qll h~ ~c ~liet pml~l for ptoj~m i~fi~ p,ior B~ ~s ~ h~ ~cn &~incd m ~ s~mbl¢ ~ifo~a G~ ~bimt ~ Sewice ,ppmv~ ~ the S~ ~,ld ~ ~mide~ to ~ ~ violion of~ I~e prohibition 9 oflhc En~gct~ S~i~ Am. ~cmfore no g~ing pcmiu ~d ~ ism~ Scon Eli~on or M~ B~h Woulfe of this office. [[Eta/ITT & McGUIRE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 Macarthur Boulevard, Suim I0~0 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 o (714) 798-0511 (fax) June 26, 1997 ~ R. McGum,~ DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALCIqlKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILldAM L. TWO~EY $OfiN 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 Develoument, Inc. Tract No. 14771 USFWS Letter to City of Rancho Cucamouga 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 Califoraia 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 WonIre of your office. You/nformed 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 smgte, 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 flies. 3. The Service does not know the identity of the individual who reportedly saw one or, at mos____~t, 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\COi~R\O7060031.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 indiv/dual once or twice removed from the alleged observation. 6. The "observation" of one gnatcatcher or two was allegedly in or adjacent to the North Eftwanda 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 finn 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 11/2 miles from my client's property. Gnatcatcher territories typically range from 3 to 20 acres. Thus, if a gnatcatcher was seen in the North Eftwanda 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 Eftwanda 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\CO~R\9?O60031.[TR Mr. Jeff Newma.u 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. Hartzef AKH/clt Enclosure CC: Gail Koberich (w/encl. - via facsimile) Sherry Barren (w/encl. - via facsimile) John Allday (w/encl. - via facsimile) Michael Spear (w/encl. - via facsimile) 06-26-97 ~021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060031.LTR United States Department of the Inter/or Jun~ 10, 1997 Mr. Tom Clratm City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civk: Ce~zer Drive Rancho C-'ucamonga, California, 91729 Subjoel: California Croatcatcher Surveys for Tram 14771 D~t M~. Grotto: This letrex foltow~ a phone v.~nvcraation between y~!f~d S~: Eli~.~ ~d M~ Bc~ Wolfe of ~s offi~ on J~c 10, 1997, ~ which ~ U~. F~ ~d Wi~life Sc~ (Sc~i~) m~c ~ ~u s~c~ for Catifom~ Gnamamh~ mn~d by ~cn ~clopmcm ~mtml s~fied ~l 7 mmcys ~c n~d~ if ~om~ dmqng ~ ~ing ~n ~d pm~ol, ~l~ugh ~ ~qll h~m ~c ~licr pmt~l for ptoj~m i~fi~ prior m appm~ ~ lhe S~ ~uld ~ ~midc~ to ~ a violion of~ T~c prohibition of ~don 9 ofl~ En~ger~ S~ Acl. ~ercfore no g~ing pc~iu ~ ~ ism~ ~Ii[ ~is ~ is ~tved. If you have ~y quitiota ~ ~ia or ~la~ mat~ pte~ Scon Eli~on or M~ B~ Woulfe efthis office. ~ Field Su~isor D ff_,~q C~.LE.5 $. EXO~q [flUfill H EWrr"r Jo~N D. HUBSOft HE~TT & McGUrRE, LLP A"I~OI:~"~-'YS AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite I050 Irvine. California 92612 ('714) 798-0500 - (714) 798-0511 (fax) MARK R. McGmRff Dff.~rtql$ D. O'Nr/t. JAY F. P~&C!'IIKOFF PAUL A. RO~ JO~qN P. Y~ER June 27, 1997 The Honorable David Barker Chairman, City of Rancho Cucarnonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91729 Re: Development Review 97-11/Lauren Development (Tract 1477D Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: This 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 Cucamonga ("City") by certain homeowners near the project site, acting under the recently named group Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE"), and The Spirit of the Sage Council CSSC") regarding compliance with certain natural resource statutes, regulations and agreements and the Califorrfia 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 (mESA") and the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding the possible development of the San Bernardino Valley-Wide MuRi-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. Plannin~ Commission Approval of Lauren's Desj~cm Review Application and Implementation of the Proiec~ Will Not Result In Any Violation of the Federat Endan~oered Species Act. Independent of, and'irrespective of, its 1ocat 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, ~ven the facts and circumstances of this project, the ESA imposes no restriction on Lauren or the City with respect ~o design review, issuance of grading permits or the grading of the property. S:\00C\161\CO~R\P7060030.LI2 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 g-namatcher ("Gnatcatcher") - in connection with grading its property. t If grading the property would result in such injury, Lauren would need to obtain an incidental take permit (Section 100) perm/t) 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 propert3,. Through such consultation Lauren learned that the only listed species which could conceivably be located on the site was the Gnatcatcher, although tile 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 th/s year. As the enclosed report notes, the surveys were conducted by qualified biologists in conformance with the Southern Califom/a 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 California Department 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 realring 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. tt 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 approva[ from the Service prior to issuance of a grading permit. Again, no such condition exists. t 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (1996). 06-26-97 3021-ODOO2 S:\D~C\t61\C~R\97060~3O.L12 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 reques~ more in others. Ironically, most past surveys using the three visit methodology have been "g-randfathered" 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 regulated 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 undersig"ned that the basis for the Service's June 10 claim that "the property is adjacent to tcnown occupied California gnatcatcher habitat" consists of a verbal report from an unkmown individual that last year one bird believed by that unknown person to be a Gnatcatcher was seen in or near the North Eftwanda Preserve - approximately 1.5 miles to the 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 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 mite or more away from the project site would not give the Service a basis to request anv~ing from the Ci~ or I.~uren Development. The San Bernardino Valley-wide Multi-svecies Habitat Conservation Plan MOU Does Not Reauire the City to Conduct Any Further Biological Review of the Proiezt 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 Eftwanda Preserve at some earlier time. Of course, historic reports are of little relevance to the Service's statement. 06-26-97 3021-~0002 S:\~OC\161\C~RR\97a6DO30_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 desired specifically to preclude any such mandatory obligations. The major purpose of the MOU is to establish some initial conceptual frameworks for a possible muir/pie-species conservation plan for a portion of San Bernardino County. The development of such a plan is expected to require a minimum 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 npt 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 be~inrfin~ the entitlement process. According to ~e MOU, the Guidelines are meant to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and [Deparmtent 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-I. This voluntary review process is offered to "[eliminate the historic problem in which] comments on proposed projects are not received from the Deparmaent of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service until very late in the lead a~ency s decision- making process." MOU at F-1. Thus, the review process reaue~ed by SSC does not even aPD[¥ Io a proiect such as Lauren's that was approved years ado and where the City has only limited additional discretion over narrow asr~cts of the proiect's implementation. Nevertheless, even if the Guidelines could be construed 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 Depmm~ent are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or fl6-26-97 3~21-~0B02 S:\D~C\161\CDRR\97O6~f30.LT2 The HonorableDavid 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. CURE's and SSC's Assertions Concerning CEOA Comvletelv Misstate the Facts and Law. The assertions of CURE's enviroranental counsel, Malissa McKeith, concerning the Ciry'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 reexarnine 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 Planmug 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 ~rovide the a~encv with the ability to "shave the mroiect" in order to minimize environmental impacts. Remy and Thomas, Guide to CEOA, p. 42 (1996 Edition) (emphasis added). 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:kDOC\I61\CORR\P7~60030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker 3une 27, 1997 Page 6 The very case Ms. McKeith selectively quoted from in her letter to the City Anomey makes the same point: "The touct'mtone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape the project in any way which would res2ond to any of the environmental concerns which reign be identified in an environmental impact remote." Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 267 (1987). Of course, Ms. McKeith failed to quote titis sentence in her letter. Here, the Planning Commission's discretion in the context of desig-n review has absolutely no bearing on the alleged environrnental concerns raised by CURE. To paraphrase the Assistant CiD' 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. Wt'dle 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 lmow that none of these proposed concerns are addressed or addressable as van of design review. One easy way to illustram 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 vegetazion, rough grade the 40 buildable lots, install all subdivision improvements, including roads, sell the lots to forty (40) different individuals, and then submit nD to 40 separate design review am2tieations. Completing such taslcs 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 slill 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 desicon review process. Ms. McKeith tmows this: if she does not tmow this, she is grossly unfamiliar with the appli:able law. Ill. Even If Desig'n Review Triggered Reevaluation of the Entire Proiect Under CEOA, the Alleged Changed Circumstances Are All Red Herrings. 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. 06-26-97 S021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 7 First, the listing of the coastal Califorrfia gnatcatcher could only conceivably be a sigrfificant new circumstance if the site contained Gnatcatchers, wh/ch 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 sig~rfificant. Rightly or wrongly, a determination of insigrfificant impacts was made at the time the Negative Declaration was adopted and even Ms. McKeith actmowtedges that the time to challenge that determination has ton~ since ~assed. Third, CURE'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 sig-mficant 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 m/ght not be implemented properly as "si~m-fificam new information"/s 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 sign/ticant; 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.g., Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (t991); Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Rancho California Water District, 43 Cal. App. 4th 425 (1996). These failings 06o26-97 3021~00002 S:\DOC\161\~O~R\97060030.L~2 The HonorableDavid Barker 3une 27, 1997 Page 8 compound the fundamental error that CURE has made, which is that desig-n review does no__it trigger CEQA review of the entire project. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the very distorted representations made by CUKE, 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. Enclosures CC~ William Bethel Peter Tolstoy Larry McNeil Andrew K. Hartzell Richard Maclos Gail Koberich Ralph Hanson, Esq..leff Newman .~ohn Allday Bill Tippea 06-26-97 3021-00002 $:\00C\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 Planning Consut nts Research 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 CALFFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS, tL4NCHO CUCA_~IONGA Dear Ms. WonIre: At the request of Lauren Development, Planning Consultants Res-,'arr'h (PCR) has conducted four (4) surveys for the coastal California gnazc2mher (?oliopzila r,,iifornica cMi. fornicn) at their Rancho Cucamonga project site. No individuals of this species were observed or otherveise detected on site or w/thin adjacent habitit areas during any of the survey efforts. We offer the following repor¢ of our survey activities and results. Location The pro jew site encompasses approxirrzrely v5 acres near the northern ~erm/nus of Haven Avenue w/o_in the City of Rancho Cur_amonga (s~ Extfibir 1)..~ks sho~vn 'on a U.S. Geotogi:al Survey topographic mzp, the size l/es within the £fiwanda altuv/al fan ar the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and may be referenced as k/rig w/thin the nonh~st corner of Section 24 , T1N, R7W on the Cur2monga Peak 7.5 minute quadrangle (see Exhibit 2). The project size elevation rang~ from 2,145 f~t above mean sea level ~o 2,299 feet'above mean sea t=vel. The entire site and the arei w/thin approx/mamty 500 linear f~t of the s/re boundaries w~s considered ro represent the study area. Plant Communities Soils over the entire sire appear to consist of alluvium composed of sands, grovel, .rocks and occasional boulders. These conditions support a somewhat heterogeneous community of R./versid~n zllu~Sal fan sage scrub. Approximamly one half of me s/re supports a fairly urfiform stand oftffis comrnun./ty dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonumfnxcic~larz~rn), white sage (Salvin ~pia~a) ~nd California sage (Arrern. ixig californica). Thi:.kte. af yerba santa (Eriodicryon ~39 Gl~nn~rye. -qu/~e B L.,~gun.a ~e~nch - C~92S51 Tel: {714) ~7-0144 FAX: [714) 4.~'7-D153 -qan:a ~Vlonic. a - CA 90401 Tel: 13'1 O) FAX: [g~0) 451-5279 Plannin§ Consultants Research Mary Beth Woulfe Fcb~ary 28, 1997 ?ag~ 2 rr~o~oliztm) and dem-w~d (Lozz~ ~copori~) art ~so co~on in ~asc ar~. Ih~c s~bs grow ~o ~ f~t in height and fo~ a c~opy of 80 to 90 percent cover. Ihe r:~ng one ~lf of ~c s{~c suppo~ ~ s~ ~cci=s w{~ ~ ~ddifion of mountain mahogany (Cercocn~=i beaMsidex), golden cu~ent (Ribex a~reum) ~d laurel sumac (Mn/oxma lsurinn) which kcome dominant componen~ of ~e s~b cover. These larger s~bs and small zrtzs grow ~o heights of 10 zo 12 f~t ~ add ~ addifio~l d~emion ~o ~e physical habi~ s~mcmre. Canopy cover in these are~ is also gene~lly 80 m 90 per:enq how=yet, areas of 100 percure cover may be found. The vegetation on size and in adjacent areas appears zo 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 einher a pioneer or intermediate stage. This is due to the fairly recent construction of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control charmel which have removed the area from its natural hydrologic regime. Methodology Surveys for California gnatcamber were conducted by Messrs. Steve Nelson and Ruben Ramirez under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit numbers 782272 and 780566. r=s~ctively. Methods employed were in ~'onformance with the Southern C. aliforrfia Coastal Sa§~ Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. This included: surveys no less -dian seven (7) days apart between the hours of one-half hour before sun.rise and 1130; coverage of no more than 25 acres per inv~tigator per hour; and, slowly walMng over the entire size and stopping every 200 f~r and playing a rape of recorded California gnama~cher vozalizations. The rapes were play:d for several seconds only at ear_h station followed by a brief period of listen/rig for a response. A sum.mary of the surveys follows. Survey 1 - Conducted by Nelson on January 4, 1997, commencing a~ 0830 hours and ending ar 0945 hours; route was generally around the per/me~er of the property and along an unimproved ace.s road ~ransversing the center of the property. which ermbied a survey of the entire property; temperature ar the beginning and end of the survey was 44 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were overcast wSth a slight breeze. Survey 2 - Conducted by Nelson and R~mirez on January !3, 1997, commencing at 0817 hours and ending a~ 0930 hours; the rome taken by Nelson was s£milar to Su~ey 1; in addition, P.z.mirez followed m-'~-mdering ~,-ansects gzn:~fy ~g~gging over ~e propezy; temperore held at 45 degrees Fa~:i~; skies were cloudy and it began ~o dri~le during ~: last five minutes of ~e survey; ~:re was no wind. Planrag Consul nts Research Mary Beth Woul£e 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; 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 zizroughout the survey was 58 degre~ Fahrenheit; skies were clear with a slight breeze. Results No California ~natcazchers were observed or otherwise de:ected on site or in the adjacent arms during any of the four survey efforts. In addition, no brown-headed cowbirds (~olorhras eter) were observecl in the study area. Generally, bird activity was fairly high during each of the surveys with a number of speci~ being observed or detected on each occasion. If you have any question_s, please fezl free to contact us. Sincerely, PL.42qN~NG CONSULTANTS PcESE.4_RCH DLrector of Biological Servic~ Ruben S. R,~nirez Senior Ecologist cc: Job. n Allday, Lauren Development LOEB d..OEBu. Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-tr~t: MMCKEl~loeb.com August 7, 1997 Via Failmile M~. C_,ste Sanchez City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Depaxtmcat 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucaraonga, Catifomia 91729 Re: L--~:amongaas Umt~d for Rcasonabtc Expansion ('CUR. E") 20, 1997 City Council Hearm~ Date Dem' Ms. Sanch=z:- I lcamcd ycsterciay evening tixaI ~c hem-mE bcforc ~c Ci~ ~uncil on ~'s ~ ~m ~c July 9, 1997 Pi~ng Co--ion ~ of Devetopm~t D~i~ 97-11 h~ ~ ~ul~ for Au~ 20, 1~7. Ov~ ~e ~ w~ P~ Glod~ of ~ offi~ h~ ~ ~v~ ~nv~6o~ ~ ~u ~ ~ cffon m ~ le h~ng ~e. ~ yoe ma r~t ~nv~ of~uiy ~u s~ ~ ~c ~dpt wo~d noz ~ complete ~fil Aug~ 13, ~ ~c h~ng would not ~ ~h~ul~ ~gl ~ Au~l 20, 1~7. ~ ~g I ~d~ judicial c~on h~gs on beef of ~ ~cc ~c ~ng of Au~s~ 29, 1~7. GL~l13~T. LD2 Ms. Gale Sanchez August 7, 1997 Pagc 2 Ua&rr.the c. irr,,ms~o,c,-~, CURE reqtmsts a continuancc of the hearing date. In exci-amge for a ~ntinuanc~, CURE is willing to ~c~t it~e seeand Cily Council me~Ling date in $c-ptu-mbcr in order ~o at.~mmoc[alc vacalions City era~ioyees may be taking in conjunction with the labor Day hol&lay. Please advise me of the procedure for ge~ng a ruling on .CURE's request for an extension. Vu-~-y truiy yours. Maliasa Hankaway Mc '~~~ . JERRY EAVES SUPHF1VI..qOR. FIFTH OlSY~rCT April 25, 19§5 All HCP Steering Committee Members Re: VALLEY:WIDE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONSERVATION PLAN Dear CommMee 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 i( will be signed by the proper individual. If possible, request that this document be signed and returned by May 15, I995. Should you have any questions, please contact Randy Sco~ of the County Planning Department at (909) 387-~146 or Coun~ Economic and Community Developmen( Director Tom Laurin at (909) 387~593. Sincerely, VES upervisor, FiSh District Enclosure JE:is MEMOFL~,NDUM OF UNDERST~,,DING BY AND BE-PTVEEN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE COUN i-FY OF SAN BERNARDINO, THE FIFTEEN AFFECTED CITIES IN SOUTH~STERN 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 Coun~ of San Bernardino and the undersigned cities, state and federal agencies and other participating local agencies. The signatories colte~ively are referred to as the "Participating Agencies.' The Participating Agencies for the purposes of this Memorandum are those that have local land use authori~, 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 ,h_ Haditel Conservation Plan. WHEREAS, the Pariicipaling Agencies are among the local governments, self-governing agencies, and state and 'federal agencies that have administrative responsibility or regulatory authori~ over lands within the planning area that are subiect to Federal and State statutes including the Endangered Species Acl o~ 1973 (ESA), as amended. the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quali~ Ac~ (CEQA), the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Federal Fish and VVildlife Coordination Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Ac~, state planning and zoning laws, and local ordinances, and, WHERE_AS, these statutes direct the U.S. Fish and Wiidiife Service ("Service") and the California Department of Fish and Game ("Deparlment") to conserve, protect, and enhance plant, fish, and ~iidlife species and their habitats from adverse effe~s resulting from public and private development and acdons, and, VV ........... ~n_ Pa,~iciDating rn~_m~_~o. the various s,,=,u~es and sources of authori~ under which ",~ . Agencies function do not empower any individual agency to implement a comprehensive, multi-agency program for long-term viabiii~ of seeties of concern, and, ¥VHERF~_AS, the Participating Agencies recognize the need for comprehensive and coordinated protection of soecies o~ concern, and the need ~o integrate their responsibilities and authorities in a coordinated manner to ensure successful timely. and muiuaIly beneficial resoiution of issues involving species of concern, and, ',~,fHER.EAS, the state and federal agencies participating in this Memorandum will ensure tha~ their regulatory decisions and land use oractices will comply with state and federal enwronmental and endangered -~=~- s~.atutes and '='~ul~.ions and ~na~their manaoemen~ " s_,,s,~,~_ biological areas under their a:tions will oromote appropriate use and ~rotect~on of =~ :;:, ~ iuris~i:tions, ~nd. 2.1 Protectio,, of Covered Species. To conserve and protect covered species and the ecosystems on which they depend in perpetui~ wffhin southwestern San Bernardino County pursuant to the ESA and CESA, and not preclude recovery of 'listed species. 2.2 Provide ~qu'rtv 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.' tt is intended that the plan. 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 Effects. 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 Incidental 'Take Permit. To obtain the necessary permits Or take authorizations from the Service and the Department to a~hofize the incidental take of listed species covered Jn ~he ~ptan in connection wfth otherwise lawful adivities within the area subject to the ptan as provided by Section 10(a) of the ESA and Section' 2081 of the CF:SA. · . ..... 2.5 Conservation (Pre-f{stino~ Agreements. The MSHCP is inte'nded to provide for the long term preservation of covered species not currently tiered as threatened or endangered pursuant to the ESA or CESA such that should they become listed, the Department and the Service shall, barring 'unforeseen or exlraordinary" conditions, authorize incidental take for the species. To accomplish this, all non-f~sted species being considered under this ptan will be treated as ff they are already tiered. 'Unforeseen or eZraordinary" condOions shall be defined in the IVlSHCP and its tmptementati0n 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 could not be ~nticipated durin~ the preparation of the Pianl o~' (2):information 'dec, eloped during'. MSHCP irnptementation'.mon?todng that identifies ~onsequences of MSHCP implementalion procedures that .may jeopardize the Continued existence of the species..- . ' ' ' '- : "'" ~ 2.6": Provide Oversioht. Control Measures and Standards of Succes,~. To establish a means in which the MSHCP will provide appropriate and successful methods of: (1) reporting; (2) accounting audits; (3) funding (short and long term); (4) periodic and independent biological evaluation; and' (5) opportunities for adequate public participation. . ' ' CESA by incorp..ting ?re-listing" commitments ir .... the Agreement. It is intended that the Agreement will be entered into by' all Participating Agencies approving the conservation plan, and any private party having an obligation or role in. implementing the conservation plan. The Agreement will provide specff,'i¢ m~igation commitments for private parties and Public Agencies conducting olherwise lawful activities, and assurances by the Participating Agencies to prevent the imposition of inconsistent or overlapping mitigation/compensat!on requirements under any Federal, State, or local draft and final plans a joint environmental review document will be prepared and released ~vhich will satisfy Federal and State requirements. 3.5.'. 'Decision..The acceptance of the plan, the CEQA and NEPA'environmental documents and .[he Section 10(a) permit applications and the signing of an Implementation Agreement by the Service will result in the issuance i:)f Section 10(a) permits, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the ESA, to the local agencies that are participants in .[he planning effort for the public and private lands involved. The acceptance of the pian and the CEQA environmenial documenIalion and '[he signing of an Implementation Agreement by the Department will resuff in the issuance of 2081 take auIhorizations for the covered species that are adequately protected by 1he plan pursuant to 1he CESA to local agencies that are participants in the plan for the public and private lands involved. Other appropriate decision documents will be issued by the Participa.[ing Agencies. 3.6 tmol~m~ntalion. Following or concurren~ wffh the issuance of the biological opinion, adoption of the plan, and raceJot of "= 10(a) aermits and 2081 take au~nor~z=~:ons, the signatories will revise their land use plans and policies to conform wfth the plan and the 10(a) perm~s and 20~1 take authorizations or withdraw from the program. Take aulhofi;'a~ions may not be in effect until land use plans are amended. Should any p.a.~icJpan.[tw~hdraw from the program, f[ may adversely affect the pian area and covered species list and 1herefore may require appropriate modifications of the plan.. The signatories ~ill also ensure that fuiure plans, policies, and actions will be in conformance v~iIh 1he-plan-and 1he So.ion 10(a) permits and 2081 ~ake Should the need arise to amend the plan in accord'anco'with eslabtished procedures due I~ .nev~ information or .,n_ develooment of' more effe~ive management prescriptions or techniques, such amendment will occur through a cooperative effort ,n_ southwestern San Bernardino County thai involving the agencies and the public in" ,~ ~='~<~ authorizations or biological opinions are subject to 10(a) permits 'and 20[~1 '-'= " may have already been issued. - 3.7 ConserVation Strateev... The pian shall maximize the use of appropriate publicly-o~vned lands, comply with te~ally mandaled conservation measures, and provide incentives for conservation of private lands (land acquJsi.tion, density trans'i'ers, land sv.,aps. tax incentives, mitigation ban.ks, elc.). 4.3 Plan Co ,roanco. In order to be a me. ,-tee, Participating Agencies witl ensure that their land use plans and policies are revised to conform with the 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 Fundinq. Funding for this plan will come from a varieff 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 Cornmuniff Conservation Planning Act, the Intermodel Surface Transportation Effqciency Act (ISTEA), Traffic Man. agement Environmental Enhancement ('TMEE) 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 allocaling appropriate staff and support, sePTices. 4.5 Proposed Schedule. Signatories acknowledge that time is of the essence and hereby agree to make their best eftarts to complete and obtain final approval of the ptan by a target date of June 30, ig..qf. A timetine setting fo~h specific dates for the comolet/on of each identified task necessary to complete the plan is contained in A~achment D. 4.6 Environmental Compliance. In recognition of the goal of achieving the timely preparation and approval of the plan, all Pa~icipating Agencies hereby agree thai they will submit any and all comments on the appropria.:e environmental documentation on a timely basis, unless otherwise provided by law. 5.0 ROLE OF THF COUNTY The Coun~ of San Bernardino agrees to provide the following resources and to perform the following functions according to the funding mechanisms agreed to by -[he cries local agencies, coun~ and other interested parties: 5.1 Lead Agency. Act as lead aoency for" ,= ~ ,n_ plan. As lead agency, the CounW will ~n~ Participating Agencies in the provide overall leadership and coordination among ~'o development of this plan. This includes functioning as Local Lead Agency in complying with the CEQA in conjun~ion with the Department and coordinating NEPA compliance in coordination with the S_r~. 5.2 PIanninaT~, Personnel. Provide" =. o, ~n~ planning team. ~=,m ,n~offmarymembers ~'~ 5.3 Facilities Eouipmen!. and Support. Provide ofi~ce facilities to house the planning team and orovide necessary suppo,~ such as office machine supplies, etc. The Counw also agrees ;o armvide automated support, such as u.'ord processing and geographic information system produr. ts directly or through con;facts. '-'¢ ~n_ planning 5.4 Dzta Provide any relevant c=~_ in i~.s mossession for the use of" = team ~_nd the Participating ,Agencies and secure a~ditional '~ '- oubiic lands as 7.0 plan and its ulti~. .e implementation, the Participat,,.~ Agencies will Lrtilize the In,_nm po~_ndal effects of Proiect Review Process, included as A~achment F to consider the '=" individual projects an 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 Depa~ment also agree to provide for.expedited issuance of Section 10(a) permits and 2081 authorizations for Covered Species not currently listed pursuant to the ESA or CESA in the event that a non-listed covered species is listed in the future. · 6.4 Assurances to Plan PadiciDants. The approved plan shall provide assurances to Participating Agencies and iondowners that if the plan is implemented as proposed. no additional land or f~nancJal compensation will be sought from them ~,rff~hout their consent if "unforeseen" or "exiraordinary' circumstances should arise with respect to either listed or unlisted species that are covered by the properly functioning plan. It 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 Depa,~menl 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 a~ accommodating the conservation requirements of the newly listed species v4thin the existing conservation strategies and preserves of the MSHCP. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Good Faff~h. This Memorandum is entered into freely and in good faith by the signatory agencies. Each agency of, irons that execution of this document is ~-4ithin its legal purview and agrees to fulfill the role slated herein and any other tasks and responsibilities incumbent upon Padicipadng Agencies. All of the Participating Agencies by signature to this Memorandum agree to diligently pursue completion of the subiect MSHCP and endorse consensus decisions of the Steering Committee as long as the proposed actions are within the statutory and regulatory ability, of their respective agency. 7.2 Interim Proiec~ Reviews and Approvals. All Parti:ipating Agencies recognize that planning efforts undertaken pursuant to this Memorandum can be prolonged c~rcums~anc_s. All beyond anticipated planning schedules due to various unforeseen ' ' ,~ oarties agree that interim land use actions shall be c3nsidered on a case by case basis within ~'~ ~u,"view o~ each aeencies: individual jurisdiction and in c3moliance with existing laws and regulations. The MSHCP plannin~ effort shall no~ be cause to -=~ "de facto" moratorium foron-ooina other',,,,Jse le,:ally adeouate programs and IN WITNE;SS WHERE;C, , THE PARTIES HERETO have executed this Memorandum, on the date(s) set forth below,' as of the d.ay and year first above wri~en, .. By Date Chair, San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and Flood Control District San Bernardino, California - .. By - Da~e Mayor, City of Chino Chino, Catffomia By Mayor, Cffy of Chino Hills .... Chino HilJs, California By Mayor, City of Cotton Cotton,' California Date Date By Mayor, City of Fontaria .... Fontanal California By Mayor, City of Grand .Terrace ........................ .... Grafid -I-errace, California By Mayor. City of Highland Highland, California Date Date Date 11 ' - Mayor, City of ¥ucaipa Yucaipa, Catifor.nia By. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and W~ldlffe Service Portland, Oregon Date By California State D{rector, Bureau of Land Management Date By District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of ]Engineers Date By Forest Supervisor, San Bernardino National Forest U.S. Forest Service Date By Oire~or, California Department of Fish and Game Da~e By Region D{rec'1o r, Southern California Edison Company Date ~y District Manager, Southern California Gas Company Date By Regional Director, MetroooJitan Water District Date i3 ATTACHMENT A BOUNDARIES OF THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN The Habitat Conservation Plan for the San Bernardino Valley will encompass the ...... area generat[~ bounded by the county lines between San Bernardino County and Los Angetes, Orange and Rivers/de Counties on the west and south and the San Bernardino National Forest Boundary on the north and east. ' · -' Species Coast horned lizard Phrvnosoma coronaturn blainvilfei San Bernardino ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus modestus Coastal rosy boa '-. . · ]Jchanura tfiviroata rosalucca Coast patch-nosed snake _Salvadora hexatipis virc]uttea Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii Birds White-tailed kite ~j:_.~_Qj~ leucurus Northern harrier (~ircu5 cvaneus Sharp-shinned hawk A¢cioit~r sirJanus .' Cooper's Hawk Accipiter Ferruginous hawk Buteo~gatis ':" Golden eagle Aquila chrvsa~tos canadensis American peregrine falcon Falco pereorinatus Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Status Federal FC2IFSS FC2/FSS CSC FC2/FSS FC2IFSS CSC FC2IFSS _...~ ": ..... CFP CFP FSS CSC '-' .~ ::.":' '~ FSS CSC ..- .- FC2 CSC... -....:-::' .. CSC FE SE FSS CSC Species S~us Federal S~a~ San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit ~ calffomicus bennettii Los ~ngetes pocket mouse Peroonathus Ionaimembris brevinasus San Diego pocket mouse Cha~todipus f~al/ax f_~J!~_x San Bernardino) kangroo rat DiDodomv$ merriami ~arvus Southern grasshopper mouse Onvchomy5 Iorridus ramona San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma teDid~ intermedia FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 CSC CSC . ~ CSC . ' CSC CSC.- -- --- CSC _. ' Species Many-stemmed dudleyea Dudteva multicaulis Santa Ana River woollystar Fdastrum densifolium sanctorum Hot Spring fimbristyiis Fimbristylis therma Ils California bedstraw ~ calffornicum primurn Los Angetes sunflower Heliathus ~ p~rishii Smooth tarplant -' ' Hemiz nia 'Foens' i V'is Southern California btack ~valnut JuoJans ¢afifomica ¢atifomica Coulter's goldenfields Lasthenia olabrata cowtted Robinson's peppergrass [ epidium viroinicum robinsonii o~etiated 'Humbofi: tJly . - Lilium humboidtii oceiJatum Pafish's deserl-thorn ~ parishii Parish's bush realtow Malaoolhamnus pfishii Pringle's monardeJia Monardella pfinotei California soinefiower Mucronea catifornica Family Federal CRS FC2/FSS PLM FE CYP". FC3B RUB FC2 AST FC2 .... AST ..... FC2 JUG AST FC2 .--- LIL ......FC2 . SOL : MLV FC2 LAM FC2 PLG Status State CNPS SE 2 SR 1A 4 lB lB 1A 1A ATTACHMENT C LIST OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES AND POINT OF CONTACT San Bernardino County C~y of Planning Department Randy Scott, Planning Manager 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182 (909) 387-4146 (9.09) 387-3223.(FAX) .. Chino .... Communfty Develop~nent Department Jerry Blum, City Planner... 13220 Central Avenue Chino, CA 91708 (909) 591-9812 Ext. 520 (909) 591-6829 (FAX) Ci~of Chino Hills Community Development Department Eric Norris, Senior Planner 2001 Grand Avenue Chino Hilts, CA 91709-4859 (gog) 590-1511 F__xt. 223 (909) 590-55-45 (FAX) Ci~ of Cotton Pub!ic Works Department John C. Hutton, Dire~or 550 North ta Cadena Drive Colton, CA 92324-2893 (909) 370.5055 (909) 370-5154 (FAX) C'W of Fontana P~annJng Division Dennis Woods. Asso~ate Planner 8353 Siena Avenue Fon~ana, CA 9233~ (909) 350-5724 (909) 350-7691 (FAX) Ci,wof Grand Terrace Communi~ Development Depa~menl PatrLzia Materassi, Community Oevelopmenl Director 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 (909) 324-6521 (909) 783-7629 (FAX) C~y of Highland Planning Department Steve Walker, C~y Planner - 26985 East Rase Line Avenue Highland, CA 92345 . _.: (909) 8~4-6861 Ext. 215 .. (909) 852-3180 (FAX) :.- City of Loma Linda -' ..: Planning Departmen[ Dan Smith, Dire~or of Community Devebpment 25541 Barton Road Loma Linda, CA 92354 (909) 799-2810 (909) 799-2890 (FAX) Cky of Montdair Coremunify Development Department Rob Clark, Commun'rty Development Director 5111 Ben~o S~ree~ Montdair. CA 91753-0808 (909) 525-9431 (909) 521-~584 (FAX) Cf~of Ontario Planning Departmen~ Ott. o KroulJl, City P]anner 303 Eas~ 'R' Stree.',, Civic Center OntofiD, CA 91754 (909) 391-2505 (909) 391-0592 (FAX) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning De.ua~men( Sco~ Murphy, Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (9Og) 939-1851 (909) :948-15-48 (FAX) City of Red]ands Planning Departmere Jeff Sh~w, Planning Director 30 Caion Stree! Redlands, CA 92373 (909) (-~09) ?93-7503 (FAX) ATTACHMENT F INTERIM PROJECT REVIEW GUIDF_.LINES This document establishes an agreement among the U.S. Fish and W~ldlff~ Service ('Service'), the California Department of Fish and Game ("Department') and all other federal, state'~nd local agencies participating in the San Bernardino ¥a]ley Multi- Species Hab~at 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) t~e th~v6-related purposes: (1)to ensure early review and consideration of proposed proiects by the Service and the Department so that projects which could preclude the successful development of the MSHCP will be identffqed at the earliest possible point in the development review process, and (2) to provide a opportunity for dialogue between the lead a. gency, the project applicant and the regulatory agencies to explore alternatives or mitigation measures which could minimize and mitigate potential project impac'~s. .. .. Local Agencies have identified that sJgnifican,' problems have arisen in the past when comments on proposed proje.~s are not received from.~he Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.: Fish and Wildtire Service u.ntil very late jn the lead agency's decision- making process.'-' -To address this probtem ~zJth respect to projects which may have the potential'to preclude 1o6g-t~rm conserva~iofi strategies addressed in the MSHCP or impact the vJabfiity of bio~ogica!. resources, the Service .and the Department are commi~ing to meet wfth the appropriate proiect pro~onen~ at the earliest feasibte point. Early identification Of potential impacts will assist in the preparation of environmental documents for the 'proiect and pT6~ide the oppor~uni~ ~o identi~ potential proiect alternatives and mitigation 'measures for "consideration in compliance wff. h Public Resources § 21Og0.3(a). ' ' ' The IPRG specifically does not create an add~nnal layer of project review nor to confer any add~ional authorfly on the Department, the .S.?vJce:.pr.. lead agency.-' The reoommen'dat/c;n's Of the"S&-rvJce 'and Depadmen~ are advisory; the f~nal decision'of whether to a'pp~:ove,' modify,.or deny'a proiect remains Jn the hands of the lead agency ..... A. Guidelines Each lead age~'y an~'i~r project proponent shall determine whether a proiect should be r_v~_w_d pursuant Io ~h_ IPRG. Generally, the lead agency or project proponent may consider that a p[oj¢ct as defined by CEQA § 2105_5, except those proiects statutory or categorically 'exempt from CEQ. A, located ~ithJn the sensitive-habitat areas of the MSHCP boundaries, has the potential to preclude long term preservation planning or impact the vJabJli?y of biological resources. and J[ Js appropriate to utilize the tPRG. The ' d_,_n-nm_ thai a project within the Dian area, lead agency retains the discretion to ,='~ ' ~ , " cnara~erIs,.ics, has no_impact on the ~iabili~ of biological because of resources and would not preclude long te,'Tn preservation planning. Go PROCEDURE 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 wrffing of any proiect(s) which the lead agency or project proponent wishes to have reviewed at the IPRG m~ting. For each project , the lead agency/proiect proponent will transmft t~o copies of each of.the following: a location map on a 7.5' qued sheet ident'rfying the project site a site plan or other illustration depicting the project as proposed the proeect a~plication or other summary sheet identifying existing general plan designation ahd zoning, and any proposed changes; existing land use on the s~te; 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 proiect 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 proiect applicant is desired. At the review meeting, the teed agency, project proponent, the Service and the Department will have the opportunity to discuss the project, answer questions, etc. A representative irom an adiacent jurisdJ~ion which may be affected by the proposed project may also a~end the meeting at that jurisdiction's discretion. At the review meeting ff possible, otherwise in no( more than 30 days after the review meeting, the Service and the Depa,~ment representatives shall provide the following information to the ~ead agency and the proie~ applicant: · . A statement as to whether, in the agency's opinion: The project will not preclude long term conservation planning or adversely impa~ the viability of a species. The proiec"t has the potential to preclude long term conservation planning or adversely impact the viabJJi~ of a species and additional studies on soecific species may be necessary, and project .attema{ives and/or mitigation measures need to be assessed in the environmental review process. A project may be scheduled for an additional IPRG meeting at an appropriate date ff there Js a need/or the Service or the Department to respond to a Draft Environmental Impact Repod~ or Mitigated Negative Declaration. F-3 JERRY EAVES August ]4, 1995 All HCP Steering Comm'fftee Members Re: VALLEY-WIDE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Mr'NDMr'NTS PLAN Dear Comrn~ee Member: Now that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed by the majority of padicipating agencies, the County is moving for~vard to also approve the documenl. 1 b_h.v_ this is an anoroDrJate point at which to imorove the organizational formafi~ o¢ our coalition. County Counsel has drafted some changes to the MOU language that will accomplish this objetire by formalizing the Coordinating Committee and ident'rfying its composition. This commi~ee would consist of two resresentatives from the CounW and one representative from each other signatory agency. There also would be oppo~unity to appoint representatives from other interested groups as deemed appropriate. The MOU Js 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 ~h_ aooropriate aoproving authority for adoption. Attached is a ctean copy of the revised ,~,1OU. A strike-out and underlined version of the affected sections Js provided for your reference. Should you have any questions. please contact Randy Scott of the County Planning Depadment at (909) 387-4i46. Sincerely. E(,vEs Supervisor, Fi~h Distric~ JE:js A~achmenfs ATTACHMENT C LIST OF i::::;'ARTICIPATING AGENCIES AND POINT OF CONTACT San Bernardino County Planning Department Randy Scott, Platting ~anager 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor San B~mardino, CA. 92415--Q! 82 (909) 387-4146 ..... f (909) 387-32__23 (FAX) _ City of Chino - - Community Development Departmen[ Jerry t31um, City Planner. 13220 Central Avenue Chino, CA 91708 . (g0g) 590-5520 . (909) 591-6829 (FAX)' City of China Hills Community Oevelopme.nt Department Jeff Adams, Planner.! ,-L. .. 2001 Grand Avenue Chino Hills, CA 91709~,869 , , (909) 590-1511 Ext'. 286 ._ (909) 59o-554~ (FAX):, - City of Cffy of Coilon Public Work_s Oepadment John C. Hutton, Director. 550 North La Cadena Drive Co,on, CA 92324-2993 . (909) 370-5055 (909) 370-5154 (FAX) Fontana Ptanning Division Charles LaCJaire, Deputy 'Planning Manager 8353 Sierra Avenue .... Fontana. CA 92334 -. ' ' (909) 350-7627 (909) 350-5513 (FAX) City of Grand Terrace Community Development Oepa~men~ PatrJzia Ma~erassi, Community Development Director 22795 ~arton Road Grand Terrace, CA 9231 3 (909) 824-5521 (909) 783-7529 (FAX) Cffy of Highland Planning Department Steve Walker, City Planner 25985 East Base Line Avenue Highland, CA 92346 (909) 864-6851 E..'d. 215 (909) 852-3180 (FAX) City of Loma Linda Planning Depadmenl: Dan Smith, Dire~or of C~mmunky Development 25541:3arton Road Loma Linda, CA 92354 (909) 799-2830 (909) 799-2890 (FAX) City of Montclair -- ' Coremunify Development Depa~men[ Rob Clark, Community Development Director 5111 Benito Street Montelair, CA 91753-0808 (909) 525-9431 ¢09) ~2~-~5~4 (FAX) City of City Ontario Planning Department O~o Kro~il, City Planner 303 Fas~ 'B' StreeL Civic Center Onto,do. CA 91754 (909) 391-2505 .' ' (909} 391-0692 (FAX) Rancho Cucamonga - Planning Departmen~ '":' ' Scott ~urphy, Asso~te Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga; CA 91730 (909) 9~9-~ 851 (~09) 948-1548 (FAX) Cky 0~ Rediands Planning Department Eric. Norris, Principal Planner 30 Caion Street Redlands, CA 92373 (90~) 798-7555 (g0g) 798-7503 (FAX) C-i AMENDMENTS TO 7HE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING .... BY AND BETWEEN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FiSH AND GAME, THE COUN-Pr' OF SAN BERNARDINO, THE FIr-TEEN AFFECTED CITIES IN SOUT.HWESTERN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND ADDITIONAL UNDERSIGNED PARTICIPATING AGENCIES FOR THE."]RURPOSE ' OF DEVELOPING 'AND IMPLEMENTING A HABITAT CONSERYATION PLAN TO CONSERVE W1LDL1FE AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY. Page 2, First-P~ragraph a~d First "WHEREAS"' This Memorandum o~ 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 agencies and ~ublic utifities. The signatories collectively are referred to as the "Participating .. Agencies." '.The Participating Agencies for the purposes of this Memorandum are public utilities and those agencies that have local land use authorfly, are self- governing local agencies or are state or federal agencies ~h land management authorf~ and/or jurisdiction over plant and animal species and natural hahfiats which are the subject of the Habit`at Conservation Plan. · 'WHEREAS, the 'aovernmental Pa~icipating ..Agencies are among the local governments, self-governing agencies, 'and s~a~e and federal agencies that have administrative responsibility or regulatory authori~ over lands v~khin the ptanning 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'Trea~ AcL the Federal Fish and VVildlffe Coordination Act, the California Natural Community Consen/at, ion Planning Act, state planning and zoning ta~-;s, and local ordinances, and, Page 2, Section 1.0 1.0 PURPOSFS OF MEMORANDUM The oovernmental Participating Agencies have administrative and/or regulatory responsibilities over species of concern in ,h_ southwestern San Bernardino County. They have voluntarily entered into this Memorandum for the follov~ing purposes: Page 6, Section 4.1 ~ 1 General Roles and Re$.oonsibiliti=~s. The Count olSen iBernardinoshall act as ~n~ functional lead agency utilizing tne assistance, suppo~ and cooperation of the c~d_s and local agencies in preparation of the alan. The count~. cities and local MEMO To: Andrew K. Hartzell, Esq. (Hewin & McGuire, LLP) Froml Liam Davis, NCCP Assoc. Wildlife Biologist (California Department Fish and Game) Re: 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 0XlDDB) 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 that he had several sightings of CAGN along the Etiwanda fan. I requested James to complete a NDDB form for one of his CAGN sightings at Etiwanda 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 inpress manuscript, "Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptilia californica californica) in San Bernardino County." Bob McKernan, San Bernardino County Museums, would be able to give you testimony of other occasions where he has personally observed CAGN along the Etiwanda fan. II. Todd Keller-Wolf, Ph.D. (Vegetation Ecologist, Department Fish and Game) left message to me that the State sensitivity ranking for Riversidean Alluvial Fan Saee Scrub as a S 1.1 "very threatened" natural commun/ty in southern California occurred in 1985. Please contact me if I can be of more assistance at 619-467-4207. b:h~rtzell.mmem Ihd ** California Department of Fish and Game * POLIOPTILA CAJuIFORNICA ~- California Gnatcatcher Status .......... Federal: Threatened State: None ---Habitat Associations--- Natural Diversity Data Base ** NDDB Element Ranks ........ Other Lists ......... * Global: G2 CDFG: Special Concern * State: S2 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 UTM: Zone-ll N3780724 E450968 Mapping Precision: SPECIFIC (80m Mile) Symbol Type: POINT Group NunLber: More Information? N Map Index Number: 26335 More Map Detail? N Township: 01N Range: 06W Section: 17 SW Qtr Meridian: S Acres: 0 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 MELLIFEP~A, ERIOGONUM FASCI~TUM, 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 Clien~ Date Information Purchased: 01/15/97 Page ! ~** California Department,of Fish and Game ***** * POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA California Gnatcatcher -Status Federal: Threatened State: None ---Habitat Associations--- Natural Diversity Data Base ** NDDB Element Ranks ........ Other Lists Global: G2 CDFG: Special Concern * State: S2 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 / !17d 42m 37s UTM: Zone-ll N3774282 E434444 Mapping Precision: SPECIFIC (0 Mile) Symbol Type: POLYGON Group Number: 02841 More Information? N Map Index Number: 02841 More Map Detail? N Township: 01S Range: 08W Section: 03 SW Qtr Meridian: S Acres: 78.5 Elevation: 1300 ft Threats: THREATS INCLUDE SURROUNDING 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 GR3tSSES 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 '** California Department,of Fish and Game ***** * POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA California Gnatcatcher * '- ........ Status .......... * Federal: Threatened * State: None * ---Habitat Associations--- Natural Diversity Data Base ** NDDB Element Ranks ........ Other Lists ......... Global: G2 CDFG: Special Concern State: S2 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 UTM: Zone-ll N3775092 E434294 Mapping Precision: NON-SPECIFIC (1/5 Mile) Symbol Type: POINT Group Number: 02843 More Information? N Map Index Number: 02843 More Map Detail? N Township: 01S Range: 08W Section: 03 NW Qtr Meridian: S Acres: 0 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 PCR Planning Consultants Research Irvine 0 To: ~~ ~z~.-'~_.~_. Date: Company: From: ~..a~ Job No: Remarks: LL Hard Copy will £ollow Zwill not follow Number of Pages ! PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH 18881 Von Karman, Suite 650 Irvine, California 92612 (714)752-5452 FAX (714) 752-1307 MODEM ('714) 752-1110 Note.' fi there are any problems with this fax transmission, p/ease call ,Jul. 2. 1997 10'05AM ~'o. 9245 P. 2x2 S 12 101 00 ~00 00:00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 212 P02 CUCAMONGA~S UNITED.'FOR ~.F. ASONA~I~E EXPOSION. a ~on-proflt ~nco~orated as~ia~on P~!~IFF (S) VS. ci~ OF ~O ~ONGA; B~ B~R, individual, in his ~dividual ~d official capaci=y; ~O~ G~. an individual, his ~vid=l =d ~s 1-20 CASE NUMBER 482 8 GHK(¢Tx) SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S), You are hereby summoned and required to file with this court and serve upon Fu~LISSA ~ATHAWAY 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 ~pon you within_~Q_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. DATE: JUL O 2.]99 / CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COLTRT By Deputy Clerk (SEAL OF T~E COURT) CV-AA (1/87) SUMMONS 101 00 '00 00:00 212 P03 07/03/@? puC~u~nt ~0 F.~.C~v.P. 4(c) and ~c t ~ved ~he au~ and co~laint aa tolLo~=: % : ( ) ~ ( I muein~ss   P~R~CI~AL SE~IiCZ, by ~ln9 co~les to t~ ~n   UP~ TUZ ~1~ 5Ta~S ~ ~ orPi~i ~ i~ ~annc~ a. promcried by Rule 4{d} (4) and M~:L ~ ~~ claes mail o: al~11) officer or ~a~y ot ~ Unit~ 5~-, ~t a~$1e~ only to letvice u~n 4 deferant ot any · 19 fog 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 !5' 16 !7 18 !9 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 HAT~L~WA¥ McKEITH (STATE BAR NO. 112917) 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, California 90017-2475 Telephone: (213) 688-3622 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CI/RE") UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CUC_AMONGANS UNITED FOR REASONABLE ) EXPANSION ("CURE"), a non-profit ) unincorporated association, ') ) P!~intiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF RA/~CHO CUCAMONGA; BRAD ) BI/LLER, an individual, in his ) individual and official capacity; ) THOMAS GRA/~N, an individual, in his individual and official capacity; Does 1-20, Defendants. =sE No.97- R GHK' (CTx) l. Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2. Violation of 42 U.S.Ci § 1985; and 3. Violation of § 6256 of the California Government Code DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is a civil rights action authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 to redress the deprivation under color of law of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the .P12 }, 0 101 00 '00 00:00 212 P06 OF.. 07. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 17 1@ 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 oo ~7 ~HM: j~l Constitution of the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S'.C. §~ 1331 and 1343 (a) (3) and (4) . -.'i 2. This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed. R.. Civ. p. 57. Injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.s.C. § 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Fed. R. Civ. p. 65. Jurisdiction for the pendent State claim is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3. The Defendants named herein reside in, maintaim an office in, or are responsible for enforcing the laws relevant to this litigation in the Central District of California. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") is registered with the State of California as~ a non-profit unincorporated association. CURE is comprised'of property owners residing in the Central District of California. 5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CITY OF RANCHO CUC3LMONGA ("City") is located in the'Central District of California. 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant BRAD BLrLLER ("Bul!er") is the Director of Planning for the City. In his capacity as the Director of Planning, Bullet has been responsible for implementing and promulgating departmental policies and customs. At all times material, Bullet has been the most senior employee in the City's Plarhning Department where he supervises and is responsible for overseeing all decisions of The planning 101 00 '00 00:00 212 PO? 1 2 3 5 9 10 11 12 !3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 staff. Plaintiff alleges that Bullet lives in the Central District of California. 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant THOMAS ("Grabs. US i.s an Associate Planner for the City and, at all times material, reported to and was supervised by Bulter. Plaintiff further alleges that Grahn works and resides in the Central District of California. PRELIMINARY STAT~ 8. This case involves the potential destruction of 25.9 acres of a rare and threatened habitat located at the base of the United States National Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains (the "Property") . The California Department of Fish & Game has designated the Propercy as S-l-1 and G-i, a categor%z reset-red for the rarest and most threatened habitat in the world. 9. In addition to the irreversible impacts on animal and plant life, development of the Property would involve the removal of a levee and swale system that currently p~otects downgradient homes from potential flooding and debris flow. Removal of the levee could result in the loss of millions of dollars in property damage and could threaten the safety and lives of downgradient families. Bullet's, Grahn's and the City's (collectively ,'Defendants") conduct in preventing any public notice or comment on the Project allows Defendants to ignore new info,nation and changed circumstances that render the Project substantially more dangerous than originally claimed. These circumstances include, but are not limited 5o, the delineation OS 7/~ ,,.-~:-~ , ':4~ 21.2 P88 101 00 '00 00:00 1 2 3 S 6 7 9 10 1! 12 13 !6 17 18 20 21 23 2a. 25 27 28 ]77 , and designation of the Cucamon~a Fault as a probable 7.5 magnitude fault. '10. This case involves an unwritten policy or custom 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 input into the plar~ning process. This case tests the limits of a local planning staff's ability to unlawfully facilitate deve!opmen~ by (1) granting extensions to a tentative cract map in violation of local and sta~e law; (2) failing To provide notice and an opportuniCy to be heard by affected property owners, including CtTRE members, in violation of the sta~e and federal constitution; and (3) depriving access co documents by withholding and/or denying the existence of numerous relevant documents concerning non?complianCe, among o~her matters, wi'th the federat"E~dangered Species Act ("ESA") in an effort by Defendants 5o Thwar~ any challenge to 5ke proposed project. 'The implications of this case ~o beyond the pending matter. R~cen[ amendments to eke California Subdivision Map Act create certain loopholes chat allow local m~nicipalities and developers .to build projects years after the initial environmental review was conducted. The facts of the instant case are particularly compelling because of the rare nature of the habitat and the potential of serious risk to life and property. !1. At issue is a 25.9 acre parcel, the development of wkick has escaped any serious environmental or ~ngin~ering review ~ue to Defendants' wrongful conduct. The consT-~uction o~ 40 homes on ~he Property we9 first proposed by Brock homes in tke '2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 late !980s ("Project") . At that time, the City concluded that 5here was no significant impact to the environment resulting from constz-uction of the.'40 homes. No biological, engineering, or traffi~.-studies were completed at the time. Although public notice was provided, fewer than ten homes were located in the area at that time, and therefore comments to the proposed Project were minimal. The negative declaration and Tentative Tract Map No. 14771 ("Tentative Map") were approved in November 1990. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination and it is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. In 1993 Brock Homes filed for bankruptcy, without having begun any development. 12. Under California's Subdivision Map Act, tentative tract maps ordinarily would expire two ~ears after 'approval 'if construction had not commenced. Because of the do~rnturn in California's economy, the state legislature enacted laws to permit extensions of tentative tract maps under certain specific circumstances. The purpose of this legislation was to protect developers who had expended fuands to prepare the tentative tract maps but who, at tha~ time, were not financially able to commence construction. In 1992, 1993 and 1995 the City, through DefendanE Bullet, approved the ~xtension of the Tentative Map at issue here. Each of those extensions were unlawful in that Defendants (1) failed to 'provide notice ~o affected property owners as required by ~ederal and state law, and (2) granted extensions in violation of local ordinances. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~CM24~41 .P~2 0¢ 000 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in or about 1996, Defendant Bullet, on behalf of the City and in conjunction with Defendant Grab_n, enticed develop..~rsoto locate projects in the City by assuring developers that existing tentative tract maps could be finalized without any further environmental review or public hearing. In September 1996, Lauren Development, a completely new developer, resurrected the Tentative Map and began processing the Project toward final approval. No documents were ever circulated for public comment nor did the City or Lauren Development provide any notice to affected property owners. The last public notice relating to the Project was in 1990. 14. On or about May 23, 1997, residents in the area, including CI/RE members, learned of the Project for the first time. Since 1990, approximately 45 additional homes have been constl-ucted in the· area and most of the residents moved to the Project area in the past four years. CURE i~mediately contacted Defendant Grab_n, the planner assigned to the Lauren Development Project, co inquire about the status of the Project. Defendant Grahn, under the supez-vision of Bullet, falsely informed CURE members that: (l) Lauren Development had received all regulato~-y approvals and permits for the project; (2) that it was "too late" to challenge the development; and (3) the Planning Commission would approve Lauren Development's "Development Review Application" on a Consent Agenda and that no pu/p!ic comment would be permitted. A specific request also was made that CURE members be added to the public notice list for matters concerning Lauren 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B O0 07, 7' Development. Grahn refused to do so, stating that no formal notice was required. 15. On May 27, 1997, CURE recluesZed from Grahn, in writing;-a .complete copy of the Lauren Development file. Receipt of that request was acknowledged on May 29, 1997 in a memorandu~ from Defandan~ Grahn reaffirming that the Development Application approval would be heard on the Consent Agenda and that the file might be available on June 2, 1997. Because of the urgency, a local resident went in person to Defendant Orahn and 'requested the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Project. Defendant Grahn provided a Negative Declaration for an unrelated development. On June 2, 1997, only portions of the file were produced with key ~ocuments missing, including a copy of tke actual Tentative Map and any documents from the Development Design Application Review file relating to Ehe June 11 Hearing. Documents from unrelated projects were produced instead. BeEween June 2 and 5, 1997, several additional letters were fo~-wardad [o Defendan[ Grahn specifying which document9 were missin~ from the fil~ and s~ressing thai i,~¢~ediate production of those documents was critical to prepare for the june 11, 1997 hearing. documents included: Fire lane standards; Approvals from fire control district; Missing Compliances with 50 Code of F. R. 17.11; Attachment A and B to Negative Declaration; Documents pertainin~ to the CEQA; Mitigation Monitorin~ Plan; 6 ? B 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30000000 · Documents pertaining to Lauren Development's approvals/compliance with U.S. Army Corps of o Engineers regulations regarding levee removal and · - flood control channel; - Documents pertaining to letters of agreement from both affected school districts; · Documents regarding funding mechanism for proposed drainage channel; o Documents concerning Los Angeles Water and Power approval of grading in their easement. In particular, CLTRE was interested in documents concerning compliance with the Endangered Species Act and a Memorandum of Understanding entered into by ~he City, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Sea-vice0 and the California Department of Fish & Game, setling forth certain requirements' that the City must follow.prior to disturbing rare habitat area. On June 5, 1997, Defendant 'Grahn sent correspondence denying the existence of any Memorandum of Understanding. 16. On June 10, 1997, CURE wrote to the City Atuorney for the City identifying what documents had been wrongfully with3neld including, but not limited to, correspondence from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Sea-vice to Lauren Development and the dated April 18, 1997, stating that Lauren Development had not complied with Ehe Endangered Species Ac~. Also missing were any documents concerning extensions on variances and several documents relating to the extension of the Tentative.Maps. In each instance, the missing documents were potentially fatal the developer's ability to proceed with the Project. Attached as 1 2 3 4 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ]00000000 E~chibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the June 10, 1997 correspondence to the City Attorgey, with attachments Exhibits A to I, which is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully...'~h~ above documents have not been produced and the City has neither acknowledged nor responded to the June 10, 1997 letter. 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the conduct of Defendant Grahn in failing to produce the requested documents or in producing documepts entirely unrelated to ~he subject parcel was done under the direction of Defendant Bull'er, with the intent of preventing Plaintiff from discovering documents demonstrating that.the Project is unsafe and in non-compliance with state and federal environmental laws, among others. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Bullet and Grahn, as is customary of the'City, have repeatedly attempted to limit Dubl'ic ~omment about' the Project by, among 6ther wrongful acts: (1) not providing any public notice in seven years; (2) providing misinformation about the Project when requested; (3) discouraging interested parties from objecting to the Project by claiming that it was "too late" to object;' (4) claiming that approval of the Project is ministerial and a matter for the Consent A~enda; and (5) stating that the developer is in compliance with all regulatory requirements. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges ~hat Defendants Bul!er and Grab_n were aware tha~ these statements were false when made. 18. By failing to provide public notice of the Tentative Map extensions, by obstrnJcting Plaintiff's efforts [o obEain relevann documents concernin~ the Project, and by £0d £~E 00:0~) 88, 00 ISI 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22' 23 24 25 26 27 28 ooo0ooooo 07/02/97 M~: misleading interested parties, including CURE members, into be!levine_that no legal avenue was available to challenge the Project, Defendants/ and each of them, have deprived Plaintiff of its right to due process under the state and federal constitutions. CLAIMS FOR. RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against All' Defendants) 19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realleg~d and 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 citzzen " 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 to deprive Plaintiff of the opportunity to be heard, and deprived Plaintiff of access to the courts by failing to provide public notice for the three extensions of the Tentative Map, thus violating the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 10 ~Od £IE 00:B0 0{~, 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OOOOOOOO0 22. Acting under color of law, Defendants further have withheld public documents in an effort to thwart Plaintiff's ability to exercise its legal rights to challenge the Project before../~fendants and the Courts, thereby depriving Plaintiff of its Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process of law. 23. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, Plaintiff may be subject to the construction of a Project that places Plaintiff a~ 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 reflected 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 ~2 U.S.C. provides that: [i] f two or more persons in any State or Territor%/ conspire, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recover%/ of damages, occasioned by such injury or 11 ~Od £IE 00:00 00, 00 t0t 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 ~7~0~7 ~: i~1 deprivation, against any one or more of his conspirators. ~7. As part of an ongoing conspiracy, City officials, includ%~ Rut not limited to Buller and Grahn, have failed to provide notice of numerous hearings as required by federal. state and local ordinances; have approved extensions of th~ Tentative Map in violation of sta~e and local ordinances; have mislead interested parties into believing that the Project could not be challenged; and have withheld and/or denied the existence of relevant documents. CURE is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' conduct was in furtherance of a conspiracy ~o ensure that developers, including Lauren Development, could easily complete projects without public notice and input. 28. By engaging in the wrongful conduct described above, Defendants'have conspired'to deprive Plaintiff of constitutional rights and access to the courts. 29. In carrying out the conspiracy described above, Defendants have acted maliciously, arbitrarily, capriciously, and in bad faith. T}{IRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of California Government Code § 6256 Against All Defendants) 30. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 31. Section 6156 of Ehe California Government Code provides that: 12 00:00 00, 00 IOI 1 3 4 5 6 7 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 000000000. 07/02797 M~M: [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 reques~ 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 deterrnination and the reasons therefor. 32. On May 27, June 4, June $ and June 10, CLFRE requested documents pursuant to the California PubliE Records AC~ and otherwise not exempted from production ~nder California law. As of the signing of this complaint, many of the requested documents have not been p~oduced including, but not limited to: documents r~lating to compliance with ~he Endangered Speci'es Act; all documents relating to applications for and extensions of the Tentative Map and variances; and engineering plans and specifications concerning removal of the leve~. 33. Defendants neither complied with document'requests submitted by Plaintiff, nor notified Plaintiff of the reasons for their non-compliance. Defendants thus have violated § 6256 of the California Government Code. 13 00:00 O~, 00 IOI 1 2 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 000000000 PP~AYER FOR RELIEF (First Claim for Relief) W~EREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against Defendant ~s follows: 1. For actual damages according to proof; 2. For a declaration that extensions of the Tehtative Map were in violation of federal and state law and thus of no effect; 3. For temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the Project until such time as Plaintiff is provided with a complete copy of all relevan[ documents, constitutionally mandated notice and an opportunity to be heard; 4. Costs of suit; Attorney fees;' and 6. For such other relief as this Court deems proper· (Second Claiz~ for Relief) WHEREFO~LE, Plaintiff demands judgement agains~ Defendan~ 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 [empora~/, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the project until such time as 14 90d £'~2 8~:00 00, 88 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 ~6h. _~,1.~12 1300~0000 4 o Plaintiff is provided with a complete file, notice and an opportunity to be heard; CosC~ of suit; Attorney fees; and For such other relief as this Court deems proper (Third Clay for Relief) W~EREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against Defendant as follows: 1. For actual damages according to proof; 2. For declaratory relief, recluirin~ Defendants to produce all requested documents, and all documents properly requested in the future. 3. Attorneys' fees; 4. CosCs of suit; and' 5. For such other relief as this Court deems proper. 60~ r,O' ~1 15 00:00 00, 00 IOI Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on the Claims for Relief set forth in this Complaint. 4' DATED:. 'Ju~y '2, 1997 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13- 14 !S '16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 2B THE BER. LIN~R LAW OFFICES ERIC BERLINER LAWRENCE D. SANDERS 000~00000 07/02/97 t.~l~: jul LOEB & LOEB LLP MALISSA HATHAWAY McKEITH Cucamongans ~ted for .Reasonable E~sion ( tz6-~ st 'd 16 101 00 '00 00:00 IMPORTANT- Lauren Development Update Thanks to widespread community. suppurL t2ucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) was able to delay the Pbuming Commisslon's final approval of 40 tract homea north of Havenxxge~' tmtU rids corrdng Vi'ednesday..July 9, 19,97. We need you to attend this critkal meeting. '- The Lauren Development tract homes are priced in the $270,000 range which have a devastating impacl on our properr)' values by ereaiLing io~' "comps". A bu?~r wiU look at comps from simllarl)' sized Lauren homes priced an>~ere from $40,000 to $100,000 le~s titan your property' and this x~lJ.I substantially reduoe ~'hat a buyer is wl/lLng to pay for your home. The area Impacted by Lauren Dea'dopment's low comps wou/d be north of ~/ibon and w~st of the Deer Creek Chamx¢l to Bevy. I, Lower properS? values is not the only ~~ay )?.~ n'm~ be aftered..As taxpayer, u~ of ~ may end up pa.~g ia~ jud~ from law~ts aga~t the Cid' if the City pe~ts remo~l of a levee that p~le~ aU of us. Ex~ ci~ e~ee~ have ~estified t~t removal or,he kvee ~duc~ our p~te~ion from floo~g and debts flow and t~t Lau~n's "~afied" ~figafion m~sures are ~adeqoate. For tho~ of~u ~'ho aren't ~ar ~th deb~ flow, take a look at the b~de~ ~ your bac~*rd. Those borders c~e do~ ~ a debris flow. The enclosed mp demonst~tes just how much p~te~ion the lev~ ~s Wen down-g~dienf prope~y owne~ over the yea~. Approval of the l.auren Development Project is only the beL~mm~o of the Planning Comnfission'a latimer agenda to develop this entire area. There already are appron':ds for a number of tract developments east of Deer Creek that may impact your property. values, Increase traffic, and create more potential for flooding. Most of u~ have x~'orked hard to five in a nice area and ~'e must be vigilant to make sure tki,s is not changed by the P -!armiJlg Cornmission's approval of one small project at a time. Don't let the city go~'ernrnent permit the construction of an unsafe development of inexpensive tract homes. Please show your support b3' bringing ~x>ur friends and family to the meeting, For further information, con~act Kathy 1R~'ant at 980-8960. If you carmot attend, please sign CURE's petition opposing Lauren Development. Dale: Time: Place: July 9, 1997 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers: Cilv Hall 10500 East Cihc Center Drive (East of Haven between Arrow and Foothill) 101 00 '00 00:00 213 ~ /x, . L :.. ~ ..... .~ ~ ~, ~-, ~ -,: ..~ . ~~5 ~ : ..~. ' · · "' ', . ' ,,~,' '. . ' ,. ' - I - " .: ~ ! / ' : ..'~% ~: -': .... .'.: .'> ;'. ' :' ::, ~' .,,- , '...~ ~ ~ i ' "' -'.':' .... . ...... , ...~?~.-.~... ..... ~ .... , ..... ... ~ ~ --~ - , .% · _~.., .. · _ .... %- , ,. ;' . ~ - ~ .' . · ...~ ,~ , ., ...............~. ~. ~5-..,.. ~ ........~ ~.. .~., ,~ ........~... .. .:~ . , . . . ..:.. ~.~ ~.~ .....~ , ~ ....,.~ ,., ,,.~: ......, ...... ~:~ ..... ~. ~ ............. . ~ -_~.~ ~'~~-~-, ....... ...,~ ..... h... ~.~ ~ -~.~ ~~. ~-.~..., ..... ~ ,..?. ~ ,~ , ~ .-:~ ~:,'.--~ .~ .~~ .....~ '~'~'::::: -~ .~.~ ~,,~ "~::~*..-> .:~ .-~ .,,...:~3 .:f~ .>,~ ~ A~', ~..,~ ~?..-., :. -.~.,. ,.~.,.-~ ...... ~ . ~;:-~ ~:~,': .~;,,"~e'~-~?.'~:., · .~ .' ~.t ~.::~:~ ,.~'~.- ~::., ..'.:..~ ,. · ..-.,. '..,~ .~,:'=~.~:.~-.~-:~,,.'- .-'~.. :.,..~: .~ ,..~ .~', · ,~. ...... . . ~ ....... ~ , :.~. .~,~,. .~.-'~.~_;~.-..:. ¢ ~ '~ ~., '.: ..~ . .~,:~ .... ~.- ..~., .~.......L~.':~;.--_~,...-., ..,- ....:-:.-, ....~. ,.......~-:~.· ::. _,. :'. · :....:'.~ ' -.:~.;-.. :m- '.-..-c'~.:~*'::~ ': ;. "~:"'k~' ~...' ~' '~'.:' : · '- x ? · .. t':..'. ':,. ~....:-".~>- ~.'~.~_~,%~,~,~ ~.':.. ':.' ~ :~ "-' ::~ .~-::.: .,.'. . ... , · . ~ .~ .,· ...... _ . ~..~:. .. ~ . · . ~ ........... ~ , ,..., ..... .'~ .... ~, ~.,~ .. .: .- :. . · .. ~--~.~- . ~;~..~--:~:~ .... .. ~ '~::-' . :.: ' ' ~1':~ C- ~ ' ' ; ~:?'~.~"' ' ':: ' ' ?~ "~.-: .~-'~.~, ---~ .~: . ~ .~"" "' - ~. ~' .. ' ' ~ .~"?-'~- ',~.: " ; · .. ~:.. :~ : ': f:"~:~:~.:' W.'- ',L . . -.' ; "~' ~ -' . :~.~.. .. . . '''~ ...., ....~ ~ .,.~: ~ ... , ., · '-' ~ · ~ ........ u .....~' ~ .':~ - ... ..: - ~.'N o .: ~ · '~ ' · -~ ~ · ~.:.:..~l ..:,-:::,~ '"':,.'::"~?~"'.'. :'~"'...'~'~'~ ~'.~ ' ~ -" ~z' '~ ..... ;:'.',." ,~ "~ "~'--" ' ' -"'" ' .~' ~ F',~" ' · ..' ~."~. ~ .... .': : ~ L ' .' ' ' · ,. · ''~ ;~ ,' ~ .. ..: , . ~ .- , ~ · .. . , .. . . ..: . . - ~ .... ... [ .......... _ ......... . .... ~/_. ,?'~ . ~ . ~ , , .,. ~. .:~,. ....... / .- ~ .. - "~ .,': .". -~ ~:~.4~..: I'.'."~ :- . : · ~ .....:.,... :~ '~.-.~:~ -- . ... .. . . .... ;... . .: Ck~ .. . .~~ ........ -'~-.~ ~-: .... .. ". · ' -"-' ~ ' : ~~ ;..:?.. ~:... . . .~. .~' :..~'·~ ":..". ._.,~ . .-. .: -' . . . .. ._..: ~,: .: .. · .~ .... . .....~'' ' .. i.) ~/. :'.., . · .~' ~. ~ .... ~ .... -~.? '.~~ -~ ~ , ~ '. ' -~ r ' .-,..':. o ........... .~ - ;'~ ~ - -, . -.~ . ..., . : · ~ · . ,.~~ ...~,- _,_~ ............-:... :,_', ..~ : ~,,~ ? .... .. .....-. . ..,:. .....,. ' ':~ '~'"' ~'~-""'~ " "'':' '~'' ,~: .....: .... ..,...:. .....,.. ........,.~ . v - ' .. ~ ~ ' - ' - ' ' - ' .:.: ~:~ ~ ~ .... : v~.~-.'.,:~-'~.~.~?'~'..--~/' ~.~.-~ ~-~ ';..-~. . =,~ .. ~' ,. ~ ~ B~ ---' .... :. -...'~:'",_.,: - --. . : :~ ,: .,,. >' -,::,~,,'~: '= .-~ ~-.~? ~;~ ~ ... ~ - , ~ / ~ -~r~.._ :.~ ,.:.. ~ . . · , ...~ =_ _. ~, [~:~..._.~.,,~.:'~~ ~...~..~. ? .......:.._: /,, ..~>. ~...~:~, ~.. .... . ~ ;,~ - . ., ,. , ~ 'y...~ ~2- ~-.. .. .. .~ ., :~. ~-- - . . ,~-~ . ~ ~ '~-~. .,, ~ .... ~ -, ~- , ~ · .,-. ,. . . . , ~,~: .:''~'...~'~ ~ . f' ' t ~ ' ':, ~." 1' ' '" 1. ' ~ .m ' ~ '.: ' _5TAT? O~ CA DEPARTMENT OF FiSH H,~D gAME FROM: FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL A~ N~w~ Toad E~IRO~~ SERVICES DIVISION (SO~E~ ~IFO~ZA) NA~ CO~I~ CONSERVATION P~ING (NCCP) 4949 VIE~I~E A~ S~ DIEGO, ~IFO~IA 92123 TELEPHO~ (619) 467-4251 FAX (619) 467-4235 TIME NO. OF PAGES SENT IN.CLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEI~ ~L OF ~E PA~ES I~ICATED. PL~E C~L ~ SE~ER AS SOON ~ POSSIBLE. ,1 Ed~i~onmcn~l S~tce~. Division ~~ Natural Co~i~y Con.e~a,ion Pla=ing 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, ~lifo~ia 92123-1~ Liam H. Davis. As~ociato Wildlifo Biologist (619) 467-42 ATSS 8 734-42 FA~( (619) 467-42 DEPt. FISH AND GAME ID' ~--, 19-Z167-4255 3UL "'"'~'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 DEPf. FISH AND GAME ID' ~19-467-4235 15:40 No.015 P.O~ 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 of . Riversidean alluvial'fan ~age scrub. P.c.californica historical site location records are presented with current site location records. Keywords. San Bernardino County; California gnatcaTcher (Polioptila californica californica); historic/present distribution; Riversidean coastal sage scrub; Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Introdu6tion. The California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica Muscicapidae) is considered an uncommon bird primarily from historical and current habitat 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 vegetation in the nation (Westman !987.). 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 norther~] 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 Jutups Mountains (aka Jutups 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 FIND GI4ME ID'%19-d67-d23S JUL ^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 ~o 37oC in midsummer and approximately 18oC in winter. Varying 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 a~d 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 eas~. The San Bernardino Valley is extensively urbanized. Methods. The historical compi].ation 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. R~sults. s) historic. Historic P.c.californica locations for southwestern San Bernardino County {Fig. 1) are cited by Atwood 3 DEPT. FISH ~ND G~ME ]:B' ~19-Z167-4255 JUL '"q'9? 15:41 N0.015 P.05 (1990, 1993). b) recent. 1990 to 1995 P.c.californica locations for' southwestern San Bernardino County (Fig. 2) are cited below: 1, Confluence Lytle and CaJon Wash da]:e: 6 September 1990. source: Douglas R. Willick (P & D Technology) and Ray. Vizgirdas. habitat: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. ~]evation: Approximately 440 m. associate plant ~ecies: "buckwheat, open chamise, Malosma, Pr~lus, Yucca whipplei" (Willick per. comm. 1993). ~il: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. ~Dm~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 Lyt!e Creek) ~hl~: 16 March 1993. source: Steven G. Nelson (Michael Brandman Associates). habitat: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. elevation: Approximately 600 m. ~s~oc4ate plant ~eci~s: "Salvia apiana and Lotus scoparius" (Nelson per. comm. 1994). ~_Q~: Soboba s~ony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: "One adult bird" (Nelson per. comm. 1994). 3. Etiwanda Fan "The Etiwanda Fan represents the denseau 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. sourTD: San Bernardino County Museums. habitat: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. ~]evat~on: Approximately 580 m. associate plant species: Salvia apiana, Artemisia californica, Eriogonium fascicu!atum, Yucca whipplei. B_o_~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: One adult female. (b)~: 3 June 1994. sottrce: Russel B. Dunkin (SouthWest Biologists, Tucson, AZ) . habitat: Upland Riversidean alluvJal fan sage scrub. .elevation: Approximately 580 m. associate plant sDecie~: Salvia apiana, Artemisia californica, Eriogonium fasciculatum, Yucca whipplei. ~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: One adult male and female. No nest observed. About 4 DEPt. FISH AND GAME ]D 1S:zl2 No.015 P.06 30 m distance from siDht location (a) . (c)j~q~_~: 17 June 1994. source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. habitat: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. elevation: Approximately 700 m. associate plant s~pecies: Salvia apiana, S. mellifera, Eriogonum fasciculaCum, Adez2os~oma fasciculatum. soil: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. ~omments: One adult male. Jurupa Hills (Declez Pass) dates: Spring 1994 and 1995. source: San Bernardino County Museums, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. habitat: Riversidean coastal sage scrub. elevation: Approximately 335 m. associate p]an~ ~pec4es: Salvia apiana, S. mellifera, Artemisia californica, Br~nus madrizensis ssp. rubens. ~Oj_~: Cieneba-Rock outcrop comp].ex. commentm: Two to three adult male and female individuals see~ each spring on different occasions. No nest observed. 5. Jurupa Hills (Alder Avenue) ~ate8: Spring 1994 and 1995. so~rce: San Bernardino County Museums and California Department of Fish and Game. habitat: Riversidean coastal sage scrub. elevation: Approximately 365 m (1994 site), approximately 550 m (1995 site). ~ssoc~ate ~]an~ species: salvia apiana, S. mellifera, Ar~emisia californica, Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens. ~iQ~: Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex. comme~]ts: 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 Ana River, east Highland (Fig. 3) ~: 28 June 1995. ~o~;rce: San Bernardino County Museums. habitat: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. e]evat4on: Approximately 460 m. associate plal]t ~pecies: Salvia apiana, Eriogonium fasciculatuu;, Lotus scoparius, Eriodictyon trichocalyx. ~QJ~k: Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. coBl[nent~: 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 Rivermidean alluvial fan sage scrub (Holland 1986) . 5 JL;L-08-97 15:50 DEPT. FISH RND GaME IB' ~- 19-~67-~255 JUL ,'-o ,97 15:Z~2 No.01~ P.O? 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 conti~uous 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 Ana River, east Highland, was a juvenile bird. There are no known current P.c.californica nesting site locations ill 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, lis~s "coastal sage scrub" and "Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub" as at risk from extirpation (Davis etal. 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). Mester (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. californica. 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 existin~ 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 Soul~ 1981:109) and could DEPT. FISH ~4ND GIqME ID' ~ 19-Z16?-Z]235 JUL nq, 97 15:43 No.013 P.08 be effective when linking fragmented and decimated arian habitat (Sou!~ etal. 1988; Bolger et el. 1991). Mos~ 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. Pro~ecting coastal sage scrub habitat is the obvious way to preserve the encroached peripheral northeastern range of Poc.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 ~CP · plaru%ing 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. Sraden, Eugene Cardiff,' and Marni~ S. Crook, San Bernardino County~ Museums, and Kay Stockwell, National Audubon Society, for their contributions. Literature 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. Suatus review of the california gnatcatcher {Polioptila californica). Unpublished technical report, Mahomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. 79 p. Atwood, J.L. 1993. 'Califo~]ia gnaucatchers 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. 7 DEPT. FISH RND GRME 3UL r'q'97 15:4~ 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. Hollander. 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 Goodenough, R. 1992. The nature and implications of recent population growth in California. Geography 77: 123-133. Nayes, 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 '~19-~67-4235 3UL r"~:'97 15:44 No.015 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 s~andard 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 pla~t communities of southern California. Special Publications No.3. Southern California Botanists, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens, Claremont, California. Pimm, $.L., H.L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the risk 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 moni~oring 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. Soul~, 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. 9 DEPT. FISH RND G~4ME ID '~19-467-423D 3UL ~q'97 15:45 No.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. Implicatione of ecological theorY for rare plan~ conservation in coastal sage scrub. Plp. 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 ConeervaEion Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 64 p. ~: \CAGNSYFPP. PAP 10 DEPT. FISH F~ND GF~ME iD* ~19-zI6?-d235 3UL °q'97 15:45 No.013 P.12 o ~ o o c o ~ o ~ DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID' ~19-z167-z1235 JUL .~q'97 15:z15 No.013 P.15 ~ o o ~ o 0 ~1 o DEPi'. FISH RND GRME ID' ~19-z~67-4235 3UL /'q'97 15:46 No.01:3 P.14 DEAN DUNN-RA~gJN C~JU. ESS. ]~XON W~LLIA~ E. HALLE HUGH HF~n-r IONN D. HUDSON HEWlTT & McGumE, LLP ATTOR. NEY$ AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine. California 92612 (714) 798-0500 · (714) 798-0511 (t3x) MARK R. McGUIRE DF_NNI.q D. O'NEIL JAY F. P.M.C!.IIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLI~ L. 'I'WO~E¥ JOHN P. YEAGER July 10, 1997 John Allday Lauren Development, Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-4825 Re: Lauren Development Project for Tentative Tract 14771 Dear John: Enclosed please find copies of the following documents for your files: 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers letter to Brad Butler, dated July 9, 1997; 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga Council Planning Commission memo, dated June 20, 1997, with handwritten note from Johnny Chen dated July 7, 1997. 3. Letter dated July 9, 1997 from Malissa Hathaway McKeith to James Markman. Please feel free to call if you should have any questions regarding the above correspondence. Sincerely, Lynne .~Chapman Assistant to Andrew K. Hartzell Encls. 07-10-97 3021-00002 S:\00C\161\£ORR\97070018.LTR 14 i'~:~u.]a for~ Brand1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEVEN' OAKS DAb! f;~---SlDEhq' OFFICE 3:3330 SANTA AN~ CANYON ROAD HI~H~D, CALI~RNIA S2346 /My ~, ~7 Mr. Brad ButI~ City of Rzncho Cucamonga Plazudng Comm. 10500 Civic C~ter ~ve ~dlo Cucamon~a, ~Jiforni~ Dear Mr. Buderr It has co,,'~e to our at±-,'nffon that correspondence from our office to Lauz.-n Development regarding a proposed housing development in },our dry (Tentative Tract 14.771; Corps file no. 97-30016-A~S) may have been rrt/5~nterpreted as pro~irl/n§ a determ/n. ation dlat is beyond. the scope of our re,dew under tile Corp5 of F..n~neers Regulatory Program. This letLet Js iniended to clar{fy our respons{bi]ity a/~d involvement wilh pagard to this proion. Our Iett~r of February 7, 1997 (copy attached), only provided a deLermLqal~on that the proposed pro~ac~ wouId no~ req~re a p~mJt ~om our office pursuant ~o ~on 404 of ~ean W~ter Act. Section ~4 re,ares the d/.~ar~e of ~edgad or h']i mater,s] into water~ of the Uni~d S~es. Wa~s of the U~ted States g~erally do not L~cJude areas ,J~a[ flow dudng ex~2~ flood evena, 100-year fioodpla~s or areas of sheet flow. The focus of d~e 40,1- pro,am Js d~e pro~c5on of ~e physJ~I, d~e~:al and biological {nta~ of n a ['Jon.'5 '~'a t~5. In reviewing the pro]e-z,t site we de+~rmJned there we're no jurisdictional waters of ~he Urdted States witi-dn the hoLmale,des of ~Jne propo~d xa~ and tibet the project as propo~d would nat resuit in, any disd~rge of ff!l {nto a'aters, ~efsre no permit ws~d ~ required from. our office. TBJs w~ the ex~nt of our de~rmJnaffsn. ~te Co~s' Regulato~ Brach has not made any as~:fi~s or expre~d any opk-J~s as ~o ~e adequacy of fio~ c~ml features of the project, ~:tudJn$ safety ~sues surforating ti~e removal of the e~Jsdng Jeve2 running al~g ¢e sou~ hondaW of ~ne pr~m sire. Our dele~nadon relays only m fl~e presence/abs~ce of j~Js~cdo~[ wa~ers of '~ne Uni~d Sates. Office of the Ctdef DEPART&lENT OF THE ARI'¥1Y LOS ANGELSS DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGIN£fRS SEVEN OAKS D~M RES;DENT O~CE 3~20 S~NTA AN~ C~NYOf~ ROAD HIGHLAND, CA~FOR~fA ~2348 FES - 7 Lauren Development. Attn: Iohm AJJday 11030 Azrcrw Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cu~mongz, CaH£o~a 91730 Dear ,M~. AJlday: Re£e.:~ce is made to your request (No. 97-30010-AJ5) o~ February 3, 1997 for a Departcr~t oF the Army Perm/t to c0nstruo' ~act 14771, a res£dendal housing d~'e/op~--~ near the Deer Canyon Charb'tei in .Randto Cucamonga, Sam ~e,-narciino Count', Ca]{forrda. Based on Cne i~ormadon f~&~dshed to our office and a si~e vbit by our s~ff, w'e h~ve de~e:~ned ~a~ yo~ proposed projec~ does not disch~ge ~edged or ~t ~{e~l into a water of the b'~d States or an adjacent wetJ~d, Therefore, '~e proje~ Js not su~ect to our j=-/sdicdon ~nder ~cffon 404 of ti~e Cle~ Water Ac~ and z SeeSon ~ pe~ is not req~red from our office. , requ.=, is avpredated. If you have an;,' questions, please contact The .... : ~ o~ your "'~ . . S[r'tc~ re[},, .--ile Ca:p)' O'~lJo-*'] - 97-3CO_'0-AI5 / Clipboard C...Z~/ - Lca A-ngel~ Pu:di~nd :~ Mark Durham Chief, South Co~t S,...~-tion Reg'uJator-/Brana¼ 5Z:U CESN.-CO-F'.5 TOTAL 15 JUL- 9-97 ~ED 15:41 FISH ~ND ~ILDLIFE FRX NO, 7604319624 t United States Department of the Inter/or PISH AND WILDI2FE SERVICE 2'/3 0 I. okcr Ave~c Wc~ t P, 01 July 9, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive P,,/ucho Cucamonga. California 91729 Subject: Clarification of the U.S. Fish and W-ddllfe Service's letter of.rune 10, 1997, to the City of Rancho Cucamoaga (1-6-97-HC-240) Dear Mr. Grahn: The U.S. Fish ~ud W'fidlife Service (Service) is writing t~ clahf5, our letter of June 10, 1997, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding Tmc. t 14771 by Laur~ Development. We understand, titrough Lauren Development's attorney, that the following areas COnCerning the Service's letter have arisen and n_~d__ clarification: 1) The Service under~tands that Laurem Development is not see2dag a section 10(a) permit pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as mended (Act). The first paragraph in the letter was merely meant to reiterate the Service's letter of April 18, 1997, which stated that the surveys to determine presence/absence for the threatened coastal California gnatcalcher (Polioptita californica californica) were not sufficient to detecto/he absence of the bird on the project ~ite. Coastal C.~ifom/,, gnUcatchers are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project (see altachment). 2) The fif~ sentence ~u the second paragraph ~hould read, "...approved by the Service COuld result in a violation of the Take prohibition of section 9 of the End~mgered Species Act." The Service is hopeful that the above provides clarity to the City and the project proponent regarding the Service's letter of June 10, 1997. We remain available to work with the project proponent ~ud the City to avoid impacts to fedemily sensitive and listed species. Please contact JUL- 9-97 P, 02 WED 15:42 FISH AND WILDLIFE FAX NO. 76n4319624 Beth Woulfe, S~ot~ Eliason, or ~e~FNewrmm oftahls office at (760) 431-9440 if you have 1-6-97-HC-240 Eur2osure cc: CDFG, San Diego, CA (Arm: Bill Tippets) 2 Sin~r~'y, Field Sul~ervis6r Hewitt and McCmire, LIP, Irvine, CA (Aim: Andrew Hm't~l) .JUL'.-- 9-9? ~D 15:42 FISH RND ~ILDLIFE ?, 03 DEAN DUNN-RANIO~W CH,~.J..ES S. E..XON A,'~'Oe, EW K. I'{ART"Im HUGH HEWTi T lO¢qN D. Ht. rDso~w HF wrrr & McGumE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT L~,w 19900 MacArthur Boulcvard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 · (714) 798--0511 (fax) DENNIS D. O'NEJL J^Y IF. PAJ..C'NIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE JOHN P. YF~GE~, August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Robert McKeman San Bernardino County Museum 2024 Orange Tree Lane Redlands, CA 92347 Information Pertaining to Map Supplied by USFWS Re£arding 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 conta/ncd 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) malcing 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 $:\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 diffizult 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, pleura do not hesitate to Sincerely, AKH/clt Enclosure cc: John Allday 08-05-97 3021-00002 £:\DOC\161\CORR\97080014.LTR JUh- 7-97 ~ON 11:i8 FISH &WD N[LDLIFE ~7~F ~ F¢,,X ~0. 76043t9624 P, 02 // 17 August 5, 1997 ~ R. J~Y F. P,~l.rl. A. ~o~ P. VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Rebecca Jones Env/ronmenm.l Spe~alist- Region 5 Cali£orn/a Deparlment of Fish and Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: I~uren Devetol>ment - Tract 14771 in the C/Iv of Rancho Cummon~a. California Dear Ms. Jones: Th./s firm represents Lauren Developmere, the project proponent of an approximately 23-acre residential development project on the above-referenced tract in the City of Rancho Cuzamonga, California. I understand that you left a voice ma/1 mssage for John Allday of Lauren Development at the end of ta~t week requesting that I2uren Development contact you. This afternoon I left a message for you on your e_nswering machine noting that was returning your call on behalf of Lauren Development. Please contact me at y.our earliest convemience at (714) 798-13500. Let me aga/n express my di~ppointment that the Department of Fish and Game has declined Io date to withdraw or substantially ctar/fy its June 23, 1997 letter to Mr. Brad Bullet at the City of Rancho Cucamonga in writing. While the Department's oral clarifications are apprec/ated, they have limited va. lue when not reflected in writing given the written statements of June 23. As I have mentioned previously to Bill Tippets, you and others at CDFG, that lert~ eonta/ns both inacr:urate 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 prejudic'/al effect which they could have on the project applic2mt. Once aga/n, I request that the Department either withdraw or substan:i~ly clarify its letter of June 23 in writing. The Department's letter of June 23 suggests that the Department may be interested in meeting with the City and Lauren Development. City staff and Lauren Development would be ptease~t to meet w'ith Bill Tippets, youtsar and, if appropriam, other members of the Department. Suzh a meeting should be held by Friday, August 15. Please inform me of the Department's interest and ava/lab/lity. 0S-05-97 3O2:-O~OO2 S:\DOC\lf~\CD,2R\970SDDlg_LTR Rebecca Jones Augnst 6, 19 97 Page 2 Again, I would appreciate your renaming my phone call on behalf of Lauren Development. I look forward to spealdng winh you soon. Sincerely, AK_l-I/clt co: Jacqueline Schafer (via regular mail) Craig Manson, Esq. (via regular mail) Jotm Allday (v/a regular mail) Wilt/am Tippets (v/a fax and re.radar mail) Brad Bulter (via regular mail) 08-05-97 3021-00002 $: ~DOC\161 \CO~R \~7080013. L'TR 18 LOEB y. LOEBLLP D~ect D{a[ No. 213,688.3622 c-mail: MMCKEITH(~!oeb.com August7,1997 Via Fa~imile Ma. Gale Sanchez City of Pancho Cucamonga Planning Depaxtment 10500 Civic C~t~ Drive Rancho Cucamouga, California 91729 Omamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ('EURE") August 20, 1997 City Council Hearing Date Dear Ms. Sancho:- 1 learned yesterday evening thai the hearing before the City Council on CURE's appeal from the July 9, 1997 Planning Commission approval of Lauren Development Design 97-11 has been scheduled for Auguax 20, 1997. Over the past s~ral weeks, Peggy Glorius of my office has had several convcrsalions with you in ~n effort to confirm the hearing date. In your most recent conversation of~uiy 25, you stated that the transcript would not be complete until August 13, and therefore the hearing woutd not bc scheduled until ai~er August 20. 1997. Based upon your statement, I calendarcd judicial evaluation hearings on behalf of the Oovcrnor's _~.~' Office the evening of August 20, 1997. GLP11'3~T. Ms. Curie Sanchez August 7, 1997 Page 2 Und~ the cL,-camsamccs, CURE rcq~e.s~ts a ~n~cc of ~e h~ng date. ~ ~c~ge for a conduce, ~ is ~lling to ~t Co~l m~g ~te ~ S~t~ ~ o~ to ~~te v~io~ City ~y~ may ~ ~ng ~ conj~fion wi~ ~ ~r Day holi~y, P!~ me of thc pmc~ f~ ge~ng a ml~g on .~'s requ~ for ~ ext~ion. Very truly yours, Mali~a Hathaway McK'~ ~LP113~?.L82 L. To: Andrew K. Haf 8/20/97 Time: 10:29:42 AM August I1, 1997 hge 3 of 4 Office of the Chief' Des/gn Branch Mr. ~ O'NeiU, C/ty Engineer 10500 Civic C. ant~r Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 De~r Mr. O'Neill: Reference a telephone call from Dan James W Bob'Hall of my staff on August 5, 1997, requesting information on Deer Cr~k Debris Basin. Specifically, he had questions about the seismic design of the basin. In the conversation w/th Mr. James, and prior conversations Mr. Hall had with a developer named John Allday and a pdvat~ citizen named Melissa McK¢ith, a quesdon arose regarding the sdsmic design of the bas/n. The issue concerns whether we considered se/smic conditions originally when we d~4~'Ened ~Se basin/n ~ emiy 1980% and whether recent information on faults and potential se/smici~ in th/s area would cause a problem for the embankment. Mr. Hall's initial response, in ¢acJn case, was that the debris basins are not subjected to the same criteria as reservoi~ be. cause they don't permanently store water. The joint probability of a basin full of water and a major earthquake is very reinore He also potuted out thai this type of =nb~kment has historically performed very ~ dining ~hq,=~s. Mr. James ask~l ifth~ Corps could prov/de some specific i~formation on the original seismic cousiderations for the embankxhenL Jim Farley, Chief of the Soils Dexign Sect/on, provided the following information originally p~sea~d in the Corps' r~port, "Deer ~ I-Iills/dc and Demens EMbris Basins - Embankment and Fromclarion Seismic Evaluation - Supplement to Feature Dcdgn Memorandum No. 6", dated Ju~ I979 and mvi_s~l in October I980: 1. The debris basin was statically evaluat~l for two s¢i~c events, a magnitude 8 on the San Andreas Fault and a magnitude 6.4 on the Cucamonga Fault_ The analysis indicated the embankment would p~form adequately under both earthquake conditions, maintaining its integrity and function as a debris bas/n. 2. The joint probability of a t00 year flood event and either e~daq~e is very rare, approximately 3.4 and 2-8 chance~ in 100,000, respectivey. , From: Jo~ L. Allday To: Andrew K. Har~il · ;%U~-2~-97 ~9, 17 FROM Hall Bate: 8,/20/97 T~me: 10:29:4,2 Et I D, 9094772849 P~ge40/4 3/3 Based on the review o£ ~ information, the U.S. Army Corps of l~glmgers aftruns the Deer Cn:et Bas/n w be safe from failure during a major earthquake on e/ther the San Andreas or Cucamonga Faults. Sincerely, Robot E. K, oplin, P-E. Chief, Engineering Division 101 00 '00 00:00 10851 EDISON COURT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: (909) 989-175! : FAX (909) 959-42~7 ' August 14, 1997 L~uren Development Inc 11030 Arrow Rome, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 .,ttumtion: Mr. Tom Maran Subject: Engineering Geologic and Geotechincal Evaluation of Landslides Tract 1477l, Vicinity of Haven Avenue and Tacksten Street Rancho Cuamonga, CA Gentlemen: ]n 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 Tra~ 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, C. alifomia. The scope of our work consisted of field reconnaissance, review of pertinent geologic and seismic literature, review of aerial photographs, engineering geologic and geotechnical 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 San Gabriel Mountaims (Figure 1). The base of the San Gabriel Mountainq is located about one mile to the north-northeast and ~A mile to the northwest of the u:act. The fan is composed of coarse- grained sediments ranging :firore 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 primmy source of the alluvium is Deer Can. yon. Nearby smaller canyons are comparatively small sources of sediments. The San Gabriel Mounta/ns are composed of a complex m/xmre of igneous mad metamorphic rocks including mylonites and qum~ cliorim (Morton, 1974, and Bortugno and Spittier, 1986). 'Ire 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., 1976). The Cucamonga fault is a reverse fault, approximately 28 km in length, with a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (:t: 2 rnm/yr.), and is believed capable of generating an earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude of 7.0 (Petersen et. al., 1996). Recurrence Interval of large earthquakes along the Cucamonga fautt is thought to be on the order of 700- years (Morton and Matti, 1987). 101 ~0 ~0 00~00 G OUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development, Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga..CA August 14, 1997 In the vicinity of Tram 14771, youthful alluvial sedimcms conceal the Cucamonga fautt 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 ] ,500 fec't noah of Tract 14771. Later maps (e.g. Morton and Matti, 1987, and Bormgno and Spittier, 1986) show the fault further to the north, at the base of the mountain front in the Deer Creek area (Figure l). However, neither location has bccn corgSrmed. Several regional geologic maps depict landslides that are thought to exist in the Dec Canyon and nearby areas. A summary of these landslides is presented on Figure 1. Ail'thcsc landslides occur completely ,,,,,/thin the mountainous tena/n of the San Gabriel Mountains. None of the landslides are shown to extend outward onto the alluvial fan surface, and no debris flow lobes extending onto the alluvial fan surfaces were observed on aerial photographs reviewed or during the field reCOllllaissance. Based on the information summarized above, we conclude that landslides originating in the San Gabriel Mourrtains will have no adverse impact on residential structures with/n or to thc south of Tract 14771 for the following reasons: Regional geologic maps do not shown any landslides within 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. One method of mitigation of landslide hazards is to locate a development at a sufficient distance from landslides so that the development will avoid the hazard (Hottz and Schuster, 1996). The location of the site 'A of a rm/e or more from the base of the San Gabriel Mountains provides sush mitigation firore landslides within the San Gabriel Mountairts. Debris flows deposit sediments at gradients of about 20 percent or less (Campbell, 1975). Since the Eraclient of the Deer Canyon fan is about 5 To 7 percent, should any debris flows reach the fan surface, they would be deposited near the mountain front where the stream gradient changes prior to reaching the site. k... RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page 2 10! 00 ~00 00~00 GJ oup GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development~ Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga~ ~A August 14, 1997 The conical shape of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan directs runoff and possible debris flows at the base of the mounta/ns to the southwest and southea~ away from the site, with the exception of rimoff from Deer Canyon itself (-Figure 1 ). However, a debris basin and concrete lined drainage charme[ have been constructed to control drainage from Deer Canyon. Only the area south of debris basin drains toward the site. It is our professional opinion that special mitigation measures to protect structures within or direcity to the south of Tract 14771 from landslides originating within the San Gabriel Mountains are not needed owing to the distance to the mountain front, the localion of the property near the center of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan, the gradient of the alluvial fan, and the existing flood mntrol improvements. Tiffs report has been prepared solely for evaluation of landslide hazards related to development of Tract 14771. It has been prepared using generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. We trust this report will serve your needs at th.is time. further information, please not do hesitate to contar:t us. Respectfully submitted, RMA Group ~Wallace~~ Engineering Geologist CEG 1255 Ed Lyon, PE Vice-President GE 2362 Attachments: Appendix A - References Figure 1 - Regional Geologic Map If you have any questions or require any ~ RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page 3 10! 00 ~00 00:00 G~OUp GEOTECH2NICAL CONSULTAaNTS APPENDIX A REFERENCES GroUp GEOTECIS~qCAL CONSULTANTS Laure~ Development~ Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 1. Bortugno, E.J. and Spittier, T.E., I986, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 3A 2. 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. 3. Fife, D.L. and Rodgers, D.A_, 1974, Geae~d Map Showing Thickness of Fresh-Water Bearing Alluvium i~ C~ologic I4a_~__rds in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113. 4. Fife, D.L. et. al., 1976, Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California Division of Mitres and Geology Special Report 113. 5. Holm, R. D. and Schuster, KL., 1996, Stabilization of Soil Slopes in Landglides Investigation and Mitigation: Transportation Reseach Board Special Report 247. 6. Morton, D. M. and Streitz, R., 1969, Preliminary Reconnaissance Map of/vl~jor Landslides, San Gabriel Mountains, Ca/ifomia: California Division of Nf_mes and Geology Map Sheet 15. 7. Morton, 1974, Major Landslides and Generalized Relative Slope Stability Map /n Geolog/c Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino Courrty, California: California D/vision of lVfines and Geology Special Report 113. 8. Morton, D. M. and Matt. i, J. C., 1987, The Cucamonga Fault Zone: Geologic Setting and Quaternary History in Recent Reverse Faalfing in the Transverse Ranges, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339. 9. P~ersen, M.D. et. al., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 96-08. 10. U.S. Geological Survey, 1966, Cucamonga Peak 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, photorevised 1973. KMA Job N° 96-207-11 ['age A1 ~00 00:00 G oup GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Dev¢lopmeat~ Lne. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamong.,m..CA Auglm't 13, 19[}7 P, FRIAL PHOTOGRAPHS UTILIZED Source Flight Date _ Fright No. Photograph No. 1 4-20-96 C-528 213, 214 1 7-1-91 C-487 204, 205 1 2-25-86 C-450 177, 178, [79 1 1-21-78 C-279 156, 15¢ 1 2-7-70 C297 74, 75, 76 i 2-27-69 C295 18, 19, 20 1 1-30-69 C-293 49 1 1938 W~68 E-3-6,7,8 E-2-11 2 8-3-89 1834 153, 154. 1. 2. San Bernardino County Flood Ccratrol District U.S. Geological Surv~ EROS Data Center Page A2 ~ RMA Job N° 96-207-1 'GrOup · ,:,~,;, ..... ~.,,,;,,, ,:.,, :,,.~,~',:,,' ,': , .... ,, ,, · ~" ' · ...:.,,"',~- ' :, ,,'!""r'!~ .' , , ,,,',· ~ "" ""' ' ...... ' "i'"'~ ....' ~?," ,~', ,., , .... :,~,, ,,,,',. , ~.: .... ,,. , ,:,, ,, ,,"., : ,, , ,'", ...... ,~ ,,$~, ',",. ,,,, ?. ~ ,.,, ,,,,, . , ~;, . ,, ;~ .... ~,'¥~ .... './' "' "',.' '1 ?"" ' ,71 ? ' ~. ', ,',T,3, ,,.t, · .. ~.'.~,,~,. ,' , .,~.~.~,,.. .'.,,' :,',',',": . ~.". ~: ".' ....:,"": '!' "' ..... . .. ":i'..". ,~,~, I~.",~,',,'.,, · .... ,,,,, , ,',,,',SLi,,,,,,,...,~ ,,,:' :: ,.. ,:.-,,;',' .:. ,, ',,, ,,,~:. ; , ',.' . :i ' '<,,,"',",','i:,i~,,.'" , ,; ,. (,,,):i! ':Af?_'-Z~,,~,~ JL,~ndshde (arrows show direction of movement) GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development!inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 ]igneous and etamorphic Bedroqk Debris Basin .I. {: .l'. " ION A:L "]" ......... Direction of stream flow .-- ....... ?..~.._,...~.. ~.~,~. Souress: References 4, 6, 7, 8 and Aerial Photographs ?2,dA Job N° 9'&207-11 LEVEE FACT SHEET DR 9%11; Tentative Tract 14771 (8313,'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 con,s .trueted by the Corps of Engineers in 1983. Runoff from the 125 acres between the debris basin and Tentative 'Frail 1,;771 (the "subject property" referred to below) w411 be intercepted by the on-site storm'cgannel 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 Coumy 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 ifa 100 year storm was to occur before the completion of Lauren Developmenl's on-site storm channel. The subject property and all of Haven View Estates will be more suite a.~er construction of this moiec~ than they are now, not less safe as C.U.R.E. contends. mo 1938 - Earliest Photos of Levee: The earliest photos showing the Deer Creek Interception Levee are from 1938.~ Research :Io 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. 1941 - Flood Control Easement Recorded Over the Subject Property: ~ 1941, an "Ea.$~:me~ for Flood Control and Water Conse~wation" in favor of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District was recorded over properties north and east of the levee, including the subjezt property.' Co 1969 - Levee Overflows Flooding Area of Haven View Estates: Contrm-y to testimony by Ms. McKeith, ~he 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 no~ prote~t the eastern portion of wha~ is now Haven View Estates and this area was therefore flooded as a result of the storms of.lanuary 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 Den Creek Debris Basin, the Dezr Creek Channel and the Lauren Development local storm drain are what is necessary to protect thee axeas. t ?hotos dated July 4, 1938 taken by the Un/t~ States Dep~ment o~ Agricu~u~ and obtained ~m ~e archiv~ of~e San Be~a~ino ~unty F~d Contel Dis~ict. Early ma~ ~m 1953 obtain~ f~m the Unit~ Sta~ Geologic:So. ice also ~ow the lev~. 2 Ins~ument ~ 1487 page 139 of r~:0rds of S.B. County moorfled August 2, 104 I. '~ Ov~ow Limit, Sto~ of Janu~v, 1969 Sou~west potion, prepared by ~c San Bem~ino CounW Flood ~ntrol Didier dated May, t969 ~ Mr. Michael Fox, Chirr, Water Re~oumes Division, San Bewa~ino County Flood Control Distri~ Telcon. August 1997. 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 Ch ..a~nel and Debris Basin were in the process of being completed, the subject property was not subd/vided at this time bemuse 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 ~operty and included on the approved tentative tract map. Testimony to the Planning Commission 'm 1983 indicated that the ultimaxe disposition of the subject property was unknown because '~dae Flood Corrn'ol Distr/ct has not yet made up its mind" about whether it was needed for flood control purposes.6 E. 1983 - Deer Creek Facilities Constructed' In June of 1983 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Deer Creek Charmel and Debris Basin.7 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 Estate) indicated that "With the Corps of Engineers' Deer Creek Dam and Channel and Hillside Basin and Charmel in place, the site [T.T. 12332'1 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 Go 1984 to 1986 - Flood Control Easement Abandoned by the County: In 1984, the owner' of the subject property reques~ext that the Flood Control District investigate relinquishment of the Ttood control easement because of his desire to develop the property.9 A.fter determining that the levee was no longer needed for flood control purposes, the Flood Control Distri~ recommcndr. xt {o the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors that the casement bc relinquished.~° In January of 1986, the Count,/Board of Supervisors aban~loned their casement over the oropcrty.~ As a part of this abandonment, the Flood Control District reserved no fights to maintain or preserve the:levee. The owner of the property was required to ~av - and did kn ;[act pay - San Bcma,n~n,o Ctmaty for the value of the development fights Io this prol>ert¥ in exchange for the County's removal 6fthe 12 dcvetopmem restricting casement. Footnote References ~ Tentative Tract 12332 w~s originally approved May 11, 1983 (Planning Commition Resottrtion 83-66); and amendments or extensions were approved on Sc0tember 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66A); February 12, 1986 (Planning Commission Rc~olution 86-23); November 10, 1987 (Planning Commission P,,csolution 87-196); Jao. u~y 27, 1988 (Planning Commission R~olution 88-53); Jun~ 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January 11,'1959 (Planning Commission Rc~olution 89-03). ~ Plannin£ Commission Minutes, May 11, t983. ? Mr. Bob Hall, Chief of Design Branch, U.S. Army Corp~ of Engineers, Telcon, 7/28/97. The De~r Creek Channel (North Halo and D~r Creek Debris Basin were officially completed in June, 1983. s Drainae:e Report, Tra~ 1.2332 inctuded with initial Study da*cd March 18, 1983. ~ Letter fi'om Associated Engineers ~:o S.B.Co. Flood C:OnB'Ol Dis-INc-t, January 9. 1984. m l,clterlo San Bernardino County ~oard of Supervisors from Flood Control District dated October 22, 1984. instrument #86-014725 recorded January 20, 1986. 2 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 Angele~ 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 Wa~er & Power, and in doing so, retained no easements or other mservation~ for flood comrol purposes over.the use of_this pro?~rt3,, which would beerl have done if this property was at all necessary for flood control purposes. 1988 - Approved Hydrolog)' Study Refers to Removal of Levee: The Hydrolog)' Study prepared in 1988 by Associated Engineers for Tract 12332-2 (Phase I1 of Haven View Estate) 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 t~ flows offsite. In the future when. the remainder oareel [the suNect I~ropertv] is to be added, and~tt{e levee removed~ more recent topo will be available and mitigatine measures can be analyzed at thdt time to convey flows from the nortin." "The existing levee [is] more than adequate [to protect t~ct 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 ofhotd!ng maior storm runoff ~tcnemted from the area extending from the Deer Creek Channel to the ~bie~ property because a maior breach in the levee of over 200 feet in width was gradext through i~ to provide an easterly emergency access road for Haven View Estates.t* The rextuircmcnt f6r !kis access road was a condition of approval of Tract 12332-2 which was imposed by the Cit3'. Gouncil aT the urging of the adjacent homeowner's association.~6 The ~:rading oftiris hole in the levee was approved bv the County Flood Control D~sLricI.17 The fact that the city, HOA and Flood Control District have all allowed violations of the te~'ee provides compelling evidence that the need for the levee has long since oassed. Continued maintenance o~this road through the' levee is a requirement of the ariacent homeowners association CC&Rs. ~a Dkspitc this requiremen( for ~2 Mr. Ken Williams, Right-of-Way Division, San Bernardino Coun~ Flood Control District, Telcon July 24, ~cj7. The payment which Mr. Laband made ~o the county for development rights was approximately $18,000. '~ Mr. Ken Williams, San Bernardino County Flood Control D~rlct Right-of-Way Division, Telcon 7/24/97, t~ Hvdrology Study in the City of Rancho Cucamo,~ta, Tract 12332 prepared by Associated Engineers, dated August, 1988 (cover unrated. however data inside report reflects this date). (Undertlninu: added to ciled quotes.) ,s 'I-he breach in the levee graded for the emergency access road is approxima[ety 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. '~ S~e City Council t~esotution 88-344 dated June 2, 1988 (approving, on appeal, an extension oft/me to recoed 'i'ract 12332-2) requiring the e.~terty emergency access mad. :* San Bernardino County Flood Control Di~rict Permit No, P-18810d approved on December 6, t988 an emergency acc:55 road through the levee.. t~ Declaration of Conditions, Covenant~ and Reslriclions for R,,ncho Cucamonr~a V - Haven View Ear, res recorded June i 3, ! 990 (doc# 90-231127). continued main/chance, the homeowners association ceased maintenance of the acces~ road through the levee in 1996.~9 The hole in the. levee remains however, and any major ~orm rtmofftodav would freely flow th.rough this opening causing damage to the ~operties below. 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/he lcvcc. This rear/stated: "The tribtrtary area to the north [of/he subject property] encompasses · approximately 122 acres." "This m~a is bounded on the north by the Deer Canyon Debris Basin, on the east by the Deer Creek Charmel and on the west by an existing earth levee. FFhis] exl/sting 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 proiecls north boundary and emp~ to lhe east." ~0 1990 - T-T. 14771, Grading of Property and Removal of Levee Approved: In Novcrater o£ 1990, the city approved Tentative Tract 14771, the subject property. This a~vroval included a Conccvtual Grading Plan which clearly indicated the entire property Would be graded. including the removal of/he levee.21 A variance was also granted at this time due to the unusual re~tulrement that the local drainage channel be constructed on site.z~ Prior to these approvals, three Neighborhood Meetings and two Planning Commission Public Hearings were held, and recommendations for approval we-re received by the city's Design Review, Technical Review and Grading Committees.za All required findings, including those dealing with the safety of prdperties in the vicinity, were made. The Haven View Estates Homeowners Association recommefid~d aVl:}roval of/he development of the rn'overt-v.TM The Ciw Engineering Department reviewed the t:nta/ive plans for the drainage channel, and a number of c0nditions were imposed 1o insurd that the channel would be vroperly designed, ttmt adequate safegtmrds would be in vlace when the levee was removed, and ttmt the site's vrotecfion from floodin~ would first be t:rroven to the'federal ~ovemmem. These conditions included: 25 The channel d~ign shall be justified by a final drainage study approved by the City Engineer. b'ooO~o~¢ Reference* ~" Lelxer from Rancho Cucamor~£a Fire Prote~ion District dated Jane 25, 1997 indicat~ that in 1996 the permit was repealed after outslanding perraft fees were paid in full by the ~djacent homeowners association. Drainage Report in the City of Rancho Cucamone:~, Tract 14771 prepared by Associmed Engineers, January 1. 1990 (Underlinin~ added to cited quotes.) 1I . . - Tentative Tract 14771 w~ 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. ~ Var/ance 90-08 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commi,sion Resolution 90-139). :~ Slaff P,¢port to Planning Commission dated 11/14/90. .,a l.ettcr 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. . ,-.5 Engineering Division Conditions #1-4. 4 · The channel shall be designed to the satisfaztion of the San Bernaxdino County Flood Control Dis+~ct. · T~e developer shall prepare reports, plans, hydrologic and hy&a~lic calculations relating to flood plain boundaries and shall have the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone AO designation removed from ~e project area by the Fe&ral Emergency Managemeant Agency (FEMA). o The drainage channel along the north project boundary shall be operational prior to -removal of the existing levee. M. 1991 - A Third Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Repor~ prepared in 199! by Morse Consulting Group again clearly anticipated removal of the levee. This report stated "The levee w~ill 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 ot~erational prior to removal of the existinc levee at the projects southern boundary." 26 1991 - Federal Government (FEMA) Changes Flood Insurance Designation for Site: Engineered ptaas for the drainage channel along the northern boundary of the subje~ property were submitted to FEMA L~ January, 1991.27 In August of 1991, after reviewing these local cl~minage channel plans and talcing into account the existence of the new Deer Creek Channel, FEMA issued a Letter O£Map Revision (LOMR) which officially changed the federal government flood iv. surance 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 shaces the same Zone C flood insurance designation signifying that this area is protected from flooding. 2~ 1991 - Federal Government (Corps of Enoueers) Attests to Safety of Deer Creek Facilities: As a part o£FEMA's LOMP, process, the U.S. Army Corps o( Engineers indicated that the Deer Creek facilities were designed ~ "provide protection for the Standard Project Flood (SPF), which is estimated to have a recurrence interval o£ approximately 200 years. In adclition, the channel was designed to withstand the lxigh velocities in the range 0£60 feet per second (fps)." ~9 P. 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 {4ydrolog. v and Hydraulic Calculations -- Offsite Tributary Flows with Trapezoidal Interceptor (~hannel for Tract 14771 prepared by Morse Consulting Group, dated June l, 1991. (Underlinin~ added to c/~ed auotes). 27 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Case Number 91-07-47P :4 Letter of Mao Revision (LOMR) from U.S. Federal Emergoncy Management Agency (FEMA) dated August, 19, 19o 1. Zone AO is defined as "Special Flood H~zard Area (Shallow sheet flow of 1-3' in 100 year storm)". Zone C is defined ~ "Area of Moderate or Minimal glood Hazard (in a 500 year storm.)" v, Letter from Mr. Robert E. Koplin, P-E-, Chief. Eneineerin~ Division, Department of the Army, Los Angeles Distyict Corps of Engineers, dated March 12. 199t. concurrence with the proposed LO~R. request that would change FEMA flood b-~zd designations on District rights of way south of the Deer Creek Debris Basin." ~0 1992 - Grading of Levee Approved: The owner of the property at th~s time, Brock Homes., processed through the city Building & Safety Department a Rough Grading Plan for the subject property, consistent with the previously a~l~proved Concepttml Grading Plan (see Item "K.~' a~ bove), which included the removal of the levee.~' Jus~ prior to starting the grading, Brock Homes ~lropped the project ~dvon approval ofa Roumh Gradin~ Plan from the Building & S~f'ety Department, the levee could have been removed in 1992 or ~yfime since. 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. McKeirh, Deer Creek Basin and Channel replaces the levee, not the local ohsitc drainage channel to be co~tructed by L.auren Development. As approved by the City, the County Flood Control District, the Corps of Er~gineers and FEMA, the on-site drainage channel on the subject property is designed to collect wate~ runoff from the ] 24.8 acres to the north not captured by ~he Deer Creek Basin and Channel? Deer Creek Channel is designed to contain approximately 5,400 cubic feet per second (cfs)3~ flowing frgm the 3.71 square mile (2,374 acre) Deer Canyon Watershed.>s Contrary to testimony by Dames & Moore, the subject properb"s local drainage channel ~s designed to contain 447 els emanating from a local ]25 acre watershed which is just five percent the size of the Deer Canyon Watershed.3~,~e 1997 - Geotechnicai Analysis of Levee Confirms Inadequacy: According to a recent analysis of the levee, installation of the local drainage ehmanel proposed for the subject property will result in an improvement over the existing flood control protection offered by the levee. "From a ~¢otechnica[ versvecfive, the vrovosed storm drain channel and associat=d sloves are more ~mble against gross failure than the exi~ing levee." 37 Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, du6 to the breach in the levee, any water generated by the area north of the properS, has the potential to Foomo[e Rcfcrence.~ ~0 Le~er from Mr. Kenne~:h D. Ouidrv, P.E., Chief, Water Resources Division, San Bernardino CounW Flood Control District, da~ed June l l, 199 I. .'4 Rough Gradlog Ptan Ptan Check No. 91-3535. Planning Department approval of the Rough Grading Plan was granted on March 24. 1992. ~2 Hvdmlogv and Hydraulic Calculations -- Off~ite Tributary Flows with Tral~:zoidal lntemeptor Channel for Tract 14771 prepared by Morse Consuhing Group, dated June I, 1991 :o At inte~ of'T 14771 local on-site drainage channel. ~ Hydrolo~*~' Study in ~he City of Rancho Cu~monga, Tract ~2332 prepared by Associmed Engineers, dated August, 1988 (cover undated, however da~a inside report refiect~ this da~e). ~ 2,3'74 ac / ~25 ac ,~ t8.992 ~' cfs, acreage confirmed by MDS Consulting, 7/31/97. 3.'. Stability Analysis, Existin~ and Proposed Retention Ben-ns, Tra~ 14'771, Rancho Cucamon~a CA, by RMA Group, dazed July 9, 1997 flow through this hole in the levee and severely damage the properties to the south. It i__~s important that this local drainage channel be constructed ASAP. 7 LANDSLIDE & EARTBOUAKE FACT SHEET DR 97-11; Tentative Tract 14771 08/13/97 ISTATEMENT: Erroneous and misleading information has been presented which purports to show the possibility of large earthquakes and landslides occurring in the vieinky of Tentative Tra~.-t 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 ofa I00-year plus storm in the Deer Cxe~k 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 di_,~ction and sliding the WRONG distance for a slide of the size which would be expected in th~ area. All factual landslide information avai;abte today was known and available many years ago. Then: is no factual "new information." Earthquakes: Fault location and intensity information provided by the opponents is wrong. £actua[ fault information available today was known and available many years ago. There is:no factual "new information." LANDSLIDES The Location 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 prepWed by the County of San Bernardino.~' 2 Further, based on geotcchnical observation, the regional geologic maps do not show any landslides extending out from the mountains onto Deer Creek alluvial fan? The Direction of Fall of the Slides Shown on the Landslide Map Presented in Testimony is Totally Wrong. Most significantly, the ctirecfion of fall of the landslides shown by CURE's consultant defy not only gravity, but the scientLfic information documented by the County o£ San Bernardino in thek official maps of slides in this area. Based the conical shape of the Deer Creek alluvial fan, possible debris flow3, arguing that such flows would even occur, would be directed to the southeast and southwest away from the site.~ The Location of All Known Landslides are Too Far from the Subject Property to Present any Hazard: According to the RMA Group, Geotecknical Consultants, the subject properV{~ 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 Landslide. s, San Grabrial Mountains. Morton and Marti, 1987, USGS Professional Paper 1339 Report prepared by R. MA Group dated Aogus~ 13, 1997 Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 199'7 Hotrz. and Schuster, 1996, Smbili2tfion of Soil Slopes in Landslides - Investigation and Mitigmion. EARTHOUAKES The Location of the Cucamonga Fault i~ 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 crossrs under. Deer Creek Clrm~nel, Day Creek Channel and numerous olher local watercourses has been known for many yearsfi Contrary to raisinformation ~resentcd by Ms. McKcith that the precise location of the fault is "ri£ht under the Deer Cre~k Debris Basin," the location has never bcc-n precisely ram:reed,2 Rather, the Cucamonga fault in the area north of the subject property, is referred to en official maps as "concealed, poorly located or gradational."s 'The dotted linc in no way is meant to imply the precision or certainty stated by Ms. McKcith. Magnitude of Cucamonga Fault Not 7.5. Ms. McKcith states that new/n.formation places the probability of an earthquake on the Cucamonga fault a~ a 7.5 magnitude.° This is an untrue statemere bv Ms. McKeith. Ms. McKeith states that abe source of this new i_n_formation ks ~om Dr. James F. Dolan of file Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California? This is an untrue siatement by Ms. McKeith, according to Dr. Dolan?I Fdrther, Ms. McKeith. includes as evidence of this erroneou~ statemere aportion of a document prepared by Dr. Dolan m the County of San Bernardino which references a 7.5 magnitude earthquake.n This ~s an incorrect interpretation offixis document by Ms. McKei~h, and an iaa~ro~riatc use ofa ~ortion of'hiS letter, accordSrig to Dr. Dolan. The ~'uth is that the document of which Ms. McKeith presented 'a small po~on in testimony to the: Planning Commission was a proposal presented to the County of San Bernardino to study the location and imevaity of the Cucamonga fault and, according to Dr, Dolan, "the idea of occurrence of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake was a hwothesis, not a concl~ion." ~ According to ,Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative for Supervisor J0n Michaels, this proposal wa~ Footnote Ret'erenc,,~ ~' City. of Rancho Cucamonga Safety Element Map. : Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, }997 ~ Symbol index to Soufi~em California £artJauake Mal~ prepared by California Division of Mines & G~ology is 'Solid [li~e~] where accurately located; long dashed where well located; short dashed where approximate or ~ndefinite: dotted where concealed, poorly located or gradelionel." Letter from Ms. McKeith to./ames Markman, July 9, 1997, page 6. Letter from Ms. McKeiah to James Markman, JuN, 9, 1997, page 6, footnote #5. ,t Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. Jm'n~ F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, Univea~/ty of Southern Califomla, Io Bill Ford, 3uty 21, 1997. ': ~'rooosa[ to Conduct Pal¢o-Earthcluake Research on the Cucamon~a Fault. North Eftwanda Site, Rancho Cucamon~a, by .Im~es 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, Jut)' 9, 1997.) ~'~ Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, Univers/ty of Soothem California, to Bill Ford, Juty 21, 1997. 2 Do ibr 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 Cueamonga Fault was Prepared in 1987: According to Dr. Dolan and the Southern California Earthquake Center at Col Tech, the latest information on the Cueamonga Fault is presented in a paper published in 1987. Is The Cucamonga Fault is considered a normal faulI zone wi~ a probable magnitude of between 6.0 mad 7.0 occurring at iatervhls of between 600 and 700 years. l~ This informalion 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 Charmel were designed. Fault Information Not New Information: Accord/ng to John Marquis of the Southern California Earthquake Center at Col 'rech in Pasadena, the erdstence of the Cucamonga fault, the ,ap ~mrdmate location, its expected magnitude and all other pertinent data has been known since 197I. .Foomo~¢ Rcferenc~ ~4 .Tetcon~ Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative, 2nd Supervisorial District, August 4, 1997. ~ Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to'Bill Ford, July 21, 19971 Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. Jo~n Marqu/~, Southern California Fjtrthquake Center, California In.qtitute of Technolog'y, August 1, 1997. It Cucaraonga Fault Zone clam published by the Southern California Earthquake Center at Col Tech. :* Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. John Marquis, Southern C.~lifornia Earthquake Center, California Institute of Technology, August l, 1997, 3 TRAFFIC IMPPACT & ACCESS FACT SHEET DR 97-117 Ten~ative Tract 14771 8/13/97 STATEMENT: Traffic impac~ were analyzed when Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below) was approved. Based on previou~ waffle 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 lhe proposed development. The public record shows that the homeowners association agreed that the streets v~re adequate. Construction, sales and future resident access is guarantt~:l by court supervised ~:ttlement agreements recorded against each lot in Haven View Estates in 1990. Traffic Studies Prepared and Considered in 1990: Tm.ffic Studies were submitted t~ the city on September 4, 1990, when the subje~ property was being' considered for subdivision approval. These studies analyzed the impacts oftm_~c from the 203 lots in tract 12332-I and 12332-2, the 40 lots on the subjec! property, plus an additional 53 lots on the property owned by the Flood Conreal 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'peivate collector streets). Based on these conclusions, a condition was added to the tentative map Ihat no driveways be allowed onto these two streets. Traffic Engineering concluded that the maxineam 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 Departmere smffreporL the applicant made certain concessions regarding the design of some of the lots to mitigate these traffic related concerns of the opponents.~ The adjacent homeowners approved the changes and the President of the homeowners association recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission.3 Up to 45 Homes Agreed to by FIOA: The Haven View Esl~tes 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 pr4 operty and acknowledging that these homes will not overburden'the streets in Haven View Estates. D. Homeowners Association Paid $10,000 for Access Rights: As part of the consideration for entering imo the recorded agreement to allow access for constation of all of Phase 2 of Tract .Staff R¢oon go Piannin£ Gommis~ion, September 26, 1990. Minutes of Plasxn~ng Commission Public Hearing, September 26, 1990. I.elt~ ~O City from Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, da~ed November 12. 1990. This loner is in city file_~. First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990 (instrument No. 90-I 11246). ] 2332 (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 l'I (the subject property) ... will consist o£no more than 42 lots...". Both o£these documents clearly inform future property owners that this property would be developed and would not over,inclen the 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 Hhven Avenue where only the owners of the lots inside the gates will have access. Access Guaranteed: Access is fully guaranteed in recorded scttlcrnent agreements. Constraction access is alloweeL, just as access is currently allowed for the construction o£homes on other tots in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development and its contr-a~tors arc obligated to take cam to bc safe and good neighbors during the construction period. The recorded settlement agreements specify in great detail the extent o£acccss 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 rights of access.~ Access Insured: Access rights to this property trove previously been insured by three segiarate title insurance companies since. 1990. Lauren Development has also received notification that its title insurance company is prepared to issue a policy of title insurance in the amount of $5,000,000 insuring that arcess to the property is guaranteed based on all previously recorded documents, agreements, government approvals and maps associated with the subject property. '~ Developer Street Eascm~t and Maintenance ARtcement, rocorfled on Fcbma~ 16, 1989 (Ins~ment No. 89-056050). ~' Decisions of ~venan~ Conditions, ~d'R~ri~ons of ~ncho Cu~m0n~a V-Haven View ~t~, ~co~ on June 18~ ~990, t~mmcnt No. 9~231 ~27. ~ Developer S~eet ~ement and Maintenan~ A~cmcnt, ~ on Fcb~a~ 16, 1989 (tn~mcnt No. g9-056050); the A~oci~fion S~ct ~ement and M~intcnance AgemenL ~rded on Febma~ 16, 1989 (InStall No 89-05605]); and the Fi~t Amended and Rcs~amd Grant of Mutual ~men~, r~orded on M~ 23, 1990 (In~mmcnt No. 90-111246). ~ Rcfcr~ce lc~r fr9m Jackson, DeM~co & Pcck~paugh dat~ June 25, 1997 (subm~ed to Planning Commission prior to July 9, 1997 m~g.). 2 PRIOR IGNOWLEDGE FACT SHEET DR 97-11; Tentative Tract 147'71 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 documems, including three easement agreements recorded in 1989 and 1990, and ~o se~s 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% 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 conmated both Homeowner Associations early this year and personally met with individuals owning well over half the 1otg in Haven View Estates. No one should be surprised at the pending grading of this property nor the constraction of 40 homes on the lots. 1983: Haven View Estates Development Approved; Ultimate Development of the Subject Proper ty 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. ~ 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.3 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 C-I'ract 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 e~ch buyer ofa to~ or home in this portion o£ 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 192_332 was approved May 1 I, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66). : PlanninR Commission Minutes, May 1 I, 1983. '~ Tentaziv¢ Tract 12332 was amended or extended on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resohaion 83-66A); ~'cbruary 12, 1986 (Planning Commission Resolution 86-23); November 10, 1987 (Planning Commission Resolution 8% 196); January 27, 198E (Planning Commission Resolution 8g-53); June 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-3a4); and January 1 I, 1989 (Planning Commission Resolution 89-03). ' Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Haven View Estates, recorded on August 16, 1984, Instrument No. 84-195405. (Reference Exhihi! C thereof). 1 101 00 '00 00:00 of which have beea teaordeal 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 ~ubject property cou/d be developed with as'many as 45 lots.~ Do Eo June, 1990: Rancho Cucamonga V CC&R's Notif3; Owners of Development of the Subject Property: Similar to the CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (se~ item B above), .the CC&R'.s for the second,phase (150 lots; Tract 12332-2) clearly indicate that the subject property will be developed.. These CC&R's state that ~he subject property is "curremly being remapped" and "intended to consist of 42 r~sidcnces." By law, a copy ofthesc CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in Haven View Estates. Juty, 1990: Public Report 'for Haven View Estates Notifies Lot Buyers of Development of the Subjec~ 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) r,ffcrs to the future development of the subject property, clearly referencing the plans for 42 additional lots on this property. By law, the Public Report must be gtven to, reviewed by and a receipt signed by each buyer of a lot in I-taven View Estates. November 12, 1990: Haven View Estates HOA Endorses Development of the Subjec! Property: Property owners who arc currently on the boards of both HOAs in Haven 'View Estates attended and testified ax the Neighborhood Mcctings and Public Hearings held regarding the development of the subject property, including the grading of the sitc and removal of the levee? The current and then President of the Haven View Estates HOA. on behalf of the pro~rt¥ owners, recommended in writing the avproval of the development. 10 November 14, 1990: The Subject Property Approved For Do, elopment~ Including Complete G rading: After three Nei~zhborhood Meetings and v~o Planning Commission Public Hearings 'the subdivision and grading of 40 tots on the subject property was approved. This action was also advertised in the Inland VaJlev Daily Bulletin as a Public Hearing, the site was vosted and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site.1; The grading of the entire site, ~ Dcvelooer Street ~em and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Insa'ument No. 8%056050); and the A~$ociation Street Easement and Maintenance A~7~ncnt, recorded on February 16, 1989 (instrument N~ 89- 056051 ). ~ First Amended and Res'mtea:l Gcant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990 kqn~mmen! No. 90-111246). 7 Dectara~ion~ of Covenants. Conditions, and Restrictions of Rancho Cucamon£a V-Hav~;n View Estates, recorded on June 18, 1990, insmsmcnt No. 90-231127. (Reference Page 2 thereof). · DRE File Number 066828LA-F00 issued July ! I, 1990 and expired July 10, 1995. (Reference Page 5 thereof'). 9 From Plannln£ Commission Minutes Sept~anber 26, 1990 and November 14, 1990 and Neighborhood Meetln£ Sign-Up Streets August 9, 1990; September 4, 1990 and October 16, 1990. ~ l,er~er Io City from Ms. Bruce A~n Hahn, dated November 12, 1990. ThL~ letter is in city files. ~i Staff' Report to the Planning Commission, dated November 14, 1990. 2 101 00 '00 00:00 339 ~:~3 including the removal of the abandoned levee, was a clearly recognized part of the hearing process. 1990 to 1997: Over Half the Homes in Haven View Estates in 1997 W~re There in 1990, and Half of Those Homes Are Still Owned by the Same Peonle: Contrary to testimony that there were "only 10 homes" in Haven View Estates when the subject property was approved, there were in fact 3 t 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.'a Of the 31 non-tract homes existing in 1990, 15 of these a.~ sell/owned by the same people who owned the homes at that time.~4 I990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent of the Lots in the Haven View Estates HOA Are in 1997 Owned by the Same Peo01e 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. J 5, [ ~ Jo 1990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent of Those Who Attended the I990 Ci~ Meetim,.n Still Own Homes or Lots in Haven View Estates in 1997: At least 19 Haven View Estates property owners attended or testified at the I990 Neighborhood Meetings and Public Hearings when the development of this site was approved, 12 of whom still own property in Haven View Estates.i? 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~s and in July, 1996 spoke with a board member of the Rmacho Cucamonga V t-IOA. ~q Since that time conycreations continued, and a board member of the Haven View Estates 20 HOA visited Laiuren Developmoro's offices in October, 1996 to discuss trails and other concerns. :: Tentative Tract 14771 was approved on November 14, leD0 (Planning Commlssio~ Resolution 9(L-138). A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved at that time'. Removal of the levee waa an integral pan of'the plans for thls property. From Buildin£ Permit records, City of R~ncho Cueamonga Department of Building & ~f~. Dat~ of Building Petit activi~ in Haven View ~mt~ prior to appm~l ofT~mt{~ T~ 14771 w~ ~ follo~: 198~ =4 ~; 1986 - 12 ~izs; 1987 - 8 ~i~; 1988 - 2 ~i~; 1989 - 3 pe~i~: [990 ~ 2 ~iu ~{us 9 JCC ~ct home ~). Totals custom homes plus 9 ~ h~m~. ~ 1990 and 19%t~7 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessor~ Office. :~ ;990 and 1q{/6/~7 ownership information from public records at the offices of the Stun Bernardino County Assessor~ Office. 6, tn 1990, the 151 tOtS in Phase 11 (Tract 12332-2) were owned by Brock Homes. tiaa applicant of the owner of Tract 14771. ': 1990 attendance information from Plnnnln~ Commission Minutes September 26, 1990 and November [4, t990 and Mei,~,hborhood Meet~n~ Si~n-Up Sheets August {}, 1990: September 4, ~ qq0 nnd at/abet 16, 1990. [996;97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County A.sses~or~ Office. Bruce Ann Hahn Mr. Bill Angel Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn 101 00 '00 00:00 January, 1997: Both HOAs Contact Current Owner: In January, the managemcnt 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 digca.ns the plans of Lauren Developmere with the ~'wo boards, and suggested the management company contact Lauren Development direaly.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 A~ril 4. Two days before that meeting, the management company canceled the meeting because of an inability of the two associations to get a quorum. No April 3, 1997: Lauren Development Reschedules Meeting With Both HOAs: On April 3, Lauren Development wrote a letter to the management company expressing regxet 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. May, 14, 1997: Last Minute HOA Meeting: On May 14 the management company req.uested that Lauren Development attend a meeting that eveninil 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. May 20, 1997: Design Review Committee Meeting: On May 213, board members from both HObs attended the Design Review Committee meeting and .offered testimony. 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~6% of the 203 existing lots in Haverl View F.~tates have attended. 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. :7 Letter dated January 15, 1997 from Euclid Management Company Angel that day, and would get back to Lauren Developmere to further discuss this meeting. She never called back. June, 1997: Letter to All Property Owners: Since the initial Planning Commizsion D~ign 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$ of the date of this writing. only .three people respoaded to the -invitatior~. From: Jo~n L. A~ta~f To: ,N3drew K. Hartze{I From: Tm ran-T0:4841864 S~';NT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DE'V; Dale: 8J1&/97 Time: 12:4&:2:2 PM Date: 8/1 97 Time: 12:20:46 PM 8-18-97 12:13PM; 9094772847 -> Laur-en Development; Page 2 of 3 Page 1 of 2 #1/2 United S ta te.~ A~rlcultut~ Fo~s t Service S~n Bex-na.cd J. no 1209 Lytle C~eek Rd. Lytle C~ek, CA 92358 FAX: (909) 887-8197 909 B87-2576 TDD File Code: 1560/6270 Date: Au~usL 15, 1997 Leeohs KlippsLein, Conservation Di~ec:or $pi=i[ of the Sa~e Co%~cil P0B 77027-~02 c^ 91~07 Post-It' Fax Note 7671 /q~lS ]ettc~ responds to you~ 8-5-97 F~eedom o~ /nfor~atlo[~ AcL (FO[A) cequest, which you f~xed to ae on 8-6. You asked for two items: 1) "a copy of any documents, information ~nd m~ ~at the Forest ~ice h~ in it~ ['iles on this parcel, includin~ a, copy Of the de~ ~d title" (you wemc ~ferin~ to a small parcel Gary ~F h~ disc~s~ with you in 8 recent phone conversation); ~d 2) "~y ~eoloEtc~ ~pomts foF ~r C~yon ~a t~t the Forest Seavice ha~ on file". RE #! Gar~ was pauLially mist&ken in his phone conversation with you reEa~d£n~ the Naclona~ Forest parcel in NE/NE/SE/SE Sec 1~, T[N R7W He correct in that the parcel is located about 1/g mile nOtCh Of the City H~cho Cuc~on~'s 7q' lh771 (~u~ ~velo~t). Ho~ve~, he ~ncor~ectly descried that pascal's history (he confused it with one in ~o~ev does not have a deed ov title wi~ =est~ic~ons. Inste~ it eventuall~ ~c~e p~t or thi~ Natlo~al Fo~t ~a~e Of l~ o~l~inal 12-23-1907 the gcner~ l~tds of the U~ted States by Presidenti~ P~cl~etion. p~oclama/ion placed it into ~e Rescued ~blic ~muin (~ opposed to public dom~n l~ds which ~e ~v~ent w~ted to dfs~se of), ~d ~c~e pa~t of the national foist sysco. " I am attachin~ copies of' two pa~es f~om our Land Status Atlas that show the legal stYLuS Of ~he l~x%d ill question (these ar~ the only ~eco~s th~s Fo=cst has =e~srdinE this land): a) a map showinE its location (hiEhli~htcd fn yellow), ~d b} the_accomp~yin~ desc=iption of that l~d (s~ L~.ne No, 20, the 10 scce parcel (also hiEh].j.~hted in Fellow). ~e small isolated sq%~e~e 2.~ acres; the ~ct~z~ar parcel im~ediately to its e~t is 7.~ ~c~es; to~ether they total 10 ~c~es. If you h~ve difficulty int~met~E this fnfo~m~Lion, ple-~e feel f[~ to call From: J~ L. AIk~y To: Az~drew K. P~rtzell · From: ~orn Maran. To: 4841864 S~NT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; Date: ~1~97 ~me: 12:48:/2 PM 8-18-97 12:13PM; 9094772847 => LauPen DevelopmenT; Page 3 of 3 P~ge 2 of 2 #2/2 RE #2 ~ ForesL has no ^rchaeolo~(cel Reports ro~' the ]~e~ Canyon documenta do ~o~ exist, I am for~ard/n~ tha~ pot[ion of your requesC Regton=l Foroster for his reply. The San B~rnardino County Museum would be yot,r b~s= source Eo~ t~his infor~ation. Sincerely, ELLIOq~ [.. GRAHAH Di.~trlct R ~n~. r a==echmen=s: Le.nd St.~t;u~ A~lm~, T1N R7W pa~cs LO£B :ZEB ..q..,,, ~ LO~; A,,.,q4,~44. CA Re: . M.F, MO R A N D.U M URGENT - DELIVER OR FORWARD IMMEDIATELY August File No~ 000000000 H. Cr-,.tig Man.~m. Gearra. l Coan.,.,,:I. Depa.nm~t of :Fish & Game CC: Patricia Wolf, Ac~inl~ Regional Ma.aager £:alifomia ~m:nt of Fi~ & G~c. Region 5 Maiis~ Halhaway McKtith Cucamoag~s Unimd for Rcasonablc Expansion (CUR.E) Challenge Io tha Lau:~a Dcvelopmcm Project Dcar Mr. Man.son: J. R~l~upsibt~ Agency tnvoivcn~r_~ As you know. the Dc'pm'tmcnl of Fish & Game ('Depm=nenl") inforrr~d the City of R~cho Cu~onga ["City") ~ J~: 23. 1~7, of thc ~mm~'s ooin/on ~at ~e 1~0 Negative ~cl~afion should ~ ~i~la~ prior to fin~ approval of lhc Lau~ ~vclopm~t Pmj~l ["Proj~") m li~t of c~g~ cimumst~c~ ~d new info~ation. Spccifi~ity, zhc Dc~m~t mnctu~d: "['l']hc L)cpartmcnI bclic~/cs additional cnvirommcnml rcv/em is now required to fully. cO 'd ~.S:V'~ Z6, 8'~ finU gOS£-Tgg-9~.6:x?J ~_TCI S~T.U_Y3U -~-33-~ H. Craig Manson, Esq. Aagus~ 18, 1997 Page 2 distHose the: proje.~t's curten! potenlial si~ifi~t ~t~Iion is w~t~ ~cause: (1) substantial change h~ ~~ wi~ r~al circumstances ~ whi~ ~c p~j~ un~nk~ ~ ~c ~ ~posed for devciopm~ is now within ~ a~e Natural Co~uniV Consedation Pl~n~g ~CCP) ~a-- of which th= City is a ~ci~I ~d (2) nu~ info~afi~ of su~mntial imprace Io Ih= projccI h~ ~m~ av~lab{~ and ~e ~oj~ will now ha~ one or mo~ ~i~ni~ e~ nol pr~iou=ty disuse. lh~ pm~fl ~iopmenl will 0f u.iqur pl~ md ~imais =s~ia~ RAFSS, n sl~ ~ifi~l nalural ~abi~at raked as 'v~ ~atm~', (CEQA ~idelin~, Scaliun 151620" (Junt: 2.3, 1997 lelttw from P~'i~a Wot:O. in this t~cr, ~quir~ ~ha't ~iona{ dis~~ approvals ~ r~u~ ~ ~ it ~ld ~ ~hme CEQA ~su~ ~d ~~ ci~u~mnc~. of lb= final Pi~ing Co~i~i~ H~ring ~ the ~ve~opm~t ~i~ App~v~ of the ~ojc~ the Ci~ A~ey, Jam~s M~~ ~tv_~ ~ me The Pt~nning Commition approvc~t the l'~ojc~-t on July 9, 1997. and CURE appeated to ~c City Count:it. The CiD' Council HemSrig is on Wextnesd~, Augu.~l 20, 199'/ a! 7:00 pm in Ranr. ho Cur. amo~ga~ Projexl t~0ponent~ have pu! considerable pn:ssur~ on the: Dcpm'tmenI to withdr~v Patrici~ WolFs June 23, Ic~7 coro:spondcnce, and Iht: Departmorn! h~s n:fttst~ to do so. in light of the Dep~.r~mcnt's position th,~l furth~ CEQA documentation is required. ~ w,-11 ~ its Aughas! 5, 1997 .corrm'pondcnt:t: !g:,T! Z6, 8~. fSnU gOS£-~g9-gi6'x-~S ~-~ SSi~S_~'~ -]U9Sq gE~ 72[-'?. ~,o,'~ :~:: ~:a .-,.- ............ Page 3 requiring s~rc~mbcd al~fi~n agr~:mcnt~,~ CURE rcqucstm ~A~ ~c ~tho~ ~y ~dhion~l cnvi~t~ ~vicw. ~e ~t~ pr~ ~ ~su~ ~ ~n dcsi~ated Catcgo~ ~t-1 ~d G-I (alluvial t~ sage ~). tx ~ ~m ~udicd c~vciy by ~ McTtr of 7our D~mcnl ~ p~ of the ~i~n~ Pr~c. A pm~I supporting zhc ne~ f~ ~dition~l envimnm~ml r~view on old ten~ivc m~s, b~d u~n ~g~ cim~st~ces ~d n~ info~ation, would ~ of ~ml impoa~ on ~ num~ of pmj~ ~d ~c S~c. 2. Rc 'r.-ha~gc I will be me¢Iing ~th Kur~ Bcrciold, AssisIant Executive Officer, Regional Water Quztity Con~l B~ at 10:00 a.m. on M~y, Aunt 1997. Ku~:'s tct~bonc num~ is ~-V~2-3298. C~'s hy~ologis~ ~z~e ~at goundwa~cr r~h~gc could h= rcdu~ by ov~ ~r y~r ~f ~c ~ ~clopm~t ~ approved ~d lh=c if ~1 ~ssibtc rcch~gc w~ ~]i~, it could ~ ov~ 1O,~ ~ f~:. R~h~ged ~und~cr ~i~1ty ~ Mc lc~t r~cnsiv~ ~d ~ q~iw wamr a~ilabie. Ai~ou~ I ~ti~c ~ Rcgion~ jud~iaion und~ ~hc Pon~ Colo~c A~I tO c~t~ ~me d~<tion ~om Fish & G~c Ag~cy would ~ hdpful. 3. gkrpimmcllI/S~sisIancc aI I15~ Au~,us~ :10, 1997 If a! all possible, v~: neccl Mary Meycr's ~,s,s_istancc prior io o~' a! the Augusl 20, 1997 hearing. One nf Ii~= masl. imporla.ut changed s The I.)cv¢lo~:r cannot comply wi~ the sIrcarnbc'd alloration ao'~emr-nl based upon zn old ncgaiivc dc~taraIion. Section lB(a) of the $~rcamb~ Notification Guid~-llncs specifically r~uircs "applicabt,' s~tions of the final ccrtifi~:l CEQA docurmml, including lhosc scatiota which address bioiogk:cI and §cologicat iml:mcl-s." The. t990 Ncgalivc Lkciaration mcrrty ch~-ckcd ~he "rua' box as ~o any stgnittcant impacis in ~i~,rsc t~ct rdl o~hcr) arr.~. .. lq. Cr'e. ig Man.~n, £~. A~ 15, lq<)7 circumstmmcs cormming alluvial fnn sagc scrub is that recur ~i~ h~vc '~di~-~a~ ~is -~o~m "~ot -~ '~t~ '~ -i~ -N ~~. A~ilio~lly, M~ h~ ~e e~ to provide info~alion ~c~ing ~c n~ of AFSS ~s rc~g N the world ~d ~t ~e ~ ~s d~cd sigmiti~lty sin~ t~. ~ the ~~mt plc~sc su~ C~ by proviZrig ~ltm or oral mmi~iom on ~cs~ k~ ~inm7 ~ City ad~c~ the He~ng Da~c ~m Scp~b~ to Au~, th~by ~ty imping CI~'s ability to ~t ~1 ~ti~l in/b~mi~ imo ~e ~inis~Iive ~cord ~tbm i~ ctos=s. Ptcasc contact me a! your c~lics: convenience lo discuss ~: ~bove. ~y home number is 909-989-8'/02 and my cellular numbcr is 213-999-4332. gO8C'--~'C~9-9T'6' ~-"-e-3 A[G S~TU-j£d -tUg'~'~ 9SC[ OCT-] 5-9~ 11:49 818-991-3904 P.03 Date: 10/15197 7~me: 11:48:10AM R-55~t Job-6~5 Page 3 of 12 To: Bill Ford, LaurenDev From: INTERNET:dolan@earth.usc.edu, iNTERNET:dolan@earth.usc.edu Date: 7/21/97, 4:0! 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.B.4/8.7.2/usc) with ESMTP id QAA27237 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:01:32 -C700 ( Received: from [128.125.23.1113] (dolan.usc.edu [128.125.23.113]) by earth.usc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4/usc] with SMTP id Q~u%2219! 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 t~ 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 ~he 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 we:re trying to address, and the idea of occurrence of M 7.5 earthquakes was a hypothesis, not a conclusion. The best available reference for the Cucamonga fault is an article by Doug Morton and John Matti in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339, published in 1987. Most major Uinversity Geology libraries (e.g., Caltech and UCLA; USC does 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 ]De 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 l~heir publically held land. Withcut such investigations our hands are tied. Sincerely, Jim Dolan 0CT-15-9~' 11:4§ $18-991-390J, P.04 R-554 Job-6a, 5 Date: 10/15/97 Time: 11:48:10 AM Page 4 of 12 James F. Dolan Assistant Professor Dept of Earth Sciences University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 phone: 213-740-8599 fax: 213-740-8801 03/05/97 · Note: ~ 15:29 FAX 9093961571 BIA OF S0 CALIF The Se~w/ce will honor coastal Califorcfia gnatcatcher surveys completed during previous breeding Coastal California Gnatcatcher (~Polloptila calif ornica catif ornica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines February 28, 1997 The o0asml C~lifornla !g~tc~v. her (Polioptila ~o~ cMifomica) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 19~, ~ ~ ~~ S~ ~ of !~73, ~ ~~ (A~). ~ ~] ~e f~,hln ~on m ~~ ~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~h 30, 1~3 (58 F~ ~~ 16742). ~ -~~ 10, 1~3, ~m ~on ~d) of~ A~ ~ U.S. F~ ~ ~d~ ~ (S~) ~ ~c ~fio~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ of~ ~o~i~ ~at~ch~ ~ ~ ~bi~ ~d not ~ a ~ol~on of~m 9 of~ ~ (58 F~ ~ 65088). The coastal C. nlifm-~n Lm~esrwher. a small gray ~ongb/xd. is a n~ideal of scrub dornln~te~l plant COT~l~lm{t~ ~ ~['/~ Vg~[r~ Cou~w~ ~ou~w~ ~'~o[~h LOS .,~ngeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernnrdino, and San Diego Counties, C~Hfornia into Baja C_,elifor~i~. Mexico, to approxim~ly 30 degrees North lmimde near El Rosario (Amscan Omixhologists' Union 1957; .4Zwood 1980, 1990; Jones and l~aznirez 1995). The coastal C,dlfmmi~ g~a~a~ch,-r is strongly The majority ofplaut speci~ found in ,age ~ are low-growing. dmught-de~duous shrubs and sub-ahmbs, including California sagdinah (,~rtem/$/a cali_tbrn/ca), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). and sage~5 (Salvta mello~ra. $. apiana) (Holland 1986. Sawy~ and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Othgm commonly occun4ng species include lemonnd,-beamy (Rims integr~lia~ coast gold~nhuah (ISocoma menz~.'e-,iO, lm~l sumax: (Malosrna laurina), boxthom (Zy~-/um spp.), elitaFtpurge (Euphorbia rr~era~ mad jojoba ($immonds/a c/uhensis). Succul~-nt specie,. stw. h as ~ (Opuntia littoralis, O. prolOrer~ Ferocactus ~cens), and Dudlej~a spp. am ~ in mari6me a~w,,cnalam aud ~o~ coastal bluffscrui~. Sag~ ~,ub ofam occum in a partly, or movie, distn'bution pamma throughore ti~ raage of the coasad Califo,~i,, ¢omm,mitie~ ~ ~ octmr attj~at Ix) or inttmnixecl wi .tt~ xage sca-ab. Although ~ia~n£ ' quarttim data may ~ rclaliv¢ly little alm. uI 'coa.nml.Ca!iforni~ ~her use of these otl~r habi~rt% ~ m-~as may be critical dm'/ng ~ ~ o£year for di~ or as foraging a,:,:as dining inclexmmt conditions (e.g. dro,,g~). Breealng t~itxxries also have been documeaexl ia non-sage scrub habiU~t (e.g.. chap~xal and grass .t~m~~ habits~). The bre~ling season ofth~ ca~astal C~lifomia g~W~cher e~tends ~m ~ F~' 15 ~u~ A~ 30, ~ ~e ~ of rag ~ ~'~ ~ ~d-~h ~ ~d- ~y. ~on ~ 14 ~. ~e yo~ fi~e ~ 8 m 13~ of ~ ~ ~ d~d~t u~n ~ ~m ~r ~ ~e ~ ~ m ~ w~ ~CE 1990)} but ~~ ~y ~c~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ m~. This protocol is based on the be~ available scicn'dfic information regmxting the ~ility of the ~ C~tifom~ gx~t~t~her and is subject m change pending receipt of additional p~rtineart BIA OF SO CALIF ~10o~ 2 ~....~ ~ at ~, 0~),' ~0~;: ~ ~- (1990), snd other ~ublJ~l information in the · . ~..:;:~, :r .; .~ guidance ~ scotion. 10(aX1XA) pezmittees. A section in the NCCP ~m ~on ~a) ~c~: 03/05/97 WED 15:30 FAX 9093961571 BIA OF SO CALIF ~004 $arvey Protocol for the Coastal California Gttagcatcher From July 1 thxo~ Maxch 14, a vnlrdm,n'n of nine (9) su,wey~ ,shall be eonduc~ a~ l~mt tw~ w~ks apa~ : Surveyz shall be cond~ between 6:00 a.m. and 12.430 p.m. Surveys shall ~void. periods ofcxc. c~v~ or -huom,~l he~:, wind, raiu, fog, or ot~cr inclemem weather. Talaed camsml C, aI/fomh g~,rtc~ch~r roe=_ ;;,~fio~ _~h~11 be used only until individuals have been in/fiaqy located. T~pes sh~ll not be used frequently or ta el/c/t further $urisd/ctions l~c/pm~, in theNCCP interim sect/on ~(d) procer~: · No more Rum 1 O0 acres (~0 ha) -~h,ffl be surveTed per biologist per day. ,~11 oi'her jurisdim%ns: * No more than 80 acvea ~32 ha) ~_h-!l be surveyed per biologist per day. No a~tempts shall be m~de~/X~ closcty approach or exa~ue coastal California nexts unless authofiz~ by Service permits. Th~ ~ _~h-l! .l:~vid~ th~ followiug iufozmation in a x~ort t~ tim Cazlsbad Field Office and the C~11¢omia ~ of Fish ~nd Game within 45 days following the fi~ld. sur~eys ..... The loc. m/on or,he survey area dcllne-~,.H on a 7_5 mlrn.~ U.S. Geological Survey topogratah/c mz~. a.Z 1:24,000 am:l 1'200 scale. Names of a.l] biologists and associated personnel with reference to tlxeix section 10(a)(1)(A) peamait minabet. A complete description of survey methods, including, ~he n,~,n. her of acr~ surv,zyed per biologist per hour and how mamy to~l acres surveyed per day per biolog/sk 'Cite nnmbe~' and. dates of surveys, ,,rM stop ~'irnc of stu'veys, survey routes dalincatt~ on maps, the ternper~nrr~ and weafi~r comii~ons ~t the beginning ~,nr~ end of e. ar_h survey, ~md how f~quenfiy 03/05/97 WED 15:31 FAX ~093~61571 BIA OF SO CALIF ~] 005 Co W'ritte~ and mapped qualitativ~ de~filatioa$ o£plant communities donCuamt sp~i~ and habitat quality) on ..d adjaomt to the ar~a surv~ye~ fl~lg~jm,~, ,,.~l;.g. unknown); sex of all coastal California gv,,t,-~,t,.hl=-s, cole,: baml kffm:mmion (from tap t~ bottom and from l~t tn ~.l~t) if any. 'rhes¢ data also shrill be plol~t.¢d on I:24,000 and 1:200 scale maps ofthe sm'v~ ~rm) ahall b~ submitt~cl to the Carlsbad Field Offic~ imrn,'~l,i-tety upon ~1~o~ Raw/fmld dam, nmea, and other.information ~ul~ form work con&mind Und~ th;.~ lxzmi-t ahall be submitted to the S~a~ric~ imm~i,,t,..ly upon This protocol was ptepax~ by the Sexad~'s Carlabad Field Office, 2730 Loker Av~tu~ Wea~, Canisbad, California 92008. If you have any queations regarding,the p~oto¢ol please call 619431-9440. 4 03/05/g? WED 15:31 FAX g093961$T1 BIA OF SO CALIF Sttrvey_Protocol for ti~ Coastal Cahfornia Gnatcatcher ~f.i'teratur~ Cited ~caa Omlthologists' Union, 1957. Checklist of'North American birds. 5th ed. Anatwican Omi~otogi~' Union, Washingfrei, D.C. .. 1980. The United S~t,.,s distribution oftI~e California black-tailed Wextern B/rds 11: 65-78. At'wood, 3. 1990. S_~_.~_,s rt~iew ofthe California gr~catcher (Poliopttla callfornica). Mahomet Biixt Obstaw-~-y, M~om~ Massache. B~ G. m~d ~ B- Wo .ulfe. 1995a. Observan%ns on breeding. season d~tectability and ,mrveysJ~r the Cati~rnia gnatcatcher (Pdtioptila califbrrdca caltforntaa). UnpubIiahed ~ submitt~ to Western Riverside MuRiple Species Reserve Management Brack~ G. and M. B. Woul£¢. 1995b. Observations an non-breeding season detectability and s~reeys for the California gnatcatcher (~olioptiia californica calOCorrdca). U~ubHshed maa~Ft submitted to Wesram Riverside Multiple Species R~servc Management B~d, P. F, M. S. Gilpi~ 3. F. O'Leary, D. D. Murphy, and R. F. Nosa. 1992. Coastal Sage Scrub Surv~ Guidelinca. Southera California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Environm~n'~l and Energy Service Company. 1990. Phase I Report Amber Ridge O, tlfornia Gnatc~t~h~r Study. Report for the County of San Diego Deparmumt ofPi-n-lng arui Laml Use F~,vimnmem'ml Quality Division. San Diego, California. Holland, R. 1986. A Description of',.hc Teaxxtfial Natural Corninfinities of Callromic. Ca/ifom/a ~ent of Fish and Game, October. Jones, C. and R_ Ramire:r. 1995 Sighting of California Gnatcatcher ia Ventura County. Po~r p .resented ~tthe Symposium onthe Biology of the California Gnatcamber held 15-16 · Sepuanber, 1995, Uuiw~ty of Califomi~ Riverside. ~ock; P. J.. S. L. Jones, andJ. Konency. 1990. Califcrmia Crestcatcher Surwy Cmid¢~. ER.C Environmental and Energy S~'ice Company, San Diego, Califor~a. Sawycx, J. a,rt T. Kcclcr-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of Cslifomia Vegetation. Cslifornls Native Plmrt Society. DEAN HUGH HEw'rr'r HF, WrrT & McGumE, LLP AITORNEYS AT LAW 19900 M.cAr~ur Boulevard, Salle 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 - (714) 798-0511 (fax) August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Rebecca Jones Environmenlxl Spec/atist -. Region 5 California Department of Fish and Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: Lauren Development- Tract 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California 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 contact 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 yo. ur earliest convenience at (714) 798-0500. Let me again express my disappointment that the Department of Fish and Game has declined to date to w/thdraw or substantially clarify its June 23, 1997 letter to Mr. Brad Buller 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 given 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 prcjudic/al effect which they could have on the project applicant. Once again, I request that the Department either w/thdraw or substantially clarify its letter of June 23 in writing. The Department's letter of June 23 suggests that 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. Such a meeting should be held by Friday, August 15. Please inform me of the Department's interest and ava./lability. o8-o5-P7 3o2~-0oooz S:\DO£\161\CO~R\q7080013_LTR Rebecca Jones August 6, 1997 Page 2 Development. Again, I would appreciate your returrfing my phone call on behalf of Lauren I look forward to speaking with you soon. Sincerely, AKt-t/clt Jacqueline Schafer (via regular mail) Craig Manson, Esq. (via regular mail) John Allday (via regular mail) William Tippets (via fax and regular mail) Brad Bulter (via regular mail) D8-05-97 3D21-00~2 S:\D~C\~61\CDaR\~7080D]3.LIR 101 00 '00 00:00 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. September 12, 1996 Ms. Becky Jones · California Depaxm,enl ofFiah & Game 36431 41st S~-eet East Palmdale, CA 93552 . RE: Subdivision at Northera Ead of I-/aven Avenue, City of Rancho Cuc-~monga 3~ar Mz. Jones: Fhaak you for talking to me on the phone yesa:rfiay afa:m~n. As you requ__,-~,~t, enclosed are rome maps and photographs of the subject property. As I indicated when we spoke, I am in the Frocess of buying this previously approved ~ubdivision (which, by the way; received a Negative Declaration) and am now trying to learn all I can about the site before I close escrow. One of the items I am concerned w~th is whether I will have to formally submit ~aything to your agency. Some people have advised me that even if there is currently no stream on the site - year-round or intermittent - I will still need to deal with your agency because a ?blue ti~e" shows up on the latest USGS maps, while others advise that since the San Bernardino County Flood Control District constructed the nearby charmeL there is now no longer a stream on the property and therefore there is no need to deal with Fish and Game. Obviously I am in a quandary and would very much appreciate any guidance you can provide me on tckis matter. Enclosed are the following maps: o Thomas Brothers Map (Subject property outlineel in pencil) - 1952 - 53 USGS Map (Subject property outlined in pencil) · t 966 (Reviseel 1988) USGS Map (Subje~ property outlined in pencil) · 1966 San Bernardino County Flood Control District map of area (Subject property outlined in p~acil) · 1991 i~roi~oscd O_rmeting Plan Let me give you a brief history of the property as I understand it: Prior to 1952 a dike was constructed across the southern edge of the propeaty diverting water fi~m the mouth of Deer Creek Canyon to the southeasL This dike shows up on the 1952-53 USGS map and all subsequent maps. As can be seen on the 1966 USGS map, a "blue line stream" (let me call it S-1) is depicted r~mning across the subject property behind the dike and a second "blue line stream" (S-2) is shown flowing into S-1 midway across the site. The 1966 Flood Control District map also shows a drainage pattern, which I will call S-3, flowing into S-1. P.O. Box790 ,a~;x,lml"l~ CA-.91376 818991~ FAX 818 99'1-..3flG4 RANCHO CUCANIONC.~tk OFFICE 111330 ARROW ROUTE, ~ 102. RANCHO ~ONC~k 909484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 101 00 ~00 00~00 ~G ~ The San Bernardino County Flood Control District constn~ed Deer Creek Channel in about 1980. The location of the eta_ nnel can be seen in the purple 1988 update of the 1966 USGS map. I! also shows up on the far right hand side of the proposed Grading Plato I called the USG$ in Colorado (telcon with Ms. Sherry Girl 9/3/96) and was told that when aerial photo updates (such as the 1958 additions) are prepared, the USGS does dot remove possibly outdated information (such as blue line streams) as the only purpose of the updates is to add information, not correct old information. USGS confirmed that while it is possible thin the addition of the flood control channel could effectively have eliminated the blue line streams below it, removing these streams from the USGS maps would not occw until a full scale update is performed. Sometime after the 1966 topo maps were prepared and before the Deer Creek Channel was constructed, the Flood Control District dredged a 50-60' wide swale across the property, roughly paralleling the dike and S-l, but a few hundred feet to the north. This swale shows up on the base topography of the 1991 Grading Plan. When the swale was comsmictcd, the exports were dumped in the area between ~ swale and the dike, thus dismptinE even more ofxhe site than just that affected pm'viously by the dike. I traced the location of S-2 and S-3 on this Grading Plan and found thai only a few hundred feet or,so of similar topo still exists in the northeasI portion of the site before being eliminated by the swale. If you compare the 1966 topos with the 1991 topo, you cam see ttmt the only portion oft he site which is similar on all rn,?s (i.e., still "natural") is the comer of the property northeast of the swale, which I estimate to be aborn 25% of the entire site. Based on the above topo maps alone, I think the following is evident: Fixx~, the construction of the swale behind the dike diverted any water from flowing through S- 1. Second, the swale also physically obliterated most of S-2 and S-3 from the site. And third, the construction of the Deer Cte~k Channel diverted the water source of the swale, S-l, S-2 end S-3. In addition to the above maps, I also enclose photographs which I took yesterday. I hiked all over the site, looking for any semblance of riparian vegetation. I found none. Please note the existence of east-west service roads along the northern boundary of the site. These roads are used by SCB and LADWP ibr accessing their transmission lines. There are no culverts under these roads for water, and no erosion damage which would be caused if the swale, S-l, S-2 or S-3 sIilt flowed even intermittently across the site. Please note also that even the swale has no riparian vegetation in i~. Please also note that the area to the south of our property is an approved and constructed subdivision. Another blue line slrcam (S-4) shows up on the 1966188 USGS maps and runs right through this tract. Deer Creek Channel also eliminated this drainage pattern. This entire subdivision is large half acre lots, many of which in the area of S-4 are vacant and only rough graded. There is no visible evidence of S-4 in fixis subdivision. F'.O.&:~7~:) Ago~aHiib, CA-e137G 81899t;_'"~3_~ FAX818~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA OFFICE 11030 ARROWROLrFE, Suil~e 1Q2, RANCHO CUC_.,A~ONGA 91730-4825 909484-1863 FAX gO9 484.-1864 101 00 ~00 00:00 A residual watershed of approximately 136azres remains between the new Deer Creek Channel and the subject site. This undeveloped area will generate some nmoffwhich will bc intercepted by a small trape~it~l charmel (3.3' deep, 6' wide at base) be/rig constructed across the northern boundary of the subject site. The one half acre lots we propose to develop on lhi_q site will not be mass graded into fiat pads separated by 2:1 slopes as 'is most common. Rather, the graded pads will be t~mited to the house foott~nt and only minimal. y~rd areas, while the rest of the site will be rentour graded to match the existing 10% slope of the site Thank you once aga/n for looking into tiffs matter. I apologize for being so wordy, but I wanted to give you a complete picture of the property. Please call me at 909 484-1863 if you need additional plans or have any questions regarding this project. I look forward to your reply. Very truly yours, John L. Allday P.O.I~X7~O Ag~ral"~, CA.,9137~ 818~1-.~80 FAX~189~1~ f:taNCHO CUC. A~ONGA OFRCE 11030 ARROW ROUTE S~ite 102. RANCHO CUCA~ONGA 917"30-4825 909484-1863 FAX ~)9 484-1864 DF:PARTM~NT OF FISH .AND GAMI::: (3::LO) $~0-5~38 866 ~ November 18, 1996 Mr. John All.day Lauren Developme~. t Inc. llD30 Arrow Route, Suite !02 Rancho Cucamon~a, CA' 9!730-4~5 Dear Mr. kllday: This letter is regardin~ the subdivision at the northern end of Haven Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga and the need for a StreambedAlteration A~reement. As discuss at the site visit, a Stream~edAlteration 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 ou~ meetin~.I mentioned the need for gnat catcher surveys,. per U,S. Fish m~d ~il~!ife' Service protocol, prior to d/sturbance of the area. A cop~ cf the survey should be submitted to the Department. This letter is in no way an authorization fqr the take of3~any 5i2t~d species, nor does i~ constitute DePartment of Fish a~d S~me endorsement of the proposed operation, or. assure the Department's concurrence with other permits required. If you have any further qiuestions, please contact me at. (805) 285-5867. Sincerely, Envizor~ental Specialist'. Re~iOn 5 cc: Liam Davis -! 101 00 '00 00:00 P OZ 048 P02 June 25, 19~7 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development Poet Office BOX 790 Agoura Hills, CA 91375 TRACT 14771 8TORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES Deer John: In response to the Declaration of Bruce Collins dated June 11, 1097, the oral presentation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission by Ms. Meliscaa McKeith on June 11, ~g97, and the correspondence from Loeb and Loeb to Mr. James Markman, Esq., also dated June 11, 1997, I offer the folk~rlng comments: I am the president and founding partner of MDS Consulting, and have been in private practice since 1970, starting my own lqrm In 197(;. I tlave 8 Gachelor of Science degree In civil engineering and am a registered c~il engineer in California and Arizona. I h.~ve practiced civfi engineering, including all facets of grading and drainage design, since entering private practice, My company has worked extensively in the western portion of San Bernardino County, including the city of Rancho Cucamonga, and has followed the development. and construction of many of the major flcxxl control charmale, including Deer Creek Channel and Its appurtenances. I have been personally invoNecl {n the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations performecl on Tract 14771, and in the subsequent processing through the involved approving government agencies. Our company was retained by Brock Homes In April of lggl to complete the preparation of vattous construction drawings for the final phase of Maater Tentative Tract NO. 12332, a forty lot SliDdivision named as Tentative Tract No. 14771, The Master Tentative Tract No, 12332 and Its related construction drawings were prepared by Associated Engineers, included in their drawlrigs were detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations including variOUS analyses of offsite clrainage conditions, All of tlqese calculations were reviewed and approved by all al~propdate governmen! agencies. Our assignment for the forty lot Subdivision (Tentative Tract No. ~t4771) was to UlX~ate and complete the processing of the FEMA map revisions, both the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which we accomplished. At a project IeveJ, we prepareC~ the various hydrologic and hydraulic studies In accordanoe with generally accepted engineeffng practice required tO substantiate the design of the hardenec~ concrete drainage channel at the northern proper~y line of 'Tentative Tract No. 14771. These hydrologic ant1 hydraulic studies were reviewed extensively and were deemed acceptable for permit in December of 199:2, The project laid fallow (due to the general economic recession) until 1997, when Laure~ Development resurrected the project and reprocessed the plans. The hydrology and hydraulic portions of the design have again been deterrttined to be acceptable and the plar~ are in the final stages of processing for construction permits. We are not sure if either Mr. Colii~s or Me. McKeith have ever reviewed the volumes of material available on the design of l~e various drainage fecl!ltJe~ designed for Tract 14771, as our company has never been contacted by them. Apparently, they only reviewed the tentative tract map, and, as we all know. a tentative tract map is Just that, a tentative plat to be used as a guide to more detailed construction plans, Even at that, .... MDS STANLEY C. MORSE GARY DOKICH SKIP SCHULTZ OCT-I 5-~? lZ:28 101 00 '00 00:00 R-557 J0b-648 June 28, 1997 Page Two tt~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ~',qulrea preliminary drainage studies tO accomoany ~ tentative: tract maD. documents that neither of the project opponents mentioned as being revie~,,d. In our professional opinion, the replacement of an aged, unitned, earthen training levee that was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until Deer Creek Channei was com. ptete, by a har~tened concrete channel deslgt~l to current hydrologic end hydraulic stencla~$, is one wha~e the beneat Is so obvious that It speaks for itself. As a sidelight, the County of San Befnen:lino Flood Control District abancloned thetr (IraJnage easement through Tract 14771 in 1988, as it was no longer necessary for their operation. In omar wordre, the maintenance and operation of that earthen levee is not within any organization currently, wilethat private or public. 13y the construction of the concrete channel wiffi Tract 14771, a maintenance association will be in piece to ta~e care of the channel. Should either of the projec'~ oppenents need to perform pn3pef complete research on the protect. we are available to meet w~th them and discuss both the regional facilities (Deer Craek Channel) and the 0roject level facilities (Tract 14771). E 20596 SCM:jo (3~41 ~00~COI~'t'R~4~7.,DO(: OCT-15-9T t2:2B P.iD4 R-557 101 00 '00 0~:00 8d8 P04 Job-64B ~0851 EDISON COURT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: (909) 989-1751: FAX (909) 989-4287 July 9, 1997 Lauren Development P.O. Box 790 Agora Hills, CA 91376 Attention: Tom Maran Subject: Gentlemen: Stability Analysis Existing and Proposed Retention Berms Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA As per your request we have performed an analysis of the stability of the existing flood control levee and the proposed era'then bean and storm drain channel. Our analysis was performed based on the cross sections developed at locations representing the highest relief in each slope, assumed geoteclmical strength parameters, and an assumed water surface at the upslope side of both the levee and the berrn. The slopes were analyzed for gross pseudo-static stability using a computer program based on the modified janbu method of slices. This method is based on the: static analysis of the mass above any failure arc. The failure mass is broken up into a series of vertical slices and the equilibrium of each of these slices is considered. The force acting along the sides of any slice are assumed to have a zero resultant in the direction normal to the failure arc for that slice. In this method, the stability of the slope is expressed as a safety factor. Safety factor is defined as the relationship of the resisting moments, about the center of the tkilure arc, divided by the overturning moments, about the center of the failure arc. The seismic analysis is based on the pseudo-static method of slices which includes, in addition to the static forces, the effect of horizontal and vertical inertial forces acting out of the slope and through the center of the failure mass. The computer program uses an iteration process to evaluate many trial failure surfaces and select the arc with the lowest factor of safety. After completion of the calculations the program prints out the characteristics of the critical failure arc. P 05 R-557' GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA July 9, 1997 'the results of these analyses indicate that the factor of safety against failure of the proposed storm drain charmel is larger than that of the existing levee· The results of our analyses are attached as Appendix A to this report. The increased stability of the proposed slopes and stom~ drain channel are most likely related to the shalluw slope angle and reduced height of the new channel slopes. The existing levee extends to an approximate maximum height of 25 feet at inclinations steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), whereas the proposed slopes do not exceed 10 feet in height and are proposed at inclinations of2:1 or flatter· ]'herefore, based on the results of our analysis it is our professional opinion that, from a geotechnical perspective, the proposed storm drain channel and associated slopes are more stable against gross failure than the existing levee. Respectfully, RMA Group Ed Lyon, PE Vice President GE 2362 Attachments - Slope Stability Calculations ~ RMA Job N°: 96-207-01 Page 2 _// G~oup P gG ~-557 048 P06 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS 0CT-15-9~ 101 00 '00 00'00 04~ PO? ~0~ 00 '00 00:00 0~8 P08 ** PCSTABL4 ** by Purdue University --slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu Method of Slices or simplified Bishop Method Run Date: Time Of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 07-08-97 5:05pm D:LAUREN1.DAT D:LAUREN1.0UT D:LAUREN1.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Lauren Development 96-207-01 Tract 14771 Case 1 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 12 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right NO. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Soil Type Below Bnd 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 150 00 200 00 242 00 252 00 262 00 270 00 272 00 310 00 323 00 338 00 351 00 368 00 230.00 230.00 235.00 240.00 245.00 250.00 255.00 255.00 250.00 245.00 240.00 235.00 200 00 242 00 252 00 262 00 270 00 272 00 310 00 323 00 338 00 351 00 368 00 450.00 230.00 235 00 240 00 245 00 250 00 255 00 255 00 250 00 245 O0 240 00 235 00 235 00 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PA~LAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. ~T-1 ~-9~ 1~:2~ P.09 R-557 Job-G48 101 00 '00 00:00 0~ POS Type Unit Wto Unit wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) Angle (deg) Pressure Constant Surface Param. (psf) No. 1 120 . 0 130 . 0 100 . 0 34 . 0 . 00 . 0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 5 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Wa~er No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 230.00 2 250.00 235.00 3 270.00 240.00 4 310_00 250.00 5 450.00 250.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading coefficient Of .100 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 50 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. i0 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground :Furface Between X = 200.00 ft. a/%d X = 225.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = 310.00 ft. x = 335.00 ft. Unless Furgher Lirarations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At wtlich A Surface Extends Is y = .00 ft. OCT-I 5-$? ]2:28 P,10 R-55~ J~b-64~ 101 E~O '00 00:0E~ 048 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - MOst Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Jard0u Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 206.25 210.33 214.59 219.02 223. !59 228.29 233. (]9 237.97 242.92 247 90 252 90 257 89 262 86 267 77 272 61 277 36 281 99 286 48 290 82 294 98 298 95 302 70 306 22 309.50 312.52 315.27 316.05 230.74 227.85 225 24 222 91 220 89 219 18 217 78 216 71 215 97 215 57 215 49 215 75 216 35 217 27 218 53 220 10 221 99 224 18 226 67 229 44 232 49 235 79 239 34 243 11 247 10 251 28 252.67 1.12{9 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 101 00 '00 00:00 048 Pll ! 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200.00 203.80 207 -83 212,05 216 221.01 225.70 230.50 235,38 240.33 245.32 250.32 255.31 260.26 265.15 269.95 274.65 279.21 283 62 287 85 291 88 295 70 299 28 3 02 GO 305 308 41 310 88 312 94 230.00 226,75 223.79 221.11 218.73 216,67 214.94 213.54 212.48 211.77 211.41 211.41 211.75 212.44 213.49 214.87 216,59 218..63 220.99 223.66 226.61 229,85 233.34 237.08 2~1.04 2'45.20 249.55 253.87 *** 1 , 140 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 212.50 2 216.31 3 220,37 4 224.65 5 229.13 6 233.77 7 238.55 8 243.43 9 248.38 10 253.38 11 258.37 12 263,35 13 268.26 14 273.08 15 277.78 16 282.32 17 286.68 231 49 228 25 225 33 222 75 220 52 218 67 217 19 216 11 215 43 215 15 215 27 215.80 216.74 218.06 219.77 221.86 224.31 OCT-~ 5-~i~ i2:2~ 101 00 '00 00:00 P.12 048 P12 18 290.83 227.10 19 294.74 230.22 20 298.38 233.64 21 301.73 237.35 22 304.77 241.32 23 307.48 245.52 24 309.84 249.93 25 311.76 254.32 *** 1.152 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 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 26 212.50 216.33 220.39 224.67 229.14 233.78 238.54 243.41 248.35 253 34 258 34 263 32 268 26 273 11 277 86 282.47 286.92 291.17 295.20 298.99 302 52 305 75 3O8 68 311 28 313 54 314 08 231 49 228 27 225 36 222 78 220 54 218 65 217 14 216 00 215 25 214 88 214 91 215.33 216 14 217 33 218 90 220 83 223 12 225 75 228 70 231 96 235 51 239 32 243 38 247 65 252 11 253.43 1.160 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) OCT-I ~-B? 12:2B 101 00 '00 00:00 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 212.50 217.03 221.67 226.42 231.24 236.14 241 08 246 06 251 06 256 06 261 04 265 99 270.90 275.74 280.49 285.16 289 71 294 13 298 42 302 55 306 51 310 28 313 86 317 17 231.49 229.37 227.52 225.94 224.63 223.60 222.86 222.40 222.23 222.35 222.76 223.45 224.42 225.68 227.21 229.01 23%.08 233.41 235.99 238.81 241.87 245.14 248.63 252.24 *** 1.1,66 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 218.75 222.54 226.60 230.91 235.42 240.11 244 93 249 85 .254 83 259 83 264 81 269 73 274 56 279 24 283 76 288 06 292 13 295 91 299.40 302.55 305.34 232.23 228.97 226 05 223 51 221 36 219 62 218 30 217 42 216 98 216 98 217 42 218 30 219 62 221 36 223 51 226 06 228 97 232 24 235 82 239 71 243 85 OCT-I)-gF 12:2B 101 00 '00 00:00 0~8 PI~ 22 307.75 248.23 23 309.77 252.81 24 310.45 254.83 *** 1.167 Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points PO in t X -- Surf Y- Surf NO. { ft) ( ft ) 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 27 206.25 209.81 22_3.64 217.72 222.01 226.50 231 14 235 92 240 80 245 76 250 75 255 75 260 72 265 64 270 47 275.18 279.74 284.12 288.30 292.24 295 93 2[)9 33 3 (]2 44 305 21 307 65 309 73 3~L1 43 230.74 227.23 224 02 221 12 218 56 216 35 214 51 213 04 211 96 211.27 210.98 211.09 211.60 212.50 213 80 215 47 217 52 219 93 222 68 225 75 229 13 232 79 236 71 240 87 245.24 249.78 254.45 *** 1.170 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 212 . 50 231.49 2 217 . 02 229 . 35 3 221 . 66 22~ .48 101 00 '00 00:00 04~ P15 4 226.39 5 231.21 6 236.10 7 241.04 8 246.01 9 251.01 10 256.01 11 261.00 12 265.96 13 270.87 14 275.72 15 280.50 16 285.19 17 28,9.77 18 294.22 19 298.55 20 30,2.72 21 30,6.73 22 31.0.56 23 31.4.20 24 317.64 25 31.8.18 225.88 224.54 223.49 222.71 222.21 222.00 222.07 222.43 223.07 223.99 225 19 226 67 228,41 230,42 232 68 235 20 237 96 240 94 244 16 247 58 251.21 251.85 *** 1.172 **'* Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points Point X- Surf Y- Surf No. (ft) (ft) 200.00 204.43 208.97 213.60 218.32 223.11 227.97 232.88 237.82 242 80 247 80 252 80 257 79 262 77 267 71 272 62 277 47 282 25 286 97 291 59 296.12 300.54 304.84 230.00 227.68 225.58 223.70 222.04 220.62 219.43 218.48 217.76 217.29 217.06 217.07 217.32 217.82 218.55 219.52 220.73 222.18 223.85 225.75 227.87 230.21 232.76 101 00 '00 00:00 24 309.01 25 313.05 26 316.93 27 320.66 28 324.23 29 3,25.03 235 51 238 47 241 61 244 94 248 45 249 32 *** 1.180 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate PoinEs Point x.-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 218,75 222.74 226.94 231.33 235.90 2.40.60 245.42 250.32 255.28 260.28 265.28 270.25 275 17 280 00 284 73 289 32 2q3 7G 2q8 O0 302 03 305 83 309 38 33.2 64 33.5 62 3].8.28 31.8,90 232.23 229 21 226 51 224 12 222 07 220 37 .. 219 03 218 06 217.46 217.23 217 38 217 91 218 80 220 07 221 70 223 67 225 99 228 63 231 59 234 84 238.37 242.15 246.17 250.40 251.58 *** 1.200 *** OCT-tS-g~ 12:2B 00 '00 00:00 048 P17 Job-~48 k OCT-I§-9F 12:2B P 18 R-~SF Job-~4B 101 00 '~ 00:00 ** PCST/LBL4 ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu Method of Slices or Simplified Bishop Method Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filerlame: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 07-08-97 5:01pm D:LAUREN2.DAT D:LAUREN2.0UT D:LAUREN2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Lauren Development 96-207-01 Tract 14771 Case 2 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Soil Type Below Bnd 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 100 00 150 00 165 00 178 00 191 00 210 00 244 00 249 00 255 O0 264 00 285 O0 264 00 264 00 266 00 268 00 270 00 280 00 280 00 276 00 276 00 280 00 270 00 150 00 165 00 178 00 191 00 210 244 249 255 264 285 350 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 264 O0 266 00 268 00 270 00 280 00 280 00 276 00 276 00 280 O0 270 00 270 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PAP~AMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Type unit wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface OCT-I 5-~? 12:2B P.19 R-557 Job-64B 1~1 ~ '00 I~l~:~ 048 P19 NO. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paros. (psf) 1 120 . 0 1.30 . 0 100 - 0 34 . 0 . 00 . 0 No. 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 SpecifieQ by 4 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water NO. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 262.00 2 178.00 265.00 3 244.00 280.00 4 350.00 280.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Eartltquake Loading Coefficient Of .100 ~as Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Metllod, using A Random Te¢~tique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 50 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150.00 ft. and x = 180.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and x = 256.00 ft. x = 265.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Eactl Trial Failure Surface- 0CT-)5-97 12:2B P 20 ~'05F Job-G4B 101 00 '00 00:00 048 P20 Followin~ Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical 0£ The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined, They Are Ordered - Most Critical First, Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-Surf No, (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 150,00 15.~, 35 158,84 163,44 168,13 172 92 177 78 182 69 187 65 192 64 197 64 202 64 207 61 21.2 56 21.7 46 22.2 30 22',7 05 2_%1 72 236,28 240 72 245 03 249,20 253.20 2,57,03 260.68 262.79 264,00 2~1,54 259,33 257,36 255,65 254,21 253,03 252,1t "251,47 251,11 251.01 251,20 251,65 252.39 253,39 254,66 256.19 257,99 260,03 262,33 264.87 267.64 270,63 273,84 277,26 279.46 *** 1,396 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) {ft) 1.50.00 264,00 1.54.08 261,10 ].58,32 258.46 101 00 ~00 00:00 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 162.72 1617.26 17~L. 91 176 . 67 18]L. 52 186 43 19]. 39 196 38 201 38 206 37 21]. 34 216.26 22]. 11 225; 89 230 56 235 12 239 55 243 82 245' 93 25]. 85 255 58 259 09 262 39 264, 38 256 253 252 250 249 248 247 247 247 247 248 249 250 251 253 255 258 260 263 266 269 273 277 279 09 99 16 63 39 45 82 .49 46 74 32 21 40 88 65 71 04 63 49 58 92 47 24 82 *** 1.408 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordillate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 150.00 153 .81 157.83 162.06 166.46 17].. 02 175.71 180.51 185.39 19 0.34 195.33 200.33 205.32 210 27 215 16 219 97 224 67 229 24 233 66 23'7 90 241 95 264 00 260 76 257 80 255 12 252 75 250 69 248 95 247 55 246 49 245 78 245 41 245 39 245 73 246.41 247.44 248.81 250.51 252.54 254.89 257.53 260.47 101 00 '00 00:00 P22 ~-557 Job-~48 048 P22 22 245.78 2G3.G9 23 249.37 267.16 24 25;2.71 270.88 25 255.78 274.83 26 257.25 277.00 *** 1.412 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (fC) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 150 00 153 90 157 99 162 26 166 69 171 26 175 95 180 74 185 62 190 56 195.53 200 53 205 53 210 50 215 44 220 31 225 09 229 77 234 33 238 75 243 01 247 09 250 97 25;4.64 258.08 261.28 26;4.23 26;4.59 264 00 260 87 258 00 255 39 253 07 251 05 249 32 247 89 · ' 246 78 245 99 245,52 245 37 245 54 246 04 246 86 247 99 249 44 251 19 253 25 255 59 258 21 261 11 264 26 267 65 271 28 275 12 279 16 279 72 *** 1.424 *** Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X- surf Y- Surf No. (ft) (ft) ~CT-I ~-BT 12:2B 101 00 '00 00:00 P23 048 P2:3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 157.50 162.04 166.69 171 43 176 25 181 13 186 07 191 04 196 0~ 2011 03 206 02 2113 99 21!5 93 22(] 82 22.5 64 230 39 235 05 239 6O 244 03 248.34 252.50 25[;. 51 259.73 265.00 262 . 91 261.07 259.48 258.14 257.06 256.25 255.71 255.43 255.41 255.67 256.19 256.98 258.03 259.35 260 92 262 74 264 81 267 12 269 66 272 43 275 42 278 10 *** 1.437 ***. Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 157.50 162.04 166.68 171.41 176.22 181.10 186.04 191.00 196.00 201.00 205 99 210 96 215 90 220 79 225 62 230 37 235 03 239 58 244 02 248 33 252 49 256 50 260 27 265.00 262.89 261.03 259.43 258.08 256.98 256.16 255.60 255.31 255 28 255 53 256 04 256 82 257 86 259 17 260 73 262 54 264 61 266 91 269 45 272 22 275 21 278 34 *** 1.438 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X- Surf Y- Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 157 50 1611 74 166 13 170 66 175 31 180 07 184 91 189.82 194.78 199.77 204.77 209.76 214.73 219.65 224.51 229.28 233.96 238.52 242.94 247.21 251.32 255.24 258.97 262.48 264.62 265.00 262.35 259.96 257.85 256.01 254.47 253 22 252 27 251 63 251 29 251 26 251 53 -252 11 252.99 254.18 255.66 257.43 259.48 261.81 264.41 267.26 270.36 273.70 277.26 279.71 *** 1.,439 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-surf Y-surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 15'? 50 16:[ 33 165 169 174 178 183 188 39 66 11 72 45 30 265 00 261 79 258 87 256 26 253 98 252 04 250 45 249 21 OCT-15-9? 101 00 '00 00:00 R-~T Jot~-~4B 048 P~5 9 19'3 10 198 11 203 12 208 13 213 14 218 15 222 16 227 17 232 18 236 19 240 20 244 21 248 22 251 23 25!5 24 25'7 22 248 20 247 20 247 19 247 1.5 248 05 249 87 250 57 252 12 254 52 257 72 259 70 262 45 266 94 269 16 273 84 277 35 85 72 97 59 58 94 65 70 09 80 82 13 71 54 26 *** 1.446 ***' ' Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point x- Surf Y - Surf No. (ft) ( ft ) 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 150.00 153.69 157.60 161.71 166.01 170.48 175 09 179 82 184 65 189 56 194 52 199 52 204 52 209 50 214, 44 219 32 224 11 228 79 233 34 237 74 241. 96 245 99 249 80 253.39 256.72 259.80 262,. 59 264.09 264 00 260 62 257 51 254 67 252 12 249 87 247 93 246 32 245 03 244 08 243 47 243 20 243 27 243 69 244 45 245 55 246 98 248 74 250 81 253 19 255 87 258 83 262 06 265.55 269.28 273.22 277.37 279.96 OCT-! 5-97 18:SB P.86 101 00 '00 00:00 048 P26 *** 1.447 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X~Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 150.00 153.68 157.58 161..69 165.98 170,43 175.03 175). 75 184.58 189.48 194 . 44 199.43 204.43 209.41 214 36 219 25 22,4 06 228 76 233 34 237 77 242 03 246 10 249 96 253 .60 257. O0 26;0.13 263.00 264.97 264.00 260 61 257 49 254 63 252 07 249 80 247 84 246.19 244.88 243.89 243.24 242 93 242 96 · .243 33 244 04 245 08 246 46 248 16 250 17 252 50 255 11 258 02 261 19 264.62 268.29 272.18 276.28 279.54 *** 1.450 *** Robert & Cristiauo 9 Aurora Irvine, CA 92612 714.854!398 June 26,'t~97 Braxt Bult~r City of Rancho Cucamoaga P.O. Box 807 10500 Civic Center Drive Ranr~.o Cucamonga, CA. 917/9 Re: Launm Dew. topmcm Design Rc-v/ew C~l~c T~ T~ ~ g14Wl ~ t~ ~ ~ ~mM, li~ ~Ki~h ~ J~e ] 1', ] 997 buy.~ ~ for ~1~,0007' Sp~y, ~ m~fon~ ~ ~ a n~ ~=. I ~ ~r~ a p~ ~ ~i~ ~ m ~ ~_~ for . . ~ ~ of~o ~on~ I ~ mn~. The pa~ ~ ~ ~l~,OO0 ~m 1989. Bro~ ~r~ ~ ~~ ~t the ~'s ~~ for d~d~ ~e i~ ~ ~1 Rotx~t 3. Cr/st/ano for CrL~-d~o Parta~--s I~ ow-ae-r c~the prop~x~y Attachment A Page 1 of 2 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. August 14, 1997 Mr. William J. O'Neil City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Ca 91730 RE: Landslides and Earthquakes in the Area North of TT 14771 Dear Mr. O'Neil: In response to testimony by Ms. Malissa McKeith regarding supposed earthquake and landslide dangers in the area of our developmere, we asked RMA Group:, a geotechnical firm familiar with your city, to look into these allegations. Enclosed is a copy of the report for your information. If you have any questions, please contact me or the report's authors. Thank you. Very truly yours, John L. Allday cc: Brad Buller, Planning Dixector P.O. Ek~x790 AgouraHdls, CA-91376 818991-3880 FAX818991--3904 RANCHO CUCAMONGA OF:'FICE 11030 ARROVV ROLJ'TE, ~ 102, RANCHO CUCAMONGA 91730,..4825 909484.1883 FAX 909 484-1864 Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 10851 EDISON COURT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: {909) 989-1751 : FAX (909) ~89-42a'7 August 14, 1997 'N Lauren Development Inc 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Tom Maran Subject; Engineering Geologic and Geotechincal Evaluation of Landslides Tract 14771, 'Vicinity of Haveh Avenue and Tacksten Street Rancho Cuamonga, CA Gentlemen: In response to your request, we have made an engineering geologic and gcotechnical 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 photograph.,;, engineering geologic and gcotechnical 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 San Gabriel Mountains (Figure 1). The base of the San Gabriel Mountains is located about one mile to the north-northeast and V,, 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. l'he 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 mctmnorphic rocks including mylonites and quartz diorite (Morton, 1974, and Boringrio and Spittier. 1986). 'l'he 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., 1976). The Cucamonga fault is a reverse fault, approximately 28 km in length, with a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (+_ 2 mm/yr.), and is believed capable of generating an earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude of 7.0 (Petersen et. al.. 1996). Recurrence interval of large earthquakes along the Cucamonga fault is thought to be on the order of 700- years (Morton and Matti, 1987). GI Up GEOTECHNICAL CONSU LTA NTS Lauren Development, Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 In the vicinity of Tract 147'71, youthful alluvial sediments conceal the Cucamonga fault m~d 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 Mani, 1987, and Bormgno and Spittier, 1986) show the fault further to the north, at the base of the mountain front in the Deer Creek area (Figure t). However, neither location has been confirmed. Several regional geologic maps depict landslides that are thought to exist in the Deer Canyon and nearby areas. A summary of these landslides is presented on Figure 1. All these landslides occur completely within the mountainous terrain of the San Gabriel Mountains. None of the landslides are shown to extend outward onto the alluvial fan surface, and no debris flow lobes extending onto the alluvial fan surfaces 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 impact on residential structures within or to the south of Tract 14771 for the following reasons: Regional geologic maps do not shown any landslides within 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. One method of mitigation of landslide hazards is to locate a development at a sufficient distance from landslides so that the development will avoid the hazard (Holtz and Schuster, 1996). The location of the site ¼ of a mile or more from the base of the San Gabriel Mountains provides such mitigation from landslides within the San Gabriel Mountains. Debris flows deposit sediments at gradients of about 20 percent 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 surface, 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 OUp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development, Inc. Tract 1477 l Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 The conical shape of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan directs ranoff and possible debris flows at the base of the mountains to the southwest and southeast away from the site, with the exception of runoff from Deer Canyon itself (Figure However, a debris basin and concrete lined drainage channel have been constructed to control drainage from Deer Canyon. Only the area south of the debris basin draJm toward the site. It is our professional opinion that special mitigation measures to protect structures within or directly to the south of Tract 14771 from landslides originating within the San Gabriel M(,untains 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. Tiffs report has been prepared solely for evaluation of landslide hazards related to development of l'ract 14771. It has been prepared using generally accepted engineering 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 inforotation, please not do hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, RMA Group Gar~ Wallace Engineering Geologist CEG 1255 Ed Lyon, PE Vice-President GE 2362 Attachments: Appendix A -- References Figure 1 - Regional Geologic Map Exp. 3-31-01 RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page 3 SCRIPT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CFD 85-1 ~/ President Alexander announces this will be a public hearing for the annexation of territory to Community Facilities District No. 85-1 and authorization to levy a special tax. Chief Dennis Michael presents the staff report. Questions of staff are asked at this time. President Alexander will open the meeting for public hearing, and close the public hearing after all public comments are heard. President Alexander should entertain a motion to approve Resolution No. FD 97-017. President Alexander should request a recess of the Fire Board at this time for the purpose of the distribution of the ballots to the property owners, and for the voting and canvassing of the ballots. The meeting will reconvene after the City Council announcements/presentations are made to take further actions for this process. After the City Council announcements/presentations are made, the Council will recess, and the Fire Board will reconvene. President Alexander will announce the results of the election from the information the Fire Board Secretary has given him. President Alexander should entertain a motion to approve Resolution No. FD 97-018. The Secretary shall read the title of Ordinance No. FD28. President Alexander should entertain a motion to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. FD28 for the November 5 meeting. LOEB & LOEB Page 1/8 Job 971 Oct-14 Tue 17:36 /OEB J.OEB ATTORNIE¥I AT lAW lOGO WIL~,HIRE BOULEVARD GO~T£ 1800 Lo5 ANGELCS. CA 9,0017-24?5 T~LEP)40~[: 213,666,3400 ~AC51MtL[; 21 ~.eBB,3460 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Date: Octobcr 14, 1997 Time: 5:05pro To*. From Please deliver the following g pages (which include this cover letter)... Rex Gutierrez City of R,~ncho Cucamonga - Council Malissa Hathaway McKcith Persorrel ID: 90089 Client/Re: 163 i I/2407 Facsimile: Volcc: Direct Dial: Facsimile: (909) 477-2849 (909) 477-2700 (2 ! 3) 688-3622 (213) 688-3460 Note: If transmission is not complete, please call our operator at (213) 688-3478 Message to Addressee: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE ATTACHED TO MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILIv~MBERS. THANK YOU. CST '~ :. This lr~nsmisslon is intgnd~d mdy fm the u~ uf d~c individu~ ~ ~t~ m wh~h il ~ ~d, and ~y c~in inf~mli~ ~t is ~vil~, ~f~nlial and excel t~m ~i~t~me ~et appl~l~ t~w. If ~ vc~r of this ~ is not ~ in~dcd ~cipi~ ~ ~ ~yec ~ qent r~blc for ~tiv~ng ~c ~sa~ m l~ in~d~ ~ipient. you are ~hy ~ ~r. pl~ no~ us i~ia~l~ b~ bic~c ~d rcmm ~c ~wnal ~siSe m us at ~ a~vc 3dd~ vim ~ LOEB & LOEB Page 2/8 Job 971 0ct-14 Tue 17:36 1997 LOEB LOEBtLP LIMITED [,IAIIt-IT¥ PAIITN, Elqll4~ ~#r~LU01NG PIIQFEIlIGNAL CORPGI~I'IG#i TEL~PHON[: 213-68B-3400 FAcSlm~G; 213-08~-34~0 Nil TEl. "J 19-4~-~0 W&INmalma, D.C. 2100 M S~.~"~. N.W. .~JTE I~01 Roll ?I' 01 'i -114014414 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-m~l: MMCKEITH~Ioeb.com Octobcr 14, 1997 VIA TELV-COPIER The Honorable William J. Alcxandcr, Mayor The Honorable D/anc Williams, Mayor Pro Tern The Honorable Paul Blanc, Councilmember The Honorable James V. Curatalo, Councilmember The Honorable Rex Gutierrez, Councilmcmbcr City Council Offices City of Rancho Cucamonsa 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cugamonga, California 91729 Re: ApDrov~ of Final Map for Tract No. 14771 Dear City Councilmembers: Currently scheduled for the consent agenda on October 15, 1997, is approval of the Final Map for Tract No. 14771. For the masons set forth bclow, approval of the Final Map is in violation of the Ciw's Development Code, the California Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and, given the City's continued efforts to railroad this project to approval with the least public input, a violation of its citizens' civil and constitutional rights. For the reasooz set forth below, Cucamon§ans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") urges that the City Council dc-ny the Final Map. 1. CUI~E incorporates all comments in the correspondence dated October 8, 199'7 by Mr. Richard Stone of Shcppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, coumal for Haven Vicw Estates and RC-5. [n that letter, Mr. Stone reminds each City Councilmember that they have pcrl9tmi .liability if th,jy proceed to approve a Final Map that is patently inconsistent with the General Plan, the City's Dcvclopmcnt Code, and the California MCJqZ/165B, LOZ LOEB & LOEB Page 3/8 Job 971 0ct-14 Tue 17:36 1997 City Council October t4, 1997 Page 2 Subdivision Map Act. Such approval is rendered even more suspect by repeated fail~c to provide notice to interests! property owners and the City Council's appst~'nt approval of this proc~s. The last minute telephone notice to counsel for CURE on October 7, 1997 (four business days before the hearing) was nothing more than a transparent attempt to "act" as if proper notice were provided when, in fact, the real goal is to minimize any preparation time available to the opposition.*_ [f the City Council elects to condone the lack of evenhandedness exhibited by Staff's conduct, then mcmbcr~ expose themselves to the yet3, personal liability outlined in lVh-. Stonc's letter. 2. Approval of the Final Map, under the City's Development Code., is discretionary and thus subject to CEQA. Save i:1 Tom Association v. Days, 74 Cal. App. 3d 64(1977) (approval of FinaJ M~ is discretionary leased upon City Council's power to reject if cennin f'mdings are rondo). As council is well aware. the proposed development involves removal of the 40-foot high levee and construction of a concrete channel on the north end of' the project. That channel must be completed prior to the levee removal. Under the original tentative map, the developer was to receive an easement from the Los Angeles Depnrlmc-nt of Water and Power ("DWP") to grad~ on DWP's essemit as part of the cl~nnel construction. On August 18, 1997, DWP terminated those negotiations. In the Staff Report, William O'Neill, the City Engineer, acknowledges these changed circumstances but "claims" that the developer "has met with staff and provided an alternative design to accommodate drainage flows from the north without cncroeching on the Depa~hiicnt Of Wal~f nnd Power Easement." See Staff l~port at 2. The decision to accept an alternative design that is material to the safety of the project is a discretionaxy act that requires CEQA compliance and public review. A "rush'* proceeding to review these important alternatives is unlawful. The record beforc the City Council in connection with Development Design 97-I t contains substantial evidence of the risks associated with the levee removal and the NCM~658. LOZ z Because the City was closed on October 10 and 13, 1997, telephonic notice on October 7 essentially meant that CURE had four business days to review files and prepare for the hearing. Council for CURE reviewed City files on October 6, 199'/(ir~cludin8 the files for Tentative Tract No. 14'/71 and thcrc was absolutely no reference to the October 15, 1997 hearin~ nor were any or'. the documents referenced in the Staff Report..received on October 10. The approval of a Final Map has a direct impact on adjaccnt property, and therefore written notice to all affected property owners and a reasonable opportunity to be heard is required. LOEB & LOEB Page 4/8 Job 971 0¢t-14 Tue 17:37 1997 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 3 NCNZt&SA. LO~' inad~qt~ies of Lauren Dcvclopmcnt's then existing mitigation measures. That evidence, including the declarations of Drs. Sheahan, Williams and Hcnyey, cannot possibly be ignored in light of the serious risk to rcsidcnts living beneath the levee. In the fact: of that evid,mcc, this Council is being asked to blindly approve a Final Map containing completely new revisions to drainage flow without rcquking any additional study or without providing any opportumty for the public to comment on such revisions, The lack of notice associated with the hearing has prevented CURE's experts from reviewing the rclcvant documents and testifying to their adequacy. Only last week, a debris basin failure from a minor rainstorm led to several million dollars in damage in Highland/San Bernardino. Property values of homes in Deer Creek and Haven View Estates are substantially gre~er than in the area impacted there. Nevertheless, City Staff is recommending approval of a dangerous project based upon a precipitous and "back room" review of entirely new plans. Given the risks of liability to the City, approval should not b~ permitted without careful review. 3. Under Title 16 of the Development Code, "The City Council shall deny approval of the final map upon making any of the findings contained in section 16.16.110. Section 16,16.110, in turn, mandates denial of a map if it finds: "That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to caus~ substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury fish or wildlife or their hnbitat; or "that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvo'nents is likely to cau,~ serious public health problems." Section 16.16.110 (5) and (6). On August 20, 1997, the City Council watched a video depicting the cxtcnsive habitat that will be destroyed if this development goes forward. Thc Department of Fish and Game has confumed with the City that thc parcel i~ ~1obally threatened habitat, and both the Depaxlment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have requested that the City not proceed with this project, Ndther the Developer nor the City has complied with the Department of Fish and Game's June 23, 1997 and August 5, 1997 letters nor has the Developer complied with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' June 10, 1997 and July 9, 1997 correspondence. The Developer has not adopted a single mitigation measure to prot~;t th~ habitat. Therefore, the City cannot make mandatory finding 5 and must City Council Octob~ l~, 1997 Page 4 dcny tbc Final Map. ~ incorporates by ret'crcncc all of the documertts submitted by it in conncc~on with Dcvclopmcrtt Design 97-1 l, including all submissions by thc Spirit of the Sage Council. The fact that the City inappropriately approved the Tentative Map in 1990 despite the destruction of habitat does not legally permit the .............................. · :ity ~-~mka ~-pc, mab' ~,-tor,~_--/'--- f'",=dL~ oa *~,o ~,,~ M~ Nor can the City ignore thc ovenvhelming evidencc that this development can affect public !~alth if more d~ailed studies and adequate mitigation arc not adopted m protect against debris flow. Quite remarkably, the Developer has never presented a single expert at the many public hearings to answer questions on hydrology, earthquakes. or debris flow, Ncitha thc Army Corps of Engineers, the San Bernardino Flood Control District nor the Federal Emergency Management ASeUCy have approved remov,q of the levee or commented on whether its removal is prud~.t- Indeed, the Army Corps of Engineers' original design memorandum for thc Debris Basin contemplated that the levee would remain and bc fortified, and all of' the abovc agencies havc disavowed any responsibility (and thus liability) associated with the levee removal. Cucamonga's City Engin. eer lacks any qualifications to evaluate these issues because hc is not a registered hydrologiat or geologist, nor does he have any cxpmise in seisinology or debris flow. In the end,' City Council is relying aolciy on an engineer without expefiise in the area and apparently the developer's underqualified (and undercapitalized) consultants to support s decision that potentially could result in millions of'dollars of liability to the City. The San l~'nardino Flood Control District actually underscored the City's sole liability for drainage decisions in its letter to Lauren Dcvclopment dated May 29, 1997. According to thc San Bernardino Flood Control District: "Since the storm drain ultimately will be opcrated and maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, isauancc of n permit will be withheld until thc hydrology study and improvement plans have been reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Also, a lctt~ from the City accepting full reaoonsibili~ for the operation and maintenance of thc storm drainage is rcquircd prior to permit issuancc. See I~tter from Kenneth C. Eke, P.E. to Lauren Development (attached). ~qC~.4656, LOEB & LOEB Page 6/8 JoD 971 0ct-14 Tue 17:3B 1997 City Council October 14, 1997 Pa$c 5 The City Engin~r publicly admitted that he has never evaluated the effectiveness of the developer's proposed charmel versus the levee in a debris flow. Mayor Alexand-~-reeeived correspondence from FEMA on August 21, 1997 stating that the levee was rated ['or t 00 year flood protection in 1983. No one can possibly argue that th~ proposed channel would withstand a 100-year flood. The only argument that the City has to discredit the Icrco's integrity is to argue that a small portion is br~ached. That breach (which is less than 5% of the total lcvcc) was created by the property owner himself and, more imlmrUmtly, could be easily repah'ed. Any continued reliance on this minor bre~.~ to argue that the developer's draiPa~ plan is superior is absurd. 4. Four separate law firms have questioned thc advice of City Attorney, James Markman, in connection with Development Design 97-11 and. more recently, his advice concerning consistency with the General Plan. Repeated requests have been made for the City to obtain a second opinion in an effort to avoid further litigation in connection with this matter. The City has elected to take a hardline position afrOfinal the request of its residents in favor of an out-of-town developer based upon cxlrcmely qucstiormble legal advice. In the event that the Project is constructed and da~e results, it will be the City and its Councilmembers in their individual capacity that may shoulder the cost of those clamages in light of the irresponsible conduct exhibited thus far. Proceeding in such a fashion without a full hearing on the technical aspects of the "new" drainage plan simply invites even more litigation against th~ City which readily could be avoided by allowing for a properly noticed, fair hearing on the melits. CURE urges that the City renolice and rccalcndar this matter to permit such a hearing. M~IM:jc2 MCM24658.L02 Respectfully submitted Malissa Hathaway McKeith of Loeb & Loeb Attorneys for Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") P, CN2~bSS. LOR LOEB & LOEB Page TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD COl rrRoI. DEIN!,RTMENT- SURVEYOR 7/8 Job 971 0ct-14 Tue 17:38 1997 MBY 2g. 1907 370 A~ntlon:. John L. AM~y RE: ZONE 1, OEER CI~EK CI.tANNEI. · P~,RIIMr NO. P-I~]~ l'~e D,t~-t b in mm~ a~ ~ ~ demi M,rch Z~. 1~1'. ~ · ~ to TheOl~rldhmr~vlm~-~l~ooreubm#t~mdofiff~[tmf~lowlngcumm~4~. 1. Show t~ .~x~umi .~Onn of mE ~ ~ mml an the ~n. Wdl the 6. ~4it & of ~) - bsdlOalO &talk)fling wit~1 limi~ Of tXildng will nlraOvid lhown on the LOEB & LOEB ,~347 Page 8/8 Pi94 4/~ Job 971 0ct-14 Tue 17:38 lgg7 I.J~R~N CtEV~LOPMENT, INC. M&y ~ I g~7 The en~lm ~l emry me ~m 5?-men RC~ cenn~m~n e~eli aot ramcreed 30 d~rvee, Show !fie ~ Q ~ ~ntici!~t~d ~ on the 9. Oigtf~ dOht,of-wa~y abe# I~ clearly IMwn led laeel~l on the 91a~. 10. Pleura ¢~m,i:mli ~ ~mlym~ bernre'on txak~ Q, f~ the pro.sad 11. ?hehydmdicMudy~MdlbelxmedonaQo144&lcft t~. 'The dh~ h,k'dmlo~ etudy wee IWal~wed ge, .... ~ in aooordance with the 1900 ~ Bem~ino ~ Hy4rdogy Manual. ~ ~Hdiq O appears ¢a.ntwmble ~ thO iglg¥1t vOr,,)~mdltl hM ~ ~lilm(I into yo~' pllrj10 the Oiml~ will Ptmm mlow tl~m~m So lows gin' mm revue. if jmu have ins' ~,mtlu~ regaining me above, pieaso coAtact tM um~et~gn~l at (4900) 3111.2e3,1. KJlN~ (3; EKE. TIWANDA "'~"'i~ [ ~' '~'.,~"k.,',~~:~ HISTORICAL SOCIETY _. 1.., 'j':..... Post Office Box 363, Etiwanda, CA 91739 October 15, 1997 Mayor Wiltare J. Alexander City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Mayor Alexander: Enclosed is a Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society on October 14, 1997. We would like to encourage your City Council to adopt a similar one. A copy of the chronology of George Chaffey is enclosed. Thank you for your continued support of the Etiwanda Historical Society and for your consideration of the placement of a similar resolution on the next agenda for the City Council. Sincerely, The Etiwanda Historical Society /ab Enclosure The Etiwanda Historical Society is a non profit organization (33-0012231) C ,IJIFORNIA GOLD DISCOVERY TO STATEHOOD SESQUICENTENNIAL Whereas, a sawmill construction superintendent by the name of James Marshall, while inspecting the flow of water in a millrace on the south fork of the American River, discovered gold on January 24, 1848; and, Whereas, during the time of the Gold Rush of 1849, the first Constitution ~_mder which C~lifornia was admitted to statehood was drafted in Monterey;, and, Whereas, Collfornia's economic and geographic importance to the United States was such that California bec~me the 31st state in the Union on September 9, 1850; and, Whereas, the Honorable Governor Pete Wilson issued Executive Order W-74-94 on January 24, 1994, establishing the California Gold Discovery to Statehood Sesquicentennial Commission to coordinate and oversee the 150th anniversary of these monumental events, from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000; and, Whereas, George Chaffey was one of the ten most influential pioneers in the development of the state of California; and, Whereas, on January 23, 1998, a commemoration of the sesquicentennial of the birthday of George Ch~ffey will be held at the historic site f~med for hospitality since 1848, now known as the Syc~tnore Inn in Rancho Cucamonga, C~!ifornia; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Etiwanda Historical Society urges all members to join in the observation and commemoration of this momentous ~ime in California's history; and be it further Resolved that the Etiwanda Historical Society will create events and programs for their constituents in conjunction with the California Gold Discovery To Statehood Sesquicentennial Comm~ssion's established three-year themes. Passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Etiwanda Historical Society on October 14, 1997. C~olyn I-Iolke President EVENTS COMMEMORATING GEORGE CHAFFEY JR.'S 150TH BIRTHDAY January 28, 1998 The Etiwanda Historical Society in conjunction with The Museum of History and Art in Ontario A 150th Birthday Luncheon for George Chaffey, Jr. Friday, January 23~ 1998 at the Sycamore Inn "Famed for Hospitality Since 1848~ 8318 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga 11:30 Reception 12 Noon to l:30p.m. Luncheon $50.00 per person Governor Pete Wilson, the Ambassadors from Canada, Australia, and Mexico have been invited, along with the many Chaffey family descendants. Tickets may be purchased through the Etiwanda Historical Society by calling 899-8432 or the Museum of History and Art at 983-3198. The Etiwanda Historical Society is publishing a limited edition 1998 George Chaffey Jr. Commemorative Calendar Depicting the many achievements of our founding father This old-fashioned pictorial rendition of his life and accomplishments can be purchased by mailing a check or money order for $10.00 to the Etiwanda Historical Society, P.O. Box 363, Etiwanda, CA 91739 or calling 899-8432. Also available at the Chaffey-Garcia House beginning November ??nd. The Etiwanda Historical Society celebrates George Chaffey Jr.'s 150th Birthday Arc Light Dedication Chaffey-Garcia House 7150 Etiwanda Avenue Etiwanda, CA (January date to be announced) In the Spring of 1882, George Chaffey Jr. lit the first Arc Light in Southern California. This tower of light was over 70 feet tall and could be seen as far as Riverside. The Senior class at Webb School has been commissioned to produce a replica tower/light for George's 150th Birthday celebration. CHRONOLOGY OF GEORGE CHAFFEY JR.'S LIFE 1848 1869 1869 1874 1875 1876 1877 1879 1881 1882 1883 1886 1887 1889 1890 1891 1897 1898 1900 1901 1902 Jan 28 May 31 1874 April 9 Oct 21 Sept 24 Nov 24 May 9 October Nov 23 Dec 4 Dec 11 Mar 17 Spring Sept 12 January Oct 21 May 31 Aug 16 October May 7 Jan 10 June Summer April 3 May 4 George was born in Brockville, an Ontario Province in Canada Married Annette McCord Designed 20 passenger and freight ships for lake trade. Birth of their first son Andrew The ship "Geneva" was launched The "Geneva" was on the cover of Scientific American Magazine Birth of their second son Ben The ship "Sunbeam" was launched Purchased the Chaffey-Garcia House from Captain Garcia The Etiwanda Water Company was formed (the C~t M~al W~t~ Co. inCalifomia) Purchased 6,216 acres of land that was to be Ontario and Upland. San Antonio Water Company was formed (located on Euclid Av~u¢ and is still theretoday) Started the first Ontario newspaper called Ontario Fruitgrower The 70 foot Arc Light was lit at the Chaffey-Garcia House Los Angeles Street Lights were lit (r~t mqo~ ~y ~the wo~dth~t w~ electrified) Laid the cornerstone for the original Chaffey College on Euclid Avenue Built a house for his Mother, Anne Chaffey and sister Emma (the house is known as the Isle House today, comer of Etiwanda and Highland) · Birth of their son third John Burton (while they lived in the Chaffey-Garcia House) Family left for Austraila to found Mildura. Signed agreement with Victorian Government (Prov.) Indenture of 50,000 acres plus 200,000 acres optional Renmark agreement with South Austrialian Province George and family move in at Paringa George's little sister Emma married Peter McLaren. Shire of Mildura formed (the first of two counties George would start) After remodeling paddle steamers with cabins, electricty, galleys and classy dinning rooms using his former ship building expertise, George built the P.S. Pearl at Mildura to further increase Murray River traffic. Left Sydney for Florida with wife Annette and youngest son, John Burton. Returned to Ontario as consultant for San Antonio Water Company. Increased water flow with series of wells and tunnel. Purchased 35 acres at Red Hill for water. Cleared $75,000 in sale to Ontario. Signed contract to bring water to Colorado Desert. Telegram a.m. Chaffey, L.A. "Water turned through gate at 11 a.m." Today this project, the Imperial Valley, is over one million acres, the largest in the world. Founding president of First National Bank of Ontario; builder with son Andrew of the Hydro Electric Plant in San Antonio Canyon (still produces for SCE) and filed suit against USC, on behalf of the people, to return Chaffey College. Purchased an interest in the East Whittier & LaHabra Water Company. This, later allows for the founding ofLaHabra & Brea. His son John Burton managed the water company. Chronology of George Chaffey Jr. s Life Page 2 1905 1901-1920 1917 1919 1920 1921-1927 1928 1929 1930 1932 Feb29 Mar4 1942 George and Andrew founded the First National Bank of Upland and Sierra Securities. George started the town of Manzanar. For more than 25 years it produced lots of apples, but L.A. finally acquired most of the water rights. George and Andrew opened more than 25 banks. In 1920 they became the California Bank with Andrew as president and George as director. Annette Chaffey dies in Whittier, CA. George was devastated and begins withdrawing from business. Moves to Balboa - two doors from the Pavillion; designs and has built, the '~4ildura," a 50 i~. yacht. Buys a Hudson chasis, designs and has built an early RV called "Sally Brown". Does a detailed diary of his trips through the West. California Bank now has 50 branches; George retires as director - age 80 George designs and has built, at San Diego, the 100 f~. yacht, "Mildura II" too big for Newport, so he moves to San Diego. George helps start the City of Imperial Beach - "For my friends in Imperial County." George dies in San Diego - age 84. He had planned to be at Ontario's 50 year celebration in May. Buried at Bellvue Cemetary, Ontario, California. The "USS George Chaffey" was launched - a WWII liberty ship. TOTALS 12 towns, 2 counties and 1 college; dozen plus ships, numerous banks, an R.V., 2 yachts, three water companies; one wife and three sons. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1997 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS I. Recognition of Eagle Scouts and their achievements. *Special Announcement by GEORGE MAT!ASDK (MA-TY-A-SIK). (84 years old) Was one of I00 persons to receive a Scout Master Key in 1925. RECIPIENTS: ANY CURRENT EAGLE SCOUT OR ADULT SCOUT LEADER OR ADULT WHO ONCE WAS AN EAGLE SCOUT. 2. Presentation of a proclamation declaring the week of October 5- I I, 1997, as "Second Chance Week" and "Make a Difference Day." RECIPIENT: BOB ZETTERBERG 3. Presentation of a proclamation proclaiming National Food Bank Week during the week of October 13- 17, 1997 to Survive Food Bank. RECIPIENTS: DARYL BROCK & MIKE VANDERPOOL 4. Presentation of a proclamation declaring October 23-3 I, 1997 as Red Ribbon Week in Rancho Cucamonga. RECIPIENT: SUZANNE OTA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR 5. Presentation of Certificates to the Red Ribbon Week Design Winner and Honorable Mention Recipients. RECIPIENT: WINNER: GINA FERRAI~ 6TH GRADE, RUTH MUSSER MIDDLE SCHOOL Mayor Alexander: Information for Red Ribbon Week Presentations--10/15/9 7 The purpose of the Red Ribbon Celebration is to present a unified and visible commitment toward the creation of a Drug-Free America. The Red Ribbon Celebration began when DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) Agent Enrique Camarena was murdered by drug traffickers in Mexico in 1985. Red Ribbons are worn during Red Ribbon Week each year to demonstrate commitment to a healthy drug-free lifestyle. Traditionally, each year the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopts a Proclamation proclaiming the last week of October (October 23-31) as Red Ribbon Week in Rancho Cucamonga. It gives me great pleasure to read to you this years proclamation. (Read Proclamation) As a part of the City's Red Ribbon Week activities, each year the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department and Rancho Cucamonga Citizens Against Substance Abuse (R.C. CASA) sponsor a Red Ribbon Week button design contest. Entries are submitted by elementary, middle and high school students throughout Rancho Cucamonga. The entries are reviewed by R.C. CASA and five finalist entries are selected. The Park and Recreation Commission then reviews the finalist entries and selects the design winner design. This year over 33,000 Red Ribbon Week buttons will be worn by school aged youth throughout the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to school aged children, City Hall employees, Police and Fire Department staffs will also be wearing Red Ribbon to show their support for a drug-free community. At this time I would like to introduce to you the 1997 Red Ribbon Week Button Design Finalists and Award Winner: (Call up each individual and present them with their certificate and copy of the City's 1997 Red Ribbon Week Button) INDIVIDUAL Annie McMillian AWARD Honorable Mention RECEIVING Certificate Plus Button Joshua Shepard Honorable Mention Certificate Plus Button Ashley Wiesner Honorable Mention Certificate Plus Button Gina Ferraro Design Winner Certificate Plus a $100.00 Savings Bond Plus Buttons OTHER HONORABLE MENTIONS NOT PRESENT: Ryan Lytle Kelly Gregory (Next is the Kodak opportunity for parents to take pictures of their youngsterswith City Council) Thank you - Paula Pachon RANCHO CUCAMON~!;tqRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMVN~V Z ~ ;~~S msTmcr NO. $P~ ELECTION ~R 15, 1997 The undersigned hereby declarest- :i,i~ penalty of perjury as follows: I am the owner of record or the d~ii~o~ representative of the landowner entitled to vote and is the person ~name appears below as the voter. This declaration was signed on '~115sth day of October, 1997 at Rancho C~nga, California. Name of Voter: Signature of Voter: Acidr~ss of Voter: (PLE,~ THIS EIVv'KLOP CONTAINS ~-~101~IClAL "ALLOT OPENED ONLY BY THE CANV,:',:~O BOARD. Number of Votes Entitled to be Cast: ,~Do~' Tear off potion above the double line before returning ballot in the Voter Identification Envelope. MARK CROSS (+) ON BALLOT BALLOTS MAY BE MARKED WITH PEN AND INK OR PENCIL OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION NUMBER OF VOTES ENTITLED TO BE CAST: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 LANDOWNER ELECTION OCTOBER 15, 1997 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS To vote on any measure, mark a cross (+) in the voting square after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All marks, except the cross (+) are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear or deface this ballot, see the Election Official to obtain a second ballot. MEASURE SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS PROPOSITION A RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIAL TAX LEVY Shall Community Facilities District No. 85-1 be authorized to levy a special tax on properties within the boundaries of Annexation No. 97-1 to (a) pay for authorized public facilities and public services and (b) to modify the Article XIIIB appropriations limit for Community Facilities District No. 85-1 to equal the maximum authorized special taxes which may be levied in any fiscal year in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, including the territory within Annexation No. 97-1 thereto? YES NO [5-] ~a~c~o cvc,~o~a~,r~m~..r~o'r~c~o~ ms'rmcr co~'rY r~,'-. {~mS msTmcr ~o. ss-~ ANNEl ~11 ~1ON NO, 97-1 OCT0~. ER 15, 1~ V~ER ~E~IF~ P~ON ~R~CATION ~s d~l~fion ~ ~ on ~ 15s~ day of Octo~, 1~7 at ~cho N~ of Vo~: ~ I D Tear off potion above the double line before retuming ballot in the Voter Identification Envelope. 'MARK CROSS (+) ON BALLOT Number of Votes Elltitled BALLOTS MAY BE MARKED WITH to be Cast: ,5t7t PEN AND INK OR PENCIL OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION NUMBER OF VOTES ENTITLED TO BE CAST: 54 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 LANDOWNER ELECTION OCTOBER 15, 1997 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS To vote on any measure, mark a cross (+) in the voting square after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All marks, except the cross (+) are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear or deface this ballot, see the Election Official to obtain a second ballot. MEASURE SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS PROPOSITION A RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 97-1 AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIAL TAX LEVY Shall Community Facilities District No. 85-1 be authorized to levy a special tax on properties within the boundaries of Annexation No. 97-1 to (a) pay for authorized public facilities and public services and (b) to modify the Article XIIIB appropriations limit for Community Facilities District No. 85-1 to equal the maximum authorized special taxes which may be levied in any fiscal year in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, including the territory within Annexation No. 97-1 thereto? YES NO LOEB&LOEB,LP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION8 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1800 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 TELEPHONE; 213-688-3400 FACSIMILE; 213-688-3460 CENTURY CITY 10100 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SUITE 2200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-4164 TEL: 310-282-2000 FAX: 310-282-2192 NEW YORK 345 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10154-0037 TEL: 212-407-4000 FAX: 212-407-4990 NASHVILLE 45 Music SQUARE WEST NASHVILLE, TN 37203'3205 TEL: 615-749-8300 FAX: 615-749'8308 WASHINSTON~ D.C. 2100 M STREET, N.W. SUITE 601 WASHINGTON, O*C. 20037'1207 TEL: 202-223-5700 FAX: 202-223-5704 ROME PIAZZA DIGiONE, 1 00197-ROME ITALY TEL: 011-396-808-8456 FAX: 011-396-674-8223 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~loeb.com October 14, 1997 OCT 1 6 1997 VIA TELECOPIER The Honorable William J. Alexander, Mayor The Honorable Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem The Honorable Paul Biane, Councilmember The Honorable James V. Curatalo, Councilmember The Honorable Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember City Council Offices City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Approval of Final Map for Tract No. 14771 Dear City Councilmembers: Currently scheduled for the consent agenda on October 15, 1997, is approval of the Final Map for Tract No. 14771. For the reasons set forth below, approval of the Final Map is in violation of the City's Development Code, the California Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and, given the City's continued efforts to railroad this project to approval with the least public input, a violation of its citizens' civil and constitutional rights. For the reasons set forth below, Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") urges that the City Council deny the Final Map. 1. CURE incorporates all comments in the correspondence dated October 8, 1997 by Mr. Richard Stone of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, counsel for Haven View Estates and RC-5. In that letter, Mr. Stone reminds each City Councilmember that they have personal liability if they proceed to approve a Final Map that is patently inconsistent with the General Plan, the City's Development Code, and the California MEN24658. L02 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 2 Subdivision Map Act. Such approval is rendered even more suspect by Staff's repeated failure to provide notice to interested property owners and the City Council's apparent approval of this process. The last minute telephone notice to counsel for CURE on October 7, 1997 (four business days before the heating) was nothing more than a transparent attempt to "act" as if proper notice were provided when, in fact, the real goal is to minimize any preparation time available to the opposition.1- If the City Council elects to condone the lack of evenhandedness exhibited by Staff's conduct, then members expose themselves to the very personal liability outlined in Mr. Stone's letter. 2. Approval of the Final Map, under the City's Development Code, is discretionary and thus subject to CEQA. Save E1 Toro Association v. Days, 74 Cal. App. 3d 64 (1977) (approval of Final Map is discretionary leased upon City Council's power to reject if certain findings are made). As council is well aware, the proposed development involves removal of the 40-foot high levee and construction of a concrete channel on the north end of the project. That channel must be completed prior to the levee removal. Under the original tentative map, the developer was to receive an easement from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("DWP") to grade on DWP's easement as part of the channel construction. On August 18, 1997, DWP terminated those negotiations. In the Staff Report, William O'Neill, the City Engineer, acknowledges these changed circumstances but "claims" that the developer "has met with staff and provided an alternative design to accommodate drainage flows from the north without encroaching on the Department of Water and Power Easement." See Staff Report at 2. The decision to accept an alternative design that is material to the safety of the project is a discretionary act that requires CEQA compliance and public review. A "rush" proceeding to review these important alternatives is unlawful. The record before the City Council in connection with Development Design 97-11 contains substantial evidence of the risks associated with the levee removal and the ~ Because the City was closed on October 10 and 13, 1997, telephonic notice on October 7 essentially meant that CURE had four business days to review files and prepare for tile hearing. Council for CURE reviewed City files on October 6, 1997 (including the files for Tentative Tract No. 14771 and there was absolutely no reference to the October 15, 1997 hearing nor were any of the documents referenced in the Staff Report received on October 10. The approval of a Final Map has a direct impact on adjacent property, and therefore written notice to all affected property owners and a reasonable opportunity to be heard is required. MCM24658.L02 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 3 inadequacies of Lauren Development's then existing mitigation measures. That evidence, including the declarations of Drs. Sheahan, Williams and Henyey, cannot possibly be ignored in light of the serious risk to residents living beneath the levee. In the face of that evidence, this Council is being asked to blindly approve a Final Map containing completely new revisions to drainage flow without requiring any additional study or without providing any opportunity for the public to comment on such revisions. The lack of notice associated with the hearing has prevented CURE's experts from reviewing the relevant documents and testifying to their adequacy. Only last week, a debris basin failure from a minor rainstorm led to several million dollars in damage in Highland/San Bernardino. Property values of homes in Deer Creek and Haven View Estates are substantially greater than in the area impacted there. Nevertheless, City Staff is recommending approval of a dangerous project based upon a precipitous and "back room" review of entirely new plans. Given the risks of liability to the City, approval should not be permitted without careful review. 3. Under Title 16 of the Development Code, "The City Council shall deny approval of the final map upon making any of the findings contained in section 16.16.110. Section 16.16.110, in turn, mandates denial of a map if it finds: "That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury fish or wildlife or their habitat; or "that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems." Section 16.16.110 (5) and (6). On August 20, 1997, the City Council watched a video depicting the extensive habitat that will be destroyed if this development goes forward. The Department of Fish and Game has confirmed with the City that the parcel is globally threatened habitat, and both the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have requested that the City not proceed with this project. Neither the Developer nor the City has complied with the Department of Fish and Game's June 23, 1997 and August 5, 1997 letters nor has the Developer complied with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' June 10, 1997 and July 9, 1997 correspondence. The Developer has not adopted a single mitigation measure to protect the habitat. Therefore, the City cannot make mandatory finding 5 and must MCM24658.L02 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 4 deny the Final Map. CURE incorporates by reference all of the documents submitted by it in connection with Development Design 97-11, including all submissions by the Spirit of the Sage Council. The fact that the City inappropriately approved the Tentative Map in 1990 despite the destruction of habitat does not legally permit the City to make a patently erroneous finding on the Final Map. Nor can the City ignore the overwhelming evidence that this development can affect public health if more detailed studies and adequate mitigation are not adopted to protect against debris flow. Quite remarkably, the Developer has never presented a single expert at the many public hearings to answer questions on hydrology, earthquakes, or debris flow. Neither the Army Corps of Engineers, the San Bernardino Flood Control District nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency have approved removal of the levee or commented on whether its removal is prudent. Indeed, the Army Corps of Engineers' original design memorandum for the Debris Basin contemplated that the levee would remain and be fortified, and all of the above agencies have disavowed any responsibility (and thus liability) associated with the levee removal. Cucamonga's City Engineer lacks any qualifications to evaluate these issues because he is not a registered hydrologist or geologist, nor does he have any expertise in seismology or debris flow. In the end, City Council is relying solely on an engineer without expertise in the area and apparently the developer's underqualified (and undercapitalized) consultants to support a decision that potentially could result in millions of dollars of liability to the City. The San Bernardino Flood Control District actually underscored the City's sole liability for drainage decisions in its letter to Lauren Development dated May 29, 1997. According to the San Bernardino Flood Control District: "Since the storm drain ultimately will be operated and maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, issuance of a permit will be withheld until the hydrology study and improvement plans have been reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Also, a letter from the City accepting full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the storm drainage is required prior to permit issuance. See letter from Kenneth C. Eke, P.E. to Lauren Development (attached). MCM24658.k02 City Council October 14, 1997 Page 5 The City Engineer publicly admitted that he has never evaluated the effectiveness of the developer's proposed channel versus the levee in a debris flow. Mayor Alexander received correspondence from FEMA on August 21, 1997 stating that the levee was rated for 100 year flood protection in 1983. No one can possibly argue that the proposed channel would withstand a 100-year flood. The only argument that the City has to discredit the levee's integrity is to argue that a small portion is breached. That breach (which is less than 5% of the total levee) was created by the property owner himself and, more importantly, could be easily repaired. Any continued reliance on this minor breach to argue that the developer's drainage plan is superior is absurd. 4. Four separate law firms have questioned the advice of City Attorney, James Markman, in connection with Development Design 97-11 and, more recently, his advice concerning consistency with the General Plan. Repeated requests have been made for the City to obtain a second opinion in an effort to avoid further litigation in connection with this matter. The City has elected to take a hardline position against the request of its residents in favor of an out-of-town developer based upon extremely questionable legal advice. In the event that the Project is constructed and damage results, it will be the City and its Councilmembers in their individual capacity that may shoulder the cost of those damages in light of the irresponsible conduct exhibited thus far. Proceeding in such a fashion without a full hearing on the technical aspects of the "new" drainage plan simply invites even more litigation against the City which readily could be avoided by allowing for a properly noticed, fair hearing on the merits. CURE urges that the City renotice and recalendar this matter to permit such a hearing. MHM:jc2 MCM24658.L02 Respectfully submitted Malissa Hathaway McKeith of Loeb & Loeb Attorneys for Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") MCM24658.L02 TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT- SURVEYOR May 29, 1997 Rle~ ~.e51rza4 Lauren Development, Inc. P. O. Box 790 Agou~l Hills, CA 91376 Attentlofi: John L. Allday RE: ZONE 1, DEER CREEK CHANNEl.. PERMIT NO. P-'IS70ZO Dear Mr. Allday; The District is in receipt of your letter dated March 26, 1997, requostlr~g · permit to connect. a 57-ine,.,h RCP storm drain to the Di~triat's. Deer Creal~ Charnel, northeast of Hidden Trail I~ivs. in the City of Rancho Cucarnonga. The Distrfct ha~ reviewed your submittal and offers the following comments. 1. Show '~he structural section1 of tl~e emergency aocoss road on [he plan. Will the access road be paved? 2, The construction of the emergenoy access road will be included in vour permit, however, a permit will ~e required I~y the C~ of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department for the use and maintenance after the road is ¢X~nstructed. A letter from the City of Ranc~o Cucamonga Fire Department aocepling maintenance responsibilities for the eaeess road is required. 3. Detail A, sheet 1 - the ve~cai wall sectloft tlliC,~ne~ needs Io be showrl. 4. Relocate I~ropoeed transition structure anct tral~ezoidal clanhal section off of District right-of, way and instel child protection 13ar$ at the inlet to the proposed 57- incP~ RCPl 5. Install District agio'Dyed fen~ing or bloak wall in lieu of the proposed PVC rail fence along the District's west right.of-way line. ,Shes! & of 3 - Inclicalo $talionmg wit!~ limits of existing well removal shown on the plan and eleva~orl views. ~347 LOEB & LOEB Page JOb 791 Ju[.1t LAUREN DEVELOPMENT, INC. May ;~, leg7 Page Two The angle of entry of the 57.incl~ RCP canne~tion shall not exceecl 30 ~egrees, due to the high velo~ty in the pipe. Show tl~ design Q and anticipated velocity on the plans. 9. D~rict right. c~-way shall be clearly shown and labeled on the plans. 10. Please re~bmit confluence analysis, based on bulked Q, for the pro13osed constr~ctlon, 11. The hydraulic study shatt be ba~ed on a Q of 446.8 cfs. 12. The of~ite hydrology study wes prepared gener.lly in a<xx)rdance with the 1986 See Bernardino Oounty Hydrology Manual. The resulting Q appears masonable and haa been bulked accordingly. 13. Since the storm drain will ultimately be OlVerated end mainWined by the City cf Rancho Cu~.,lmongao i~luance of a permit will be withheld until the hydfology st~l¥ end improvement plans have been reviewed end a131~aved by the City of Rancho Cucamcx,'aga. Ales, a letter from the City accel)ting full responsibility lot the opem~ign and maintenance of the $tom'~ drain is required prigr to oerml! tstuance. Alter the above comments have 13een incorporated into your plans, the District will reclUire fern setl of revL~ed plans, three set~ of revised hydmlog¥ and hydraulic calculations, and a ~e~ lelter addressing the Otstrk=t'$ caramels for furlher review. Pklall allay three to four weeka for this review. if you have an~qijestions rega~0ing ~ above, please oonta~ the unclereigned at (90g) 387-2633. K~ EK " E, P.E. I~1ood Cont,'el Permit Enginea! f¢i~/of Rli~oho Cucamonga Fire Oepadment GMS REALTY, LLC October 1, 1997 Howard Hawkins PO Box 535 La Verne, CA 91750 Re: Route 66 7965 Vineyard Ave., suite F5 Rancho Cucarnonga, CA "~u~r Nh. Hawkbin: Please accept this letter in response to your inqui~ on behalf of Route 66 to store items after the termination of the 30 Day Notice dated September 12, 1997 and served on September 16, 1997. As indicated to your client in earlier correspondence, due to our leasing activity within the center, it is no longer feasible to accommodate Route 66 as a non-paying tenant nor their request to store items within the center for any period of time after the termination date. Therefore, your client will need to find another location to store items during the interim. We have acted within the terms of our agreement with Route 66 and wish them success in their new location. Please remind Route 66 that they will need to coordinate with my office to turn the keys over on or before October 16, 1997. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Karen E. Sears Property Manager cc: Bob Lundy Mary Sardelich Gary Smith SITE UTILIZATION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUC-XX IONGA PL.\NNING DI\'ISION'