Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004/06/16 - Agenda Packet
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ,.~[~NCHO HALL, 10500 C~VIC CENTER DRIVE II A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander __, Gutierrez _, Howdyshell_, Kurth__, and Williams__. [I g.ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Commemorative Retirement Plaque to L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief in honor of his retirement after 28 years with the Fire District. 2. Presentation of YWCA WVoman of Achievement Award" to Pauline Dean. 3. Presentation of a Proclamation to Deputies Brett Zour and Greg Hill for receiving the State MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) Award. 4. Presentation on the Bicycle Roadeo by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department and recognizing the contributors of the event. [I C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 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. Il,. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for reports to be made by members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda. II E. CONSENTCALENDAR 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: May 19, 2004 (Kurth absent) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY C[~.NC[-IO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA 2. Approval of Warrants, Register May 25 through June 7, 2004, and Payroll ending June 7, 2004, for the total amount of $4,406,641.55. 3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of May 31, 24 2004. 4. Approval of plans, specifications and estimates and to authorize the 30 advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the installation of fiber optic cabling on Base Line Road and at the Victoria Gardens Regional Center, to be funded from Acct. No. 17120015603. RESOLUTION NO. 04-190 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLING ON BASE LINE ROAD AND AT THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 5. Approval of Plans, Specifications and Estimates and to authorize the 38 advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for Improvements in Phase 01/03 Final Work of CFD's 2001-01 & 2003-01 for final street overlay, final striping, street and trail lighting, etc. on Day Creek Boulevard, Victoria Gardens Lane, Victoria Park lane, Arbor Lane and Church Street, to be funded from Acct. Nos. 16123035650/1442612-0 and 16143035650/1442614-0. RESOLUTION NO. 04-191 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE 01/03 FINAL WORK OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS 2001-01 AND 2003-01 (TO BE BID AND CONSTRUCTED AS ONE PROJECT), INCLUDING FINAL STREET OVERLAY, FINAL STRIPING, STREET AND TRAIL LIGHTING, ETC. ON DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, VICTORIA PARK LANE, ARBOR LANE AND CHURCH STREET, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 6. Approval to pay Cucamonga Valley Water District $45,504 for costs associated with the Central Park Senior/Community Center Project 45 from Park Development Fund Acct. 1120305-5650/1343120~0. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO SE HELD mn THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, C,TY 3 ...,RANCHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE __I.~UCAMONC~ 7. Approval to purchase annual server software license from CDW-G in 46 the amount of $59,101, to be funded from Fiscal Year 2003/2004 General Fund, Administrative Services Department, Information Systems Division Acct. No. 1001-209-5152. 8. Approval of Landmark Designation DRC2003-01073 -Judy Spaulding, 51 et al - A request to designate 26 walnut trees lining Beryl Avenue north of Hillside Road and south of Carrari Court as a Designated Local Landmark -APN: 1061-371-26, 27, 28, 29, 31, and 40. RESOLUTION NO. 04-192 68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DRC2003-01073, DESIGNATING THE 26 WALNUT TREES LINING BERYL AVENUE, LOCATED NORTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD AND SOUTH OF CARRARI COURT, A HISTORIC LOCAL LANDMARK; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1071-371-25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, AND 40 9. Approval of Resolutions relating to the November 21 2004 Election. 70 RESOLUTION NO. 04-193 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2004, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE RESOLUTION NO. 04-194 73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATES STATEMENT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 4 (~[~CHO HALL, '10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA 10. Approval of Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance 76 District Nos. 1 and 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1, 2, and 6 for DRCDR00-79, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive, submitted by Burnett Development Corporation and United Dominion Realty Trust. RESOLUTION NO. 04-195 78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1, 2 AND 6 FOR DRCDR00-79 11. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, and 88 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DRC2003- 00732, located on the north and south sides of Jack Benny Drive, east of Rochester Avenue, submitted by Bates-Evergreen Partners, LLC, and Stadium Plaza South, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-196 90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DR02003-00732 RESOLUTION NO. 04-197 9'1 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 DRC2003-00732 12. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and 99 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Nos. 1 and 6 for DRCDR00-41, located on the south side of 6th Street between Haven and Hermosa Avenues, submitted by Cabot Industrial Properties, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership. RESOLUTION NO. 04-198 101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DRCDR00-41 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 5 cRANeHo HALL, 10500 C~V~C CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 03-199 102 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 DRCDR00-41 13. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for DRC2001-00805, 112 located at 10863 and 10865 Jersey Boulevard, submitted by Ralph Karubian, Sol Stone, Marcia Stone, Charles Karubian and Laurence Karubian. RESOLUTION NO. 04-200 1 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DRC2001- 00805 14. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the 115 execution of the contract in the amount of $186,746.11 to the apparent Iow bidder, America West Landscape, Inc., (CO 04-066) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $18,674.61, for the Carnelian Street Landscape Improvements from Vivero Street to 1000' south of Vivero Street, to be funded from Beautification funds, Acct. No. 11103165650/1172110-0. 15. Approval to authorize the City Manager to enter into a non-exclusive Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) by and 119 between the City and Coral Power, LLC, (CO 04-067) of Houston, Texas (Coral), subject to any modifications approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, authorize the City Manager to execute the Confirmation Orders with Coral in amounts necessary to provide electric service to new customers, to be funded from Acct. No. 17053035209. 16. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $77,666.90 to the apparent 126 iow bidder, Dye & Browning Construction, Inc., (CO 04-068) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $7,766.69, for the ADA 2003-2004 Access Ramp and Drive Approach Improvements, to be funded from Pedestrian Grant/Article 3 and Measure "1" funds, Acct Nos. 12143035650/1150214-0 ($11,610.81) and 11763035650/1150176-0 ($73,822.78) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 6 · HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE 17. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the 130 execution of the contract in the amount of $1,633,776.57 to the apparent iow bidder, Ecology Constructions, Inc., (CO 04~069) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $163,377.68 for the Phase lB(E) of Community Facilities District 1001-01, including Landscaping and Amenities on Arbor Lane, to be funded from CFD 2001-01 funds, Acct. No. 16123035650/1442612-0. 18. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $96,555.00 to the apparent 135 Iow bidder, E.G.N. Construction, Inc., (CO 04-070) and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $9,655.50 for the Bus Bay on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven Avenue, to be funded from AB2766 Air Quality Improvement funds and Measure "1" funds, Acct. Nos. 11053035650/1238105-0 ($70,000.00) and 11763035650/1238176-0 ($35,000.00) and appropriate an additional amount of $5,000.00 to Acct. No. 11763035650/1238176-0 from Measu re "1" fund balance. 19. Approval of request to enter into a Lease Hold Agreement at the 139 Epicenter Stadium, located at 8378 Rochester Avenue, between Verizon Wireless and the City of Rancho Cucamonga (CO 04-071) for the purpose of installing a wireless communication facility for Verizon Wireless Personal Communication Service. 20. Approval to accept the Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety 178 Lighting at Archibald Avenue and 19~h Street, Contract No. 03-067 as complete, retain the Faithful Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $36,674.00. RESOLUTION NO. 04-201 180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 19TM STREET, CONTRACT NO. 03-067 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 21. Approval to accept the 2003/2004 Local Street Pavement 181 Rehabilitation - Slurry Seal of Various Streets, Contract No. 03-068 as complete, release the bonds, accept a Maintenance Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $159,855.00. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ] JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 7 (.~CHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 04-202 183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE 2003/2004 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - SLURRY SEAL OF VARIOUS STREETS, CONTRACT NO. 03-068 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 22. Approval to accept the Highland Avenue Landscape Improvements east of Day Creek Boulevard, Contract No. 04-019 as complete, '184 retain the Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $78,868.00. RESOLUTION NO. 04-203 186 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE HIGHLAND AVENUE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, CONTRACT NO. 04-019 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK IIF. CONSENT ORDINANCESI The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. The Council will act upon them at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. 1. CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE FOR 189 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT - DRC2001-00534 - CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, L.P. - A request to amend the circulation within the Industrial Park Development District, Subarea 6, to eliminate Center Avenue from 6th St. south to Trademark Parkway, submitted by Cabot Industrial Properties - APN's 209-072-06 -11, -16, -17 and -35. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS~ CITY 8 ~CHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE ORDINANCE NO. 722 (second reading) 189 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2001-00534, TO AMEND THE STREET CIRCULATION WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SUBAREA 6, ELIMINATING THE EXTENSION OF CENTER AVENUE FROM 6TM STREET SOUTH TO TRADEMARK PARKWAY BY AMENDING SECTION 17.30.080, FIGURE 17.30.080-H OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 195 ANNEXATION DRC2002-00565 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. - A proposed Annexation of 160.0 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461, and Development Agreement DRC2002- 00156. (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2004) CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 195 REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. - The proposed residential subdivision of approximately 150.8 acres into 359 lots in the Iow (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very-Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2001-00156; Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO aE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 9 (~RANcHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 195 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 150.8 acres of land located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002- 00461. RESOLUTION NO. 04-204 289 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RICHLAND- PINEHURST RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 160 ACRES, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072, AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 150.8 ACRES INTO 358 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), IN THE UPPER ETIWANDA NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, AND 20 RESOLUTION NO. 04-205 293 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENTION TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINE IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 04-206 325 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 358 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 150.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 AND 20, AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 358 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 150.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16AND 20 ORDINANCE NO. 725 (first reading) 351 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 150.8 ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 358 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE-APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, AND 20 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ] ~ C~NCHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA 2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 413 ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Annexation of approximately 100 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226- 082-28 and 29. (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2004) CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 413 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003- 413 00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land and the proposed modification of the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood of the Specific Plan- APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226- 082-29. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 413 REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - The proposed subdivision of 63.5 acres into 123 lots for single-family development, within the Very- Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road -APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON 414 CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY (..~,[~4CHO HALL, 10500 C~WC CENTER DRIVE UGAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-207 531 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HENDERSON CREEK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16324, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 63.5 ACRES INTO 123 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29 RESOLUTION NO. 04-208 535 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", DEPICTED JN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 13 C[:~CHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONOA RESOLUTION NO. 04-209 603 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749, TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 63.5 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29 ORDINANCE NO. 726 (first reading) 615 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750, TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1~2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 63.5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, 0226-082-29 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Cl~ 14 .~,RANcHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 04-210 627 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16324 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 63.5 ACRES INTO 123 LOTS FOR SiNGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29, AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16324 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 63.5 ACRES INTO 123 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29 ORDINANCE NO. 727 (first reading) 644 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 65.3 ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 123 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ,~RANCHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE __[_jUGAMONGA 3. CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF 680 RANCHO CUCAMONGA -A proposed annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 680 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003- 01164, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH 680 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Iow Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-082-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ~6 (~,~,rCHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-211 754 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENTION TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATrON OF TERRITORY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 04-212 819 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES OF LAND, AND FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO CONSERVATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-08 (PORTION) AND 09 AND 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 AND 13 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS~ CITY ~,,,~I~,,CHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE ~CAMONG^ ORDINANCE NO. 728 (first reading) 825 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL 92-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES AND FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO FLOOD CONTROL/RESOURCE CONSERVATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES OF ' LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-08 (PORTION) AND 09 AND 0226- 081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 AND 13 lhe ~ollowing items ha¥o no Isgal publication or posting requirements, lhe Chaff will opsn the meetin§ to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. L 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. 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION 832 DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a request to determine that a dog breeding establishment with outside runs is similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low Residential District at 10158 Sun Valley - APN: 1074-081-12. (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2004) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 18 cRM,~CHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONG~ RESOLUTION NO. 04-128 866 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093, BY DETERMINING THAT DOG BREEDING ESTABLISHMENTS WITH OUTSIDE RUNS ARE NOT SIMILAR TO AN ANIMAL CARE FACILITY WITHIN THE VERY LOW (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 2. APPROVAL OF A REVISED AGREEMENT WITH THE OLDTIMERS 869 FOUNDATION (CO 92-015} THAT ENSURES RANCHO CUCAMONGA HOMEBOUND SENIORS ARE SERVED HOT MEALS INSTEAD OF FROZEN MEALS AND THAT THE ANTICIPATED EXPANDED PARTICIPATION IN THE CENTRAL PARK CONGREGATE SENIOR LUNCH PROGRAM WILL ALSO BE ACCOMMODATED J. COUNCIL BUSINESS I 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. APPOINTMENT OF TRANG HUYNH, BUILDING OFFICIAL, TO REPRESENT RANCHO CUCAMONGA ON THE WEST VALLEY 879 MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 3. DISCUSSION ON REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLICITING IN THE CITY 896 4. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES SUB- 897 COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION .~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 16, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ..~RANcHO HALL, '10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE __[ ;UCAMONGA K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING lhie ia the time for CRy 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. L. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS I 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 Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. 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 June 10, 2004, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. May 19, 2004 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Absent was Councilmember: Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; and George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager. ]l B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) Mayor Alexander announced the closed session item. B1. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE GEORGE RIVERA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER; PAMELA EASTER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER; AND LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS - CITY l] C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) No communication was made on the closed session item. D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION The closed session began at 5:35 p.m. The closed session recessed at 6:52 p.m. with no action taken. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reqular Meetin,q A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Absent was Councilmember: Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Sid Siphomsay, Information Systems Analyst; Sam Davis, Information Systems Specialist; Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Robert, Lemon, Management Analyst II, Erica Darplee, Public Services Technician II; Julie Ungashick, Management Analyst I; Christopher Gilli, Maintenance Coordinator; Brian Van Fossen, Maintenance Worker; Richard Marin, Equipment Operator; Brad Buller, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Doug Fenn, Associate Planner; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Bill Pallotto, Recreation Supervisor; Mary Voss, Office Specialist II, Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Fire Chief Peter Bryan, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst Ill; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; Shirr'l Griffin, Office Specialist II - City Clerk's Office; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. II B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS [ B1. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to the Rancho Cucamonga High School Percussion Ensemble for receiving "Gold" at the 2004 Winter Guard International Championships. Larney Staten, Band Booster President, and Caleb Rothe and Ken McGrate, drum line instructors, assisted Mayor Alexander with the presentation of the Certificates. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation in recognition of"Public Works Week, May 16-22, 2004/' Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Christopher Gilli, Brian VanFossen, Richard Marin and Julie Ungashick from the Public Works Division. B3. Presentation of California Park and Recreation Society District XI 2004 Layman's Award to Northtown Housing Development and Calvary Chapel Church of Rancho Cucamonga Bill Pallotto, Recreation Supervisor and President of California Park and Recreation Society District XI, stated these two organizations were honored at the CPRS annual awards banquet. Plaques were presented to Nacho Gracia, Northtown Housing Development Corporation, and Pastor Jim Orate and his wife, Janice, from Calvary Chapel Church. City Council Minutes May19,2004 Page 3 Il c. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ] C1. John Lyons mentioned the 9-11 Commission hearings took place today and commented it was the terrorists that caused all of the damage. He stated he wanted to talk about the comments made by Councilmember Williams from the last meeting. He mentioned the November 2002 election and how the appointments were made of Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell and wanted to set the record straight. C2. Jim Frost talked about the "Ride to the Vier Nam Wall" which is a group of motorcycle riders that left for Washington, D.C. He stated this is to recognize those that are missing in action from the previous wars. C3. Melanie Ingram stated the November 2004 election is an oppodunity to vote out the two appointed Councilmembers, being Councilmember Kurth and Councilmember Howdyshell. She stated this issue is not going to go away. She stated the mission of Rancho Recall will be the same as it was during the recall effort. She stated her daughter has been accepted into the University of Santa Barbara. She talked about the upcoming senior breakfast for Alta Loma High School and stated they would like to get as many donations from businesses as possible. C4. Connie Grisby asked why the City chose not to apply for a grant that it had received in previous years (The First Five Grant). She stated in previous years this helped fund the FACTS Center and understood they would be closing on June 30 with little notice given to the employees in the FACTS Center. Jack Lam, City Manager, asked that she speak to Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, about this issue. C5. Leslie Grimes encouraged people to register to vote and to actually go out and vote because she felt when people don't exercise this right it is a slap in the face to every person in the military. She continued to talk about Rancho Recall stating there were appointments made they did not want. She commented on the process that occurred in order to make the appointments of Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell to the Council. She commented on Assemblyman Dutton running for another office when he just got in the Assembly. She hopes that kids will volunteer and get involved in the Country. She commented on the dedication of teachers and how they spend their own money to decorate a classroom. C6. Robert Gonzales, Manager of the new Wells Fargo Bank at Highland and Day Creek, talked about their upcoming opening. He added they will be making several donations to local schools. C7. Bryce Noel, student at Alta Loma High School, stated this is the first Council meeting he has attended. He felt there were people that are confused about what is happening and felt more explanation is needed. He stated the 18 - 21 year olds were the lowest percentage of voters that actually go out and vote. Councilmember Williams asked him what would entice people to go out and vote. Mr. Noel stated most people feel it is a waste of time to vote. He stated he did not think most 18 year olds were mature enough to make a vote. C8. Michelle Gardner, student at Alta Loma High School and also a member of the academic decathlon, felt people should focus more on academics than they do. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 4 D. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS D1. Councilmember Williams talked about accusations regarding the appointments of Councilmembers Howdyshell and Kurth and added she has never attended a secret meeting regarding this. She stated the discussion in her meeting with Councilmember Gutierrez, which was held in a public place, centered on families. She talked about the Rotary Club Track Meet held last weekend at Chaffey College and how great the event was. She talked about the LOCAL initiative petitions that were turned in to the State that were to save City revenues and stated there were about 1.3 million turned in. She felt this finally made the legislators stand up and notice the impact this would have on cities. She stated it even got the attention of the Governor and that she is impressed with what she hears the Governor saying that he wants to work with the cities. She thanked all of the people that participated in this effort. D2. Councilmember Howdyshell commended Community Services and Lewis Properties for the Pet Fest that he was a judge at. He commented on the preview of Charter's video about the October fire and how wonderful it was. He felt everyone should view it. He stated he and the Mayor attended the BIA meeting held at the historic Crawford House that KB Homes restored and told how beautiful it was, he attended Business Appreciation Night at the Quakes game on May 14 - 15 and encouraged everyone to support them. D3. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he hears from high school students asking why he and the Council don't always explain themselves when they are being attacked by the public on various issues. He stated some of these issues have been gone over time and time again. He stated Councilmembers Williams, Howdyshell and Kurth are decent people and should not be attacked as they have been. He and Councilmember Williams appointed two Councilmembers because they felt it was in the best interest of the City to get things rolling in the City. He stated people have the right to vote for whomever they want in November 2004, he stated he is excited about the mall and Central Park. He stated he went to an event at the Etiwanda High School Music Department. He attended the animal shelter event to support them. He stated he wants to make a difference in the City and that is why he ran for Council, and encouraged people to call him on any issue. D4. Mayor Alexander read a letter from a soldier that was fighting in the war in Iraq that had been shared with him by the soldier's family and displayed a photo that has been shown on many magazine covers. He introduced the family of the solider the letter was from. II E. CONSENT CALENDAR I Jack Lam, City Manager, stated El0 has a revised staff report that has been distributed, E12 needs to be removed from the agenda and that E16 has a revised staff report that will include the amounts necessary. El. Approval of Minutes: May 5, 2004 E2. Approval of Warrants, Register April 28 through May 11, 2004, and Payroll ending May 11, 2004, for the total amount of $5,696,169.76. E3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of April 30, 2004. E4. Approval to adopt the resolution approving the Application for Land and Water Conversation funds for a walking trail/open space project at Central Park. REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 04-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS FOR A WALKING TRAIL/OPEN SPACE PROJECT AT CENTRAL PARK E5. Approval of Resolution authorizing the implementation of the Provisions of Internal Revenue Code Section 414(h)(2) and allowing City employees to participate in the Pre-Tax Payroll Deduction Plan for the purpose of purchasing CalPERS service credits. RESOLUTION NO. 04-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 414(h)(2) AND ALLOWING CITY EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRE-TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTION PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING CalPERS SERVICE CREDITS E6. Approval of Amended Fiscal Year 2003/04 appropriations. E7. Approval of the Emergency Procurement of Reconstruction Services without competitive bidding, pursuan! to Resolution 04-150. E6. Approval for the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed to remove grading and drainage easements granted to construct improvements under Community Facilities Districts 2001-01 and 2003-01 for property located east of Day Creek Boulevard, north of Foothill and south of Church. E9. Historic Point of Interest Designation DRC2004-00105 - City of Rancho Cucamonga - A request to designate six residences located at 9424 Foothill, 9434 Foothill, 9456 Foothill, 9474 Foothill, 9482 Foothill, 9494 Foothill as an Historic Point of Interest and allow relocation of demolition of all or some of the subject structures. Related files: DRC2003-01036, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00105 and SUBTT16567 - APN: 208-141-06, -08, -09, -11, ~13, -14. RESOLUTION NO. 04-156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DRC2004-00105, DESIGNATING SIX HOUSES BUILT BY THE KLUSMANS, AS A HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST, LOCATED AT 9424, 9434, 9456, 9474, 9482, AND 9494 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0208-141-06, 08, 09, 11, 13, AND 14 El0. Approval to appropriate from the 2003 United States Department of Justice Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) $33,000.00 to Acct. No. 1368701-5603, for the Taser Inc. Less Than Lethal Electronic Weapons System; $15,000.00 into Acct. No.1368701-5604, for two Suzuki Enduro motorcycles and related emergency equipment; and $10,000.00 into Acct. No. 1366701-5603, for the Q-Star Company Flash-Cam Anti-Graffiti Camera System, for a total appropriation of $58,000. REVISED STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTED. Ell. Approval of Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Development Review Project DRC2003-00302, located on the south side of Arrow Route and west of Hellman Avenue, submitted by West Rock, LLC. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 04-157 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 6 FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DRC2003-00302 E12. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, Ordering the Annexation to landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Parcel Map No. 15716-2 located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard, submitted by Victoria Gardens, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA. RESOLUTION NO. 04-158 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15716-2 AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 04-159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15716-2 E13. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 8 for Tract Map 16542, located at 6717 East Avenue, north of Victoria Street, submitted by J.T. Storm Development No. 2, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-160 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP 16542, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 04-161 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT MAP 16542 E14. Approval for award and execution of Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $205,000.00 to Dan Guerra and Associates (CO 04-048), and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $20,500.00 for Construction Survey and Administration Services for Phases 3B(a) and 3B(b) of CFD 2003-01, to be funded from Fund 614 - CFD 2003-01, Acct. No. 16143035300/1442614-0. E15. Approval of Reimbursement Agreement by and among the Ontario Redevelopment Agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Jefferson on Fourth, L.P. (CO 04-049) regarding installation of 60" storm drain and other related improvements with no City funds involved for Parcel Map 16245, located north of 4th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, submitted by Jefferson on Fourth, L.P. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 04-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE ONTARIO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND JEFFERSON ON FOURTH, L.P. REGARDING INSTALLATION OF 60" STORM DRAIN AND OTHER RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WITH NO CITY FUNDS INVOLVED FOR PARCEL MAP 16245 E16. Approval to award designated Professional Services Agreements to the specified CivilEngineering Consultants for the preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates for the emergency erosion control projects necessary in the wake of the fire, and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency for each agreement, to be funded from Capital Reserve Acct. No. 10250015300 and authorize an appropriation into Acct. No. 10250015300. REVISED STAFF REPORT DISTRIBUTED. E17. Approval to authorize the execution of an Agreement and accept surety for encroachments into City easement or right-of-way between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Pomona First Federal Bank and Trust (CO 04-050), at a location within Fifth Street, east of Milliken Avenue. REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNClLMEMBER HOWDYSHELL E18. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Best Best & Kreiger, LLP, (CO 04-051) for Bond Counsel Services for a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for formation services and an amount not to exceed $59,500 for debt issuance services, to be funded by the project developer. E19. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with David Taussig & Associates (CO 04-052) for Special Tax Consultant Services for a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) in an amount not to exceed $40,000, to be funded by the project developer. E20. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Empire Economics (CO 04-053) for Market Absorption Services for a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) in an amount not to exceed $15,750, to be funded by the project developer. E21. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (CO 04-054) for Financial Advisory Services for a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Etiwanda Estates} in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for formation services and an amount not to exceed $43,000 for debt issuance services, to be funded by the project developer. E22. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Bruce W. Hull & Associates (CO 04-055) to perform Appraisal Services in conjunction with a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) in an amount not to exceed $30,000, to be funded by the project developer. E23. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Parcel Map 16042, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Center Avenue, submitted by Park Place Rancho Cucamonga, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-163 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 16042, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 8 E24. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bonds, accept Maintenance Bonds, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tract 13316/DR 98-10, located on the east side of Archibald Avenue and Carrari Street, submitted by Barratt American, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 04-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13316/DR 98-10 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E25. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 14120-3, located on the south side of Banyan Street, west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Carriage Estates, LLC. E26. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tract 14522, located on the south side of Vintage Drive, West of Day Creek Boulevard, submitted by Young California Homes, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 04-165 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14522 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E27. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tract 16147, located on the southwest corner of Banyan Street and Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Pacific Crest Communities, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 04-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 16147 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E28. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tract 14496, located north of Wilson Avenue on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, submitted by Granite Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 04-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14496 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK DISCUSSION OF ITEM D17. Approval to award designated Professional Services Agreements to the specified Civil Engineering Consultants for the preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates for the emergency erosion control projects necessary in the wake of the fire, and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency for each agreement, to be funded from Capital Reserve Acct. No. 10250015300 and authorize an appropriation into Acct. No. 10250015300. Councilmember Howdyshell wanted to make sure that in allowing someone to run fiber in our right-of-way includes the clause that authorizes that at no cost to the City we can have them removed at any time. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated that would be added. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 9 MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Howdyshell to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports with the exception of item D4 to be discussed, the removal of item D12, and with the corrections as noted above. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). DISCUSSION OF ITEM D4. Approval to adopt the resolution approving the Application for Land and Water Conversation funds for a walking trail/open space project at Central Park. Councilmember Williams asked if the walking trail will come in line with the rails to trails. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated yes it will all be interconnected. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Howdyshell to approve the staff recommendation of item E4. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). ]] F. CONSENT ORDINANCES [ No items submitted. G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Gl. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAl ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED Staff report presented by Erica Darplee, Public Services Technician II. Mayer Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 04-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND STREET LIGHTING ACT O F 1972 MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 04-168. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). G2. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAl ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSFD Staff report presented by Erica Darplee, Public Services Technician II. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 04-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 04-169. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). G3. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION ©F THE ANNUAl ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED Staff report presented by Erica Darplee, Public Services Technician II. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 04-170 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. PD-85 (HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARKS) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 04-170. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). G4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2003-01037 - JOHN LAING HOMES_ - A request to change the zone from Community Commercial to Mixed Use for a .7 acre per[ion of Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located north of Foothill Boulevard, between Hellman and Malachite Avenues - APN: 0208-151-20 thru 23. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16567, Development Review DRC2003-01036, Tree Removal Permit DRC200400139, and Historic Point of Interest DRC2004~00105. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Staff report presented by Larry Henderson, Principal Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 723. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 11 ORDINANCE NO. 723 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPRQVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2003-01037, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO MIXED-USE FOR A .7 ACRE PORTI©N OF SUBAREA 3 OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS, LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, BETVVEEN HELLMAN AND MALACHITE AVENUES - APN: 0208-151- 20 THRU 23; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 723 for the June 2, 2004 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). G5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003 00047 CHARLES JQSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow RV storage for the southwest parcel of 9.87 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of the 210 and I-15 freeway interchange - APN: 0228-011-31. Related file: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00048. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Staff report presented by Doug Fenn, Associate Planner. Councilmember Williams asked about the security and fencing and requested there be no razor wire. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, stated there would be none and there would be a caretaker on site. Councilmember Williams asked if the rows and rows of open spaces would have no cover for the RV's and boats and if so, how would this be screened so it does not look like rows and rows of RV's. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, stated the site is surrounded by the enclosed buildings for RV's and boats and are a specific height to screen the site, but said you would be able to see it from the 115 and 210 freeways. Councilmember Williams wanted to make the landscaping was very lush and wonderful. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, commented on the project and stated there would be a buffer to the residential area near this project. Councilmember Williams asked about the signage. Mr. Buquet stated the signage would be tastefully proposed and on the exterior of the buildings. Councilmember Williams felt a mural would look great on their wall. Mr. Buquet stated they will probably have landscaping on the wall and that they will have a guard there to hopefully protect against graffiti. John Lyons stated it is hard to find storage since the ones in Rancho Cucamonga are full. He felt the City could use more indoor storage. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 724. City Council Minutes May19,2004 Page 12 ORDINANCE NO. 724 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00047 TO ALLOW A CREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY ON 9.87 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE 210 AND 1-15 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0228-011-31 MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Howdyshell to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 724 for the June 2, 2004 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent. No items Submitted. I. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS I1. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MEASURE "1" EXPENDITURE PLAN PREPARED BY SANBAG FOR MAJORITY APPROVAL BY SANBAG'S MEMBERSHIP IN ORDER TO PLACE THF MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004 BALLOT Staff report and power point presentation were given by Erica Darplee, Public Services Technician II. Darren Kettle, SANBAG, also added they are going to all cities throughout the area with this same information. He talked about the expenditure plan and how it was developed. He stated if this is approved by the voters, it will take people through the year 2040. Mayor Alexander stated this is not an increase, but a continuance of revenue flow. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public input. There being no response, public comments were closed. RESOLUTION NO. 04-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE THE MEASURE 'T' EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR REVENUES EXPECTED TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROPOSED CONTINUATION OF MEASURE 'T', SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY'S ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 04-153. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-2 (Kurth absent). City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 15 Councilmember Howdyshell thanked everyone for the report and for Mayor Alexander's leadership on this. Il J. COUNCIL BUSINESS I 31. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATF Councilmember Williams stated she would like to incorporate into this report updates on the rails to trails project and the old Pacific Electric rail station. She felt this should be being discussed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. She stated there is a lady waiting for the City to develop community gardens on the east end of that property that will go with the train station. She stated this will be a museum for people. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING K1. Councilmemeber Gutierrez stated he would like to have a joint meeting with Planning Commission to discuss future plans of the City. Il L. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS I L1. Melanie Ingram commented on previous comments made by Councilmembers Williams and Gutierrez relating to the appointments of Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell. She commented on the First Amendment Coalition website and the Brown Act. She stated she did not agree that they were not violating the Brown Act. L2. Leslie Grimes felt the spirit of the law is as important as the law and that is what was violated. She stated perception is everything. She hopes everyone will be very careful who they receive campaign contributions in the development field. James Markman, City Attorney, stated no violation of the Brown Act occurred. He continued to talk about the Brown Act and how it affected the people that were involved with the vote to appoint Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell. He stated he would never condone a Brown Act violation and that there is no overriding spirit. He stated everything that happened was legal. City Council Minutes May 19, 2004 Page 14 M. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Kurth absent). The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP ~ 00210620 5/26/2004 FOOTHILL CROSSINGS LLC 378,097.34 AP - 00210621 5/26/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 28.64 AP - 00210621 5/26/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 19.56 AP - 00210621 5/26/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC -28.64 AP - 00210622 5/26/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 8.08 AP - 00210622 5/26/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 33.94 AP-00210623 5/26/2004 ABLAC 16.39 AP - 00210624 5/26/2004 ABLETRONICS 25.68 AP - 00210624 5/26/2004 ABLETRONICS 9.65 AP - 00210625 5/26/2004 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,254.00 AP - 00210628 5/26/2004 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM J 271.88 AP - 00210630 5/26/2004 ALLEN, CHRISTOPHER 38.78 AP - 00210632 5/26/2004 ALTA LAGUNA MOBILE ESTATES 100.00 AP - 00210633 5/26/2004 ALTA LOMA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 50.00 AP - 00210634 5/26/2004 ARBOR NURSERY INC 350.00 AP - 00210634 5/26/2004 ARBOR NURSERY INC 556.18 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 72.30 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 356.10 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 137.19 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 46.57 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 99.26 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWI-IEAD CREDIT UNION 245.46 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 71.47 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWI-IEAD CREDIT UNION 220.35 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 35.25 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 149.72 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROVfHEAD CREDIT UNION 294.32 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT t/ix/ION 186.70 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWI-IEAD CREDIT UNION 756.70 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 70.62 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 169.27 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 114.11 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 209.12 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 47.80 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 1,033.20 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 157.70 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION -341.16 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 54.41 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWI-IEAD CREDIT UNION 33.90 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 45.85 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 15.62 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 40.00 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 108.53 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 52.51 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 36.35 AP - 00210635 5/26/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 50.35 AP - 00210636 5/26/2004 ASSI SECURITY 1,947.50 AP - 00210637 5/26/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 1,512.00 AP - 00210637 5/26/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 1,180.00 AP - 00210637 5/26/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 547.50 AP - 00210637 5/26/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 1,095.00 AP - 00210637 5/26/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 1,095.00 AP - 00210637 5/26/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 233.75 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 1 Current Date: 06/08/20E Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time.' ~ 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210637 5/26/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 233.75 AP - 00210640 5/26/2004 BARKSHIRE LASER LEVELING INC. 800.00 AP - 00210641 5/26/2004 BARNES AND NOBLE 284.06 AP - 00210642 5/26/2004 BASELINE HARDWARE 32.82 AP - 00210643 5/26/2004 BISHOP COMPANY 410.61 AP - 00210644 5/26/2004 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORP 2,060.18 AP - 00210645 5/26/2004 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 19A0 AP - 00210646 5/26/2004 BRODART BOOKS 3,240.00 AP - 00210646 5/26/2004 BRODART BOOKS 156.38 AP - 00210647 5/26/2004 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 29,012.50 AP - 00210647 5/26/2004 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 4,800.00 AP - 00210647 5/26/2004 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 5,125.02 AP - 00210648 5/26/2004 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 72,807.71 AP - 00210649 5/26/2004 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 681.70 AP - 00210650 5/26/2004 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 190.00 AP - 00210650 5/26/2004 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 35.00 AP - 00210651 5/26/2004 CALSENSE 177.81 AP - 00210652 5/26/2004 CAPITAL DRYWALL 112.56 AP - 00210653 5/26/2004 CHEVRON USA INC 21.91 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 125.27 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 219.22 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 31.32 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 31.32 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 187.90 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 407.12 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 1,002.14 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 876.88 AP - 00210654 5/26/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 250.54 AP - 00210655 5/26/2004 CLABBY, SANDRA 1,000.00 AP - 00210656 5/26/2004 CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC. 166.47 AP - 00210657 5/26/2004 CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING INC. 560.00 AP - 00210657 5/26/2004 CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING INC. 625.00 AP - 00210659 5/26/2004 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION 360.00 AP - 00210660 5/26/2004 COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP 125.00 AP - 00210661 5/26/2004 CP CONSTRUCTION 152.00 AP - 00210662 5/26/2004 CREATIVE BUILDING CONCEPT 1,000.00 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 388.54 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 116.26 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.75 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 214.02 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 291.21 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.51 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 609.92 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,495.75 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 641.72 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,535.50 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,023.36 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,157.39 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 173.33 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 181.86 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,962.93 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 188.16 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,616.43 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 2 Current Date: 06/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 86.92 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,459.52 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 732.49 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 6,606.31 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 138.78 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 453.85 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 124.90 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 143.31 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 528.26 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 80.56 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,922.93 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 293.25 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 180.34 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 136.64 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 190.84 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 269.26 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 919.89 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 234.67 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 119.25 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 204.27 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 36.02 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 355.88 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.23 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 640.59 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 600.15 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 890.66 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 193.27 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 114.58 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 172.39 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 151.67 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 64.21 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 303.89 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.24 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 300.79 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 424.89 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 244.90 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.09 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 261.16 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 105.61 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 452.65 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 309.40 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 223.47 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 308.88 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 679.55 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 90.72 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 163.58 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 87.10 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 177.56 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 193.26 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 130.48 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 3 Current Date: 06/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 87.02 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 100.70 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 54.3 l AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 145.14 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 101.93 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 470.22 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 49.73 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 38.13 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 463.19 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 32.68 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 75.92 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 583.54 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 732.49 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 538.37 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 216.54 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CIJCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 383.89 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,852.71 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,812.77 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CIJCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 178.99 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 220.33 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CIJCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 115.16 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 96.98 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 153.64 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CIJCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 153.65 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 570.64 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 98.46 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 345.44 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 32.55 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 166.74 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 787.13 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 421.26 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.05 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 344.32 AP - 00210666 5/26/20~. CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 214.02 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 540.49 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 253.96 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 138.91 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 714.43 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,003.43 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 72.36 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 459.30 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 551.02 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,876.93 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 675.53 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 206.45 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 554.29 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,038.93 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 850.43 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 162.96 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,143.87 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 4 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Tim~:, 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 655.87 AP ~ 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 195.45 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 896.43 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,028.43 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 153.42 AP - 00210666 5/26/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 61.89 AP - 00210667 5/26/2004 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 219.81 AP - 00210667 5/26/2004 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 598.02 AP - 00210667 5/26/2004 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 436.39 AP - 00210668 5/26/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 15,687.50 AP - 00210668 5/26/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 19,040.00 AP - 00210668 5/26/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 43,053.75 AP - 00210668 5/26/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 15,630.00 AP - 00210668 5/26/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 22,313.75 AP - 00210668 5/26/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 7,660.00 AP ~ 00210668 5/26/2004 DAN GLrERRA AND ASSOCIATES 8,480.00 AP - 00210671 5/26/2004 DATA QUICK 93.50 AP - 00210672 5/26/2004 DE LEISE, JENAE 519.24 AP - 00210673 5/26/2004 DEL MECHANICAL 146.79 AP - 00210674 5/26/2004 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 75.30 AP - 00210675 5/26/2004 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2,320.18 AP - 00210676 5/26/2004 DIAMOND FENCE CO 2,060.00 AP - 00210677 5/26/2004 DIRECTV 29.99 AP - 00210678 5/26/2004 EDIOR, ANTHONY 100.00 AP - 00210680 5/26/2004 ESPINOZA, LAURA 75.00 AP - 00210681 5/26/2004 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 181.12 AP - 00210681 5/26/2004 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 361.39 AP - 00210681 5/26/2004 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 96.45 AP - 00210682 5/26/2004 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES 30.17 AP - 00210683 5/26/2004 EZ RENTALS 2,606.62 AP - 00210683 5/26/2004 EZ RENTALS 209.80 AP - 00210684 5/26/2004 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND INC 2,041.93 AP - 00210685 5/26/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 868.00 AP - 00210685 5/26/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP - 00210685 5/26/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP - 00210685 5/26/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 826.50 AP - 00210685 5/26/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 720.00 AP - 00210685 5/26/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 870.00 AP - 00210686 5/26/2004 FINGERPRINT AMERICA 999.00 AP - 00210688 5/26/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC -2.16 AP - 00210688 5/26/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 71.07 AP-00210689 5/26/2004 FOREMOST 3,231.51 AP - 00210691 5/26/2004 GALE GROUP,THE 53.16 AP - 00210691 5/26/2004 GALE GROUP,THE 174.24 AP - 00210692 5/26/2004 GARCIA, VIVIAN 27.38 AP - 00210693 5/26/2004 GEIGER, VERNON 50.00 AP - 00210694 5/26/2004 GENERATOR SERVICES CO 343.94 AP - 00210695 5/26/2004 GOLD'N WEST SURPLUS 896.00 AP - 00210695 5/26/2004 GOLDEN WEST SURPLUS 260.00 AP - 00210697 5/26/2004 GRAINGER, WW 106.09 AP - 00210697 5/26/2004 GRA1NGER, WW 163.91 AP - 00210698 5/26/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 77.79 AP - 00210698 5/26/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 34.91 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 5 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Thne: ~ 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210699 5/26/2004 GREEN, MARTIN 100.00 AP - 00210700 5/26/2004 GUTIERREZ, IVIELINDA 14.25 AP - 00210701 5/26/2004 HASTINGS ROOFING 39.38 AP - 00210701 5/26/2004 HASTINGS ROOFING 104.50 AP - 00210702 5/26/2004 HESTON, DANIEL 65.00 AP - 00210703 5/26/2004 HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH 2,000.00 AP - 00210704 5/26/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 72.20 AP - 00210704 5/26/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 208.24 AP - 00210704 5/26/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 203.92 AP - 00210704 5/26/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 45.00 AP - 00210704 5/26/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 29.37 AP - 00210704 5/26/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 49.96 AP - 00210705 5/26/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 11.98 AP - 00210705 5/26/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 72.02 AP - 00210706 5/26/2004 HOSE MAN INC 68.80 AP - 00210707 5/26/2004 HOUSE OF RUTH 633.00 AP - 00210709 5/26/2004 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 44.79 AP - 00210710 5/26/2004 IBM CORPORATION 417.38 AP- 00210711 5/26/2004 IBM CORPORATION 1,104.43 AP - 00210712 5/26/2004 ICBO 50.00 AP - 00210714 5/26/2004 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIC 737.25 AP - 00210715 5/26/2004 INLAND LIBRARY SYSTEM 745.42 AP - 00210716 5/26/2004 INLAND UNIFORMS 1,073.00 AP - 00210718 5/26/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 172.80 AP - 00210719 5/26/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 172.80 AP - 00210721 5/26/2004 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 24.24 AP - 00210723 5/26/2004 IRILIAN, MOE 65.00 AP - 00210724 5/2612004 IRON MOUNTAIN OSDP 408.75 AP - 00210725 5/26/2004 JAY INDECK PLUMBING 270.00 AP - 00210726 5/26/2004 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 1,300.00 AP - 00210726 5/2612004 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 925.00 AP - 00210727 5/26/2004 JONES, BOB 2,560.00 AP - 00210728 5/26/2004 KAISER FOUNDATION I-~ALTH PLAN INC 63,266.78 AP - 00210728 5/26/2004 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC 1,263.72 AP - 00210729 5/26/2004 KC PRINTING & GRAPI-ECS INC 331.99 AP - 00210730 5/26/2004 KCR CONCEPTS INC 888.13 AP - 00210730 5/26/2004 KCR CONCEPTS INC 942.81 AP - 00210730 5/26/2004 KCR CONCEPTS INC 942.81 AP - 00210730 5/26/2004 KCR CONCEPTS INC 70.04 AP - 00210731 5/26/2004 K_HO, PING 16.23 AP - 00210732 5/26/2004 KING, CHRIS 65.00 AP - 00210734 5/26/2004 KLEINFELDER INC 2,194.00 AP - 00210736 5/26/2004 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES INC 2,500.00 AP - 00210738 5/26/2004 LAING, STEVE 80.00 AP - 00210739 5/26/2004 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO 183,772.76 AP - 00210739 5/26/2004 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO -18,377.28 AP - 00210740 5/26/2004 LAMOUREUX, JULIE 100.00 AP - 00210742 5/26/2004 LASER TECHNOLOGY INC 361.05 AP - 00210744 5/26/2004 LEIFFER, LUKAS 308.25 AP - 00210745 5/26/2004 LIEBERT CASS1DY WHITMORE 360.00 AP - 00210746 5/26/2004 LILBURN CORPORATION 2,337.55 AP - 00210748 5/26/2004 LOPEZ, ROBERT 60.00 AP - 00210751 5/26/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 142.77 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 6 Current Date: 06/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:, 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210752 5/26/2004 MARCIA'S VERMICULTURE COMPOST 170.00 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,007.13 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 17,072.89 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 119.79 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 8,073.52 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,379.68 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 4,656.03 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,159.84 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 7,975.13 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,664.31 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 497.46 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT 1NC 2,559.06 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,631.13 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 10,718.70 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 4,845.19 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 4,282.99 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 737.24 AP ~ 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 257.64 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 225.33 AP - 00210753 5/26/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 124.92 AP - 00210754 5/26/2004 MARTINEZ PROPERTIES LLC 1,135.00 AP - 00210755 5/26/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00210755 5/26/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00210755 5/26/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00210757 5/26/2004 MCLS 40.00 AP - 00210758 5/26/2004 MDS CONSULTING 5,475.00 AP - 00210759 5/26/2004 MEYER, PATRICIA 60.33 AP - 00210760 5/26/2004 MIDWEST TAPE 37.98 AP - 00210760 5/26/2004 MIDWEST TAPE 45.98 AP - 00210761 5/26/2004 MORAN, BRIAN 90.00 AP - 00210762 5/26/2004 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS AND MIRROR 70.00 AP - 00210763 5/26/2004 MULBERRY EARLY LEARNING 301.00 AP - 00210764 5/26/2004 MURRAY & ASSOCIATES, BOB 134.86 AP - 00210766 5/26/2004 NATIONAL DEFERRED 11,957.21 AP - 00210768 5/26/2004 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 330.30 AP - 00210768 5/26/2004 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 47.19 AP- 00210769 5/26/2004 NGUYEN, LE HANG 90.00 AP - 00210770 5/26/2004 NGUYEN, QUANG 90.00 AP - 00210771 5/26/2004 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 30.00 AP - 00210772 5/26/2004 NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV CORP. 360.00 AP - 00210773 5/26/2004 NUTRITION 4 LESS 54.93 AP - 00210774 5/26/2004 OAKSTONE WELLNESS 2,726.00 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OI~YICE DEPOT 68.79 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OI~I~ICE DEPOT 109.23 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 7.22 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 15.28 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OI~YICE DEPOT 5.88 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OI~YICE DEPOT ! 1.76 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 155.81 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OI~I~ICE DEPOT -137.22 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 38.45 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 821.07 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 27.80 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 7 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 126.15 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 22.39 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 108.02 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 8.29 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 30.05 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 41.24 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 69.10 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 40.27 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 6.34 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 18.38 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 60.31 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 140.42 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 39.13 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 148.46 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 103.00 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 337.82 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 192.48 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 3.79 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 18.38 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 24.77 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 966.30 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 222.94 AP - 00210775 5/26/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 16.99 AP - 00210776 5/26/2004 OPEN APPS 1,699.38 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 8.60 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 15.04 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 23.97 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 28.89 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE -3.52 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 19.80 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 45.13 AP - 00210777 5/26/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 30.02 AP - 00210778 5/26/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 62.65 AP - 00210779 5/26/2004 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC 413.37 AP - 00210779 5/26/2004 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC 304.13 AP - 00210785 5/26/2004 PINCOTT, JOHN 422.00 AP - 00210786 5/26/2004 POMA DISTRIBUTiNG CO 10,445.17 AP - 00210786 5/26/200~ POMA DISTRIBUTiNG CO 6,678.07 AP - 00210787 5/26/2004 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 325.95 AP - 00210787 5/26/2004 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 119.19 AP - 00210787 5/26/2004 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 681.12 AP - 00210787 5/26/2004 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 99.29 AP - 00210788 5/26/2004 PORAC 240.00 AP - 00210789 5/26/2004 POURHASSANIAN, ABBY 100.00 AP - 00210790 5/26/2004 POWER PLUS 25.00 AP - 00210791 5/26/2004 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 6.81 AP - 00210792 5/26/2004 PRINCIPAL LIFE 1,700.85 AP - 00210793 5/26/2004 PRiNCIFALLIFE 15,881.60 AP - 00210794 5/26/2004 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 629.25 AP - 00210795 5/26/2004 PROTECTION SERVICE INDUSTRIES L.P. 203.74 AP - 00210795 5/26/2004 PROTECTION SERVICE INDUSTRIES L.P. 192.40 AP - 00210796 5/26/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00210796 5/26/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 8 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRA1T_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Timei~.~ 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00210797 5/26/2004 QWEST 1.05 AP - 00210798 5/26/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 20.00 AP - 00210799 5/26/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FAMILY YMCA 500.00 AP - 00210799 5/26/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FAMILY YMCA 1,250.00 AP - 00210800 5/26/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 7.50 AP - 00210800 5/26/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 1.45 AP-00210801 5/26/2004 RCPFA 6,166.71 AP - 00210802 5/26/2004 REGULATION COMPLIANCE INC 3,000.00 AP - 00210803 5/26/2004 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 5,872.00 AP - 00210803 5/26/2004 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 7,343.96 AP - 00210803 5/26/2004 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 9,821.40 AP - 00210803 5/26/2004 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1,022.00 AP - 00210803 5/26/2004 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 5,960.00 AP - 00210804 5/26/2004 RESIDENTIAL FIRE SYSTEMS INC 10.00 AP - 00210805 5/26/2004 RIVAS, MIGUEL 65.00 AP - 00210809 5/26/2004 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 957.00 AP - 00210811 5/26/2004 SAMPLES, KRISTY 29.25 AP - 00210812 5/26/2004 SAN ANTONIO MATERIALS 687.26 AP - 00210813 5/26/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 75,707.28 AP - 00210814 5/26/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 134.55 AP - 00210815 5/26/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 243.00 AP - 00210816 5/26/2004 SBC 2,999.08 AP - 00210817 5/26/2004 SENCHAL, CAL 213.50 AP - 00210817 5/26/2004 SENCHAL, CAL 70.00 AP - 00210817 5/26/2004 SENCHAL, CAL 81.00 AP - 00210819 5/26/2004 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 75.00 AP - 00210820 5/26/2004 SHOETERIA 150.00 AP - 00210822 5/26/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 47.89 AP - 00210822 5/26/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 1,305.2! AP - 00210822 5/26/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 126.31 AP - 00210823 5/26/2004 SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY INC 790.00 AP - 00210824 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73,449.58 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,093.71 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,875.89 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.83 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.60 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.60 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.57 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.63 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.89 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.40 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.14 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.43 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.50 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 9 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~,,x 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 0.40 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.75 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.03 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 116.11 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 78.12 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 81.44 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.13 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.18 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 327.72 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.93 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.11 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,070.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11.18 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.59 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.05 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 111.05 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 76.50 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.83 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.19 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 66.45 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 111.31 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.44 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 52.95 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.21 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.64 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTI-IERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.64 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.50 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.95 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 90.18 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.56 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.43 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.60 AP - 002~0828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.14 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.14 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 10 Current Date: 06/08/20E Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time.: ~, 17:03:2 lO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.72 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.74 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.76 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 10.83 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ! 8.49 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.93 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.30 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.36 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.57 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 103.09 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.66 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 81.82 AP - 00210828 512612004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.64 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.69 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 119.27 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.52 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.64 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 88.22 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.34 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.60 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.22 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 96.92 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.83 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.19 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.14 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.89 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.83 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.69 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.72 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.61 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.43 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.72 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.82 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.72 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.27 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.03 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.64 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 11 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC -CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:.~// 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.18 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.40 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 110.84 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.21 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 91.12 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.85 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 76.55 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.18 AP - 00210828 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210829 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,049.62 AP - 00210830 5/26/2004 SPARKLETTS 79.50 AP - 00210831 5/26/2004 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 405.46 AP - 00210831 5/26/2004 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 522.79 AP - 00210832 5/26/2004 STERICYCLE INC 5,627.46 AP - 00210833 5/26/2004 STERLING COI~I~IzE SERVICE 55.60 AP - 00210833 5/26/2004 STERLING CO~izE SERVICE 360.01 AP 00210833 5/26/2004 STERLING COFI4EE SERVICE 106.43 AP 00210834 5/26/2004 SUMMIT TRAiNING SOURCE INC 1,600.00 AP 00210835 5/26/2004 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 26.10 AP 00210837 5/26/2004 TIME WARNER TELECOM 2,559.15 AP 00210838 5/26/2004 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 1,855.77 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 39,357.37 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREENLANDCARE 2,516.31 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 2,261.00 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 5,972.71 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREENLANDCARE 581.00 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 13,882.38 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 15,415.77 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 48.72 AP 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREENLANDCARE 18,238.33 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 60,312.67 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 20,963.93 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,450.00 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 4,800.00 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 681.60 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,578.00 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 10,956.25 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 2,518.24 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 8,429.81 AP - 00210839 5/26/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 10,340.57 AP - 00210840 5/26/2004 UlVIPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 240.00 AP - 00210840 5/26/2004 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 2,415.00 AP - 00210841 5/26/2004 UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGY INC 395.08 AP - 00210841 5/26/2004 UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGY INC 345.54 AP - 00210841 5/26/2004 UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGY INC 274.31 AP - 00210842 5/26/2004 UNFORGETTABLE EVENTS AND BALLOONS 425.00 AP - 00210844 5/26/2004 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P~ 2,613.90 AP - 00210844 5/26/2004 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P~ 22,218.16 AP - 00210846 5/26/2004 UNION ENGINEERING COIVIPANY INC 29,685.87 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 12 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 /2. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210847 5/26/2004 UNITED WAY 49.00 AP - 00210848 5/26/2004 LIPS 45.47 AP - 00210848 5/26/2004 UPS 24.26 AP - 00210849 5/26/2004 VERDICON INC 617.62 AP - 00210849 5/26/2004 VERDICON INC 165,12 AP - 00210849 5/26/2004 VERDICON INC 2,559.67 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 43.69 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 116.20 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89,73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 129.86 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 33.87 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERLZON 89,73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 20,56 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 20.41 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 176.43 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 23.31 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 20,41 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 27.91 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89,73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 56.70 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 393.59 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 54.38 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 111.63 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 27.91 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 38.33 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 38.33 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89,73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 29,50 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 20.52 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 55.81 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 20.48 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 20.41 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.35 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 185.62 AP-00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 55.81 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP- 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP- 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 303.41 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 32.72 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 27.91 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 20.41 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 13 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.23 AP ~ 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 29.34 AP- 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP-00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 27.91 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 27.91 AP ~ 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 106.57 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 21.04 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP - 00210851 5/26/2004 VERIZON 21.51 AP - 00210852 5/26/2004 VERIZON 32.45 AP - 00210853 5/26/2004 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 357.00 AP - 00210854 5/26/2004 VILLAGOMEZ, CHAR.LEI 27.94 AP - 00210854 5/26/2004 VILLAGOMEZ, CHAP, LEI 29.25 AP - 00210855 5/26/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 290.90 AP - 00210856 5/26/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 564.29 AP - 00210856 5/26/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 562.46 AP - 00210857 5/26/2004 WHITSON, CLINTON R 200.00 AP - 00210858 5/26/2004 WILLIAMS, DIANE 53.00 AP - 00210859 5/26/2004 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN AND SMART 3,636.50 AP - 00210860 5/26/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 10,594.45 AP - 00210860 5/26/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 929.35 AP - 00210861 5/26/2004 YEE, LARRY 75.00 AP - 00210862 5/26/2004 ZWISSLER, JAMES 40.00 AP - 00210863 5/26/2004 DAVIES INC, ALBERT 296,110.68 AP - 00210864 5/26/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73,449.58 AP - 00210865 5/27/2004 GSC RANCHO I LLC 10,000.00 AP - 00210866 5/27/2004 LINDSAY-ONTARIO LLC 1,100.00 AP - 00210867 5/27/2004 MASTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 152.00 AP - 00210868 5/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPT PUBLIC WOI 1,777.50 AP - 00210868 5/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPT PUBLIC WOi 22,162.32 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.38 AP q 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.44 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.50 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 99.55 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.73 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.91 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.37 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 94.87 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 129.70 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.93 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.31 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.20 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.58 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 14 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ,117:03:2 ! CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/2512004 through 6]7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 141.90 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 109.09 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 46.51 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.95 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.42 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.99 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.18 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.87 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 92.29 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.00 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 75.01 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.20 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.61 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.04 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 143.01 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 53.62 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 70.52 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 197.95 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.53 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.96 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.74 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.49 AP - 00210872 5127/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 81.95 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.60 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 68.83 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.72 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.87 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 15 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 407.17 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 88.21 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 138.75 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.79 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.93 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.69 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.57 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.32 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.62 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 637.32 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.60 AP- 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.18 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.03 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.79 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 91.91 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 62.17 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.04 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,070.47 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.93 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.55 AP 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.50 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.18 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 7.73 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 229.01 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.46 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.52 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.03 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 138.77 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.74 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.71 AP - 00210872 5/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 85.60 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOI-I~SON POWER SYSTEMS 2,030.67 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOI-131SON POWER SYSTEMS 7,188.90 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,220.82 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 3,458.36 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,959.98 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,571.86 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,447.09 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 7,688.21 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,294.09 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 7,533.05 AP - 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 6,530.98 AP- 00210873 5/27/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 5,125.92 AP ~ 00210874 5/27/2004 SHARP IMAGE COLLISION CENTERS INC 406.49 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 114.11 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 16 Current Date: 06/08/20(~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:s ~ 17:03:2 / 6, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 99.26 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 15.62 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 54.41 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 33.90 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 45.85 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 71.47 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 220.35 AP - 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 35.25 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 149.72 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 294.32 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 40.00 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 209.12 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 47.80 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 1,033.20 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWItEAD CREDIT UNION 157.70 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 46.57 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 108.53 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 137.19 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 52.51 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 356.10 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 36.35 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 50.35 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 72.30 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 245.46 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 169.27 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 70.62 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 756.70 AP 00210875 6/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 186.70 AP 00210877 6/2/2004 ABLAC 281.36 AP 00210878 6/2/2004 ACCELA 2004 USER CONFERENCE 1,050.00 AP 00210879 6/2/2004 ADAME, LORETTA 22.98 AP 00210880 6/2/2004 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,353.00 AP 00210883 6/2/2004 ALLIANCE HUMAN SERVICES INC. 272.68 AP 00210884 6/2/2004 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 573.43 AP 00210886 6/2/2004 ALVARADO, NANCY 30.00 AP 00210888 6/2/2004 ANDERSON CHARNESKY STRUCTURAL STEEL 190.50 AP 00210889 6/2/2004 ASSOCIATED ARTS 500.00 AP 00210890 6/2/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 2,040.00 AP 00210890 6/2/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 2,962.50 AP 00210890 6/2/2004 ALrFBAU CORPORATION 547.50 AP 00210890 6/2/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 837.50 AP 00210890 6/2/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 1,570.00 AP 00210892 6/2/2004 BAKER, SHARI 600.00 AP 00210894 6/2/2004 BAYER, BERNADETTE 39.50 AP 00210894 6/2/2004 BAYER, BERNADETTE 10.50 AP 00210895 6/2/2004 BENNETT, MARIA 54.00 AP 00210896 6/2/2004 BERKOWITZ, RON 90.00 AP 00210897 6/2/2004 BLENKO, DAVID 65.00 AP 00210898 6/2/2004 BOCTOR, ALFRED 40.00 AP 00210899 6/2/2004 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP - 00210899 6/2/2004 BRODART BOOKS 18.75 AP - 00210900 6/2/2004 BROWER, DENISE 264.00 AP - 00210901 6/2/2004 BURTON, LINDA 81.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 17 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC- CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Tim~ t7 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210902 6/2/2004 BUSINESS WEEK 119.97 AP - 00210903 6/2/2004 C.A.R. ENTERPRISES 1NC. 435.00 AP - 00210905 6/2/2004 CAFE JUSTICE 1,239.13 AP - 00210907 6/2/2004 CALIFORNIA CODE CHECK INC. 10,640.00 AP - 00210908 6/2/2004 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 22.50 AP - 00210908 6/2/2004 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 25.00 AP - 00210909 6/2/2004 CALIFORNIA PATIO COVERS 105.00 AP - 00210910 6/2/2004 CARPENTER'S HOUSE, THE 120.00 AP - 00210911 6/2/2004 CATHREN, BEVERLY 20.00 AP - 00210912 6/2/2004 CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 5,000.00 AP - 00210913 6/2/2004 CHAI~I~EY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT 35.00 AP - 00210913 6/2/2004 CI-IAFI~EY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT 627.55 AP - 00210914 6/2/2004 CITY OF CLAREMONT 20.00 AP - 00210915 6/2/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 440.00 AP - 00210915 6/2/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 5,940.00 AP ~ 00210917 6/2/2004 CLAYTON, JAN]CE 100.00 AP - 00210920 6/2/2004 COURT TRUSTEE 118.50 AP - 00210920 6/2/2004 COURT TRUSTEE 200.00 AP - 00210921 6/2/2004 CPRS DISTRICT X 105.00 AP - 00210922 6/2/2004 CREATIVE BUILDING CONCEPT 1,000.00 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 235.99 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 74.52 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 290.20 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 262.49 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 266.32 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,054.70 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 116.25 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 490.37 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 187.74 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 54.14 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 195.69 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 56.00 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 143.42 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 72.25 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 409.47 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 449.66 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 392.51 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 33.61 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 233.64 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 133.90 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 138.78 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 556.34 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,008.22 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 471.40 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 138.91 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 397.69 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 464.52 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 105.63 AP - 00210923 6/2/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 449.57 AP - 00210924 6/2/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 20,180.00 AP - 00210924 6/2/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 14,040.00 AP - 00210925 6/2/2004 DAVIS, RANDOLPH S. 2,669.80 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 18 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portxait Layout Time:. ~,~ 17:03:2 l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210926 6/2/2004 DAVIS, SANDRA 10,000.00 AP - 00210928 6/2/2004 DEMPSTER, KERI 360.00 AP - 00210929 6/2/2004 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 133.00 AP - 00210930 6/2/2004 E & R CONSTRUCTION INC. 80.00 AP - 00210931 6/2/2004 E R A NEW STAR REALTY & INVESTMENT 100.00 AP - 00210932 6/2/2004 ESGIL CORPORATION 18,315.98 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 28.58 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 18.07 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 14.97 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 19.36 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 26.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 22.54 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 19.78 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 21.53 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 22.54 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 18.71 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 18.71 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.96 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 19.78 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 19.78 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 20.79 AP - 00210933 6/2/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 29.78 AP - 00210934 6/2/2004 FIBER CARE BATHS INC. 27.05 AP - 00210935 6/2/2004 FILIPPI WINERY, JOSEPH 420.00 AP - 00210936 6/2/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 910.79 AP - 00210936 6/2/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 651.00 AP - 00210936 6/2/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 868.00 AP - 00210936 6/2/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP - 00210936 6/2/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 720.00 AP - 00210937 6/2/2004 FLIPSIDE CHURCH 146.00 AP - 00210939 6/2/2004 FORD PRINTING AND MAILING INC 1,165.15 AP - 00210941 6/2/2004 GATEWAY CONTRACTORS 106.23 AP - 00210943 6/2/2004 GRLIALVA, KATHERINE 40.00 AP - 00210944 6/2/2004 GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES 8,760.55 AP - 00210945 6/2/2004 GUARDIAN 2,822.00 AP - 00210946 6/2/2004 HARDY, BRADLEY 260.50 AP - 00210948 6/2/2004 HERNANDEZ, ESTHER 32.00 AP - 00210949 6/2/2004 HOLIDAY PRINTING 4,524.79 AP - 00210951 6/2/2004 HOMELESS OUTREACH PRGMS AND EDUCATI( 534.00 AP - 00210954 6/2/2004 HURST, CHERYL 288.50 AP - 00210956 6/2/2004 IR1LIAN, MOE 65.00 AP - 00210957 6/2/2004 KELLY PAPER COMPANY 128.44 AP - 00210957 6/2/2004 KELLY PAPER COMPANY 306.41 AP - 00210958 6/2/2004 KFC CORPORATION 184.14 AP - 00210959 6/2/2004 KING, CHRIS 65.00 AP - 00210963 6/2/2004 LAING, STEVE 95.00 AP - 00210965 6/2/2004 LEIFI~ER, LUKAS 328.50 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 19 Current Date: 06/08/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time.'. ~ 17:03:2 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00210967 6/2/2004 LII~'EWAY CHURCH 50.00 AP - 00210968 6/2/2004 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 3,655.00 AP - 00210969 6/2/2004 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA BTL CO 544.54 AP - 00210970 6/2/2004 LOWER, DARLENE 251.00 AP - 00210972 6/2/2004 MADKIN, DARREN 32.50 AP - 00210973 6/2/2004 MARSTON, LINDSEY 20.00 AP - 00210974 6/2/2004 MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 81.17 AP - 00210975 6/2/2004 MEGA WAY ENTERPRISES -18,742.16 AP - 00210975 6/2/2004 MEGA WAY ENTERPRISES 187,421.60 AP - 00210976 6/2/2004 MMASC 470.00 AP - 00210976 6/2/2004 MMASC 50.00 AP - 00210977 6/2/2004 N M A DUES C/O NAOMI ROBERTS 8.31 AP - 00210979 6/2/2004 NATIONAL DEFERRED 26,405.19 AP - 00210980 6/2/2004 NATURE TECH LANDSCAPE INC -7,886.80 AP - 00210980 6/2/2004 NATURE TECH LANDSCAPE INC 78,868.00 AP - 00210981 6/2/2004 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 49.28 AP - 00210981 6/2/2004 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 46.28 AP - 00210982 6/2/2004 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 110.00 AP - 00210983 6/2/2004 NJUGUNA, SAMMY 60.00 AP - 00210985 6/2/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 119.06 AP - 00210985 6/2/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 76.39 AP - 00210985 6/2/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 4.72 AP - 00210985 6/2/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 27.58 AP - 00210985 6/2/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 618.34 AP - 00210985 6/2/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 18.32 AP - 00210985 6/2/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 58.16 AP - 00210986 6/2/2004 OFFICE MAX 49.48 AP - 00210987 6/2/2004 OTT, LAURA 120.00 AP - 00210987 6/2/2004 OTT, LAURA 81.00 AP - 00210987 6/2/2004 OTT, LAURA 360.00 AP - 00210988 6/2/2004 PADGETTS 250.00 AP - 00210990 6/2/2004 PHILLIPS, HILDA 36.33 AP - 00210991 6/2/2004 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 706.79 AP - 00210992 6/2/2004 PHOTOGRAPHY BY KENNETH 35.00 AP - 00210992 6/2/2004 PHOTOGRAPHY BY KENNETH 35.00 AP - 00210992 6/2/2004 PHOTOGRAPHY BY KENNETH 70.00 AP - 00210993 6/2/2004 PITNEY BOWES 198.00 AP - 00210993 6/2/20~. PITNEY BOWES 2,371.00 AP - 00210993 6/2/2004 PITNEY BOWES 285.00 AP - 00210993 6/2/2004 PITNEY BOWES 306.44 AP - 00210994 6/2/2004 POURHASSANIAN, ABBY 20.00 AP - 00210995 6/2/2004 POWELL, LEE 50.00 AP - 00210996 6/2/2004 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 149.82 AP - 00210998 6/2/2004 QUINTANA, ZITA 193.00 AP - 00210999 6/2/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 60.00 AP - 00210999 6/2/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMIvIEI 30.00 AP - 00211001 6/2/2004 REDHILL APARTMENTS 72.00 AP - 00211002 6/2/2004 REINHARDTSEN, DEBRA 282.50 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 29,515.32 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 669.00 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 181.92 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 3,970.49 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 5,886.74 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 20 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 328.80 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 1,166.00 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 2,938.73 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 1,569.50 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 2,626.59 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 14.00 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 2,574.00 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 4,503.65 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 64.00 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 176.00 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 20,243.60 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 750.00 AP - 00211003 6/2/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 6,324.09 AP - 00211004 6/2/2004 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 74.56 AP - 00211004 6/2/2004 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 455.78 AP - 00211004 6/2/2004 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 58.19 AP - 00211004 6/2/2004 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 349.05 AP - 00211005 6/2/2004 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CItlLD SUPPORT 226.00 AP - 00211006 6/2/2004 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 250.00 AP - 00211007 6/2/2004 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP - 00211010 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES 57.17 AP - 00211011 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY 50,000.00 AP - 00211012 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS 512.00 AP - 00211013 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 432.00 AP - 00211013 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 432.00 AP - 00211013 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 576.00 AP - 00211014 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYM 213.00 AP - 00211015 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYM 233.50 AP - 00211016 6/2/2004 SCHAEFERS PARKING LOT SERVICE 69.34 AP - 00211017 6/2/2004 SCMAF INLAND VALLEYS 416.00 AP - 00211018 6/2/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC -12,169.90 AP - 00211018 6/2/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC 121,699.00 AP - 00211018 6/2/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC -51,457.55 AP - 00211018 6/2/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC 514,575.50 AP - 00211020 6/2/2004 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 115.76 AP - 00211021 6/2/2004 SILVER, EDNA 240.00 AP - 00211023 6/2/2004 SIMS, DIANA LAURIE 250.00 AP - 00211027 6/2/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 628.41 AP - 00211028 6/2/2004 SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS 664.00 AP - 00211029 6/2/2004 SPAGNOLO, SALVATORE A 225.00 AP - 00211029 6/2/2004 SPAGNOLO, SALVATORE A 225.00 AP - 00211029 6/2/2004 SPAGNOLO, SALVATORE A 237.50 AP - 00211030 6/2/2004 SPAIN, WILLIAM 225.00 AP - 00211030 6/2/2004 SPAIN, WILLIAM 237.50 AP - 00211030 6/2/2004 SPAIN, WILLIAM 225.00 AP - 00211031 6/2/2004 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP 1NC 2,500.23 AP - 00211031 6/2/2004 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC 10.11 AP - 00211032 6/2/2004 STANDARD PACIFIC 3,000.00 AP - 00211033 6/2/2004 STOFA, JOSEPH 15.00 AP - 00211034 6/2/2004 SUNGARD BI TECH INC 220.58 AP - 00211034 6/2/2004 SUNGARD BI TECH INC 125.76 AP - 00211035 6/2/2004 SWAN POOLS 167.50 AP - 00211036 6/2/2004 T MOBILE 80.04 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 21 Current Date: 06/08/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 2/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00211037 6/2/2004 TARGET 225.18 AP - 00211037 6/2/2004 TARGET 12.91 AP - 00211041 6/2/2004 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 2,875.00 AP - 00211041 6/2/2004 LIMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 240.00 AP - 00211043 6/212004 UNIQUE CREATIONS 34.20 AP - 00211044 6/2/2004 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES [NC 413.60 AP - 00211045 6/2/2004 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 15,000.00 AP - 00211046 6/2/2004 UNITED WAY 590.32 AP - 00211047 6/2/2004 UPS 1,000.00 AP - 00211047 6/2/2004 UPS 2,000.00 AP - 00211048 6/2/2004 URBAN CROSSROADS INC 860.00 AP - 00211049 6/2/2004 VALLEY CONCESSIONS [NC 2,186.00 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 91.19 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 56.11 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 54.67 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 200.01 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 498.24 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 91.19 AP- 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 91.19 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 416.12 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 91.19 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 28.35 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 88.05 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 43.02 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 29.43 AP ~ 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 28.35 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 30.03 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 28.35 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERLZON 29.00 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 27.91 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 34.01 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 29.34 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 136.84 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 57.43 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 131.95 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 85.87 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 77.46 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 464.25 AP - 00211050 6/2/2004 VERIZON 570.62 AP - 00211052 6/2/2004 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 357.00 AP - 00211053 6/2/2004 VILLEGAS, MANUEL 50.00 AP - 00211054 6/2/2004 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 7,637.04 AP - 00211055 6/2/2004 VOLM, LIZA 112.50 AP - 00211056 6/2/2004 WARD, DESIREE 525.00 AP - 00211057 6/2/2004 WEBER, KRISTIN 23.00 AP - 00211058 6/2/2004 WHITE, LARRY 90.00 AP - 00211059 6/2/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 176.33 AP - 00211060 6/2/2004 YEE, LARRY 71.00 AP - 00211061 6/2/2004 ZWISSLER, JAMES 60.00 AP - 00211062 6/2/2004 ALLEN, SYLVESTER R 170.55 AP - 00211063 6/2/2004 HAKIMI, SUSAN 56.85 AP - 00211065 6/2/2004 BARRATT AMERICAN INC 1,000.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 22 Current Date: 06/08/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/25/2004 through 6/7/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00211065 61212004 BARRATT AMERICAN INC 1,000.00 AP - 00211065 6/2/2004 BARRATT AMERICAN INC 7,000.00 AP - 00211065 6/2/2004 BARRATT AMERICAN INC 308,000.00 AP - 00211066 6/2/2004 CAMCO PACIFIC 1,000.00 AP - 00211067 6/2/2004 CARRIAGE ESTATES II LLC 10,000.00 AP - 00211068 6/2/2004 CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. 1,000.00 AP - 00211068 6/2/2004 CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. 1,000.00 AP - 00211070 6/2/2004 FREEMAN-KAA INC 3,000.00 AP - 00211071 6/2/2004 HORTON INC, D R 1,000.00 AP - 00211072 6/2/2004 KEEFE JAMES 8,500.00 AP - 00211073 6/2/2004 LINDA ESTRELLA 500.00 AP - 00211074 6/2/2004 OLD BALDY COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERI~ 400.00 AP - 00211074 6/2/2004 OLD BALDY COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERI( 1,000.00 AP - 00211075 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS 5,327.41 AP - 00211076 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPT PUBLIC WO! 1,738.80 AP - 00211076 6/2/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPT PUBLIC WOI 2,959.65 AP - 00211077 6/2/2004 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT INC 141.00 AP - 00211078 6/2/2004 VARGAS FERNANDO 500.00 Total for Check ID AP: 3,685,443.51 Total for Entity: 3,685,443.51 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 23 Current Date: 06/08/20E Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:03:2 City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary May 31, 2004 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Local Agency Investment Funds 34,515,01969 34,515,019.69 34,515,019.69 19.76 1 I 1.406 1.426 Certificates of Deposit/Neg~ - Bank 1,515,00000 1,515,443.90 1,515,000.00 0.87 733 454 2.150 2.180 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 138,750,C~0 00 136,459,168.60 138,656,856.25 79.37 1,501 1,251 3.219 3.263 Investments 174,780,019.69 172,489,632.19 174,686,875.94 100.00% 1,198 997 2.851 2.891 Cash and Accrued Interest Passlx)ok/Checking 1,099,148.61 1,099,148.61 1,099,148.61 I 1 0.493 0.500 (not included in yield calculations) Accrued Interest at Purchase 1,345 55 1,345.55 Subtotal 1,100,49416 1,100,494.16 Total Cash and Investments 175,879,168.30 173,590,126.35 175,787,370.10 1,198 997 2.851 2.891 Total Earnings May 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 410,783.34 4,169,645.12 Average Daily Balance 174,547,698.92 161,810,035.78 Effective Rate of Return 2.77% 2.80% I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comformity with the investment policy adopted March 5, 2003. 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. The attached Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents as of the prior month's end is provided under the City official Investment Policy. The provisions of the individual bond documents , Portfolio CITY CP Gun eate; 06~9/2004 - 12:12 PM (PRF_PM 1 ) SymRept V6.21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments May 31,2004 Average Purchase Stated Y'FM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Date Local Agency Investment Funds SYS00005 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 34,515,019.69 34,515,019.69 34,515,018.69 1.426 1406 1 Subtotal and Average 33,779,535.82 34,515,019.69 34,515,019.69 34,515,019.69 1.406 1 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank 06050E6Q3 1228 BANK OF AMERICA 08/27/2003 1,515,000.00 1,515,443.90 1,515,00000 2.150 2.150 454 08/29/2005 Subtotal and Average 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,443.90 1,515,000.00 2.150 454 Commercial Paper - Discount Subtotal and Average 4,060,016.61 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331QK55 1199 FEDERAL FARM CREDrT BANK 05/19/2003 2,500,00000 2,426,562.50 2,496,875.00 3.120 3.104 1,448 05/19/2008 31331QM79 1205 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/03/2003 2,000,000.00 1,946,875.00 2,000,Q00.00 3.210 3.166 1,463 31331QN78 1207 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/09/2003 5,500,000.00 5,371,093.75 5,500,000.00 2.440 2.407 1,011 03/09/2007 31331Q7C5 1226 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/13/2003 3,000,000.00 2,954,062.50 2,995,31250 3050 3049 1,168 08/13/2007 31331TFG1 1231 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 09/24/2003 2,000,000.00 1,984,375.00 1,996,562.50 3.370 3.370 1,210 09/24/2007 31331TGV7 1236 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 10/27/2003 3,000,000.00 2,966,250.00 3,000,000.00 3.010 2.969 1,060 04/27/2007 31331THR5 1241 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 11/10/2003 2,0CO,000.00 1,985,0CO.00 2,000,000.00 3.170 3.127 1,073 03/10/2007 31331TND9 1244 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/17/2003 2,(X)O,000.00 1,964,375.00 2,000,000.00 3.970 3.916 1,477 06/17/2008 31331TWHO 1253 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 00/17/2004 2,000,CO0.00 1,920,000.00 2,000,000.~0 3.240 3.196 1,385 03/17/2008 31331T~NJ6 1254 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/17/2004 4,000,000.00 3,826,25000 3,997,500.00 3.550 3.517 1,630 11/17/2008 31331TG62 1263 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 04/29/2004 3,500,000.00 3,469,375.c0 3,479,000.00 3.920 4.012 1,609 10/27/2008 3133M94J8 01050 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/17/1999 3,000,000.00 3,006,562.50 2,984,531.25 6.230 6.265 16 06/17/2004 31339XJJ4 1210 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06~12/2003 5,000,000.00 4,882,812.50 5,000,000.00 2.650 2.614 1,105 06/11/2007 3133<JXB78 1211 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/16/2003 3,000,000~00 2,927,812.50 3,000,000.00 2.430 2.397 1,018 00/16/2007 31339XLB8 1212 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/19/2003 2,000,000~00 1,950,625.00 2,000,000.00 2.625 2.589 1,113 06/19/2007 31339XPL2 1213 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/26/2(X)3 2,000,000.00 1,928,125.CO 2,CO0,0OO.00 2.450 2.417 1,212 09/26/2007 31339YHG0 1218 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 07/16/2003 3,000,060.00 2,930,625.00 3,000,000.00 2.540 2.506 1,049 04/16/2007 3133X1P27 1237 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/27/2003 3,000,000.00 2,984,062.50 3,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 1,609 10/27/2008 3133X3DX8 1247 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/29/2004 2,000,000.00 1,981,250.00 2,000,000.00 3.355 3.310 1,245 10/29/2007 3133X3E25 1248 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/29/2004 2,000,000.00 1,978,125.00 2,000,000.00 3.320 3.275 1,24B 10/29/2007 3133X4MR9 1255 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/26/2004 5,000,000.00 4,942,187.50 5,000,000.00 2.750 2.713 938 12/26/2006 3133X4XF3 1256 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/29/2004 2,0QO,(X)O.O0 1,945,625.00 2,0~O,000.00 3.500 3.453 1,305 12/26/2007 3133X5WA2 1264 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/30/2004 2,000,000.00 1,961,87500 2,000,CO0 00 3.210 3.167 1,338 01/30/2008 3133X77K4 1268 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/26/2004 2,000,000.00 2,012,500~00 2,000,000~00 4.080 4.025 1,365 02/26/2008 3133X76T6 1269 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/23/2004 2,000,000.00 2,014,375.00 1,999,375.00 4.070 4.024 1,367 02/28/2008 Portfolio CITY cP City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Investments May 31, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Inwstment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody*s 360 Maturity Date Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3128XIBD8 1198 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/19/2003 5,000,000.o~ 4,931,894.69 4,993,750.00 3.500 3.479 1,448 05/19/2008 3128X1FG7 1203 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/25/2003 3,000,0(X3.00 2,958,060.15 3,0~o,000.00 2.500 2.466 910 11/25/2006 3128XIDK0 1204 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/28/2003 4,000,000.00 3,927,011.72 4,000,Q00.00 3.100 3.058 1,276 11/28/2007 3128XIJD0 1208 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06/12/2003 5,000,000.00 4,842,745.21 4,998,500.00 3.030 2~995 1,471 06/11/2008 3128XIJN8 1209 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06~1 2/2003 2,000,000.00 1,940,795.90 2,000,000.00 2.400 2.367 1,105 06/11/2007 3128Xl L96 1233 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 10/08/2003 4,000,000.00 3,986,856.08 3,997,600.00 2.800 2782 838 0g/17/2006 3128X12K2 1239 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 11/03/2003 4,000,000.00 3,988,823.85 3,983,125.00 4.010 4.048 1,604 10/22/2008 3128X2P25 1257 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 02/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,965,821.08 3,~00,000.00 4.000 3.945 1,763 03/30/20(~9 3128X07G8 1258 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 04/12/2004 1,250,000.00 1,240,419.96 1,248,75000 3.650 3,626 1,436 05/07/2008 3128X25Y7 1260 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP 04/19/2004 2,000,CO0.00 1,956,315.92 1,997,600.00 2.920 2,916 1,235 10/19/2007 3128X3BF9 1261 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 04/26/2004 1,0CO,C~O 00 989,102.02 1,000,000.00 3,280 3235 1,242 10/20/2007 3128X3CS0 1262 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG CORP, 04/29/2004 5,000,000~00 4,971,19g.80 5,000,000,00 3.450 3.403 1,245 10/29/2007 3128X3FD0 1266 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/17/2004 2,000,00000 2,001,69189 2,000,00000 3.500 3.452 1,080 05/17/2007 3128X3FC2 1267 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/24/2004 3,000,000.00 3,004,524.08 2,999,06250 3.750 3.708 1,270 11/23/2007 Subtotel and Average 133,916,160.66 138,750,000.00 136,459,168.60 138,656,856.25 3.219 1~51 Po~olio CITY CP (PRF_PM2) City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 4 Portfolio Details - Cash May 31, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days t~ CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balaftce Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Savings~Miscellaneous Accounts SYS00180 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 1,099,148.61 1,099,148 61 1,099,148.61 0.500 0.493 1 Average Balance 0.00 Accrued Interest at Purchase 1,345.55 1,345.55 1 Subtotal 1,100,494.16 1,100,494.16 Total Cash and Investmentss 174,547,698.92 175,879,168.30 173,590,126.35 175,787,370.10 2,851 997 Portfolio CITY CP City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 5 Activity By Type May 1, 2004 through May 31, 2004 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Rate Date or Delx3sits or Withdrawals Balance Local Agency Investment Funds (Monthly Summary) SYS00005 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 1.426 9,500,000.00 5,300,000.00 Subtotal 30,315,019.69 9,500,000.00 5,300,000.00 34,515,019.69 Savings/Miscellaneous Accounts (Monthly Summary) SYS00180 00180 DANK OF AMERICA 0.500 0.00 183,76510 Subtotal 1,282,913.71 0.00 183,765.10 1,099,148.61 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank Subtotal 1,515,000.00 1,515,0~0.00 Commercial Paper - Discount 45974MEA2 1251 INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CO 1.020 05/10/2004 0.00 4,S91,641.67 45974MEU8 1265 INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CO 1.020 05/28/2004 0.00 2,gg7,620~00 Subtotal 7,~9,261.67 0.00 ?,989,~61.67 0.O0 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331LM88 1127 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 5200 05/07/2004 0.00 2,000,000. C0 3133X77K4 1268 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 4.080 05/26~2004 2,000,000.00 0.00 3133X76T6 1269 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 4.070 05/28~2004 1,999,375.00 0.GO 3128X3FD0 1266 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 3.500 05/17/2004 2,000,00000 0.CO 3128X3FC2 1267 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP, 3,750 05/24/2004 2,999,062 50 3136FOLU4 1101 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 5.710 05/24/2004 0.00 2,000,000.00 Subtotal 133,658,418.75 8,998,437.50 4,000,000.(]0 138,656,856.25 Total 174,760,613.82 18,498~437.50 17,473,026.77 175,786,024.55 Portfolio CITY ~Date: 06~9/2004 - 12:12 PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept V6.21 Report Ver. 500 City of Rancho Cucamonga Summary of Cash and investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended April 30, 2004 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue Pavlne Aaent Account Name Investment Dat__e Date Yield Value Assessment Distdct No 93-1 US Bank Imprvmnt Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A* 0.41% $ 257,311.78 Masi Plaza Imprvmnt Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A Reserve Fund Fimt Amedcan TreastJry Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A' 0.41% 242,700.68 Reserve Fund N/A N/A N/A Redemp. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A 0.51% 197.73 Redemp. Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 500,210.19 PFA RFDG Rev Bonds sedes US Bank Expense Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.00% $ Cash N/A N/A N/A 1999 A (Sr) & 1999 B (Subord) Sub Resrv. Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.41% 580,960.12 Cash N/A N/A N/A Sr. Resrv. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.41% 1,091,403.80 Cash N/A N/A N/A Redemption Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.00% Cash N/A N/A N/A Revenue Fund Fimt Amedcan Treasury Obligation 3/2/2000 N/A* 0.00% Cash N/A N/A N/A Residual Fund Fimt Amedcan Treasury Obligation 1/16/2001 N/A* 0.41% 119,632.67 Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 1,791,996.59 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WITH FISCAL AGENTS $ 2,292,206.78 Note: These investments are money market accounts which have no stated matudty date as they may be liquidated upon demand. ~ i:tfinancelCash with Fiscal A~Tents.xls 6/7/2004 12:49 PM R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPART~IEN~ Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Waiter C. Stickney, Associate Engineer[,~x2~' SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLING ON BASE LINE ROAD AND AT THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT 17120015603 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for the Installation of Fiber Optic Cabling on Base Line Road and in the vicinity of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center, and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As part of the City's fiber optic master plan linking City facilities with fiber optic cable, conduit has, or is in the process of being installed, from the Lions Center on Base Line Road to the Public Safety substation at the Victoria Gardens Regional Center. This conduit has been funded through a combination of developer conditioning and a capital improvement project. The next step in linking City facilities is the installation of fiber optic cable between the Library on Archibald Ave, Lions Center and Central Park, both on Base Line Road, and the Public Safety substation and Cultural Center located within the Victoria Gardens Regional Center. This project will extend cable to "patch panels" located within each facility. From the patch panels each facility will later distribute the communication links as necessary within each building providing a data connection to the Civic Center. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Installation of Fiber Optic Cabling on Base Line Road June 16, 2004 Page 2 In 2002 the Cit,~ installed fiber optic cable between the Civic Center and four facilities - the City Yard on 9"' Street, Senior Center on Arrow Route, Fire station #2 on San Bernardino Road, and the Library on Amhibald Avenue just south of Base Line Road. Funds for the cable installation is from a/c # 1 712 001 5603. Legal advedising is scheduled for June 22 and June 29, 2004, with the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, unless extended by Addenda. R~s~_.c~ully submitted, City Engineer WJO:WCS Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution _-1/ INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC OABLING ON BASE LINE RD AND A T THE VIOTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER RESOLUT,ON NO. !¢¢ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION oF FIBER OPTIC CABLING ON BASE LINE ROAD AND AT THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLING ON BASE LINE ROAD AND AT THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, sealed bids or proposals for the "THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLING ON BASE LINE ROAD AND AT THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER" capital improvement project in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLING ON BASE LINE ROAD AND AT THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 2 Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 ~ercent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 3 and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the Iow bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder's Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or a combination of Specialty Class "C" licenses sufficient to cover all the work to be performed by the Prime Contractor in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 4 be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $50.00 (FIFTY DOLLARS), said $50.00 (FIFTY DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for "THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLING ON BASE LINE ROAD AND AT THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL CENTER" may be directed to: Walter C. Stickney, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4076. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 16th day of June, 2004 Publish Dates: June 22 and June 29, 2004 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,'Califomia, this 16th day of June, 2004. William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 5 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cueamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 16~h day of June, 2004 Executed this 16th day of June, 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: June 22 and June 29, 200,~ R A N C h O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPART~IENT Slaff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J, O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Walter C. Stickney, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE 01/03 FINAL WORK OF CFD'S 2001-01 & 2003-01 FOR FINAL STREET OVERLAY, FINAL STRIPING, STREET AND TRAIL LIGHTING, ETC. ON DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, VICTORIA PARK LANE, ARBOR LANE AND CHURCH STREET, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NUMBERS 16123035650/1442612-0 AND 16143035650/1442614-0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for Day Creek Boulevard, Victoria Gardens Lane, Victoria Park Lane, Arbor Lane and Church Street, and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: This phase is one of the last of the eleven phase capital improvement program which will install the necessary infrastructure surrounding the Victoria Gardens Mall. Phase 01/03 Final Work will complete the street improvements surrounding the Victoria Gardens Mall. Earlier phases of the CFD program left Day Creek Boulevard, Victoria Gardens Lane, Victoria Park Lane, Arbor Lane and Church Street 0.1' below their final design grade. This allowed vehicles to use the streets while leaving room to "finish" the streets later. This project will provide the final 0.1' thick street oveday and final striping and thereby ensure CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: CFD's 2001-01 and 2003-01 - Final Work June 16, 2004 Page 2 that all streets surrounding the Victoria Gardens Mall will have a "brand new" look when the mall opens. Another part of Phase 01/03 will install the street and trail lighting for the streets surrounding the mall. Combined, these improvements will benefit the participants and non- participants to CFD's 2001-01 and 2003-01. As stated above, the capital improvement program to install the necessary infrastructure within the Victoria Gardens Mall sphere consists of 11 construction phases. The sphere extends from Base Line Rd. on the north, Arrow Rte. and the 1-15 Fwyto the south, the SC Edison transmission corridor to the west, and Etiwanda Ave. and 1-15 Fwy to the east (see exhibit). The eleven phases are as follows: # Phase Description Status 1 Ph 1A Day Creek Blvd. nodh of Church St. and Church St. west of Day Creek Blvd. Mass Complete Grading of the residential area north of Church St. and water, sewer, traffic signals, and major storm drain improvements 2 Ph lB(a) Day Creek Blvd. south of Church St., Church St. east of Day Creek Blvd., Victoria Park Under construction Lane north of Church St., Arbor Ln. north of Church St., and Base Line Rd. east of Day Creek Blvd. Also water, sewer, major storm drain, landscapin~ and traffic siBnals. 3 Ph lB(b) North side of Foothill Blvd. west of Day Creek Blvd. In addition storm drain, sewer and Under construction water. 4 Ph 1B(c) Sidewalk and landscapin~l or) Da), Creek Blvd north of Church St. Under Construction 5 Ph lB(d) Traffic Signal at Church St. and Etiwanda Ave Awaiting Caltrans Permit 6 Ph lB(e) Landscapin~ on Arbor Ln. north of Church St. Bids opened 7 Ph 3A Street, major storm drain, and water on Victoda Gardens Ln. Under construction 8 Ph 3B(a) Foothill Blvd. east of Da)' Creek Channel. Under construction 9 Ph 3B(b) Foothill Blvd. west of Day Creek Channel. Under consb-uctJon 10 Ph 3B(c) Mall public sewer and water Complete 11 Ph 01/03 Final street cap, and cleanup work Advertise The above phase is a result of the formation of the two CFD's as well as the most cost efficient construction of the improvements. Funds for these improvement are from the two CFD's (a/c #'s 1 612 303 5650/1442 612-0 & 1 614 303 5650/1442 614-0). Legal advertising is scheduled for June 22 and June 29, 2004, with the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 6, 2004, unless extended by Addenda. R/~ectfully submitted, WqJJ~m J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WCS Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ~q'"/' ~/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE 01/03 FINAL WORK OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS 200'[-01 AND 2003-01, (TO BE BID AND CONSTRUCTED AS ONE PROJECT), INCLUDING FINAL STREET OVERLAY, FINAL STRIPING, STREET AND TRAIL LIGHTING, ETC. ON DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, VICTORIA PARK LANE, ARBOR LANE AND CHURCH STREET, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "PHASE 01/03 FINAL WORK OF CFD'S 2001-01 & 2003-01 FOR FINAL STREET OVERLAY, FINAL STRIPING, STREET AND TRAIL LIGHTING, ETC. ON DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, VICTORIA PARK LANE, ARBOR LANE AND CHURCH STREET". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 6, 2004, sealed bids or proposals for the "PHASE 01/03 FINAL WORK OF CFD'S 2001-01 & 2003-01 FOR FINAL STREET OVERLAY, FINAL STRIPING, STREET AND TRAIL LIGHTING, ETC. ON DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, VICTORIA PARK LANE, ARBOR LANE AND CHURCH STREET" capital improvement project in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of PHASE 01/03 FINAL WORK OF CFD'S 2001-01 & 2003-01 FOR FINAL STREET OVERLAY, FINAL STRIPING, STREET AND TRAIL LIGHTING, ETC. ON DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, VICTORIA PARK LANE, ARBOR LANE AND CHURCH STREET". RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 2 PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of Califomia Labor Code, Division 2; Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 3 Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25:00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the Iow bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder's Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 4 not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or a combination of Specialty Class "C" licenses sufficient to cover all the work to be performed by the Prime Contractor in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.' The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $65.00 (SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $65.00 (SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $25.00 TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for "PHASE 01/03 FINAL WORK OF CFD'S 2001- 01 & 2003-01 FOR FINAL STREET OVERLAY, FINAL STRIPING, STREET AND TRAIL LIGHTING, ETC. ON DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, VICTORIA PARK LANE, ARBOR LANE AND CHURCH STREET" may be directed to: Walter C Stickney, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4076. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 16~h day of June, 2004 Publish Dates: June 22 and June 29, 2004 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 16th day of June, 2004. William J. Alexander, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. June 16, 2004 Page 5 ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 16~h day of June 2004. Executed this 16th day of June 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: June 22 and June 29, 2004 T H E C I T Y 0 F I~AN C[I 0 CUCAMO~GA S aff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FI:K)M: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer. BY: Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner SUBJECT': AUTHORIZATION TO PAY $45,504 TO INLAND EMPIRE UTILITY AGENCY FOR CAPITAL CAPACITY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTRAL PARK SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT FROM PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND ACCOUNT 1120305-5650/1343120-0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to pay $45,504 to Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) for capital capacity fees associated with the Central Park Senior/Community Center Project from Park Development Fund account 1120305- 5650/1343120-0. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS; Staff received an invoice for $45,504 as the capital capacity fee for the Central Park Senior/Community Center Project. In essence, the capital capacity fee is a development fee for processing domestic wastewater. The fee is dependent upon the number and type of fixtures (i.e., drinking fountains, sinks, floor drains, wash basins, urinals, water closets, etc.) installed in the development that contribute wastewater into the sewer system. Although water and sewer lines in the city are owned and maintained by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), processing or treatment of the wastewater is performed by the IEUA. Such fees are collected by the CVWD and then remitted to the IEUA. Resp ully submitted, Will a{~ J. O'Neil City Engineer T H E C I ~' Y 0 F I~A N C H 0 C U CAH 0 N G^ Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Robert Bowery, Information Systems Manager o~'p¥ SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO PURCHASE ANNUAL SERVER SOFTWARE LICENSE FROM CDW-G IN THE AMOUNT OF $597101 TO BE FUNDED FROM FISCAL YEAR 2003~2004 GENERAL FUND~ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT~ INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION ACCOUNT 1001-209-5152 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of annual server software licenses from CDW-G in the amount of $59,101 to be funded from fiscal year 2003/2004 General Fund, Administrative Services Department, Information Systems Division account 1001-209-5152. BACKGROUND The Information Systems Division sought quotations from three vendors for the purchase of annual server software licenses to remain current with Microsoft standards. Three vendors responded to the request for quotations. The quotations received are from GTSI ($62,337.69), Software House International ($59,736.60), and CDW-G ($59,100.88). CDW-G provided the lowest qualifying quotation. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director Williams, Vanessa From: shauoro@cdwg.com Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:34 AM To: Williams, Vanessa Subject: CDW-G Quote OO60177 This e-mail best viewed in a fixed font such as Courier. VANESSA WILLIAMS Thank you for choosing CDW-G for your computing needs. Following are the details of your quote. Quote Date: 5/27/2004 Quote Number: 0060177 P.O. Number: SOFTWARE QUOTE Customer#: 4344284 Payment Terms: Request Terms Shipped Via: DROP SHIP-GROUND QTY ITEM DESCRIPTION /MFG. PART NUMBER UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE 10 483312 MS GSA WIN TERM SRV CAL SA USER 40.00 400.00 MLG-R19-00085-3 28 483300 MS GSA W2003 SRV STD 475.00 13300.00 MLG-P73-00178 Contract: GSA SCHEDULE GS-35F-0195J 8 303988 MS GSA SQL SRV 2000 STD 1CPU 3150.00 25200.00 MLG-228-01064 Contract: GSA SCHEDULE GS-35F-0195J 10 483297 MS GSA W2003 SRV ENT 1595.02 15950.20 MLG-P72-00122 Contract: GSA SCHEDULE GS-35F-0195J Subtotal 54,850.20 Freight .00 Sales Tax 4,250.89 Total 59,101.09 Ship To: Bill To: /47 CITY OF P~ANCHO CUCAMONGA VANESSA WILLIAMS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR VANESSA WILLIAMS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-3801 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-3801 If you find any discrepancies or I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. SHAUN O'ROURKE Direct line: 866-339-3529 Fax Number: 312-705-8212 E-Mail: shauoro@cdwg.com Click here to purchase, amend or view this quote via your CDWG@work extranet: http:/www.cdwg.com/r.asp?n=27145&cdwquotenumber=O060177 Please note that you will need a user name and password for our site in order to log on to your CDWG@work extranet. Need one? Get one at: http://www.cdwg.com/eaccount For future reference, you may also use your extranet to view your order history and the status of all of your CDW-G orders. You can also use your extranet to view your quote history or retrieve new quotes. CDW-G(r) The Right Technology. Right Away. (tm) www.cdwg.com Corporate Headquarters: 230 N. Milwaukee Avenue Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061 1-800-808-4239 Business Hours: Monday-Friday, 7am-7pm Will Call Pick Up Hours: Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm (Vernon Hills) Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm (Chicago) Saturday, 9am-2pm (Vernon Hills) Saturday, Closed (Chicago) Sunday, Closed Ail information subject to CDW-G's terms and policies. For more details, contact a CDW-G account manager or go to http://www.cdwg.com/r.asp?n=18531 Form: OE400E SHI Quote # 844535 Page 1 of 1 Williams, Vanessa From: jason_pawliczak@shi.com Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:50 AM To: Williams, Vanessa Subject: SIll Quote#844535 Pricing Proposal Quotation #: 844535 Quote Valid Until: 7/8/2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga SHI Account Exec vanessa Williams Jason Pawliczak 10500 Civic Center Dr. 2 Riverview Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Somerset, NJ 08873 Phone: (909) 477-2700 Phone: 732-868-6104 Fax:(909) 477-2755 Fax: 732-868-6174 All Prices are in US Dollar (USD) Product Qty Your Price Total I Windows Terminal Server CAL 2003 English Volume License User CAL 10 54.00 540.00 Mfg Part#: R19-00041 2 Windows Server Standard 2003 English Volume License 28 483.00 13,524.00 Mfg Par~: P73-00178 3 SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition English 1 Processor License 8 3,212.00 25,696.00 Mfg Par~: 228-01064 4 Windows Server Enterprise 2003 English Volume License 10 1,568.00 15,680.00 Mfg Pad~: P72-00122 Total 55,440.00 'F'mx 6/8/2004 qq GTSI - IT for Government - (800) 234-GTSI Page 1 of 1 Active Shopping Cart - Microsoft Software U.S. Communities R(~03-605674-16A GTS! Part# Description CLIN# Qty In Stock Price Total lqS SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition - 3493-852656 License - 1 processor - VOL - Select - 8 3283 26264 Win HS Windows Terminal Services - 3513-1468781 Software assurance - 1 user - VOL - 10 41 410 Select- 1 points MS Windows Server 2003 Enterprise 3493-1467918 Edition - License - 1 server - VOL - 10 1740.4 17404 Select MS Windows Server 2003 Standard 3493-1467923 Edition - License * 1 server - VOL - 28 492 13776 Select Subtotal $57,854.00 Tax $4,483.69 Shipping $0.00 Total $62~337.69 Complete Cart Total Subtotal $57,854.00 Tax $4,483.69 Shipping $0.00 Total $62,337.69 Return To Cart GTSI Corp. World Headquarters 3901 Stonecroft Boulevard 800-999-4874 703-502-2000 htt p://www.gtsi,com http://www~gtsi.c~m/st~re/cartprintfri~nd~y~aspx?Sh~pper~D=C5~~BF79~/~2DF7~ ~ ¼2D49F... 6/7/2004 THE CITY OF I~AN CH 0 C Il CAH ON C.A Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Shonda Belle, Planning Aide SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2003-01073 - JUDY SPAULDING et.al. - A request to designate 26 Walnut trees lining Beryl Avenue north of Hillside Road and south of Carrari Court as a Designated Local Landmark - APN: 1071-371-26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, and 40. RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends approval of Landmark Designation DRC2003-01073. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In 1936 and 1938, the Toews family planted Walnut trees lining Beryl Street 660 feet north of Hillside Road. In 1943, Mike and Victoria Carrari continued planting Walnut trees south of those previously planted by the Toews family to Hillside Road. The trees planted on the east side of Beryl Street provided a supplemental cash crop to the orchards and vineyards already prevalent in the area. Several older residents, such as Mr. Bob Perdew, remembers walking to Boy Scout Camp in the foothills and stopping to eat walnuts from the trees in the 1930s. The Walnut trees have lined Beryl Street for over 50 years and are one of the last reminders of the agricultural period in the Alta Loma community. The subject trees qualify for landmark designation based upon much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, including such significant areas as: historical, cultural, neighborhood, and geographic setting. Details concerning these areas of significance can be found in the Facts for Finding section of the Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report dated May 12, 2004 (Exhibit "A"). The requested designation is for the Walnut trees lining Beryl Street that are greater than 50 years in age and are straddling the public right-of-way. The purpose of designation is to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate a significant feature, which contributes to the cultural and aesthetic benefit of Rancho Cucamonga. CORRESPONDENCE: All property owners listed in the Historic Preservation Commission Staff report dated May 12, 2004, have submitted a signed application for designation and/or written consent for the trees on their property to be designated as Local Landmarks. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00173 - JUDY SPAULDING ~.al. June 16, 2002 Page 2 CONCLUSION: The Walnut trees were planted between 1936 and 1943 for commercial agricultural use. They lined Beryl Street and contributed to the historical integrity of the Alta Loma community. The trees are representative of the agriculture that sustained the early families of Alta Loma. The City of Rancho Cucamenga has a record of approving landmark designations for historically important plants and agriculture. Similar designated Local Landmarks and Historic Points of Interest include: Hippard Ranch Vineyard, located at 13100 Victoria Avenue, Schowalter Grove Site, located at 8297 Baker Street, and the Night Blooming Cereus, located at 7850 Valle Vista Drive. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SB\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report dated May 12, 2004 Draft City Council Resolution of Approval for Landmark Designation DRC2003-01073 52_ THE CITY OF l~ANCH 0 CUC^HONGA Staff Report DATE: May 12, 2004 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Shonda Bello, Planning Aide SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2003-01073 - JUDY SPAULDING et.al. - A request to designate 26 Walnut trees lining Beryl Avenue north of Hillside Road and south of Carrari Court as a Designated Local Landmark - APN: 1071-371-26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, and 40. BACKGROUND A. Historical Siqnificance: In 1936 and 1938, the Toews family planted Walnut trees lining Beryl Street 660 feet north of Hillside Road. In 1943, Mike and Victoria Carrari continued planting Walnut trees south of those previously planted by the Toews family to Hillside Road (Exhibit "C"). For a few families in the Alta Loma area, the trees planted on the east side of Beryl Street provided a supplemental cash crop to the vineyards the Carrari family had already planted. Several older residents remembered eating walnuts picked from the trees lining Beryl Street throughout their childhood, such as Bob Perdew, who remembers walking to Boy Scout Camp in the foothills and stopping to eat walnuts from the trees in the 1930s. The Walnut trees have lined Beryl Street for over 50 years and are one of the last reminders of the agricultural period in the Alta Loma Community. B. Site Characteristics: The Walnut trees are situated along the east side of Beryl Street across seven pamels of approximately 1/2 acre each, containing houses that are not eligible for Historical Designation, unlike the Walnut trees. The land use zoning of the site and the surrounding area is designated Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwellings per acre). ANALYSIS A. General: The Walnut trees were planted between 1936 and 1943 for commercial agricultural use. They line Beryl Street and lend to the historical integrity of the Alta Loma Community. The trees are representative of the agriculture that sustained the early families of Alta Loma. HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01073- SPAULDING May 12, 2004 Page 2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a record of approving landmark designations for historically important plants and agriculture. For a list of similar Designated Local Landmarks and Points of Interest, see Exhibit "D." B. Landmark Desiqnation: The subject trees qualify for landmark designation based upon much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, including such significant areas as; historical, cultural, and neighborhood and geographic setting. Details concerning these areas of significance are contained in the Facts for Findings section. The requested designation is for the Walnut trees lining Beryl Street that are greater than 50 years in age and are within or straddling the public right-of-way. The purpose of designation is to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate a significant feature which contributes to the cultural and aesthetic benefit of Rancho Cucamonga. Staff recommends that the City designate those trees straddling the street property line for the seven lots north of Hillside Avenue. All property owners listed have submitted a signed application for designation and/or written consent for the trees on their property to be designated as Local Landmarks. The quantity of trees and their respective owners are listed below: Assessors Parcel Number Owner Quantity of Trees 1061-371-26 Penny Scheer 3 1061-371-27 Carmela Bartolotto 2 1061-371-28 Gall Lawson-Burnley 1 1061-371-29 Judy Spaulding 2 1061-371-31 Robert Nichols 1 1061-371-33 Charles and Mary Nickel 7 1061-371-40 Walter Jasina 10 Total: 7 parcels 26 trees C. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15331 as a Class 31 exemption of the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. Historical and Cultural Siqnificance: Finding 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of a historical period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact/s: The trees are an excellent example of life in early Alta Loma, as the residents were dependent on local agriculture for much of their income. Walnuts were a lesser known, but still popular, agricultural crop within the community. These walnut trees represent a way of life for some of the early residents of the area. HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01073- SPAULDING May 12, 2004 Page 3 Finding 2: The proposed landmark is an example of a type of agricultural use that was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: Commercially growing walnuts was used to supplement a family's income earlier in the 20th Century, but is now a rare occurrence. Findin.q 3: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: The trees are a minimum of 60 years old. Findinq 4: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: Both the Toews and Carrari families were well known and respected within the community of Alta Loma. B. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting: Finding 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. Fact/s: The proposed landmark contributes to the beauty of the Alta Loma community and has been a feature of the landscape for over 50 years. CORRESPONDENCE: The Historic Landmark Designation was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of Landmark Designation DRC2003-01073 to be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB: SB\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Photographs of Walnut Trees Exhibit "C" - Statement of Joe Carrari Exhibit "D" - List of Similar Designated Local Landmarks and Points of interest Exhibit "E" - Signed consent forms from all property owners Draft Resolution of Approval for DRC2003-01073 55 designated plants list.xls Rancho Cucamonga 1 12/23/2003 Designated Historic Plant List EXHIBIT D A B C D E F G 1 ,STREET ST_NUM APN STATUS YR_PLANTED STYL TYP NAME 2 19th St 10213 20220139 DLL 1932-33 est. Vernacular Bun~lalow Powelson-Beckle¥ Tree 3 E~aker Ave 8297 20720143 DPI Dis. 1936 Grove Site Schowalter Grove Site 4 E~aseline Rd 12194 22709120 DLL 100 yrs.+ Chrysolepis Oak Tree 5 Day Creek Canyon 99999999 22505115 DPI Million + Bo~, Natural Feature Sedge Bo(:j Ecolocjical Area 6 Highland Ave 13000 22518118 DLL 1900 Circ. Palms & Eucalyptus Street Trees 7 Valle Vista Dr 7850 20708131 DLL 50 to 70 yrs. Cactus Night Bloomin,c,I Cereus 8 Victoria Ave 13100 22712153&54 DLL 1916oricjinallymplanted2000 Vineyard Hil3pard Ranch Vineyards 9 Victoria Ave 13000 22706113 DLL 1900 Cim. Palrh Eucalyptus Street Trees PLL = Poten. Local Landmark DEM=Demo PNR = Potan. Nat. Register DPl=Desig Pt of Inter URM = Um'einforced Masonry DSL=Desig Sate Landmark ~. SDI = Surveyed Deter. Insign. DLL=Desig Local Landmark i{~ PSL = Poten. State Landmark SUS=Survey Undeter Signif City of Rancho Cucamonga CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMONGA Community Development Depat. i0500 Civic Center Drive ~ 0 ~ 200~ Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 ~r .... ~'~NING Re: Reryl S~rcet Walnut Tree Landmark Designation Dear Staff, I am aware of thc propasal by members of our community workin8 ~ the City of Rancho Cucamonga to include Wainnt Trees lining the east side of Beryl Ave designated as part of the city's tree pr~ervatiun ordinance. I further understand the value of this series of walnnt trees in defining unr commnnity's character and thus worthy of preservation, to be listed as "Heritage tre~". I certify that I am preseutly the legal owner of private oro~ertv including one or more of these walnut trees. Further, I acknowledge the filing of application and cerlffy that the information I am providing is true and correct. I understand upon the approval of Landmark designation, these Heritage troes cannot be removed or damaged without the required pemit from the plunplng Division at (909) 477-2710. j .~-~. F~ ~ \J ,~.J~ P~¢'~ :print name .,_.~'~ ~ ~ /T/~ J//'~ /~'~/, Ji~ :address City oflL~mcho Cucamonga (~]TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Depat. 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 RF~ ...... ~NNING I am aware of the proposal by members of our community working with the City of Rancho Cucamouga to include Walnut Trees lining the east side of Beryl Ave designated as part of the city's tree preservation ordinance. I further understand the value of this series of waluut trem in defining our community's character and thus worthy of preservation, to be listed as "Heritage trees". I certify that I am presently the lenal owner of private property including one or more of these walnut trees. Further, I acknowledge the filin~ of application and certify that the infomation I am providing is true and correct. I understand upon the approval of Landmark designation, these Heritage trees cannot be removed or damaged without the required pemit from the Plaunin~ Division at (909) 477-2710. Cit~ of~¢ho Cncamonga Ct~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Delmt. ~ c~ ~ ~e ~ 0 ~ 200~ ~o Cu~mon~ ~ 917~ ~: ~! S~ Wa~ut Tr~ ~ndm~ ~s~ I am aw~ of~e p~ by mem~ °four ~mmun~ wor~g ~ ~e C~ of ~cho ~on~ ~ ~clude W~ T~ ~g ~e ~ side offal Ave dm~ as ~ of~e ~W's ~ p~a~n o~n~ I ~her under.nd · e v~e of ~ ~ ~wa~ut ~ ~ d~ our ~mmuniW's c~m~ and ~us wo~y ~ p~a~n, to ~ I~ ~ '~eri~e ~". I ~rfify ~t I am p~ the ~al ~ of p~a~ pm~ includ~ one or mo~ of t~ w~ut ~ Fu~, [ ac~ow~ ~e filing of appK~n ~d ce~ ~at ~e infomafion I ~ pro~ding ~ ~e ~d ~r~ I un~nd u~n the approval of ~udmrk d~fio~ th~ He~ge ~n~t ~ ~ov~ or ~ witho~ ~e ~ui~ ~mit from the D~a at (~} 4~-2710. ~ _ _ phone hum ~ -.,egtatr "6'- City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Dept. 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 917~0 Re: Beryl Street Walnut Tree Landmark Designation ! am aware of the proposal by members of our community working with the City of Rancho C~ucamonga to include Walnut Trees lining the east side of Beryl Ave designated as part of the city's tree preservation ordinance. I further understand the value of this series of walnut trees in defining our community*s character and thus worthy of preservation, to be listed as "Heritage trees". I certify that I am pr~tly the legal owner of private Drol~erty including one or more of these w~lnnt ~ Further, I acknowledge the filing of application and certify that the information I am providing is true and correct. I understand upon the approval of Landmark designation, these Heritage trees cannot be removed or damaged without the required permit from the plnunin~o Dhtishm at (909) 477-2710. / City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development 1~ C~c ~n~r DrNe ~A~ 0 ~ 200~ ~o Cu~mon~ Ca 91730 I undated u~ the approval of ~admrk d~fio~ th~ DN~n at (~) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .UNIFORM Community Development Department 10500 Civic Center Drive APPLICATION Rancho Cucemongs, CA 91730 (909) 477-2730 ' Part. 1 Name of Proposed Project I.o~aUon of Project Legal Desc~n of Project (Assessor~ Parcel No.) Legal Ownert~ Name (If g~mrent from above) Phone Numb~:. · . ~:'., . Addre~ Type ot Revlew nequested (Please Check All Apl~lcable 0 Community Plan Amendment ~ Hillside Development >4 DU r.] Tentative Parcel Map 0 C, ondilional Use Permit [~ Hillside Development =; 4 DU C} Tentative Tract Map O 'Condi~onal Use Pennit E] Landmark AIteraUon Permit ~ Use De~ermination (Nun.Const~uction) D LotLineAdjustment E} VacaEonofPublicRight-of-Wayor E~ Dev/DeslgnReview*ComnVIndus 0 Minor Development Review Easement E} Dev/Desi§n Review - Residenttal E~ Minor Exception C} Developrnent Agreement 0 Pre-ApplicaUon Review ~ DevelopmantDistrictAmendment ~ Preliminao, Review E3 Entertainment Permit ~ Specific Plan Amendment ~ GeneraIPlan Amendment ' - Detailed Description of proposed Project (Attach Additional Shee~ ff NeAessar~) I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the above-described properly. Further, I acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that ali of the above information is true and co.rl~ct~ ~lf the undersigned is different from the legal prot:~r'~ owner, a letter of aut~pr~zation mu~t a~'~mPeify this fprr~ Pd e and ~-Ele . Date/Time Received Received By Fees Flec~elved Receipt NO. Fife Receipt NO. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department UNIFORM 10500 Civic Center Drive APPLICATION Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 * (909) 477-2750 ' Part. 1 Name of Proposed Project L~aiOwnerf~Narne(#ditlbMnthomabove) PhoneNumber: ;,* Address Type of Review Requested (Please Check All Applicable Boxe~) O Community Plan Amendment ~] Hillside Development >4 DU O Tentative Parcel Map 0 Condilfonal Use Permit 0 Hillside Development ~ 4 DU O Tentative Tract Map r~ 'CondflJonal Use Permit 0 Landmark Alteration Permit O U~e DeterminaUon (Non-Consbuc#on) Q Lot Une Adjustment Q Vacation of Public Right-of-Way or O Dev/DasJgn Review-ComtrVIndus O Minor Development Review Easement ri Dev/Design Review - RasidenUal [3 Minor Excepg~l n Va#anoe O DevelopmentAgraement 0 Pre-Application Review ~1.. Other. ~,,-~rv~t v%~ ~-¥ O DevelopmentDistrictAmendment O Entertainment Permit ~ Specific Plan Amendment O General Plan Amendment D~IMd ~ o( ~oFo~d ProJ~ (A~h AddWoMl ~h~M~ # NOCaM~/) I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the above-described property. Further, I acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all of the above,,Ii, formation is true and correct. (If the undersigned is different from the legal property owner~ a letter of authorization st accompany this form.~ , P#nt[Name and Title Data/Time Received Received By Fees Received Receipt NO. Rte Receipt No. h~LANNING~FINAL~FORMS\COUNTER\UNI-APP.doc 04/04/2000 ~1. 7 i RESOLUT,O,,O. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DRC2003-01073, DESIGNATING THE 26 WALNUT TREES LINING BERYL AVENUE, LOCATED NORTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD AND SOUTH OF CARRARI COURT, A HISTORIC LOCAL LANDMARK; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1071-371-25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31,33, and 40. A. Recitals. 1. Judy Spaulding et.al, filed an application for Landmark Designation DRC2003-01073, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 28 and continued to May 12, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval. 3. On June 16, 2004, the City Council held their meeting and approved Landmark Designation DRC2003-01073. 4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The application applies to 26 Walnut tress, located within 1,330 feet north of Hillside Road, on Beryl Street. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council, including minutes of the public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission on May 12, 2004, written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Council hereby makes the following findings and facts: a. Historical and Cultural Siqnificance: Findinq 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact/s: The trees are an excellent example of life in early Alta Loma, and the residents were dependent on local agriculture for much of their income. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRC2003-01073 -JUDY SPAULDING et.al. June 16, 2004 Page 2 FacEs: Walnuts were a lesser known but still popular, agricultural crop within the community. These Walnut trees represent a way of life for some of the early residents of the area. Findinq 2: The proposed landmark is an example of an agricultural use, which was once common but is now rare. FacEs: Commemially grown walnuts were used to supplement a family's income earlier in the 20th Century, but is now a rare occurrence. Findinq 3: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. FacEs: The trees are a minimum of 60 years old. Findin.q 4: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. FacEs: Both the Toews and Carrari families were well known and respected within the community of Alta Loma. b. Nei.qhborhood and Geoqraphic Settinq. Findinq 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. FacEs: The proposed landmark contributes to the beauty of the Alta Loma Community and has been a feature of the landscape for over 50 years. 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated there under, as Landmark Designations are exempt under CEQA, per Class 31. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Landmark Designation DRC2003-01073. 6. The Mayor shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Debra Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004 ELECTION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the attached Resolutions pertaining to the November 2, 2004 election. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Attached you will find Resolutions relating to the November 2, 2004 election. It is recommended that the Council adopt the following: o A Resolution Calling for the General Municipal Election to be held November 2, 2004 for the positions of two City Council seats, one City Clerk seat and one City Treasurer seat, and to consolidate said election with the County of San Bernardino. o A Resolution approving the regulations for candidates running for elective office. After the Council approves the Resolutions, I will proceed with the San Bernardino County Registrar's office to place these matters on the November 2 ballot. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. R.e?ectfully submitted, ;/ ...; /¢.,. ,_2 -Debra J. Afl_ams, GMG City Clerk/~cords Manager Attachments (as noted) RESOLUTION NO. 04- /'¢--5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2004, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to General Law Cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on Tuesday, November 2®, 2004, for the election of Municipal Officers. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1: That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered, held in the City of Rancho Cucamenga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, on Tuesday, the 2® day of November 2004, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of said City for the purpose of electing two members of the City Council for the full term of four years, a City Clerk for the full term of four years and a City Treasurer for a full term of four years. SECTION 2: That the General Municipal Election hereby called for the date hereinbefore specified shall be and is hereby ordered consolidated with the Presidential General Election to be held on said date within the City. The proceedings, polling places, precincts, precinct board members and officers for the General Municipal Election hereby called shall be the same as those provided for said Presidential General Election. The Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County is hereby requested to order the consolidation of the General Municipal Election hereby called with said Presidential General Election, and said Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election and said election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election and one formal ballot, namely the ballot used at said Presidential General Election shall be used. Said Registrar of Voters shall supervise the canvass of said returns for said General Municipal Election and transmit said returns to the City Council of said City which shall thereafter declare the results thereof. Resolution No. 04- Page 2 of 2 SECTION 3: The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall reimburse said County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is directed to forward, without delay, to said Registrar of Voters, a certified copy of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 16th day of June 2004. Executed this 17th day of June, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATES STATEMENT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2ND 2004 WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any city may adopt a charge against candidates pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidates' statement. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1: General Provisions. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 2nd, 2004, may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. Such statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. Such statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. Such statement shall be filed in the Office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. Such statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. SECTION 2' Additional Materials. No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package. SECTION 3: Payment. The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidates statements filed pursuant to the Elections Code, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance his or her pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter's pamphlet. The estimate is just an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another Resolution No. 04- Page 2 of 3 election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidate for additional actual expense or refund any excess paid depending on the final actual cost. In the event of underpayment, the Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued. SECTION 5: That all previous resolutions establishing Council policy on payment for candidates statements are repealed. SECTION 6: That this Resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 2nd, 2004, and shall then be repealed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk Resolution No. 04- Page 3 of 3 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 16th day of June 2004. Executed this 17th day of June, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk 75' R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT APPROVAL TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1, 2 AND 6 FOR DRCDR00-79, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, SUBMITTED BY BURNETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND UNITED DOMINION REALTY TRUST RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1,2 and 6. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DRCDR00-79, in the mixed use in the Haven Overlay District, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2001. This development is a mixed-use project of approximately 414 apartment units and lofts over retail and retail and professional office uses on 31.5 acres of land. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developers are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, VAiJJJa'm J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WViich Attachments FOOTHILL BOULEVARD rClVlC 0 ARI~OW ROUTE' '~' SITE N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trr~.~: 77 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1, 2 AND 6 FOR DRCDR00-79 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 Nos. 1 and 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (referred to collectively as the ("Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 72 Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, an assessment engineer!s report, notices of public heating and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owner of property within the ten'itory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the such provisions of the 72 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XmD of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and RESOLUTION NO. DRCDR00-79 - BURNETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION June 16, 2004 Page 2 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 72 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 72 Act and/or Article XIIID applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: This City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvements. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the Maintenance Districts, including levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. 7q Exhibit A To Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: BURNETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: The legal description of the Properties are: Parcel of land, situated in the City Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, being Parcel Nos. 2 and 4 as described in that certain Certificate of Compliance No. 536 for Lot Line Adjustment recorded October 2, 2002 as Document No. 20020522990 of Official Records of said San Bernardino County, California The Owner of the Property is: UNITED DOMINION REALTY TRUST Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: The legal description of the Properties are: Parcel of land, situated in the City Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, being Parcel No. 3 as described in that certain Certificate of Compliance No. 536 for Lot Line Adjustment recorded October 2, 2002 as Document No. 20020522990 of Official Records of said San Bemardino County, Califomia The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTINCT NO . STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 - - =--===-=--~ C~' .............. ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ........ , - ..........~ ~ --~1 L CiViC CENTER COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDI~O STATE OF CALIFO~IA ~~'7~ Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY) Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD #1) represents 23.63 acres of landscape area, 41.88 acres of parks and 16.66 acres of community trails that are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, community trails and parks. The 41.88 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park and the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (LMD #3B) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments, the landscaping within the Metrolink Station and 22.87 acres associated with the Adult Sports Park (not including the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building). STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS) Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been deten-nined that the facilities in this district benefit this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2004~2005) For Project: DRCDR00-79 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD # 1 ...... 10 ...... SLD#6 3 ............ Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # 3B --- *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel Acres S I S2 S 6 L1 L 3B Parcel 2 1.88 acres ...... 1.88 --- 1.88 Parcel 3 414 units 414 414 --- 207 --- Parcel 4 8.02 acres 16.04 --- 8.02 --- 8.02 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 200412005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY) Thc rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $92.21 for thc fiscal year 2004/05. Thc following table summarizes thc assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City): # of # of Rate Per Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 7,699 1.0 7,95 ! $92.21 $709,924.79 Multi- Units 7,091 0.5 3,545.5 $92.21 $326,930.56 Family Comm/Ind. Acre 2 ! .0 2 $92.21 $184.42 TOTAL $1,037,039.77 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR00-79) is: Parcel 3:414 x 0.5 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $19,087.47 Annual Assessment LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $352.80 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance Disthct No. 3B (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment 1 .and ll~o llnie Tx/ne ltnlt~ lTnit~ Fac'tnr lTnit~ Il'nit CoInm/Ind Acre 2,115.92 1.0 2,115.92 $352.80 $746,496.58 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR00-79) is: Parcel 2 1.88 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $663.26 Annual Assessment Parcel 4 8.02 Acres x i A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $2,832.98 Annual Assessment C-2 DRCDR00-79 ~ STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l anrl lT~e lTnit Tyne ITnlt~ 1Tnlt~ l~act~r 1 ~'nit~ lTnlt l~wmm Single Family Parcel 19,803 1.00 19,803 $17.77 $351,899.31 Multi- Unit 7,402 1.00 7,402 $17.77 $131,533.54 Family Commercial Acre 2,288.82 2.00 4,577.64 $17.77 $81,344.66 TOTAL $564777.51 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR00-79) is: Parcel 2 1.88 Acres x 2 A.U. F~ctor x $17.77 Rate Per A,U. = $66.82 Annual Assessment Parcel 4 8.02 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $285,03 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS) The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 5798 1.00 5798 $39.97 $246,042.00 Commercial Acre 19.05 1.00 19.05 $79.94 $1,522.86 Total $280,073.79 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR00-79) is: Parcels 3:414 x 1 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. = $16,547.58 Annual Assessment C-2 DRCDR00-79 ~ STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $51.40 for the Fiscal Year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment. Assessment Assessment l .and lI~t~ [lnlt Tvn~ IInit~ lTnlt~ ~actor TInlt~ lTnlt R~v~nn~ Corem/[nd Acre 2,065.67 1.00 2,090.72 $51.40 $107,463.01 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR00-79) is: Parcel 2 1.88 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $96.63 Annual Assessment Parcel 4 8.02 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $412.74 Annual Assessment DRCDR00-79 R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ~ NC IN E ~ IP I N ~ D ~ PAI~ TM E N T StaffRepol DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DRC2003-00732, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF JACK BENNY DRIVE, EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY BATES- EVERGREEN PARTNERS, LLC AND STADIUM PLAZA SOUTH, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Improvement Agreement, Securities and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DRC2003-00732, in the General Industrial District, Subarea 8, located on the north and south sides of Jack Benny, east of Rochester Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2003. This project is for the development of a nine multi-tenant industrial buildings on 16.67 acres of land. The Developer, Bates-Evergreen Partners, LLC and Stadium Plaza South, LLC, is submitting an agreement and securities to guarantee the completion of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance - Bond $ 866,100.00 Labor and Material - Bond $ 433,050.00 City Council Staff Report DRC2003-00732 - BATES-EVERGREEN, LLC AND STADIUM PLAZA SOUTH, LLC June 16, 2004 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga Valley Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DIVISION City Engineer WJO:WV:tch Attachments A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIEORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DRC2003-00732 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on June 16, 2004, by Bates-Evergreen Partners, LLC and Stadium Plaza South, LLC, as Developers, for the improvement of the public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein and generally located on the north and south sides of Jack Benny Drive, east of Rochester Avenue; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good an sufficient Improvement Securities, which are identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows 1. That said Improvement Agreement, be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney SO ION NO. 0 ¥-/4 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. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. ! AND 6 FOR DRC2003-00732 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 (the "72 Act"), said Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 72 Act authorize the .annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owner of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the such provisions of the 72 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIlD of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XII1D") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and RESOLUTION NO. DRC2003-00732 - BATES-EVERGREEN PARTNERS, LLC AND STADIUM PLAZA SOUTH, LLC June 16, 2004 Page 2 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 72 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 72 Act and/or Article XIIlD applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: This City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvements. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the Maintenance Districts, including levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owners ~f the Property are: BATES - EVERGREEN PARTNERS, LLC AND STADIUM PLAZA SOUTH, LLC The legal description of the Property is: Lot(s) 107 and the South one-half of Lot 108 of Rochester, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 9 Page(s) 20 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, together with the East 60 feet of Orange Avenue adjoining said Lots on the West as vacated and abandoned by order of Board of Supervisors of San Bemardino City, a certified copy of which was recorded December 18, 1936 in Book 1177 of Official Records, Page320, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Except therefrom that portion granted to Southern Surplus Realty, Co., a California Corporation, by a deed recorded March 1, 1974 as Instrument No. 107, Official Records, and described as follows: The Westerly 310.00 feet of the Eastedy 370.00 feet of said Lot 107 and the Westerly 310 of the Easterly 370.00 feet of the South one-half of said Lot 108. Also except therefrom the Easterly 60 feet of said Lot 107 and the Easterly 60 feet of the South 0ne-half of said Lot 108 as granted to the Flood Control District by a deed recorded October 16, 1981 as Instrument No. 81-229553, Official Records. Lot(s) 106 of Map of Rochester, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of Califomia, as per map recorded in Book 9 Page(s) 20 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Together with the East 60 feet of Orange Avenue adjoining said Lot on the West as vacated and abandoned by order of Board of Supervisors of San Bemardino County, a certified copy of which was recorded December 18, 1936, in Book 1177, Page 320, Official Records. Except that portion of property herein described, conveyed to San Bemardino County Flood Control District, by deed recorded January 19, 1948, in Book 2108, Page 492, Official Records. Also except therefrom the East 60 Feet of lot 106 as conveyed to San Bemardino County Flood Control Distdct by deed recorded November 1, 1960, in Book 5273, Page 94, Official Records. Also except therefrom that portion of Lot 106, conveyed to Mono Power Company by deed recorded January 4, 1973, in Book 9083, Page 139, Official Records. A-1 DRC2003-00732 q3 EXHIBIT "A -2 ~' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTR/CT NOS. I AND 6 FO~FttlLL CITY OF RANOHO CUCAMONGA NORTii COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO sTATE OF CALIFO~IA Exhibit B To Description of the Disti'ict Improvements Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (LMD #3B) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments, the landscaping within the Metrolink Station and 22.87 acres associated with the Adult Sports Park (not including the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building). STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2003/2004) For Project: DRC2003-00732 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD # 1 --- 2 ......... SLD # 6 8 3 ......... Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # 3B ......... 43 *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel Acres S 1 S 6 L 3B 1 9.2 18.4 9.2 9.2 2 7.42 14.84 7.42 7.42 B-2 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2003~2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $352.80 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (CommemiaVIndustrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment land Tl~e Il'nit Tyne ITnit~ lTnlt~ l~actor ITnit~ IInlt R~v~nut~ Comm/Ind Acre 2186.85 1.0 2186.85 $352.80 $771,520.68 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRC2003-00732) is: Parcel 1:9.20 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $3,245.76 Annual Assessment Parcel 2:7.42 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $2,617.78 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment I and Iix*. Unit Tvn~ Ttnit~ TTnit~ Factor ITnits Il'nit Rewmm Single Family Parcel 21,151 1.00 21,151 $17.77 $375,853.27 Multi- Unit 8,540 1.00 8,540 $17.77 $151,755.80 Family Commercial Acre 2,380.36 2.00 4,760.72 $17.77 $84,597.99 TOTAL $612,207.06 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRC2003-00732) is: Parcel 1:9.20 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $326.97 Annual Assessment Parcel 2:7.42 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $263.71 Annual Assessment DRC2003-00732 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $51.40 for the Fiscal Year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l,and 1[~ lTnit Tvn~ lTnit~ lfnit~ Factnr llnit~ lYnit R~v~nn~ Comm/Ind Acre 2,065.67 1.00 2,090.72 $51.40 $107,463.01 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRC2003-00732) is: Parcel 1:9.20 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $472.88 Annual Assessment Parcel 2:7.42 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $381.39 Annual Assessment C-2 DRC2003-00732 ~} R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT StaffR DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT APPROVAL OF iMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DRCDR00-41, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 6TM STREET BETWEEN HAVEN AND HERMOSA AVENUES, SUBMITTED BY CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Improvement Agreement, Securities and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6., and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DRCDR00-41, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea6,), located on the south side of 6ta Street between Haven and Hermosa Avenues, was approved by the Planning Commission on September 26, 2001. This project is for the development of a 830,000 square foot industrial building on 40.55 acres of land. The Developer, Cabot Industrial Properties, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, is submitting an agreement and securities to guarantee the completion of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance - Irrevocable Letter of Credit $ 698,000.00 Labor and Material - Irrevocable Letter of Credit $ 349,000.00 City Council Staff Report DRCDR00-41 - CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP June 16, 2004 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga Valley Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DiVISION City Engineer WJO:WV:tch Attachments /Ob R O, ION NO. ¥- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DRCDR00-41 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on June 16, 2004, by Cabot Industrial Properties, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, as Developers, for the improvement of the public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein and generally located on the south side of 6th Street between Haven and Hermosa Avenues; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good an sufficient Improvement Securities, which are identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows 1. That said Improvement Agreement, be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney /ol 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 DRCDR00-41 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 (the "72 Act"), said Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 72 Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owner of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the such provisions of the 72 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XmD of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XITID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and RESOLUTION NO. DRCDR00-41 - CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP June 16, 2004 Page 2 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, ail of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedurai requirements as prescribed in the 72 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 72 Act and/or Article XIIID applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: This City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvements. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTIO~N 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Temtory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the Maintenance Districts, including levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. Exhibit A To Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: Cabot Industrial Properties, L.P., A Delaware Limited Partnership Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: The legal description of the Properties are: (See attached Exhibits) The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. (¢ONllNU£O FRO~ F_X~'UMT 'A "- S~rr 3 O~ ~} £0~ ME'RC,£~I~O._578 LOT I: ~ ~ 1/2 ~ LO~ 18 ~O 2& ~C~ON I4. ~SHIP l ~ ON ~CH SIDE O~ ~URED A~ ~H~ ~GL~ ~0 ~ ~CE SOU~ 0'0~' ~ 2~.0~ ~. ~E~K SOUtheRLY I 1~.87 ~ ~ONG A T~GENT ~ ~E ~ ~ ~ A ~ IN ~E ~ tINE ~ ~ ~ENCE SOU~ 8'44~5' ~ ~.20 FK~ ~0 A ~IN~ OF A~U~ ~N~N RECORDED ~H I5, I982, ~ I~M~N~ N~ 82-~0~ 0~ ~0~ (CON17,VU~D ON ~O'IIMI' 'A' - SHEM 4 OF 4] ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIsTRIcT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 I '~ ,I I I I 'mAD~MAaK e'rI L cITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - NO,Tn cOUNTy ow SAN .~.Rr~^r~DINO /~ ? Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMNIERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (LMD #3B) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments, the landscaping within the Metrolink Station and 22.87 acres associated with the Adult Sports Park (not including the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building). STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD 4/6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2003/2004) For Project: DRCDR00-41 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD# 1 --- 7 ......... SLD # 6 ............... Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # 3B ......... 50 *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel Acres S 1 S 6 L 3B 1 40.55 81.10 40.55 40.55 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $352.80'for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial/industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l.and Tl~e l[nit Tyne lTnit~ l/nlt~ Factor lTnit~ lTnlt Comrn/ind Acre 2186.85 1.0 2186.85 $352.80 $771,520.68 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR0041) is: 40.55 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate Per A.U. = $14,306.04 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment land Ii'se lInlt Tvno l/nit~ llnlt~ Factor llnitn llnit Single Family Parcel 21,151 1.00 21,151 $17.77 $375,853.27 Multi- Family Unit 8,540 1.00 8,540 $17.77 $151,755.80 Commercial Acre 2,380.36 2.00 4,760.72 $17.77 $84,597.99 TOTAL $612,207.06 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR00-41) is: 40.55 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $1,441.15 Annual Assessment C-1 A)RCDR00-41 //~ STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $51.40 for the Fiscal Year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l.and I[~e l/nlt Tvn~ Itnit~ [[nilg Fnctnr I)'nlts l/nit l~vennr~ Comm/Ind Acre 2,065.67 1.00 2,090.72 $51.40 $107,463.01 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRCDR00-41) is: 4055 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate Per A.U. = $2,084.27 Annual Assessment C-2 DRCDR00-41 /// ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT StaffRe rt DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jamie MacDonald, Public Services Tech I SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION, FOR DRC2001- 00805, LOCATED AT 10863 AND 10865 JERSEY BOULEVARD, SUBMITTED BY RALPH KARUBIAN, SOL STONE, MARCIA STONE, CHARLES KARUBIAN AND LAURENCE KARUBIAN RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accept the subject Agreement Extension and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for DRC2001-00805 were approved by the City Council on April 16, 2003. The developer, Ralph Karubian, Sol Stone, Marcia Stone, Charles Karubian and Laurence Karubian is requesting a 12-month extension on said improvement agreement. Ralph Karubian, Sol Stone, Marcia Stone, Charles Karubian and Laurence Karubian requests an extension at 10863 and 10865 Jersey Boulevard in order to complete the off-site public improvements due to the fact that the on- site improvements took longer than expected to complete. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City Clerk's office. ~illy submitted, ~ City Engineer WJO:JM:dlw Attachments RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DRC2001-00805 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on June 16, 2004, by Ralph Karubian, Sol Stone, Marcia Stone, Charles Karubian and Laurence Karubian, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at 10863 and 10865 Jersey Boulevard; 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 DRC2001-00805; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A : ENGINEERING DEPARTHENT Staff Report DALE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria Perez, Associate Enginee/'~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Tech~cian ~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $186,746.11 TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, AMERICA WEST LANDSCAPE, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,674.61 FOR THE CARNELIAN STREET LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FROM VlVERO STREET TO 1000' SOUTH OF VlVERO STREET, TO BE FUNDED FROM BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 11103165650/1172110-0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $186,746.11 to the apparent Iow bidder, America West Landscape, Inc., and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $18,674.61, for the Carnelian Street Landscape Improvements from Vivero Street to 1000' South of Vivero Street, to be funded from Beautification funds, Account No. 11103165650/1172110-0. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on June 1, 2004, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $186,096.70. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. The construction of this project is to install new landscaping, additional irrigation system, cobblestone hardscape, and relocate existing boulders. The contract documents call for thirty (30) working days to complete this construction. R ej~"~fully submitted, ~ Willi'af'n J. O'Neil City Engineer BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING JUNE 1, 2004 .~,"P,~,~v.,vrtowBmov. R Carnelian Street Landscape Improvements ENGINEERS COST America West From Vivero Street to 1000' South of Vivero Street ESTIMATE Landscape, Inc. Mesa Way Enterprises UNIT I UNIT i UNIT I NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST I AMOUNT COST AMOo~T COST i AMOOt~T 1. 1 LS Soil Preparation, Fine Grading, and Amendments $18,000.001 $18,000.0C $6,304.30 $6,304.30 $20,000.00r $20,000.00 2. 6898 SF 6" DG Truck Access and Turi Block/nc. ~cav~tion $5.00 $34,490.0(~ $4.99 $34,421.02 $7.50 $51,735.00 3. 760~ SF 4" DG Pedestrian Walkinc. excavation $1.50 $1,140.00 $2.62 $1,991.20 $4.00 $3,040.00 4. 149~ SF Cobblestone Hardscape $8.501 $12,690.50 $5.92 $8,838.56 $9.00 $13,437.00 5. 47 EA 15 Gallon Trees $75.00 $3,525.00 $104.66 $4,919.02 $120.00 $5,640.00 6. 1799 SF 5 Gallon Shrubs $16.00 $28,784.00 $9.25 $16,640.75 $17~00 $30,583.00 7. 6 LS 15 Gallon Shrubs $60.00' $360.00 $79.70 $478.20 $60.00', $360.00 8. 434 CY 4" Chipper Mulch $O.30 $130.20 $24.06 $10,442.04 $35.00 $15,190.00 9. I LS Relocate and partially bury existing Boulders $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,290.02 $1,290.02 $1,000.001[ $1,000.00 $11.00 I J 10. 1907 LF Concrete Mow Strip $20,977.00 $8.16 $15,561.12 $7.50 $14,302.50 11. LS Irrigation System $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $76,873.50 $76,873.50 $65,000.00 $65,000.0(~ 12. 1 LS 60 day Maintenance Period $3,000.00i $3,000.0£ $4,905.70 $4,905.70 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 13. 1 LS Storm Water Protection Control Plan $6,000.00 $6,000.0C $680.11 $680.11 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 14. 1 LS Traffic Control $6,OOO.O0 $6,000.00 $3,400.57 $3,400.57 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ~ TOTAL $186,096.70 $186,746.11 $228,287.50 Page 1 BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING JUNE 1, 2004 Carnelian Street Landscape Improvements C.S. Legacy From Vivero Street to 1000' South of Vivero Street Construction~ Inc. M~r~,,~ Landscape, Inc. UNIT UNIT NO QT¥ UNIT DESCRIPTION COST J AMOUNT COST ~ AMOUNT 1. I L~ Soil Preparation, Fine Gradin§, and Amendments $8,400.00, $8,400.00 $10,600.00 $10,500.00 2. 6898 SF 6" DG Truck Access and Turf Block inc. excavation $8.00 $55,184.0C $6.00 $41,388.00 3. 760 SF 4" DG Pedestrian Walk inc. excavation $2.50 $1,900.0(] $1.85 $1,405.00 4. 1493 SF Cobblestone Hardscape $11.00 $16,423.00 $6.25 $9,331.25 5. 47 EA 15 Gallon Trees $go.oo[ $4,230.00 $85.00 $3,995.0/~ 6. 1799 SF 5 Gallon Shrubs $19.001 $34,181.00 $18.00 $32,382.00 7. 6 LS 15 Gallon Shrubs $57.00 $342.00 $50.00 $360.00 8. 434 CY 4" Chipper Mulch $23.001 $9,982.00 $43.o0 $18,562~00 9. 1 LS Relocate and partially bury existing Boulders $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $8,100.00 $8,100.00 10. 1907 LF Concrete Mow Strip $10.00 $19,070.00 $11.00~ $20,977.00 11. 1 LS Irrigation System $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $102,400.00 $102,400.00 i2. 1 LS 60 day Maintenance Period $2,500.00! $2,5o0.oo $6,000.00 $6,ooo.oo 13. 1 LS Storm Water Protection Control Plan $7,300.00! $7,300.0c $5,300.00' $5,300.00 14. 1 LS Traffic Control $8,400.00 $8,400.0C $5,400.00i $5,4OO.O0 TOTAI~ $244,112.00 $256,301.25 Page 2 ~PROJECT _/ /LOCATION I I IH'LLS'DZ I~._J /i ,--' II II/"-qW,LSON AVEII .., w,zsd~ ^yE I' W~UON ^V~ ~o\-- ~ /~:11 ,--dJ----~~r- ~' ~'-~--- --7/O' 5 ~I I[ 1g -~[ ---- ql--] I /II ~11 /11 ONTARIO CITY LIMIT CITY OF RANCHO CIJI2AMONGA - CARNELIAN STREET LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Bi~'rW~EN VIVERO STEET AND 1000' SOUTH OF VlYERO STREET · VICINITY MAP R A N C H O C U C A M O N GA E NGIN E ER~NG DE PART,fEN T Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael L. TenEyck, Administrative Resources Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO (I) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A NON-EXCLUSIVE MASTER POWER PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) AND AN EXCLUSIVE SCHEDULING COORDINATOR SERVICES AGREEMENT (SC AGREEMENT) BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND CORAL POWER, LLC (CORAL POWER), SUBJECT TO ANY MODIFICATIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY A'I-rORNEY, AND (11) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE INITIAL CONFIRMATION ORDER WITH CORAL POWER IN AMOUNTS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICE TO NEW CUSTOMERS FOR THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 19, 2004, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2004, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCT. NO. 17053035209. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a non- exclusive Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) and an exclusive Scheduling Coordinator Services Agreement (SC Agreement) by and between the City and Coral Power, LLC (Coral Power), subject to any modifications approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and authorize the City Manager to execute the initial Confirmation Order with Coral Power in amounts necessary to provide electric service to new customers, for the period from June 19, 2004, through October 31,2004, to be funded from Acct. No. 17053035209. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL OF WHOLESALE POWER SUPPLY AND OTHER SERVIOES JUNE16,2004 PAGE2 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On June 02, 2004, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council authorized City Manager to enter into a non-exclusive Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) and an exclusive Scheduling Coordinator Services Agreement (SC Agreement) by and between the City and Sempra Energy Solutions, of Los Angeles, California (Sempra), subject to any modifications approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and authorize the City Manager to execute the initial Confirmation Order with Sempra in amounts necessary to provide electric service to new customers (Copy of June 2 staff report attached). Staff has been unable to come to terms with Sempra for a short-term contract. Sempra has insisted on a long-term deal (5 years) that staff feels is not in the best interest of the City at this time. Staff has reviewed the other proposal submitted and recommends Coral Power, LLC to provide the necessary services. Coral Power has agreed to provide the necessary electric service to new customers for the period from June 19, 2004, through October 31, 2004 Coral Power, LLC (Coral Power) Coral Power provided a detailed power purchase strategy and presented multiple options. Coral Power's proposal will customize energy purchases and provide scheduling coordinator services to obtain optimization while limiting risk. Energy would be purchased through confirmation orders to match customer requirements. The cost of ISO charges will be a pass-through with no additional mark-up. Coral Power is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensed Power Marketer engaged in the business of marketing and trading power in North America and providing risk management services to power customers. Coral Power is a subsidiary of Coral Energy Holding, L.P., an affiliate of Shell Oil (Coral Energy). Coral Energy controls thousands of megawatts of power generation capacity and in 2003 had 196- million megawatt hours of power sales. Coral Power currently provides similar services and executed similar Agreements with the cities of Colton and Glendale. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's legal counsel and technical consultant have reviewed the Agreement. All transactions entered into by the City and Coral Power shall be governed by the Agreement and the Scheduling Coordination Services Agreement. Preferred Strateqy it is recommended that the initial confirmation order contract only for its actual energy requirements through October 31, 2004. To accomplish this objective, it is recommended CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL OF WHOLESALE POWER SUPPLY AND OTHER SERVICES JUNE16,2004 PAGE3 that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a non-exclusive Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement and an exclusive Scheduling Coordinator Services Agreement by and between the City and Coral Power, subject to any modifications approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and authorize the City Manager to execute the initial Confirmation Order with Coral Power in amounts necessary to provide electric service to new customers for the period from June 19, 2004, through October 31, 2004, to be funded from Acct. No. 17053035209. Respectfully Submitted, WJO:MT:dlw Attachments 12,1 ~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE: June 2, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael L. TenEyck, Administrative Resources Manager SUBJECT: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a non-exclusive Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) by and between the City and Sempra Energy Solutions, of Los Angeles, California (Sempra), subject to any modifications approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, authorize the City Manager to execute the Confirmation Orders with Sempra in amounts necessmy to provide electric service to new customers to be funded from Acct. No. 17053035209 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a non- exclusive Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) by and between the City and Sempra Energy Solutions, of Los Angeles, California (Sempra), subject to any modifications approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, authorize the City Manager to execute the Confirmation Orders with Sempra in amounts necessary to provide electric service to new customers, to be funded from Acct. No. 17053035209 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On August 31, 2001, the Rancho Cucamonga City COuncil authorized the creation and operation of a municipally owned utility for the purpose of providing various utility services. Subsequently, on August 21, 2002, the Council authorized the filing of a Wholesale Distribution Access Tariff (WDAT) Application with Southern California Edison Company (SCE) for the provision of electric service by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU). In accordance with the SCE Interconnection Facilities Agreement, the City has constructed the Arbors Substation at the southeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Stadium Parkway. Backbone distribution facilities have been constructed from the Arbors Substation to serve RCMC customers. - CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL OF WHOLESALE POWER SUPPLY AND OTHER SERVICES JUNE 2, 2004 PAGE 2 Since July 2003, the City has built a temporary power pole system and rented onsite electrical generators to provide temporary construction power to the developer of the Vicloria Arbors Mall. The Mall is scheduled to open in October 2004. The City's power requirements will increase to serve new customers over the planned development horizon. Facilities have now been constructed to provide permanent electrical service and the temporary pole system and generators can be removed. The City can buy power from a generator or power marketer and arrange for transmission through the California Independent System Operator (ISO) and has secured WDAT service through the SCE 66kV circuits at the Arbors Substation. To meet reliability criteria required for prudent utility practice, the ISO automatically purchases reliability generation products on the City's behalf. The charges for these ISO services include wholesale distribution losses, ancillary services, under scheduling and imbalance charges. The City will require the services of a scheduling coordinator, registered with the ISO, to schedule and account for all power flows. These functions are illustrated in the chart below: / High Voltage Low Voltage Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Load Bulk Power ~Marketer/~/~ ~ ~"~ Coordinator ) ~ On March 15, 2004, the City issued a written Request for Proposals for Wholesale Power Supply and Other Services (RFP). The RFP asked the responders to provide power and comprehensive Scheduling Coordinator services. The following companies offered proposal.~: Sempra Energy Solutions, Arizona Public Service Company, Constellation/New Energy, Coral Power (Shell Trading), BP Energy, IMServ and the Automated Power Exchange. The bids proposals were evaluated based on the responders' features, functions, service, pricing and innovated methods. Information from the responders' current clients was also evaluated. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL OF WHOLESALE POWER SUPPLY AND OTHER SERVICES JUNE 2, 2004 PAGE 3 Proposed Contract Structure The successful responder would be required to enter into a non-exclusive Master Purchase & Sales Agreement (the "Agreement"), as amended by the City. This Agreement was prepared by a committee of representatives of the Edison Electdc Institute (EEl) and National Energy Marketem Association (NEM) member companies to facilitate orderly trading in and development of wholesale power market. The City has the option to execute non-exclusive Agreements with several energy suppliem and competitively bid additional energy purchases. The Agreement also provides for specific incremental confirmation ordem to specify the scope of services, charges and delivery period (Confirmation Order). The City can execute multiple confirmation orders with individual energy suppliers. This confirmation method decreases the City's risk by matching energy pumhases with expected customer requirements. Sempra Enerqy Solutions (Sempra) S'ernpra provided a detailed power purchase strategy and presented multiple options. Sempra's proposal will customize energy purchases and provide scheduling coordinator services to obtain optimization while limiting risk and will provide scheduling coordinator services. Energy would be pumhased through confirmation orders to match customer requirements. The cost of ISO charges will be a pass-through with no additional mark-up. Sernpra was chosen as the City's energy provider based upon the limited initial energy requirements, Sempra agreed to provide the Scheduling services based on a Mega-watt- hour charge as apposed to the fixed monthly rate proposed by all other bid respondents. It was determined that Sempra's unit rate pdcing afforded the City the greatest flexibility and control in meeting the City's power procurement needs while limiting exposure to mandatory monthly rates which may prove to not be fiscally prudent in consideration of the relatively Iow levels of power that the City anticipates purchasing during the duration of the contract. The energy commodity charges from all of the RFP responders were similar and were within the City's forecasted costs. The City averages per kilowatt-hour costs will be between $4-6 depending on demand and time of use Sempra currently provides similar services and executed the same Agreement with the Cities of Corona and Moreno Valley. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's legal counsel and technical consultant have reviewed of the Agreement. All transactions entered into by the City and Sempra shall be governed by the Agreement. /zq CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL OF WHOLESALE POWER SUPPLY AND OTHER SERVICES JUNE 2, 2004 PAGE 4 Preferred Strateqy Establish a contractual relationship that allows the City to purchase power as need arises and provides the flexibility to simultaneously pursue alternative soumes through non- exclusive agreements. Based upon the (i) limited initial energy requirements; (ii) current energy prices, (iii) required energy services; (iv) objective to minimize the pumhases of excess power, and (v) future energy partners it is recommended that the confirmation orders only contract for its actual energy requirements. To accomplish this objective, it is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a non- exclusive Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) by and between the City and Sempra Energy Solutions, of Los Angeles, Ca, lifornia (Sempra), subject to any modifications approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, authorize the City Manager to execute the Confirmation Orders with Sernpr{i in amounts necessary to provide electric service to new customers, to be funded from Acctl No. 17053035209 Re/~3ec~ffully Submitted, j City Engineer I~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E N G I N E E R I N G D E PAR TItlE N T Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neii, City Engineer BY: Maria Perez, Associate Enginee¢~,~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician,~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,666.90 TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, DYE & BROWNING CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,766.69 FOR THE ADA 200312004 ACCESS RAMP AND DRIVE APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS, TO BE FUNDED FROM PEDESTRIAN GRANT/ARTICLE 3 AND MEASURE I FUNDS, ACCOUNT NOS. 12143035650/1150214-0 ($11,610.81) AND 11763035650/1150176-0 ($73,822.78) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $77,666.90 to the apparent Iow bidder, Dye & Browning Construction, Inc., and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $7,766.69, for the ADA 2003/2004 Access Ramp and Drive Approach improvements, to be funded from Pedestrian Grant/Article 3 and Measure I funds, Account Nos. 12143035650/1150214-0 ($11,610.81 ) and 11763035650/1150176-0 ($73,822.78). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on June 1, 2004, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $64,702.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. The construction of this project is to install new wheel chair access ramps, drive approaches, side_walk, and rockscape at various locations, including asphalt concrete CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Accept Bids forthe ADA 2003/2004 Access Ramp and Drive Approach lmprovements June 16, 2004 Page 2 paving to match existing. The contract documents call for twenty (20) working days to complete this construction. Respectfully submitted, Wi~ia.a.a~ J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MP/RO:Is Attachment IZ? BID SU34NIARY FOR BID OPENING JUNE 1, 2004 .4PPAI?ENrLOW#IDDEa ADA 2003/2004 Access Ramp and Drive Approach Improvements at ENGINEERS COST Dye/h Browning Various Locations ESTIMATE Construction, Inc. UNIT ~ UNIT NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST , AMOUNT 1. 1 LS Mobilization $6,000.00! $61000.00 $2,800.00'~ $2,800.00 2. 15 kF Remove Splash Curb $25.o0 $375.00 $26.15] $392.25 3. EA Relocate Mailbox $100.00 $100.00 $175.0~ $175.00 4. 19 TON AC Pavement, incl. saw cutting and removal of existing $240.00 $4,560.00 $150.00 $2,850.00 5. 1i EA Construct Undersidewalk Drain $2,000.00. $2,o0o.oo $I,250.0c $1,250.00 6. 16 LF 6" PCC Retaining Curb $25.001 $4oo.00 $40.00 $640.00 7. 1656 SF Approach incl. joints and removal of existing $7.00[ $11,592.00 $9.30 $15,400.80 PCC Drive 8. 151: SF PCC Sidewalk incl. Joints and removal of existing $4.00 $6,052.00 $6.85 $10,364.05 9. 1916 SF PCC Wheel Chair Ramp incl. joints, retaining curb, curb depression and cutter and removal of existing $6.00 $11,496.00 $9.55 $18,297.80 10. 664 SF PCC Spandrel incl. dowels, joints and removal of existing $8.00 $5,312.00 $I1.00i $7,304.00 11 1 EA Adjust Traffic Signal Pull Box $150.00 $150.00 $125.00[ $125.00 12 491 SF Rockscape $15.00, $7,365.00 $23.001 $11,293.00 13. 10 SF Install 4" PVC Pipe Schd. 40 including trenching $100.0~ SLooo.oo $25.00'. $25o.oo 14. 1 EA Construct Clean Out $1,000.0G $1,000.00 $200.00! $200.00 15. 1 LS Restore Landscape, incl. irrigation system to match existing $3,000.00 $3,000.001 $750.00i $750.00 16. 1 LS Place Decomposed Granite to match existing $800.00~ $300.00[ $575.00i $575.00 17. 1 LS Traffic Control and Relocation of Traffic Signal Push Button $4,ooo.oo $4,000.0c $5,000.00 $5,0oo.oo TOTAL $64,702.0~ $77,666.90 Page 1 VICINITY MAP ADA 2003/2004 ACCESS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS -- PROJECT LOCATION Almond Rd -- ~ ~ Hillside Ban -- Route 30 Ay Rt 10 Freeway,_. 4th St // I~ A N C H O C U C A M O N GA ENGINEERING DE PART~IEN T SlaffR ort DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: ' Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician ~uo~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,633,776.57 TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, ECOLOGY CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $163,377.66 FOR THE PHASE lB(E) OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND AMENITIES ON ARBOR LANE, TO BE FUNDED FROM CFD 2001-01 FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 16123035650/1442612-0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $1,633,776.57 to the apparent Iow bidder, Ecology Construction, Inc., and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $163,377.66, for the Phase lB(E) of Community Facilities District 2001-01, Including Landscaping and Amenities on Arbor Lane, to be funded from CFD 2001-01 funds, Account No. 16123035650/1442612-0. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on June 1, 2004, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $1,066,391.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. The construction of this project is to install new landscaping, irrigation system, hardscape, sidewalk and cobble, and the construction of a gazebo. The contract documents call for seventy (70) working days to complete this construction. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Accept Bids for Phase lB(e) of Community Facilities District 2001-01, Including Landscaping and Amenities on Arbor Lane June 16, 2004 Page 2 This project is one of the eleven construction phases, which will build the infrastructure benefiting the mall as well as development projects to the north, west and south of the mall. $30 million in funds from two CFD's (CFD's 2001-01 & 2003-01) are allocated for the design and construction of those improvements. The following table reports the status of the various phases. · # Phase Description Status 1 Ph lA Day Creek Blvd. north of Church St. and Church St. west of Day Creek Blvd. Mass Construction complete. Grading of the residential area north of Church St. and watsr, sewer, traffic signals, Improvements accepted. and major storm drain improvements 2 Ph 1B(a) Day Creek Blvd. south of Church St., Church St. east of Day Creek Blvd., Victoda Under construction. Park Lane north of Church St., Arbor Ln. north of Church St., and Base Line Rd. east Completion Sept '04. Of Day Creek Blvd. Aisc water, sewer, major storm drain, landscaping and traffic signals. 3 Ph lB(b) North side of Foothill Blvd. west of Day Creek Blvd. In addition storm drain, sewer Under constn~ctJon. and water. Completion Sept. '04. 4 Ph lB(c) Sidewalk and landscaping on Day Creek Bird north of Church St. Under construction. Completion Aug. '04. 5 Ph lB(d) Traffic Signal at Church St. and Etiwanda Ave Awaiting Caltrans Permit 6 Ph lB(e) Landscaping on Arbor Ln. north of Church St. Requesting award. 7 Ph 3A Street, major storm drain, and water on Victoda Gardens Ln. Under construction. Completion Aug. '04 8 Ph 3S(a) Foothill Blvd. east of Day Creek Channel. Under construction. Completion Sept. '04. 9 Ph 3B(b) Foothill Blvd. west of Day Creek Channel. Under construction. Completion Sept. '04. 10 Ph 3B(c) Mall public sewer and water. Construction complete. 11 Ph 01/03 Final street cap, and cleanup work. Under design. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:WS/RO:Is Attachment BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING JUNE 1, 2004 APP.4RENTI. OWBIDDER Phase lB(e) of CFD 2001-01 Including ENGINEERS COST Landscaping and Amenities on Arbor Lane ESTIMATE Ecolo~ Construction, Inc. UNIT UNIT BID CORRECTED NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT AMOUNT 1. 1 LS Moblization $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2. 6405 SF Remove A.C. Pavement $2.00 $12,810.00 $0.81 $5,188.05 $5,188.05 3. 74. LF P.C.C. Retaining Wall $100.00 $7,400.00 $117.00! $8,658.00 $8,658.00 4. 98 LF 8" P.C.C. Curb $30.00 $2,940.00 $20.00 $1,960.00 $1,960.00 5. 624( SE 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk $5.00 $31,200.00 $4.00 $24,960.00 $24,960.00 6. 23956 SF Hardscape (including pavers & P.C.C. Band $9.00 $215,604.00 $15.00 $359,340.00 $359,340.00 7. 3 EA Arbors with Steel Overhead Structures $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $84,000.00 $252,000.00 $252,000.00 8. 1 LS :RaixedArt Pedestal for l~uture $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.0G 9. 23 EA Install Pedestrian Light Poles $1,500.00 $34,500.00 $4,250.00 $97,750.00 $97,750.00 10. 1 LS Electrical System $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 11. 1 LS Automatic Irrigation System $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $161,015.00 $161,015.00 $161,015.00 12. 5913,~ SF Soil Preparation/Fine Grading $0.50 $29,566.00 $0.16 $9,459.68 $9,461.12 13. 1 LS 60 Day Maintenance Period $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 14. 134 EA 24" Box Tree $200.00 $26,800.00 $235.00i $31,490.00 $31,490.00 15. 14 EA 15' B.T.M Mexican Fan Palm $1,200.00 $16,800.00 $680.00[ $9,520.00 $9,520.00 16. 344 LF P.C.C. Mow Strip $11.00 $3,784.00 $8.001 $2,752.00 $2,752.00 17. 1843 SF Cobble $18.00~ $33,174.00 $12.00 $22,116.00 $22,116.00, 18. 59132 SF Landscaping (excluding trees $4.00i $236,528.00 $2.70[ $159,656.40 $159,656.40 19. 15 EA 36" Diameter Boulders $125.00 $1,875.00 $200.00[ $3,000.00 $3,000.00 20. 33 EA 18" Diameter Boulders $40.00 $1,320.00 $50.001 $1,650.00 $1,650.00 21. 1 LS Traffic Control $5,000.00 $5,000.0G $2,000.00] $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Gazebo (including platform, 22. 1 LS hanrails, veneers,etc] $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $160,860.001 $160,860.00 $160,860.00 23. 23 EA Benches $600.001 $13,800.00 $2,000.00i $46,000.00, $46,000.00 24. 22 EA Trash Receptacles $400.00 $8,800.00 $1,350.001 $29,700.00 $29,700.00 25. 10 EA Bollards (plain) $575.00 $5,750.00 $750.00[ $7,500.00 $7,500.00 26. 20 EA Bollards (double eyelets) $595.00 $11,900.00 $1,350.00[ $27,000.00 $27,000.0C 27. 4 EA Bollards (single eyelet) $585.00 $2,340.00 $1,350.00!i $5,400.00 $5,400.00 28. 1 LS SWPPP $6,000.001 *6,000.00 Ss,000.001. *5,000.00[ *5,000.00 i' $1,633,775 13 Total $1,066,391.00 i . $1,633,776.57 Pagel BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING JUNE 1, 2004 Phase lB(e) of CFD 2001-01 Including Landscaping and Amenities on Arbor Lane Mega Way l~nterprises Nc QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT 1. 1 LS Moblization $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2. 6405 SF Remove A.C. Pavement $3.00 $19,215.00 3. 74i LF P.C.C. Retaining Wall $250.00 $18,500.00 4. 98 LF 8" P.C.C. Curb $30.00 $2,940.00 5. 6240 SF 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk $5.00] $31,200.00 6. 23956 SF Hardscape (including pavers & P.C.C. Band $18.00' $431,208.00 ?. 3 EA Arbors With Steel Overhead Structures $50,000.00 $150,000.00 8. 1 LS Raixed Pedestal for Future Art $3,500.00 $3,500.00 9. 23 EA Install Pedestrian Light Poles $5,000.00 $115,000.00 10. 1 LS Electrical System $30,000.00 $30,000.00 11 I LS Automatic Irrigation System $150,000.00 $150,000.00 12. 59132 SF Soil Preparation/Fine Grading $0.75 $44,349.00 13. 1 LS 60 Day Maintenance Period $2,500 00 $2,500.00 14. 134 EA 24" Box Tree $375.00] $50,250.00 15. 14 EA 15' B.T.M Mexican Fan Palm $5,000.00 $70,000.00 16. 344 LF P.C.C. Mow Strip $10.001 $3,440.00 17. 1843 SF Cobble $12.00 $22,116.00 18. 59132 SF Landscaping (excluding trees) $5.50 $325,226.00 19. 15 EA 3 6" Dmmeter' Boulders $250.00 $3,750.00 20. 33 EA 18" Diameter Boulders $200.00 $6,600.00 21. 1 LS Traffic Control $2,500.00 $2,500.00 22. 1 LS Gazebo {including platform, hanrails, veneers,etc ~$115,000.00 $115,000.00 23. 23 EA 'Benches $1,750.00 $40,250.00 24. 22 EA Trash Receptacles $750.00 $16,500.00 25. 10 EA Bollards (plain) $750.00' $7,500.00 26. 20 EA Bollards (double eyelets) $750.00 $15,000.00 27. 4 EA Bollards (single eyelet) $750.00[ $3,000.00 28._ 1 LS SWPPP $2,000.00[ $2,000.00 Total $1,721,544.00 PHASE lB(E) OF CFD 2001-01 INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND AMENITIES ON ARBOR LANE CITY OF. RANCHO B A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Slaff DALE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Cindy Hackett, Associate Engineer~)~.... Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Tec~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,555.00 TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, E.G.N. CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,655.50 FOR THE BUS BAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE, TO BE FUNDED FROM AB2766 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUNDS AND MEASURE I FUNDS, ACCOUNT NOS. 11053035650/1238105-0 ($70,000.00) AND 11763035650/1238176-0 ($35,000.00) AND APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $5,000.00 TO ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1238176-0 FROM MEASURE I FUND BALANCE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $96,555.00 to the apparent Iow bidder, E.G.N. Construction, Inc., and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $9,655.50, for the Bus Bay on the South Side of Foothill Boulevard, East of Haven Avenue, to be funded from AB2766 Air Quality Improvement funds and Measure I funds, Account Nos. 11053035650/1238105-0 ($70,000.00) and 11763035650/1238176-0 ($35,000.00) and appropriate an additional amount of $5,000.00 to Account No. 11763035650/1238176-0 from Measure I fund balance. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on June 1, 2004, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $92,245.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Accept Bids Received for the Bus Bay on the South Side of Foothill Blvd., East of Haven June 16, 2004 Page 2 The construction of this project is to install a new concrete bus bay and sidewalk on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven Avenue, by grading the site, asphalt concrete paving to match existing, re-landscaping, installing new irrigation system, relocating fire department connection, and installing a new fire protection service double check backflow assembly. The contract documents call for lwelve (12) working days to complete this construction. City Engineer WJO:CH/RO:Is Attachment BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING JUNE 1, 2004 APPARENT LOW BIDDER ENGINEERS COST Bus Ba ~ on the South Side of Foothill Boulevard East of Haven Avenue ESTIMATE E.G.N. Construction, Inc. UNIT . UNIT NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST i AMOUNT COST AMOUNT 1. 1 LS Clear & Grubbing (incl all misc. removals, excavations, grading $8,000.00i and disnnsal~ $8,000.00 $19,000 00! $19,000.00 2. 8 EA Remove Trees $600.00i $4,800.01~ $335.00[ $2,680.00 3. 3450 SF Constmct Bus Bay per plan and City Drawing No. 119 $9.00 $31,050.00 $5 75i $19,837.50 4. 2490 SF 4" PCC Sidewalk $5.50 $13,695.00 $3.751 $9,337.50 5. 700 SF Construct 5" AC over 6" CAB $11.00 $7,700.00 $6.00 $4,200.00 6. LS Replace and restore affecting landscaping and irrigation system $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $15,000.00! $15,000.00 7. LS Install street light conduit complete with pull rope, handhole, etc. ] $6,000.001 $6,000.00 ~er SCE Plan (incl materials excavation and hack(iii] $9,000.00 $9,000.00 8. 1 LS Remove and Relocate Fire Deparlment Connection (FDC) $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00' $3,000.00 9. 1 ES install new above-ground double detector check valve per CVWD Std DWi, Nh ~1t $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 10. 1 LS Traffic Control $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00i $2,000.00 TOTAL I $92~245.00 I $96,555.00 BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING JUNE 1, 2004 Bus Bay on the South Side of Foothill Boulevard East of Haven Avenue Rnnco Corporation 4-Con Engineering, Inc. UNIT UNIT ICORRECTED ~10 QT¥ UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST i UNIT COST I AMOUNT 1. ES Ulear & Grubbing (incl all misc. removaIs, excavations, grading ,,4dimo~ $13,000.001 $13,000.00 $36,000.00 $36,000.001 $36,000.00 2. 8 EA Remove Trees $750.00i $6,000.00 $600.00 $4,80000; $4,800.00 3. 345( SF Constmct Bus Bay per plan and City Drawing No. 119 $5.001 $17,250.00 $10.00 $34,500100 $34,500.00 4. 2490 SF 4" PCC Sidewalk $3.00r $7,470.00 $6.00 $14,940.00~ $14,940.00 5. 700 SF Construct 5" AC over 6" CAB $8.561 $5,992.00 $6.00 $4,200.00 $4,200.00 6. 1 LS Replace and restore affecting landscaping and irrigation system $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 7. 1 La Install street light conduit complete with pull rope, handhole, etc. ncr SCE Plan/incl material~ excavatinn and haekqll/ $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $17.00 $6,460.00 $6,460.00 8. 1 LS Remove and Relocate Fire Department Connection (FDC) $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 9. 1 LS Install new above-ground double detector check valve per CV WI) std Bw~ No. 8R $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 10. LS traffic Control $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00i $5,000.00 I $117,900.0015117,900.00 TOTAL $98~712.00 Page 1 I VICINITY MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUS BAY SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BLVD. E/O HAVEN AVE. T H E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA StaffRe rt DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Donald Granger, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST TO ENTER INTO A LEASE HOLD AGREEMENT AT THE EPICENTER STADIUM, LOCATED AT 8378 ROCHESTER AVENUE, BETWEEN VERIZON WIRELESS AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor sign the Agreement, thereby entering into a Lease Hold Agreement with Verizon Wireless. BACKGROUND: On August 7, 2003, the City Planner approved a Minor Development Review (DRC2003-00416), for a wireless communication facility at the Epicenter. Spectrum Surveying and Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless, has been negotiating a Lease Hold Agreement with City staff for the placement of one (1) wireless communication facility. The wireless communication facility will be a 50-foot high monopine. The monopine will be surrounded by existing pine trees, ranging in height from 25 feet to 40 feet, thereby providing a natural backdrop for the monopine communication facility. ANALYSIS: Community Development staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, has been reviewing multiple draft agreements over the past 12 months. A final Agreement (attached) has been approved by the City Attorney and contains the following key items and conditions: LOCATION: The improvement shall consist of one 50-foot high monopine wireless communication facility placed outside of the outfield fence at the community baseball field at the Epicenter. The monopine will be surrounded by existing pine trees of various heights. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT VERIZON LEASE HOLD AGREEMENT - EPICENTER June 16, 2004 Page 2 TERMS AND OPTIONS: The initial term of the lease shall be 10 years, with four 5-year options to extend. The lease shall commence when construction starts or 90 days after the lease is executed by both parties, whichever occurs first. Staff recommends an additional condition of approval requiring the applicant to reimburse the City for the time spent by the City Attorney's office over the past 12 months reviewing multiple drafts of the agreement. RENT AND RENT INCREASES: The initial annual rent shall be $18,000.00, paid in equal monthly installments in advance on or before the first day of each month. Commencing with the second year, on the anniversary of the commencement date, and in succession thereafter, rent shall be increased by an amount equal to 3 percent of the rent for the previous year. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING: Subject to the City's written consent, Verizon may permit other wireless communication carriers to locate on the monopole. Should this occur, the lease provides a provision to ensure additional compensation to the City, as negotiated between the City and the carrier, by a separate lease. Alternatively, at the City's option, the annual rent may be increased by a straight percentage, agreeable to the City and the wireless carrier, not to exceed 30 percent of the current rent. This provision in the lease meets of the objectives of the City's Development Code by encouraging co-location of wireless carriers where possible. POWER GENERATORS: The lease contains language only allowing temporary generators in the case of an emergency or power failure. SIGNS: Only signs that are required for emergency.purposes are permitted on the wireless communication facility. TERMINATION AND ABANDONMENT: Should the lease be terminated by either party, expire or the wireless communication facility become abandoned, the wireless facility and all appurtenant equipment shall be removed within 60 days of said termination, expiration or abandonment and the premises shall be restored to its original condition. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:DG:Is Attachments: Exhibit"A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Photo Simulation Final Lease Hold Agreement VICINITY HAP - N.T.$. Page 1 of 1 ~ Site: Rochester/Epicent, Rochester Ave ¥~rlIonwireless Rancho Cucamonga, C, Proposed monopim and equipment belt ~e://~:~D~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\gattisg~L~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary%2~ntemet... 6/5/2003 COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY GROUND LEASE This Lease is made and entered into by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "LANDLORD") and Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless (hereinafter referred to as "TENANT") on this day of ,2004 ("Effective Date"). 1. Premises. LANDLORD hereby agrees to lease to TENANT and TENANT agrees to lease f~om LANDLORD, that certain parcel of real property, a twenty six (26) foot by thirty (30) foot lease area, approximately 780 square feet in area, together with reasonable access thereto (seven (7) days a week, twenty-four (24) hours a day), hereinafter referred to as "the Premises", all as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, with said access upon twenty four (24) hour telephonic notice. The Premises is located at Epicenter Stadium in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, commonly known by the street address of 8378 Rochester Avenue (the "Property"). TENANT's use of the Property shall be non-exclusive. This Lease is subject to the terms, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth and TENANT covenants, as a material part of the consideration for this Lease, to keep and perform each and every term, covenant and condition of said Lease. 2. Term. A. The term of this Lease shall be for ten (10) years, subject to four (4) five (5) year extensions, as provided in paragraph B below, commencing upon the Effective Date hereof, provided, however, that TENANT's obligations to pay rent hereunder shall not begin until TENANT commences construction of its facilities upon the Premises, or ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, whichever is earlier ("Commencement Date"). B. In the event that TENANT shall not be in default in the performance of any term or condition under this Lease (with all cure periods having lapsed), then upon the expiration of the original Lease term, or any prior renewal term(s), upon ninety (90) calendar days prior written notice to LANDLORD, TENANT shall have the option to renew this Lease for four (4) additional terms of five (5) years each. During any such renewal period, all of the terms and conditions of this Lease shall remain in full force and effect. Commencing with the 156963.1644418-1 first day of the first month of the respective renewal period, the rent for the Premises shall be increased in accordance with the provisions set forth in paragraph 3, below. Said option(s) shall be exercised by personal delivery or by certified mail, postage prepaid, of such notice of exercise of option to LANDLORD at the address set forth herein for notices. Such exercise of the option(s) granted heretmder shall automatically extend the term of this Lease upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, and no further writing need be executed by TENANT or LANDLORD. In the event that any option specified herein is not exemised as provided, within the time period provided, then said option and remaining options, if any, shall expire, and TENANT shall not have any right to renew said Lease. C. Upon termination, both parties shall be relieved of any further obligations under this Lease, although each shall continue to have available all remedies for any breach of this Lease occurring prior to the date of termination. Within sixty (60) days following the expiration or termination of this Lease, TENANT shall remove its personal property and fixtures, and restore the Premises to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted and further excepting landscaping and related irrigation equipment, or other aesthetic improvements made by TENANT to the Premises. 3. Rent. TENANT agrees to pay to LANDLORD rent, without prior notice or demand by LANDLORD, the sum of Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($18,000.00) per year, paid in equal monthly installments In advance on or before the first day of each month during the term of this Lease. If the Commencement Date is other than the first day of a calendar month, TENANT may pay on the day due the prorated Rent for the remainder of the calendar month in which Commencement Date occurs, or if this Lease is terminated before the expiration of any month the rent payment shall be prorated for the final fi'actional month of this Lease. Said rent shall be paid to LANDLORD, without deduction or offset, in lawful money of the United States of America, at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729, Attn: Finance Department, or at such other place as LANDLORD may designate, in writing. Commencing with the second year of the initial term hereof, rent shall be increased on each anniversary of the Commencement Date by an amount equal to three percent (3%) of the rent for the previous year. 4. Use. 156963.1644418-1 /q~ A. TENANT shall use the Premises for the sole purpose of constructing, maintaining, securing and operating a communication service facility, including the construction of an equipment building (if needed) and installation of required utilities, antennas and related communications equipment, including telephone equipment, electrical equipment, HVAC systems, temporary power generator, which temporary power generator shall used for emergency purposes only, fire sprinkler systems, and an antenna tower and support structures, subject to being "stealth" designed as may be required by LANDLORD, all as depicted in the site plan and related drawings approved by LANDLORD, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B'fan}t~ereby incorporated by reference. Each such antenna or antenna support structure may be configured as required by TENANT, provide~l~c~ TENANT obtains all permits and approvals required by LANDLORD and/or any other public agency having jurisdiction over the matter. TENANT shall have the right to replace, repair, add or othenvise modify its equipment or any portion thereof, whether the equipment is specified or not on any exhibit attached hereto, during the term of this Lease, subject to LANDLORD's review and approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed in connection with equipment not visible to the public or any replacement of equipment similar in shape and size to the equipment to be replaced. No additional equipment or antennas that would be visible to the public may be installed without LANDLORD's prior written consent. Landlord shall not be entitled to any additional consideration in connection with the giving of its approval or consent as required herein, excepting the necessary entitlement and permit fees. Furthermore, LANDLORD and TENANT may agree to increase the square footage of real property occupied by TENANT, by no more than ten percent (10%) by letter agreement, subject to TENANT paying additional rent on a pro-rata basis. B. TENANT and LANDLORD understand and agree that subject to LANDLORD's written consent pursuant to Section 17 hereof, TENANT may permit other communications providers to locate on TENANT's communications tower for which TENANT, and LANDLORD for its provision of the underlying real property, shall be entitled reasonable compensation by way of leases negotiated in good faith. Alternatively, and at LANDLORD's option, LANDLORD shall be entitled to increase rent payable to LANDLORD in an amount determined by the parties to be fair and equitable, but in no case greater than 30% of the current rent. 156963.1644418-1 /q~ C. TENANT shall install a security fence or wall around the per/meter of the Premises, satisfactory to LANDLORD, excluding any approved access route(s). Construction of TENANT's communications facility shall be at TENANT's sole expense. TENANT shall not cause any hazardous condition at the Premises, and shall otherwise maintain the Premises in a safe, clean and orderly condition. TENANT shall maintain its communication facility in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.. D. At all times throughout the term of this Lease, TENANT's use of the Premises shall be in conformance with, and subject to all conditions contained in, any and all permits or approvals required by LANDLORD and/or any other agency having jurisdiction over TENANT's operations. E. LANDLORD agrees that TENANT's ability to use the Premises is dependent upon TENANT's obtaining all necessary certificates, permits and/or other approvals which may be required fi.om any federal, state or local authority. LANDLORD agrees to cooperate with TENANT as to TENANT's obtaining such certificates, permits or other approvals. In the event TENANT is unable to obtain or maintain any necessary certificate, permit or other approval in order to operate its communications facility, or if due to technological changes TENANT, in its sole discretion, determines that it will be unable to use the Premises for TENANT's intended purposes, TENANT may terminate this Lease as provided herein, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. F. TENANT shall not do or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises nor bring or keep anything therein which will cause cancellation of any insurance policy covering the Premises or part thereof or portion of its contents. TENANT agrees to pay any increase in the rate of fire or other insurance policy covering the Premises which is due to TENANT's leasing of the Premises. TENANT shall not do or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises which will in any way obstruct or interfere with the rights of other parties or injure them or use or allow or permit the Premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Nor shall TENANT cause, maintain or permit any nuisance in or about the Premises. TENANT shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste in or upon the Premises. G. TENANT agrees at all times to maintain its levels of electromagnetic radiation within all applicable standards established by the Federal Communications Commission and/or any other governmental authority having jurisdiction. 156963A644418-1 TENANT agrees at all times to conduct its communication service operations in such a manner so as to not cause interference with any of LANDLORD's existing communications operations. A failure to cure any such interference within five (5) business days of the City's providing written notice of such interference shall constitute a default hereunder. In the event any of TENANT's operations interfere with LANDLORD's emergency communications, LANDLORD may provide telephonic notice to TENANT of such interference and TENANT shall, within twenty four (24) hours, cease all communications operations on the Premises that interfere with LANDLORD's emergency communications, until the condition causing the interference is remedied to LANDLORD's satisfaction.. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord has granted approval to one (1) wireless communication carrier, doing business as Cox/Sprint PCS on Landlord's property, at Adult Sports Park Auxiliary Parking Lot, located at 8273 Rochester Avenue. Tenant agrees that Tenant's communication service facility shall not cause interference with the communications operations of this one (1) pre-approved, pre-existing wireless communication facility existing as of the Effective Date. Tenant agrees to comply with all the provisions set forth in the Technical Requirements for Third Party Collocation in designing, locating and operating its transmitting equipment and in reconfiguring or {he fi'equency or operation of such equipment. 5. Compliance with Law. TENANT shall not use the Premises or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises which will in any way conflict with any applicable law, statute, ordinance or other governmental role or regulation now in force or which may hereinafter be enacted or promulgated. Subject to TENANT's right to terminate as provided in Section 4.E, TENANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, promptly comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances and other governmental roles, regulations or requirements now in force or which may hereinafter be enacted or promulgated, relating to, or affecting the condition, use or occupancy of the Premises, excluding structural changes or the removal of any hazardous materials not related to or affected by TENANT's improvements and acts. The final, non- 156963.1644418-1 appealable judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction or the admission by TENANT in any action against TENANT, whether LANDLORD be a party thereto or not, that TENANT has violated any law, statute, ordinance or any other governmental rule or regulation shall be conclusive of that fact as between LANDLORD and TENANT. 6. Alterations and Additions. Other than as expressly required or permitted herein, TENANT shall not make or suffer to be made any alterations, additions or improvements in or to or about the Premises or any part thereof without the prior written consent of LANDLORD. Excepting only the communications related equipment of TENANT, any alterations, additions or improvements in, to or about the Premises, shall on the expiration of this Lease become a part of the realty and belong to LANDLORD and shall be surrendered with the Premises, unless otherwise agreed to by LANDORD and TENANT. Any alterations, additions or improvements to the Premises desired by TENANT, other than those expressly required or permitted herein, shall require LANDLORD's prior written consent, and shall be made by TENANT at TENANT's sole cost and expense, and any contractor or person selected by TENANT to make the same must first be approved of, in writing, by LANDLORD. 7. Physical Condition of Premises~ Waiver. A. By taking possession of the Premises, TENANT shall be deemed to have accepted the Premises as being in good sanitary order, condition and repair. TENANT shall, at TENANT's sole cost and expense, keep the Premises and any part thereof in good condition and repair. LANDLORD shall have no obligation whatsoever to alter, improve or repair the Premises, or any part thereof, and the parties hereto affirm that LANDLORD has made no representations to TENANT respecting the condition of the Premises except as specifically set forth herein. Subject to Section 4.A., TENANT further agrees that it shall submit to LANDLORD, prior to applying for any permits to renovate, reconstruct, improve, alter or in any way modify the Premises, plans and specifications for LANDLORD's approval. B. LANDLORD shall not be liable for any failure to make any repairs, or to perform any maintenance except as specifically provided herein. Except as may otherwise be provided herein, there shall be no abatement of rent and no liability of LANDLORD by reason of any injury to or interference with TENANT's business arising from LANDLORD or TENANT making of any repairs, alterations or improvements in or to any portion of the Premises or in or to any fixtures, appurtenances and equipment therein. TENANT hereby 156963.1644418-1 /q~ specifically waives the right to make repairs at LANDLORD's expense under any law, statute or ordinance now or hereafter in effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, LANDLORD shall be responsible for any damage to TENANT's equipment or facilities caused by LANDLORD's activities, unless caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of TENANT. C. Except as expressly provided herein, TENANT shall accept possession of the Premises, in an "as is" physical condition with no warranty, express or implied, by LANDLORD as to the condition of the soil, its geology, the presence of known or unknown faults, its suitability for the use intended by the TENANT, any onsite soils contamination or any similar matters. It shall be the sole responsibility and obligation of TENANT to investigate and correct any adverse soil, surface or subsurface conditions of the Premises necessary in order to place the Premises in a condition entirely suitable for the use intended by TENANT and agreed to by LANDLORD as is set forth herein, or alternatively, at TENANT's sole discretion, terminate this Lease on thirty (30) days notice to LANDLORD and in which case TENANT would have no further obligations under this Lease except as expressly provided otherwise. Notwithstanding the foregoing, LANDLORD represents that to the best of its knowledge, no activities of LANDLORD have resulted in any soils contamination. D. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection D, TENANT hereby specifically waives any rights TENANT may have against LANDLORD with regard to the condition of the Premises, including, but not limited to, soils, toxic or hazardous materials, fill material, compaction, geologic constraints and faults, upon TENANT'S commencement of use of the Premises. TENANT also further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LANDLORD from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, demands, actions, judgments, causes of action, assessments, penalties, costs and expenses (including without limitation, the reasonable fees and disbursements of legal counsel, expert witnesses and accountants) and all foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages which might ar/se or be asserted against LANDLORD, following TENANT'S commencement of use of the Premises, as a result of an alleged violation by TENANT of any present or future federal, state or local laws (whether under common law, statute, role, regulation or otherwise), including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 through 9657, inclusive; Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. App. §§ 1801 through 1813, inclusive; the Federal 156963.1644418~1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 through 6992, inclusive; 40 C.F.R. Parts 260 through 271, inclusive; the California Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), California Health and Safety Code §§ 25300 through 25395, inclusive; the California Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA), California Health and Safety Code §§ 25100 through 25249, inclusive; the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, California Water Code §§ 13000 through 13999.16, inclusive; and the Underground Storage Tank Act (USTA), California Health and Safety Code §§ 24280 through 24299.7, inclusive, all as the same may be amended fi.om time to time, relating to the environment or to any hazardous substance, activity or material connected with the condition of the Premises. TENANT'S obligation to indemnify LANDLORD shall not apply when the violation is proven to have been solely the result of migration of any toxic substance fi.om LANDLORD'S property into or upon the Premises. Furthermore, TENANT shall be entitled to be reimbursed by LANDLORD for its documented costs of defense, fines and/or judgments paid by TENANT as to violations of any of the foregoing statutes, acts or regulations that are determined in any final court proceeding, or to LANDLORD'S satisfaction, to be attributable to the acts or omissions of LANDLORD. This environmental indemnity shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease as to activities taking place or occurring on or about the Premises prior to such expiration or termination. E. LANDLORD shall, upon request and at TENANT's cost, provide to TENANT copies of all reports, studies, surveys and other data and information on the Premises which is now available to LANDLORD. LANDLORD represents that it has no information disclosable pursuant to California Health and Safety Code § 25359.7(a). 8. Claims Against Premises. TENANT shall not suffer or permit to be enforced against the Premises, or any part thereof, any mechanic's, materialman's, contractor's or subcontractor's liens arising fi.om, or any claim for any work of construction, repair, restoration, replacement or improvement of or to the Premises on the behalf of TENANT or any other similar claim or demand howsoever the same may arise, but TENANT shall pay or cause to be paid any and all such claims or demands before any action is brought to enforce the same against the Premises. TENANT agrees to indemnify and hold LANDLORD and the Premises fi-ce and harmless of all liability for any and all such claims and demands, together 156963.1644418-1 /~/ with payment of LANDLORD's reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs and expenses in connection therewith. 9. Utilities. TENANT shall pay the cost of any and all water, electrical, gas or other utility services utilized by TENANT upon the Premises during the term hereof and shall have such utilities installed underground and maintained at TENANT's sole cost and expense, subject to plans and specifications approved in writing by LANDLORD. LANDLORD shall approve or disapprove of same within fourteen (14) days. 10. Taxes. TENANT shall pay, or cause to be paid, before delinquency, any and all taxes levied or assessed and which become payable during the term hereof upon all of TENANT's possessory interest in and to the Premises, leasehold improvements, equipment, fixtures and personal properly located in or about the Premises. TENANT agrees that, without prior demand or notice by LANDLORD, TENANT shall, not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the day upon which any such possessory interest or other such tax is due, provide LANDLORD with proof of payment of such tax. 11. Holding Over. If TENANT remains in possession of the Premises or any part thereof after the expiration of the term hereof, with the express written consent of LANDLORD, such occupancy shall be a tenancy from month-to-month. 12. Entry. by LANDLORD. TENANT hereby agrees that representatives of the LANDLORD, as designated by LANDLORD's City Manager, shall, during normal business hours, have the right to enter the Premises with a representative of TENANT to inspect and determine if same complies with each and every term and condition of this Lease and with all applicable City, County, State and Federal laws, rules, ordinances and regulations relating to building occupancy and the conduct of TENANT's business, provided LANDLORD gives TENANT no less than forty-eight (48) hours prior written notice. TENANT hereby waives any claim for damages or for any injury or inconvenience to or interference with TENANT's business, any loss of occupancy or quiet enjoyment of the Premises, and any loss occasioned thereby, except to the extent of LANDLORD's or its agents and employees negligence or intentional misconduct. LANDLORD shall at all times have and retain a key with which to unlock, in the event of emergency, any entrances to any perimeter enclosures (fencing, etc.) surrounding TENANT's facilities. It is expressly agreed that LANDLORD shall not have a key to TENANT's facilities, except as provided above, and TENANT expressly 156963.1644418-1 waives any and all damages which might occur to TENANT's facilities including, but not limited to, damages arising from fire, vandalism, explosion or earthquake, as a result thereof, except to the extent of LANDLORD's or its agents and employees negligence or intentional misconduct. Any entry to the Premises obtained by LANDLORD, as provided above, shall not, under any cimumstances, be construed or deemed to be a fomible or unlawful entty into, or a detainer of, the Premises, or an eviction of TENANT from the Premises or any portion thereof. 13. Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a default and breach of this Lease by TENANT: A. Vacating or Abandonment of the Premises by TENANT as provided under California state law; B. The failure by TENANT to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by TENANT hereunder, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of seven (7) days after mailed written notice thereof by LANDLORD to TENANT, return receipt requested; C. A failure by TENANT to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by TENANT, other than as described in subparagraph 13.B., above, where such failure shall continue for a period of twenty (20) days after mailed written notice thereof by LANDLORD to TENANT, return receipt requested; provided, however, that if the nature of the default involved does not consist of radio interference, and is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then TENANT shall not be deemed to be in default if TENANT commences such cure within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes said cure to completion; or D. The making by TENANT of any general assignment or general arrangement for the benefit of creditors, or the filing by or against TENANT of a petition to have TENANT adjudged a bankrupt, or a petition or reorganization or arrangement under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against TENANT, the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); or the appointment of a trustee or a receiver to take possession of substantially all of TENANT's assets located in or about the Premises or of TENANT's interest in this Lease, where possession is not restored to TENANT within thirty 156963.16444I 8-1 /~ (30) days; or the attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of substantially all of TENANT's assets located in or about the premises or of TENANT's interest in this Lease, where such seizure is not discharged in thirty (30) days. 14. Remedies in Default. In the event of any such material default or breach by TENANT, LANDLORD may at any time thereafter and without notice or demand and, without limiting LANDLORD in the exemise of a right or remedy LANDLORD may have by reason of such default or breach: A. Terminate TENANT's fight to possession of the Premises by any lawful means, in which case this Lease shall terminate and TENANT shall immediately surrender possession of the Premises to LANDLORD. In such event, LANDLORD shall be entitled to recover fi.om TENANT all damages incurred by LANDLORD by reason of TENANT's default including, but not limited to, the cost of recovering possession of the Premises, including necessary renovation and alteration of the Premises, for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term, after the time of court award, exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that TENANT proves could be reasonably avoided. Unpaid installments of rent or other sums shall bear interest fi.om due date thereof at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum or at the maximum legal rate then in effect in California, whichever is higher. In the event TENANT shall have abandoned the Premises, LANDLORD shall have the option of (1) taking possession of the Premises and recovering from TENANT the amount specified in this subparagraph, or (2) proceeding under the provisions of the following subparagraphs. B. Maintain TENANT's right to possession, in which case this Lease shall continue in effect whether or not TENANT shall have abandoned the Premises. In such event, LANDLORD shall be entitled to enforce all of LANDLORD's rights and remedies under this Lease, including the right to recover rent as it becomes due hereunder. C. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to LANDLORD under the laws or judicial decisions of the State of California. Furthermore, TENANT agrees that no election by LANDLORD as to any rights or remedies available hereunder or under or pursuant to any law or judicial decisions of the State of California shall be binding upon LANDLORD until the time of trial of any such action or proceeding. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.A, above, if an event of default by TENANT occurs, LANDLORD 156963.1644418-1 shall not have the right, prior to the termination of this Lease by a court of competent jurisdiction, to re-enter the Premises and/or remove persons or property therefrom. D. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, a revocation of any regulatory approval, shall not constitute an electable remedy for purposes of this paragraph 14. 15. Eminent Domain. If more than fifty percent (50%) of the Premises, or such portion of the Premises necessary for TENANT to operate at the Premises as intended, shall be taken or appropriated by any public or quasi-public authority under the power of eminent domain, either party hereto shall have the right, at its option, to terminate this Lease, and LANDLORD shall be entitled to any and all income, rent, award, or any interest therein whatsoever which may be paid or made in connection with such public or quasi-public use or purpose, and TENANT shall have no claim against LANDLORD for the value of any unexpired term of this Lease. If either less than or more than fifty percent (50%) of the Premises is taken, and neither party elects to terminate as herein provided, the rental thereafter to be paid shall be equitably reduced. 16. Offset Statement. TENANT shall, at any time and from time to time upon not less than twenty (20) days' prior written notice from LANDLORD, execute, acknowledge and deliver to LANDLORD a statement in writing (a) certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full fome and effect or, if modified, stating the nature of such modification and certifying that this Lease, as so modified, is in full force and effect and the date to which the rental and other charges are paid in advance, if any, and (b) acknowledging that there are notl to TENANT's knowledge, any uncured defaults on the part of LANDLORD heretmder, or specifying such defaults if any are claimed. Any such statement may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser or encumbrancer of all or any portion of which the Premises are a part. 17. Assignment and Subletting. TENANT shall not assign, sublet or transfer this Lease or any right hereunder to any other party or parties nor shall TENANT sublet all or any portion of the Premises without first obtaining the written consent of LANDLORD. Any assignment or subletting of the Premises without such prior written consent shall be void for all purposes and LANDLORD may, at its option, declare a forfeiture of the same in any manner provided by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, TENANT may assign this Lease without the consent of LANDLORD to TENANT's principal, affiliates, 156963.1644418-I /55 subsidiaries of its principal or to any entity which acquires all or substantially all of TENANT's assets in the market defined by the Federal Communications Commission in which the Property is located by reason of a merger, acquisition or other business reorganization; provided such assignee executes a document satisfactory to LANDLORD evidencing assignee's consent to be bound by all terms of this Lease. LANDLORD shall not charge TENANT as a condition of approving such document, unless otherwise required by this Lease or law. 18. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that any action or proceeding is brought by either party to enfome any term or provision of this Lease, the prevailing party shall recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred with respect thereto. 19. Fixtures. All trade fixtures and/or temporary facilities installed in or on the Premises by TENANT may be removed by TENANT at any time during the term of this Lease so long as the same may be removed without permanent damage to the Premises. TENANT shall repair all damage, which may result therefrom to the reasonable satisfaction of LANDLORD. 20. Indemnification. TENANT agrees to defend, indemnify and hold LANDLORD and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees free and harmless from all claims and liabilities for damage to persons or property by reason of TENANT's negligence or TENANT's acts or omissions or those of TENANT's employees, agents, guests or invitees in connection with TENANT's use and occupancy of the Premises, except to the extent caused by Landlord or its employees or agents negligent acts or omissions. 21. Insurance. A. Fire and Extended Coverage - TENANT's Duty to Keep Improvements Insured. Throughout the term hereof, at TENANT's sole cost and expense, TENANT shall keep or cause to be kept insured, all improvements located on or appurtenant to the Premises against loss or damage by fire and such other risks as are now or hereafter included in an extended coverage endorsement in common use for such structures, including vandalism and malicious mischief. The amount of insurance shall be the then replacement cost, excluding costs of replacing excavations and foundations but without deduction for depreciation (herein called "full insurable value"). LANDLORD shall not carry any insurance 156963.1644418-1 / 5~ the effect of which would be to reduce the protection or payment to TENANT under any insurance that this Lease obligates TENANT to carry. B. Commemial General Liability Insurance. Throughout the term hereof, at TENANT's sole cost and expense, TENANT shall keep or cause to be kept in full force and effect, for the mutual benefit of TENANT, and LANDLORD as an additional insured, commercial general liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from the use, occupancy, disuse, or condition of the Premises, improvements, or adjoining areas or ways, providing protection of at least Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence for bodily injury or death and property damage, and a Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) annual aggregate C. Policy Form, Contents and Insurer. All insurance required by express provision of this Lease shall be carried only in responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-:VII. All such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (1) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carded by LANDLORD; (2) they cannot be canceled or materially altered except after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to LANDLORD; (3) the CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, and each of CITY's elected officials, officers and employees are additional insureds on the liability policies; (4) any failure by TENANT to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect the required coverage; and (5) the required insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. TENANT shall furnish LANDLORD with copies of all certificates and additional insured endorsement(s) evidencing the insurance. TENANT may effect for its own account any insurance not required under this Lease. D. Failure to Maintain Insurance; Proof of Compliance. TENANT shall deliver to LANDLORD, in the manner required for notices, copies of certificates of insurance and required endorsements as to all insurance policies required by this Lease, within the following time limits: (1) For insurance required at the commencement of this Lease, within ten (10) days after execution of this Lease and prior to TENANT's occupancy of the Premises; (2) For insurance becoming required at a later date, at least twenty (20) days before that requirement takes effect, or as soon thereafter as the requirement, if new, takes effect; (3) For any renewal or replacement of a policy already in existence, prior to expiration or other termination of the existing policy. If TENANT fails or refuses to procure or maintain insurance as required by this Lease, or fails or refuses to furnish LANDLORD with required proof that the insurance has been procured and is in full force and paid for, LANDLORD shall have the right, at LANDLORD's election and on ten (I0) days' notice, to procure and maintain such insurance. The premiums paid by LANDLORD shall be treated as added rent due from TENANT with interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per year or the maximum allowable legal rate in effect in the State of California on the date when the premium is paid, whichever is higher, to be paid on the first day of the month following the date on which the premium was paid. LANDLORD shall give TENANT prompt notice and provide TENANT with a certificate of insurance and agent's invoice evidencing payment of such premiums, stating the amounts paid and the names of the insurer or insurers, and interest shall run from the effective date of coverage. 22. Authorit~ of Parties. Each individual executing this Lease on behalf of each party represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of such party and that this Lease is binding upon such party in accordance with its terms. 23. Waiver. The waiver by LANDLORD of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition on any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by LANDLORD shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by TENANT of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of the TENANT to pay the particular rental so accepted, regardless of LANDLORD's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. 24. Time. Time is of the essence of this Lease and each and all of its provisions in which performance is a factor. 25. Late Charges. TENANT hereby acknowledges that late payment by TENANT to LANDLORD of rent or other sums due hereunder will cause LANDLORD to incur costs not contemplated by this Lease, the exact amount of which will be extremely 156963.1644418-1 /~C~ difficult to ascertain. Such costs include, but are not limited to, processing and accounting charges. Accordingly, if any installment of rent or of a sum due from TENANT shall not be received by LANDLORD or LANDLORD's designee within ten (10) days after written notice that said amount is past due, then TENANT shall pay to LANDLORD a late charge equal to ten percent (10%) of such overdue amount. The parties hereby agree that such late charges represent a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost that LANDLORD will incur by reason of the late payment by TENANT. Acceptance of such late charges by LANDLORD shall in no event constitute a waiver of TENANT's default with respect to such overdue amount, nor prevent LANDLORD from exercising any of the other rights and remedies granted hereunder. 26. Inabilit~ to Perform. This Lease and the obligations of TENANT hereunder shall not be affected or impaired because LANDLORD is unable to fulfill any of obligations hereunder or is delayed in doing so, if such inability or delay is caused by reason of strike, war, civil insurrection, acts of God, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of LANDLORD. 27. Sale of Premises by LANDLORD. In the event of any sale or conveyance of the Premises, LANDLORD shall be and hereby is entirely freed and relieved of all liability under any and all of the covenants and obligations contained in or derived from this Lease arising out of any act, occurrence or omission occurring after the consummation of such sale or conveyance. The purchaser, at such sale or any subsequent sale of the Premises, or other subsequent owner of the Premises, shall be deemed, without any further agreements between the parties or their successors in interest or between the parties and any such purchaser, to have assumed and agreed to carry out each and all of the covenants and obligations of LANDLORD under this Lease. 28. Siflns and Lights. Except as required by any law or regulation, TENANT shall not place any sign upon the Premises without LANDLORD's prior written consent and approval thereof. TENANT shall not illuminate any communications tower or antenna unless required by law or as may be approved in writing by LANDLORD. 29. Successors. Subject to the provisions of this Lease with respect to assignment and subletting, each and all of the covenants and conditions of this Lease shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the respective parties. 156963.1644418-1 j~¢ 30. Notices. Except where otherwise required herein, any notice required or permitted under the terms of this Lease shall be deemed served when personally served on TENANT or LANDLORD or when the same has been placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: TENANT: LANDLORD: Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership City of Rancho Cucamonga d/b/a Verizon Wireless Arm: City Clerk 180 Washington Valley Road 10500 Civic Center Drive Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 P.O. Box 807 Attention: Network Real Estate Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 31. Execution by LANDLORD Not a Waiver. TENANT understands and agrees that LANDLORD, by entering into and executing this Lease, shall not have waived any right, duty, privilege, obligation or authority vested in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve any application which TENANT may be required to make under any laws, roles, ordinances or regulations now or hereafter in effect which said City may be empowered to apply, including, but not limited to any use permit, wireless permit or approval, whether similar in nature or not. 32. Entire Agreement. This Lease contains the entire agreement between the parties. No promise, representation, warranty, or covenant not included in this Lease has been or is relied on by either party. Each party has relied on its own examination of this Lease, the counsel of its own advisors, and the warranties, representations, and covenants in the Lease itself. The failure or refusal of either party to inspect the Premises or improvements, to read the Lease or other documents or to obtain legal or other advice relevant to this transaction constitutes a waiver of any objection, contention, or claim that might have been based on such reading, inspection, or advice. 33. Applicable Law and Venue. Any action brought to enforce any provision of this Lease shall be brought in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, and the same shall be governed, except to the extent within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, by the laws of the State of California. 34. Termination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, provided TENANT is not in default hereunder and shall have paid all rents and sums 156963.1644418-1 due and payable to the LANDLORD by TENANT, TENANT shall have the right to terminate this Lease upon the annual anniversary of this Lease provided that three (3) months prior notice is given the LANDLORD. In connection with such termination by TENANT, TENANT shall pay a termination fee equal to the lesser of six (6) monthly installments of annual rent due or the balance of the annual rent due for the remaining term of the lease. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have entered into the Lease as of the latest date set forth below opposite the name of each signatory hereto. "LANDLORD" "TENANT" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a LOS ANGELES SMSA LIMITED municipal corporation PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS by AirTouch Cellular, its general partner By: By: Robert F. Swaine Name: West Area Vice President,Network Title: _Mayor Date: By: Name: Title: _City Clerk Date: Landlord's Address, Phone and Fax: Tenant's Address, Phone and Fax: 10500 Civic Center Drive Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless P.O. Box 807 180 Washington Valley Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 Tel: (909) 477-2700 Attention: Network Real Estate Fax: (909) 477-2846 Tel: Fax: Tax I.D. No: 95'-3213002 156963.1644418-1 / ~/ EXHIBIT A Site Plan 156963.1644418-1 ~ !~.....--~: I SBA -,,, SITE NAME i~~-''''-''~-'''"' I~ I ,,,~,~,,-,..,,. _ ,.-r.s. ROCHESTER ,,E~,,,E,, ,'E~,*L ,,s,.E~,-,o,,, ~ ~ ~ LEGAL DE~RIPTION ~ ROCHESTER ¢( ABBREVIAT,~5 PROJECT 5U"MART PROJECT 'IRECTO*T *EET ,ND~ , { ,OF ,5 I ~,.~,~c.~ ~u,.,,.~ ~,,.~.~.~..,.,~,.~u~,_~,~ DIV- 2 - SITE WOrK DIV. 5 - METALS - CONT. ~m~~ DIV. 4 - MASO~Y ~m~.~o~ ~,~m~~~.. DIV. 7 - T~MAL [ MOtTlE ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v~~~~ O~. 5 - METALS DIV. 8 - DO01~$ ~,c~-~-~,,, ,~.~o,~,. DIV. 9 - F~SMES CONT. ~~.~~m~ ~m~ DIV. ROCNESTER EAST ELEVATION NORTN ELEVATION ~c~, ~. ~, ~o~, ~,*. ,-¢ ARCNITECTURAL G~u,p~c ~ c~mc ~c*z.~ ELEVATIONS .[ ~o~,~)~-2 ~~ -..--- ,,,-.7,, ,-._ ~ C~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~AL ".~.' R~ESTER DETAILS '-///~"//// //,1///7 ,',///7 '//// ~ ..... o o o ~_~ ~ ' ' ' ~-~ v~o~. II I I r'ra~ ii I ~.~., j ~"~. ~° "~ ~ ~'~ ^~ ~ LI 10 OF GENERAL NOTES: EXECUTION: ~~m~ ~LECTRICAL SY~BOL~ ~ LEGEND: MATERIALS: ' '~'~ NOT[5 . ~ ELECTRICAL SITE __ PLAN ELECTRICAL SITE P ~ - j ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~, ...... .~ .... ~ _ J ~ f ~' NOTES '"' i~ - R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ~ N C I N E E D I N C. ~ E DAI~Tr~ ~ N T StaffR l ort DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: James T. Harris, Associate Engineer,...~--~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering TechnicS-fin ~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 19TM STREET, CONTRACT NO. 03-067 AS COMPLETE, RETAIN THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AS A GUARANTEE BOND, RELEASE THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $36,674.00 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at Archibald Avenue and 19th Street, Contract No. 03-067, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, retain the Faithful Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $36,674.00 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $3,667.40, 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $36,674.00. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at Archibald Avenue and 19th Street scope of work consisted of the installation of north and southbound left turn phasing, upgradin§ of IISNS and safety lighting and incidental signing and striping changes at the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Accept Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at Archibald Ave. & 19th St. June 16, 2004 Page 2 intersection of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. Pertinent information of the project is as follows: > Budgeted Amount: $49,920.00 (Midyear Correction) ~' Account Number: 11243035650/1286124-0 > Engineer's Estimate: $40,000.00 > City Council's Approval to Advertise: May 21, 2003 > Publish dates for local paper: May 27 & June 3, 2003 > Bid Opening: June 17, 2003 > Contract Award Date: July 2, 2003 > Low Bidder: Steiny and Company, Inc. > Contract Amount: $36,674.00 > 10% Contingency: $3,667.40 > Final Contract Amount: $36,674.00 > Difference in Contract Amount: $0.00 (0.00%) The project was completed as per contract plans and specifications with no change orders. Respectfully submitted, _VVillia~J. O Neil City Engineer WJO:JTH/RO:Is Attachments /7¢ RESOLUT,O, A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 19TM STREET, CONTRACT NO. 03-067 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at Archibald Avenue and 19th Street, Contract No. 03-067, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E N G I N E E RI N G D E PA R TItlE N ? Sb:ffReport DAIE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Cindy Hackett, Associate Enginee~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Techm-Tctafl;~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE 2003~2004 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - SLURRY SEAL OF VARIOUS STREETS, CONTRACT NO. 03-068 AS COMPLETE, RELEASE THE BONDS, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $159,855.20 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the 2003/2004 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Slurry Seal of Various Streets, Contract No. 03-068, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, accept a Maintenance Bond, release the Faithful Performance Bond, authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $159,855.20 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $15,985.52, 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $159,855.20. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The 2003/2004 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Slurry Seal scope of work consisted of crack sealing, protection and/or adjustment of valve covers, protection of existing survey monuments and manholes, pneumatic rolling, re-striping, and pavement markings. Pertinent information of the project is as follows: > Budgeted Amount: $211,290.00 > Account Number: 11823035650/1022182-0 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Accept 2003/2004 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation June 16, 2004 Page 2 > Engineer's Estimate: $235,937.12 > City Council's Approval to Advertise: April 16, 2003 > Publish dates for local paper: May 6 & 13, 2003 > Bid Opening: May 20, 2003 > Contract Award Date: July 2, 2003 >' Low Bidder: Valley Slurry Seal Company > Contract Amount: $159,855.20 > 10% Contingency: $15,985.52 > Final Contract Amount: $159,855.20 > Difference in Contract Amount: $0.00 (0.00%) The project was completed as per contract plans and specifications with no change orders. Respectfully submitted, . City Engineer WJO:CH/RO:Is Attachments A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE 2003/2004 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION-SLURRY .SEAL OF VARIOUS STREETS, CONTRACT NO. 03-068 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the 2003/2004 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation-Slurry Seal of Various Streets, Contract No. 03-068, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SlaffReport DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jerry Dyer, Senior Civil Engineer ~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Tech/l'ician ~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE HIGHLAND AVENUE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, CONTRACT NO. 04-019 AS COMPLETE, RETAIN THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AS A GUARANTEE BOND, RELEASE THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $76,868.00 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Highland Avenue Landscape Improvements East of Day Creek Boulevard, Contract No. 04-019, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, retain the Faithful Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $78,868.00 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $7,886.80, 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $78,868.00. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Highland Avenue Landscape Improvements East of Day Creek Boulevard scope of work consisted of grading, excavation and fill, installation of irrigation system, mow curbs, and asphalt concrete trench repair. Installation of the plant material and placement of the cobble rock will be separately bid and should occur this summer. Pertinent information of the project is as follows: > Budgeted Amount: $88,500.00 > Account Number: 11103165650/1454110-0 > Engineer's Estimate: $75,950.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Accept Highland Avenue Landscape lmprovements June 16, 2004 Page 2 > City Council's Approval to Advertise: January 21, 2004 ~ Publish dates for local paper: January 27 & February 3, 2004 ~' Bid Opening: February 17, 2004 ~ Contract Award Date: March 3, 2004 ~ Low Bidder: Nature Tech Landscaping, Inc. ~' Contract Amount: $78,868.00 ~ 10% Contingency: $7,886.80 ~ Final Contract Amount: $78,868.00 ~ Difference in Contract Amount: $0.00 (0.00%) The project was completed as per contract plans and specifications with no change orders. Resp_ectfully/~ ~ ,~/~.~ c~submitted' ~ WJO:JD/RO:Is Attachments R,SO,UT,ON NO. ¢ ¢.¢ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE HIGHLAND AVENUE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, CONTRACT NO. 04- 019 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the Highland Avenue Landscape Improvements East of Day Creek Boulevard, Contract No. 04-019, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. LOCATION ONTARIO CITY LIMIT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGm~ND AF~IUE ZANDSCAP~ IHPRO~f~ITH 485' FAST OF DAY ~ BL~D. TO 459' WEST OF LOCUST AVE. VICINITY MAP ~ TH E C I T Y 0 F ]~ A N C H 0 C U C A i4 0 N G A DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT - DRC2001-00534 - CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, L.P. - A request to amend the circulation within the Industrial Park Development District, Subarea 6, to eliminate Center Ave. from 6th St. south to Trademark Parkway, submitted by Cabot Industrial Properties - APN's 209-072-06 -11, -16, -17 and -35 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Council approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 722. BACKGRO UN D/ANALYSIS Ordinance No. 722 previously had second reading on May 5, 2004. After an Ordinance has had second reading, staff is required to have the Ordinance published in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days. Due to an error in meeting those publishing requirements, it is necessary to conduct second reading once again. Once Ordinance No. 722 has been adopted, the Clerk's office will forward it to the newspaper for publication. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk/Records Manager Attachment (Ordinance No. 722) ORDINANCE NO. 722 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2001-00534 TO AMEND THE STREET CIRCULATION WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SUBAREA 6, ELIMINATING THE EXTENSION OF CENTER AVENUE FROM 6TM STREET SOUTH TO TRADEMARK PARKWAY BY AMENDING SECTION 17.30.080, FIGURE 17.30.080-H OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. RECITALS: 1. On September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on a request to initiate an application to amend the Development Code to delete Center Avenue from 6th Street south to Trademark Parkway in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6). The Planning Commission moved to direct staff to process said amendment to the Development Code. 2. Cabot Industrial Properties, L.P., filed an application for Development Code Amendment DRC2001-00534 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application". 3. On September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 01-90, recommending to the City Council that the Development Code Amendment No. DRC2001-00534 be approved. 4. On April 21, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 04-127 approving the Development Code Amendment DRC2001-00534. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. ORDINANCE: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. Ordinance No. 722 Page 2 of 6 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 21, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact en the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program, attached hereto and incorporated herein bythis reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, s amended, and the State CECA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below. Environmental Mitiqation: Air Quality 1) The site shall be treated with water a minimum of twice per day, or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions during grading. 2) Public roads used for access to the site (Buffalo Avenue and Charles Smith Avenue) shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. Emission reduction no quantifiable. Ordinance No. 722 Page 3 of 6 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. Emissions reduction no quantifiable. 4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions. 5) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. This will result in five percent reductions of ROG, NO×, and PM~0 emissions. 6) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 8) The construction contractor shall use Iow VOC asphalt during the asphalt paving portions of the project. Traffic 1) To mitigate the impacted intersections to LOS D or better, the applicant shall pay traffic impact fees that amount to the project's fair share of roadway improvements as identified by the City Engineer. These include but are not limited to widening roadways to their full width to add additional lanes, re-striping existing roads to add additional lanes, signalizing intersections, or other improvements identified by the City Engineer. Noise 1) The project would add people and traffic to the area and generally increase ambient noise levels since the site is currently vacant. However, the impact is not considered significant as the project is consistent with the Development Code, General Industrial/Industrial Park zoned area with no sensitive receptors in the area. 2) The proposed project is the development of one industrial building with loading areas. The development will remain consistent with surrounding land uses, zoned as General Industrial/Industrial Park. The project development would generate approximately 727 trips/day, creating no significant increase in noise caused by traffic in the area, and not predicted to exceed City noise limits. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant. Ordinance No. 722 Page 4 of 6 c) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the CaJifornia Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: in considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study an Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reported and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Development Code Amendment DRC2001-00534 to amend the street circulation within the Industrial Park Development District, Subarea 6 eliminating the extension of Center Avenue from 6 h Street south to Trademark Parkway by amending Figure 17.30.080-H of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code as shown in Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance. 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Please see the following page for formal adoption, certification and signatures Ordinance No. 722 Page 5 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATI'EST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 21st day of April 2004, and was ~assed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16 day June of 2004. Executed this 17th day of June 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk Ordinance No. 722 Page 6 of 6 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.30.080 FIGURE 17.30.080-H 17.30-76 1/03 TH E C IVY O F ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Repor DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed Annexation of 160.0 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461, and Development Agreement DRC2002-00156. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - The proposed residential subdivision of approximately 150.8 acres into 359 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very-Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01,12,13,15,16 and 20. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2001-00156; Annexation DR02002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002~00156 - RICHLAND PINEHURST iNC. A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 150.8 acres of land located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00461. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions in the order presented: A. Approve the Resolution certifying the Final EIR for SUBTT16072, Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, and Annexation DRC2003-00865; B. Approve the Resolution to initiate proceedings for the annexation of 160 acres of land generally located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. C. Deny the Appeal to the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16072, as submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated May 19, 2004, and approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. D. Adopt the Ordinance to enter into Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, a Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Richland Pinehurst for the purpose of developing an approximate 150.8-acre site with up to 359 residential lots. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A. Project Summary The proposed project is located within the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (Exhibit "A" - Regional Map). The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault divides the 150.8 acre site, with the area north of fault designated Very Low Residential and the area south of the fault designated Low Residential. The combined net density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre, and the overall gross density of the project is 2.38 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot area within the project is 8,400 square feet with an average lot size of approximately 11,400 square feet (Exhibit "B" - Site Plan). The Specific Plan identifies a Community Trail along the Fault Zone, connecting the Etiwanda Avenue Community Trail and the Regional Trail within the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor north of the site. The internal street pattern has been designed following the naturally trending terrain, which slopes at approximately 6 percent northwest to southeast. Access to the site is provided by two street intersections on Etiwanda Avenue, and one each on East Avenue and Wilson Avenue. All perimeter streets will require some level of improvement with development of the project, including the south side of Wilson Avenue, which includes a Community Trail within the Metropolitan (MWD) strict right-of-way. The project will require flood protection improvements, including the 25th Street Diversion Channel along the north boundary of the project, as well as two on-site interim Detention Basins. The proposed storm drain improvements are individual components of the EtiwandaJSan Sevaine Area 3 Master Plan of Storm Drain facilities. The proposed improvements would protect the site from upstream flows and would result in a modification of the current Federal Emergency Managements Agency (FEMA) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation of Zone D ("area of undetermined flood hazard") to "no significant flood hazard." CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUB'~-]'16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 3 B. Summary of Planning Commission Meeting on May 12, 2004 Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested revisions to the resolution and the Development Agreement to include a statement that private landscape maintenance be the responsibility of a Homeowners Association or the formation of a new Landscape Maintenance District and to delete the requirement for a gated community. He stated staff would like to add Engineering Conditions to require the applicant to provide written approval from Metropolitan Water District for any activity within Metropolitan's fee property prior to any improvements to Wilson Avenue and clarified the Mitigation Measures to indicate that the property owner could transfer mitigation land to any qualified conservation entity approved by the City or to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts. Commissioner Fletcher observed the Site Plan shows cul-de-sac streets and not through streets. Mr. Henderson replied they were trying to limit access to Etiwanda Avenue and no lots are to front onto Etiwanda Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that typically better neighborhoods are not along long streets, and that larger lots at the end of cul-de-sacs often become prime lots. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council, presented two alternate site plans that he felt were environmentally superior and were more sensitive to the earthquake fault that runs through the property. Mr. Sherman indicated that generally Development Agreements included a provision allowing amendment to the Agreement by the City Planning Department. He believed such a provision is an attempt to rewrite the legislation under the Government Code that allows the City to enact Development Agreements. He also indicated concern about a number of projects coming forward piecemeal with respect to the General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments. With respect to alternatives submitted by Mr. Sherman, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, said that the EIR discussed three alternatives to the project: 1) a no project alternative; 2) a less intensive development alternative; and 3) an alternative that would preserve more of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. Mr. Ennis indicated that the EIR and the Findings in the Resolution state why those particular alternatives do not satisfy the objectives of the project or are not feasible. With respect to the Development Agreement and the assertion that it provides an opportunity for staff to amend the Agreement in contravention to State law, he stated the Development Agreement provides for the opportunity for staff and the developer to enter into implementing agreements, but those agreements must be found consistent with the Development Agreement. He said the staff is not authorized to enter into agreements that are inconsistent with or modify or undercut the basic provisions of the Development Agreement. With regards to piecemeal projects, Mr. Ennis stated that in the EIR for this project and for another project on the agenda (Henderson Creek Properties), there is a discussion about the other projects occurring in the vicinity so as to consider the cumulative impacts of this project as well as the other projects so there is an acknowledgement and an interrelationship between all of the projects in terms of environmental impacts. The tentative tract map, associated development agreement, and annexation for the project were reviewed and approved at the May 12, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUB'FF16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 4 C. Project Analysis Tentative Tract Map 16072 - The proposed project is located within the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault divides the 150.8 acre site, with the area north of the fault designated Very Low Residential and the area south of the fault designated Low Residential. The combined net density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre, and the overall gross density of the project is 2.38 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot area within the project is 8,400 square feet with an average lot size of approximately 11,400 square feet. The Specific Plan identifies a Community Trail along the Fault Zone, connecting the Etiwanda Avenue Community Trail and the Regional Trail within the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor north of the site. An Appeal to the Planning Commission approval of the Tentative Tract Map was submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attorney for Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated May 19, 2004. The appeal letter was based on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report. A response to this matter is included in Exhibit "E" - Responses to Correspondence. The Development Aqreement - The Development Agreement has been prepared in order to address project-specific improvements, fees, and other development standards and expectations for the benefit of the Property Owner and the City. The Development Agreement allows the applicant to identify all improvements and fees that will be required by the City upon Annexation. The Development Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney for form and content. The basic points of the Development Agreement are summarized below: 1. Term of the Agreement: 10 years 2. Minor deviations from the Engineering Division standards: a) cul-de-sac design and b) a reduction in the standard centedine radius for a specific internal local street segment. 3. Minor deviations to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Phasing and Implementation Program: The property owner will construct East Avenue southerly between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, in lieu of extending Wilson Avenue easterly to connect to Wardman-Bullock Road. 4. Minor deviations from the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Policy: With the construction of an interim detention basin to attenuate the developed storm flows from the project. 5. Fees: a) The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $358,000 (based upon $1,000 per unit) for equestrian mitigation purposes; b) The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $2,362,800 ($6,600 per unit) for park purposes (the applicant may request park credit for improvements to the Community Trail that traverses the site within the Fault Zone, in accordance with General Policy); and c) In exchange for the construction of the landscaping improvements on the south side of Wilson Avenue within the MWD right-of- CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DR02002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DR02002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 5 way, the property owners shall not be required to pay City Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. 6. The project shall be designed in accordance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Development standards. 7. Clarification of the actual boundaries of the Red Hill Fault Zone as determined by the Geotechnical Analysis: The Red Hill Fault Zone is depicted as a Land Use District in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The fault location and boundary has been refined through further trenching and on-site investigation that was conducted through the preparation of the Geotechnical Evaluation. The Fault Setback Zone, which precludes the development of habitable structures, does allow a portion of the lot area to intersect with the Setback Zone. In each case, a substantial buildable area remains available within the lot. 8. Open Space Transfer Plan: The Property Owners shall transfer to the County of San Bemardino Special Districts OS-l, other qualified conservation entity approved by the City in fee, a minimum of 150-acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be determined by County of San Bernardino Special Districts (or other conservation entity), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment'surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the CITY Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner. The transfer and funding shall occur prior to recording of the first final map of the Project. 9. The Development Agreement establishes timeframes for completion of key infrastructure and community amenities, including the following: a) the perimeter landscaping and the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood Monumentation, as well as the Community Trail Improvements within the Fault Zone, will be completed prior to release of occupancy of the 150th dwelling (a small segment of the Etiwanda Avenue frontage north of the Fault Zone must be complete prior to release of occupancy of the 250th dwelling); b) all perimeter street improvements shall be completed prior to release of occupancy of the first dwelling within the project, including Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, and East Avenue; and, c) all master plan storm drain improvements will also be completed prior to the release of occupancy for the first dwelling in the project. The Annexation - The proposed Annexation will include the entire 160 acres, which constitutes the southwest quadrant of Section 21, located north of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. The 10 acres at the corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue will require the review and approval of a separate Tentative Tract Map at a future time after the annexation process has been completed. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council Certification of the EIR and approval of the project. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 6 CORRESPONDENCE: Additional comments were sent via e-mail to the Planning Department, after the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2004 was called to order (after 7PM). Therefore the information is not part of the public record for the purposes of the Planning Commission hearing. Although the documents indicate they were either faxed or hand delivered, they were not, and because of its large size, 66 pages, it was conveyed under separate cover. A letter from the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service was received on May 18, 2004. Responses to these comments are contained in Exhibit "E." CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that City Council 1) Approve the Resolution certifying the Final EIR for SUBTT16072, Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, and Annexation DRC2003- 00865; 2) Approve the Resolution permitting the City to initiate proceedings for the annexation of 160 acres of land generally located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue; 3) Deny the Appeal as submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated May 19, 2004, and approve Tentative Tract Map 16072; and 4) Adopt the Ordinance approving Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Richland Pinehurst for the purpose of developing an approximate 150.8 acre site with up to 359 residential lots. City Planner BB:LH/Is Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Regional Map Exhibit"B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Minutes dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "E" - Responses to Correspondence Exhibit "F" - Findings of Fact in Support of Findings For Significant Environmental Effects of the Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 Project and Statement of Overriding Considerations (dated May 6, 2004) Exhibit "G" - Final Conditions of Approval Exhibit"H" - Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Resolution Certifying the Final EIR Resolution initiating Proceedings For Annexation Resolution Denying Appeal to Approve SUBTT16072 Ordinance Approving Development Agreement ~[] ~,~ Plo~~oooo 2000 El[]t " ~o~,. ~ Location Map WILSO~ AVENHI~ ................ ~ ! ~ ~oo ~oo o ~oo {1~[1~ r ~o^L~,. ~ Site Plan ~NCHO CUCAMONGA TENTATIVE T~CT MAP NUMBER 16072 THE CITY OF I~AN C H 0 C UCA~I 0 N OA Staff Report DATE: May 12, 2004 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed Annexation of 160.0 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue- APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461, and Development Agreement DRC2002-00156. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - The proposed residential subdivision of 150.79 acres into 359 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very-Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01,12,13,15,16 and 20. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2001-00156; Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 150.8 acres of land located at northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00461. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: The combined net density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre and the overall gross density of the project is 2.38 dwelling units per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00865, SUBTT16072, 'AND DRC2003-00156- RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. May 12, 2004 Page 2 B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq - Etiwanda North Specific Plan unless otherwise noted: Project Site - Very Low and Low Residential, the land use districts are divided by the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault Zone. North Power line corridor and vacant land/Utility Corridor and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), currently the site of the proposed Tentative Tract 14749 (Tracy Development Company) that includes a North Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment from Very Low to Low Residential. South - Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Water Treatment facility and vacant landNery Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan East - Vacant LandJery Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), currently the site of a proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential to Low Residential. West - Single-family residential development/Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), the land use designation is split along the fault. North - Utility Corridor and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), currently the site of proposed Tentative Tract 14749 (Tracy Development Company) that includes a General Plan Amendment from Very Low to Low Residential. South - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) East Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), currently the site of a proposed General Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential to Low Residential. West - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The site generally slopes from north to south at approximately 6 percent gradient and currently contains the remains of a foundation from a residential structure, remnants of Iow stonewalls, and irrigation flumes. The site was completely burned during the October 2003 "Grand Prix" fire, with no significant trees or shrubs remaining at the present time. The site was surveyed for biological resources prior to the fire in preparation of the EIR. The site was found to contain California Buckwheat-White Sage (44.1 acres), White Sage (82.5 acres) Scalebroom Scrub (11.2 acres), and other non-native and disturbed areas that total 12.2 acres. Overall, the site was found to contain 147.7 acres of various forms of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage scrub for which the project will be required to obtain off-site mitigation lands. Although focused surveys were preformed for Sensitive Wildlife Species, including the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, the results of all such surveys were negative. ANALYSIS: A. The Tentative Tract Map: The proposed project is located within the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault divides the 150.78 acre site, with the area north of fault designated Very Low Residential and the area south of the fault designated Low Residential. The PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00865, SUBTT16072,'AND DRC2003-00156 - RICHLAND PINEHURSTINC. May 12, 2004 Page 3 density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre, and the overall gross density of the project is 2.38 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot area within the project is 8,400 square feet with an average lot size of approximately 11,400 square feet. The Specific Plan identifies a Community Trail along the Fault Zone, connecting the Etiwanda Avenue Community Trail and the Regional Trial within the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor north of the site. The internal street pattern has been designed following the naturally trending terrain, which slopes at approximately 6 percent nodhwest to southeast. Access to the project is provided by two street intersections on Etiwanda Avenue, and one each on East Avenue and Wilson Avenue. All perimeter streets will require some level of improvement with development of the project, including the south side of Wilson Avenue, which includes a Community Trail within the Metropolitan (MWD)strict right-of-way. The project will require flood protection improvements, including the 25th Street Diversion Channel along the north boundary of the project, as well as two on-site interim Detention Basins. The proposed storm drain improvements are individual components of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 3 Master Plan of Storm Drain facilities. The proposed improvements would protect the site from upstream flows and would result in a modification of the current Federal Emergency Managements Agency (FEMA) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation of Zone D ("area of undetermined flood hazard") to "no significant flood hazard." A Fuel Modification Plan has also been prepared to assist in developing site-specific precautions for fire protection. The purpose of the Fuel Modification Plan includes a wildland fire hazards assessment, a long-term perimeter vegetative fuel modification and maintenance plan, and a long-term "firewise landscaping" and fuel modification plan for the landscaped area immediately around all structures. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNeil, Stewart, Coleman) reviewed the project on January 15, 2003. The Committee discussed the preferred alternative Master Plan arrangement of the 10-acre Not-a-Part segment located at the lower southeast corner of the project and the desire to establish a financial mechanism for future construction of the Upper Etiwanda neighborhood entry monumentation. The preferred alternative lotting and master plan, which provides access to the adjacent parcel, has been incorporated into the Tentative Tract Map, and the requirement for a funding mechanism for the neighborhood monumentation is included in the Planning Division Conditions in the Resolution recommending approval of the Tentative Tract Map. C. Technical Review and Gradinq Review Committees: The Technical Review and Grading Review Committees were conducted on January 14, 2003. The applicant received a tentative list of all City standard codes and requirements that will be applicable to the project, including the street improvements required to accommodate the future traffic generated by the development. All such City Standards and requirements are attached to the Resolution as Standard Conditions of Approval. The Grading Committee reviewed such items as access to rear yard slopes for landscaping and maintenance purposes, minimum landscape spacing between walls/fences and the back of the sidewalk, and the relationship of proposed pad grades to the street elevation as it relates to future driveway PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00865, SUB'Fr16072, 'AND DRC2003-00156- RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. May 12, 2004 Page 4 grades. All appropriate issues have been revised in the Tentative Tract Map and/or added to the Resolution recommending approval of the Tentative Tract Map. D. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed the Tentative Tract Map on January 8, 2003. The TAC paid particular attention to the development of the Community Trail through the project within the Fault Zone to ensure appropriate connections to other Community Trails in the immediate area, including the existing Community Trail along Etiwanda Avenue and the Regional Trail located within the SCE corridor along the noah of the project boundary. E. Tree Removal Permit: The project site contained several trees that all burned in October 2003 during the Grand Prix Fire. All trees will be removed and landscaping within the on-site open space zones will include trees in accordance with species identified in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines for the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood theme. The associated Tree Removal Permit will be approved in association with the approval of the Tentative Tract Map through adoption of the attached Resolution. F. The Development Aqreement: The Development Agreement has been prepared in order to address project-specific improvements, fees, and other development standards and expectations for the benefit of the Property Owner and the City. The Development Agreement allows the applicant to identity all improvements and fees that will be required by the City upon Annexation. The Development Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney as to form and content. The basic points of the Development Agreement are summarized below: 1. Term of the Agreement: 10 years 2. Minor deviations from the Engineering Division standards: a) cul-de-sac design; and b) a reduction in the standard centerline radius for a specific internal local street segment. 3. Minor deviations to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Phasing and Implementation Program: The property owner will construct East Avenue southerly between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, in lieu of extending Wilson Avenue easterly to connect to Wardman-Bullock Road. 4. Minor deviations from the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Policy: With the construction of an interim detention basin to attenuate the developed storm flows from the project. 5. Fees: a) The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $358,000 (based upon $1,000 per unit) for equestrian mitigation purposes; b) The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $2,362,800 ($6,600 per unit) for park purposes (the applicant may request park credit for improvements to the Community Trail that traverses the site within the Fault Zone, in accordance with General Policy); and, c) In exchange for the construction of the landscaping improvements on the south side of Wilson Avenue within the MVVD right-of-way, the property owners shall not be required to pay City Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00865, SUBTT16072, 'AND DRC2003-00156- RICHLAND PINEHURST iNC. May 12, 2004 Page 5 6. The project shall be designed in accordance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Development standards. 7. Clarification of the actual boundaries of the Red Hill Fault Zone as determined by the Geotechnical Analysis: The Red Hill Fault Zone is depicted as a Land Use District in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The fault location and boundary has been refined through further trenching and on-site investigation that was conducted through the preparation of the Geotechnical Evaluation. The Fault Setback Zone, which precludes the development of habitable structures, does allow a portion of the lot area to intersect with the Setback Zone. In each case, a substantial buildable area remains available within the lot. 8. Open Space Transfer Plan: The Open Space Transfer Plan establishes a requirement that the property owner transfer approximately 150 acres of land to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding (in an amount to be determined by County of San Bernardino Special Districts), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. 0 This is accomplished prior to recording of the Final Tract Map. 9. The Development Agreement establishes timeframes for completion of key infrastructure and community amenities, including the following: a) the perimeter landscaping and the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood Monumentation, as well as the Community Trail Improvements within the Fault Zone, will be completed prior to release of occupancy of the 150th dwelling (a small segment of the Etiwanda Avenue frontage north of the Fault Zone must be complete prior to release of occupancy of the 250th dwelling); b) all perimeter street improvements shall be completed prior to release of occupancy of the first dwelling within the project, including Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, and East Avenue; and, c) all master plan storm drain improvements will also be completed prior to the release of occupancy for the first dwelling in the project. G. The Annexation: The proposed Annexation will include the entire 160 acres, which constitutes the southwest quadrant of Section 21, located north of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. The 10 acres at the corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue will require the review and approval of a separate Tentative Tract Map at a future time after the annexation process has been completed. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council Certification of the EIR and approval of the project. H. The Environmental Impact Report: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to address all actions that are anticipated for the review and approval of the project, including the actions by the Planning Commission and City Council and the Local Agency Formation Commission as well as actions that may be required by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game, as applicable. Based on the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study that was prepared for the project, the following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed within the EIR: Geology/Soils (including Seismic ground-shaking and fault induced ground PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00865, SUB'I-1'16072, 'AND DRC2003-00156- RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. May 12, 2004 Page 6 rupture, and other earthquake-induced hazards), Biological Resources, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, Aesthetics (including the impacts to views and viewsheds), Cultural Resources, Public Services/Utilities, and Hydrology/VVater Quality. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures is provided in Table 2-1 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that upon implementation of the project design features and all recommended mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant: Geology/Soils (seismic ground shaking), Air Quality (short term and long term air emissions), and Aesthetics (cumulative changes to the viewshed). Therefore, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Section 21081. The Statement is attached to the Resolution. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and notices were sent to all individuals and organizations that have commented on the EIR during the public comment period. In addition, all individuals that provided comments during the comment period have received copies of the "Response to Comments" at least 10 days prior to this hearing as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions in the order presented: A. Certify the EIR for the purposes of tentative tract map approval and recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR for all other applications; and B. Approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; and C. Recommend that the City Council enter into Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 associated with the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LH\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit"C" - Final Environmental Impact Report (previously provided under separate cover) Draft Resolution Approving Tentative Tract SUBTT16072 Draft Resolution Recommending Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 O0 1000 0 2000 ~11l ~c^~,,,, FEn Location Map _M_ichac! ..~'*/' ~ ~ 0 ~"~! ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 16072 SOURCE: ~l [ I 400 200 0 400 M,~h.~,B~ c--, ~-o,/ ,~c.. Site Plan 02 RANCHO CUCAMONGATENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 16072 FINAL IMPACT REPORT PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER EXHIBIT "C" ?--/~. - o y ,,~c_ .2// Commissl to have been a screen wail on another Panattoni project and the wail has not She asked when it wiii be constructed. Michael Johnson, Panattoni 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 285, Irvine, acknowledged there is to be a wail on the project and Hermosa Avenue. He said they are in the process of getting a drawing said they have been working with Mr. Fenn to get a 14-foot high screen wall to shield the truck Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the headng. Commissioner Stewart stated this project is a nice one. She said project to build the screen wail on the other project if she could. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and the resolution approving Development Review DRC2003-00866. Motion carried by the followi~ AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MAClAS G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 o .~ RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - The proposed residential subdivision of approximately 150.8 acres into 359 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very-Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etivvanda North Specific Plan, located at the northwest comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20. Related Files: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Development Agreement DRC2001-00156; and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-O0156- RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 150.8 acres of land located at the northwest comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue. APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, and20. Related Files: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00461. NEW BUSINESS. M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed annexation of 160.0 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN - 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, Tentative Tract Map SUBTI'16072, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested some revisions to the resolution and the Development Agreement. He stated staff would like to add an Engineering Condition to require the applicant to provide written approval from Metropolitan Water Dist~ct for any activity within Metropolitan's fee property prior to any improvements to Wilson Avenue and clarified the Mitigation Measures to indicate that the property owner could transfer mitigation lands to any qualified conservation entity approved by the City or to the County of San Bemardino Special Districts. He suggested the resolution for the Tentative Tract Map be revised to indicate that the effective date of the approval would be the last to occur of the following: the effective date of the [~ ~,1 related Development Agreement and date of the property annexation into the City. He also '~ Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 12, 2004 cc_ suggested revising Engineering Condition No. 1.b to state that if entrances are gated, they shall conform to City design standards, as the applicant did not wish to be locked into a gated community. He indicated the Development Agreement should be revised to outline private landscape maintenance to be the responsibility of a Homeowners Association or the formation of a new Landscape Maintenance Distdct and to delete the requirement for a gated community. He also suggested changing the title of Section 2.C.8.c from "Wilson Avenue Storm Drain" to "lntedm Detention Basin." Commissioner Fletcher observed the Site Plan shows four cul-de-sac streets that almost abut each other and result in a small number of flag-shape lots. He asked why the streets were not made through streets. Mr. Henderson replied they were trying to limit access to Etiwanda Avenue and no lots are to front onto Etiwanda Avenue. He said the plan calls for larger lots at the ends of the cul-de-sacs. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that typically the better neighborhoods are not along long streets. He said the larger lots at the ends of the cul-de-sacs often become prime lots. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Stan Morris, Consulting Engineer, MDS Consulting, 17320 Redhill Avenue, Suite 350, irvine, stated that Senior Vice President John Schaffer and Project Coordinator Tom Sanhamel for Richland were also available to answer questions. He indicated the properly was purchased in 1997 and they tried to process the project through the County and that was not working. He said when they began working to annex the property into the City, the project moved forward. With respect to the flag lots, he commented the City did not want long through streets so they changed them to cul-de-sac streets. He agreed that cul-de-sac streets are also more desirable to live on. He explained there is not a direct route from East Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue, so that the traffic would be forced down to Wilson Avenue to get to Day Creek Boulevard in an effort to discourage through traffic. He said they read all the conditions of approval and agree with the changes proposed this evening. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council, 1901 First Avenue, #335, San Diego, stated the Spirit of the Sage has previously commented on the project when it was before the Commission. He believed it was difficult to understand the stage of the Environmental Irnpact Report (EIR) from the agenda description. He acknowledged that staff reports are done on a tight timeline but said that some cities make them available on the Intemet as a PDF file so that the public has access. He said that with late-coming additions and comments and amendments, it would be a modern way to get the information out. He stated he was not sure if this project was for certification or approval of the Draft EIR to go to Final, but he thought it was the later. He said his client requested to be noticed and provided copies at the original scooping of the EIR several months ago. He stated they did not receive a copy of the Draft EIR, so his comments would be fairly limited. He remarked they made requests to the Planning commission at the scooping hearing, to staff, and to legal Counsel to get a copy of the Development Agreement and apparently it was just being rnade at this stage. He stated they had not seen the Development Agreement but he would rnake some comments about things appearing on other City Development Agreements that he felt are problematic. He indicated he had addressed the issues with staff and legal Counsel. He reported his client was submitting additional written comments to Mr. Henderson but his office had not received them as of late this afternoon. He said apparently they were being faxed and emailed to Mr. Henderson and he wanted them included in the record. He provided two alternate site plans that he felt were environmentally superior and were more sensitive to the earthquake fault that runs through the property. He asked that the alternatives be considered. He requested that the earthquake faults be considered more adequately. He said he had not had an opportunity to review the Development Agreement for this project but in other Development Agreements; there is a provision allowing amendment to the Development Agreement by the City Planning Department. He believed such a provision is an attempt to rewrite the legislation under the Governnrnent Code that Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 12, 2004 allows the City to enact Development Agreements. He said there is also typically language of how specific entitlements are superseded by the Development Agreement. He stated that means a project comes forward, an environmental review takes place, and project entitlements are approved, and the last thing done is a Development Agreement; but the Development Agreement then takes precedence if there are any conflicts. He felt the development must be a certain, defined, static project so that there can be an environmental review of the impacts. He believed the Development Agreement should be prepared prior to the environmental review. He said there was also an issue with regard to future entitlements. He felt it should be clear that the Development Agreement applies only to the particular project defined in the Agreement and not any other land that the property owner may come into possession of, otherwise the entitlements may apply to additionally acquired land. He said there is also a condition that the City will cooperate and seek approval from other agencies and assist in doing that. He thought those responsible agencies should be called out and analyzed in the environmental documents. He said his client also takes issue and is concerned about a number of projects coming forward piecemeal with respect to the General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments. He acknowledged it did not seem that amendments are required for this specific project, but to the extent it does, he would have future comments on General Plan Amendments and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments on a group of projects coming before the Commission. Douglas Doepke, 1921 Wheaton Avenue, Claremont, stated he is a volunteer Board Member with The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., the potential recipients of any mitigation lands that may be forthcoming from the project. He said they currently hold fee title possession of 300 acres of preserve in east Etiwanda Canyon. He commented that new projects in the canyon present new impacts to their preserve. He said he visits the preserve when there are not fires, floods, or temperatures in excess of 100 degrees. He thought that people seeking a refuge from the increasingly crowded areas will be going further back into the foothills and into their preserve. He said they would happily receive any mitigation lands from the project. He commented he had not seen the location of any proposed mitigation lands on the map, but understood they are compatible with their current holdings and he would happily add any new lands to the acreage he is currently trying to take best care of. He said he does his best to look out for anything that slithers on the ground, crawls, sprouts up from the ground, flies, and the occasional, conscientious, respectful human. He provided a handout with a brief overview of the Trust and comments opposing development that utilizes any County Flood Control District lands; does not mitigate sage scrub at a ratio greater than 2:1; does not buffer structures from known and active earthquake faults, flood plans, and wildfire hazards; promotes and encourages equestrian uses and trails into areas near and adjacent to the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve and THT Nature Sanctuaries; leads to greater extraction of water resources from local watershed without being adequately mitigated; and changes, reduces, or amends the environmental protection and open space standards set forth in the 1992 Etiwanda North Specific Plan without mitigating the impacts on the environment. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, noted that Mr. Sherman stated that the status of the environmental document was not on the agenda. Mr. Ennis felt it was clear from the staff report and the agenda descriptions read by the Vice Chairman that the environmental document is the subject matter of this headng and the Commission was being asked to certify the EIR with respect to its action on the Tentative Tract Map and recommend to the City Council that it certify the EIR for its actions on the other aspects of the project. With respect to the issue of the staff reports and whether or not they should be posted on the Intemet, he indicated that is a policy matter and not a legal matter. He pointed out that obviously staff reports are often not completed for distribution to the Commission and the public until right up to the distribution deadline and in this instance that certainly occurred the end of last week. He said Mr. Sherman indicated he did not receive a copy of the Draft EIR. Mr. Ennis noted Mr. Sherman attended the Scoping Meeting on December 10, 2003, and provided lengthy comments to the environmental issues regarding this project and those comments were noted in the record and are part of the final EIR as well as responses to those comments. He said staff might be able to provide additional information on when the EIR was Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 12, 2004 provided to the Spirit of the Sage. He observed that Mr. Sherman indicated the Development Agreement was not available for review prior to the time it became available to the Commission. Mr. Ennis said the Development Agreement continued to evolve up until the time it was ready for distribution in the agenda packet as there were changes made last week and a change was even suggested this evening. He observed that under law, the City is not required to disclose it until it is a document ready to be distributed to the Planning Commission. He said it is a negotiated document and things are changing and it would be misleading to distribute a document that is not at the stage of being ready for distribution to the Commission. With respect to the alternatives submitted by Mr. Sherman, he said that they could be submitted but he noted that the EIR discussed three altematives to the project, a no project alternative, a less intensive development alternative, and an alternative that would preserve more of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. He said the EIR and the Findings in the Resolution go into why those particular alternatives do not satisfy the objectives of the project or are not feasible. With respect to the Development Agreement and the assertion that it provides an opportunity for staff to amend the Agreement in contravention to State law, he stated the Development Agreement provides for the opportunity for staff and the developer to enter into implementing agreements, but those agreements must be found consistent with the Development Agreement. He said the staff is not authorized to enter into agreements that are inconsistent with or modify or undercut the basic provisions of the Development Agreement. He stated that Mr. Sherman noted there was not a specific reference for exhibit lettering in the Development Agreement. He said the Agreement will go up to the City Council and when the Council makes its decision, the exhibits that relate to the City Council decision will be attached and they will be clearly specified at the Council level. He observed that Mr. Sherman commented about piecemeal projects and he noted that in the EIR for this project and for another project on the agenda, there is a discussion about the other projects occurring in the vicinity so as to consider the cumulative impacts of this project as well as the other projects so there is an acknowledgement and an interrelationship between all of the projects in terms of environmental impacts. Vice Chairman McNiel stated he was comfortable with the Commission's ability to make a decision. Commission Stewart indicated the City Attorney answered her questions and she also was comfortable with the Commission's ability to make a decision. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to certify the EIR with respect to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; and recommend that the City Council certify the EIR with respect to Council actions, and approve Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 and Annexation DRC2002-00865; all as amended by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - can'ied The Planning Commission recassed frem 8:'14 p.m. to 8:24 p.m. I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL NT DRC2003-O0749- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC~I Plan Land Use Amendment to change from Very-Low Reside~~esidential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) f~he northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road- APN: ~~..Relat.ed .F. ile.s.: Annexation DR~3-00751, Etiwanda North Specific ~e Tra~ Map SUBTT16324, and Develo t Agreement DRC2003-00751. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 12, 2004 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR RICHLAND-PINEHURST FINAL EIR Letter 1 United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, dated May 18, 2004 (response attached). Letter 2 Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director, Spirit of the Sage Council, dated May 12, 2004 (response to be provided under separate cover). Letter 3 Douglas Doepke, Ph.D, Secretary, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated May 12, 2004 (response to be provided under separate cover). Item 4 Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., Alternative Site Plan, hand delivered at the May 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. Letter 5 Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve Tentative Tract Map 16072, dated May 19, 2004. EXHIBIT "E" , ichael Brandman Associates ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PIANNIN6 May 26, 2004 Larry Henderson City of R~cho ~monga Pl~ng Division "' 10500 Civic ~nter Drive Rancho ~camonga, ~ffomia 91729 S~JE~: Respon~ to U.S. Fish and Wfld~fe ~mment ~tter on the Dr~ EIR for Tentative T~ct Map Numbe~ 16072 Dear Mr. HeMemon: Approximately four months a~er the close of ~e public review peSod for the Dr~ E~ for Tentative Tract Map Number 16072, the U.S. Fish ~d Wil~fe Se~ice (US~S) h~ provided a few co~ents on the Draft EIR (see Attac~ent A). ~ese co~ents addre~ the S~ Be~dino Kangaroo Rat, Califo~a Gnatcatcher, ~ffomia Species of Speci~ ~n~m, cumulative lo~ of sensitive habitat and ~luvi~ Fan Sage Scab. ~thou~ no s~c~c mmment on the tech~l ~alysis ~ the Dr~ EIR was provided by the US~S, ~e fo~ow~g is a response to each of these i~ues. San Be~ar~no ~ngaroo ~t. ~ discussed on page 5.2-26 in the Dr~ EIR, ~is sp~ies is feder~ly listed ~ endangered. Prot~ol su~eys were conducted for tbs species in 2001 and 2002, ~d the results were negative. Even though the results were negative, a ~figation measure is included in Section 5.2.5 of the Dr~ EIR that requires the proj~t app~c~t to conduct a follow-up focused su~ey for tbs species p~or to the issuance of ~adhg pe~ts. California Gnat~tcher. ~ discu~ed on page 5.2-26 in the Dr~ EIR, this sp~ies is feder~ly listed as threatened. T~ee prot~ol su~eys were conducted be~een 1998 ~d 2002, and the results were negative. Even thou~ the results were negative, a ~tigation measure is included Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR ~at requires the proj~t applic~t to conduct a follow-up focused su~ey for this species p~or to the issuan~ of ~ading pe~ts. California Species of Special Contel. ~e impact of the proposed project on these species is discussed on pages 5.2-26 and 5.2-27 in the Draft EIR. The potenti~ loss of foraging habitat for raptors is discussed on page 5.2-27, and the measure to reduce impac~ to nesting birds is addressed on page 5.2-30 in the Dra~ EIR. Cumulative ~ss of Sensitive Habitat. A cumulative analysis is provided on page 5.2-28 in the Dra~ EIR. The analysis concludes that the proposed project will si~ifi~ntly cont~bute to the 220 Commerce, Suite 200, trviue, CA 92602 714. 508. 4100 E~ 714. 508.4110 Inland Empire Bay Area Kern County 909.884.2255 925.830.2733 661.334.2755 s~, / 7 vavw. brandman.com ~ mba@brandman.com Larry Henderson May 26, 2004 Page 2 cumulative loss of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR includes a mitigation measure to reduce the project's contribution to the cumulative effect on RAFSS habitat to less than significant. Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Page 5.2-25 in the Draft EIR addresses the project's impact on RAFSS that is located on and adjacent to the project site. Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR includes a mitigation measure to reduce the project's effect on RAFSS habitat to less than significant. If you have any questions regarding the above information, please call me. Sincerely, MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES Michael E. Houlihan, AICP Manager of Environmental Services H:lClient (pN-JPO[OO18[OO18~O273Rancho Cucamonga.52604.dac AT'FACHMENT-A- United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, Calif0j~ ~1~1~,~ ~P H 0 In Reply Refer To: FWS-SB-2739.2 ttAY i cq 200~ MAY 1 g 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Attn: Mr. Larry Henderson Re: Final Environmental Impact Reports and Closure of Comment Period for the Ricllland- Pinehurst and Henderson Creek Development Projects, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California Dear Mr. Henderson, We have been informed that the final environmental documents for the above-named residential construction projects have been publicly circulated and that the public comment period closes today, May 12, 2004. To our knowledge, we have not received copies of these documents. However, we wish to provide the following general comments for your consideration. The primary concern and mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We provide these comments in keeping with our agency's mission to work "with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people." These proposed project sites are on the Etiwanda alluvial fan. While we have no project specific information to refer to, based upon our general knowledge of the area, we are concerned about the potential adverse effects of the proposed projects to the federally endangered San Bemardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriamiparvus, "SBKR") and its designated critical habitat, and the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatcher") and its designated critical habitat. We recommend that you coordinate with us regarding these projects. TAKE PR I DE~i~_.,..~ iNAM ERICA~- Mr. Larry Henderson (FWS-SB-2739.2) 2 We also recommend that, if you have not done so already, you coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) regarding such issues as potential impacts of the projects on California Species of Special Concern, the potential loss of foraging habitat for raptors and habitat that supports other sensitive wildlife, direct impacts to nesting birds as a result of the proposed projects, and measures that would reduce the cumulative loss of habitat for these sensitive species to less than significant. The project areas support alluvial fan sage scrub (AFSS) vegetation dominated by white sage (Salvia apiana), otherwise known as the whim sage series of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat. The Etiwanda alluvial fan, including these project sites, supports the most intact AFSS habitat remaining in San Bemardino County and possibly within the known distribution of this vegetation community (San Bernardino Flood Control District 1999). This vegetation type supports the federally listed species mentioned above as well as many other sensitive species. Due to the rarity and historic losses of AFSS habitat, we also recommend that you coordinate with our agency and the Department regarding potential effects of these developments to this vegetation community. We appreciate your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nancy Ferguson of my staff at (760) 431-9440 ext. 244 Since~ / (,.J Assistant Field Shap~rvisor cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Attn: Robert Smith California Department offish and Game, Chino Hills, Attn: Leslie MacNair County of San Bemardino, Land Use Planning Services, Attn: Randy Scott Office of Supervisor Paul Biane, Rancho Cucamonga District Office, Attn: Tim Johnson Literature Cited: San Bemardino Flood Control District. August 1999. Data Report for Section 7 Consultation on the San Sevaine Creek Water Project, Appendix B MAY 12, 2004 COMMENT LETTER FROM LEEONA KLIPPSTEIN (PREVIOUSL Y PRO VIDED UNDER SEPAR_4 TE COVER) Oouglas OoepRe, ?h.O. Secretary, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. 30 Norfh Raymond Avenue, Suite 303 Pasadena,. CA 91103 May 12, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission c/o Lany Henderson 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Comments for May 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting / Hearing Items G, I-I, I, J, J, K, L, M. N, P & Q Henderson Creek (Items I, J, K, L, lq), Richland Pineharst (Items G, H, M), and Amendments to City's General and Etix~anda North Specific Plan (Items P; Q) To the Chair and Members of the City of Rancho Cueamonga Planning Commission: " The Habitat Trust for Wildlife is a 501c3 tax exempt nonprofit land trust dedicated to "Giving Nature Sanctuary." The Habitat Trust for Wildlife (The Habitat Trust or THT) currently holds in fee title three parcels to the immediate north and northeast of the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve. Our organ/zation has previously made and continues to make comments to this Commission on the above matters, and has previously submitted written comments on the Henderson Creek Project through our legal counsel and representative, Craig Sherman. Please consider the below in association to any action on the May 12, 2004 agenda. About THE, HABITAT TRUST FOR WILDLIFE~ INC. The Habitat Trust was created by an out of court settlement with Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) over litigation of the Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates development projects and the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). The three Nature Sanctuary parcels that we hold and manage are mitigation lands from the two projects. The Habitat Trust is a Califomia nonprofit corporation and a federal 501c3 nonprofit. We are also a member of the Land-Trust Alliance www. LTA.org. L_e++er 3 ,225 The Habitat Trust is interested and willing to accept the mitigation lands of the Henderson Creek, Richland Pineh~st, and others, in fee tifie for habitat conservation purposes with adequate funding for management. It is our understanding that the County's Open Space District has also offered to accept the .mitigation lands and requires habitat management funds greater than what The Habitat Trust has assessed. Management funding is extremely important to The Habitat Trust. We are a small land trust that keeps our overhead costs to a minimum in the administration of our Nature Sanctuaries. Our greatest costs are that of consultants, independent contractors and legal representatior~ Through our membership and dues with the Land Trust Alliance, we receive property insurance. In addition, we are billed by the County Assessor for associated taxes. Multiply these costs by years of future conservation, one can see that management funding and endowments are needed. The Habitat Trust is currently requiting that management funds and/or endowments be granted commensurate and relation to the number of residential units to be built rather than acres to be developed. We believe that The Habitat Trust is a best entity to select that is truly dedicated to the conservation of imperiled habitats and wildlife. Comments Pertaining to Matters on the May 12, 2004 Agenda of the Planning Commission The Habitat Trust appreciates the proactive steps that the developer lbr Henderson Creek Properties and its representatives, including Steve Stewart, have taken to our concerns and those made by the other involved non-profit organization, Spirit of the Sage Council. While we believe that many of the impacts and m/t/gat/on measures are serving to make this project a better and less-impacting one, we stand by those prior comments and continue to generally oppose development which: · Is utilizing, swapping, ~ading and/or developing County Flood Control DisU'ict lands. These lands were deemed mitigation and open space areas during prior County and Army Corps flood cun~xol projects · Do not mitigate rare and dimin/shing sage scrub habitats to a level of less than significant, including Riversidean/Allu~ial Fan Sage Scrub Habitats at mitigation ratios greater than a 2:1 ratio, and closer to 5:1 rations for AFSS/RAFFS and RUSS. · Does not adequately buffer, home and other ~qructures from known and active earthquake faults. · Promotes and encourages equestrian uses and trail development into areas near and adjacent to the North Etiwanda Preserve · Changes, reduces or amends the environmental protection and open space standards set forth in the 1992 Efiwanda North Specific Plan through reduced lot size and increased density without mitigating the impacts on the enviromment - water, air, ~affic, habitat loss and impacts by human dis ,turbances and eques~ans. The Habitat Trust, by approval ofth/s Project and Plan Amendments, is faced with greater management problems of our cttrrent and future Nature Sanctuaries in t_he North Efiwanda area. More residential units equal more people. Without CiW and County Ordinances in place to place legal penalties on trespassers, shooters, off-road vehicles, equeslrians offtrails, pets offleash and feral animals, The Habitat Trust and conservation of habitat sanctuaries are threatened by this development. More people also consume more water, effecting our Nature Sanctuaries in Etiwanda and Henderson Canyons. The City must revised the ENSP EIR and place conditions on Project approvals to address these negative impacts. We appreciate the continued efforts made this between these and other developers, this Commission and the City overall to continue to address these issues and concerns. Please direct all communications to either the Law Office of Craig Sherman (619) 702- 7892 or Leeona Klippstein (910) 947-5091 and (626) 676-4116. Thank you. Sincerely, Douglas Doepg'e, Ph.D. Secretary, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91103 Steve Stew,m, Henderson Creek Properties Susan Hod, Esq., Manett, Phelps & Phillips, LLP MA~-1~-2804 02:~2 AM $~G£oCOUNCZL~$E~OFFICE 91~ 94T 5~91 P.82 A~I-ORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRSTAVENUE, SUITE 335 ~ ~ SAN D,EGO. CA 92101'2311 ~'J~ FACSIMILE TELEPHONE (619) 702°9291 (619) 702-7892 May '!9, 2004 Via Hand Delivery F{ E C; F ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga I"~Y 2 0 2~04 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 ~311¥ UF ht~.;~..i~t)t_,~z,o~,. ........ CI-TY CLERK Re: Appeal of the May 12, 2004 Decision of the Planning Commission Certification of Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. 16324, and Related Discretionary and Ministerial Actions Henderson Creek Properties, LLC, - APN: 0225-081-04; 0226-081-09, 10; 0225-082-29 Dear Madam Clerk: Please accept this letter and the enclosed check in the amount of $251 as an appeal by my clients Spirit &the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., of the above May 12, 2004 decisions of the Planning Commission, regarding the Henderson' Creek Properties, LLC project (APN: 0225-081-04; 0226-081-09, 10; 0225-082-29), including certification of environmental impact report, approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16324, and related discretionary and ministerial actions taken on that May 12 date ("Project").~ The bases for this appeal are detailed in the prior presented written and verbal comments provided by my clients and this office as contained in the record of the two prior Planning Commission meetings on this Project, and those further written comments submitted in response to the as Notice of Preparation and circulation of the draft Environmental Impact Report, including but not limited to: 1) lack of Project consistency with the applicable general and specific plans; 2) failure to sufficiently respond to public comments presented in the dram EIR; 3) failure to sufficiently review, analyze, disclose, and mitigate cumulative impacts; 4) piece-meal analysis of impacts and general plan amendments; This office was informed by planner Larry Henderson on May 13, 2004 of the applicable appeal fees - being $251 to appeal the tentative tract approval and $0 to appeal the certification of the EIR. Should any &these amounts be incorrect, or should any of the matters be deemed unappealable, a monetary refund or oppommity for payment supplementation is hereby requested. Page Two May 19, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Appeal of Planning Commission (May 12, 2004) 5) failure to consider and disclose foreseeable impacts arising from Project- related water service and floodway development projects; 6) failure to accurately characterize the biological habitat types located in and around the Project site, and mitigate for those losses; 7) improper use and failure to analyze impacts or deed restrict remainder parcels; 8) failure to analyze and consider direct and cumulative impacts and losses of County flood control lands that were designated for mitigation and open space uses; 9) failure to accurately assess the direct and cumulative habitat loss impacts arising from Project edge effects and brush cleating requirements; and 10) failure to have the development agreement available during the time of EIR preparation or cimulation. Should you or any other City officials have any questions or desire clarification regarding any of the above-referenced bases for the appeal, please do not hesitate to contact Craig A. Sherman at this office. Please provide written notification regarding the timing and materials (including staff report, proposed conditions of approval, draft resolutions) to be considered by City at the appeal on this matter. Craig A. Sherman cc: clients FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FENDINGS FOR SINGIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16072 PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER (MA r 25, 2004) EXHIBIT "F" FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFIC~ ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 16072 PROJECT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (May 6, 2004) INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide that: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. c. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report." Because the Rancho C'ucamonga Tentative Tract Map Numbe.r 16072 project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified significant effects that may occur as a result ~f the project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby adopts these findings as part of the approval of the Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 project and related applications. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared an EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guideline requirements. The EIR was subject to review and approval by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council. At a public hearing held on , 2004, the EIR was certified as adequate in accordance with CEQA procedures. After adopting this Statement of Findings of Fact, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council can approve the Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 project. All subsequent, grading permits, mitigation implementation, and regulatory agreements and permits will be reviewed based on the documentation in the EIR. MITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS The potential significant adverse impacts that would be mitigated are listed in the following sections. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds that these potential adverse impacts would be m/tigated to Cc.. Findings a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the project design features and recommended mitigation measures. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seismic Hazards Fault-Induced Ground Rupture Significant Impact Development of the proposed project will result ia the potential for fault-induced ground rupture at the project site. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on thc environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the followdng mitigation measures as identified ia the final FIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to issuance of a building permit for structures adjacent to the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault on the project site, all structures north of this fault shall be set back 100 feet from the faulted zone and all structures south of this fault shall be set back 50 feet from the fault ZOne. Seismically-Induced Slope Instabilit~ Significant Impact Development of the proposed project including the interim detention basins will include graded slopes of up to 40 feet in height and gradients of 3:1 or less. Strong ground motions could induce slope instability. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. H:\CIicnt (PN-JN)~018\00180027~Findings~O01 $0027_Findings 5_06_04.do¢2 Findings Facts in Support of Finding The siLmificant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, engineered slopes of the project site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code to resist seismically induced failures. Slope design shall be based on pseudo-static stability analyses using soil-engineering parameters established for the site. .Ground Lu~ Significant Impact Coiluvial soils and loose cohesinnless soils are present at thc surface of the project site. Ground lurching due to seismic shaking could result in impacts to structures. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, thc project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that the loose, cohesionless soils located on the surface of the site shall be removed and r¢compacted during grading operations. Seismically-Induced Settlement Significant Impact Strong ground shaking can cause settlement by allowing greater compaction of the soil particles. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. H:\Client (pN_ j N)~0018[00180029XFindings\OO 180027_Findings 5_06_0a.doc3 Findings Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that the native surficial and artificial fills on the project site that are of low density, shall be removed and recompacted or exported offsite. Slope Stability Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would result in slopes at 40 feet in height. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The signLf~cant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a final grading approval, potentially unstable graded slopes that exceed approximately 15 feet in height will require additional stabilization measures such as buttressing cut slopes with compacted fill, adding geogrid reinforcement to fill slopes, using a higher compaction standard, and/or using retaining walls. Foundation Stability Compressible Soils Significant Impact The upper few feet of the native soil onsite is potentially compressible. Uncontrolled fills that exists on the project site due to old road fills and back~ills from exploratory trenches are also compressible. These matetials are of low density and would settle under the weight of the proposed fills and structures. H:\Client (PN-J N)~001 $~0018002T~Findings~O 1 $0027_Findings 5_06_04.doc4 Figldit~gs Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been ehminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measmes as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that potentially compressible soils that are located on the project site shall be removed and recompacted in accordance with standard grading procedures. Collapsible Soils Significant Impact Due to the potential for variation in grain sLze within the alluvial fan deposits located on the project site, localized, areas could result in potential collapse of soil material. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project's soil engineer shall identify the method(s) of eliminating the potential for collapsible soils on the grading plan. Potential methods include excavation and recompaction and presaturation and pre-loading of the susceptible softs in-place to induce collapse prior to construction. After construction, infiltration of water into the subsurface soils shall be minimized by proper surface drainage which directs excess runoff from the proposed slopes and structures. H:~Client (PNUN)~0018\00180027~Findings~00180027_FintJings 5_06_04.cloc5 Findings Rippabilit~ and Oversize Rock Significant Impact Because there is no bedrock at or within hundreds of feet from the surface, rippability of the onsite soils is less than significant. However, due to the presence of large cobbles and boulders in the onsite alluvium, special handling of oversize rocks will be required. The removal of boulders from the site could result in deficiencies of fill material in the proposed balanced cut and fill grading design. Therefore, the presence of oversize rock could result in a potential significant impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that during grading operations, the soil engineer shall be consulted to relocate oversize rocks on the project site to reduce the potential deficiency of fill materials that could result from the removal of oversize rocks on the project site. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Natural Communities Significant Impact The proposed project will result in the loss of 147.7 acres of RAFSS. RAFSS is considered sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Game and loss of this plant community is considered significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · The project proponent will acquire and convey to the County of San Bernardino ai a ratio of 1:1 (or 147.7 acres) of land within or near the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) that supports similar RAFSS habitat. This measure will mitigate the loss of habitat that may support sensitive plants and animals as well as raptor foraging habitat. The quality of offsite mitigation land may affect the total acres needing to be acquired. If the offsite mitigation area contains a higher quality habitat, less land may need to be acquired, likewise, if a lower quality habitat is acquired, more land may need to be set aside as mitigation. If the proponent is unable to acquire all or a portion of the offsite mitigation land, the proponent will deposit the equivalent mitigation cost of $10,000 per developable acre with City-approved agency, which acquires and maintains open space. These funds will be used to purchase and manage mitigation lands. · To reduce impacts on adjacent offsite habitat during site preparation, grading and clearing limits shall be staked prior to issuance of the grading permits. The limits of grading and clearing shall be staked at 50-foot intervals with suitable indicators such as white PVC (poly~inylchloride) pipe with steel bases. Construction equipment shall not be operated beyond the grading and cleating limits, and a restoration program shall be incorporated to restore any disturbed offsite areas. · Landscaping adjacent to natural areas offsite shall use native and drought-tolerant plant species. Such species shall be reflected on Project landscape plans. The use of species known to be weedy invasives, such as Oerman ivy (Senecio milkaniodes), periwinkle (Vinca major), or icoplant (Carpobrotus spp.), shall be prohibited. · In areas where night lighting may have adverse impacts on sensitive wildlife habitat, one or more of the following alternatives shall be utilized, recognizing the constraints of roadway lighting requirements: (1) low-intensity street lamps, (2) low-elevation light poles, or (3) shielding of internal silvering of the globes or external opaque reflectors. · Provide residents of the future development literature pertaining to sensitive wildlife in the area and provide ways the residents can reduce effects on the wildlife, including effects pets have on native wildlife. A list of invasive plants that are commonly planted in landscaping will be included in this literature and it will be recommended that certain plants be avoided, such as giant reed (Anmdo donax) castor bean (Ricinus communis) and Pampas grass (Cortadetia selloana). This literature shall be approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and included within the conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). H:\Client (pN.JN)~0018~0180027~Findings~0180~27_Findings $_06_04x~oc7 Findings Common Plant Spedes Significant Impact The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a local tree preservation ordinance that requires a City permit to remove any tree over 15 feet high and 15 inches in circumference. A total of 213 trees meet the City's "heritage tree" criteria. Approximately 175 eucalyptus trees, 11 ornamental trees, 14 pepper trees, 9 southern California black walnut trees, and 4 western sycamore trees occur on-site. All trees within the project boundary were assessed as being of fair to poor condition physiologically, structurally, and aesthetically. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by. virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · All 213 "heritage trees" shall be removed and replaced with native trees within the proposed development. Replacements have been proposed at a 1:1 ratio. Sensitive Plant Species Significant Impact Fifteen sensitive plant species have been identified as occurring within the general vicinity of the project site. Thirteen of these plants are listed as sensitive (List lB) by the CNPS and are considered sensitive by CDFG. However, only Plummer's mariposa 1Llies were observed during field inventories. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. H:\Clicn/(pN.JN)~OIS\OOl$OO27~Findings\OO180027_Findings 5_06_04.doc8 Findings · Prior to issuance of a grading permit, focused surveys fortPlummer's mariposa lily shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall be conducted during flowering period (May to July) in all portions of the project site containing suitable habitat. If present, the number and location(s) will be documented and the resource agencies will be notified for consultation and possible collection and relocation. Sensitive Wildlife Species Coastal California Gnatcatcher Potentially Significant Impact The project site is within the known range and within designated Critical Habitat of the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. Although the protocol surveys conducted in both 2001and 2002 were negative, 6 recent sightings have been documented within the immediate vicinity. Because the project site supports suitable habitat for this species, and the recent sighting on adjacent lands the potential for this species to use the project site is still considered high. Therefore, the loss or fragmentation of potential coastal California gnatcatcher habitat is considered siLznificunt. Finding Changes or a~terations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · A follow-up focused survey shall be conducted to confirm the absence of the coastal Callfomia gnatcatcher. Special focus will be placed in the northwest corner of the project site, which was not previously surveyed, ff this species is determined to be present onsite, consultation with USFWS under the Endangered Species Act shall occur and USFWS- approved mitigation measures shall be implemented. Other Rodents Significant Impact Three species of rodents that were detected on the property are considered Species of Concern by CDFG. The three species present within the RAFSS habitat, include the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, and the Los Angeles little pocket mouse. Because these three species are present onsite, the impacts to the habitat is considered significant. H:\Client (pN.lN)\OO18~O180027~Findings~OISOO27_Finding~ 5_06_04.doc9 Findings Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · The project proponent will have a qualified biological monitor present during initial brush clearing to reduce mortality to sensitive species, specifically sensitive rodent species, as well as incidental species. Jurisdictional Areas Significant Impact A jurisdictional delineation was conducted by PCR on the project site on September 8, 2001 (Appendix C of the Draft EIR). Subsequent field surveys were also conducted by PCR in 2002. The survey revealed that there are three drainages found on the property that are considered under the jurisdiction of USACE and CDFG. Impacts to USACE areas would result in the removal of 1.13 acres of "waters of the U.S.", and no loss of wetlands. Total area of jurisdiction under the CDFG would also be approximately 1.13 acres. Jurisdictional determinations were also made for off-site portions of these drainages to the extent that they may be impacted by the proposed project. Drainages measured adjacent to the site include approximately 4,342 linear feet and 0.98 acre of ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional streambed. None of these off-site areas meet the ACOE definition of a jurisdiction wetland. The proposed project would result in the less of jurisdictional areas, both on and off site, of 2.01 acres of "waters of the U.S." and no loss of wetlands. Compliance with the mitigations that are required through the 404 process would reduce impacts to less than significant. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. H:\Client (pN -J N)\0018\00180027~Fifldings~00180027_Findings 5_06_04.doc ~ 0 Findings Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · The project proponent shall obtain a Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a 1603 Streambed Alteration Permit from California Depa~ment of Fish and Game prior to grading or any other groundbrealdng activities, and shall comply with the permit's mitigation requirements. TRAF~'IC AND CIRCULATION Trip Generation Opening Year (Year 2004) Significant Impact The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land use that has been planned for the proposed development. The proposed project consists of 358 single-family dwelling units. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 3,436 daily trips. The following intemections would operate at an LOS F in the AM peak hour without and with the project. · Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street · Efiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue · East Avenue at Banyan Street Although the project would not change the level of service, the contribution of project traffic to these three intersections during the AM peak hour represent a significant traffic impact. Without project traffic, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour which represents a less than significant impact. Except for the following intersection, all study area intersections operate at LOS D or better with the project during the PM peak hour. · Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Avenue The intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Avenue will operate at LOS E with the project which exceeds the City's standard and is considered a significant impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. H:\Client ( pN.j N)~ 18~0018002T~Findings~0180027_ Finding~ 5_~6_0~.doc 1 1 Findings · The project applicant shall contribute its fair share toward local off-site traffic improvements. On-site improvements will be required in conjunction with the phasing of the proposed development to ensure adequate circulation within the project itself. The fair share contribution of all off-site improvements and 6ming of all onsite t~affic improvements shall be subject to an agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This agreement shall be in place prior to tract map approval. · The project applicant shall update construction cost estimates and prepare a current cost of the project's fair share contribution toward traffic improvements. · The project applicant shall construct Wilson Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue as a Special Divided Secondary Arterial (165 ft. Right-of-way) in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with ' the City. · The project applicant shall construct the extension of East Avenue from the south project boundary with a minimum 36-foot two-way paved access to the project in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. · The project applicant shall construct East Avenue from the north project boundary to Wilson Avenue to provide 44-foot two-way paved access and the full shoulder (curb, gutter, street lights, and side walk~) on west side of the street in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. · The project applicant shall construct Etiwanda Avenue from the north project boundary tO Golden Prairie Drive at its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary Arterial (96 ft. Right-of- way). in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. Buildout Year 2020 Significant Impact Table 5.3-6 depicts the level of service at the study area intersections at buildout year (Year 2020) without and with the project. Table 5.3-6 shows the following intersections would operate at an LOS F in the AM peak hour without and with the project. · Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street · Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue · East Avenue at Wilson · East Avenue at Banyan Street The project traffic contributed to these four study area intersections during the AM peak hour represent a significant traffic impact. Except for the following intersections, all study area intersections operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour without the project. · Etiwanda Avenue (South) at Wilson Avenue · Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street · East Avenue at Banyan Street These three intersections would operate at LOS F which exceeds the City's standard and is considered a significant impact. Except for the following intersections, all study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour with the project. · Etiwanda Avenue (South) at Wilson Avenue · Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street H:[Clicnt (pN-JN)\0018xO0180027~Findings~00180027_Findings 5_06_o4.aoc12 Findings · East Avenue at Wilson Avenue · East Avenue at Banyan Street These four intersections would operate at LOS F which exceeds the City's standard and is considered a significant impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide funds in accordance with the City's Transportation Development Fee. Collection of these fees shall represent the project's "fair-share" toward the following transportation improvements required for opening year (Year 2004): · Installation of a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street. 'o Installation of a traffic signal at East Avenue at Banyan Street. · Construction of a southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue. · Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide funds in accordance with the City's Trasportation Development Fee. Collection of these fees shall represent the project's "fair share" toward the following transportation improvements required for Buildout Year 2020. · Construction of one additional northbound lane to provide a shared left and through lane, and a shared right and through northbound lane on East Avenue at Banyon Street · Construction of one additional southbound lane to provide a shared lefi and through and a shared right and through southbound lane on East Avenue at Banyon Street. · Construction of a westbound through lane on Highland Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue. · Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue (North) at Wilson Avenue. · Add an eastbound and westbound left mru lane and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue (South) at Wilson Avenue. · Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of East Avenue at Wilson Avenue. H:K21ient (pN_JN)~001~00180027~Findiags~0180027_Findings 5_o6_on.ao~l 3 Findings NOISE Long-Term Operational Impacts Onsite ImpactS Significant Impact An impact may be significant if the project sites a land use (i.e., residential) in an incompatible area due to excessive noise. The City has set a desirable daytime level of 60 dBA CNEL for residences. Based on the future (Buildout Year 2020) traffic volumes identified in Section 5.3, noise levels were calculated along the existing and future streets adjacent to the project site. These streets include Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. All of the residences proposed on the perimeter of the project site will be exposed to future year 2020 vehicular noise that range between 64.3 to 68.4 dBA CNEL. These future noise levels would result in significant noise impacts to the residences proposed on the perimeter of the site and adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. Finding Changes or a!terations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · The project applicant shall construct sound barriers adjacent to the project lots as shown in Exhibit 5.5-2 in the Draft EIR. The heights of the sound barriers shall be between 3 and 6.5 feet and placed at the top of the proposed slope and at the edge of pads on the residential lots that border Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. The sound barriers may be constructed of earthen berms, masonry, wood, or other similar materials, or combination of these materials to atta/n the total height required. These sound barriers shall be solid, with no openings from the g~ound to the indicated height. · Prior to the issuance of a building permit, residential structures proposed on all lots adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue will require mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain dosed. Furthermore, these residential lots will require upgraded windows such as double-pane windows, if these lots have second story structures. To ensure the specific type of mechanical ventilation and paned windows are included in the building plans, a .final acoustical study shall be prepared for City approval prior to approval of Development Review applications for product development. The final acoustical study shall identify the specific requirements to reduce future interior noise levels to 45 dB CNEL or less. 24/¢ AESTHETICS Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed residential community will substantially alter the existing character of the project site as well as views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · The applicant shall install landscaping and perimeter walls prior to issuance of building permits for the following phases and locations as shown on the Project Phasing Plan (Exhibit 3-8 in thc Draft EIR): '- Phase 1-Along Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues. · Phase 2-Along Wilson Avenue · Phase 3-Along Etiwanda Avenue · Phase 4 Along East Avenue · Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project applicant shall provide transitions between the developed and natural (unbuilt) environment through landscaping techniques · Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project applicant shall ensure that streetscape design along the roadways adjacent to the project site create a strong landscaped edge, provides a coherent high-quality appearance along a particular route, and enhances the image of adjacent development. · The project applicant shall provide for the undergrounding of utility lines and facilities, wherever feasible, to minimize the unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures. · Prior to approval of a landscape plan, trees and structures shall be used to frame and orient such views at key locations, and obstruction of views should be kept to a minimum along Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. H:\Clicnt (pN-j N)\0018\00180027~Findlngs~) 180027_ Finflings 5_06_04.doc1 5 Findings CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological/Historical Resources Potentially Significant Impact The results of the records search indicated that three archeological sites are within the project area, including the new site located during the site visit. It is also likely that prehistoric rereads may still be buried. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final E1R and incorporated into the project. · Pritr to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to develop an archaeological mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan. Both of these plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City. The archaeological mitigation plan shall include monitoring 50 pement of the excavation activities on the project site by a City-approved archaeologist and/or their representative. The discovery clause/treatment plan shall include recovery and subsequent treatment of any archaeological or historical remains and associated data uncovered by brushing, grubbing or excavation. The treatment plan shall provide procedures for the curation of any detected cultural specimens. Any recovered cultural resources shall be identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard professional archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist shall be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features, or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. · If the archaeological monitor discovem cultural deposits, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around the deposits until the deposits have been evaluated, recorded, excavated and/or recovered, as necessary, and in accordance with a City-approved recovery plan. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the area after the archaeologist determines the artifacts are recovered and/or site mitigated to the extent necessary. · If a previously unknown cultural site is encountered during monitoring and it is determined by the archaeologist that a significance determination is required, the site shall be evaluated and recorded in accordance with requfl'ements of the State Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., DPR 523 form). In this case, if the site is not determined to be significant, no measures subsequent to recording the site on appropriate forms are required. If any of the sites are determined to be significant, an adequate amount of artifacts at the specific archaeological site shall be collected by the City-approved archaeologist. The archaeologist shall determine the amount of artifacts needed to be collected. ,~ q ~ H:\Client (PN -JN)~0018\0~ 180027\Finding~sxO0180027_Findings 5_06_04.d0c 1 6 Findings · If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest, ff the coroner, with the aid of the City-approved archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, he/she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make his/her recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. This recommendation may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). · Any recovered archaeological resources shall be identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist should be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. · A final report of findings will be prepared by the City-approved archaeologist for submission to the City, project applicant, and the Archaeological Information Center of the San Bernardino County Museum. The report will describe the history of the project area, summarize field and laboratory methods used, ff applicable, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support the resultant findings. Paleontological Resources Potentially Significant Impact According to the paleontological records search, the project area lies on surface exposures of Pleistocene older fan deposits. These deposits have high potential to contain fossil resources throughout their extent. No fossil resources are known for the project area and the nearest resources found in similar deposits are located approximately eight miles to the south. However, there is the likelihood of potential buried fossilized remains. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the siguificant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final FIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a City-approved paleontologist. The City-approved paleontologist shall monitor all excavation activities in H:\C[icnt (pN _J N)\00I 8~001 $0027~Findings\00180027_ Findings 5_06_04.doc 17 Findings areas of the project underlain by previously undisturbed sediments. Earthmoving in areas of the site where previously undisturbed sediments will be buried but not disturbed will not be monitored. Monitoring shall begin once earthmoving reaches five (5) feet below the original ground surface. · Monitoring shall be conducted on a full-time basis in areas of the project underlain by sensitive rock units associated with older alluvium being encountered by earthraoving. · Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elscwhem until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. ff too few fossil remains are found after 50 percent of earthmoving has been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued in those areas at the project paleontologist's direction. · If paleontological resources are detected. Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). · A final report of findings will be prepared by the City-approved paleontologist for submission to the City, project applicant, and the San Bemardino County Museum. All collected specimens and the final report shall be provided to the San Bemardino County Museum.. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTII.ITI_ES Water Service Significant Impact The proposed project will result in the demand for approximately 220,760 gallons of water per day which represents a 0.7 percent increase in water currently demanded from existing development within the City's General Plan Planning Area. The project's demand for water is nominal; however, it will contribute to the potential significant cumulative impacts on water services. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following ruitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant will be required to submit a water services development fee to ensure that adequate water supplies and facilities are available to meet the project demand. H:\Clicnt (pN-JN)[00I 8\00180027~Findings~00180027_Finding~ 5_~_04.doc18 Findings · Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase, the project applicant shall submit a landscaping and irrigation plan for common areas to the City for approval. Landscaping and irrigation within common areas shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Wastewater Service Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project will result in the generation of 96,930 gallons of wastewater per day. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. · Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shah provide funding to the Cucamonga County Water Agency for sewer service. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (NOTICE OF PREPARATION) Significant Impact The proposed residential uses have the potential to create contaminated runoff containing compounds such as landscape chemicals and automotive fluids. ~inding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. H:\Cliem (pN.j N)~0018~00180029Windings~0180027_Findings Sf16_04.do¢19 Findings · Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant will be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As part of standard construction practices, the City and RWQCB will require compliance with best management practices (BMPs) to ensure potentially harmful chemicals or pollutants are not discharged from the site. Such measures may Include sandbags, temporary drainage diversion and temporary containment areas. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The potential si~nlflcant adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 project are listed below. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds that these potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced with the implementation of the project-related design features and recommended mitigation measures; however, the impacts cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council is adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seismic Hazards Seismic Ground Shaking Significant Impact The proposed residential structures on the project site would be exposed to potentially high accelerations of ground motion. Finding Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. While the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable seismic impacts, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. The Retention of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative (RAFSS) would decrease the amount of development, but would not meet any of the project objectives. The Less intense development alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impact, but does not meet any of the project objectives. H:~ClJent ( pN-J N)~018\0018002T~Findings~00180027_ Findings 5_o~_o4.doc20 Findings · Prior to the issuance of a building permit, structures will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and gene[al engineering standards for seismic safety for development within Seismic Zone 4. The significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to seismic hazards by the proposed project are considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. AIR QUALITY Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions Significant Impact Short-term emissions will include fugitive dust and other particulate matter, as well as exhaust emissions, generated by earthmoving activities and operation of grading equipment during site preparation (demolition and grading). Short-term emissions will also include emissions generated during construction of the buildings as a result of operation of equipment, operation of personal vehicles by construction workers, electrical consumption, and coating and paint applications. Projected NOx, ROC, and PM10 emissions are above the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds and NOx and ROC are above the quarterly thresholds during constraction of the first phase of the project. The primary sources of NOx emissions are trucks used for rock removal and importation of concrete. The primary source of ROC emissions is the application of architectural coatings, and the primary source of PM10 is fugitive dust from earthmoving activities. Even with the reductions associated with implementation of construction related mitigation measures, the daily and quarterly emissions of NOx and ROC remain above the SCAQMD suggested thresholds. Finding Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable short-term construction related emission impacts; this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. The Retention of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative (RAFSS) would decrease the amount of development, but would also not meet any of the project objectives. The Less Intense Development alternative would avoid the significant and H:\Client (pN _j N)\0018~0180027~Findinss~01 $0{127_ Finding~ $_0._0<do~21 Findings unavoidable ak quality impact, but does not meet any of the project objectives and is not considered feasible. · The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agents (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. · During construction, all haul roads shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle track/ag of soft off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. · Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. · Chemical soil stabilizem (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 houm or more to reduce PM10 emissions. · The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low emission factom and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. · The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment, where feasible. · The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. · The construction contractor shall use low VOC architectural coating during the construction phase of the project. · During construction of the proposed improvements, temporary traffic control (e.g., flag pemon) will be provided during soft transport activities. Contractor will be advised not to idle trucks on site for more than ten minutes. · During construction of the proposed improvements, only low volatility paints and coatings as defined in SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. All paints shall be applied using either high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or by hand application. The significant and unavoidable adveme impacts related to short-term construction emissions associated with the proposed project are considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. Long-Term Emissions Significant Impact Long-term impacts for the proposed residential subdivision consist of mobile emissions and stationary emissions. Mobile emissions estimates are derived from motor vehicle traffic. Stationary emissions estimates are derived from the consumption of natural gas, electricity, the use of landscape equipment, and the storage and use of consumer products. When unmitigated emissions projections are compared with the SCAQMD suggested thresholds for significance, it is shown that long-term emissions exceed H:\Clicnt (pN.JN)~0018\00180027~Finding$~00180027_Findings 5._0C0n.do~22 Findings the applicable thresholds for NOx, CO and ROC. The primary source of these emissions is mobile emissions from vehicles. Even with the mitigation incorporated into the project NOx, CO and ROC emissions remain above the SCAQMD recommended threshold, and therefore the project may be expected to violate an ambient air quality standard. Finding Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable long-term emission impacts; this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. The Retention of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative (RAFSS) would decrease the amount of development, but would also not meet any of the project objectives. The Less Intense Development alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impact, but does not meet any of the project objectives and is not considered feasible. · The proposed project will participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of the traffic signal f~ir-share mitigation fee. This fee will be collected and utilized by the City to install and synchronize traffic lights as needed to prevent congestion of traffic flow on East Avenue between Banyan Street and the project boundary, and Etiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and the north terminus of Etiwanda Avenue. · All appliances within the residential units of the project shall be energy-efficient as defined by SCAQMD. · The project proponent shall contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at project proponent's expense. The significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to long-term air emissions associated with the proposed project are considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. Consistency Analysis Significant Impact The proposed project compIies with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, which is consistent with the land use information that was the basis for the current AQMP. However, it is noted that the H:K2tient (pN-JN)~0018~00180027~Findings~0180027_Findings 5_06_04.aoc23 Findings specific analysis indicates that both short-term and long-term emissions as a result of the project are above the SCAQMD thresholds. These emissions remain above the thresholds after implementation of mitigation measures. For this reason, it is appropriate to conclude that the proposed project is not in compliance with the AQMP. Finding Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts; this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. The Retention of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative (RAFSS) would decrease the amount of development, but would also not meet any of the project objectives. The Less Intense Development alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impact, but does not meet any of the project objectives and is not considered feasible. · All feasible mitigation measures for reduction of air quality impacts have been incorporated into the project. However, short-term and long-term emissions remain above threshold levels for several pollutants after implementation. The significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to air emissions by the proposed project are considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. AESTHETICS Significant Impact Development of the proposed project and cumulative development in the project vicinity will result in the permanent alteration of the visual landscape of the San Gabriel Mountains. Finding Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable long-term aesthetic impacts; this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. The Retention of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative (RAFSS) would decrease the amount of development, but would also not meet any .of the project objectives. The Less Intense Development alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impact, but does not meet any of the project objectives. · The applicant shall install landscaping and perimeter walls prior to issuance of building permits for the following phases and locations as shown on the Project Phasing Plan (Exhibit 3-8): · Phase 1-Along Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues. · Phase 2-Along Wilson Avenue · Phase 3-Along Etiwanda Avenue · Phase 4 Along East Avenue · Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project applicant shall provide transitions between the developed and natural (unbuil0 environment through landscaping techniques · Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project applicant shall ensure that streetscape design along the roadways adjacent to the project site create a strong landscaped edge, provides a coherent high-quality appearance along a particular route, and enhances the image of adjacent development. · The project applicant shall provide for the undergrunnding of utility lines and facilities, wherever feasible, to minimize the unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures. · Prior to approval of a landscape plan, trees and structures shall be used to frame and orient such views at key locations, and obstruction of views should be kept to a minimum along Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. The significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on aesthetics and views by the proposed project are considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. H:\C[icnt (pN.JN)\OO18\OOlSOO27~FindingsXllO180027_Findings 5_06_04.doc25 Findings STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga proposes to approve the Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 project although unavoidable adverse geology and soils, air quality, and aesthetic impacts have been identified in the EIR. Even though these adverse impacts are not reduced to a level considered less than significant, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds that those impacts ar~ outweighed by the benefits of the Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 project. Further, the alternatives which were identified in the EIR would not provide the project benefits, as summarized below, to the same extent as the proposed project: 1. To provide single-family housing units consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 2. To annex the proposed 150-acre tentative tract and an adjacent 10-acre area at the northwest corner of Wilson and East Avenue into the City of Rancho Cocamonga. 3. To be consistent with, and implement, the policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other 'City development guidelines. 4. To create a project that is generally consistent and compat~le with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the project and community of Etiwanda in general. 5. To provide project infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans related to these services. 6. To phase the development of the proposed project to ensure adequate utilities are provided. 7. Provide a system of public/community facilities, including parks, trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner. 8. To design and landscape the proposed project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. Therefore, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and the public record, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations which has been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project. H:\Clien! (pN-JN)~0018~J0180027~Findings~0180027_Findings 5_o6_o4.aoc26 Findings COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUB'Fr16072 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. LOCATION: NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE, BETWEEN ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 is granted subject to the approval of Annexation DRC2002-00865. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 04-56, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map er tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a comptete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shaJl be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations and, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. E (hibi L "G" , Project No. SUBTT16072 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions /.__/ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / L submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all / / other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with / / all receptacles shielded from public view. 8. All greund-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single- family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the / / adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 10. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed / / control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced / / with two-rail, 4-inch Iodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such aS / / veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-threughs. c. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a / / distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devJces may be required bythe Building Official d. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail / / with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. e. For single family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at / / least one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with appropriate fencing. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the / / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the; issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January I of each and every year and whenever said information changes. Project No. SUBTT16072 Completion Date 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / ./ owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all __/ / lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 14. Six-foot decorative block wails shall be constructed along the project perimeter, if a double wall .___/ / condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 15. For residential development, return walls and comer side walls shall be decorative masonry. .__J / 16. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each __/ / support pest for all wood fences, with a minimum of two ~-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both pest and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 17. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. /-.._/ 18. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to / / maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 19. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls,,/ences and sidewalk. The /.__/ 5-foot wall/lence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 20. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured / / products. D, Building Design 1. For ail residential development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the / / street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to,the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E, Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 / / slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Project No. SUBTT16072 Completion Date 3. All private elopee in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater / / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously __/ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied bythe buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required. This requirement ___/ / shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the .__/ / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the ___/ / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of __/ / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1, The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / / Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special ___/ / Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the 210 and I-15 Freeways / / in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of / / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions raquired by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / / of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Project No. SUBTT16072 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: ~ / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., SUBTT #, SUBTPM#, DRC #) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. / /_.__. Amhitect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to __/__/___ the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / / 5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can / / contact the Building and Safety Division staff for information and submittal requirements. I, Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / / marked with the proiect file number (i.e., DRC2001-00001). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant / / shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map / / recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday / / through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. Project No. SUB~1'16072 Completion Date J, New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. / /__ 2. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." / K, Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading / / Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / / pedorm such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the ___/ / time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, ___/ ! submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: __/ / a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site _._/ / drainage facilities necessary for dewatedng all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over ___/ / adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided __/ / properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a pamel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits (this may be on an incremental or composite basis). e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or /__/ planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code. 6. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for / / existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. Project No. SUBTT16072 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / /~ community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from / / street centerline): 44 total feet on Wilson Avenue. / / 3~3 total feet on East Avenue (42 feet north of Street "N") / / 5...~2 total feet on Etiwanda Avenue. / / 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. / / 4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or / / noted on the final map. 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the / / final map. 6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-wayshall be / / dedicated to the City. 7. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests / / necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: Wilson, Etiwanda, and East Avenue. M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped / / areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a source / / of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildJngs, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. Project No. SUBTT16072 Completion Date 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: L / Curb& A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Wilson Avenue Ix Ix I(c) l Ix Ix I I(a) l EtiwandaAvenue X r x / X X X (h) East Avenue X (e) X X X (g) (f) (h) Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Plus 14 feet east of the centerline. (f) Between Wilson Avenue and 25th Street provide 34-foot paved roadway for two-way traffic and north/south bike lanes. (g) North of Street "N." (h) Traffic striping/signage (R26). 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights / / on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / / construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and / / interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction / / project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and intemonnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: 1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope Dr as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City / / Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / / adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / / installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / / 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pdvate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Project No. SUBTT16072 Completion Date 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in ~ / accordance with the City's street tree program. 7. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and ~tandards as follows. The completed / /__ legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet (typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Min. Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing East Avenue 60% (Background) Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 8 ft. 25 · o.c 30% (Foreground) Cercis occidentali$ Western Redbud :3 ft. 20 ~ o.c. t 0% (Accent) Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree 5 ft. 30 ft. o.c. Wilson Avenue 60% (Background) Cercis occidentalis Westem Redbud 3 ft. 20 ft. o.c. 30% (Foreground) Pinus canadensis Canary Island Pine 8 ft. 25 ft. o.c. Pyrus calleryana Bradford Pear 3 ft. 20 Lt. o.c. 10% (Accent) 'Bradford' Etlwanda Avenue 60% (Background) Pinus canadensis Canary Island Pine 8 ft. 25 ft. o.c. Cereis occidentalis Westem Redbud 3 ft 20 Lt. o.c. 30% (Foreground) Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree 5 ftl 30 It. o.c. 10% (Accent) All other streets, ~rovide street Select a street from the handout, following the guidelines for each street. names Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Division. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 8. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with __/__J adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commemial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N, Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall / / be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, slopes alon,q the trail south of Etiwanda Avenue, Street "A" entry only, and fault trail. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas ( %) of mortared cobble / /__ or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. Project No. SUBTr16072 Completion Date 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting / _/ Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the _._./ / developer until accepted by the City. 5. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective __/ / Beautification Master Plan Etiwanda North Special Plan for Wilson, Etiwanda, and East Avenues. O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation .__/___/ removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain an unshaded "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 2. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 3. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of sudace drainage entering the /.__/ property from adjacent areas. 4. A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its /___/ right-of-way. 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured /___/ from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a /.__/ sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, / / electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / / 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the /__/ Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district with in 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Project No. SUB*I-1'16072 Completion Date 4. Approvals have not been secured from a~ utilities and other interested agencies involved. /. / Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. Q, General Requirements and Approvals 1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage / / Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of-way: San / / Bernardino County, MWD, SCE, and SBCFCD. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enfomement Community Facilities / / District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval orthe issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer. 4. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all / / new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or pdor to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 5. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed / / beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall / / be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE A'I-rACHED Standard Conditions PROJECT #: SUBTT16072 PROJECT NAME: Richland Pinehurst, Inc DATE: May 6, 2004 PLAN TYPE: ER and Tentative Tract Map Review APPLICANT NAME: MDS Consulting, Stan Morse OCCUPANCY R-3 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM REQUIRED: Fuel Modification approved LOCATION: North of Wilson btw Etiwanda and East FD REVIEW BY: Moises Eskenazi, Sr. Plans Examiner FSC-1 General Requirements for Public and Private Water Supply 1. General Guidance for Fire Hydrants: The following provides general guidance for the spacing and location of fire hydrants. Remember these are the maximum permitted distances between fire hydrants: a. For single-family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area the maximum distance between fire hydrants is 400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 200-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not exceed 150 ft. b. Fire hydrants are to be located: 1. At the entrance(s) to a project from the existing public roadways. This includes subdivisions and industrial parks. 2. At intersections. 3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. 4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs. 5. The location of fire hydrants is based upon the operational needs of the Fire District to control a fire. 6. Fire hydrants shalJ be rocated a minimum of 40 feet from any building. 2. Minimum Fire Flow: The required fire flow for this project is 1750 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-A, as amended. Please see 'M/ater Availability" attachment for required verification of fire flow availability for the proposed project. 3. Single-family Dwellings: The minimum fire flow for one and two-family dwellings with a fire area (floor area measured in square feet) of 3600 square feet or less shall be 1000 gallons per minute. The fire flow for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3600 square feet shall be determined in accordance with Fire Code Appendix, Table A-Ill-A-I. 4. Hazardous Fire Area: The required minimum fire flow for structures located in the designated hazardous fire area shall be not less than 1750 gpm at 20 p.s.i, residual. For structures in excess of 3600 square feet use Table A-Ill-A-I. This flow may be reduced when the structure is protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 5. Hydrants Used to Supply Fire Flow: Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. 6. Show Existing Fire Hydrants and Mains: Existing fire hydrants and mains within 600-feet of the project shall be shown on the water plan submitted for review and approval. Include main size. FSC-5 Hazardous Fire Area 1. Designated Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located within the "State Responsibility Area" (SRA), the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga "Hillside District," or within the area identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Exhibit V-7 as H~qh Probability-Hiqh Consequence forFire Risk. These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire District. This determination is based on maps produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans stating -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho Cucemonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the following: a. Class A roof assemblies, b. Fuel modification/hazard reduction plans, c. Approved Fire District access roadways, d. One-hour fire-resistive construction with protected openings may be required, e. Fire sprinkler system may be required, f. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from an on-site water supply. g. Visit www~c~~san-bernardln~~ca~us/~~nduseservices/DevC~de/8~5-~ver~ay%2~Districts~pdf~ for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety (FR) Overlay District. 3. Construction Standards: Summary of construction requirements for the Hazardous Fire Area: a. The roof shall be a Class A fire-resistive assembly approved by Building and Safety. Fire- retardant Class A wood shakes and shingles shall have completed a 10-year "natural" weathering test. Class A roof assemblies shall be installed in accordance with their listing and manufacturer's instructions. b. The space between rafts at exterior walls shall be solidly filled with tight-fitting wood blocks at one and one-half (1-1/2) inches thick. May be "boxed." c. The exposed surface of exterior wall must be listed as one-hour fire-resistive construction. d. All exterior doors must be solid core or wood portions shall be solid core wood. e. All windows, sliding glass doors or glass insets in does shall be constructed of approved dual- pane glass. f. Cantilevered or standard type desks shall be constructed of 1.) A minimum of at least one and one-half (1-1/2) inch wood deck; and/or 2.) Protected on the underside by materials approved for one (one) hour fire-resistive construction; and/or 3.) Be of non-combustible materials, as defined in the Building Code. g. Patio covers attached or within 10-feet of a residential structure shall be constructed of materials not less than one-half (1/2) inch. Plastic, bamboo, straw, fiberglass, or wood-lattice less than one-half (1/2) inch are not permitted. h. All required fences adjacent to fuel modification areas or wildland areas as conditions of approval for a project shall be of non-combustible materials as defined in the Building Code. Any fence within 10-feet of the fuel modification area or wildland area shall be non-combustible. Beyond 10- feet the may be constructed of any approved material. All other fences, including those .on the interior of the project are not subject to this requirement. i. Visit www.co.san-bemardino.ca.usllanduseserviceslDevCodelSOS-Overlay%20Districts.pdf, for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety (FR) Qverlay District. Review the County Fire Safety Overlay District standard for complete requirements. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4 Perimeter Roadway Required: A roadway shall be provided along the project perimeter exposed to a fire hazard er fuel modified area. The roadway is to allow fire district vehicle access. Such roadway shall be a minimum twenty (20) feet in width, with a grade not to exceed fourteen percent (14%), and capable of supporting fire fighting vehicles. Contact the Fire Safety Division at (909) 477-2770, Extension 3009, for specific requirements. 5. Power-operated Equipment Use in a Hazardous Fire Area: Submit a "Fire Prevention and Control Plan" to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Fire Safety Division for review and approval The plan shall include job location, specific fire tools to be maintained on-site, person(s) responsible for supervising the project (on-site), method of reporting a fire (cell phone, etc.), City or County Permit Number, contractors license number, address, telephone number, etc. 6. Fire District Approval Required for Equipment Use' No power-operated equipment, including mobile, stationary, or portable, shall be used without Fire Safety Division written approval. 7. Combustible Vegetation: During the declared "fire season" or at any other time when ground litter and vegetation will sustain combustion permitting the spread of fire, contact the Fire Protection District during normal business hours to determine if "special fire protection measures" are required to operate power equipment. Call (909) 477-2770, Monday through Thursday, between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The purpose of the call is to determine if extreme fire weather conditions are present or expected to occur. 8. Special Fire Protection Required: "Special fire protection measures" include, but are not limited to; a. A stand-by water tender with operating pump; tested and maintained fire hose and nozzles. b. Pre-wetting of the site to avoid the production of sparks, i.e., contact between blades or tracks and rocks, etc. c. The Fire District requires the contractor to maintain a firewatch for a minimum of one-hour following cessation of operations each day. d. For welding, cutting or grinding clear away all flammable material from the @rea around such operation for a minimum distance of 10-feet. A "hot-work" permit will be required. e. Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one five (5) gallon backpack water pump-type fire extinguisher fully equipped and ready for use at the immediate area during the operation. -'SC-6 Fuel Modification/Hazard Reduction Plan (Required Notes for All Maps and Plans) ~,.1 .a.l. Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" based on proximity to or exposure urban-wildland interface. Mitigation measures are required. The building(s) shall be constructed in accordance with the standards contained in the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District- Area FR-1 or Area FR-2. ~,.1 .a.2. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. ,NI groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veRetatLhtm for additional information. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. ~.1 .a.3. Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of a preliminary grading the applicant shall obtain the Fire District approval of a preliminary fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan(s) shall be prepared by an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildfire hazard mitigation planning. a. Show all property lines, contour lines, locations of proposed buildings or structures, b. Show the 30-foot minimum defensible space for slopes less than 15% and 100-feet for slope 15% or more (Zone 1- Setback Zone) around the perimeter of each building or structure. c. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning). d. Show existing vegetation impacted by the required fuel modification and, if available, proposed vegetation to be planted in the fuel modification area. The preliminary plans should be sensitive to rare, threatened, or endangered species and the applicant must be prepared to address their disposition in the final plans. e. Include photographs of the area that show the type of vegetation currently existing; include height and density; and relationship to grade. f. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. g. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. State on the plan who will have ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. A.1 .a.4. Final Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall obtain Fire District approval of a final fuel modification/hazard redubtion plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of achieving an acceptable level of risk to the structures by vegetation. a. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning). Indicate locations of permanent zone identification markers. b. Include irrigation plans and specifications. c. Attach a landscape plan. The landscape plan must identify the location and type of supplemental plantings. The plans and specifications shall include both the common and botanical names of new and existing plants within the fuel modification area. Clearly indicate on the plans the disposition of impacted existing vegetation. d. The landscape plan shall include any special or specific maintenance intended for the site such as pruning, "limbing" up, mowing, etc. e. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. f. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, reads, parks, green space, etc. g. State on the plan who will ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. h. Include on the title sheet any tract/project conditions of approval, CC&R's, and/or deed restrictions related to the site or final fuel modification area. Include a copy of the approved preliminary fuel modification plans with this submittal. i. Provide an appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder showing continued maintenance responsibility in the event of properly transfer, change in membership of directors, change in CC&R's. j. Maintenance responsibility requirements and appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder A. 1 .a.5. Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District, before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. 6. Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire Distdct shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. 7. Phased or Temporary Plans: Phased projects or temporary fuel modification plans must meet the requirements for permanent plans and be approved by the Fire District. 8. Single-family In-fill Projects: For a single-family dwelling project located in the Hazardous Fire Area, a simplified landscaping/fuel modification plan may be acceptable. The plan shall detail the defensible space. Provide a minimum 30-foot space for slopes less then 15% and a minimum one hundred (100) feet space for slopes of 15% or more. Show proposed and/or existing vegetation. Refer to the following web site for further information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veRetati.htm. The Fire District can provide a single page sheet of standardized notes for inclusion on the construction plans. FSC-7 Single-family Residential Sales Models 1. Minimum Access and Water: Residential sales model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water supply from a public or private water main system. FSC-12 Plan Submittal Required Notice Required plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1997/98 Building, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes; 1999 Electrical Code; Health and Safety Code; Public Resources Code; and RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD32, Guidelines and Standards. NOTE: In addition to the fees due at this time please note that separate plan check fees for tenant improvements, fire protection systems and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed at time of submittal of plans. FSC-14 Alternate Materials and Methods The Fire Safety Division will review requests for alternate materials and methods within the scope of our authority. The request must be submitted on the Fire Distdct "Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT- For Each Development Phase 1. preliminary Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of a preliminary grading permit, the applicant shall obtain the Fire District approval of a preliminary fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan(s) shall be prepared by an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildfire hazard mitigation planning. a. Show all property lines, contour lines, locations of proposed buildings or structures, b. Show the 30-foot minimum defensible space for slopes less than 15% and 100-feet for slope 15% or more (Zone 1- Setback Zone) around the perimeter of each building or structure. c. Show existing vegetation impacted by the required fuel modification and, if available, proposed vegetation to be planted in the fuel modification area. The preliminary plans should be sensitive to rare, threatened, or endangered species and the applicant must be prepared to address their disposition in the final plans. d. Include photographs of the area that show the type of vegetation currently existing; include height and density; and relationship to grade. e. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. f. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. g. State on the plan who will have ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. 2. Model Homes - Required Plans: Prior to issuance of any grading permit please identify the lots selected for construction of residential sales models on a scaled site plan. Include the location of required fire hydrants and fire district access roadways. The site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for approval. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS- Complete the following: 1. Public Fire Hydrants: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and the Water District. On the plan show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. 2. Public Installation: All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Water District personnel shall inspect the installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit a copy of the Water District inspection report to the Fire Safety Division. Contact Water District to schedule testing. 3. Hazardous Fire Area Construction: The building or project is located within the designated Hazardous Fire Area. All buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of County Fire Safety Review Area standards. In the Hazardous Fire Area the applicant shall provide a modified one-hour fire-resistive wall for the following exterior wall(s) based on exposure to unmodified native vegetation or potential exposure to embers or debris from a wind- driven fire: For this proposed map lot 212 through lot 250 inclusive the following sides shall be constructed of one-hour modified fire-resistive construction: a. North Side- b. East Side- c. West Side- No vent openings are permitted on or in building components or surfaces that are parallel to any wall required to be constructed of modified one-hour fire-resistive construction. 4. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans stating -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes previsions for the following: a. Class A roof assemblies; b. Fuel modification/hazard reduction plans; c. Approved Fire District access roadways; d. One-hour fire-resistive construction for exterior walls may be required; e. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from the public water system or an on-site water supply. 5. Architectural Plans- Single-family Residential Hazardous Fire Area: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Safety Division. The Fire Safety Division review is intended to ensure that conditions established during the development review have been included in the design of the project. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 6. Fuel Modification Plan- Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. 7. Building Use Letter- Required Letter: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed letter of intended use for each building on-site to the Fire District for review and approval. A form that may be used to meet this requirement is attached at the end of the Fire District comments. Provide a separate letter for each building or structure with storage use areas. 8. Combustible Construction Letter- Required Letter: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit a letter to the Fire District on company letterhead stating that the minimum water supply for fire fighting purposes and the all-weather fire protection access roadway that meets Fire District Standards shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on-site. The roadway shall be maintained at all times. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION- Complete the following: Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers." On private property these markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. 1. Address Single-family: New single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100 feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 2. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be tim-resistive in accordance with at least three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site for additional information- http:llwww.ucfpl.ucep.edull-ZonelXlVlveqetati.htm. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. 3. Fuel Modification Plan- Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. Items or Issues Not Identified Elsewhere 1. Provide a revised copy of approved vegetation management and fuel modification plans. Include details for a minimum of 600-feet beyond subdivision boundaries. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) ~.'Project File No.: SUBTT16072 Applicant: Richland-Pinehurst ,-~ EIR Prepared by: .,.Michael Brandman Assoicates Date: March 23~ 2004 AES-I: The applicant shall install landscaping and perimeter CP C Prior to A 3 walls prior to occupancy for the following phases and occupancy of locations as shown on the Project Phasing Plan (Exhibit 3-8): each phase. · Phase 1-Along Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues. · Phase 2-Along Wilson Avenue · Phase 3-Along Etiwanda Avenue · Phase 4 Along East Avenue AES-2: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project CP B During Landscape C 2 applicant shall provide transitions between the developed and Plan Review and natural (unbuilt) environment through landscaping techniques, approval AES-3: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project CP B C C 2 applicant shall ensure that streetscape design along the roadways adjacent to the project site create a strong landscaped edge, provides a coherent high-quality appearance along a particular route, and enhances the image of adjacent development. AES-4: The project applicant shall provide for the CE C During C 2 undergrounding of utility lines and facilities, wherever feasible, construction Plan to minimize the unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines review and and utility enclosures, approval AES-5: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, trees and CP B During C 2 structures shall be used to frame and orient such views at key construction Plan locations, and obstruction of views should be kept to a reviewand minimum along Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. approval Air Quality AQ-I: The site shall be treated with water or other soil- BO/CE C During A 4 stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water construction Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. I of 13 AQ-2: During construction, all haul routes shall be swept CE C During A 4 according to a schedule established by the City to reduce construction PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off- site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. AQ-3: Suspend grading operations when wind speeds BO/CE C During A 4 exceeding 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site construction during such episodes. AQ-4: Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO/CE C During A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas construction that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions. AQ-$: The Construction contractor shall select the CP/CE C Review of plans A/C 2/4 construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned to and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. AQ-6: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or CE C Review of plans A/C 4 clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. AQ-7: The construction contractor shall ensure that CE C Review of plans A/C 2/4 construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. AQ-8: The construction contractor shall use Iow VOC CP C Review of plans 'A/C 2/4 architectural coating during the construction phase of the project. AQ-9: During construction of the proposed improvements, BO/CE C As needed during A/C 4 temporary traffic control (e.g., flag person) will be provided construction. during soil transport activities. Contractor will be advised not to idle trucks on site for more than ten minutes AQ-10: During construction of the proposed improvements, CP/BO C Review of Notes A/C 4 only Iow volatility paints and coatings as defined in SCAQMD on Plans Rule 1113 shall be used. Al{ paints shall be applied using either high volume iow pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or I by hand application. ',,.5 2of 13 AQ-11: The proposed project will participate in the cost of off- CE A Prior to permit C/D 2 site traffic signal installation and synchronization through issuance. payment of the traffic signal fair-share mitigation fee, This fee will be collected and utilized by the City to install and synchronize traffic lights as needed to prevent congestion of traffic flow on East Avenue between Banyan Street and the project boundary, and Etiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and the north terminus of Etiwanda Avenue, AQ-12: All appliances within the residential units of the project CP/BO B Plan review. C 3 shall be energy-efficient as defined by SCAQMD. AQ~13: The project proponent shall contact local transit CP/CE B Plan review, C/D 3 agencies to determine bus routing in the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at project proponent's expense. BiolOgical Resources B-l: Prior to recording of the first final map of the project, the CP A Prior to map B/D 1 property owner shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino recordation. Special Districts 0S-1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City, in fee, at a ratio of 1:1 (or 147.7 acres) of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the City Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner. If the proponent is unable to acquire all or a portion of the offsite mitigation land, the proponent will deposit the equivalent mitigation cost of $10,000 per developable acre with City-approved agency, which acquires and maintains open space. These funds will be used to purchase and manage mitigation lands. 3of 13 B-2: To reduce impacts on adjacent offsite habitat during site CP B Plan review and A/C 4 preparation, grading and clearing limits shall be staked prior construction to issuance of the grading permits. The limits of grading and monitoring. clearing shall be staked at 50-foot intervals with suitable indicators such as white PVC (polyvinylchloride) pipe with steel bases. Construction equipment shall not be operated beyond the grading and clearing limits, and a restoration program shall be incorporated to restore any disturbed offsite areas. B-3: Landscaping adjacent to natural areas offsite shall use CP A Plan review. C 2 native and drought-tolerant plant species. Such species shall be reflected on Project landscape plans. The use of species known to be weedy invasives, such as German ivy (Senecio milkaniodes), periwinkle (Vinca major), or icepfant (Carpobrotus spp.), shall be prohibited. B-4: In areas where night lighting may have adverse impacts CP A Plan review. C 2/4 on sensitive wildlife habitat, one or more of the following alternatives shall be utilized, recognizing the constraints of roadway lighting requirements: (1) Iow-intensity street lamps, (2) Iow-elevation light poles, or (3) shielding of internal silvering of the globes or external opaque reflectors. B-5: Provide residents of the future development literature CP D Reviewliterature D 3 pertaining to sensitive wildlife in the area and provide ways prior to Model the residents can reduce effects on the wildlife, including Home TUP effects pets have on native wildlife. A list of invasive plants approval. that are commonly planted in landscaping will be included in this literature and it will be recommended that certain plants be avoided, such as giant reed (Arundo donax) castor bean (Ricinus communis) and Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana). This literature shall be approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and included within the conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). 8-6: All 213 "heritage trees" shalt be removed and replaced CP C Landscape Plan C 3 with native trees within the proposed development, review. Replacements have been proposed at a 1:1 ratio. 4of 13 B-7: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, focused surveys for CP B Verify results of B/D 2 Plummer's mariposa lily shall be conducted by a qualified surveys prior to biologist. Surveys shall be conducted during flowering period Grading Permit (May to July) in all portions of the project site containing issuance. suitable habitat. If present, the number and location(s) will be documented and the resource agencies will be notified for consultation and possible collection and relocation. B-8: A follow-up focus survey for the San Bernardino CP B Verify results of B/D 2 kangaroo rat shall be conducted prior to the issuance of I surveys prior to grading permits, If this species is determined to be present Grading Permit onsite, consultation with USFWS under the Endangered issuance. Species Act shall occur and USFWS-approved mitigation measures shall be implemented. B-9: A follow-up focused survey shall be conducted to confirm CP B Verify results of B/D 2 the absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Special surveys prior to focus will be placed in the northwest corner of the project site, Grading Permit which was not previously surveyed. If this species is issuance. determined to be present onsite, consultation with USFWS under the Endangered Species Act shall occur and USFWS- approved mitigation measures shall be implemented. B~10: The project proponent will have a qualified biological CP A Verify that the D 4 monitor present during initial brush clearing to reduce monitor has been modality to sensitive species, specifically sensitive rodent obta ned prior to species, as well as incidental species. Grading Permit issuance. B-11: If grading activities are to occur during active nesting CP A Verify that the D 4 season (generally February 15 -August 31), a field survey monitor has been shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if obtained prior to active nests covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Grading Permit the CDFG Code are present. If active nests are present, the issuance. area will be flagged, along with a 100-foot buffer (300-feet for raptors) and will be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. B-12: The project proponent shall obtain a Section 404 of the CP A Verify permit B 2 Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of status prior to Engineers and a 1603 Streambed Alteration Permit from issuance of California Department of Fish and Game prior to grading or Grading Permit. any other groundbreaking activities, and shall comply with the permit's mitigation requirements. 5of 13 Cultural Resources CR-I: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project CP A Verify that the D 2 applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to monitor hasbeen develop an archaeological mitigation plan and a discovery obtained prior to clause/treatment plan. Both of these plans shall be reviewed Grading Permit and approved by the City. The archaeological mitigation plan issuance. shall include monitoring 50 percent of the excavation activities on the project site by a City-approved amhaeologist and/or their representative. The discovery clause/treatment plan shall include recovery and subsequent treatment of any archaeological or historical remains and associated data uncovered by brushing, grubbing or excavation. The treatment plan shall provide procedures for the curation of any detected cultural specimens. Any recovered cultural resoumes shall be identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard professional amhaeological practices. Examination by an archaeotogical specialist shall be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features, or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. CR-2: If the amhaeological monitor discovers cultural CP C Ve~fy results of D 4 deposits, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around reports by the on- the deposits until the deposits have been evaluated, site monitor. recorded, excavated and/or recovered, as necessary, and in accordance with a City-approved recoveryplan. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the area after the archaeologist determines the artifacts are recovered and/or site mitigated to the extent necessary. CR-3: if a previously unknown cultural site is encountered CP C Verify results of D 4 during monitoring and it is determined by the amhaeologist reports by the on- that a significance determination is required, the site shall be site monitor. evaluated and recorded in accordance with requirements of the State Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., DPR 523 form). In this case, if the site is not determined to be significant, no measures subsequent to recording the site on appropriate forms are required. If any of the sites are determined to be significant, an adequate amount of artifacts at the specific archaeological site shall be collected by the City-approved archaeologist. The amhaeologist shall determine the amount of artifacts needed to be collected. ---- 6of 13 CR-4: If human remains are encountered during excavations CP C Vedfy results of D 4 associated with this project, all work shall halt and the County reports by the on- Coroner shall be notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public site monitor. Resoumes Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the coroner, with the aid of the City-approved amhaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, he/she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the uttimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make his/her recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. This recommendation may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). CR-5: Any recovered archaeological resources shall be CP C Verify results of D 4 identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as reports by the on- required by standard archaeological practices. Examination site monitor. by an archaeological specialist should be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. CR-6: A final report of findings will be prepared by the City- CP C Verify results of D 4 approved archaeologist for submission to the City, project reports by the on- applicant, and the Archaeological Information Center of the site monitor. San Bernardino County Museum. The report will describe the history of the project area, summarize field and laboratory methods used, if applicable, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support the resultant findings. CR-7: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project CP A Verify that the D 2 applicant shall retain a City-approved paleontologist. The City- monitor has been approved paleontologist shall monitor all excavation activities obtained prior to in areas of the project underlain by previously undisturbed Grading Permit sediments. Earthmoving in areas of the site where previously issuance. undisturbed sediments will be buried but not disturbed will not be monitored. Monitoring shall begin once earthmoving reaches five (5) feet below the original ground surface. 7of 13 CR~8: Monitoring shall be conducted on a full-time basis in CP 4 areas of the project underlain by sensitive rock units reports by theon- associated with older alluvium being encountered by site monitor. earthmoving, OR-9: Should fossils be found within an area being clesred or CP C Verify results of D 4 graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the reports by the on- monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel site monitor. make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. If too few fossil remains are found after 50 percent of earthmoving has been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued in those areas at the project paleontologist's direction. CR-10: if paleontological resources are detected. Prepare, CP C Verify results of D 4 identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in reports by the on- the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository site monitor. (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). CR-11: A final report of findings will be prepared by the City- CP C Verify results of D 4 approved paleontologist for submission to the City, project reports by the on- applicant, and the San Bernardino County Museum. All site monitor. collected specimens and the final report shall be provided to the San Bernardino County Museum. GeolOgy and SOils GS-I: Prior to issuance of a building permit for structures CP/BO A Report and Plan D 2 adjacent to the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault on the review. project site, all structures north of this fault shall be set back 100 feet from the faulted zone and all structures south of this fault shall be set back 50 feet from the fault zone. GS-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, structures will BO A Plan review. C 2 be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and general engineering standards for seismic safety for development within Seismic Zone 4. GS-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, engineered BO A Plan review. C 2 slopes of the project site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code to resist seismically induced failures. Slope design shall be based on pseudo-static stabilify analyses using soil-engineering parameters established for the site. 8of 13 G$-4: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the gradin.( BO A Plan review and C 2 plans shall state that the loose, cohesionless soils located on the surface of the site shall be removed and mcompacted notations. during grading operations. GS-5: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading BO A Plan review and C 2 plans shall state that the native surficial and artificial fills on notation. the project site that are of Iow density, shall be removed and recompacted or exported offsite. GS-6: Prior to the issuance of a final grading approval BO A potentially unstable graded slopes that exceed approximately Plan review. C 2 15 feet in height will require additional stabilization measures such as buttressing cut slopes with compacted fill, adding geogrid reinforcement to fill slopes, using a higher compaction standard, and/or using retaining walls. GS-7: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading RO A Plan review, C 2 plans shall state that potentially compressible soils that are located on the project site shall be removed and recompacted in accordance with standard grading procedures. GS-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project's CF/BO A Plan review and C 2 soil engineer shall identify the method(s) of eliminating the notations. potential for collapsible soils on the grading plan. Potential methods include excavation and recompaction and presaturation and pre-loading of the susceptible soils in-place to induce collapse prior to construction. After construction, infiltration of water into the subsur[ace soils shall be minimized by proper surface drainage which directs excess runoff from the proposed slopes and structures, GS-9: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading BO/CE A Review of Plans C 2 plans shall state that during grading operations, the soil and notations. engineer shall be consulted to relocate oversize rocks on the proiect site to reduce the potential deficiency of fill materials that could result from the removal of oversize rocks on the project site. N-1: During a~l project site excavation and grading, the project CP C Review notations AJC 2/4 contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or on the Grading mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers Plan. consistent with manufacturers standards. 9of 13 N-2: When construction operations occur in close proximity to CP C Review notations NC 2/4 occupied residential areas, appropriate additional noise on the Grading reduction measures shall be implemented, including: Plan; and monitor changing the location of stationary construction equipment to during maximize the distance between stationary equipment and construction. occupied residential areas, installing muffling devices on equipment, shutting off idling equipment, notifying adjacent residences in advance of construction, and installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. N-3: The construction contractor shall locate equipment CP C Review notations NC 2/4 staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between on the Grading construction related noise and the noise-sensitive receptors Plan; and monitor nearest the project site during all project construction, during construction. N-4: During all project site construction, the construction BO C Review notations A 4 conlract shall limit all construction related activities that would on the Grading result in high noise levels to between the hours of 6:30 a,m. Plan; and monitor and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, No construction during shall be allowed on Sundays and public holidays, construction. N-5: The project applicant shall construct sound barriers CP A Reviewof plans. NC 2/4 adjacent to the project lots as shown in Exhibit 5.5-2. The heights of the sound barriers shall be between 3 and 6.5 feet and placed at the top of the proposed slope and at the edge of pads on the residential lots that border Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue, The sound barriers may be constructed of eadhen berms, masonry, wood, or other similar materials, or combination of these materials to attain the total height required. These sound barriers shall be solid, with no openings from the ground to the indicated height. N-6: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, residential CP/BO A Plan review. NC 2/4 structures proposed on all lots adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue will require mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain closed. Fudhermore, these residential lots will require upgraded windows such as double-pane windows, if these lots have second story structures. To ensure the specific type of mechanical ventilation and parted windows are included in the building plans, a final acoustical study shall be prepared for City approval prior to approval of Development Review applications for product development, The final acoustical ~O~_ study shall identify the specific requirements to reduce future interior noise levels to 45 dB CNEL or less. 10 of 13 BIO Plan review. B/C 2 facilities are available to meet the project demand. W-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase, Cucamonga A Plan review. B/C 2 the project applicant shall submit a landscaping and irrigation Water plan for common areas to the City for approval. Landscaping District and irrigation within common areas shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined , in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. WW-I: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Cucamonga A Plan review. B/C 2 applicant shall provide funding to the Cucamonga County Valley Water Water Agency for sewer service. District S-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Etiwanda A Provide B 2 applicant shall pay developer impact fees to the Etiwanda School District; verification prior School District and Chaffey Joint Union High School Distdct in Chaffey School to permit accordance with Section 65995 of the Government Code for the proposed residences. District issuance. Transportation/Traffic TT-I: The project applicant shall contribute its fair share CE A Review C/D 2/3 toward local off-site traffic improvements. On-site appropriate plans improvements will be required in conjunction with the phasing or reports prior to of the proposed development to ensure adequate circulation permit issuance. within the project itself. The fair share contribution of all off- site improvements and timing of all onsite traffic improvements shall be subject to an agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This agreement shall be in place prior to tract map approval. TT-2: The project applicant shall update construction cost CE A Review C/D 2/3 estimates and prepare a current cost of the project's fair appropriate plans share contribution toward traffic improvements, or reports prior to permit issuance. 11 of 13 TT-3: The project applicant shall construct Wilson Avenue CE A Review C/D 2/3 from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue as a Special Divided appropriate plans Secondary Arterial (165 ft. Right*of-way) in conjunction with or reports prior to development of the proposed project or as determined by the permit issuance. Development Agreement with the City. TT-4: The project applicant shall construct the extension of CE A Review C/D 2/3 East Avenue from the south project boundary with a minimum appropriate plans 36-foot two-way paved access to the project in conjunction or reports prior to with development of the proposed project or as determined by permit issuance. the Development Agreement with the City. TT-5: The project applicant shall construct East Avenue from CE A Review C/D 2/3 the north project boundary to Wilson Avenue to provide 44- appropriate plans foot two-way paved access and the full shoulder (curb, gutter, or reports prior to street lights, and side walks) on west side of the street in permit issuance. conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. TT-6: The project applicant shall construct Etiwanda Avenue CE A Review C/D 2/3 from the north project boundary to Golden Prairie Drive at its appropriate plans ultimate half-section width es a Secondary Arterial (96 ft. or reports prior to Right-of-way) in conjunction with development of the permit issuance. proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City, TT-7: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant sha~l CE A Pdor to permit D 2 provide funds in accordance with the City's Transportation issuance. Development Fee. Collection of these fees shall represent the project's 'lair-share" toward the following transportation improvements required for opening year (Year 2004): · Installation of a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street. · Installation of a traffic signal at East Avenue at Banyan Street. Construction of a southbound right turn lane at the intersect[on of Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue. 12 of 13 TT-8: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant CF A Prior to permit D 2 shall provide funds in accordance with the City's issuance. Transportation Development Fee. Collection of these fees shall represent the project's 'lair share" toward the following transportation improvements required for Buildout Year 2020. · Construction of one additional northbound lane to provide a shared left and through lane, and a shared right and through northbound lane, and one additional southbound lane to provide a shared left and through and a shared right and through southbound lane on East Avenue at Banyan Street. · Construction of a westbound through lane on Highland Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue. · Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue (North) at Wilson Avenue. · Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue (South) at Wilson Avenue. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of East Avenue at Wilson Avenue. Key to Checklist Abbreviations CDD. Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Citation 13 of 13 THE CITY OF RAN ClIO CU CAM 0 N GA Memorandum DATE: June 14, 2004 TO: Mayer and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager d Buller, City Planner ry Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. Attached for your review is a comment letter and response prepared for SUBTT16072 - Richland - Pinehurst development project, which is Item G1 on the June 16, 2004, City Council Agenda. BB:LH\ma MJchaelBrandmanAssociates Ei'O/IRONMENTALSER¥ICES · PLANNING · NATURAL RESOURCES I'VL'~IAGEMENT June 9, 2004 Larry Henderson City of Rancho Cucamonga planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamunga, California 91729 SUBJECT: Response to Leeona K]ippstein's Comment Letter on the Draft EIR for Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 Dear Mr. Henderson: Approximately four months after the close of the public review period fo{ the Dral~ EIR for Tentative Tract Map Number 16072, Ms. Loeona Klippstein, Executive Director for the Spirit of the Sage Council has provided comments on the Draft EIR (see Attachment A). These comments address the County-wide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), assessment of onsite and off-site biological impacts, alternatives to avoid biological impacts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CLISACE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional impacts, cumulative biological impacts, proposed landscaping, and management of mitigation areas. Following is a response to each of the comments prodded in the comment letter. Each comment in the letter has been'assigned a numerical designation so that each comment could be cross-referenced with an individual response. The responses follow the conmaent letter in AUachment A. ff you have any questions regarding the above information, please call me. Sincerely, MICtLAI~L BRANI)MAN ASSOCIATES Michael lit. Hottlihan, AICP Manager of Environmental Services Attachment H:\Client (PN-JNZOOlS~O180027W. ancho Cu~mong~6OgO~.doc 220 Commerce, Suite 200, lrvine, CA 92602 714. 508. 4100 VAX 714. 508. 41 10 Inland Empire Bay Area Kern County 909.884.2255 925.830.2733 661.334.2755 www.braadmma,com FMML mba@brandman.com ATTACHMENT A May 12, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamc~nga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 VIA Facsimile (909) 477-2847 RE: Comments on proposed Richland-Pinehurst Project EIR, including associated documents, Tentative Tract Map 16072, proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan amendments, and proposed annexation. State Clearing House/4 2002091053. Project Description The Project site is 150.8-acres north of Wilson Avenue and east of Etiwanda Avenue and proposes 359 detached single family housing units on minimum lot sizes of 8,400 sq.ft with 2.38 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes annexation from County to City jurisdiction and is currently in the City Sphere of Influence. The Project also proposes a General Plan and Etiwanda North Spccific Plan (ENSP) amendments. The City is not revising the ENSP EIR for the amendments needed for this proposed Project and others ie Tracy Development and Henderson Creek Properties, with Staff recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council [on May 26] approve Plan amendments with a Negative Declaration according to the public notice of the upcoming City Council meeting. Introdueron Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) is a non-profit project and coalition of Narve Americans, scientists, citizens and environmental groups dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage, including endangered species, habitats and sacred lands. The Sage Council has members and supporters that reside in the City and San Beroardino County who recreate, enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regions natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referenced proposed development. The Sage Council has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP), including the environmental checklist and Initial Study and DEIR. We have also reviewed and commented on the referenced Etiwanda North Specific Plan (L:rNSP) that was approved by the City in 1992, but not the County - although the specific plan area is v~ithin the County - including the ENSP Resource Management Plan (RMP), the County's North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat preservation Plan (NEOSI-IPP), and has been a member of the County's Valley-wide Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan 0VISI-ICP) Ste, ering Committee. In addition, the Sage Council has been an appointed member of the County of Riverside's MSHCP Advisory and Steering Committee. The Sage Council is a recognized expert, on endangered species and Habitat Conservation Plans, having [Leeena Klippstein] testified b~fore the U.S. House of RepreSentatives, Endangered Species Task Force and having our legal counsel [Eric Glitzenstein] testify before the U.S. Senate. Since 1991, the Sage Council has repeatedly notified the City of Rancho Cucamonga government representatives that there is a global need to conserve Rive~sidean and Alluvial Sage Scrub.Habitats within their jurisdiction. In 1994, the City and County along with other jurisdictions contracted wi~h CDFG and USFWS through the Countywide MSHCP to "make a good faith effort" to conserve specific habitats, including plants and animals during the planning process. Over the past decade, since signing the MSHCP · contract, the City has continued to approve development on habitat lands that should have been conserved. Thus, the Sage Council has taken legal steps against the City and Developers to ensure habitat conservation. In doing so, we have successfully obtained greater conservation and permanently protected over 500-acres acres of habitat in the West Valley Foothills adjacent to the 763-acre North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve that exists due to our efforts also. The Sage Council and our members have a long standing interest in the conservation of public trust natural resources for this project site, surrounding habitat .area and regionally. These comments are provided as an essential and integral part of the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., ("CEQA"). CEQA Guideline § 15201; SuRer Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 820. The purposes of these comments are specifically and generally intended to (1) share knowledgeable local expertise, (2) check the accuracy and detect omissions of agency and project proponent analysis, O) disclose public ¢oncerus, (4) disclose inadequacies of the agency's responses to DEIR comments, (5) disclose legal deficiencies and misapplication of local, state and federal laws, and (6) to solicit and recommend necessary counterproposals. CEQA Guideline § 15200; Selmi, The Judicial Development of the California Envirbnmental Quality Act 0984) 18 U.C. Davis Law Review 197, 245; Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council, (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 671, 682. POSITION The Sage Council is in disagreement and opposition with the Project proponent's and City's proposals, conclusions, environmental determination and findings regarding the DEIR and five related proposed actions. Thus, we request that the City deny the Project as proposed and.adopt the No Project Alternative proposed in the DEIR. The project as proposed falls to meet the requirements of state and federal wildlife agencies, EPA,. FEMA, ACOE and CEQA guidelines and other regulations for numerous reasons. Our reasoning for opposition, along with recommendations are given below and throughout this comment letter. ,, Inadequate Mitigation of Onsite Biological Impacts -- RAFSS is a State SI.1 ~'very threatened" and RARE natural community that requires adequate mitigation. CDFG, commenting on the ENSP, recommended a 5:1 mitigation ratio replacement for RAFSS. Other recommendations by the State and Federal public trust agencies have been a 3:1 ratio for in-kind.habitat replacement. However, the most recent letters to the County regarding conserving RAFSS have recommended a 5:1 ratio habitat mitigation replacement. The Sage Council acknowledges that the Project developer has acquired and is providing a 300-acre mitigation site to the west of Day Canyon and adjacent.to the 300-acre County Flood Control mitigation land for the constmctien of the Day Canyon Debris Basin. The Project mitigation parcel, along with the Debris Basin mitigation lands on the west of southwest, cennent and are adjacent to the 763- acre Noah Etiwanda Habitat Preserve to the east that connectS to the Nature Sanctuaries of The Habitat Trust for Wildlife. While this is a great opportunity, to have more than 1363-acres of contiguous habitat preserved, the Sage Council believes that the lead public lxust natural resource agencies may require a higher habitat replacement ratio than 2:1, according to previous mitigation recommendation made to the City and County regarding impacts to RAFSS. The Sage Council is submitting our two Alternatives that we request that the Project proponentS and the City consider and include in the FEIR. Our Revised Site Plan Alternative (see attached map) for OnSite Habitat Mitigation is feasible and reasonable. This Alternative includes 150 dwelling units on 68.8 acres while providing for 82-acres of habitat conservation in addition to the 300-acre mitigation site to the west of Day Canyon. By conserving habitat onsite, that is protected by an aesthetically pleasing natural stone-wall, the Project would also be providing a greater buffer from fire, earthquake and flooding dangers. The Sage Council believes that our proposed Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative and must be selected by the City. The Sage Council could support this Project Alternative over the No Project Alternative. The other Sage Council Alternative with a Revised Map is one that provides greater earthquake protection by increasing the buffer area. While the Project does not build dwelling units direcfly on the known fault line, the City must consider that it is not Shaking alone that causes life threatening harm and damage. There are known and unknown fissures that branch off earthquake faults. The fault is a known active "reverse-throst" line that lifts and moves earth upon earth. Like the Northridge Earthquake, a similar one will one day occur here. The City must take every precaution and mitigation measure to ensure that future residents are safe. The Sage Council currently finds the mitigation meustwes proposed in the DEIR for earthquake fault and hazards to be inadequate. In order to mitigate the effects to a level of less than significant, we recommend that the City require the Fault Buffer area to be increased 2x the amount currently proposed. The City and Project developer can do so by adopting the Sage Council's Revised Site Plan Alternative for Earthquake Fault (see attached Alternative map). Our other concern over mitigation of habitat is regarding which conservation entity will be receiving the mitigation lands and funds. The Sage Council opposes receivership and management by the County Open Space District (County). We know the County to be a political entity mom than a conservation organization and question the County's use of management funds. In the past the County has wrongfully used management funds for the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve (NEI{P) in noncompliance of the Management Plan and contract Agreement with USFWS and CDFG. The Sage Council requests that the Pwject mitigation lands with adequate management funding be given to The Habitat Trust for Wildlife. until the Project proponent and City has roached an agreement with The Habitat Trust for receivership, the Sage Council remains opposed to the Project, amendments and annexation. · Inadequate Ivfitigation of Offsite Biological Impacts - RAFSs for ',Fuel Modification". · Inadequate mitigation for F_,questrian Trails and future Center. We recommend a City Ordinance and Penal Code adoption to deter equestrian from going off trail. · Inadequate Identification of Direct and Indirect Impacts to the Environment- RAFSS, blueline stream and other subsurface water resources. We recommend additional avoidance and mitigation measures to reach a less than significant impact. · Inadequate Identification of Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources - RAFSS (over 7,500-acres have been lost to development since the City and County contracted with CDFG and USFWS to conserve this habitat through the Valleywide MSHCP Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and in "good faith". RECOMMENDATION TO CITY- Planning Commissionem and City Council Deny the Project and related proposals at this time. Request that City Planners and 'Project Applicant correct CEQA documents to; 1) include an adequate and feasible range of Project Alternatives, including those that will (a) eliminate equestrian elements (lots, trails, park) (b) provide for greater on-site and off-site habitat conservation (environmentally superior), (c) fit consistently into existing General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning requirements without requiring amendments. 3) Deny any and all development, including equestrian use and infrastructure in currently designated and known Hazard areas including Flood. 4) If the City desires to amend the ENSP, the City should not include the process along with this specific Project proposal. Rather the City should notify the public, hold public heatings and recirculate the ENSP FEIR and amendments with enough time for the public to review and comment on the entire document and the proposed amendments. Why hasn't the City done so? The City needs to reconsider new information from the public and public trust agencies regarding the E/qSP since it was approved over 10 years ago. Why isn't the City reopening the ENSP and FEIR so that the public can address.the proposed amendments in context to what is actually occurring in the environment and environmental setting at this time? 5) Consult and meet with CDFG,USFWS and County Museum biologists to ensure that the Project will conform with the County-wide MSHCP guidelines and maps and/or provide adequate nfitigation of negative :impacts to species and habitats that require conservation. 6) Design and Landscaping -Use of non-native plants, trees and grasses will cause further environmental impacts on the surrounding native flora and fauna in the RAFSS habitat and ecosystem. Such negative impacts are recognized by conservation biologists as "edge effects". Non-native grasses, plants and trees encourage the presence of non-native and parasitic birds (i.e. brown-headed cowbirds and European starlings) that displace native birds, steal their nests and negatively effect reproduction and fledging of native birds young. The City needs to ensure that only native plants that are a component of the existing RAFSS/AFSS are used for Project landscaping RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER The Sage Council requests and recommends that the Project Applicant/landowner; 1) Become a willing seller and/or donor of habitat lands to a nonprefit conservation organization and work together to seek funding that is desired. The Sage Council recommends partnering with The Habitat Trust for Wildlife (www:TheHabitatTmst.org) since the land trust presently holds lands in title in Henderson and East Etiwanda Canyons, noFdi of the proposed Project site. 2) Redesign the currently proposed Project to; (a) eliminate the equestrian elements - to provide for greater amount of mitigation acres for habitat conservation (on and offsite) and increase residential density units .Project mitigation dedicated as habitat conservation and donated to The Habitat Trust for Wildlife along wilh adequate management funding. This recommendation is feasible since the City consistently amends its General and Specific Plans. 3) Funding to the City for a future Equestrian Park in an umdentified location that is proposed in current Project needs to be eliminated and dedicated to greater habitat mitigation. 4) If the Project proponents have acquired County Flood Control lands - these lands have already been used as mitigation for the existing levees and cannot legally be used to mitigate the proposed Project or any other - the lands should be donated to The Habitat Trust for Wildlife for habitat and wildlife conservation purposes. 5) Consult and meet with CDFG,USFWS and County Museum biologists to ensure that the Project will conform with the County-wide MSHCP guidelines and maps and/or provide adequate mitigation of negative impacts to species and habitats that require conservation. Etiwanda North Specific Plan 0gNSP) The Sage Council opposes the Cit~ and Proiect proponents proposal to amend the E/qSP by Negative Declaration. The Sage Council requests that the .City prepare and circulate for public review and cnmraent an updated Revised EIR for the ENSP that reflects the present environment and impacts on the environment, including mitigation measures and monitoring. The ENSP is twelve years old - obviously not current- and fails to address the present day issues concerning the environment. In 1992, the ENSP failed to meet the habitat mitigation measures despite written and oral comments given by CDFG, USFWS and Forest Service, the lead government public trust agencies of natural resources. The Forest Service expressed concerns over.the negative impacts on the urban interface associated with bringing in thousands of new residents into a biologically sensitive area and encouraging equestrian uses in the habitat needed by wildlife adjacent to~tbe San Bernardino National Forest. The City wm lwelve years ago by government expexts that equestrian uses in the at were unacceptable and harnfful to the environment. Today, the harm: even greater, as explained by Ikeda who submitted scientific data to ti City and County (see attached comment letter on Rancho Etiwanda Estates). Nevertheless, with all the biological.experts comments, the I still pushes forward with development and equestrian uses in this glol imperiled biological "hot spot". Each time the City has amended the ENSP, for reduced lot size and increased density/number of residentit traits, the City has done so with a wave of their hand and developer fa wand - using a Negative Declaration rather than Revising the ENSP EIR. In addition, the City never mends the ENSP to increase mitigation measures even though CDFG, USFWS and Sage Council have continually explained to the City that it is needed. Significant changes to the environment, regarding natural resources, have occurred since 1992 that need to be addressed and mitigated for in a revised EIR for the ENSP i,e specific wildlife and plant species have been more rare and federally listed as endangered, some with critical habitat designation within the ENSP area. In 1994, the City and County signed a contractual agreement/Memorandum with CDFG and USFWS to conserve habitats and species within the Valley-wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Planning Area, that also falls within the ENSP area. The City recently updated the General Plan using an outdated or "historical" Environmental Analysis (EA) from 1989. However, the City did not update or Revise the 1992 ENSP and EIR despite the fact of changed circumstances in the environment and the numerous amendments made by Negative Declaration. We are providing additional public and scientific data, as ATTACHMENTS that should be considered by the City and Project proponents for this Project and Plan Amendments. If you have any questions and need to communicate, please contact the Law Office of Craig Sherman (619) or Leeona Klippstein (910) 947-5091. Thank you. Sincerely, Lecona Klippstein, Executive Director Spirit of the Sage Council 439 Westwood.SC #144 Fayetteville, NC 28314 www.sagecouncil.eom Copy: Doug Doepke, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife Law Office of Craig Sherman. Nancy Ferguson, USFWS References Attached Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Preserve at critical point for projects By Naomi Kresge Staff Writer Saturday, Nove~er 22, 2003 - Studies on the effect of fire in the North Etiwanda Preserve would be part of a quiet campaign to raise the preserve's profile and make it larger and more accessible to residents. Paradoxically, that might also make it easier for developers to build on hillside land. Although the preserve is not a mitigation ba~k in the traditional developers cannot buy open space within the existing preserve to replace land they want to develop it does provide a template developers ~an follow to speed their projects along. That way, developers don't have to reinvent the wheel every time they plan a project, San Bernardino County Supervisor Paul Biane said. Biune pulled the ipreserve out of obscurity after he won office resurrecting its board of directors and pushing for new land to be brought under its management. Since it was established in 1994, the preserve had operated quietly, ' RESPONSES Response 1: Section 3.5 in the Draft EIR identifies the intended uses of the EIR. The EIR is not intended for a General Plan or Specific Plan amendment because the proposed project does not require a General Plan or a Specific Plan amendment. Response 2: This comment regarding the cumulative loss of biological habitat is noted. The project site is located in an area that a General Plan amendment and Specific Plan amendment were approved in 1991. The implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan that was approved in 1991. The proposed project will result in significant biological impacts as discussed in Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 in the Draft EIR; however, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant (see Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR). Response 3: Based on the biological resources assessment prepared by PCR Services Corporation (see Appendix C in the Draft EIR) and a review of the assessment, field surveys and review of biological literature pertaining to the project area by Michael Brandman Associates, a biological mitigation ratio of 1:1 was recommended. This ratio is determined to be adequate to reduce potential impacts to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) to less than significant. As identified in Mitigation Measure B-l, if the offsite mitigation area contains higher quality habitat, less land may need to be acquired, likewise, if lower quality habitat is acquired, more land may need to be set aside for mitigation. Response 4: This comment regarding the Sage Council's belief that the lead public trust natural resource agencies may require a higher habitat replacement ratio than 2:1 is noted. No further response is required. Response5: An Alternative that includes 150 dwelling units on 68.8 acres is suggested to be considered. This alternative would result in approximately 42 percent less residential units on approximately 46 pement of the project site. This alternative includes 60 percent of the residential units that are included in the Less Intense Development Alternative that is discussed in Section 8.3 in the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 8.3, the Less Intense Development Alternative would not be consistent with the development level contemplated in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and would not meet many of the objectives of the proposed project. The project objectives are discussed on page 3-21 in the Draft EIR. Since this new alternative would result in 60 percent less residential units compared to the Less Intense Development Alternative, this new alternative would also not be consistent with the development level contemplated in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet many of the objectives of the proposed project. Response 6: Another Alternative that includes a greater earthquake protection buffer area is also suggested to be considered. This alternative would include 298 residential lots located north and south of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone which is located through the center of the site. Although there would be a greater RESPONSES buffer, this alternative would stile expose future residences to potentially significant seismic ground shaking and would be considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. According to Section 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives of the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project. If seismic ground shaking is substantially lessened, it would result in less than significant effects. Since seismic ground shaking would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen seismic ground shaking effects. Response 7: The comment regarding the Sage Council's opposition regarding the County receiving the mitigation lands or funds is noted. However, it is appropriate for the County of San Bernardino to receive the land or funds because they currently manage the habitat mitigation lands within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program area. Response 8: Section 5.2 identifies 140.3 acres of RAFSS habitat on the project site and 7.4 acres offsite. These offsite areas include areas planned for fuel modification. Therefore, the total RAFSS habitat to be removed with implementation of the proposed project is 147.7 acres and Mitigation Measure B-1 is a measure to acquire 147.7 acres of RAFSS for mitigation. This mitigation measure as well as additional measures in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR would reduce impacts to RAFSS habitat to less than significant. Response 9: The proposed project includes a 20-foot-wide trail connecting the Etiwanda Community Trail to East Avenue. The proposed trail is along the Red Hill Fault. The project does not include a future equestrian center. Since the proposed trail is only on the project site, and the entire site is planned to be graded, a City Ordinance or Penal Code adoption regarding deterring equestrians from going off the trail is not applicable for the proposed project. The project proposes to terminate the trail at East Avenue. Response 10: Direct and Indirect impacts of biological resources were addressed in Section 5.2 in the Draft EIR. Impacts related to RAFSS is addressed on page 5.2-25 of the Draft EIR, and impacts related to blueline streams and other water resoumes (i.e., jurisdictional areas) is addressed on page 5.2-27 of the Draft EIR. The comment regarding a request for additional avoidance and mitigation measures is noted. Response 11: Page 5.2-28 of the Draft EIR identifies that the proposed project will significantly contribute to the cumulative loss of RAFSS habitat. Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR provides a measure (Mitigation Measure B-l) that would reduce the potential impact on RAFSS habitat to less than significant. RESPONSES Response 12: Please see Response 1 above regarding the project not proposing a Specific Plan amendment. Response 13: The County-wide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is still under development. The proposed project includes mitigation measures in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR that would reduce impacts to species and habitats to less than significant. Response14: Use of non-native plants, trees and grasses could result in environmental impacts on surrounding native flora and fauna in the RAFSS habitat and ecosystem. These impacts are considered edge effects. Edge effects are mitigated in Section 5.2.5 of the Draff EIR. These measures include use of native and drought-tolerant species adjacent to the offsite habitat (Mitigation Measure B-3), use of Iow-intensity street lamps, Pow elevation light pales, and shielding (Mitigation Measure B-4), and avoiding use of invasive plants (Mitigation Measure B-5). Response 15: The Sage Council's request regarding the selling and/or donation of habitat lands is noted. As described in Mitigation Measure B-l, the County of San Bernardino is identified as the agency to receive the land containing RAFSS habitat. The County is considered the appropriate .agency to receive the land because the County is currently managing habitat mitigation lands within the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program area. Response 16: This comment regarding dedication of habitat mitigation acres is noted. No further response is needed. .. Response 17: The Development Agreement includes a condition consistent with the City's existing Equestrian Overlay District. This District requires new residential development with lots that are less than 20,000 square feet to pay an equestrian fee. Since the proposed project includes lets with less than 20,000 square feet, the project applicant will be required to pay an equestrian fee. Please note than an Equestrian Park is not proposed on the project site. Response 18: The project applicant will not be able to use County Flood Control lands that have been previously used as mitigation for the project's offsite mitigation. Response 19: Please see Response 13 regarding the County-wide MSHCP. Response20: This comment regarding opposition to the project is noted. However, the proposed project would not require an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Furthermore, an EIR, and not a Negative Declaration, has been prepared for the project. TH E C I T Y OF !QA N C II 0 C U C3. I"I 0 N GA Memorandum DATE: June 14, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council am, City Manager uller, City Planner enderson, Principal Planner da Creek 300-acre Annexation Attached for your review, are comment letters and responses prepared for the Etiwanda Creek 300-acre Annexation which is Item G.3 on the June 16, 2004 City Council Agenda. Introduction Annexation DRC2003-01164 and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162 consists of the following projects: ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed annexation of approximately 300 acres generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09; and 0226-081-05, 06, 08, 11, 12 and 13. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed General Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential (0.! - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80-acres of land; and, from Very Low Residential to Conservation for approximately 45-acres of land; generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09; and 0226-081-05, 06, 08, 11, 12 and 13. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed Specific Plan amendment fi:om Very Low Residential (0.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80-acres of land; and, from Very Low Residential to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45-acres of land; generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. Al?N: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09; and 0226-081-05, 06, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The project site has been part of the City's General Plan since at least 1992 when the 6,840 acre Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted by the City. Government Code Section 65450 states that specific plans are for the systematic implementation of the General Plan, and the Government Code does not establish a sunset clause as to the effective dates of a Specific Plan. The proposed 300-acre site is subject to a variety of land use designations as follows: Very Low Residential (0.1 to 2 du/ac) on 140 acres and Conservation/Flood Control on 160 acres which allow residential development and conservation flood control facilities. The proposed amendment allows for an increase in density 0.1 du/ac to 4 dn/ac) on 80 acres of the site and increases the amount of land for conservation/flood control purposes by 45 acres and retains the existing very low density designation on 15 acres of the site which has partially been developed with residential uses. There are no development proposals being considered by the City in conjunction with the Annexation, General Plan Amendment or the Amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan meaning that there are no tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, trail plans or other land use entitlements or development projects associated with the current project. In addition, the project does not include any aspect of the Tracy, Richland and Henderson projects. In the absence of any development proposal for the site, the proposed annexation and amendment will not result in any "take" to endangered species or critical habitat. Letter A - Parker and Covert May 12, 2004 Comment A-1. Section 13 c) the Initial Study shall contain the additional double underlined wording stated below and shall read as follows: 13 c) The annexation area is within the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Both school districts will be notified at the time of any anticipated development. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment will modify approximately 80 acres from Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), and 45 acres from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control. The amendment would result in decreasing the residentially zoned land area by 45 acres; however, it would also increase the number of anticipated residential dwelling units by approximately 50 units, which would in turn increase the local population by approximately 160 persons. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay School Impact Fees. With this standard mitigation, cumulative impacts to the School Districts are not considered significant. School districts are placed into a st)ecific "level" based on school imnact fee amounts that are imnosed on the develonment. California Government Code (6 65995[bB established the base amount of allowable develooer fees at $1.93 r>er souare foot for residential constmction and $0.31 Der souare foot for commercial. These "Level 1" fees are subject to inflation adiustment every two years. In certain circumstances, for _residential construction, school districts can imnose fees that am hi~her than Level 1 fees. School districts can imnose these "Level 2 fees" which are eoual to 50 ~ercent of land and construction costs if they (il Crenare and adoot a school facilities needs analysis. Oil are determined by the State Allocation Board to be eligible to imnose Level 2 fees. and (iii/meet at least two of the following, four conditions: · At least 30 nercent of the district's students are on a multitrack year-round schedule: · The district has nlaced on the ballot within the previous four years a local school bond that received at least 50 percent of the votes cast: · The district has passed bonds eoual to: D 15 nercent of its bondin~ canacitv prior to ~lovember 4. 1998. or 2) 30 nercent of its bonding capacity after November 4. 1998: or At least 20 percent of the district's teaching stations are relocatable classrooms. Additionally. if the State's bond funds are exhausted, a school district that is eligible to impose Level 2 fees will be authorized to impose even hie, her fees. which are commonly referred to as "Level 3 fees", eaual to 100 ~ercent of land and construction costs of new schools reauired as a result of new develovments. Currently. the Etiwanda School District (ESD) assesses "Level 2" fees of $0.25 ~er souare foot of commercial develooment, and $2.09 ~er souare foot for residential develooment. Additionally. ESD reouires the ~avment of an additional $2.408.03 ~er residential dwelline unit. These fees are current as of May 13. 2004 (~ersonal communication with Phyllis Maxwell. May 25. 2004]. Per Califomia Government Code (8 65995fhB. "The mvment or satisfaction of a fee. chame, or other reouirement levied or im¢osed...are hereby deemed to be full and comnlete mitieation of the impacts...on the nrovision of adeouate school facilities." The develonment of the r>roiect site will contribute to the cumulative demand of school services and facilities within the District. in conjunction with other ~ro~osed or anoroved development in the City. As each development is ~rocessed. the ESD is able to collect the mandated school immct fees. As cumulative ~avment of fees is sufficient to reduce the cumulative imnact of develooment to a less than sianificant level. Comment A-2. The City acknowledges the commentator's request that various schools within the District either are, or may operate at greater capacity than is desired by the School Dislrict. This information will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration before they act on the proposed project. Comment A-3. The City acknowledges the commentator's request that 14 acres be reserved by the City for a future elementary school in the project area. This information will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration before they act on the proposed project. Letter B - Fish and Wildlife Service May 26, 2004 Comment B-1. The proposal is an amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan and a change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no proposals to introduce new trails into either the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and/or the Etiwanda North Specific Plan associated with this proposed General Plan Amendment and/or jurisdictional boundary (annexation) change. Comment B-2. At the present time 140 acres of the subject site permits residential development under the existing VL (Very Low) residential land use designation. The proposal would result in a reduction of developable area because the proposal includes a land use amendment on 45 acres of the 140 acres to Conservation-Flood Control, thus reducing the overall area which would permit development. In the absence of a development plan, the change in land use density does not create development on the site. The City cannot make any assumptions as to when and how the property may be developed in the future. However, at such time as development plans are submitted to the City they will be subject to environmental reviews because they would be a "project" as defined by CEQA. 3 Comment B-3. The proposal is an amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan and a change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County of San Bernardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Of the 140 acres of the subject site that currently allows residential development under the existing Very Low residential designation, 45 acres are proposed to be designed as Conservation/Flood Control which does not permit any residential development. There are no development proposals associated with the amendments and change in jurisdictional boundaries, however prior to any development on any portion of the site, as required by federal and state law future developers will be subject to the provisions of all federal and state regulations governing rare, endangered and threatened species and critical habitat which will address any impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat, California coastal gnatcatcher, and associated critical habitat. Comment B-4. The proposal is an amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan and a change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Of the 140 acres of the subject site that currently allows residential development under the existing Very Low residential designation, 45 acres are proposed to be designed as Conservation/Flood Control which does not permit any residential development. There are no development proposals associated with the amendments and change in jurisdictional boundaries, however prior to any development on any portion of the site, as required by federal and state law, future developers will be subject to the provisions of all federal and state regulations governing rare, endangered and threatened species and critical habitat which will address any impacts to San Bernardino kangaroo rat, California coastal gnatcatcher, and associated critical habitat. There no trails associated with this amendment to the General Plan or the Specific Plan. Comment B-5. The change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga will not alter the San Bernardino Transportation/Flood Control District's responsibility to manage its properties permanently set aside to offset effects to the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and/or California coastal gnatcatcher and their critical habitat as a result of Formal Section 7 Consultation on the San Sevaine Creek water project (1-6-99-F-42). The City will not re'place the County as the entity responsible for the management of the District's set aside lands. Letter C - Craig A. Sherman Letter May 25, 2004 Comment C-1. The City acknowledges the commentator's opposition to the project, including the use of what the commentator believes is an outdated document (the Etiwanda North Specific Plan), and the level of controversary that is raised by the 4 commentator. This information will be provided to the decision makers for consideration prior to their taking action on the proposed project. As described in the introduction above, State law in its authorization for the adoption of Specific Plans does not specify a sunset clause thereby creating a duration of time for which a specific plan is valid. Therefore, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is operative until such time as the Plan is repealed. In compliance with Public Resources Code sections 21080(c)(2), 21082.2(b) and Guidelines section 15064 15064(c) the City must consider whether an impact is beneficial or adverse. Furthermore, the existence of public controversy alone does not result in an EIR being required if no substantial evidence in light of the whole record shows that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Comment C-2. This proposal does not negate previous actions of the County, City and other cities in signing a contractual Agreement and Memorandum with CDFG and USFWS in conserving habitat lands and specific species. At the current time the plan for which the Agreement and Memorandum were signed is on hold and not under preparation at the current time. The proposed project will assist in the conservation of habitat lands and specific plans due to the reduction of developable lands on the subject site by designating an additional 45 acres as conservation/flood control resulting in a total of 205 acres being designated for conservations/flood control uses. Comment C-3. The City acknowledges that the 763-acre Oak Summit site has not and cannot be developed as it has been purchased and set aside as mitigation lands for the Route 30 highway expansion project. Previous amendments or revisions to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan remain in effect as approved and are not affected by this project. Comment C-4. This project does not change the intent of the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Plan which was established to allow for the voluntary set aside and/or purchase of land for open space purposes and to protect endangered species and critical habitat. Furthermore, it enhances the goal of the plan to protect and preserve specific species and habitats by reducing the amount of developable lands by designating an additional 45 acres as conservations/flood control lands which prohibits residential development. Comment C-5. As stated in the introduction above there are no development plans associated with this jurisdictional boundary change (annexation) from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and amendment in land use designations. There is no development associated with the actions under consideration by the City which would cause an impac~ to the physical environment. At such time as development occurs on the site in the future, those developments will 5 be subject to applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NEPA, MBTA, Clean Water Act and CEQA; however in the absence of any physical alteration of the project there are no impacts caused by a change in jurisdictions or amendments in land use designations. Comment C-6. The proposed project does not affect previous actions regarding the reinitiated FWS consultation regarding the Etiwanda Debris Basin and levees within the San Sevaine Project. There are no development proposals associated with the project currently being considered by the City. An overall amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is beyond the scope of this project which is a policy determination of the City Council. Comment C-7. The City acknowledges that the City previously approved the Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates Development Projects. Previous actions to make revisions in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan remain in effect and are unaffected by the proposed annexation and amendment to the land use designation of the proposed project site. This information will be provided to the decision makers for consideration prior to their taking action on the proposed project. Comment C-8. The City has not amended the ENSP to allow development within "utility corridors". Comment C-9. The proposed annexation and land use amendment site is located outside the Etiwanda Highlands and Oaks sub areas and therefore not affected by the ownership of three lands by a non-profit land trust organization within the those areas. Comment C-10. The City has recently constructed a new fire station in the North Etiwanda area to provide fire protection services. In addition to the City's fire agency, the fire agency has entered into mutual aid agreements with other agencies for fire protection services. As stated in the introduction above the proposal is only a jurisdictional change (annexation) and amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. There are no development proposals associated with this annexation and land use designation amendment project. At such time as specific development plans are submitted for the site, those development proposals will be reviewed to determine compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations including the Endangered Species Act, CEQA, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, etc. Comment C-11. As stated in the introduction above the proposal is only a jurisdictional change (annexation) and amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. There are no development proposals associated with this annexation and land use designation amendment project. At such time as specific development plans are submitted for the site, those development proposals will be reviewed to determine compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations including the Endangered Species Act. In the absence of a development project proposal for the site, there is no impact on Plummer's mariposa lily because the change in jurisdiction and land use designation does not physically alter the land. The request to revise the Etiwanda North Specific Plant and mitigate for impacts to this species will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration prior to their action on this project. Comment C-12. The commentator's request to revise the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to reflect the current environment and impacts will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration prior to their action on this project. Comment C-13. The commentator's request to revise the project description and locations will be provided to the City Council for their consideration prior to their action on this project. Comment C-14. The commentator's request to remove the Equestrian Overlay District from the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area and Sphere of Influence, including all related projects will be provided to the City Council for their consideration prior to their action on this project. Comment C-15. The City is not required to undergo formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act for impacts on SBKR and CAGN designated habitat and "take" of federally listed species because there is no development associated with this proposal including any grading or other ground disturbance, thus there will be no impact to habitat or "take". Comment 16. As the current time there is no work in progress regarding the Valley- wide Multi-Species Plan and the County is considering terminating the plan and refunding monies provided by the various affected agencies. The request for the City to consult with the CDFG, FWS and County VWMSHCP will be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting for their consideration. Comment C-17. As stated in the introduction above, the proposal before the City is a change in jurisdictional boundaries (annexation) and amendment in the land use designations of the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and there are no associated development plans at this time. As previously stated the legislation that permits the adoption of Specific Plans does not establish a sunset clause for the approval period of the plan, therefore until such time as the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is repealed or otherwise amended the standards contained within it are those standards currently adopted in the plan and are applicable to development within the Plan area which is located within the City. The City acknowledges the CDFG and USFWS letter which is on file with the City regarding 5:1 habitat replacement for Alluvial fan sage scrub. Individual developments that may occur within the 300-acre annexation are required to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations including the Endangered Species Act, therefore if required those developments will be required to enter into formal consultation. Comment C-18. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration, and Notice of Completion were prepared for the project and submitted to the State Clearing House and local agencies. On April 26, 2004, a Notice of Public Heating was circulated to surrounding property owners, State and local agencies, and interested parties. As required by Local Agency Formation Commission Office (LAFCO), an Initial Study was prepared for the project and was circulated to State and local agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day review period. The proposed project is a change in jurisdictional boundaries f~om the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and includes an amendment to the General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The City has not processed or has approved any development on-site, as none is proposed. Additionally, no Development Agreement is proposed as part of the project. With regards to availability of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, the document is available for public review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Counter located at 11050 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 92371, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding City observed holidays. Hard copies of the document are also available, however Specific Plans and Environmental Impact Reports and related technical appendices are generally large and require outside copying service. In accordance with Califomia Government Code Section 6253, the City may take up to ten business days to response to such requests. Government Code Section 65450 states that specific plans are for the systematic implementation of the General Plan, and the Government Code does not establish a sunset clause as expiration of a Specific Plan. Furthermore, as permitted by State law the City's General Plan, "planning area" includes the Sphere of Influence which incorporates the subject area. At the time the Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted the entire 6,840 acres was included within the Specific Plan area, the proposal is an amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations and annexation of 300-acres of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to the City, and does not necessitate an overall amendment to the Specific Plan. Comment C-19. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration, and Notice of Completion were prepared for the project and submitted to the State Clearing House and local agencies. On April 26, 2004, a Notice of Public Heating was circulated to surrounding property owners, State and local agencies, and interested parties. As 8 required by Local Agency Formation Commission Office (LAFCO), an Initial Study was prepared for the project and was circulated to State and local agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day review period. Comment C-20. The Initial Study prepared for this project did not identify any impacts that could not be mitigated below a level of significance. Site specific impacts will be analyzed at such time as development plans are submitted because the request to annex the 300-acre site and to amend the City's General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan are only changes in jurisdictional boundaries and land use designations. When and how the site may be developed in the future is unknown at this time and the City cannot speculate when and how the property might be developed in the future. Government Code Section 65450 states that specific plans are for the systematic implementation of the General Plan, and the Government Code does not establish a sunset clause as expiration of a Specific Plan. Furthermore, as permitted by State law the City's General Plan, "planning area" includes the Sphere of Influence which incorporates the subject area. At the time the Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted in 1992, the entire 6,840 acres was included within the Specific Plan area, the proposal is an amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations and annexation of 300-acres of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to the City, and does not necessitate an overall amendment to the Specific Plan. Comment C-21. Of the 300-acre subject site, only 95 acres will permit furore residential development. Until such time as a development project is proposed the impact to critical habitat cannot be determined. Future residential development will not be permitted on lands owned by the County Flood Control District and development will not be permitted on the Henderson and Etiwanda levees and in the debris basin. The City has discussed the proposed project with County Flood Control staff (Mr. Frank Molina) on May 27, 2004 and provided additional information to Mr. Molina on June 1, 2004. The proposal is a General Plan and Specific Plan land use amendment and jurisdictional change from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no development plans associated with this project including any request for grading. There is no federal nexus, nor any development project which would impact either critical habitat or endangered species, thus there is no requirement to enter into either Section 7 or Section 10 consultation. Comment C-22. The proposed 300-acre annexation site is included within the City's General Plan which includes land use designations for the site as permitted by State law. Government Code Section 65300 states that "a city's general plan must include a comprehensive, long-term plan for the physical development of both the city and 9 any land outside the city's boundaries that the city determines relates to its planning." The Etiwanda North Specific Plan area including the proposed annexation area is an area that the City determined relates to development of the City and analysis of the of the existing and proposed land use designations and zoning has appropriately utilized the designations as adopted by City at the time both the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan were adopted. C-23. Government Code Section 65453(a) states that "...specific plans may be amended as often as necessary" and specifies that they may be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the legislative body. Furthermore, although subject to CEQA, there is no provision in Specific Plan law which requires that when an amendment to a land use designation for properties within an adopted Specific Plan are considered that the EIR be recirculated. Sections 65450 et.seq, of the Government Code do not include a sunset clause regarding the effective dates of a Specific Plan, therefore the standards and guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and its amendments govern development of properties located within the City's jurisdiction including the development of properties that are annexed into the City which are within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. The proposal is an amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and site specific mitigation will be determined when specific development plans are submitted to the City for consideration in accordance with State law. C-24. As permitted by the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15092 and 15093, where impacts cannot be mitigated below level of significant, Statements of Overriding Consideration are required, thus the City acted within its authority in adopting a Statements of Overriding Considerations for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and certified the EIR. The Initial Study states that the proposed amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan designation will amend a portion of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan by increasing the amount of land designated for conservation/flood control land and increasing the residential density of a portion of the Specific Plan for the 300-acre annexation site and is not a proposal to revise the overall Etiwanda North Specific Plan. C-25. The City has provided a complete and informative review of the project because the project is limited to a proposal that is a change in jurisdiction from the County to the City and an amendment to the land use designations of the General Plan and Specific Plan which currently allow residential development by increasing the residential density on 80-acres of the site, and designating an additional 45 acres as conservation/flood control where residential development is not a permitted use, and does not include any site specific development plans. Impacts to biological resources (critical habitat and endangered species), as a result of the project cannot be determined at this time due to the absence of specific development plans. 10 Letter D - Craig A. Sherman May 26, 2004 Comment D-1. The proposal before the City is limited to a change in jurisdiction from the County to the City and an amendment to the land use designations of the General Plan and Specific Plan which currently allow residential development, and the designation of an additional 45 acres as conservation/flood control where residential development is not a permitted use and does not include any site specific development plans. Until such time as any development on the site may occur, any existing wildlife corridors or habitat buffers remain unaffected and if they currently exist they can continue to be used. The City cannot speculate how and when the subject site might be developed in the future. The configuration, associated access, whether equestrian uses would be permitted, etc. cannot be presently determined due to the absence of any specific development plans. At a minimum 205 acres will ultimately be designated for open space purposes leaving less than 1/3 (95 acres) of the site for potential future development. Comment D-2. The City is aware that first residents of the Rancho Cucamonga area were Cahuilla and Serrano Indians as stated in the 2001 General Plan EIR. The Initial Study correctly states that no known cultural resources have been discovered on site and the Cultural Resource Assessment associated with the Henderson Tract proposed immediately north of the subject site did not identify any resources on site. The proposed project includes amendments in land use designations and change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In the absence of any physical development plans, there will be no physical alternations to land, therefore there will no affect on any cultural or paleoentological resoumes should they exist on site. Per the State CEQA Guidelines (§ 15126.4[a] [4]) mitigation measures must, "...be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements." This section further states that there must be an "essential nexus" between the mitigation measures and a legitimate governmental interest (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission) and that the mitigation measure must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project (Dolan v. the City of Tigard). Therefore because the City cannot assume when and how the site may develop a nexus can be determined as to the extent that future development may have in regarding to conserving on-site habitat lands and mitigating at a 5:1 replacement. Furthermore, mitigation measures have been included that require a preconstruction field survey be conducted by a qualified paleontological in conjunction with development of the site. Additionally, the Initial Study for the project includes a mitigation measure requiring that if any prehistoric archeological resources are encountered before or during grading a qualified archeologist shall be retained to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve the resources. 11 Comment D-3. The proposal consists of a change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and an amendment to the General and Specific Plans for properties that were already designated by the General Plan and Specific Plan for residential development. There are no development proposals being considered by the City. However, as a result of the proposed amendments, 45 additional acres of the proposed 300-acre annexation area are proposed to be designated as Conservation/Flood Control thus removing the development potential on those portions of the site. A mitigation measure is included which requires that prior to development a Geotechnical Analysis Report be submitted to determine site specific geotechnical mitigation measures. There are no development plans associated with the proposal at this time, thus there is no threat to individuals as a result of an earthquake, or wildfire, or wind. Should it be determined at the time specific development plans are submitted for the proposed site that portions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone traverse portions of the site, then the specific development project as required by State law would be subject to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act, meet fire flow requirements as determined by the City's Fire Agency and comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code regarding wind load factors. Comment D-4. The proposed land use amendments and change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County of San Bemardino to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for a 300oacre portion of the 6,840 acre North Etiwanda Specific Plan will not conflict with any applicable habitat or conservation plan because the property in question is not within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. The proposed site is located within the County Improvement Zone OS-1. Preparation of the proposed San Bemardino County Valley-wide Habitat Conservation Plan is currently not in process and the County is considering termination of the planning effort. There are no development plans associated with this project because it is only an amendment of the underlying land use designations and change in jurisdictional boundaries from the County to the City of Rancho Cucamonga; therefore there is no violation of the NCCP Act, Endangered Species Act and MBTA. To ensure a timely evaluation of the current biological circumstances and timeliness of data used in evaluating future development a mitigation measure has been included requiring a Biological Resoumes Habitat Assessment be prepared for the area of the proposed project site by each future development proponent. The preparation of a Biological Resources Habitat Assessment when a specific development plan is proposed would be the appropriate time for development proponents to prepare the Assessment using current data and mitigating for site specific development impacts on biological resources. 12 Comment D-5. The City notes the commentators concern regarding the earlier analysis associated with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. However, neither CEQA, nor the CEQA Guidelines establish a sunset clause regarding the effective dates of a certified Environmental Impact Report, the City so notes the commentators concern. The City's 2001 General Plan Update and associated Environmental Impact Report were consulted in analyzing this proposed project. The proposed project is an amendment to both the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and an annexation of 300 acres of land to the City within a portion of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. There are no development plans associated with either of the amendments, nor the annexation. At such time as a specific development plan is submitted to the City the preparation of a Biological Resources Habitat Assessment is required which will ensure site specific analysis and mitigations. At the time a site specific Biological Resources Habitat Assessment is prepared, development proponents will have the opportunity to consult with biology staff at the County Museum, CDF and FWS to obtain updated biological data that is specific to the site being proposed for development. Comment D-6. Your comments will be taken under consideration by the City Council. Letter E - Leeona Klippstein May 26, 2004 Comment E-1. The proposal before the City is an amendment to the General and Specific Plans and a change in jurisdictional boundaries with no physical development plans associated with the project. There is no tract map or other residential developed proposed in conjunction with the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments or 300 acre annexation (not 800-acres as noted by commentator), therefore the provisions of SB 610 and 221 are inapplicable to this project. The Tracy, Henderson, and Richland projects are not a part of this annexation proposal. Comment E-2. There is no developer associated with the proposed 300-acre annexation and land use designation amendment and there are no residential dwelling units proposed for development, therefore the provision of SB 610 and 221 are inapplicable to this project. Letter F - Local Agency Formation Commission May 26, 2004 Comment F-1. The City acknowledges the commentator's request to further address the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program and therefore revises Section 4 Item F of the Initial Study to read as follows: In 1992. the County of San Bemardino formed the North Etiwanda Oven Svace and Habitat Preservation Prom:am (NEOSHPP) to identify existim, oven lands havin~ 13 snecial resource value and to encouraee the preservation of these lands. Resource values include critical habitats, uniaue communities, riparian areas, and corridor connections. Lands with special resource value could be added to existing onen sCace areas to t~rovide connections between ot~en st~ace areas, increasine sizes and reducim, fraementation. The orom'arn encouraees oronertv owners to preserve kev r)arcels throueh various mechanisms. The ~roiect site occurs within the County Service Area (CSA 70'} Imnrovement Zone OS-1. Comment F-,2. The discussion on Fire Protection (Item A on Page 25 of the Initial Study) was based on the fact that upon annexation, fire safety would be the responsibility of the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District rather than the County Fire Agency or State Department of Forestry. To clarify existing conditions the paragraph will be revised to include a discussion of the RSA as follows: The vroiect is currently located within a State Resvonsibilitv Area (SPA). SPA's are acres of the State for which the State has the financial resvonsibilitv ofnreventine and sunnressine fires. Lands located within incorporated cities or owned by the federal government form SRA's. Uvon annroval of annexation, the site would be removed from the SRA and become the resnonsibilitv of the Rancho Cucamonea Fire Protection District (RCFPD`} which provides fire vrotection for the City of Rancho Cucamonea and ~articiDates with a variety of other fire aeencies in mutual aid a..m-cements. Letter G - Department of Public Works Comment G-1. The City has provided the requested exhibits to the Department of Public Works in a letter to Mr. Frank Molina dated June 1, 2004 and has placed the Department on its list to receive notification as responsible agencies to receive information regarding projects that may affect properties under the ownership of the San Bemardino County Flood Control District. Letter H - State Clearinghouse Comment H-1. The City acknowledges the closure of the review period for State agencies to comment on the proposed project as determined by State Office of Planning and Research's State Clearinghouse and that no comments were received. Letter I - Southern Califomia Association of Governments Comment I-1. The City acknowledges the Southern California Association of Government's determination that the proposed annexation and General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) and CEQA Guidelines. 14 CLAYTON H. PARKER SPENCERE. COVEET' PARKER & COVERT LLP JONATHA~ J. MO~ TELEPHONE: (714) CYNTHIA A. YOUNT ~]N, CALIFO~ 9~78~2164 v~v~ ~. m~u~s May 12, 2004 ET-40 CERTIFIED MA~ ~TU~ ~CEIPT ~OUESTED Ci~ ofR~cho Cuc~onga ~Ft'~"' Pl~g Division 10500 Cite Center Drive R~cho Cuc~ong% CA 91729 A~ention: L~ Hend~on Pfineipfl Pl~er Re: A~exafion DRC 2003-011~, Generfl PI~ Amendment DRC 2003-01162, ~d Etiw~da No~ Specific PI~ Amendment DRC 2003-01163 (Ci~ of~eho Cuc~onga) De~ ~. Henderson: ~e Etiw~da School Dis~ct h~ requested ~is fi~ to respond on i~ behalf to ~e CiW's notices of April 21, 2004 (notice &intent to adopt negative decimation) ~d April 26, 2004 (notice of public he~ng) on ~e above project. ~e Initial Study for ~e project ~p. 25-26) contends that ~ere will be "no impact" on schools ~ a result of~e proposed project. ~e Initial Study notes ~at ~e rezoning will result in a net increase of approximately 50 dwelling ~its wi~in ~e project ~ea to a total of 218 dwelling ~its. Applying ~e DisPels cu~ent student generation factor of 0.6218 per s~gle f~ily detached home resul~ in ~ additional 135 students ~om ~is project alone. ~e Initial Study proposes mitigation in ~e fo~ ofpa~ent of~e Dis~et% school impact fees, ~d finds ~at, wi~ ~at mitigation, impac~ will not be si~ific~t. However ~e Initial Study fails to consider the cumulative impact on schools of~is project as well as pl~ed ~d foreseeable other residential projects in ~e s~e general ~ea of~e Etiw~da No~ Specific PI~. For ex~ple, at p. 1 of~c Initial Study it is briefly noted ~at "~e CiW is in ~e process of preparing fo~ sep~ate a~exations ... totaling 800 acres, including: PARKER & COVERT LLP Larry Henderson May 4, 2004 Page 2 Tentative Tract 16072/Richland- annexation of approximately 160 acres Tentative Tract 14749/Tracy- annexation of approximately 240 acres Tentative Tract 16324Prtenderson Creek- annexation of approximately 100 acres City initiated annexation of approximately 300 acres" The review of each of these annexations separately by the City (Initial Study, p. 2) without regard to the others overlooks the cumulative impact of these and other projects going into an area (the area north of Wilson Avenue and west of Wardman Bullock Road) that previously has had essentially no residential development and no impact on the need for schools. For example, the District is aware that 123 homes are planned in the Henderson Creek project alone. Applying the District's current student generation factor of 0.6214, that project will generate about 76 more K-8 students. The District believes that the addition of the Tracy (TTM14749), Richland (TTM 16072), Henderson Creek (TTM 16324) and Etiwanda Creek projects together will add approximately 600 more students resulting in an estimated total enrollment increase sufficient to create an attendance boundary for a new elementary school. A lead agency must discuss a cumulative impact if the project's incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is "cumulatively considerable." (14 California Code of Regulations section 15130(a).) This determination is based on an' assessment of the project's incremental effects "viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (14 California Code of Regulations section 15065(c).) The requirement to evaluate significant cumulative impacts was adopted to reflect case law requiring such an analysis. (Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 151 Cal.Rptr. 866.) Public Resources Code section 210830o)(2) specifies that the CEQA Guidelines must include criteria requiring public agencies to fred that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if its possible effects "are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." The purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis is to avoid considering projects in a vacuum, because failure to consider cumulative harm may risk environmental disaster. Whitman v. Board ofSu ervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408, 151 Cal.Rptr. 866 (citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway (2d Cir. 1975) 524 F.2d 79.) Without this analysis, piecemeal approval of several projects with related impacts could lead to severe environmental harm. (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanistaus. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713,720, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 704, Las Virgenes Homeowners Federations ~os Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306, 223 Cal.Rplx. 18.) The cumulative impacts analysis must assess the cumulative impacts of other projects or activities that produce similar impacts in the relevant geographical area. (Kings County Farm Bureau_ v. Ci of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721, 270 Cal.~Rptr. 650.) An adequate PARKER & COVERT LLP Larry Henderson May 4, 2004 Page 3 analysis of cumulative impacts is particularly important when another related project might significantly worsen the project's adverse environmental impacts. (Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 322.) The requirement of a cumulative impacts analysis of a project's regional impacts has been described as a "vital provision" ofCEQA. (Bozun v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263,283, 118 Cal.Rptr. 249.) Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant -- projects taking place over a period of time. (14 California Code of Regulations section 15355Co).) At a minimum, a cumulative impact analysis should be conducted to determine the likely total number of new residential units that will be permitted as a result of all of the annexations and related approvals, including any additional foreseeable projects not currently at the annexation stage, the total number of students that will be added to the District's schools, and the impact on the capacity of the District's existing schools of adding that number of students. Based on such cumulative impact analysis the City should then determine if a negative declaration is still appropriate or if it should prepare a mitigated negative declaration with appropriate mitigation or an environmental impact report. The District is concerned that school impact fees alone will be inadequate to mitigate the impact on the District's facilities from the future residential development of this area which currently has no schools available. The District believes that a school site should be reserved now such that it is available for future acquisition before the area is built out with residential development. The District's proposed East Banyan elementary school site is located adjacent to San Bernardino County Flood Control land and a current earthen flood control channel. Other land to the north of the site is being traded between County Flood Control and the City of Rancho Cucamonga in order to create a continuous strip of Flood Control land adjacent to the channel. When the negative declaration and all other investigation of the site is complete, it could possibly be deemed an environmentally sensitive area or an area needed by County Flood control for construction of the concrete channel. The District's Etiwanda Colony elementary school site, currently under construction,- will have an estimated enrollment in September 2004 of 685. Growth in the attendance area will create an estimated enrollment of 950 by June 2006 and enrollment will continue to grow with the addition of the homes proposed in the Etiwanda Creek area. The site is designed to accommodate four more classrooms or approximately 120 more students if -~,-2 necessary. However, an elementary school of greater than 900 is not desirable. With respect to elementary schools, Etiwanda Colony, at maximum capacity, would be a very large school, but if the attendance area were divided and another elementary school PARKER & COVERT LLP Larry Henderson May 4, 2004 Page 4 built, it could result in two medium-sized schools. A problem arises when we look at the intermediate school capacities for grades 6, 7, and 8. The number of those students generated from these projects would cause the permanent capacity of Summit Intermediate (1422) to be exceeded by approximately 100 students and could result in the need to retain sixth grade students at the elementary schools. An intermediate school enrollment in excess of 1300 is not desh'able. The Etiwanda School District is therefore requesting that an elementary, school site'-~ of approximate, ly 14 acres be r. eserved by the City in the planning process at this time for future acquisition by the District for school purposes within the area of or adjacent to the Etiwanda Creek and Henderson Creek projects north of Wilson Avenue and west of Wardman Bullock Road. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Douglas M. Claflin or the undersigned. Very truly yours,/ . /fi'nathan J. Mott JJM/pg cc: Mr. Douglas M. Claflin Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Etiwanda School District United Stat s Department of the Interior FIS~[ EcolegicSl ~ ~ 6010 I4;ad~.~ Valley Road ! C~rlsba~ California In R~ly P-.d~ To~ P-WS-SB-4024.1 [/~¥ 2 6 City of Rancho Cucamonge 10500 Civic Center Drive Rzncho Cucamonga, Caifforuia 917~k)-0507 Re: II,aft FAmvirollll~cntal ],mpac£ Repdzt 0D]5'IR) for the Eti,,va~da Nozlh Specific Plan' · Amendment and Proposed Aauexafions of Unincorporated San ]Bernardi~o County by the City of Raneha Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, Califonfia We have reviewed the Dra~ Enviro~kn~ntal Impa~t gqx~t (DI~[R) mgeniiug the amendments to the F~iwanda North Specific Plan and mmcxafion of pamels wilk~ unincorporated San Bernardino County by tlg City of Rancho Cuemnonga (City) and provide th~s¢ comugnU; for your consid~-ation. Thc prima~y ¢oncm-n and mandate o~ thc U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sec'icg (Service) is the y, otecfion of public fish and wildlife pusourc~s and thdr habitats. Thc Service has l~gal mspo~biJipy for welfar~ of migratory birds, anadmmous fish, and ~ndangeav. d animals and plants occtu~.',ng in tho United States. Thc Seorice/s also remponsible for arlmini$~illg tho Endangered Sp~cie~ Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ~t ~,q.). Th~ propos~ actions may affect thc federally endangcrod San Beoaardiuo kanpmao (D/podomys tr~ parsul, "SBE~") and the fedea~y th~st~u~ coastal Ca~i fca~ia gnatc~.tchor (Polioff~dla ca~ornlca califorrd~t., "]{nawat~he0r") and thch' designate~] critical ~:labilats. stx~e.s haw been detected in are~ adjacent 1o the ac'don boundary in re,ut yems (Carksbad and Wildlife Sem'vi~ OIS internal d~*shase 2004). Although the October 2003 wildfires hax'¢ likely burned most or all of thc vegetation within the areas affccUxt by thc pwpor~d aceons, we eXlgCt that thcg areas will ~cover and provid~ habitat suitable for gnatca~chems wilhiu ~m least thr~ yearn of the fig. Thc red,.,~ou in onsite vegstation, while negatively a.ffectiu/~ gu.atcatch~r~ is anticipated to have imp, eyed site c.o~dltlons for thc SBK~- The recent fi~s have ,~ot ~."ec~o~d thc legal ~.,s of critical habitaL Debra Meier (FWS-S1~-4024.1) 2 Proposed amenflme~ts to both the Etfwanda North Specific Plan and the cu;~ent (Iib' General Plan include the re-zoning of housing density in proposed ~ideatial area~ from "low" to "very low" - residential development and, as part of thc open space planning, a series of equestrian '..-rails that may lead into re~aini~g undeveloped areas. We are concerned about potential effects ,:o the above4~efere~eexi specie~ and their h/bitat ama as a result of increasing thc aensity of re,','iflential - housing in sensitive habitat areas. We are also concemefl about potenttal haNtsl ,aeon. darvon could occur/rom equestrian use of e~,ently uadevelo?xl habitat areas. Both i~-eased urbanization and equestrian use conliibute to habitat degradation through ~.~'t impacts such has habitat loss, destraction (e.g., soil compaction, vegetation ~apling), and fragmeatatior. (/~¢., - B-$ separating large blocks of conti ous habitat into ~aaller isolated parcels), and k.ditee; impa~z such aa an ina-ease in the pn~rtion vf weedy plant species ia the ~ and clamiges in £~e native insect population that are documented to eceur as a result of residential develOl:n*nt ~S landscaping (e.g., the introduction of Argentine ants). The mitigation proposed in the D/~2R f'~ the- effects of these actions is City app~o'eal of lan~g plans anal the payment of an ~n.lieu fee to the City for development of an equea~rian center. These actions are aot likely to a,~aress the potential effects to either listed spedes orthe habitat upon which they deTond. Taerefore, we -B-4 recommend that the City condition ~he issuance of grading pormits on compliance with the Act where effects to listed ~eeies could occur as the result of a private or Federal action. Thc City' s suptx~ for meaningful wildlife preservation is very im.v, ortant to the persistence of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats m the Etiwanda alluvial fan area. - Portions of the 300-an~ County of San B ernardino Depm~anent of Transportatio[:, l:le~:l Control Disnict (Diatriet) p,~t, eny proposed ~or annexation as wcll as the District's ~oke~' p~?o~exl for ~anexation into the 'Traey" project ba~e been permaneatiy set aside to o~set effcets to Lac SI~KI~ and/or gnatcatcher and their critical laabitats as a result of Formal Section ~ Ccatsalt',~tion on the- B-5 San Sevaine C~eek Water Project (1-6-99-F-42). The responsibility for the managaaent and protection of this property into perpetuity m'e eua=,,fly not those of the City. W'~ a~fici:?ate that the proposal to annex this property coula result in re.initiation of consultation with *J~e ~ureau of Reclamation on this project. -- We appreciate the opportunity to p~ovide comments on the proposed actions. If you comments or questions ~egarding ~ letter, please contact Nancy Ferguson of ~is off. ce at ~ 60) 431-9440, extension Sincerely, N,j~Ka~n ~. C-oebel /}~' Assistant Fielfl Supervisor ~ U.S. Fish and Wildiife Sendee cc: Army Corps of Engin~rs, Los Angeles District, Attn: Robert Smith California D~pastm~t offish and Gar~, Cifino K_tlls, Attn: l_eslie Count3, of San Bornardino, Land Use Planning Sea'vices, Arm: Randy Scot': City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Delmttmant, Arm: Brad Buller CRAIO A. SHERMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW May 25, 2004 Izia Facsimile (909) 477-2847 Followed by O~ernight Mail CITY OF P,~NC80 CIJC~iI~0~IOA CityofRancho ~cmonga MAY 2 Pl~ning Di~sion A~: Br~ B~I~ REC~- P~N~NG I05~ Civic C~t~ ~cho Cu~ong~ CA 91730 Re: Comments on the City's proposal for ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164, General Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, Etiwanda North Specific Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, and associated ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEQA Negative Declaration) INTRODUCTION Spirit 0fthe Sage Council (Sage Council) is a non-profit project and coalition of Native Americans, scientists, citizens and environmental groups dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage, including endangered species, habitats and.sacred lands. The Sage Council has members and supporters that reside in the City and San Bemardino County who recreate, enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regious natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referenced proposed development. The Habitat Trust for Wildlife (Habitat Trust) is a 501c3 tax exempt non-profit charity and Land Trust. Habitat Trust is also a landowner of lands within the County and City's ENSP area- Oaks and Etiwanda Highlands Sub-Areas. The purpose of Habitat Trust is "Giving Nature Sanctuary" for those habitat areas in the Un/ted States of America that have been identified by scientists as biodiversity "Hot Spots" and/or natural communities that are "globally imperiled" with State Natural Diversity Data Bases designations of "threatened" or '~,ery threatened." Our current focus habitats are in North Etiwanda, San Bemardino, CA for Riversidean Alluvial [Fan] Sage Scrub and the Sandhills region of North Carolina for Long-leal'Pines. Each of these natural communities are "globally /mper/led" with less than 5% &their original habitat areas remaining. Page Two City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 POSITION Sage Council and Habitat Trust are opposed to the City's proposed Annexation of 300- acres of San Bernardino County Flood Control lands, including the proposal to develop 95-acres under the outdated standards of 1991 Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) and the outdated EIR relied upon. In addition, we are opposed to the use of the outdated ENSP "prezoning" scheme and newly proposed scheme to increase dwelling density by AMENDMENTS to the General Plan and ENSP. The Annexation of 300-acres is "growth inducing." The EA states that the othcr development projects in the ENSP area cannot be annexed into the City if the City is unable to annex the 300-acres of County Flood Control lands. These "growth inducing" impacts, with increased residential densities must be fully analyzed and mitigated for in an EIR that is current, not the 1984- 1992 ENSP that failed to mitigate impacts to biological resources to below significant levels. The claim of City that all impacts can now be mitigated to below a level of significance is not supported. Development projects in the ENSP are using the outdated CEQA document for City standards. Mitigation measures need to be addressing today's standards as is reflected in the FWS letter recommending 5:1 habitat replacement. Increased residential densities from "Very Low" to "Low" double the mount of people being brought into a "globally imperiled" habitat area. While onsite habitat impacts and wildlife.effects might be thC same, i~p~ .on. pff?~te 1 .a~,.~.q~s, .!-!.abitat :Pres. ~ ~ ~e~,}-Nature ' S~m~tuafieS"ahd wildlife are increased By htimkn disturbances,:mclucling .. · homes/equestrians, mountain bikes, pets and dogs off leash, unauthorized dumping of trash and garden refuse. In addition, more people mean more traffic, more smog, more energy extraction, more water extraction, crowded schools, landfill use etc. Therefore, the Annexation and Amendments require an EIR with adequate mitigation measures, not a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declazafion. The use'of the prior ENSP EIR is not appropriate and was never adequate because it was dependent on further more detailed environmental review and mitigation as development projects such as this took The opposition and controversy regarding the Annexation and Amendments suggests that an EIR is required. The City ENSP was created in 1984 and adOPted in 1992. While LAFCO may require a planning document at the earliest possible time, prior to accepting an Annexation proposal, the ENSP was much too early by more than a decade. The ENSP does not meet today's reality. The ENSP Project Description, Location, Surrounding Land Uses, Sub-Areas, and more, are significantly changed with new environmental circumstances. There is no way that the City will ever be able to annex all the lands and parcels that were included in the ENSP. Page Three City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 · In 1994, the County, City, and other cities signed a contractual Agreement and Memorandum with CDFG and USFWS to conserve habitat lands and specific species "Valley-wide" for a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan 0VISHCP). The Valley-wide MSHCP Pre-planning Agreement ("contract") was also adopted - C-2 by San Bernardino Association of Governments. Fur~nuore, the County as lead for the cities has accepted Federal and State funding for this conservation venture. The City has not revised the ENSP to address these significant changes in Land Use, Regional Planning issues, Zoning and Biological Resources. _ ? · ENSP "Oaks" Neighborhood and Sub-Areas 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 - The Landmark development project "Oak Summit" 763-acres was not, and will never be, developed. The project site and sub-area was acquired in 1996 by SAN'BAG to partially mitigate environmental impacts of the RT 30 highway expansion project. SANBAG received funding from CALTRANS who received their funding from - Federal Highways, U.S. Department of Transportatien. SANBAG, including County created an "Open Space District" through State legislation. The City has not revised the ENSP to address these significant changes in Land Use, Zoning and Biological Resources. · North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Plan (2qEOSI-IPP) was created '-~ and ~opted by the County that includes the entire City ENSP area. The City has ) C4 not :r~vis~l the ENsp to eddres~ these significani changes in Land Use, Regional Planning issues, Zoning and Biological Resources. · Federal listing of threatened and endangered species within the ENSP area. Since 1992, FWS has listed the San Bemardino kangaroo-rat (SBICR) as endangered, including designation of"critical habitat." The City has not consulted w~th FWS as requ/red by the Endangered Species Act and NEPA. Furthermore, the City ENSP has not m/tigated impacts to listed species and critical habitat. The City's proposed Annexation if approved and adopted by the City, along with the use of the ENSP and AMENDMENTS will be in violation of the ESA, NEPA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Clean Water Act and CEQA as the City proposes residential development of 95-acres of County Flood Control lands that - are zoned by the County as Flood Control (FC) and Conservation (C). The 95- acre proposed to be developed, along with increased density proposals, is known habitat for the endangered SBKR. If the CiO; or anyone else, desires to develop these FC and C habitat land~ they must consult with FI~/S. Since the City has failed to do so, to date, this comment letter will also serve the purpose of giving City a 60~day Notice of Violations under the ESA. The City has not revised the ENSP to address these significant changes in Land Use and Biological Resources Page Four City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 and needs to change the boundaries of the ESPN neighborhood "Etiwanda ~-C-5 Highlands" Sub-Areas 6 and 7. · FWS reinitiated consultation with the County Flood Control District on the Efiwanda Debris Basin and levees with the San Sevaine Project. Changes were made to these flood projects during the most recent consultation that also result in significant changes to the ENSP area. County Flood Conla'ol concerns and comments expressed during public comment per/ods on the ENSP DEIR and - C-$ FEIR were not adequately addressed. The City must revise the ENSP so that it is current and reflects the environmental issues of that are real. The City has not revised the ENSP to address these significant changes in Land Use and Biological Resources. - · The City approved and adopted the Rancho Etiwanda (REP) and Rancho Etiwanda Estates (I~EEP) development projects. These projects are within the ENSP Neighborhoods "Day Creek" and "Upper Etiwanda" Sub-Areas 1.1, 1.2, 12, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3~ are referenced in the ENSP documents as ''University" and "Crest" development. The City, REP and REEP developments were legally challenged, under CEQA, by Spirit ofthe Sage Council and resulted i,n an out-of- court settlement. Sign/ficant ~ges were made to the REP...~d R-E_EP pwj.'eets that differ fr~m the ENsP reg~g Land Uses. The ENSP had anEquestnan Center situated in the "Upper Etiwanda" Neighborhood at the nexus of the '`university" (REP) and "Crest" (REEP) at Sub-Area 12. The Equestrian Center -C-7 was removed from the REP/REEP nexus area, Traffic circulation and placement of roads, including ingress and egress were changed and stone faced walls replaced fencing and plants on site are to be salvaged prior to grading. The ENSP · assumed that the University/Crest development would mitigate impacts on biological resources through acquisition of 500-acres in Day Canyon (aka Mc Nay Property). ThY assumption proved wrong as McNay '~ Day Canyon properties were no longer available to mitigate the REP/REEP project impacts. Instead approximately 300-acres were available fi'om a "willing seller" for acquisition of project impacts in Etiwanda and Henderson Canyons. This was again, a significant change to the adopted ENSP. _ · Along with the changes described above, the City made signific~mt changes to the '-~ ENSP when it adopted Amendments and Ordinances to allow residential development within the '`utility Corridors." · Lands within the ENSP Neighborhood "Etiwanda Highlands" Sub-Area 7 have '-]_ had a conservation easement placed on them. Three parcels are now owned and Page Five City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 managed by the non-profit land trust organization, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife. Therefore, the City cannot annex and approve development projects in this are~ The City must revise the ENSP to eliminate Sub-Area 7 from the "Etiwanda -C-9 Highlands" neighborhood. This includes, elimination of the Trails system and Equestrian Overlay District from the "Oaks" and "Etiwanda Highlands" neighborhoods. All associated ENSP maps need significant revisions. _ · Extreme wild.fires have occurred in the ENsP area. Fire fighters had a very -- difficult time stopping the fires due to water pressure and the winds and gales that rip through the canyons at high speed spreading the fires throughout the North Etiwanda Alluvial Fan area. (,gee attached MAST map of fires and newspaper stories). The County has since then made changes to the General Plan, Fire Ordinances, to reduce and remove development from the canyon and alluvial fan area. Recently, the County Supervisor for the West Valley, including the ENSP area, has stated publicly that the area north of the LADWP power-lines should be used for conservation purposes (,gee attached newspaper article expanding the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve. The County had to seek federal funding and assistance to fight the wildfires. The City does not have the fire fighting strength - C-10 or budget of the County and should not be bringing people into a known HIGH WILDFIRE HAZARD AREA. F~ermore, the City should not be seeking · AMENDMENTS to the General ~d SpeCific Plans to INCREASE residential density in this area that is also a WATER RECHARGE, SEISMIC and FLOOD HAZARD area. The proposed annexation and amendments place people in an area that is a known risk to life, limb and home. Health, Safety and General Welfare were not mitigated in the ENSP and the NEG DEC here. Development Projects approved and in process through the City are only required to meet the standards of the 1992 ENSP and do not mitigate according to the environmental realities of today. · Fire is a part of the Riversidean Alluvial [Fan] Sage Scrub (P,.AFSS) ecology. Fires and floods stimulate growth of the numerous individual plant species of the natural community. Referred to by scientists as the "Phoenix" rising fi.om the ashes (See attached newspaper article and affidavit of post-fire habitat regeneration, C.J. Fotherington), this natural community has reCently demonstrated its miracle of regeneration. A very rare plant and wildflower, -C-ll Plummer's mahposa lily, has come back with extreme proliferation in the ENSP. The ENSP area now has the largest remaining population of this rare flower. The fires have stimnlated dormant seeds of the flower that it is found in the thousands. All are threatened by the ENSP and associated developments. The City and developers, by their actions, are pushing this species ofwildflower towards Page Six City of Rancho Cucarnonga May 25, 2004 extinction and should not be surprised if CDFG and/or FWS have it listed as endangered. The City ESPN was approved with "overriding considerations" and did not mitigate for impacts and loss ofPlummer's Mariposa Lily. Neither have development projects. Sage Council and Habitat Trust request that the City Revise the ENSP to reflect the current environmental conditions and mitigate according to CDFG and FWS recommendations. The City should cooperate with -C-11 conservation agencies and groups to create a refuge for RAFFS, including the lily. (See attached photos of ENSP area before fire and after with regeneration of RAFSS habitat w/th lilies. The lily photos were taken by naturalist and photographer Kay Stockwell, others by Leeona Klippstein) RECOMMENDATION/ALTERNATIVES Sage Council and Habitat Trust recommends the following actions as an alternative to the City's proposals. · Firstly, Revise the City ENSP,. created in 1984 adopted in 1992, to reflect the current environment and impacts, with a correct Project Description, Location, Phases and Sub-Areas, including adequate mitigation measures and monitoring - C-12 · . that ~ acceptable.in 2Q04-5 to~!ead ~ldlife.agencies - Calffomi~ Deponent of FiSh &'i~e, U.S. Fish 'and wildlife Service (FWS) -that.shall ensure thai-. · impacts have been mitigated to level of less than significant. _ · Revise the ENSP and EIR to change the Project Description and Location so that the eastern boundary begins at the Henderson Creek location and completely out of County Flood Control lands and/or easements. The northern boundary also needs to be moved further to the south and south of the LADWP power-lines, -C-13 eliminating the "Oaks" Sub-Ama and neighborhood. The ENSP "Etiwanda Highlands" Sub-Area" and neighborhood needs to be removed and/or substantially eliminated so that the northern boundary would end south of the LADWP power-lines also. _ · Remove the Equestrian Overlay District from the ENSP area and City Sphere of Influence, including all related development projects. This should also include all trail and equestrian elements, including the Equestrian Center, paseos, hiking and bike trails. Therefore, reducing negative impacts on the environment caused by -C-14 horses, bikes and other human disturbances on habitat lands nearby that are currently designated by the County and County Flood Control District as Conservation, Open Space District and/or Habitat Preserve. Page Seven City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 · Undergo formal consultation with FWS under the ESA for impacts on SBKR and --L- ¢-15 CAGN designated habitat and "take" of federally listed species. · Consult CDFG, FWS and County VWMSHCP contractors at County Museum, '-~ Bob McKeman and Gerald Braden regarding ENSP consistency with regional _J- C-16 conservation planning. FINDINGS In regards to the City's proposed Negative Declaration, the Sage Council and Habitat Trust are opposed and finds the mitigation measures and monitoring woefully inadequate. The City repeatedly references the ENSP, but fails to reveal that the ENSP was adopted with "overriding considerations" and did not mitigate impacts on biological resources to a level of less than significant. In a 1991 comment letter by California Depa~huent offish & Game (CDFG), on the ENSP, the lead State agency requested a minimum of 2:l habitat replac*ment mitigation. The City disregarded the agency and set mitigation at 1:1, oversl[epPing their authority. In addition, the City made it clear that the ENS~ was the lead d~t for.~are'a anti,at fu~ deVelOpers wo~d not be require~t.~ mee!t any - C-17 higher'diii/~s Or r&tri~tiOhs~Tlierefore, development:ProjeCts being PWcessed through the City, over a decade later, are only having to meet the City's ENSP standards of 1:1 habitat replacement mitigation. The most recent CDFG and USFWS letter regarding impacts to the area on habitats recommended a 5:1 habitat replacement for Alluvial fan sage scrub natural communities.(Letter referenced is on file with the City and County. CDFG and FWS also expressed their concern that over I0,000 acres of RAFSS habitat has been denatured by developments since County and City's signed the Valley-wide MSHCP MOU/Pre-p!snning Agreement in 1994). Therefore, the City must revise and update the ENSP, to reflect the current environment and adequately mitigate impacts, prior to any annexations of land from the County and County FC District. _ For more, please read again our POSITION. NOTICE AND PROCESS Sage Council objects to the City's method of processing the associated proposals and -C-18 lack of public notice, including public participation. The City did not have public comment of thc Neg Dec and proposal during public comment with the Planning Page Ei~t City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 Concmission. The City processed and approved development projects prior to processing the proposed Annexation and Amendments, although those development projects rely on the City Annexation and, some only, the Amendments. In addition, the way the City processed associated development projects is legally questionable. City Notices and Agendas included Project Development Agreements, yet the City did not make the Development Agreements available for review. The Planning Commission acted on approving these Agreements without having them 'available for public review to comment on. At, er complaints by the Sage Council and Habitat Trust, the City made the draft Development Agreement available with the FEIR for only a 10 day review period. ~ All the development projects refer to the City ENSP, yet the City was unable to have copies of the Specific Plan readily available to the public for cross reference until after hearings before the Planning Commission. The City'also sent out public notices on the proposed Annexation and Amendments prior to having the ENSP documents available. The City notices state that'all related documents are available upon request, but does not - C-I 8 consider how long it takes for the Planning Department to provide copies to the interested public. The City should have copies of the ENSP and General Plan ready to disWibute and/or hand out when there are proposed Amendments to the Plans. Copies should also be available at public heshngs regarding Plan Amendments. The City should encourage public participation in government decisions. The public is the government and has been side-stepped by the City. The City is using an old outdated Specific Plan than was drafted in 1984 and adopted in 1992. Since then, people have moved into the effected area that never had an opportunity to comment on the ENSP or even understand how new development projects were using these old inadequate standards. To ensure adequate public participation, in Land Use decisions within the ENSP area, the City must prepare a Revised ENSP and EIR for review and comment. NOTICE NOT GIVEN TO AGENCIES WlclOSE JURISDICTION AND RESOURCES STAND TO BE AFFECTED The City must circulate this proposed NEG DEC for Projects to more than just LAFCO. '-~ The City must notify and circulate this Project proposal to County, County Open Space _~ C-19 District and County Flood Control, CDFG, FWS, ACOE, State Historic Preservation Office and others. Page Nine City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/INITIAL STUDY Description of the Project Sage Council and The Habitat Trust have previously commented on the referenced Tentative Tracts and Development Projects ('Projects). We continue to oppose the Projects and their Annexation because they have not mitigated impacts on the environment to a level of less than significant. The City and old Specific Plan only require developers to meet the standards and guidelines of the outdated ENSP. It also states that there will be no greater reslriction or requirements for Project approvals than what is set in the ENSP. The Initial Study for the proposed Anexxafions and Amendments also repeats; "All fUture developments will comply With the Community Design, Development Standards, and Guidelines section of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan .... The guidelines and standards set forth in the Specific Plan shall be reflected in the detailed plans that are required at the time of development application submittals" - Initial Study Using a decade'old Specific Plan is ridiculous when considering that the Specific Plan isn't correct in its own Description, Location etc. The key word in the City's Description of thi~ Project.is ,'was'~. A majori~, ,o~eESPN .6,840-acres is n0 longer available to.th~e' Ci~ Or C°unty for develbPm~tl See ~r Comrn~t~ above,~ ' Therefore, the Project Desctiption here is mislesding and deceptive in an attempt to avoid having to address the reality of current environmental conditions. The Proposed Project The proposed Project is unrealistic and blind to the fact that significant changes have occurred since 1992 ENSP. The 300-acres are in designated critical habitat for the federally endangered San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). County Flood Control has placed most if not all of the area as Preservation, Conservation, Futttre Conservation due to the mandated conservation of this species and it's critical habitat. According to phone conversations, on 5/23/04 and 5/24/04, with County Flood Control personnel, Bill Collins and Narish Varma, the City has not notified them of the proposed Annexation and Amendments. Since the listing of the SBKR as endangered and critical habitat designations the County FC reinifiated consultation with FWS on the San Sevalne Water Project that includes Henderson and Etiwanda Creek levees and debris basin. So, according to the realities of the current environment, it would be illegal for the City or any developer to approve development and earth moving activities. The City can no Page Ten City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 longer use the ENSP without first making major revisions and recirculating and EI1L Pre- zoning or no pre-zoning the Projest as proposed it unlawful. If City Applicant and Henderson Creek developers rev/se their Projects and EIRs to stay out of County Flood Control lands and include a buffer zone, then it might become- C-21 feasible Projects. However, since the area of the Projects are within federally designated "erificai habitat" for the SBKR and Gnatcatcher, they ail must still consult with FWS and follow the lead agencies recommendation, without "overriding circumstances". The ESA, N-EPA, MBTA and Clean Water Act do not allow "overriding considerations". General Plan/Zoning Designation The ~'Tables" provided in the Initial Study are inadequate and misleading. The City needs '-~ to identify the current Land Use Designation and Zoning by the County in order for the ~_ C-22 reader tO compare to the Specific Plan pre-zoning designations and land uses to accurately analyze the proposed Amendments for density increase, of residences. DETERMINATION The ~City/Applicant's DETERMINATI6BI is very wrong, 'The "rev/si0ns" to Projects - must be done through the City making revisions to the ENSP and recirculating the revised EIR. As stated above, the City only requires Projects to meet the standards and -C-23 guidelines of the old ENSP. The City adopted the ENSP with "overriding considerations" and failed to mitigate. The proposed Project, including asseciated tentative tracts.and Projects have not mitigated impacts. An EIR is required for this proposed Project. _ Biological Resources The City Initiai Study misrepresents the current environmental conditions and quaiity of biological resources in the Project area and ENSP ares~ The biological resources on Projest/s sites are regenerated or immature RAFSS habitat. Any non-native grasses that occurred before the fire are gone and replaced by seed growth ofhtmdreds of thousands of native plants, some which are Rare, Threatened and/or Endangered. There is no such thing as "Upland Sage Scrub". The correct identification/classification is "Riversidean -C-24 Upland Sage Scrub," a natural community associated with RAFSS and is also "very threatened," (See attached mails from Mary Meyer, CDFG and FWS explaining this issue and providing literature references). The entire Project/s area requires mitigation under CEQA and the City and/or developers can no longer use the outdated ENSP that failed to mitigate. Page Eleven City of Rancho Cucamonga May 25, 2004 Endangered Species are in the area. Again the City misrepresents current environmental conditions. The area includes federally designated critical habitat for the SBKR and Gnatcatcher. The ProjectYs do not "enlarge" the County Flood Control Conservation area, but do reduce the size of Conservation and Preservation. (See attached County Flood - C-24 Control maps provided to the Sage Council on 5/25/04 by Bill Collins of SB County Flood Control District.) _ Final Remarks and Request for further Written Notification The issues presented herein are essential for a complete and informative review of environmental impacts required by CEQA. This office, my clients and the law require full, complete and good faith responses to the comments and questions raised herein. A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA. This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard, under which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical 'Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas, (1994) 29 Cal App.4th 1597, 1~02. -C-25 The evidence and issues presented above establish that the City must require an EIR because there is substantial evidence s~P0t~g a fair argument that significant enviromental impacts may result from City's proposal. In advance, we thank you for considering the issues presented, i~. this comment letter. Should you have any questions concerning any of the points raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Please notify this office of any administrative or legislative hearings, circulation of documents, or any other action or hearing related to the above- referenced City proposal or action items related thereto, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092.2. - cc: clients Enclosures (photos, 7 pp.; declaration, 10 pp.; count2,,' flood control preserve maps, 2 pp.; news articles, 16 pp.; scientist emails, 2 pp.) CR_ G A. SHERMAN A'T'TORNEY AT LAW May 26, 2004 I/"m Facsimile (909.) 477-2847 Followed By Hand Delivery City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Attn: Brad Buller 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Further Comments on the City's proposal for ANNEXATION DRC2003- 01164, General Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, Etiwanda North Specific Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, and associated ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEQA Negative Declaration) WILDLII~E CORRIDORS AND BUFFERS The City. proposals, including development of County Flood Control lands and Utility Corridors has a sigrdficant negative impact on Biological Resources for habitats and wildlife. The City and ~Projects fall to provide any scientific data regarding wildlife movement and buffers within the ENSP area, assuming that "Etiwanda Creek along with adjoining Conservation Areas will continue to provide suitable corridors for wildlife movement." Scientific literature and data suggest otherwise (See attached scientific papers and literature regarding wildlife movement corridors, habitat buffers and the effects of roads) It is recommended, by Sage Council and the Habitat Trust, that the City revised the 1991 ENSP and recently updated General Plan to identify and map wildlife corridors and habitat buffer areas, using the best available science that is current and -O-'l having scientific studies performed, rather than using the old 1984 Environmental Assessment that both Plans have used. The County and cities agreed to do such studies when entering into and si~m'~ing a contractual agreement with CDFG and FWS for the Valley-wide MSHCPOtCP). The County Museum staff, DR. Robert McKeman mhd Gerald Braden should be consulted by the City and Project developers as they may akeady have some preliminary maps and data available. In addition, consult with the lead agencies CDFG and FWS that can also provide the City and Project developers with the most current and best scientific information on wildlife movement corridors and buffers. What scientific data is the City using when it states "Future development of up to 95- Page Two May 26, 21)04 City of Rancho Cucamonga acres within the Project area, adjacent to Etiwanda Creek, will not have any impacts on riparian, wetland, or related habitat."? What is "related habitat" of Etiwanda Creek? The City, must identify all habitats on and adjacent to the development site. The use of Habitat Buffers is needed, but not used for the proposal and Projects. 1. Cultural Resources The City and Projects play ignorant to the fact that the entire ENSP:area is part of the larger indigenous village of"Cucamong[n]a" for the Shoshone: Gabfielin° Nation (A State rec6~zed Iribe AKA Gabr/elino Band of California Missi°n Indians.) The City has irilit:s amhives a video from a previous presentation at' the~ci}y,. !~! byFWS John Hanlon: afi~[I~eona Klippstein, Spirit ~ofthe Sage Council Als0 iti the Ci~:archives'is a video gubmitted bY the Sage Council, "No Room for Compmmise.'~ Both:theSe videos, along W/~!other public comment given on the 1991 proposed.ENSP, Oak Summit Devel0pmfint and:proposed development at Cucamonga Canyon provided substantial informafi6~ On this Factor: The City and associated Projects need to review the Video tapes and!pubhc .comment. It is recommended that the City and developers reduce negatiVe'~pgcts by significantly reducing devel0pmeni on site and'throughout'the ENSP area~ pr0j~' ShOUld allow at least 50% of~hablta~i lands on'Site,to be conserved: for ' Cultural and Biological Resources and mitigate overall at a 5:1 replacement. tn addition, the City should require that an archeologist, palentologist and Gabrielino "Most Likely Descendant!' (MLD) perform on-site surveys, reporting and be on-site - D-2 during Project grading and earth moving activities. Surveys, studies and reports must be included ~ the EIR and/or EIR technical appendixes. I/the surveys, studies and reports indicate that the Project site includes items and other evidence, the Project must be redesigned to avoid these sensitive areas. I/there are calms, human remains and/or burials the Project must be halted, protected and registered with the State Historic Preservation Officer and nominated to the National Register of Historic Preservation. The landowner must agree to the nomination and work cooperatively with State and Federal Agencies, Gabrielino MLD with Tribal Band and other conservation organizations, including becoming a willing seller and/or donor of the land. The City is aware, but fails to disclose, that Cultural Resources have been found in the ENSP area. An ancient morter and pestal were found and up until 1993 were relocated to the Etiwanda School on Etiwanda Avenue. It was our understanding that these Cultural items of the indigenous Gabriel/no people were removed from the school curb area and placed at the County Museum. The City IA states that no items are at the County or in their records. This is hard to believe and appears to be just another City "Shell Game.:' Page Three May 26, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga The fact that the City retains the indigenous name of"Cucamong[n]a" is evidence. Numerous religious ceremonies have been conducted in Cucamongna and North Etiwanda (Etiwanda is the name of a Canadian indigenous person that George Chaffey was an acquaintance of. That is who named this portion of Cucamong[n]a as "Etiwanda" and continue~ to be disrespectful to the indigenous Shoshone Gabrielino people of the land.) The City has this information readily available fi.om the Historic Society and Chaffey House. The City is.aware, but fails to disclose, that Cutmral Resources have been found in the ENSP area. An ancient mortar and pestle were found and up until 1993 were relocated to the Etiwanda School on Etiwanda Avenue. It was our understanding that these Cultural items.ofthe indigenous Gabrielino people were removed fi.om the school curb area and placed at. theCounty Museum. The City IA states that no items are at the County or in their records. This is hard to believe and appears to be just another City "Shell Game." The fact that the City retains the indigenous name of"Cucamong[n]a" is evidence. Numerous religious ceremonies have been conducted in Cucamongna and North Etiwanda ~tiwanda is the name of a Canadian indigenous person that George Charley was an acquaintance of. 'l~hat is who named this portion of Cucamong[n]a as "Etiwanda" and continues to be disrespectful to the indigenous Shoshone Gabrielino people of the land.) .'ITh~:Qity has this information readily available fi.om the Historic Society and ChaffC4):Ii~use. 2. Geology and Soils and Hazards The City Project and others need to consult with the Conservation Soils Management District. This agency previously expressed concerns in 1991 on the ENSP that have not been adequately addressed and mitigated for. See our prehous comments regarding Earthquakes, Fires and Winds. The City has checked the wrong box. The correct box in h) is "Potentially Significant Impact." The City fails to disclose that the ENSP area and Project sites of Tracy, Henderson and Richland are subject to a "Reverse Thrust Fault" that is extremely dangerous. There are known and unknown faults and fissures through the area that in part created the globally imperiled and last remaining sedge bog in the current Habitat Preserve (See and review City archive video "No Room for Compromise" that includes interviews with expert scientists that have studied the ENSP area.) The more recent "Northridge Earthquake" and it's results is a prime example of what is expected to occur in North Etiwanda and San Bemardino. The ground does not just shake and roll, but opens and lif~ the ground upon itself. The whole ENSP area has numerous "ridges" caused by the faults and Page Four May 26, 2004 Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga fissures. Regardless, of the risks to human life and limb (Health, Safety and General Welfare) the City approves developments in the area and developers smugly name them Ridgev~ew Estates , Hunter s Ridge and take no responsibility or accountability for their reckless approval actions. Here again, the City "jump~s offa cliffbecanse eye,one else is" with their attitude that development is permissible with a small setback Fault Zone. The City needs to revised the ENSP and remove all development fi-om hazardous areas throughout North Etiwanda~ - D-3 · ' The City identifies that the ·Wind conditions exist, bu~ do nothing else. The Wind Hazards '" and Fire Hazards combined, along with'the recent fires and problems associated with water pressure ye/Scs Wind speeds, is surely another reason why no development should occur in the area:More certainly, the proposed Amendments to bring:more people into the area with density increase should be denied. 3. Land}Use 'and Planning :.. The City inC0Prectly answered c). The Annexation and Ammendments with associated "' developni~n~ projects is .in CONFLICT with the State'N~(tiim!:(~0rmnunities''C?nservati.~°n .:ii' Pla~ning":~ccP) ~pr°gram and Contractual AgreemeTM for the HCP'that. ~s.unaerway' ~o " say "No Impact" is a fraudulent statement fi.om a local government. The whole ENSP area is identified as subregion 13 by the State NCCP for Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) commtmities, including RAFSS. RAFSS is the rarest of alt CSS sub-associations and a high priority for conservation by CDFG and FWS. Sage Council has previously submitted:~this information to the City, as has, CDFG and FWS. The City must revise the - 0-4 1991 EN~ and consult with CDFG and FWS regarding the NCCP and' HCP. The City and IS should have checked "Potential Significant Impact" and mitigate accordingly. It is of no matter that the City has prezoned the Project area in 1991. The City Project and other named projects are in violation of the NCCP Act, ESA and MBTA if they proceed. As previously stated, the General Plan and Specific Plan utilize an outdated EA that is inaccurate when compared to current envkonmental conditions and changed circumstances. EARLIER ANALYSIS CONFIRMED OUTDATED As stated previously, the "earlier analysis" was a decade too early in the ENSP. The ~ updated General Plan failed to update the Environmental Assessment (EA) using the 1 D-5 same 1980's outdated EA as was used for the ENSP. The documents the City refers to outdated and limited in data relating to current environmental conditions and changed Page Five May 26, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga circumstances. Sage Council and Habitat Trust have pro,,4ded data and information that needs to be considered and responded to in an EIR and revised ENSP and General EIRs. The City. and Project developers need to consult with biology staff at the County Museum, CDFG and FWS to use updated biological data, NCCP/HCP etc. Invasive Species' Threats lnvasive species cost the American economy upwards of $137 billion per year. The toll to 1 the environment extends welt beyond dollars and cents. According to a recent article in ~_ D-$ the Washington Post, "nearly half of all endangered and threatened species in the United States are at. risk because of invaders that are severely disrupting natural ecosystems." Concluding Remarks Should you have any questions concerning any of the points raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Also, as before, please notify this office of any administrative'or legislative hearings, circulation of documents, or any other action or heahng related to the above-referenced City proposal or action items related thereto, pursuant to.~pubtic Resources Code § 21092.2. C- cc: clients Enclosures (27 pp.) M~26,2004 Via Fae~lr~e (909) 477-2~4Y City of Rancho Planning Diviaion Attn: Brad Bullet, Larry Henderson 10500 Civic Ceatar Drive Ranoho ~onga, CA 91730 Re: Comments on the City's'proposal for ANNEXATION DRC2¢03.01 ]64, General Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, £liwanda No.rth Specific Plan AMENDME31T DRC2003-01163, and associated ENVIRONMLa'NTAL ASSESSMENT (CI~QA Negative Declaration~. /NTRODUCTION ~pfr/t of the Sage Council (8age Council) is a non-p~ofit projeot and coalition of Naive Amer/ca~, scicntlsts, citizens and environmental groups dedicated to i~o~l:ag an¢! conserving America's nanm~ and cultural heritage, including cr~L~ngered species, habitats and sacred lands. The Sag~ Council has members and supporters that reside in the City and San Bcrnardino County who recreate, crOoy and find spirlmal tct~wa~, k. the regions natural open spaces, including fllat area that is subject to the ~f~au,~¢c:d proposed ~n~he Habitat Trust roi' Wildlife (Habitat Trust) is a $01c3 tax exempt non-pr,~fit charity and Land Trust Habitat Trust is also a landowner of lands within the County and Ciys ENSP area ~ Oaks and E6wanda Highlands Sub-Areas. Thc purpose of I-Iabi~at ,'?_rust is "Oiving Nature Sanctuary" for those habitat areas in the United States ofAr~crica l§~.t have bc~n ideIlfified by sci~iiiittts la biodiversity "Hot Spots"'and/or natural o~mmtmitics that nr~ "globally imperiled" with State Natural Divers/ty Data Bases dcal~/ons of "tiny. arched' or "very threatened." Our current focus habitat-n are in Notch E'dwanda, San, Bernardlno, CA for Riverside, an Alltwial ['Fan] Sage Scrub and the Sanctlxilla ~gg/on ,:f North Carolina for Long-leal'Pines. Each of these natural communities'are "g'obal~y imperiled" with less than 15% of their origirial habitat areas remaining, We continued our previously submitted comments. 'Die City Applicant and Project developers are required by law cna~ted ,by S,Xa+~:, Bills 610 and 221, effective January I, 2002 to prov/de a "Water Supp]l, As~.~,sme.'.t . E-~ TJle Annexalion of gOO-acres ofC. ounty lands into thc City includes dcvelopmen~ (Tracy, Henderson, Richland and others) over 500 residential units. Regardless ofli~e 1991 Specifc Plan, the curr~nt law requir~ such actions. Attached are r~fon~/ce documents on th~ Sena~ Water Bills. ($e~ Oct. 17, 2003 News R~lease, Oct. ii, Distr/bufion List refc~'~nc/ng where the City and developers can oblai~, a copy of th.: Guidebook available through a w~bsit~ and FAQ sheei.) Please ensure City and developer compliance prior to C/ty Counoil taking ne'io~ on pwposed ANNEXATIONS and AMENDES. ~ E.2 Include the~e comments in thc administrative record and reply in a EIR CEQA dov*~a~ent. 439 Wes~ood $C//144 Fny~tt~v/lle, NC 28314 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMiSSiON ~75 West Fifth S~reet, Second Floor · San Bernardlno, CA 924~5-0490 (909) 387-5866 · Fax (909) 387-5871 E-marl: tafco@l~.sboounty, gov · wwY~.sbclafGo, org Esta~fl~hecl ~y the State of C~Jfofn~ to sewe the Ot~zen$, CJ'~e $, S pec~$ D~t~J~t~ er~l the Co~nt¥ of S~ Benla~ino May 26, 2004 COMMISSIONERS aw MemBer Mr. Larry Henderson, AICP p~UL e~.v~c, c.a~ Principal Planner e~ ~ Supe~=,r~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 8(= CO~VE. 10500 Civic Center Drive .,c~... ~so. Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729 s..c~,ul~¢~ RE: City of Rancho Cu~;amonga Negative Declaration for Annexation o~Ew.,,~s DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, & Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 Dear Mr. Henderson: ALTERNATES JAMESV. CURATALO The Local Agency Formation Commission received a copy of the S.ec~D~,.c" Negative Declaration for the above-referenced project. After reviewing DENNISK~NSBERCER the submitted document, LAFCO has the following comments: NEALHERr'~VJANN Section 4: Biological Resources (Item F on page 1~ ~.~-raW'SED~O mentions that the area is part of the North Etiwanda Open Pu,~ MemBer Space Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP), which is guided by San Bernardino County. However, it was not ~F~ discussed that the annexation of this area to the City will -F-I ~,~..OU~.~S-~cDO.~ detach the area from County Service Area 70 Improvement ~x~ua~eo~c~ Zone OS-1 which is the overseer of the NEOSHPP. The SAMUELM~NEZ impacts of the removal of this regional agency should have been addressed in this document. ^.~L~.S~ * Section 13: Public Services o Fire Protection (item A on DeputyOer~tol~ec~nmls~on page 25) did not discuss the issue of removal of the State Responsibility Area (SPA) designation for wildland fire g~c~. COU~SSL protection, which occurs upon annexation of the area to the CLX< · ~,~o. City as required by State law. -F-2 If the City has made arrangements with the State Department of Forestry for the retention of their services in a wildland fire situation or if other financial agreements have been made upon removal of the SPA designation, then LAFCO_I_ believes this discussion should be included in the document. F-2 If you have any questions concerning the information outlined above, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 387-5866. Executive Officer DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ~ EC0N0f~IC DEVEtOmEm FLDO6 ~, ~GION~ P~S · 8~O W~ MG~ · SU~ · ~p~ ~ ~D PUB~ S~ GROUP ~5 Ea~ ~ird ~1 San Bemar~l~, ~ 9241~8~ (9~) ~7~104 C,~. ~y 26. 2~ ~x (~9) 307~1~ HY OFRA~C~.. ,.~.m ~o, ~ ~ wo~ c~ ~o c.~ JUN 0 A~.:p.o. ~ ~s~ ~ci~ ~ RECE~D ' PLANNING ~ Cu~ CA 91729 File ~10~.01 NO~C~ OF ~'~ TO ~ ~A~ DE~ON FOR ~ON DR~3- 011~, GPA DRC2~3~1162 & ~-u~A NOR~ SP~C 01163 ~i~ p~j~ ~ a ~d ~ m F~y, ~y 21, 2~, ~y,a~ ~~p~ Co~l ~ (S~F~). PI~ ~ ~ ~ (~9) 387-81~ ~ ~ ~si~ Bill ~ns, ~ ~'~ Shy ~, ~ P~, ~ P~O R~Ng F~ Frank Melina Environmental Management Division Department of Public Works 825 East Third Street San Bemardino, CA g2415-0835 SUmECT: ANNEXATION DRC2003q)1164 ETAL. Dear Mr. Molina: Thank you for your response and inquiry in your letter dated May 21,2004, as to the boundary of the Land Use Amendments with regards to San Bemardino County Flood Control District (SBCFD~ lands. Based on the fellow up phone conversation on May 27, 2004, enclosed is the requested Map Exhibit. The Map is in color and includes APNs for ease of identifying the SBCFD lands. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thumday from 7:00 mm. to 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Principal Planner LH~ma Attachments cc: l'im Johnson, Field Representative to Paul Biane, Supervisor Second District STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit La~ Hen&~on/Natalie Pa~ 0] ~cho ~ca~a, ~ 91730 Subject: DRC2003-01164. D~3401162, aM D~003~I Dent La~ HcMerson / Natalie Pat~: ~e Sm~e Cle~inghouse sfib~n~ tl~e above mn~d Negative Declaration to selected state age.les for ~view. ~he review peri~ closed on May 25, 2~, a~d no state ag~cim s~bmJmd co~a~ by ~t H- date, T~s len~ acknowledges t~t you ~ve co.lied ~ the Sta~ Cl~fin~o~e renew for dra~ en~ro~ental doeu~n~, ~tsu~nt to t~ Callfomia'Eaviro~nml ~ali~ A~. Ple~e call ~e Sine Clea~ouse at (916) ~5~13 ffym ~ve a~y questiom regard~g t~ env~o~enml, mview p~o~. ~u ~ve a qu~on a~ut ~e abovc-~d pmjgg ple~ mf~ to the tca-di~t Sm~ Clear~g~use nu~ ~ co~cfin8 ~ o~ee. S~cerely. DirectS, State Oear~o~* I400TENTRST/~EET P,O, BOX 3044 SACP, AMENTO, CALIFORN~A Document Details Report ~ State Clearinghouse Data Base $CH~ 2004041123 Project Title DRC20D3-01164, DR2003-001162, and DR2003-001163 Lead Agency Rancho Cucamonga, City of Type Nee Negative Declaration Description A prOposed annexation of approximately 3,00 acres, including a proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.I-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, and a proposal to change the Etiwenda Nor[h Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acre and from Very Low Residential (.1.2 dwelling units per acm) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Lead Agency Contact Name. Larry Henderson / N~alie Pa..~ Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga Phone 90g--477-2750 Fax ema[I Address 10500 Civic Center Drive Cily Rancho Cucemonge State CA Z/p 91730 Project Location County San Bemardino City Rancho Cucamonga Region Cross S~reets N/o Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road parcel No. Various Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Summit In[ermediate School Lend Use Very Low Residential Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agdcuttural Land; Air Quality; Geolo~ic/SeJsmic; Population/Housing Balance; Noise; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality Reviewing Resouroes Agency; Depa~-nent of Fish and Game, Region 6; Office of Historlo Preservation; Agencies Depar~nent of Parka and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, District 8; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 6 (V~c't~rvitle); Native American Hert~age Comrolssion Date Recelved 04/25/2004 Start of Revlew 04/2(i/2004 End of Review 05/25/2004 soar... ~uPo,.~^ CITY OF ~ANOHO ~. Debra Meier, AICP ~[e~'~ As~iate Plann~ P~nning DMs~n ASSOCIATION of 10~0 ~vi~ ~r D~ve GOVERNMENTS ~ain O~ce Range ~onga, CA 917~ stswest~n~sw~ RE: SCAG Clearinghou~ No. 120M~8 ~ne~e~r~ Plan =zth hoer ~en~e~t~a~a No~ S~c Plan Lo~ ~e~e*, Cati~mla ~r ~. Mei~ Thank you for subm~ng the Annexafio~General ~an ~[~,~6~o0 Amendmen~a~ No~h S~clflc Plan ~end~nt for r~ew and ~(~,~=~e.~.~ ~mmenL As areawide clearinghouse for regional~ sign~i~ pmj~, SCAG mvie~ the ~nsi~ of I~l p~ns. pmj~s and pr~r~s w~ r~ional ~.~.~'~ plans. This a~ is ba~ on SCAG's responsibilities as a r~ional planning ~~'.~.~:~,~,~ organ~afion pu~uant to ~ate and federal laws and regulation. Guidance ~,~.~.~'~'~'~'~"~: pro~d~ by these re~ is intend~ to assi~ I~1 agenci~ a~ ~'~[~'~ aponsoro to t~ko ~on~ ~at rentable to th* a~ain~t o~ r~ional ~oalo and c~ · ~ ~.~. ~. ~,~. ~,, We have m~ew~ ~e ~nexatio~Oeneral Plan ~endm~anda ~,~. ~ e~. ~, ~.;~, No~h S~c~1c Plan ~end~nt, ~ ~ d~e~in~ ~t ~e p~ ~*~'~.~-' P~ ~ not r~ional~ sign~t per 8CAO I~e~mmme~l Renew (IGR) t~-~,~'~, ¢~a and ~t~om~ fin~mnm~ Ou~i~ ~ (C~O~) Ouid~i~ (8~on -I-~ ~ ~ ~' ~-~ ~'~ 15206), ~er~re, ~e pmpo~ P~ ~s n~ wa~ ~me~ ~ ~is ~. ~.~..a~' Shou~ ~em be a change in ~e ~ ~ ~e pm~ P~, we ~uld ~.,~- ~, ~, ~ ~. ~, appre~e ~e oppo~n~ to re~ew and ~m~ at ~t ti~. ~ ~,..~.~,~.~. I~e~n~t R~ew Cleadnghou~ Re~ ~r public re~ a~ ~e~. ~'~" ~e p~ ~e and S~G Cleafingh~ nu~r ~ould ~ u~ in all e.~ a~.= ~=a..,. ~,r~- m~pon~n~ w~ SCAO ~cemi~ ~is Pro]~, ~de~ s~u~ be 0,,~ ~. ,,.~,. ~ · c~ ~ ~ ~e a~e~on of ~e Clearing~ ~o~in~. ff you ~ ~y qu~ ~-~.a.~ ~'~,,~' plea~ ~ me ~ (218) 2~-1887. ~ank ~u. 8en~r Planer ~,. ~ ~ ~. ~.~ ~, ~eg~l T H E C I T Y 0 F I~ANCHO CUCA~ONGA Memorandum DATE: June 15, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager rad Buller, City Planner arry Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUB'I-r16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. Attached for your review is a revised response to a comment letter (shown as Letter A) prepared for SUBTT16072 - Richland Pinehurst development project, which was forwarded to you via memorandum yesterday. Also attached are comment Letters B (The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc.) and C (United States Department of the Interior) and their related responses. This project referred to is shown as item G1 on the June 16, 2004, City Council agenda. BB:LS CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR RICHLAND-PINEHURST FINAL EIR Letter A Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director, Spirit of the Sage Council, dated May 12, 2004 (response provided on pages A-8 through A-10). Letter B Douglas Doepke, Ph.D, Secretary, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc.,dated May 12, 2004 (response provided on pages B-4 through B-6). Letter C United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, dated May 18, 2004 (response provided on pages C-3 through C-4). ' ' LeHer A May 12, 200~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 VIA Facsimile (909) 477-2847 RE: Comments on proposed Riehland-Pinehurst Project EIR, including associated documents, Tentative Tract Map 16072, proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan amendments, and proposed annexation. State Clearing House # 2002091053. Project Description The Project site is 150.8-acres north of Wilson Avenue and east of Etiwanda Avenue and propoms 359 detached single family housing units on minimum lot sizes of 8,400 sq.ft with 2.38 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes annexation from County to City jurisdiction and is currently in the City Sphere of InflUence. The Project also proposes a General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) amendments. The City is not revising the ENSP EIR for ~he amendments needed for this proposed Project and others ie Tracy Development and Henderson Creek Properties, with Staff recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council [on May 26] approve Plan amendments with a Negative Declaration according to the public notice of the upcoming City Council meeting. Introduction Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) is a non-profit project and coalition of Native Americans, scientists, citizens and environmental groups dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage, including endangered species, habitats and sacred lands. Thc Sage Council has members and supporters that reside in the City and San Bernardino County who recreate, enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regions natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referonced proposed development. The Sage Council has reviewed the Notice of preparation (NOP), including the environmental checklist and Initial Study and DEIR. We have also reviewed and commented on the referenced Etiwanda No~th Specific Plan (F/qSP) that was approved by the City in 1992, but not the County - although the specific plan area is within the County - including the ENSP Resource Management Plan (RMP), the County's North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Plan (NEOSHPP), and has been a member of the County's Valley-wide Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Steering Committee. In addition, the Sage Council has been an aptxfinted member of the County of Rivcrside's MSHCP Advisory and Steering Committee. The Sage Council is a recognized expert, on endangered species and Habitat Conservation Plans, having [Leeona Klippstein] testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, Endangered Species Task Force and having our legal counsel [Eric Glitzenstein] testify before tile U.S. Senate. Since 1991, the Sage Council has repeatedly notified the City of Rancho Cucamonga government representatives that there is a global need to conserve P..iversidean and Alluvial Sage Scrub Habitats within their jurisdiction. In 1994, the City and County along with other jurisdictions contracted with CDPG and USFWS thi'ough the Countywide MSHCP to "make a good faith cffoW' to conserve specific habitals, including plants and animals during the planning process. Over the past decade, since signing the MSHCP c~mtract, the City has continued to approve development on habitat lands that should have been conserved. Thus, the Sage Council has taken legal steps against the City and Developers to ensure habitat conservation. In doing so, we have successfully obtained greater conservation and permanently protected over 500-acres acres of habitat in the West Valley Foothills adjacent to the 763-acre North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve that exists due to our effm'ts also. The Sage Council and our members have a long standing interest in the conservation of public trust natural resomx:es for this project site, surrounding habitat area and regionally. These comments are provided as an essential and integral part of the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., ("CEQA"). CEQA Guideline § 15201; Sutter Sensible Planning, lac. v. Board of Supervis0rs, (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 820. The purposes of these commentS are specifically and generally intended to (1) share knowledgeable local expertise, (2) check the accuracy and detect omissions of agency and project proponent analysis, (3) diaclo~ public concerns, (4) disclose inadequacies of the agency's responses to DBIR colnments, (5) disclose legal deficiencies and misapplication of local, state and federal laws, and (6) to solicit and recommend necessary counterproposals. CEQA Guideline § 15200; Selmi, The Judicial Development of the CaliJbrnia Envirbnrnental Quality Act (1984) 18 U.C. Davis Law Review 197, 245; Towards Res~>onsibilit¥ in Planning v. City Council, (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 671,682. POSITION . , The Sage Council is in disagreement and opposition with the Project proponent s and City's proposals, conclusions, environmental determination and findings regarding the DEIR and five related proposed actions. Thus, we request that the City deny the Project as proposed and adopt the No Project Alternative proposed in the DEIR. The Project ms proposed fails to meet the requirements of state and federal wildlife agencies, EPA,.. FEMA, ACOE and CEQA guidelines and other regulations for numerous reasons. Our reasoning for crpposition, along with recommendations are given below and throughout this comment letter. · Inadequate Mitigation of Onsite Biological Impacts -- RAFSS is a State SI .1 uires adc uate "very threatened" and RARE natoral commu nty that req q mitigation. CDFG, commenting on the ENSP, recommended a 5:1 mitigation ratio replacement for RAFSS. Other recommendations by the State and Federal public trust agencies have been a 3:1 ratio for in-kind habitat replacement. However, the most recent letters to the Couaty ~garding conserving RAFSS have ~ recommended a 5:1 ratio habitat mitigation replacement. The Sage Council acknowledges that the Project developer has acquired and is providing a 300-acre mitigation site to the west of Day Canyon and adjacent to the 300-acre County Flood Control mitigation land for the construction of the Day Canyon Debris Basin. The Project mitigation parcel, along with thc Debris Basin mitigation lands on the west of southwest, connent and are adjacent to the 763- acre North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve to the east that connects to the Nature ~ Sanctuaries of The Habitat Trust for Wildlife. While this is a great opportunity, to have more than 1363-acres of contiguous habitat presorved, the Sage Council believes that the lead public trust natural resource agencies may require a higher habitat replacement ratio than 2:1, according to previous mitigation recommendation made to the City and County regarding impacts to RAFSS. The Sage Council is submitting our two Alternatives that we request that the Project proponents and the City consider and include in the FlaIR. Our Revised Site Plan Alternative (,see attached map) for OnSite Habitat Mitigation is feasible and reasonable. This Alternative includes 150 dwelling units on 68.8 acres while ~.- p~oviding for 82-acres of habitat conservation in addition to the 300-acre mitigation site to the west of Day Canyon. By conserving habitat onsite, that is protected by an aesthetically pleasing natural stone-wall, the Project would also be providing a greater buffer from fire, eaahquake and flooding dangers. The Sage Council believes that our proposed Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative and must be selected by the City, The Sage Council could support this Project Alternative over the No Project Alternative. The other Sage Council Alternative with a Revised Map is one that provides greater earthquake protection by incxeasing the buffer area. While the Project does not build dwelling units directly on the known fault line, the City must consider that it is not shaking alone that causes life threatening harm and damage. There are known and unknown fissures that branch off earthquake faults. The fault is a known active "reverse-thrust" line that lifts and moves earth upon earth, Like the ~ Northridge Earthqua~.e, a similar one will one day occur here, The City must take ' every precaution and mitigation measure to ensure that future residents are safe. The Sage Council cmTently finds the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR for earthquake fault and hazards to be inadequate. In order to rnitigate the effects to a level of less than significant, we recommend that the City roquire the Fault Buffer area to be increased 2x the amount currently proposed. The City and Project developer can do so by adopting the Sage Council's Revised Site Plan Alternative for F.~a'thquake Fault (see attached Altemalive map). Our other concern over mitigation of habitat is regarding which conservation entity will be receiving the rnitigation lands and funds, Thc Sage Council opposes receivership and managernent by the County Open Space District (County). We ~ know the County to be a political entity more than a conservation organization slid question file County's use of managemv'nt funds. Ia~ the pa~t thc County has wrongfully used management funds for the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve (NEttP) in noncompliance of thc Management Plan and contract Agreement with USFWS and CDFG. The Sage Council requests that the Project mitigation lands with adequate management funding be given to The Habitat Trust tbr Wildlife. Until the Project proponent and City has reached an agreement with The Habitat Trust for receivership, the Sage Council remains opposed to the Project, amendments and annexation. · Inadequate Mitigation of Offsite Biological Impacts - RAFSS for "Fuel Modification". Inadequate mitigation for Equestrian Trails and future Center. We recommend a City Ordinance and Penal Code adoption to deter equestrian from going off trail. · Inadequate Identification of Direct and Indirect Impacts to the Environment - RAFSS, blueline stream and other subsurface water resourceS. We recommend additional avoidance and mitigation measures to reach a less than significant impact. · Inadequate Identification of Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources - RAFSS (over 7,500-acres have been lost to development since the City and County contracted with CDFG and USFWS to conserve this habitat through the Vaileywide MSHCP Memorandum of Agreement CMOA) and in "good faith". RECOMMENDATION TO CITY - Planning Commissioners and City Council Deny the Project and related proposals at this time. Request that City Planners and Project Applicant correct CEQA d~ycument~ to; i) include an adequate and feasible range of Project Alternatives, including those that will (a) eliminate equestrian elements (lots, trails, park) (b) provide for greater on-site and off-site habitat conservation (environmentally superior), (c) fit consistently into existing General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning requirements without requiting amendments. 3) Deny any and all development, including equestrian use and infrastructure in currently designated and known Hazard areas including Flood, 4) If the City desires to amend the ENSP, the City should not include the process along with this specific Project proposal. Rather the City should notify the public, hold public hearings and recirculate the ENSP b'EIR and amendments with enough time for the public to review and comment on the entire document and the proposed amendments. Why hasn't the City done so? The C~ty needs to reconsider ne information ti'om the public and public trust agencies regarding the ENSP since it waS approved over 10 years ago. Why isn't the City reopening the ENSP and FEIR so Ad Nd90:£0 t~OOE 60 -un£ 0~ 80S t~lL: 'ON XU=I sate;aossu uempue-z8 that the public can address the proposed amendments in context to what is actually occurring in the environment and environmental setting at this time? 5) Consult and meet with CDFG,USFWS and County Museum biologists to ensure that the Project will conform with the County-wide MSHCP guidelines and maps and/or provide adequate mitigation of negative impacts to species and habitats that require conscnwation. 6) Design and Landscaping -Use of nos-native plants, trees and grasses will cause further environmental impacts on the surrounding native flora and fauna in the RAFSS habitat and ecosystem. Such negative impacts are recognized by conservation biologists as "edge effects". Non-native grasses, plants and trees encourage the presence of non-native and parasitic birds (i,e. brown-headed cowbirds and European starlings) that displace native birds, steal their neats and negatively effect reproduction and fledging of native birds young. The City needs to ensure that only native plants that are a component of the existing RAFSS/AFSS are used for Project landscaping RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER The Sage Council requests and recoramends that the Project Applicant/landowner; 1) Become a willing seller and/or donor of habitat lands to a nonprofit conservation organization and work together to seek funding that is desired. The Sage Council recommends partnering with The Habitat Trust for Wildlife (www,TheHabita(rrust.or~) since the land trust presently holds lands in title in Henderson and East Etiwanda Canyons, north of the proposed Project site. 2) Redesign the currently proposed Project to; (a) eliminate the equestrian elements - to provide for greater amount of mitigation acres for habitat conservation (on and offsite) and increase residential density units .Project mitigation dedicated aa habitat conservation and donated to The Habitat Trust for Wildlife along wilh adequate management funding. This recommendation is feasible since the City consistently amends its General and Specific Plans. 3) Fonding to the City for a future Equestrian Park in an unidentified location that is proposed in current Project needs to be eliminated and dedicated to greater habitat mitigation. 4) If the Project proponents have acquired County Flood Control lands - these lands have already been used as mitigation for the existing levees and cannot legally be used to mitigate the proposed Project or any other - the lands should be donated to The Habitat Trust for Wildlife for habitat and wildiife conservation purposes. 5) Consult and meet with CDFG,USFWS and County Museum biologists to ensure that the Project will conform with the County-wide MSHCP guidelines and maps and/or provide adequate mitigation of negative impacts to species and habitats that require conservation. 8d Nd&O:£O P00~ 60 'un£ 05~ 80S ~IL: 'ON XU~ Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) T~hc Sage ~2ounci] on~oses thc City and project proponents proposal to amend the ENSP by Negative Declaration. The Sage Council reauests that the City t~reoare eno ci~'culate for.public review and comment an updated Revised EIR for the ENSP that reflects the present environment and impacts on the environment, including miti~,ation measures and monitoring. The ENSP is twelve years old - obviously not current - and fails to address the present day issues concerning the environment. In 1992, the ENSP failed to meet the habitat mitigation measures despite written and oral comments given by CDFG, USFWS and Forest Service, the lead government public trust agencies of natural resources. The Forest Service expressed concerns over the negative impacts on the urban interface associated with bringing in thousands of new residents into a biologically sensitive area and encouraging equestrian uses in the habitat needed by wildlife adjacent to the San Bemardino National Forest. The City wal twelve years ago by government experts that equestrian uses in the ar were unacceptable and harmful to the environment. Today, the harm '. even greater, as explained by Ikeda who submitted scientific data to ti City and County (see attached comment letter on Rancho Etiwanda Estates). Nevertheless, with all the biological experts comments, the t still pushes lo.yard with development and equestrian ases in this glol imperiled biological "hot spot". Each time the City has amended the ENSP, for ~luced lot size and increased density/number of residenfi~ units, the City has done so with a wave of their hand and developer fa wand - using a Negative Declaration rather than Revising the ENSP EIR. In addition, the City never amends the ENSP to increase mitigation measures even though CDFG, USFWS and Sage Council have continually explained to the City that it is needed, Significant changes to the environment, regarding natural resources, have occurred since 1992 that need to be addressed and mitigated for in a revised EIR for the F. cN'SP i.e specific wildlife and plant species have been more rare and federally listed as endangered, some with critical habitat designation within the ENSP area. In 1994, the City and County signed a contractual agreement/Memorandum with CDFG and USFWS to conserve habitats and species within the Valley-wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Planning Area, that also falls w;tinn the ENSP are . The City recently updated the Oenera Plan using an outdated or "historical" Environmental Analysis (EA) fi'om 1989, However, the City did not update or Revise the 1992 ENSP and ELR despite the fact of changed circamstances in the environment and the numeroos amendments made by Negative Declaration, We are providing additional public and scientific data, as ATI'ACHMENTS that should be considered by the City and Project proponents for this Project and Plan AmendmentS. If you have any questions and need to communicate, plea.se contact the Law Office of Craig Shennan (619) or Leeona Klippstein (910) 947-5091. Thank you. Sincerely, Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director Spirit of the Sage Council 439 Westwood SC #144 Fayetteville, NC 28314 www.sagecouncil.com Copy: Doug Doepke, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife Law Office of Crmg Sherman' Nancy Ferguson, USFWS References Attached Inland valley Daily Bulletin Preserve at critical point ~or projects By Naomi Kresge Staff Writer SaEurday, November 22, 2003 - Studies on the effect of fire in the North Etiwanda Preserve would be part of a quiet campaign to raise the preserve's profile and make it ].a~ger and more accessib].e to residents. paradoxically, that might also make it easier for developers to build on hillside land. · Although the preserve is not a mitigation bank in the traditional. developers cannot buy open space within the existing preserve to replace ].and they wan5 to develop it does provide a template developers can follow 5o speed their projects along. That way, developers don't have bo reinvent the wheel every time they plan a project, San Bernardino County Supervisor Paul Biane said. Biane pulled the preserve out of obscurity after he won o~fice last year, resurrecting its board of directors and pushing for new land to be brought under its management. Since it was established in 1~94, the preseL~e had operated q~ietly, 0I~ Nd80:£0 ¢00E 60 'un£ 0II¢ 80~ CIA: 'ON XU4 s*%e~oossu uempueu8 iae~o!M: WOB4 RESPONSES Response 1: Section 3.5 in the Draft EIR identifies the intended uses of the EIR. The EIR is not intended for a General Plan or Specific Plan amendment because the proposed project does not require a General Plan or a Specific Plan amendment. Response 2: This comment regarding the cumulative loss of biological habitat is noted. The project site is located in an area that a General Plan amendment and Specific Plan amendment were approved in 1991. The implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan that was approved in 1991. The proposed project will result in significant biological impacts as discussed in Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 in the Draft EIR; however, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant (see Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR). Response 3: Based on the biological resources assessment prepared by PCR Services Corporation (see Appendix C in the Draft EIR) and a review of the assessment, field surveys and review of biological literature pertaining to the project area by Michael Brandman Associates, a biological mitigation ratio of 1:1 was recommended. This ratio is determined to be adequate to reduce potential impacts to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) to less than significant. As identified in Mitigation Measure B-l, if the offsite mitigation area contains higher quality habitat, less land may need to be acquired, likewise, if lower quality habitat is acquired, more land may need to be set aside for mitigation. Response 4: This comment regarding the Sage Council's belief that the lead public trust natural resource agencies may require a higher habitat replacement ratio than 2:1 is noted. No further response is required. Response 5: An Alternative that includes 150 dwelling units on 68.8 acres is suggested to be considered. This alternative would result in approximately 42 percent less residential units on approximately 46 percent of the project site. This alternative includes 60 percent of the residential units that are included in the Less Intense Development Alternative that is discussed in Section 8.3 in the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 8.3, the Less Intense Development Alternative would not be consistent with the development level contemplated in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and would not meet many of the objectives of the proposed project. The project objectives are discussed on page 3-21 in the Draft EIR. Since this new alternative would result in 60 percent less residential units compared to the Less Intense Development Alternative, this new alternative would also not be consistent with the development level contemplated in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet many of the objectives of the proposed project. Response 6: Another Alternative that includes a greater earthquake protection buffer area is also suggested to be considered. This alternative would include 298 residential lots located north and south of the Alquist~Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone which is located through the center of the site. Although there would be a greater RESPONSES buffer, this alternative would still expose future residences to potentially significant seismic ground shaking and would be considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. According to Section 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives of the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project. If seismic ground shaking is substantially lessened, it would result in less than significant effects. Since seismic ground shaking would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen seismic ground shaking effects. Response 7: The comment regarding the Sage Council's opposition regarding the County receiving the mitigation lands or funds is noted. However, it is appropriate for the County of San Bernardino to receive the land or funds because they currently manage the habitat mitigation lands within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program area. Response 8: Section 5.2 identifies 140.3 acres of RAFSS habitat on the project site and '7.4 acres offsite. These offsite areas include areas planned for fuel modification. Therefore, the total RAFSS habitat to be removed with implementation of the proposed project is 147.7 acres and Mitigation Measure B-1 is a measure to acquire 147.7 acres of RAFSS for mitigation. This mitigation measure as well as additional measures in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR would reduce impacts to RAFSS habitat to less than significant. Response 9: The proposed project includes a 20-foot-wide trail connecting the Etiwanda Community Trail to East Avenue. The proposed trail is along the Red Hill Fault. The project does not include a future equestrian center. Since the proposed trail is only on the project site, and the entire site is planned to be graded, a City Ordinance or Penal Code adoption regarding deterring equestrians from going off the trail is not applicable for the proposed project. The project proposes to terminate the trail at East Avenue. Response10: Direct and Indirect impacts of biological resources were addressed in Section 5.2 in the Draft EIR. Impacts related to RAFSS is addressed on page 5.2-25 of the Draft EIR, and impacts related to blueline streams and other water resources (i.e., jurisdictional areas) is addressed on page 5.2-27 of the Draft EIR. The comment regarding a request for additional avoidance and mitigation measures is noted. Response '1'1: Page 5.2-28 of the Draft EIR identifies that the proposed project will significantly contribute to the cumulative loss of RAFSS habitat. Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR provides a measure (Mitigation Measure B-l) that would reduce the potential impact on RAFSS habitat to less than significant. RESPONSES Response 12: Please see Response 1 above regarding the project not proposing a Specific Plan amendment. Response 13: Preparation of the proposed San Bemardino County Valley-wide Habitat Conservation Plan is currently not in process and despite the signed contract and the cities agreement to participate, has not proceeded and is not expected to resume preparation in the near future. The HCP has been dropped from the County planning work program and contributions to its preparation are being refunded. The proposed project includes mitigation measures in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR that would reduce impacts to species and habitats to less than significant. Response 14: Use of non-native plants, trees and grasses could result in environmental impacts on surrounding native flora and fauna in the RAFSS habitat and ecosystem. These impacts are considered edge effects. Edge effects are mitigated in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR. These measures include use of native and drought-tolerant species adjacent to the offsite habitat (Mitigation Measure B-3), use of Iow-intensity street lamps, Iow elevation light poles, and shielding (Mitigation Measure B-4), and avoiding use of invasive plants (Mitigation Measure B-5). Response '15: The Sage Council's request regarding the selling and/or donation of habitat lands is noted. As described in Mitigation Measure B-l, the County of San Bernardino is identified as the agency to receive the land containing RAFSS habitat. The County is considered the appropriate agency to receive the land because the County is currently managing habitat mitigation lands within the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program area. Response '16: This comment regarding dedication of habitat mitigation acres is noted. No further response is needed. Response `17: The Development Agreement includes a condition consistent with the City's existing Equestrian Overlay District. This District requires new residential development with lots that are less than 20,000 square feet to pay an equestrian fee. Since the proposed project includes lots with less than 20,000 square feet, the project applicant will be required to pay an equestrian fee. Please note than an Equestrian Park is not proposed on the project site. Response 18: The project applicant will not be able to use County Flood Control lands that have been previously used as mitigation for the project's offsite mitigation. Response 19: Please see Response 13 regarding the County-wide MSHCP. Response20: This comment regarding opposition to the project is noted. However, the proposed project would not require an amendment to the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan. Furthermore, an EIR, and not a Negative Declaration, has been prepared for the project. Oouglas Ooepke, ?h.O. Secretary, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91103 May12,2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission c/o Larry Henderson 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Comments for May 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting / Heating Items G, H, I, J, J, K, L, M. N, P & Q Henderson Creek (Items I, J, K, L, N), Richland Pinehurst (Items G, H, M), and Amendments to City's General and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (Items P, Q) To the Chair and Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: '- The Habitat Trust for Wildlife is a 501c3 tax exempt nonprofit land trust dedicated to "Giving Nature Sanctuary." The Habitat Trust for Wildlife .(The Habitat Trust or THT) currently holds in fee title three parcels to the immediate north and northeast of the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve. Our organization has previously made and continues to make comments to this Commission on the above matters, and has previously submitted written comments on the Henderson Creek Project through our legal counsel and representative, Craig Sherman. Please consider the below in association to any action on the May 12, 2004 agenda. About TgE ]tABITAT TRUST FOR W1LDLIFE~ INC. The Habitat Trust was created by an out of court settlement with Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) over litigation of the Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates development projects and the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). The three Nature Sanctuary parcels that we hold and manage are mitigation lands from the two projects. The Habitat Trust is a Caiiforma nonprofit corporation and a federal 501c3 nonprofit. We are also a member of the Land. Trust Alliance www. LTA.org. The Habitat Trust is interested and willing to accept the mitigation lands of the Henderson Creek, Richland Pineh,~,rst, and others, in fee title for habitat conservation purposes with adequate funding for management. It is our understanding that the Coun~"s Open Space D/sm'ct has also offered to accept the mitigation lands and requires habitat management funds greater than what The Habitat Trust has assessed. Management funding is extremely important to The Habitat Trust. We are a small land trust that keeps our overhead costs to a minimum in the administration of our Nature Sanctuaries. Our greatest costs are that of consultants, independent contractors and legal representation. Through our membership and dues with the Land Trust Alliance, we receive property insurance. In addition, we are billed by the County Assessor for associated taxes. Multiply these costs by years of future conservation, one can see that management funding and endowments are needed. The Habitat Trust is currently requiring that management funds and/or endowments be granted commensurate and relation to the number of residential units to be built rather than acres to be developed. We believe that The Habitat Trust is a best entity to select that is truly dedicated to the conservation of imperiled habitats and wildlife. Comments Pertaining to Mailers on the May 12~ 2004 Agenda of the Planning Commission The Habitat Trust appreciates the proactive steps that the developer fur Henderson Creek Properties and its representatives, including Steve Stewart, have taken to our concerns and those made by the other involved non-profit organization, Spirit of the Sage Council. While we believe that many oftbe impacts and mitigation measures are serving to make this project a better and less-impacting one, we stand by those prior comments and continue to generally oppose development which: · Is utilizing, swapping, trading and/or developing County Flood Control District lands. These lands were deemed mitigation and open space areas during prior County and Army Corps flood control projects · Do not mitigate rare and diminishing sage scrub habitats to a level of less than significant, including Riversidean/Alhi~Sal Fan Sage Scrub Habitats at mitigation ratios greater than a 2:1 ratio, and closer to 5:1 rations for AFSS,rRAFFS and RUSS. · Does not adequately buffer home and other struc~es from tmown and active earthquake faults. ·Promotes and encourages equestr/an uses and trail development into areas near and adjacent to the North Et/wanda Preserve · Changes, reduces or amends the environmental protection and open space standards set forth in the 1992 Etiwanda North Specific Plan through reduced lot size and increased densi .ty without mitigating the ~mpacm on ate .... ho,u?,~n, wa,e,, a~r,, ...... , t'~ab~ta, loss ana hmpacts by human distarbances and eques~ans. The Habitat Trust, by approval oft~hs Project and Plan Amendments, is faced with ~eater management problems of our current and _future Nature Sanctua-r/es in the North Etiwanda area. More residential units equal more people. Without Ci~ and County Ordinances in place to place legal penalties on trespa~sers, shooters, off-road vehicles, equestrians offtrails, pets offleash and feral animals, The Habitat Trust and conservation of habitat sanctuaries are threatened by this development. More people also consume more water, effecting our Nature Sanctuaries in Etiwanda and Henderson Canyons. The City must revised the ENSP EIR and place conditions on Project approvals to address these negative impacts. We appreciate the continued efforts made this between these and other developers, this Commission and the City overall to continue to address these issues and concerns. Please direct all communications to either the Law Office of Craig Sherman (619) 702- 7892 or Leeona Klippstein (910) 947-5091 and (626) 676-4116. Thank you. Sincerely, Douglas Doepl[e, Ph.D. Secretary, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91103 cc: Steve Stewart, Henderson Creek Properties Susan Hori, Esq., Manett, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Letter B The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., May 12, 2004 Comment B-1 Use of open space lands deemed mitigation for County and ACOE flood control projects. Response It is not the City's intent to obtain Flood Control lands for the purpose of development of the Henderson Creek project or any other reason. The City is not purchasing or otherwise negotiating with the County to develop Flood Control lands related to this project. The Flood Control and Utility Corridor designated lands within the boundaries of the project site would be located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga but would not be controlled by the City. The San Bemardino County Flood Control District would continue to maintain its facilities through the project site. The additional land is included in the annexation application because without annexation, the Flood Control land would be a County island within the City's corporate boundaries. Comment B-2 Mitigation is not adequate for habitat identified on-site. Response The project site has been surveyed and was found not to contain any listed or threatened species, and that the habitat found on-site prior to the fire, that would be disturbed by the project is not considered by the resource agencies to be important. Therefore, the replacement of the Upland sage scrub habitat (note: sage scrub habitat in this region is Riversidian, whether it is upland, alluvial, or alluvial fan sage scrub) to be lost with 147.7 acres of a higher quality of habitat (albeit a riparian/chaparral mix) was considered by the project biologist and the County Museum staff, to be adequate. There are no wildlife or plant species found on the site that meet CEQA protection criteria or listed species (see 15380 CEQA). There is no regulation or plan that requires protection of upland habitat on this property. Alluvial sage scrub habitat is not currently afforded protection. There is no established ratio for replacement of habitat. Each ratio is established individually per project. Comment B-3 The project does not adequately buffer home and other structures fi.om known and active earthquake faults. Response Earthquake hazards were addressed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR. Active faulting has been identified within the project boundaries, and it has deformed the gently sloping fan surface as represented by the low escapement trending northeasterly across the site. This feature was named the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp and is thought to be an extension of the Red Hill fault. An Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been delineated across the project site to encompass the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp. A Seismic investigation performed in 1998 by GeoSoils indicates that active faulting is not likely to occur within the remainder of the site. Except for seismic ground shaking impacts, the implementation of mitigation measures within the EIR will reduce geology and soil impacts to less than significant. Seismic ground shaking would remain significant, because the project site, as the rest of southern California is located in an area known to produce earthquakes and all residents are subject to similar hazards if they choose to live in the region. Comment B-4 The project will promote and encourage equestrian use and trail development. Response The intent of the equestrian lots is to allow residents access to existing and future equestrian trails. It is not the City's intent to encourage equestrians to go off the trails. However, in keeping with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, equestrian use has been determined to be an important recreational use in the area and the provision of trails and facilities will create trail connections and enable the public to use trails throughout the hills and minimize attempts to go off-trail, creating those desired connections. Comment B-5 Environmental protections are changed, reduced or amended through reduced lot sizes and increased density without mitigation for various impacts. Response The proposed general plan and ENSP amendments do not change the designated land use from Open Space to Residential but merely from one residential designation to another. The proposed project includes 358 detached single-family housing units on approximately 150.8 acres. The northern portion of the site includes development of 167 single-family homes on 56.61 acres, a density of 2.95 dwelling traits per acre, with average lot sizes of 11,774 square feet. The southern portion of the site includes development of 191 single-family homes on 65.71 acres, a density of 2.92 dwelling units per are, with average lot sizes of 11,126 square feet. The combined density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre. The gross density of the project including open space, flood control and streets is 2.38 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lot sizes therefore necessitate the proposed land use designation amendments. The result is a similar number of lots but slightly smaller lot sizes. Comment B*6 The City must revise the Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR and place conditions on project approvals to address negative impacts associated with increased encroachment of people and domestic pets onto the open space lands; and increase use of water effecting The Habitat Trust's Nature Sanctuaries in Etiwanda and Henderson canyons. Response As part of the project review and approval process, the ENSP is being amended to accommodate the lot sizes proposed while adhering to the overall density for the area. The EIR for the project addresses the environmental effects of this amendment and incorporates mitigation measures to address those effects. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND Wll .DLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, Calif0'~t ~i~ANCH 0 In Reply Refer To: FWS-SB-2739.2 IAY ! $ 2(]fl . ldAY 1 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~.,-t,,-,~ ' - - Planning Division .: - ' 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Attn: Mr. Larry Henderson Re: Final Environmental Impact Reports and Closure of Comment Period for the Richland- Pinehurst and Henderson Creek Development Projects, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California Dear Mr. Henderson, We have been informed that the final environmental documents for the above-named residential construction projects have been publicly circulated and that the public comment period closes today, May 12, 2004. To our knowledge, we have not received copies of these documents. However, we wish to provide the following general comments for your consideration. The primary concern and mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We provide these comments in keeping with our agency's mission to work "with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, w. ildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people." These proposed project sites are on the Etiwanda alluvial fan. While we have no project specific information to refer to, based upon our general knowledge of the area, we are concerned about the potential adverse effects of the proposed projects to the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodornys merriami parvus, "SBKR") and its designated critical habitat, and the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatcher") and its designated critical habitat. We recommend that you coordinate with us regarding these projects. TAKE PR! Mr. Larry Henderson (FWS-SB-2739.2) 2 We also recommend that, if you have not done so already, you coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) regarding such issues as potential impacts of the projects on California Species of Special Concern, the potential loss of foraging habitat for raptors and habitat that supports other sensitive wildlife, direct impacts to nesting birds as a result of the proposed projects, and measures that would reduce the cumulative loss of habitat for these sensitive species to less than significant. The project areas support alluvial fan sage scrub (AFSS) vegetation dominated by white sage (Salvia apiana), otherwise known as the white sage series of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat. The Etiwanda alluvial fan, including these project sites, supports the most intact AFSS habitat remaining in San Bernardino County and possibly within the known distribution of this vegetation community (San Bernardino Flood Control District 1999). This vegetation type supports the federally listed species mentioned above as well as many other sensitive species. Due to the rarity and historic losses of AFSS habitat, we also recommend that you coordinate with our agency and the Department regarding potential effects of these developments to this vegetation community. We appreciate your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nancy Ferguson of my staff at (760) 431-9440 ext. 244 Sincere/~ A. (.J Assistant Field S~ap~rvisor cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Attn: Robert Smith California Department of Fish and Game, Chino Hills, Attn: Leslie MacNair County of San Bernardino, Land Use Planning Services, Attn: Randy Scott Office of Supervisor Paul Biane, Rancho Cucamonga District Office, Attn: Tim Johnson Literature Cited: San Bernardino Flood Control District. August 1999. Data Report for Section 7 Consultation on the San Sevaine Creek Water Project, Appendix B C-2- Nfichael Brandman Associates ENVIRONX~E,<T^L SERVICES PLANNING · NATTRAL RESOU~.&XaGE~iENT May 26, 2004 ~~L~'~ City of Rancho ~camonga Planing Division BL~gXqgB 10500 Civic ~nter Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 SUBJE~: Response to U.S. Fish and Wfld~fe Comment ~tter on the Draft EIR for Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 Dear Mr. Hende~on: Approximately four months a~er the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR for Temative Tract Map Number 16072, the U.S. Fish and Wild~fe Se~i~ (US~S) has provided a few co~ents on the Draft EIR (see Attachment A). These co~ents address the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat, California Gnatcatcher, Califor~a Spedes of Special ~ncem, cumulative loss of sensitive habitat and ~luvifl Fan Sage Sc~b. ~though no specific comment on the technicfl analysis in the Dra~ EIR was provided by the USFWS, the fo~owing is a response to each of these issues. San Bernardino ~ngaroo ~t. ~ discussed on page 5.2-26 in the Dra~ EIR, this species is federally listed as endangered. Prot~ol su~eys were conducted for t~s species in 2001 and 2002, and the results were negative. Even though the results were negative, a ~tigation measure is included in Section 5.2.5 of the Dra~ EIR that requires the project app~cant to conduct a follow-up focused su~ey for this species prior to the issuance of ~ading pe~ts. California Gnatcatcher. ~ discussed on page 5.2-26 in the Draft EIR, this species is federally listed as threatened. T~ee protocol su~eys were conducted between 1998 and 2002, and the results were negative. Even though the results were negative, a ~tigation measure is included in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR that requires the project applicant to conduct a follow-up focused su~ey for this species prior to the issuance of ~ading per,ts. California Species of Special Concern. The impact of the proposed project on these species is discussed on pages 5.2-26 and 5.2-27 in the Draft EIR. The potentifl loss of foraging habitat for rapto~ is discussed on page 5.2-27, and the measure to reduce impacts to nesting birds is addressed on page 5.2-30 in the Draft EIR. Cumulative ~ss of Sensitive Habitat. A cumulative analysis is provided on page 5.2-28 in the Dra~ EIR. The analysis concludes that the proposed project will si~fficantly contribute to the 220 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine. CA 92602 714. 508. 4100 FAX 714. 508. 4110 Inland Empire Bay Area Kern County 909.884.2255 925.830.2733 661.334.2755 www. brandman,com EMML mba@brandman.com Rc t:onscs l~rry I-I~dcrson May 26, 2004 Page 2 cumulative loss of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR includes a mitigation measure to reduce the project's contribution to the cumulative effect on RAFSS habitat to less than significant. Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Page 5.2-25 in the Draft EIR addresses the project's impact on RAFSS that is located on and adjacent to the project site. Section 5.2.5 in the Draft E1R includes a mitigation measure to reduce the project's effect on RAFSS habitat to less than significant. ff you have any questions regarding the above information, please call me. Sincerely, MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES Michael E. Houlihan, AICP Manager of Environmental Services H:lClient (PN-JN) lOO18100180027~Rancho Cucamonga.52604.doc A~rORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRST AveNuE, SUITe 335 SAN DIEGO. CA 92101-2380 TELEPHONE FACSIMIle (619) 702-7892 (619) 702-9291 June 15, 2004 Via Facsimile (909) 477-2846 Followed by Hand Delivery MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report and all Other Discretionary and Legislative Approvals for the Proposed ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164, General Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, Etiwanda North Specific Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, and associated ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEQA Negative Declaration) TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OR RANCHO CUCAMONGA: This office represents The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. and Spirit of the Sage Council (collectively, Sage Council) is a 501(c)(3), two non-profit projects and corporation, consisting of Native Americans, scientists, citizens and members dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage, including endangered species, natural habitats. Both of these groups have members and supporters that reside in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and San Bemardino County (County) who recreate, enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regions natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referenced proposed development. These comments are provided by Sage Council and other interested community groups and/or persons in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the westem area of the County of San Bemardino ("County"). The Sage Council provides this comment letter in response to the propose Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Neg Dec.") for the above-referenced City land use changes and annexation, and the legislative actions related thereto (collectively, "Project"). Page Two June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Sage Council incorporates all verbal and written comments it has made on this Project, including those written and verbal objections made by this office before the Planning Commission on May 25th and May 26th of this year. Improper Use of Negative Declaration Despite the fact that City is segmenting and piece-mealing numerous general and specific plan amendments as it related to this Project, the impacts arising directly, indirectly and cumulatively from this Project are not and cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. The designations of land uses allowing the development of substantial acreage of sensitive biological habitats, and which are currently undeveloped open space lands will cause such unmitigated impacts. The City's prior assertion that mitigation of developed areas at a ratio of 1:1 will mitigate all impacts to below a level of significance is proven untrue by both the City's own prior adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the concurrently processed projects in the area which, despite mitigating at a 1:1 ration (or even higher), are not causing direct and cumulative impact to biological resources and open space losses to be reduced to levels below significant. Furthermore, based on the recommended rations by the designated resources agencies, appointed as "trustees" for the purposes of implementing CEQA, the mitigation rations are far below the levels and ratios recommended to mitigate for such resource losses. Requirement for Water Supply Information not Included in EIR Impacts to both long and short-terms water resources are also deficient. The incredible demand of housing being impose by City by its annexation and pigeon-holing land that will serve nothing but residential development.~ This Project is growth inducing in that regard. The City staff has admitted at the May 26, 2004 hearing that it is annexing the land encompassed by this Project to prevent an outlier development project from being a "leap-frog" development. Page Three June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA As previously raised and argued before the regarding the related matter of City's proposal for ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164, General Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, Etiwanda North Specific Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, and associated ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEQA Negative Declaration) at the May 26, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission, and at the hearing on the FEIR for the Traigh Pacific at the June 9, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has failed to conduct appropriate water supply studies and include them in the EIR for this Project. The City is engaged in a consolidated general plan and specific plan amendment to approve projects and annex the whole into its jurisdiction. These concurrently processed and decided specific plan amendments now invoke Water Code §§ 10910-10915 which requires any residential development of more than 500 homes must contain an water supply assessment of the public water supply system relating to project and overall supply and demand issues. This water assessment must include, among other things, whether the demand of the proposed project was included as part of the water purveyor's most recently adopted urban water management plan (UWMP), whether the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years included in the UWMP's 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to the water purveyor's existing and planned future uses. This information must be request such water assessments from potential water purveyors at the time the Notice of Preparation is released for the Project, and the water assessment(s) must be included in the draft EIR for public review (Water Code § 10911; CEQA Guidelines § 15083.5, subd. (d).) The fact that this Project, in and of itself, may be less than the 500 home threshold does not excuse City from conducting this required analysis because the City is knowingly bifurcating and is concurrently processing not less than four Specific and General Plan amendments for large residential subdivisions for this immediate Project area, and the Water Code and CEQA require such collective and cumulative assessments, especially with regards to general and specific plan amendments such as this. The letters from the potential water purveyor in this case (Cucamonga Water District) has remarked about the increasing stress of meeting water demands for this fast growing region. And the same purveyor has mentioned the need for off-site improvements/ construction to accommodate the growth associated with this Project. These off-site impacts have not been sufficiently disclosed, nor has there been any mitigation offered for the temporary or long-term impact that might be associated with the same. Page Four June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Impacts Caused by Incorporation and Promotion of an Equestrian Overlay District Sage Council also asserts that Project's promotion and inclusion of an Equestrian Overlay District and Trails in and around the Project site and adjacent SBCFCD easements and conservation lands, including levees and levee roads, have not been sufficiently analyzed. The introduction of substantial numbers of person and multiple use in and around conservation and preservation lands will cause numerous direct and indirect impacts both to the project site and t those offsite and nearby areas. The Project site is bounded by habitat conservation lands to the to the north and east. Residential development and equestrian uses are not compatible. Horses not only cause significant physical damage and losses to native habitats, plants and natural communities by trampling, but by the introduction and distribution of non-native seeds from their feed stock, including alfalfa, oats and other grains, which are then blown in the wind onto adjacent habitat conservation lands. Horses and horse droppings on ENSP trails (see ENSP, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, Exhibit 11.) that go through the County Open Space District 1, North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve, SBCFCD San Sevaine Creek Project's Habitat Conservation lands, Habitat Mitigated lands from the Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates Projects are not permitted and would cause significant damage to these habitat conservation areas by the horses/droppings introducing non-native and invasive alfalfa, oat and other grain plants. There is no proven need, demonstrated by the City and Project applicant for an Equestrian Center and trails in this region of the County and City sphere of influence. However, even if there was a need, the term and conditions of committed mitigation for natural open space conservation required by the SR-30 Highway Expansion Project and San Sevaine Creek Water Project supercede the desire to introduce active recreation into a nature preserve. The City ENSP and RMP require significant revisions, including the Richland Pinehurst, Inc. project, to be consistent with the current land uses. The evidence presented by Sage Council and its expert Travis Longcore affirmatively prove the influence and introduction of equestrian trials and uses by the Project involve the creation of additional direct and indirect adverse environmental effects not analyzed by the Neg Dec, nor has there been any attempt to mitigate for the same. It is certainly true that a "fair argument" can be made that approval of the City's Project may result in mitigated significant environmental effects to the environment. Page Five June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Failure to Mitigate On and Off-Site Impacts Currently the Project proposes to provide a 1:1 habitat mitigation that is not sufficient mitigation for its impacts to numerous quantities and types of natural resources. This is unacceptable not only to Sage Council, but also experts at the identified responsible public trust agencies, DFG and FWS. While Sage Council's three proposed alternatives are significantly better in avoidance and mitigation of impacts on habitats and water recharge at a 2:1 replacement, it is believed the Project can be revised to partially mitigate impacts at a minimum of 3:l and 5:1 maximum. Sage Council is aware of willing sellers of habitat lands in the area and region, thus it is possible (feasible) for the Project's negative environmental impacts to be mitigated, as the law requires that they be. With on- and off-site conservation of habitats, placement of gates and/or guard stations can help mitigate adjacent and offsite impacts associated with human disturbances such as hiking off trails, off road vehicles and motorcycles/dirt bikes, litter, dumping of trash and garden refuse, shooters/hunters, dogs etc.. Also, having a nature center for interpretive studies would help in educating residents on the importance of wildlife, habitat and water conservation, and how to not impact natural land preserves such as those surrounding the Project area. The three alternatives also include a Natural Rock Wall/Stone faced double-sided at a minimum of 6 fi. completely around the Project site. Having a wall, rather than fencing, along with street circulation adjacent to the wall, will provide a greater defense for adjacent habitat and wildlife conservation areas and act as a buffer for wildfires and minor flooding events. Residential units, if built, should be one story and not two due to the need to protect important viewsheds identified in the ENSP. The ENSP includes a Ranch and Bungalow design that suggests such a horizontal one story structure. Two story homes are less defensible and are at greater risk of fire during wildfire storms fueled by winds coming out of canyons to the north of the Project site. Environmental Review and Impacts from the Proposed Annexation is Deficient The impacts associated with the proposed future uses, land use designations, and the potential and foreseeable impacts related thereto must be analyzed in association with this Project and the environmental review thereto. By the Project applicants attempting to meet the City's desires of an outdated ENSP, doing so jeopardizes the legality and creates planning, zoning, and environmental inconsistencies from the Project. The City's desire to increase the use of horses in a Significant Natural Area, and in and around dedicated habitat conservation lands is incredibly inconsistent. Page Six June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Conflicts and Inconsistencies With the Adopted General and Specific Plans The Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq. requires the City to base land use decisions on its adopted general and specific plans. The City's adopted applicable General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (collectively, "Plans") states that critical or essential structures shall not be placed within designated earthquake fault zones or other constraints zones. This is the entire purpose of expressly designating such constraints areas. Essential and critical structures such as water lines, water lines, water storage facilities, and homes are located within designated critically dangerous fault zones. Additionally, the approval of the Project subdivision is forbidden pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act (Public Res. Code §§ 2621 et seq.) for failure to prepare adequate geologically site specific reports delineating hazard of surface ruptures, and the dangers of knowingly placing men, women and children in such danger zones. While the EIR states - that as a required mitigation measure - that Project homes are to be placed no closer than 100 feet from the Etiwanda Scarp, the proposed and to be approved Project does not do this, and does not request the constraints zone set forth on the ENSP maps and the delineation of the Scarp as set forth in the Project EIR documents. The City continues to use and reference the outdated Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), adopted in 1992 as the lead document when considering this Project and other Projects. "However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal in Etiwanda shall be based on the objectives, policies, and specific development standards specified herein." 14.2 ENSP page v-3. The City began drafting the ENSP in 1984, conducting public heatings in 1989 through 1992 and then adopted the Plan on April, 1, 1992 (see Resolution No. 92-092) with "overriding circumstances" (See Resolution 92-092, Exhibit A, hereto) and against the recommendations of lead government agencies for conserving public trust natural resources, California Department ofFish and Game (DFG or Department) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service)(See ENSP DEIR and FEIR Comments (DFG on August 4, 1988, May 17, 1991 and June 26, 1991. FWS on October 6, 1989, June 25, 1990, April 22, 1991, July 3, 1991 and Testimony at Public Heatings). The U.S. Forest Service also expressed concerns and recommendations in comment letters and testimony at public hearings (See comment letter of June 19, 1991). Page Seven June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA The City also stated: [tJhat specific economic and social considerations make infeasible any project alternative specified in the in the Final Environmental Impact Report and constitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; [and ...] Further, a Resource Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented. The ENSP Resource Management Plan (RMP) was adopted on November 4, 1992, however, to date, the RMP has not been implemented. According to the RMP Executive Summary: "Opportunities for preservation of the sensitive habitats that have been identified within the ENSP must be fully explored prior to project approval in the ENSP area." and "The primary method of habitat preservation is avoidance." The ENSP and RMP identify lands in the area that have previously been used for mitigation. These mitigation sites cannot be used to mitigate impacts of the ENSP and new projects within the area. The City anticipated that an MOU for conservation of habitats within the ENSP area would occur. (See R/VIP page 1-8.) The City, County and others have signed such an MOU and contractual agreement to conserve habitats and wildlife within the ENSP area and throughout the West Valley Foothills. (See Valley-wide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) (HCP/NCCP) MOU with Map and Species List.) The County, as lead local government, has received funding from the State, via U.S. Senate and Appropriations legislation for U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service "for NCCP planning in County of San Bemardino". The overall area encompasses a Significant Natural Area identified by California Department ofFish and Game under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code (SBD 110) and requires protection and up-to-date biological surveys. (RMP page 1-9) Under no circumstances shall development occur within 50feet of any streambed" (RMP page 11 and Appendix C, Mitigation Measures 4.5-15) Page Eight June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Riparian woodland habitat areas shall remain within open space and will be managed in such a manner as to maximize wildlife habitat values and minimize human disturbance associated with adjacent development. (RMP page 1-12) For the Etiwanda/San Sevaine corridor, as well as throughout the Specific Plan area, the free movement of wildlife must be addressed. (see RMP page 1-15) .... as a condition of development, a study of the feasibility of acquisition for preservation must be completed prior to any project approvals in the area. (see RMP page 1-8 at c.) Based on each of the above requirements, the proposed Project is in violation with and conflicts with the Plans, the City's adopted RMP and the HCP/NCCP MOU. The City Council must not approve the Project or violate CEQA, NCCP Act, State Plant Protection Act, FESA, NEPA, Clean Water Act, Water Code (SB 221 and 610), as well as violate its own adopted plans and regulations. Under no circumstances, should LAFCO allow annexation of County, County OS-1 District and SBCFCD lands until the 1991 ENSP is revised with an EIR that reflects current environmental conditions, and analyzes increase level of impacts relating, and proposes appropriate mitigation measures to del with such impacts. The City's current effort to do this via a CEQA negative declaration and 3 other concurrent piecemealed projects violates both environmental review and planning laws. Until such comprehensive environmental review and planning, all development Projects in the ENSP area must be put on hold, or otherwise be processed through the County. However, as similarly true with the County, is also must revise and update its General Plan and West Valley Planning Area to reflect the current environmental conditions, dedicated habitat conservation lands and year 2004 existing mitigation needs. Traffic~ Circulation and Growth Inducine Imnacts The City and Project applicant rely on the decade old ENSP and its related Circulation Plan (see 1991 ENSP, CIRCULATION PLAN, Exhibit 12). Significant changes have occurred since 1991 which limited the extent of Day Creek Blvd, East Avenue, Wardman Bullock Road and others. (See also Spirit of the Sage Council lawsuits involving the prior University/Crest - Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates developments) most Page Nine June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA importantly, there are no longer roads/streets along the LADWP and Edison Utility Corridors north of the Project site, nor should there be. Currently, local residents of the City are experiencing traffic jams in the morning and afternoon on Etiwanda Avenue by the school (see public comments on the Project and the other concurrently processed projects, Tracy/Traigh Pacific, Richland Pacific and Plan amendments/annexations) and were trapped by narrow streets during the 2003 wildfires. These real life traffic problems are not surprising since the 1991 ENSP was approved by the City with "overriding cimumstances." Furthermore, the City has approved ENSP and General Plan amendments to increase residential densities from Very Low to Low and Utility Corridors to Residential (see Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates projects). Still the City and other project applicants, including this project and for Richland Pinehurst are requesting General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments to increase and almost double residential density AGAIN. The 1991 ENSP Circulation Plans, Street Sections (see ENSP, Exhibits 13 (A) - (F)) include "COMMUNITY TRAIL" of 20' in width. The City needs to revise the 1991 ENSP and EIR to eliminate the Community Trails, as well as Equestrian Trails, in order to better meet the needs of street widths that are needed by residents to move around fire tracks etc. during evacuations. While we do not support development in the ENSP area that is also a high wildfire, flood and earthquake risk, we do believe that the City and Project applicant must address the Health, Safety and General Welfare of its current and future residents. The City must not use "overriding considerations" in General and Specific and residential development project plans. We also remind the City and Project applicant that "General Welfare" includes the need for clean air, water and environment. As identified by the City in the adopted Plans, the highest, best and most appropriate use for most all of the Project (and related project) lands is for habitat, wildlife and water conservation. General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments Sage Council opposes the City's General and Specific Plan amendments associated with the Project. Firstly, the Project site is in the County Hazard Overlay District for Flooding, Wildfires and Earthquakes and therefore does not comply with "Health, Safety and General Welfare" needs of the Public. This is not an area in the County and City Sphere of Influence that, anyone in their right mind, should be allowed to use for residential dwellings and widespread equestrian facilities. The annexation and zoning Page Ten June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA and ultimate encouraged development of residential uses (which, as in the above footnote will be virtually mandated by the City's anti leap-frog in-fill approach to approving projects) will not only cause unmitigated health and safety impacts (see CEQA analysis and/or findings in Richland Pinehurst, Inc. project) due to location and risk of earthquake faults, fires and floods. A Neg Dec is not appropriate without some development constraints that would restrict, zone or otherwise prevent development of the whole residential areas with merely mitigating at a 1:1 ratio. The "result" of building in the San Gabriel and San Bemardino Mountain foothills area is never going to change from being hazardous. The cumulative and collective Plan amendments intend to bring double the amount of residential dwellings and future residents. In addition to placing more people's lives at risk, the current environmental circumstances of traffic j ams, air pollution, overcrowding of schools, lack of landfill space, water shortages and energy crisis, the Amendments would further exacerbate these conditions rather than improving them. The rational that environmental conditions are already bad in the area, so making it worse doesn't matter, is unfounded and irresponsible. Under CEQA the Project must mitigate negative impacts on the environment. Reducing and lessening Project specific negative impacts is required by law, whether or not mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level of less than significant is a matter considered after sufficient mitigation measures have been made. There are unmitigated direct and cumulative impacts caused by growth inducement and additional persons, causing adverse effects to air quality, traffic, noise, light, biology, open space, etc. Amendments allowing higher density on the Project site, from Very Low 1-2 to Low 2-4, also increases the negative impacts to adjacent dedicated habitat conservation lands, habitats and wildlife. More people are going to trespass into areas that are specifically for habitat and wildlife. These preserves are not to be used for any moderately active human recreational uses, dumping, shooting and horse riding. Even passive uses such as observation, bird- watching, scientific study, and other uses need to carefully controlled and regulated. This Project (and the City's other related projects) does not consider thee impacts and propose mitigation for minimizing the same. The habitat preserves are not "parks," yet the Project and ENSP are treating these lands as such, resulting in substantial unanalyzed and unmitigated impacts to significant natural resources. Page Eleven June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Wildlife Corridors~ Buffers~ Net Loss of Open Space and Conservation Lands~ and More Unanalyzed and Unknown Biological Resources Impacst The City proposals, including development of Cotmty Flood Control lands and Utility Corridors has a significant negative impact on Biological Resources for habitats and wildlife. The file and record for the Project fails to provide any scientific data regarding wildlife movement and buffers within the ENSP area, assuming that "Etiwanda Creek along with adjoining Conservation Areas will continue to provide suitable corridors for wildlife movement." Scientific literature and data suggest otherwise. (See previous and concurrently presented scientific argument and literature regarding wildlife movement corridors, habitat buffers and the effects of substantial fuel modification zones.) Itis recommended, by Sage Council that the City revised the 1991 ENSP and recently versions of the General Plan to identify and map wildlife corridors and habitat buffer areas, using the best available science, which includes existing and further scientific studies performed, rather than using the old 1984 Environmental Assessment that both Plans have used. The County and cities agreed to do such studies when entering into and signing a contractual agreement with CDFG and FWS for the Valley-wide MSHCP(HCP). The County Museum staff, DR. Robert McKernan and Gerald Braden should be consulted by the City and Project developers as they may already have some preliminary maps and data available. In addition, consult with the lead agencies CDFG and FWS that can also provide the City and Project developers with the most current and best scientific information on wildlife movement corridors and buffers. There is lacking scientific evidence and support for the City's statement that "Future development of up to 95-acres within the Project area, adjacent to Etiwanda Creek, will not have any impacts on riparian, wetland, or related habitat." This is so general as to be meaningless. What is "related habitat" of Etiwanda Creek? The City must identify all habitats on and adjacent to the development site. The use of Habitat Buffers is needed, but not used for the proposal and Projects. Rare plants are found in the thousands on the Project site, especially since the 2003 wildfire that swept through the ENSP area. The Project Neg Dec fails whatsoever to conduct studies or inventories regarding biological (either pre-wildfire or post-fire). There is no analysis of the lands which City now is slating for development that would otherwise remain designated open space conservation land (flood control conservation). Not only is there no authority for the City to remove the County's "conservation" designation placed on the land as a result of the need for mitigation arising from other development impacts, but the City fails to mitigate for such change in designation and net loss of such open space lands. The City does no analysis or inventory to the amount of open space or conservation lands within its current incorporated boundaries, yet in Page Twelve June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA continues to chip away at all opportunities to create or conserve such open space, including the taking away other jurisdiction's designated open space. This is not allowed. This certainly is a violation of CEQA to disclosing, analyzing and mitigating the impacts from the same. What are the inventories of resources now slated to be lost by City shifting and redesignating conservation lands to be residential subdivisions. It is necessary to perform biological studies to include with earlier studies as to be accurate as to what are the current environmental conditions. How can the City assess what lands to shift and what to conserve if it (1) does not do an inventory, (2) does know the differing levels and areas of resoumes, (3) does not consider altemative configurations necessary to determine whether or not to redesignate or change land uses. This approach to decision-making and conducting such review via a Neg Dec is inappropriate and not allowed by law. Due to the level of possible impacts arising from the Project, the City needs to consult with DFG and FWS for the Rare Plummer's Mariposa Lily, SB K Rat, California gnatcatcher, SWestem Arroyo Toad, Red Legged Frog. All of these federally listed endangered species are known to occur in the ENSP Area and adjacent throughout the West Valley Foothills. As above, the City and County are signatories to an HCP/NCCP pre-planning agreement and MOV contract. The Project does not address this regional conservation planning contract and the State NCCP for CSS. The ENSP area is included in the CSS NCCP. The County North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Plan (NEOSHPP) was not supported by CDFG, FWS, Sage Council and others who found it to be a development plan, not a conservation plan (see public comment and letters re NEOSHPP in the County files). The approval documents for the Project, including the proposed mitigated Neg Dec is incorrect to assert that mitigation will be afforded at a 1:1 mitigation ratio. Is this for genetic "land area" so that merely vacant open space land is being provided, or is mitigation impact be provided to mitigate for the particular resources being impacted and lost? Sage Council contends it is error for the City to approve, and assert that impacts are being mitigated, when not only the Project area has not been surveyed and assessed but the mitigation land area being offered has not been surveyed and it is unknown whether that land possesses the attributes of the affected land (e.g., specific sensitive and rare plant and animal species or habitat therefore). This is besides the fact that the City admits that even mitigating at a 1:1 ratio results in significant and unmitigated impacts. Page Thirteen Jtme 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Cultural Resources The City's findings regarding the direct and cumulative loss of cultural and historic resources are not supported by the record. There is not inventory or record that has been done for the Project as to whether the City is shifting conservation land uses to residential uses, and thereby will destroy known archeological or other historical resources. Even when mitigating by digging, moving collections or rcburial of bodies (as blatant as greed may require), the cumulative losses to historic sites and areas cannot bc mitigated to below a level of significance. The City and Projects play ignorant to the fact that the entire ENSP area is part of the larger indigenous village of"Cucamong[n]a" for the Shoshone Gabrielino Nation (a State recognized tribe, a..k.a. Gabrielino Band of California Mission Indians.) The City has information and evidence in its archives a video from a previous presentation at the City, led by FWS John Hanlon and Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council. Also in the City archives is a video submitted by the Sage Council, "No Room for Compromise." Both these videos, along with other public comment given on the 1991 proposed ENSP, Oak Summit Development, and proposed development at Cucamonga Canyon provided substantial information on this historic and cultural resource. The City, the applicants for this Project, and the related projects need to review the video tapes and public comment. It is recommended that the City and developers reduce negative impacts by significantly reducing development on site and throughout thc ENSP area. Projects should allow at least 50% of habitat lands on-site to be conserved for these cultural and biological resources, or mitigate for the same at not less than a 5:1 replacement. Surveys, studies and reports in thc other concurrently processed projects indisputably indicate a wealth and substantial amount of historic and cultural resources. In order for the City to make the lands uses and changes it proposes by the Project, these resources must be reviewed and understood before the die is cast for the next vanilla in-fill housing tract for the City. If the surveys, studies and reports indicate that the Project site includes items and other evidence, the Project plans and land uses changes must be redesigned or alternatives must be presented to avoid these sensitive areas. Especially if there are cairns, human remains and/or burials. Page Fourteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA No Alternative Analysis is Conducted Whatsoever Because City determines there to be no possible adverse environmental impact, it does even bother to consider alterative configurations or ways to minimize any of the above certain and potential identified adverse effects. Improper and Outdated Proiect Mapping; Failure to Describe Current Proiect Conditions at the time of Notice of Preparation As argued above, the Project documents and City may not rely on information contained in outdated Plans and other Project-specific mapping which does not reflect the realities or describe the current conditions at and around the Project site at the time the Notice of Preparation for the EIR is issued. The Project Applicant uses old data sources and other outdated information that fails to include the Revised San Sevaine Creek Water Project (2001) with revised maps MAP lA and 11~ 2001, San Bemardino County Flood Control District. (See attachment) While the Henderson Project may assert that the 1991 ENSP has "prezoned" this area for development and that is all that is needed, this is not true if SBCFCD has enacted or undertaken actions (e.g., "easement" or other inconsistent land uses) which affect the City's pre-zoning for the Project and its immediately adjacent areas. Based on these County actions, including that with respect to SBCFCD conservation areas, the Lever Road(s) must not be used for the 1991 ENSP Trails System/Equestrian Overlay District, without analyzing and mitigating the impacts and inconsistencies with the same. Lands in the ENSP tract used for Trails and Equestrian Overlay are currently habitat conservation lands that prohibit or are in conflict with such uses. The Project fails to conform with the realities of today's environment and relies on the outdated and misleading ENSP. Other lands to the East and Southeast of Project are also habitat conservation lands since 1995 Project mapping. Both Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates have purchased and designated lands for habitat mitigation and conservation. Page Fifteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation / Plan Amendments / CEQA Final Remarks and Request for further Written Notification In advance, my client thanks you for considering the issues presented in this comment letter. Should you have any questions concerning any of the points raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Please notify this office of any administrative or legislative hearings, circulation of documents, or any other action or hearing related to the Project, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092.2. Sincerely cr, a~.g A.' Sh~~ cc: clients Attachments Referenced Appendices INCORPORATED AND REFERENCED APPENDICES Relevant to the Comments provided herein, Sage Council references and incorporates herein by such reference, the following City file documents which have addressed resource impacts and have conducted environmental review of such resources and impacts which relate to the proposed Project: 1) all the ENSP documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 2) Oak Summit CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 3) University Crest CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 4) Rancho Etiwanda CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comlnents 5) Rancho Etiwanda Estates CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 6) Tracy CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 7) Richland Pinehurst CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 8) Sheridan Estates CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 9) Richland Pinehurst, Inc. Flood Control Project CEQA, NEPA, USFWS, ACOE Permit application documents, environmental assessments, including public and public trust agencies comments 10) San Sevaine Flood Control Project CEQA, NEPA, USFWS, ACOE Permit application documents, environmental assessments including public and public trust agencies comments. 11) State of California, Resources Agency Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program documents, including scientific literature references and USFWS Environmental Assessment and Biological Opinion for the Special 4(d) rule under the ESA for the California gnatcatcher. 12) USFWS documents regarding the listing of the California gnatcatcher as "Threatened" with a Special Rule. Also, documents relating to the designation of "critical habitat" for the California gnatcatcher. 13) USFWS documents regarding the listing of the San Bemardino kangaroo rat as "Endangered". Also, documents relating to the designation of"critical habitat" for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat. 14) San Bernardino County-wide Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan documents, including financial reports that identify receipt of state and/or federal funding for developing a plan that is consistent with the State NCCP. Also include maps and studies that have been performed by contracted biologists at the County Museum. A-1 Carat; A. Sx-ma x ATrORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 335 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2322 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE (619) 702-7892 (619) 702-9291 Facsimi from the Law Office of Craig A. Sherman To: City Clerk From: Craig Sherman, Esq. Fax: (909) 477-2846 Pages (including cover): 17 Phone:. (909) 477-2700 Date: June 16, 2004 Re: Commentson City Annexation &GPAmend. CC: [] Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycle a Comments: Dear Deputy Clerk: Please distribute to the City Council for tomorrow's 6-16-04 hearing ** If for any roason the City Clerk has cannot forward this document to the city council, please notify this sender immediately. Attachments and Exhibits to follow by hand delivery only Thank you very much. HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA HAND DELIVERY THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR DISSEMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS STRICTLY PROHiBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEWED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG A. SHERMAN AT THE ABOVE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND RETUKN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. $CAI,~. SAN SEVAINI~ CRERK {~AT~R PROIECT MAP PROPOSED MITIGATION PROPERTY 35 AC ~ (20ac for District, 15ac to Centex) PROPOSED SURPLUS 20 AC (t~ade) [] SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT ... ,--OU?:?~... COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ SAN BEkNA,kDINO z~ ~ ~/ CAr~FORNIA SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AUGUST 1995 SUBMITTED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1956 - P.L. 84-984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BACKGROUND For the purpose of providing flood control, dependable water supplies, environmental protection, and outdoor recreation opportunities within a portion of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District the County of San Bernardino (County) has applied for a loan under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-984, as amended). The proposed project responds to the needs of the public as provided for by the County Charter and its elected Board of Directors. Flood control reflects the needs for personal safety, economic security, transportation, housing, water supply, recreation, and protection of sensitive wildlife habitat. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) discusses the impacts of the proposed project, identifies mitigation measures, and documents features essential for wildlife enhancement. A final environmental assessment (EA) dated August 1995 was prepared to address environmental issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl. The final EA results from a year of review and revision after publication of the draft in July 1994. Formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and consultation as required by the National Historic Preservation Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was also conducted during this time. The EA meets all requirements of NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, in addition to pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations concerning environmental protection. The Bureau of Reclamation considers the EA to be an adequate disclosure of the environmental effects associated with the proposed project, and concludes that the proposed action, including the described mitigation measures, will not significantly impact the environment and therefore will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This decision is based on the following: Prior to construction: 1. A Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act would be required. Coordination with the Corps is ongoing and the permit will be obtained by the County prior to construction. The County will fully implement all conditions identified in the permit. 2. A 1601 permit under California State law would be required. Coordination with the Department of Fish and Game is ongoing and the agreement must be completed prior to construction. The County will fully implement all conditions attached to the permit. 3. The County will provide a conservation easement of approximately 138 acres of fee title land of coastal sage scrub in the area identified in the EA (Figure 3.15). The Fish and Wildlife Service will review the wording of the conservation and protection agreement. The preserve will be integrated into the Oak Summit Preserve's management plan. t 4. Approximately 111 acres of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) would be preserved within the conservation easement. Contractor m specifications would carefully limit the extent of construction disturbance to natural vegetation. Access roads would be located on the outside of the levees and no materials would be borrowed from the existing natural channel north of the proposed debris basin. Public access to the preserve area would be prohibited. i 5. Approximately 13 acres of Riversidian Upland Sage Scrub (RUSS) would be preserved within the conservation easement. Restoration and revegetation efforts will eventually result in the re-establishment of a plant community most like RUSS on approximately 46 acres of levee and embankment side slopes. debris 6. The northern portion of East Etiwanda Levee would be located on or as I close to the eastern edge of the flood control fee title property as technically feasible. 7. Final project design shall ensure no loss of habitat outside the project boundaries. 8. A detailed restoration plan will be developed and approved by the I Service and Reclamation, which will include the following: a. Restore areas of temporary disturbance by removing and controlling non-native plants, garbage, and man-made debris. b. The outside levee slopes will be revegetated with native coastal i sage scrub species endemic to the project area, and the inside levee slopes will be covered with native soil and seedbank. c. Reclamation shall require the County to hire a qualified biologist I monitoring plan cover a period years. to develop a to of five Photographs, monitoring of species presence, and relative cover, and hydrology studies will be used. I d. Develop a seed collection and transplant/topsoil conservation plan. e. Develop a detailed erosion control plan for culverts, berms, etc., and a reclamation plan for removing and stockpiling topsoil. I f. Develop a detailed revegetation/habitat restoration for plan reclamation of the levees to an alluvial scrub community. m g. Develop a detailed plan for temporary and permanent irrigation systems. i h, Develop a detailed monitoring/maintenance plan to monitor the success of the revegetation program and ensure proper care of artificially eroded sites or areas requiring reseeding/planting. ! m 2 1 DEDICATED ~-:~.- CONSERVATION EASEMENT, r WEST LEVEE ~, EAST LEVEE DEBRIS BASIN DEBRIS BASIN EMBANKMENTS 0 ft 2000 4000 0 km .S 1 SOUTHI~ESTERN FIELD BIOLOGISTS S~n Bcm~rdino County Flood Control Di*t~ct San Sevaine Creek W~,l~r Project .. ' · FIGURE 3.15 MAP OF PROPOSED E I IWANDA PRESERVE LEGEND CON~ ....... ~' I HAINT~ MAP EXHIBIT 8 Specific Plan ~ Regional Trail OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN .EXHIBIT 11 ~tiwandaNorth~ Specific Plan ADOP~D 4/1/92. Q..~ c.~.,~ SPECIAL DIVIDED SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREETS · WILSON AVENUE (eeet of Dei/Creek BlYd.) ~ M~NDERING COMMUNITY ....... CI.A~$ ! ~' TRAJL ~ q ~4-~ '~ B' BIKE PATH -~ ~ _12' ~' " 14' ~q'~, 10' .,~, ,~ ^., (A-1 as shown On Circulation Plan) CLABB I 7' BIKE norl R.O,W, iouth (A-2 as shown on Circulation Plan). .... ~Etiwanda Nor~ -., Specific Plan RaK~ C~a~nK& ~,' ~: ._.~__~_~__~_ LEGEND ~2~ Pipeline and Dlametar ~ Metropolltln Waler D[~lrlct (M.W.D.) o B~aler Pump Station / Pre~aure Zone ~'~ ~ '~ WATER MASTER PLAN Specific Plan City zz-4s 'ADOP~D 4/1/92 ~,~/~~ ~ ~~' SEWER MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT Specific Plan City ADOPT~ 4/1/92 ~'"'~" SCREENING TREE8 IN GROUP~ OF THREE AND FOUR - RESIDENTIAl PROPER~ UNE LOCATION VARIES OTHER EX~S~NG NBW NATIVE P~INGS CLEARIN~ CL~flING CLEARIN~ 1-50' '- .... rE0' FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE NOTE: REFER TO APPENDIX C, FIRE PROTECTION STUDY, JANUARY 1990. FUEL MOD/F/CAT/ON CONCEPT Etlwanda North Specific Plan II-55 ~ City ~f Ra~'~o C~camo~8a _ ! . Regional ~xJ2_J2..~ ~/J.~. ~--~ U,pe, Etlwend, R~lon,I Malnlln, Charm Ba,ln* m ~ m ~ Secon~ R~lonel Faclflty *~ ~ ~ STORM DRAIN MAS TER PLAN EXHIBIT ~liwanda Specific Plan ADOPT~ 4/1/92 OS *.,~,.. s.,.,. ,~. 'LAND US'- ""-" O~ ~L~ Specific Plan III-6 ,ADOPTED 4/1/92 ...oho c.c.,,..p OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BLAN ~'~"'~,*'°~ EXIST/NG CONDIT/ONS AND USES .~,~,%. ~ OPEIV SPAQ~ ~ND TRAILS PL_~N Legend ......... ~'~"'~I~CC~ Tracy Development i~r~ ~"*'~ ~ *"~ PR~OPERTY OWNERSHIP EX/STING ¢OND_L~IONS AN_~ USES. 493 AN (~D~C~ OF ~E u~l~ C~X~C3L OF ~I~ CITY OF ~ (~]C]~I4GA, C~LL~I~q~.A, ~ SI~X~iC ~ 9001, 49] ~y of ~il, 1992, ~ ~ f~lly ~ at a r~= ~ of ~ Ci~ ~1 of ~ C~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15~ ~y ,~[ ~1, 1992. ~ ~ 16~ ~y of ~il, 1992, a2 ~ D~ J. ~t~, City RESOI/3TION NO. 92-092 ..... A RE~)LI3TION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF TME CITY OF BANC~O ~, CALIFOt~T~A, c~ri~YING TME FINAL ~VIBONMI~4T~ AIX~ri/~G T~E STATI~T OF O%~a~IDIN~, OONSIDI~RATIONS (i) There has bsen pr~se~ to this Council, /n oo~junction with ~.solut£on No. 92-092 Page 2 1) Substantial alteration of existin~ ~: ~s~ all of 6,840 a~ is ~tly ~ ~=~al ~ ~. Of ~e to~l, 4,44Z a~ will ~. Ne~el~s, 2,112 a~ ~e pr~ for ~lo~t ~ will r~lt ~i~ ~ s~ 1~ ~ ~a~. 2) City ~~ion ~lici~ ~ ~affic: ~ll~ f~ ~l~t will ~%iga~ all ~i~ ~lfi~ off-site ~, ~e Ci~'s ~affic N~ F~ p~ for off~i~ ~. Ne~el~s, as a r~lt ~ to ~lati~ ~affic ~, off~i~ ~ will ~ ev~ af~ ~tigation. 3) ~o~ ~ifi~tion: ~li~ for ~l~t will ~ly wi~ ~ Hillside f~ d~lu~t wi~ 2,112 a~ will ~ ~l~id~. will ~ze ~e ~i~t ~1~ A t~l of 4,442 a~ will r~ 2,112 a~ will d~i~ ~i~ wil~ife ~i~ dimity ~ fra~t ~ r~ wll~ife 4~l~,~t will ~ ~tio~ ~ ~ 1~ of ~ ~ili~. N~I~, aL,~t all of ~ ~i~t ~ will ~ 6) ~ ~ Ni~i~ ~l~ ~1i~ f~ ~1~ ~1~, ~zation of Re-solution NO. ~-0~ -- .... 7) Shaft farm fuaitiv~ ~ust: ProJec~ applicants will ~11 ~ ~ to 28 a~ of ~: No~ ~lution No, 92-092 Exec~ t. his 2nd day of April, 1992, at Rancho California. ~, City Clerk" ~ JU~--~5--2004 03 :$9 AM SAGE. COUNCIL~$E~OFFI¢£ 91~ 94? 509! P. 05 ) Resolution NO. 92-092 ~ag~ 5 which c~nno~ fallibly be Ivol~ld by 4.(--. _ ~ln impnc~s include ~he following: ...... ~eve~ oz nec significant, "~urF~ncly ~n natuFal o~n 'pi~e. Of the %~ ~,li~ acres are proposed ~or devilo~en~ --= _... divel~dn~ shall mitigate all o---4-- · ........ ~o~ Nevertheless, aa a Folul~ O~ increaen~a~ increases Co c~ulacivo ~rarzio l~.ccs, off-ai~a impacts viii oc~ even a~or mitigation, OevelopaenC Standards. Also ~e prominen~ ~o11, where tho .... shall ~ preie~ al o~n Ipace. Ne~r~eleoe, ~adAn d~velopmenC vASAri 2,~2 acrel vA-- -~-- .... g~- c~a~ac~l~ o~ ~e Illuvill ~a~ arid 9o~io~1 of ~i hllllidee. Wildlife ~ahi~a~ ~'"~-t ~O -~04e-- ' ..... · · · ~ge, dereneAb~e eFlll o~ open I~i which ihl~ ~AI hlbL~l~ Vl~Ui ~or ~i proJl~ l:ll. A ~o~i~ Or 4,443 ~~ ~xaMce~ ~4S. a~ri. zn ~e vioini~y or ~e ~cA~d .mormm V%AA~mh on-mite wildlife dmnml~y and ~FVo ~a~x~a~ for ~ aa~e o~ alluvial fan o~ h~A~a~ E~vIndl ~lik wish, Sin 81vaAfle ~llh~ ~ 14S I~rll ~ ~he vicinity of ~e ~ and no~A o~ ~hl no~i~ b~inch of the .... CAe max~m~ e~eflC fealible, resource conoe~a~on easements Re~olu~ion No, ~2-092 F.~IBXT "A# ST&TEM~T OF OV]~tRXDXN~ CONSIDF_3~ATION~ February 2~, 199~ ..... erase. Nevertheless, alno.~ ail o~ the 2,112 lcfii planned Th~ia~ ~o ~iuariafl ~abi~l~: Applican~s ~or dovilopnon~ aa well ao ~o provide a buffer zone to pro~e~ the riparian corridorl frei dlgradi~ion illOCia~Id wl~h urban devolopBon~. Alee, cond~ono will ~ tn~orce~ ~o pro~ec~ ~ho Regource Conao~8~on areas, ~nclud~ng roo~r~c~Lon o~ h~an ucc ~o doaigna~od ~ralls, exclum~on of domestic and dogs, and exclusion of of~-road v~iclos, as wo~l ~ec~n~.o ~o dlver~ urban ~rr~ga~Zon ~-or~ and oco~ flows. Hever~heleoi, urbanisa~ion ct ~e area will reuaAm a threat ~o riparian habitat. Sho~t-Ta~ ~ai~iva ~et: Pro~ec~ ipplican~l will conditioned ~o impltBon~ actions ~0 red, co ~uql~lve Never~ole8s, oo~e cono~c2~o~ duo~ ~: ProJoc~ applicaa~o e~ll ~ co~l~one~ ~ove~ho~eso, ~ere v~ll reM~n an ~apao~ on capacity ac a reoul~ of solid vas~e genera~ ~ 4evelopuen~ of approxina~ely 3,~S7 d~eliing ~l~s, aa weix as up artec of co~ercial.devolo~en~. eo~wl~o~andi~ ~ese l~c~s, pro~e~ appr~al is reco~ended baaed upon a finding ~a~ apecific enviro~ental, econouic and social conoidera~lon8 ~a infeasible any pro~ec~ alternatives specified in ~he final ~viro~en~al lu~c~ aepor~ and accordingly cong~ltu~es an overriding basis re, approval. Substantial enviro~n~al ~ne~tto will oc~ as a reoul~ approval of in ~e ~lva~a Ho~h Specific Plan, ~d aooocia~e~ 6eneral PI~ ~~ ~o. 90-03B, aa *0f ~e ~o~1 6,o40-acre pl~ area, develo~en~ ohall M 4ewl~a~ed am open * Applicants for develo~en~ cheil oon~i~e ~o building or the oir~ll~ion and ~rana~r~ation mym~ of ~hm co~uni~y ~ mi~iqa~lflg mix on-ol~o impao~8 o~cified o~-oiCe impa~m am veil contrt~ttng to the City'S ~affio Nm~m. Fee , STATEM~ OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Fabl~teL~ 26, 1992 * Applicants for developuenC ehali compl~ with Dlvolopme~ S~anda~da. Also ~l pFominen~ knoll, ~e~ CA~ historic U.S, Foree~ Se~ice Fire open space. * ~e pro~oc~ 18 desired ~o retain large, dare. ibis irene of o~n apace which pco~ec~ A ~oCa~ or 4,442 acref v~ll r~ln ~n open notes'in the vicinity o~ ~e b~ i~ no~ of nor~horn branch of ~ho ~onga fault, I of which vie previously deoi~at~ ~or reoidencial~ dovelopnen~. ~her, a Reao~o Naniguen~ Pll~ chill ~ prepared and la~l~enc~. * Applican~e ~or dovolopnen~ shall ~ condl~ioned ~o in~oflaod tna~ 4,442 acrtl Ihill ~ delimited open spice end ~1~ IllUVllL rlH IC~ hlbitl~ in .... ~ ?f_~o noFt~er~ brin~ or ~e ~wongi easements wha%~ ~ ob~l/~id ~or ~l * Applicants for devolo~en~ viii ~ o0ndl~loned retain existing riparhn corrtdoro, as ~1~ aa provide a ~ffer ~o pro~e~ ~e co--etLon,u inol~dLng reacrLctLon of h~an uae Co dee~at~ triLlo, excluaLon ce d~ooCLc a~ d~a, and exclueLon of o~f-r~d v~Lolee, ~1~ as to~eo Co dLve~ ~n Lrr~gatLon ~- orr 8~ ~ilu~ eton ~lovo. · * Pro~e~ applicative shall ~ oo~/CloneQ Co ~mpleuen~ 8c~lona Co r~uce rug~ duaC cono~cClon Co ~he maxAB~ e~en~ * Pro~occ applicants oAll~ ~ condiClo.~ co participate tn City waste ninLaila~ion pr~ame reduce ~e flow or nunAcLpal aol~d vie~e .... landrLlla. ~solution No. 92-092 Page 8 E~IBZT "A" sTATEMENT OF OVE~IDING CONSIDERATIONS Feb~l~ 2~, 199~ potential advmrea lmpacta ~z ~eveAop~e~ ~n ~n~ CO~mUnl~ WhiCh Would O~hlL"dXII OCCUr W~OU~ a pAIn~l~ comprehensive approach to ~uture development, The Specific Plan contains prov£eione ~a~lored ~o development of ~ho sans~£ve alluvial fen end hillside environment, and l~ maan~ ~o replace ax£z~£ng Ci~yv£de zoning regule~Lcna ~ha~ do no~ address un~ ~all~les and co~Y tra~t~ o[ ~a~ ~r~ion of ~e C~ty of Rancho ~camong~ and ~s Spher~ of In~lutace, ~rther. E~iwanda No~ speoirio Plan providel pri-loning for ~e sphere- or-~ntluenco area and foF ~he planning area no~ of ~e National ForOo~ Uounda~ vhere'Clty zoning ordinances do not apply. Cease.early, ~e adoption or ~e B~ivanda eo~ Specific Plan v~ll result in potential enviro~encaX effects ~a~ are subsCan~lallM ieee 8ignifican~ in oeo~ and e~en~ than erfeo~e which would othe~lae oc~r under ~e exll~lng pxe. and zoning re~la~O~l, lncludAng each alternative analyzed An ~he Final ~viro~en~al lmpac~ ~epo~. LEGEND FLIUC FI~ C~trol/Utlll~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~.~ ~ ~ ~-~ GENERAL PLAN LAND USE EXHIBIT 5 North Specific Plan DRAFT ~cho Cuca~nG~~ ~ N In.lltullonsl PD 3/1 m 3 DU/1 ACRE II Slngte Reaidenllal H~ 20M - 2D,0~0 BQ. FT. MIN. IN) Inf~redlnstitutional Designation LOT SAN BERNARD/NO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE EY FOOTHILLS PLANNING ARE~ EXHIBIT 6 ~tiwandn North Specific Ci¢~ of [-z5 ADOPTED 4/1/92 ~ * ~ ~ ^" VIEW P---- - O I /';NTIAL MAP EXHIBIT 7 Et.wa n, .d.a North Spec~f:c Plan City z-ie ADOPTED 4/1/92 IANCHO PROp!8 DOT~H L FRE f LIMITS BER N'A F]DIH_O 1-10 PROJECT SITE ' ~/e/r 2 '- Major Divlcle~Arterlal A1 T~l=alSectlon ~IRCULAT/ON PLAN EXHIBIT 12 tiwanda North Spaclflc Plan c111 ef ~ ~.~.~ ,,~....,..~,... ........ '"" ', ""' '"" '*'" .................. .., ..... ~ ~'"'"'""--"'.-,-~"..- "'~'"'"'""* --'"'*'"'""""'"'"'"'-""- ' """'"" ~,-,,.,,---.,,, ......... ,,NEIGHBORHOOD THEME PLAN EXHIBI~ ~ ttlwanda Nor~ Specific Plan City of Rinc~ Cuca~n~a zz-i~ ADOPT~ 4/i/92 ~ . A~-FORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRSt AVENUE, SUITE 335 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2380 FACSIMILE TELEPHONE (619) 702-929 (619) 702-7892 June 15,2004 Via Facsimile (909) 477-2846 Followed by Hand Delivery MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report and all Other Discretionary and Legislative Approvals for the Richland Pinehurst, Inc. (DRC2002-00156, DRC2002-00865, DRC2003-00461 and SUBTT16072) State Clearinghouse Number 2002091053 TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OR RANCHO CUCAMONGA: This office represents The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. and Spirit of the Sage Council (collectively, Sage Council) is a 501(c)(3), two non-profit projects and corporation, consisting of Native Americans, scientists, citizens and members dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage, including endangered species, natural habitats. Both of these groups have members and supporters that reside in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and San Bemardino County (County) who recreate, enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regions natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referenced proposed development. These comments are provided by Sage Council and other interested community groups and/or persons in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the westem area of the County of San Bemardino ("County"). The Sage Council provides this comment letter in response to the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the above-referenced Richalnd Pinehurst, Inc. residential development subdivision and related/associated City and LAFCO administrative and legislative actions (collectively, "Project"). Page Two June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Sage Council incorporates all verbal and written comments it has made on this Project, including objections that this office has made regarding defects in the City's proposed Development Agreement. Development Agreement Sage Council incorporates all of it prior written and verbal comments made to the City (including comments made to the Planning Commission on May 12, 2004) regarding the refusal to circulate, describe and analyze the contents of the proposed Development Agreement (DA) during an appropriate and meaningful time of the EIR and CEQA process. As previously asserted, legal defects in the proposed DA include (1) an unlawful and non-statutory mechanism for amendments, and (2) include a number of non-applicants and interested parties who are yet undisclosed and unnamed entities - Hill County S.A. Ltd. and Richland Tracy Ltd.. The disclosure of these entities and the disclosure of their interests are important parts of the public disclosure and decision-making process, and in fact are required on applications for plans, permits, and maps. The statement in the DA that "the specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supercede and be controlling over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Project Entitlements" (Section 2.A) demonstrates the need for circulation and analysis of all City guarantees being made in the DA. There are numerous detailed exhibits intended to be part of the DA, but have not been included in any circulated draft or as part if the CEQA and EIR process. Now, all of a sudden these exhibits become the controlling Project Entitlements which trmnp all other Project considerations in the prior environmental analysis, review and considerations. The stated and/or drawn features on one of the many exhibits to the legislated DA (which becomes part of the adopted law of the Project) may not be consistent with the City's adopted ordinances or development code or other state law, and therefore amount to a variance or exception, which is being granted without requisite disclosure, review or adopted necessity or hardship findings. This process of non-disclosure refusal to circulate and make available the entire proposed ordinance (DA) is a both a violation of CEQA and basic tenants of due process. Page Three June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Requirement for Water Supply Information not Included in EIR As previously raised and argued before the regarding the related matter of City's proposal for ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164, General Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, Etiwanda North Specific Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, and associated ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEQA Negative Declaration) at the May 26, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission, and at the hearing on the FEIR for the Traigh Pacific at the June 9, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has failed to conduct appropriate water supply studies and include them in the EIR for this Project. The City is engaged in a consolidated general plan and specific plan amendment to approve projects and annex the whole into its jurisdiction. These concurrently processed and decided specific plan amendments now invoke Water Code §§ 10910-10915 which requires any residential development of more than 500 homes must contain an water supply assessment of the public water supply system relating to project and overall supply and demand issues. This water assessment must include, among other things, whether the demand of the proposed project was included as part of the water purveyor's most recently adopted urban water management plan (UWMP), whether the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years included in the UWMP's 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to the water purveyor's existing and planned future uses. This information must be request such water assessments from potential water purveyors at the time the Notice of Preparation is released for the Project, and the water assessment(s) must be included in the draft EIR for public review (Water Code § 10911; CEQA Guidelines § 15083.5, subd. (d).) The fact that this Project, in and of itself, may be less than the 500 home threshold does not excuse City from conducting this required analysis because the City is knowingly bifurcating and is concurrently processing not less than four Specific and General Plan amendments for large residential subdivisions for this immediate Project area, and the Water Code and CEQA require such collective and cumulative assessments, especially with regards to general and specific plan amendments such as this. The letters from the potential water purveyor in this case (Cucamonga Water District) has remarked about the increasing stress of meeting water demands for this fast growing region. And the same purveyor has mentioned the need for off-site improvements/ construction to accommodate the growth associated with this Project. These off-site impacts have not been sufficiently disclosed, nor has there been any mitigation offered for the temporary or long-term impact that might be associated with the same. Page Four June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Removal of Equestrian Overlay District Sage Council requests the elimination of the City's Equestrian Overlay District and Trails from the Project site and adjacent SBCFCD easements and conservation lands, including levees and levee roads. The Project site is bounded by habitat conservation lands to the to the north and east. Residential development and equestrian uses are not compatible. Horses not only cause significant physical damage and losses to native habitats, plants and natural communities by trampling, but by the introduction and distribution of non- native seeds from their feed stock, including alfalfa, oats and other grains, which are then blown in the wind onto adjacent habitat conservation lands. In addition, horses and horse droppings on ENSP trails (see ENSP, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, Exhibit 11) that go through the County Open Space District 1, North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve, SBCFCD San Scvain¢ Creek Proj¢ct's Habitat Conservation lands, Habitat Mitigated lands from the Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates Projects are not permitted and would cause significant damage to these habitat conservation areas by the horses/droppings introducing non-native and invasive alfalfa, oat and other ~rain plants. There is no proven need, demonstrated by the City and Project applicant for an Equestrian Center and trails in this region of the County and City sphere of influence. However, even if there was a need, the term and conditions of committed mitigation for natural open space conservation required by the SR-30 Highway Expansion Project and San Sevaine Creek Water Project supcrced¢ the desire to introduce active recreation into a nature preserve. The City ENSP and RMP require significant revisions, including the Richland Pinchurst, Inc. project, to be consistent with the current land uses. The evidence presented by Sage Council and its expert Travis Longcore affirmatively proves the influence and introduction of equestrian trials and uses by the Project involve the creation of additional direct and indirect adverse environmental effects not analyzed by the EIR and other review prior to approving the Project. Conflicts and Inconsistencies With the Adopted General and Specific Plans The Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq. requires the City to base land use decisions on its adopted general and specific plans. The City's adopted applicable General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (collectively, "Plans") states that critical or essential structures shall not be placed within designated earthquake fault zones or other constraints zones. This is the entire purpose of expressly designating such constraints areas. Essential and critical structures such as water lines, water lines, water Page Five June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 storage facilities, and homes are located within designated critically dangerous fault zones. Additionally, the approval of the Project subdivision is forbidden pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act (Public Res. Code §§ 2621 et seq.) for failure to prepare adequate geologically site specific reports delineating hazard of surface ruptures, and the dangers of knowingly placing men, women and children in such danger zones. While the EIR states - that as a required mitigation measure - that Project homes are to be placed no closer than 100 feet from the Etiwanda Scarp, the proposed and to be approved Project does not do this, and does not request the constraints zone set forth on the ENSP maps and the delineation of the Scarp as set forth in the Project EIR documents. The City continues to use and reference the outdated Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), adopted in 1992 as the lead document when considering this Project and other Projects. "However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal in Etiwanda shall be based on the objectives, policies, and specific development standards specified herein." 14.2 ENSP page v-3. The City began drafling the ENSP in 1984, conducting public hearings in 1989 through 1992 and then adopted the Plan on April, 1, 1992 (see Resolution No. 92-092) with "overriding circumstances" (See Resolution 92-092, ~xhibit A_, hereto) and against the recommendations of lead government agencies for conserving public trust natural resources, California Department ofFish and Game (DFG or Department) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service)(See ENSP DEIR and FEIR Comments (DFG on August 4, 1988, May 17, 1991 and June 26, 1991. FWS on October 6, 1989, June 25, 1990, April 22, 1991, July 3, 1991 and Testimony at Public Hearings). The U.S. Forest Service also expressed concerns and recommendations in comment letters and testimony at public heatings (See comment letter of June 19, 1991). The City also stated: It]hat specific economic and social considerations make infeasible any project alternative specified in the in the Final Environmental Impact Report and constitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; [and ...] Further, a Resource Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented. The ENSP Resource Management Plan (RMP) was adopted on November 4, 1992, however, to date, the RMP has not been implemented. According to the RMP Executive Summary: Page Six June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 "Opportunities for preservation of the sensitive habitats that have been identified within the ENSP must be fully explored prior to project approval in the ENSP area." and "The primary method of habitat preservation is avoidance." The ENSP and RMP identify lands in the area that have previously been used for mitigation. These mitigation sites cannot be used to mitigate impacts of the ENSP and new projects within the area. The City anticipated that an MOU for conservation of habitats within the ENSP area would occur. (See RMP page 1-8.) The City, County and others have signed such an MOU and contractual agreement to conserve habitats and wildlife within the ENSP area and throughout the West Valley Foothills. (See Valley-wide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) (HCP/NCCP) MOU with Map and Species List.) The County, as lead local government, has received funding from the State, via U.S. Senate and Appropriations legislation for U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service "for NCCP planning in County of San Bernardino". The overall area encompasses a Significant Natural Area identified by California Department offish and Game under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code (SBD 110) and requires protection and up-to-date biological surveys. (RMP page 1-9) Under no circumstances shall development occur within 50feet of any streambed" (RMP page 11 and Appendix C, Mitigation Measures 4.5-15) Riparian woodland habitat areas shall remain within open space and will be managed in such a manner as to maximize wildlife habitat values and minimize human disturbance associated with adjacent development. (RMP page 1-12) For the Etiwanda/San Sevaine corridor, as well as throughout the Specific Plan area, the free movement of wildlife must be addressed. (see RMP page 1-15) .... as a condition of development, a study of the feasibility of acquisition for preservation must be completed prior to any project approvals in the area. (see RMP page 1-8 at c.) Page Seven June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Based on each of the above requirements, the proposed Project is in violation with and conflicts with the Plans, the City's adopted RMP and the HCP/NCCP MOU. The City Council must not approve the Project or violate CEQA, NCCP Act, State Plant Protection Act, FESA, N-EPA, Clean Water Act, Water Code (SB 221 and 610), as well as violate its own adopted plans and regulations. EIR and Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT 16072) The proposed Tentative Tract site is entirely within the Etiwanda Water Drainage Area (see ENSP, STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN, Exhibit 17), SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREA SB 110 (see ENSP RMP page 1-9 and DFG comment letters) and more than 50% of the site includes lands with constraints (see ENSP, CONSTRAINTS MAP, Exhibit 8). Sage Council encloses herewith a color map (attached) that created using the adopted ENSP Map EXHIBITS on the proposed Tentative Tract map included with the Project. This comprehensive map clearly indicates the multiple land development and land use constraints relating to the Project and immediate Project area. For these reasons and others, the City must not approve the Tentative Tract (TT) as currently proposed for reasons stated. Sage Council is demanding that the City deny the Project TT and recommend that the Project applicant revise the proposed TT to avoid mapped ENSP Constraints. In addition, the City and Project applicant must comply with the ENSP RMP and avoid habitat impacts in the SNA SB 110 area. Sage Council reminds the City and Project applicant that; .... as a condition of development, a study of the feasibility of acquisition for preservation must be completed prior to any project approvals in the area." (RMP page 1-8 at c.) To date the EIR and all other documentation before the City (staff report dated June 9, 2004, L. Henderson) does not contain such a "study" for acquisition and preservation of habitat on-site and/or off-site. The City nor the applicant have no idea what resources are located on any proposed mitigation land and whether one or more of the resoumes impacted by the Project will actually be mitigated. Page Eight June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Currently the Project proposes to provide a 1:1 habitat mitigation that is not sufficient mitigation for its impacts to numerous quantities and types of natural resources. This is unacceptable not only to Sage Council, but also experts at the identified responsible public trust agencies, DFG and FWS. While Sage Council's three proposed alternatives are significantly better in avoidance and mitigation of impacts on habitats and water recharge at a 2:1 replacement, it is believed the Project can be revised to partially mitigate impacts at a minimum of 3:l and 5:1 maximum. Sage Council is aware of willing sellers of habitat lands in the area and region, thus it is possible (feasible) for the Project's negative environmental impacts to be mitigated, as the law requires that they be. With on- and off-site conservation of habitats, placement of gates and/or guard stations can help mitigate adjacent and offsite impacts associated with human disturbances such as hiking off trails, off road vehicles and motorcycles/dirt bikes, litter, dumping of trash and garden refuse, shooters/hunters, dogs etc.. Also, having a nature center for interpretive studies would help in educating residents on the importance of wildlife, habitat and water conservation, and how to not impact natural land preserves such as those surrounding the Project area. The three alternatives also include a Natural Rock Wall/Stone faced double-sided at a minimum of 6 fi. completely around the Project site. Having a wall, rather than fencing, along with street circulation adjacent to the wall, will provide a greater defense for adjacent habitat and wildlife conservation areas and act as a buffer for wildfires and minor flooding events. Residential units, if built, should be one story and not two due to the need to protect important viewsheds identified in the ENSP. The ENSP includes a Ranch and Bungalow design that suggests such a horizontal one story structure. Two story homes are less defensible and are at greater risk of fire during wildfire storms fueled by winds coming out of canyons to the north of the Project site. Environmental Review and Impacts from the Proposed Annexation is Deficient The impacts associated with the proposed future uses, land use designations, and the potential and foreseeable impacts related thereto must be analyzed in association with this Project and the environmental review thereto. By the Project applicants attempting to meet the City's desires of an outdated ENSP, doing so jeopardizes the legality and creates planning, zoning, and environmental inconsistencies from the Project. The City's desire to increase the use of horses in a Significant Natural Area, and in and around dedicated habitat conservation lands is incredibly inconsistent. Page Nine June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Under no circumstances, should LAFCO allow annexation of County, County OS-1 District and SBCFCD lands until the 1991 ENSP is revised with an EIR that reflects current environmental conditions, and analyzes increase level of impacts relating, and proposes appropriate mitigation measures to del with such impacts. The City's current effort to do this via a CEQA negative declaration and 3 other concurrent piecemealed projects violates both environmental review and planning laws. Until such comprehensive environmental review and planning, all development Projects in the ENSP area must be put on hold, or otherwise be processed through the County. However, as similarly tree with the County, is also must revise and update its General Plan and West Valley Planning Area to reflect the current environmental conditions, dedicated habitat conservation lands and year 2004 existing mitigation needs. Storm Drainage and Flooding Another major issue not resolved in the Project EIR or TT Map is with regards to Storm Drains and Flooding (see ENSP, STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN, Exhibit 17 and WATER MASTER PLAN, Exhibit 14). The Project includes the creation of detention basins without considerations for public safety. The ponding and pooling of up to 8 feet of storm water in the middle of the Project's supposed earthquake fault greenbelt in detention basin is a mitigation measure which creates impacts of its own, which, according to CEQA must be analyzed and mitigated in and of themselves. The SSWD is being built to partially handle 100 year storm events. According to the SSWD, the Project area is north of the SSWD Debris Basin and immediately adjacent to the levee. However, the Project uses the 1991 ENSP that incorrectly places the future Debris Basin north of the site. The reality is, that during 100 year and 500 year storm events (storm events, while using terms 100 and 500 years, actually can occur at any time), breakout flooding from the levees will occur. The Project is located on a major flood plain and water recharge area, the proposal in the Project EIR to build and pay for gigantic storm drains north of the Project and onsite is severely questioned. The drains and pipelines, north of the LADWP and Edison Utility corridors and on dedicated habitat conservation lands, that were proposed back in 1991 in the ENSP, are no longer going to occur. Therefore, it is not proper for the Project to propose and include such an inconsistent approach to handling expected flood waters. What is necessary is for the City to revise the ENSP and EIR to reflect the current and existing significant changes in the environment, that have taken place since 1991, including the SSWD, dedicated Habitat Conservation Areas, so that the Project, the ENSP, and its associated Water Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan are brought up to date. Page Ten June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Traffic and Circulation The City and Project applicant rely on the decade old ENSP and its related Cimulation Plan (see 1991 ENSP, CIRCULATION PLAN, Exhibit 12). Significant changes have occurred since 1991 which limited the extent of Day Creek Blvd, East Avenue, Wardman Bullock Road and others. (See also Spirit of the Sage Council lawsuits involving the pr/or University/Crest - Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates developments) most importantly, there are no longer roads/streets along the LADWP and Edison Utility Corridors north of the Project site, nor should there be. Currently, local residents of the City are experiencing traffic jams in the morning and afternoon on Etiwanda Avenue by the school (see public comments on the Project and the other concurrently processed projects, Tracy/Traigh Pacific, Richland Pacific and Plan amendments/annexations) and were trapped by narrow streets during the 2003 wildfires. These real life traffic problems are not surprising since the 1991 ENSP was approved by the City with "overriding circumstances." Furthermore, the City has approved ENSP and General Plan amendments to increase residential densities from Very Low to Low and Utility Corridors to Residential (see Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates projects). Still the City and other project applicants, including this project and for Richland Pinehurst are requesting General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments to increase and almost double residential density AGAIN. The 1991 ENSP Circulation Plans, Street Sections (see ENSP, Exhibits 13 (A) - (F)) include "COMMUNITY TRAIL" of 20' in width. The City needs to revise the 1991 ENSP and EIR to eliminate the Community Trails, as well as Equestrian Trails, in order to better meet the needs of street widths that are needed by residents to move around fire tracks etc. during evacuations. While we do not support development in the ENSP area that is also a high wildfire, flood and earthquake risk, we do believe that the City and Project applicant must address the Health, Safety and General Welfare of its current and future residents. The City must not use "overriding considerations" in General and Specific and residential development project plans. We also remind the City and Project applicant that "General Welfare" includes the need for clean air, water and environment. As identified by the City in the adopted Plans, the highest, best and most appropriate use for most all of the Project (and related project) lands is for habitat, wildlife and water conservation. Page Eleven June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 Landscauin~ Sage Council requests that absolutely NO non-native ornamental grasses, trees and plants are to be used on or off the Project site including road sides. The ENSP plant palette includes such unacceptable plantings and must be revised as not to cause additional negative and adverse effects on habitats and wildlife. The Project must only use native plants and seedlings consistent with those naturally occurring in the North Etiwanda preserve and other areas. Also, the City should, as a condition of approval, require the Project applicant and/or developer to salvage native plants on site for use in Project landscaping. Sage Council requests and the law requires avoidance and conservation for native plants. The very least the City should do is require salvaging of plants on site for use in Landscaping. The only trees that should be allowed for use in Landscaping are those native to North Etiwanda and Southern California, including California walnut, California and Engleman Oak, Sycamore, White Alder, Big Cone Pine, California lilac, Mountain mahogony and Yucca. Under the California Native Plant Protection Act, Yuccas and others are to be conserved. The Project site and ENSP area has the largest remaining population of RARE Plummer's Mariposa lilies. Sage Council also expects FWS and/or DFG to have an emergency listing, especially if these rare flowers are pushed closer to extinction by this Project and the related Henderson Creek, Richland Pinehurst and other nearby City development Projects. We recommend that the City and Project applicant reduce their TT map and Project in size and scope so that there is on- site, as sell as off-site, habitat mitigation and avoidance measures to conserve this listed rare and threatened habitat, plants and wildlife to the greatest extent. Fuel Modification The Project's proposed fuel modification plan is legally deficient because (1) it creates additional acreage of adverse habitat and species losses not analyzed and mitigated in the EIR or Project approvals, (2) creates a whole new series of impacts not review, analyzed or mitigated in the EIR, and (3) is not set forth with any degree of specificity to allow the public or decision-makers the ability to review and understand the Project's proposed fuel modification plan. Reference to its availability at the planning department, without more is not legally sufficient. Recirculation is required prior to approval. The reliance, reference and/or similarities with the ENSP's 1990 Fuel Management Plan is unreliable and outdated. Thus, the Project's EIR also uses an outdated Fire Management and Fuel Modification Plan. Significant changes have occurred since 1990 and 2003 wildfires, including the County Fire Ordinance and Zoning/Land Use in the Page Twelve June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 West Valley Foothills. The decade old ENSP requires a Fuel Modification Area of 150' with as much as 70% of clearing on natural vegetation. The Project does not mitigate the loss of habitat, wildlife etc. due to associated Fuel Modification. We request, as a Condition of Approval, that any and all Fuel Modification that occurs must be done on and within the boundaries of the Project site and only on Project owned lands (excluding the designated habitat preserve areas of the County Flood Control District. No Fuel Modification is to occur on such SBCFCD conservation easements and mitigation lands within or outside the proposed Project site. Furthermore, all Project-related Fuel Modification must mitigate impacts to habitat at a minimum of 3:l replacement prior to the approval of the Project TT Map. Urban interface with the National Forest, County Habitat Preserve and SBCFCD Habitat Conservation lands immediately North and East of the Project site increases Fire Hazards and risk to human life. The Project must have some sort of an accountability clause, either the Project applicant, developer/contractor, City Mayor and each City Council and Planning Commissioners, LAFCO or all those individuals collectively approving and/or permitting a disastrous development, that could have been avoided in the first place. Just like a cigarette package has a warning that smoking is hazardous to your health, shouldn't future home buyers also be given such a warning? "ATTENTION! These residential dwelling units are subject to and are known for significant active flooding, wildfires and earthquake events. Living here has great potential to be hazardous to your Health, Safety and General Welfare, and life." Instead, developers advertise these homes as "estates" with beautiful views etc. The only thing the City seems concerned about is development fees and that the signs of the names of the developments are pretty. "Ridgeview Estates" sounds so nice, but underneath it all is an earthquake fault causing the "ridge." General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments We are opposed to City General and Specific Plan Amendments for the Project. Firstly, the Project site is in the County Hazard Overlay District for Flooding, Wildfires and Earthquakes and therefore does not comply with "Health, Safety and General Welfare" needs of the Public. This is not an area in the County and City Sphere of Influence that, anyone in their right mind, should be allowed to use for residential dwellings and widespread equestrian facilities. To amend the City Plans to allow increased density, is Page Thirteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 absurd and strongly opposed. Why place MORE people at risk? There is no reasonable answer. The "result" of building in the San Gabriel and San Bemardino Mountain foothills area is never going to change from being hazardous. The collective Plan amendments intend to bring double the amount of residential dwellings and future residents. In addition to placing more people's lives at risk, the current environmental circumstances of traffic jams, air pollution, overcrowding of schools, lack of landfill space, water shortages and energy crisis, the Amendments would further exasperate these conditions rather than improving them. The rational that environmental conditions are already bad in the area, so making it worse doesn't matter, is unfounded and irresponsible. Under CEQA the Project must mitigate negative impacts on the environment. Reducing and lessening Project specific negative impacts is required by law, whether or not mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level of less than significant is a matter considered after sufficient mitigation measures have been made. Amendments allowing higher density on the Project site, from Very Low 1-2 to Low 2-4, also increases the negative impacts to adjacent dedicated habitat conservation lands, habitats and wildlife. More people are going to trespass into areas that are specifically for habitat and wildlife. These preserves are not to be used for any moderately active human recreational uses, dumping, shooting and horse tiding. Even passive uses such as observation, bird- watching, scientific study, and other uses need to carefully controlled and regulated. This Project (and the City's other related projects) does not consider thee impacts and propose mitigation for minimizing the same. The habitat preserves are not "parks," yet the Project and ENSP are treating these lands as such, resulting in substantial unanalyzed and unmitigated impacts to significant natural resources. Wildlife Corridors and Buffers The City proposals, including development of County Flood Control lands and Utility Corridors has a significant negative impact on Biological Resources for habitats and wildlife. The file and record for the Project fails to provide any scientific data regarding wildlife movement and buffers within the ENSP area, assuming that "Etiwanda Creek along with adjoining Conservation Areas will continue to provide suitable corridors for wildlife movement." Scientific literature and data suggest otherwise. (See previous and concurrently presented scientific argument and literature regarding wildlife movement corridors, habitat buffers and the effects of substantial fuel modification zones.) Itis recommended, by Sage Council that the City revised the 1991 ENSP and recently versions of the General Plan to identify and map wildlife con-idors and habitat buffer areas, using Page Fourteen June 15, 2004 City ofRancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCHNo. 2002091053 the best available science, which includes existing and further scientific studies performed, rather than using the old 1984 Environmental Assessment that both Plans have used. The County and cities agreed to do such studies when entering into and signing a contractual agreement with CDFG and FWS for the Valley-wide MSHCP(HCP). The County Museum staff, DR. Robert McKeman and Gerald Braden should be consulted by the City and Project developers as they may already have some preliminary maps and data available. In addition, consult with the lead agencies CDFG and FWS that can also provide the City and Project developers with the most current and best scientific information on wildlife movement corridors and buffers. There is lacking scientific evidence and support for the City's statement that "Future development of up to 95-acres within the Project area, adjacent to Etiwanda Creek, will not have any impacts on riparian, wetland, or related habitat." This is so general as to be meaningless. What is "related habitat" of Etiwanda Creek? The City must identify all habitats on and adjacent to the development site. The use of Habitat Buffers is needed, but not used for the proposal and Projects. Biological Resources Rare plants are found in the thousands on the Project site, especially since the 2003 wildfire that swept through the ENSP area. The Project EIR uses biological data pre- wildfire, but not post-fire. It is necessary to perform additional biological studies post- fire (now) to include with earlier studies as to be more accurate in addressing current environmental conditions. The Project needs to consult with DFG and FWS for the Rare Pinmmer's Mariposa Lily, SB K Rat, California gnatcatcher, SWestern Arroyo Toad, Red Legged Frog. All of these federally listed endangered species arc known to occur in the ENSP Area and adjacent throughout the West Valley Foothills. As above, the City and County are signatories to an HCP/NCCP pre-planning agreement and MOV contract. The Project does not address this regional conservation planning contract and the State NCCP for CSS. The ENSP area is included in the CSS NCCP. The County North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Plan (NEOSHPP) was not supported by CDFG, FWS, Sage Council and others who found it to be a development plan, not a conservation plan (see public comment and letters re NEOSHPP in the County files). The approval documents for the Project, including the proposed findings, statement of overriding considerations, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and FE1R are Page Fifteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 incorrect to assert that mitigation will be afforded at a 1:1 mitigation ration. Is this for genetic "land area" so that merely vacant open space land is being provided, or is mitigation impact be provided to mitigate for the particular resources being impacted and lost? Sage Council contends it is error for the City to approve, and assert that impacts are being mitigated, when the mitigation land area being offered has not been surveyed and it is unknown whether that land possesses the attributes of the affected land (e.g., specific sensitive and rare plant and animal species or habitat therefore). Cultural Resources The City's findings regarding the direct and cumulative loss of cultural and historic resources are not supported by the record. The number of recorded resources on site are understated and not adequately discussed The City and Projects play ignorant to the fact that the entire ENSP area is part of the larger indigenous village of"Cucamong[n]a" for the Shoshone Gabtielino Nation (a State recognized tribe, a..k.a. Gabtielino Band of California Mission Indians.) The City has information and evidence in its archives a video from a previous presentation at the City, led by FWS John Hanlon and Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council. Also in the City archives is a video submitted by the Sage Council, "No Room for Compromise." Both these videos, along with other public comment given on the 1991 proposed ENSP, Oak Summit Development, and proposed development at Cucamonga Canyon provided substantial information on this historic and cultural resource. The City, the applicants for this Project, and the related projects need to review the video tapes and public comment. It is recommended that the City and developers reduce negative impacts by significantly reducing development on site and throughout the ENSP area. Projects should allow at least 50% of habitat lands on-site to be conserved for these cultural and biological resources, or mitigate for the same at not less than a 5:1 replacement. In addition, the City should require that an archeologist, palentologist and Gabtielino "Most Likely Descendant" (MLD) perform on-site surveys, reporting and be on-site during Project grading and earth moving activities. Surveys, studies and reports must be included in the EIR and/or EIR technical appendixes. If the surveys, studies and reports indicate that the Project site includes items and other evidence, the Project must be redesigned to avoid these sensitive areas. If there are cairns, human remains and/or burials the Project must be halted, protected and registered with the State Historic Page Sixteen June 15, 2004 City ofRancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCHNo. 2002091053 Preservation Officer and nominated to the National Register of Historic Preservation. The landowner must agree to the nomination and work cooperatively with State and Federal Agencies, Gabrielino MLD with Tribal Band and other conservation organizations, including becoming a willing seller and/or donor of the land. The proposed Project, proposed tentative tract map, and overall CEQA compliance is legally deficient in these regards. Alternative Analysis is Completely Lacking Both the range of alternatives and the analysis of the differing impacts arising from each alternative are so limited and cursory so as to prevent the public and decision-maker from seriously being able to consider any other reasonable or feasible alternatives that could be adopted. It as if the City and Project applicant created strawman alternative projects so that further analysis or consideration would not be required. For instance, despite being given alternative project design by Sage Council at the prior May 12, 2004 heating on the project (which would provide for substantial homes to be constructed, the City has completely ignored, refused and failed to consider such feasible alternatives. Second, the applicant claims financial infeasibility as a result of building fewer homes (25), but not only is there no evidence I the record to support such statement, but the chosen quantity of homes is set so ridiculously low as to not even being a proposal which fits into a "reasonable" range of project alternatives. Thirdly, there is no comparative chart or table as required by CEQA to compare the respective alternative projects. Perhaps the applicant and City will argue there is no need to because the range of alternatives is so narrow and stark, there is no need for such comparison. However this tacitly admits that its range of altematives does not meet the requisite "rule of reason" required to assist the public and decision-maker in reducing those unmitigated and significant environmental effects being caused by the Project. Improper and Outdated Proiect Mapping; Failure to Describe Current Pro,iect Conditions at the time of Notice of Preparation As argued above, the Project documents and City may not rely on information contained in outdated Plans and other Project-specific mapping which does not reflect the realities or describe the current conditions at and around the Project site at the time the Notice of Preparation for the ElF. is issued. Page Seventeen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Richland Pinehurst, Inc. SCH No. 2002091053 The Project Applicant uses old data sources and other outdated information that fails to include the Revised San Sevaine Creek Water Project (2001) with revised maps MAP lA and lB 2001, San Bernardino County Flood Control District. (See attachment) While the Henderson Project may assert that the 1991 ENSP has "prezoned" this area for development and that is all that is needed, this is not true if SBCFCD has enacted or undertaken actions (e.g., "easement" or other inconsistent land uses) which affect the City's pre-zoning for the Project and its immediately adjacent areas. Based on these County actions, including that with respect to SBCFCD conservation areas, the Lever Road(s) must not be used for the 1991 ENSP Trails System/Equestrian Overlay District, without analyzing and mitigating the impacts and inconsistencies with the same. Lands in the ENSP tract used for Trails and Equestrian Overlay are currently habitat conservation lands that prohibit or are in conflict with such uses. The Project fails to conform with the realities of today's environment and relies on the outdated and misleading ENSP. Other lands to the East and Southeast of Project are also habitat conservation lands since 1995 Project mapping. Both Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates have purchased and designated lands for habitat mitigation and conservation. Final Remarks and Request for further Written Notification In advance, my client thanks you for considering the issues presented in this comment letter. Should you have any questions concerning any of the points raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Please notify this office of any administrative or legislative heatings, circulation of documents, or any other action or hearing related to the Project, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092.2. Craig A. Sherman cc: clients Attachments Referenced Appendices INCORPORATED AND REFERENCED APPENDICES Relevant to thc Comments provided herein, Sage Council references and incorporates herein by such reference, thc following City file documents which have addressed resource impacts and have conducted environmental review of such resources and impacts which relate to thc proposed Project: 1) all the ENSP documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 2) Oak Summit CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 3) University Crest CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 4) Rancho Etiwanda CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 5) Rancho Etiwanda Estates CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 6) Tracy CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 7) Richland Pinehurst CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 8) Sheridan Estates CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies con~nents 9) Richland Pinehurst, Inc. Flood Control Project CEQA, NEPA, USFWS, ACOE Permit application documents, environmental assessments, including public and public trust agencies comments 10) San Sevaine Flood Control Project CEQA, NEPA, USFWS, ACOE Permit application documents, environmental assessments including public and public trust agencies comments. 11) State of California, Resources Agency Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program documents, including scientific literature references and USFWS Environmental Assessment and Biological Opinion for the Special 4(d) rule under the ESA for the California gnatcatcher. 12) USFWS documents regarding the listing of the California gnatcatcher as "Threatened" with a Special Rule. Also, documents relating to the designation of "critical habitat" for the California gnatcatcher. 13) USFWS documents regarding the listing of the San Bemardino kangaroo rat as "Endangered". Also, documents relating to the designation of "critical habitat" for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat. 14) San Bemardino County-wide Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan documents, including financial reports that identify receipt of state and/or federal funding for developing a plan that is consistent with the State NCCP. Also include maps and studies that have been performed by contracted biologists at the County Museum. A-1 A. AI-rORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 335 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2322 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE (619) 702-7892 (619) 702-9291 Facsimik from the Law Office of Craig A. Sherman To: City Clerk From: Craig Sherman, Esq. Fax: (909) 477-2846 Pages (including cover): 19 Phone: (909) 477-2700 Date: June 16, 2004 Re: Comments on FEIR - Richland Pinehurst, Inc. CC: [] Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycle a Comments: Dear Deputy Clerk: Please distribute to the City Council for tomorrow's 6-16-04 hearing ** If for any reason the City Clerk has cannot forward this document to the city council, please notify this sender immediately, Attachments and Exhibits to follow by hand delivery only Thank you very much. HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA HAND DELIVERY THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR DISSEMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS STRiCTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG A. SHERMAN AT THE ABOVE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. (~de) O~ Pz~ o~ P~ ~s ,~ SAN S~AINE CREEK WATER PROJECT 000191 ,_,.==~ cOk~, .~ ?'=...=.~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ,.. ~:j~ ~ ? CALIFORNIA SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AUGUST 1995 I SUBMITTED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1956 - P.L. 84-984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I BUREAU OF RECLAMATION I ROGER A. SHINTAKU I Ph.ltml[ig & 1.3migimieerhig FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BACKGROUND For the purpose of providing flood control, dependable water supplies, environmental protection, and outdoor recreation opportunities within a portion of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District the County of San Bernardino (County) has applied for a loan under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (Public [aw 84-984, as amended). The proposed project responds to the needs of the public as provided for by the County Charter and its elected Board of Directors. Flood control reflects the needs for personal safety, economic security, transportation, housing, water supply, recreation, and protection of sensitive wildlife habitat. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) discusses the impacts of the proposed project, identifies mitigation measures, and documents features essential for wildlife enhancement. A final environmental assessment (EA) dated August 1995 was prepared to address environmental issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The final EA results from a year of review and revision after publication of the draft in July 1994. Formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and consultation as required by the National Historic Preservation Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was also conducted during this time. The EA meets all requirements of NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, in addition to pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations concerning environmental protection. The Bureau of Reclamation considers the EA to be an adequate disclosure of the environmental effects associated with the proposed project, and concludes that the proposed action, including the described mitigation measures, will not significantly impact the environment and therefore will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This decision is based on the following: Prior to construction: 1. A Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act would be required. Coordination with the Corps is ongoing and the permit will be obtained by the County prior to construction. The County will fully implement all conditions identified in the permit. 2. ^ 1601 permit under California State law would be required. Coordination with the Department of Fish and Game is ongoing and the agreement must be completed prior to construction. The County will fully implement all conditions attached to the permit. 3. The County will provide a conservation easement of approximately 138 acres of fee title land of coastal sage scrub in the area identified in the EA (Figure 3.15). The Fish and Wildlife Service will review the wording of the conservation and protection agreement. The preserve will integrated into the Summit Preserve's management plan. be Oak ! 4. Approximately 111 acres of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) would be preserved within the conservation easement. Contractor m construction specifications would carefully limit the extent of disturbance to natural vegetation. Access roads would be located on the outside of the levees and no materials would be borrowed from the existing natural channel north of the proposed debris basin. Public access to the preserve area would be prohibited. 5. Approximately 13 acres of Riversidian Upland Sage Scrub {RUSS) would be preserved within the conservation easement. Restoration and revegetation efforts will eventually result in the re-establishment of a plant community most like RUSS on approximately 46 acres of levee and debris embankment side slopes. 6. The northern portion of East Etiwanda Levee would be located on or as close to the eastern edge of the flood control fee title property as m technically feasible. 7. Final project design shall ensure no loss of habitat outside the project boundaries. 8. A detailed restoration plan will be developed and approved by the Service and Reclamation, which will include the following: a. Restore areas of temporary disturbance by removing and controlling non-native plants, garbage, and man-made debris. b. The outside levee slopes will be revegetated with native coastal sage scrub species endemic to the project area, and the inside will be covered with native soil and seedbank. levee slopes c. Reclamation shall require the County to hire a qualified biologist m to develop a monitoring plan to cover a period of five years. Photographs, monitoring of species presence, and relative cover, and hydrology studies will be used. I d. Develop a seed collection and transplant/topsoil conservation plan. m detailed erosion control plan for culverts, berms, etc., e. Develop a and a reclamation plan for removing and stockpiling topsoil. I f. Develop a detailed revegetation/habitat restoration plan for reclamation of the levees to an alluvial scrub community. m g. Develop a detailed plan for temporary and permanent irrigation systems. h. Develop a detailed monitoring/maintenance plan to monitor the I of the and ensure proper care of success revegetation program artificially eroded sites or areas requiring reseeding/planting. ! ! i ~ I LEGEND *~~ ~ C ~ ONSTRAINTS MAP -- EXHIBIT Specific Plan Z-i9 ADOPt4~1~92 ~ F///////////~ o~e~ s~ce "' "'"J"" ,"..,..,~, *~. d,,~,,,o.., 1;[,~..,~:,~..,;.?.,,o. ~. ,,~,.,,.~ OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN EX.BIT 1 1 Etlwanda North Specific Plan ADOP~D 4/1/92 ~'"~0 r.~.,.~ SPECIAL DIVIDED SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREETS "-~ · WILSON AVENUE (ee.t of Day Creek Blvd.) ~ MEANOERIN0 CLA~81 00MMUNITY TRNL north R.O.W. · 55' lo~lth (A-1 as shown on Circulahon Plan) CLAS8 I l' BIKE north'~ R.O,W. mouth (A-2 as shown on Circulation Plan). ROTE= PLANTING AREA RETWEEN CURB AND SlDEWAI North Specific PlJn IZ-42 P~o~md 00~ ~ounda~ Existing CCWD Boun~ Pipeline end Dlameler Melropolilan Waler Dlatricl (M.W.D.} Connection WATER MASTER PLAN Etiwanda North Specific Plan ~-~d~.~ (__¢v~, SEWER MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT ("'EtiWanda Nort~ Specific Plan city of Iz-5o ADOPTED 4/1/92 ',,~'"'~'° · 6CREENIHfl TREE8 IN GROUPs OF 'THREE AND FOUR k --~-"'-~ RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY L/NE LOCATION VARIEs ~CRUB AND OTHER EXISTING AND/OR NEW ~TIVE P~INGS ' ~'70% CLEARIN~ CLEARI~G CLEARING 180' FUEL MODIFICATIOh BED NOTE: REFER TO APPENDIX C, FIRE la'ROTECTiON BTUDy, JANUARY 1990. FUEL MOD/F/CAT/ON CONCEPT EXHI8,~ 16 · .. /*:[-55 / /. Re~l~nal 4'~"~'"'I~ Drainage Area LImlta '~~ A~ TORM DRAIN MAS TER PLAN EXHIBIT 1~ OS *'~' ~ '~' LAND USE PLAN EXH?IT 18 ~Etiwanda Nor t~h Specific Plan City oJ ]: zz-e ,ADOPTED 4/1/92 ....,ho c.c...o.8.,,/ OPEN SPACE A, ND TRAILS PLAN~ EX/ST, $ AN~DUSES~ ADOPTED ¢11192 *"~""~ ~ ,TRAILS PLAN .... ........~ 'EN SPACE AND , 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ~ ~-~::::: Tracy Development .......... -- P/~OP~RTY OWN£ ~ ~ ___RS_HIP 4 I ~_._,'~,,~s¢~,~, £X/..STING CONDIT/ONS AND USES ADOPTED 4/1/9~ TING,~O_~ND[TIONS AND USE¢ MAI # SCIO ~DOP'rED 4/1/92 493 2. ~l~ of a ~ of Ord. ir~rtc~ No, 49:3 D~x-a J. ~s, City Cl~rk' RESOLUTION NO. 92-092 .... A B~?~ION OF T}{E CITY (I)UNCIL OF THE ~l'"~ OF PJ%Nf~O CUCAM~NT~, CALIF~F~A, u~rLFYING THE FINAL ~ql~DNM~TAL ADO~;.'.uN~ ~ ~AT~I~T OF O~DD4G, CONSIDERATIONS (l) T/~xe has mn pz'~t'"'~ ~ ~ Council, in o~njunction with Re-solution NO. 92-092 Pags 3 '- .... 7) Short ~ fu~ltiv~ dust: ProJec'c aPpiicant~ win b. f~le. N~i~, ~ ~i~ ~t Will 8) ~: ~oj~ a~li~ will ~ ~iti~ ~ ~ici~ ~ Ci~ ~te ~zation NeWels, ~ will r~ ~ ~ ~ l~ill ~city ~ a ~1~ of ~ii ~ ~ to 2~ a~ of ~il a~l of ~e ~oj~; ~ ~oJ~ al~ti~, ad~ of a ~t~t of ~id~ ~i~ati~ ~ 2. ~e Ci~ Cl~k ~11 ~i~ to ~ ~ion of ~is ~luti~, P~, ~, ~ ~Pi'~ ~is 1st ~y of ~ril, 1992. ~, ~et, ~, Willi~ No~ I, D~ J. ~, Ci'i~ ~ of ~ Ci~ of ~ ~r~, ~ ~ ~ ~ Ci~ ~il of ~ Ci~ of ~0 --" ~lif~ia, at a r~l~ ~t~ of ~id City ~il ~ld ~ ~ 1st ~y of ~ril, 1992. J J R~solution NO. 92-092 Page 5 I~IIXBXT 'A" have Impact· · till have not been mitigated to · level of not significant, include the following: is currently in natural open ·pice. O£ tho total, 4,44'2 acres shall be designated as open a~ece. Nevertheless, 2,112 acres are proposed ~or development and w~ll result in the lees of existing open apace land Ule character. City Trananor~a~ion Polishes and ?raffl.%~ Applicants for developnen~ shall mA~i~ate all on-site impacts specified off-site ~mpac~e, as well se con~ribute to ~he city,s Tra~ic Ne~I Fee Pro~ ~or o~f-ei~e impacts. Nevertheless, as a relul~ of lncremen:al increases c~ulazAve ~rarZlc A~ac:s, ofr-al~e impacts viii oc~ even after Landfor~ #odifics2icn: Applicants for development ·bali comply vl~l ~he ~illlide ~evelopumt~ Ordinancm and Development Standards. Also ~Ae prominen~ knoll, where the Forea~ Service fire 8~ation lite il located, -. shall ~ prese~ as o~n space. Never~elee., ~ading developuen~ v~in 2,xx2 acres will m~y ~e character o~ ~e 81luvial ~an and por~ono or ~e hillsides. l~ge, ~efeneible areas o~ open s~oe v~lcA I~all maximize the habA~at value roF ~e pro~e~ area. A to~al o~ 4,44~ · -~zua~ I~roMAM~iAM 14~ acres xn ~e vicinity or ~e bog and. 9o~ o~.~e no~n.bran~ or.~e ~onga Fault, a por~xon of ~X~ vas preY:sealy delL~it~ for residea~iaX SeveXo~t. ~er, a. Xeao~ce ~nagu~ Plan rep~ a~ ~ lmn~ Never~eleoo, deve~opmen~ ~zveFsl~y ~ rra~en~ ~e r~ining wildlife habitats. Alluvial ff~ le~ Hahita~ ~..: ApPlioanU for ~velopuen~ shall M oo~i~ion~ to pres~e i a~l of alluvial fan scrub habi~a~ for I acre of alluvial ~an 80~ h~iCaC Iasc. rC ia Xnte~ ~aC 4,44~ acres shall ~ delX~ aa open apace and ~at alluvial fan ic~ habitat in SaM ~eek E~l~a~da ~eek vffeh, San SevaXne wash, ~ x4s acres Xn v:cxnxcy of ~e ~ and no~h oe ~he no~e~ branch of the ~canon~a Fault shall ~ retained aa open apace. ~rCher .. the naxln~ e~enC feasible, resource conae~aCion easements R~solution No. 92-092 STATEME~T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDFJ~ATION$ 26, 1992 Applicants for divelopuefl~ ohali conpl~ wi~h Hillside Development Ordinance and Developmen~ S~andardm. Allo ~l pFoni~int knoll, where ~he historic U.S. Fo~eot Semite Fire open space. maximize ~he hebi~i~ velum fOF land mia aila~aclOnl, xnciuding approxhmgely acrei'~n ~he vicinity of ~l b~ i~ no~ or n~r~h~r~ bran~ o~ ~e ~c~onqm FaUlt, i ~ion d~v~?~aen~. ~her~ .a ~eso~oe ~naguen~ Plan~ anal& ~ prepares aha lnpi~enc~. . Appl~canta ~or dovelopmen~ 8hall ~ cond~2~oned precede ~ acre of alluvial ran ac~ h~8~ ~or [ acre o~ a~luv~al ~an oc~ hab~aC lose. n~eflded tha~ 4,442 acreo cheil ~ dee~ated open apace and ~a~ alluvial ~an a~ hab~ta~ Day ~e~ wasA, ~ivanda ~e~ wish, San 8evaine Wash, and 14S acres in ~e vicinity or ~o ~ and Fault lnal~ ~ recain~ aa opafl a~ce. ~er ~o ~ha maxia~ e~mnC ~eaaible, reaD.Ce conoe~aC~on cesareans shall ~ obtained ~or ~e a~or~enCionud vAldll~e habl~a~ aFeas. Applicants for develo~en~ viii ~ c0ndiCioned to retain ex~o~nV riparian co~ldoro, as ~ provide a ~rrer lone ~o proce~ ~e r~parian corridors rr~ de~adatLon ae~ia~ vA~ urban develo~nC. Alas, con,Clone viii ~ eforo~ con~acAon,* including ~eo~Fic~ion of h~an uae Co deei~a~ ~raAle~ exoluaAon or d~eeC~c cato a~ d~o~ and exclusion or orr-r~d vo~oxeo, ~l es ~e~eo co dAve~ ~Mn Arr~ga~ion , on Xov,. Pro~e~ applicants shall M oo~A~one~ ~o lmpleaefl~ actions to r~u~m rugttt~ duaC conoc~cc~on co ~e aax~a~ e~en~ reafib~o. Project applican~o oAiI~ ~ cond~CAofl~ Co lafld~llo. Rssulu~ion No. 92-092 Page 8 EXHIBIT "A" sTATEMENT OF eVil,RIDING CONSIDERATIONS ~-~, Page 4 po=enti&l adverse impacts of development on the existing com~unit¥ which would otherwise occur without a planned and comprehensive approach to future development. The Specific Plan alluvial fen end hillside environment, end £e meant to replace of Rancho Cuoemmnge and its Sphere-of-Influence. Further, the Etiw&nd& North Specific Plan provides pti-sorting for the Sphere- of-Influence area end for the planning aria nozT~ of the National Forest ~unda~ effects which would otherwise occur u~d&r ~he exilting General Plan end zoning re~ul&tione, including each altern&tiva analyzed in the Final Enviromnentm% Impact RepoL~:. l~olu~ion No. 92-092 pages F.~HIBIT "A# STATEMENT OF OveRRIDING CONSIDF~ATIONS February 26, 1992 .... for developmen~ are al~uvial ~an eC~ habi=a= which will will ......... vide a buffer zone ~o p~o~l~ ~he riparian development. Also, co~u~v-~,,- ---Tn~[udin- r~e~ric~ion o~ 2he Rllourc~ Co~ll~a~/on areas, 1 and doql, and exclusion of otf-ro~d v~iclel, ae well ~lchni~et =o divert urban irrigation ~-off and polluted ICo~ ~lowl. Never=baltic, urbanLaa~io~ of ~e area rouiin a ~hrea~ to riparian habitat. conditioned ~o inplenen~ actions ~o ceduce ~uqi~lve duet durinq conet~c~lon 2o ~e ~xin~ e~en~ Never~eleee, some cone~c~lon dua~ viii ~: Pro~ec~ applicants viii ~ co~l~ion~ to .... par~lcipace in city vance minimization proqrans. Neve~helesa, ~ere viii re~Ln an inpac~ off l~ndfill CapaC~ if a result or eol~d vague ~enera~ed ~ deveAopuen~ of approxinacelY 3;~57 dwelling ~lte, ae veil aa up ~o 28 acres of co~ercialdevolo~enC. l~ccs, pro~ec~ appr~al lo reco~ended based upon a ~lnding social considerations ~a infeasible any pro]acc specified in ~he final ~viro~on~al Iu~c~ aepoc~ and accordingly constitutes an overrid~nq beale for p~oJt~ approval. Substantial enviro~n~al ~nefito will oc~ an a reoul~ General PI~ ~t No. 90-03B, as · Ap ltcanco for develo~efl~ ihill oon~i~e co che building or ~hi oir~la~lon and ~rini~rCacion aylC~ of ~ha co.unify ~ li~lqa~ing all on-~iCo conCrl~inq ~o the City's ~lff/o ~e~e . Fee _.. Pro~in for al~ o~her ott-oi~e I~e~olution No. 92-092 l~c~/~ ~his 2~ day of A~ril, 1992, a~ ~e~ho ~, ~lif~a. ~, ci~ Cl~ Resolution No. 92-092 Page 2 1) Substantial alteration of existir~ oueO ~ce land ~a~: ~t all of ~ ~1 ~oJ~ ~ of 6,840 a~ is ~tly ~ ~al ~ ~. Of ~e to~l, 4,442 a~ will ~ dgsi~~ as ~. Ne~el~s, 2,112 a~ ~ pr~ for ~lo~t ~ wall r~lt ~ ~ l~s of ~ist~ ~ s~ 1~ ~ ~a~. f~ ~l~t will ~iga~ all ~i~ ~ifi~ off-site ~, ~ ~11 as ~ ~e Ci~'s ~fic N~ F~ D~ for off~i~ ~. Ne~el~s, as a r~lt of ~ will ~ ~ af~ ~tlgation. 3} ~o~ ~ifi~tlon: ~li~ for will ~,~ly wi~ ~ Hillside ~1~ f~ d~lu~,~t wi~ 2,112 a~ will ~ist~ ~a~ of ~e all~ial f~ ~ ~io~ of will ~ze ~e ~i~t ~1~ ~ ~e ~J~ ~. A t~l of 4,442 a=~ will r~ ~ ~ 2,112 a~ will d~l~ ~i~ wil~lfe ~i~ dimity ~ fra~t ~ r~ wil~ife d~l~ will ~ ~lo~ ~ ~ 1~ of ~ ~ili~. N~I~, a~t all 1,112 a~ ~ f~ ~1~,~ ~ all~ial ~ ~i~t ~ will ~ 1~. 6) ~t ~ ri~i~ ~i~= ~1i~ f~ ~1~ ~lgatio~ ~ff ~ ~11u~ ~ fl~. N~- ~1~, ~zation of ~ ~ will r~ a LEGEND LM Low Medium 4-~ DU'I/AC FLIUC Fl~C~trol/Utlll~ ~rrldor OS Open Space Acqutrea Park 8lie ~ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE EXHIBIT Specific Plan [-~4 DRAFT ~ancho WD~/I ~ , ~ // ~/ IL ~D~/~O-~ ~: · ~'~////~ ~ P~/1 '~"~ ~W Fl~y PD ~/1 = 2 DUI1 ACRE IN) Inl~red Inetllullonel De~lonallon LOT 51ZE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ~Y FOOTHILLS PLANNING AR~'A EXHIBIT 6 Gtiw=nda North Specific Plan City T-iS ADOPTED 4/1/92 VIEW POTENTIAL MAP EXHIBIT 7 Etlwanda North Specific Plan City Of ADOPTED 4/1/92 RANCHO CUCAMONGA )OT~HL Y LIMITS 1-10 ~ ~. ~~' PROJECT SITE Ebwaq~) North .... ~ ~~ Specific Plan city ef 0 J ,_;__, .--~. ~ ,, ,I ~e--q.,,-~...'"' "-,,_,.J__ ~ ~ ~, , , ~ ~ , .o.l~...~ ~.~,~.~ L~--~--~. _;_~.. / ~:C~ ~ Major Divided A~erl~l A1 T~lcal Section ...,,...., EXHIBIT - 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I tiw~nda No~th Spaclflc Plan CIly of .~~ .-,, .......... ,...,... ....... .._._. ~~ ~ ~ ' ,NEI~HBORHOOD TH~ME PLAN EXHIBIT Specific Plan ~-~ ADOPT~ 4/i/92 CONSTRAINTS MAP OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN CRAIGA. SHERMAN 2Cg_ A c(e loe, 1901 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 335 SAN DIEGO. CA 92101-2380 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE (619) 702-7892 (619) 702-9291 June 15, 2004 Via Facsimile (909) 477-2846 Followed by Hand Delivery MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report and all Other Discretionary and Legislative Approvals for the Proposed Henderson Creek Properties (DRC2003-00749 tkrough DRC2003-00753 and SUBTT 16324) State Clearinghouse Number 2003111057 TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OR RANCHO CUCAMONGA: This office represents The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. and Spirit of the Sage Council (collectively, Sage Council) is a 501(c)(3), two non-profit projects and corporation, consisting of Native Americans, scientists, citizens and members dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage, including endangered species, natural habitats. Both of these groups have members and supporters that reside in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and San Bemardino County (County) who recreate, enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regions natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referenced proposed development. These comments are provided by Sage Council and other interested community groups and/or persons in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the western area of the County of San Bemardino ("County"). The Sage Council provides this comment letter in response to the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the above-referenced Henderson Creek residential development subdivision and related/associated City and LAFCO administrative and legislative actions (collectively, "Projecf'). Page Two June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Sage Council incorporates all verbal and written comments it has made on this Project, including objections that this office has made regarding defects in the City's proposed Development Agreement. Issues Regarding Inclusion of County Flood Control Lands The attempt of the City and applicant to include County lands for both conservation and overall density calculation is improper and unlawful. The County is not an applicant for this development and the usc of its lands already committed to conservation purposes is an arbitrary accounting of mitigation and project density. The City's responses to DEIR comments are incorrect and incomplete. The fact that floodway lands have been designated "surplus" for flood control purpose, does not mean that the lands can now be developed. Issues relating to prior commitment and accounting as conservation or open space lands needs to be fully analyzed and mitigated for such losses. Sage Council has recently learned that substantial Project lands were either designated conservation as compensatory mitigation for the County Flood Control's San Sevaine water project (map included), or are otherwise designated ground water recharge areas. The City's analysis on these points has been improper, there is no mitigation offered for these losses, and the use of these mitigation areas for this Project are prohibited by law. City's Re-Zoning and Re-Classification of Conservation (Floodway) Lands The City has failed to analyze the impacts to its overall general and specific plan open space elements. The rationale that hydrology has changed so that additional land could now be developed without jeopardy is factually and legally irrelevant to the fact that City and County have previously accounted these designated conservation and floodway lands as open space, contributing to the respective agencies' general and specific open space policies and goals to maintain the currently existing conservation and open space lands. Page Three June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek S CH No. 2003111057 Additionally, the development area for the Project has been deem and designated an important ground water recharge area, the impacts arising from the Project's development have not been sufficiently addressed or mitigated. Development Agreement Sage Council incorporates all of it prior written and verbal comments made to the City (including comments made to the Planning Commission on May 12, 2004) regarding the refusal to circulate, describe and analyze the contents of the proposed Development Agreement (DA) during an appropriate and meaningful time of the EIR and CEQA process. As previously asserted, legal defects in the proposed DA include (1) an unlawful and non-statutory mechanism for minor or ministerial amendments, (2) includes a non- applicant and interested party without their assent, authority or signature. (See also the above discussion about unlawful inclusion of SBCFD lands.) The statement in the DA that "the specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supercede and be controlling over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Project Entitlements" (Section 2.A) demonstrates the need for circulation and analysis of all City guarantees being made in the DA. Examples of these legal defects for this Project include: (1) failure to analyze and mitigate impacts from the development and uses of the North Etiwanda Preserve Trailhead, (2) failure to analyze and mitigate impacts from the development and uses of the North Etiwanda Equestrian Center, and (3) failure to analyze and mitigate direct, cumulative and growth inducing impacts from the development of Project streets (Wardman-Bullock, and especially Colonbero Road). Requirement for Water Supply Information not Included in EIR As previously raised and argued before the regarding the related matter of City's proposal for ANNEXATION DRC2003 -01164, General Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003 -01162, Etiwanda North Specific Plan AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, and associated ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEQA Negative Declaration) at the May 26, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission, and at the hearing on the FEIR for the Traigh Pacific at the June 9, 2004 meeting of the Plarming Commission, the City has failed to conduct appropriate water supply studies and include them in the EIR for this Project. Page Four June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Under Water Code §§ 10910-10915, any project of more than 500 homes must contain an water supply assessment of the public water supply system relating to project and overall supply and demand issues. This water assessment must include, among other things, whether the demand of the proposed project was included as part of the water purveyor's most recently adopted urban water management plan (UWMP), whether the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years included in the UWMP's 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to the water purveyor's existing and planned future uses. This information must be request such water assessments from potential water purveyors at the time the Notice of Preparation is released for the Project, and the water assessment(s) must be included in the draft EIR for public review (Water Code § 10911; CEQA Guidelines § 15083.5, subd. (d).) The fact that this Project, in and of itself, may be less than the 500 home threshold does not excuse City from conducting this required analysis because the City is knowingly bifurcating and is concurrently processing not less than four Specific and General Plan amendments for large residential subdivisions for this immediate Project area, and the Water Code and CEQA require such collective and cumulative assessments, especially with regards to general and specific plan amendments such as this. The letters from the potential water purveyor in this case (Cucamonga Water District) has remarked about the increasing stress of meeting water demands for this fast growing region. And the same purveyor has mentioned the need for off-site improvements/ construction to accommodate the growth associated with this Project. These off-site impacts have not been sufficiently disclosed, nor has there been any mitigation offered for the temporary or long-term impact that might be associated with the same. Removal of Equestrian Overlay District Sage Council requests the elimination of the City's Equestrian Overlay District and Trails from the Project site and adjacent SBCFCD casements and conservation lands, including levees and lcvcc roads. The Project site is bounded by habitat conservation lands to the east and to thc north. Residential development and equestrian uses are not compatible. Horses not only cause significant physical damage and losses to native habitats, plants and natural communities by Page Five June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 trampling, but by the introduction and distribution of non-native seeds from their feed stock, including alfalfa, oats and other grains, which are then blown in the wind onto adjacent habitat conservation lands. In addition, horses and horse droppings on ENSP trails (see ENSP, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, Exhibit 11) that go through the County Open Space District 1, North Et~wanda Habitat Preserve, SBCFCD San Sevmne Creek ProJect s Hab tat Conservation lands, Habitat Mitigated lands from the Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates Projects are not permitted and would cause significant damage to these habitat conservation areas by the horses/droppings introducing non-native and invasive alfalfa, oat and other grain plants. There is no proven need, demonstrated by the City and Project applicant for an Equestrian Center and trails in this region of the County and City sphere of influence. However, even if there was a need, the term and conditions of committed mitigation for natural open space conservation required by the SR-30 Highway Expansion Project and San Sevaine Creek Water Project supercede the desire to introduce active recreation into a nature preserve. The City ENSP and RMP require significant revisions, including the Henderson Creek project, to be consistent with the current land uses. Conflicts and Inconsistencies With the Adopted General and Specific Plans The Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq. requires the City to base land use decisions on its adopted general and specific plans. The City's adopted applicable General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (collectively, "Plans") states that critical or essential structures shall not be placed within designated earthquake fault zones or other constraints zones. This is the entire purpose of expressly designating such constraints areas. Essential and critical structures such as water lines, water lines, water storage facilities, and homes are located within designated critically dangerous fault zones. Additionally, the approval of the Project subdivision is forbidden pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act (Public Res. Code §§ 2621 et seq.) for failure to prepare adequate geologically site specific reports delineating hazard of surface raptures, and the dangers of knowingly placing men, women and children in such danger zones. The City continues to use and reference the outdated Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), adopted in 1992 as the lead document when considering this Project and other Projects. Page Six June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 "However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal in Etiwanda shall be based on the objectives, policies, and specific development standards specified herein." 14.2 ENSP page v-3. The City began drafting the ENSP in 1984, conducting public hearings in 1989 through 1992 and then adopted the Plan on April, 1, 1992 (see Resolution No. 92-092) with "overriding circumstances" (See Resolution 92-092, Exhibit A, hereto) and against the recommendations of lead government agencies for conserving public trust natural resoumes, California Department offish and Game (DFG or Department) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service)(See ENSP DEIR and FEIR Comments (DFG on August 4, 1988, May 17, 1991 and June 26, 1991. FWS on October 6, 1989, June 25, 1990, April 22, 1991, July 3, 1991 and Testimony at Public Heatings). The U.S. Forest Service also expressed concerns and recommendations in comment letters and testimony at public hearings (See comment letter of June 19, 1991). These unmitigated "overriding circumstances" on negative impacts to the environment include, but are not limited to: 1) Substantial alteration of existing open space land use character: .... 2) City Transportation policies and Traffic: ...... 3) Landform modification: ..... 4) Wildlife Habitat impacts: ..... 5) Alluvial fan scrub habitat loss: ..... 6) Threat to riparian habitats: ..... 7) Short term fugitive dust: ..... 8) Solid waste: ..... " The City also stated: [t]hat specific economic and social considerations make infeasible any project alternative specified in the in the Final Environmental Impact Report and constitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; and ... Further, a Resource Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented. The ENSP Resource Management Plan (RMP) was adopted on November 4, 1992, however, to date, the RMP has not been implemented. According to the RMP Executive Summary; "Opportunities for preservation of the sensitive habitats that have been identified within the ENSP must be fully explored prior to project approval in the ENSP area." and Page Seven June 15, 2004 City ofRancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCHNo. 2003111057 "The primary method of habitat preservation is avoidance." The ENSP and RMP identify lands in the area that have previously been used for mitigation. These mitigation sites cannot be used to mitigate impacts of the ENSP and new projects within the area. The City anticipated that an MOU for conservation of habitats within the ENSP area would occur. (See RMP page 1-8.) The City, County and others have signed such an MOU and contractual agreement to conserve habitats and wildlife within the ENSP area and throughout the West Valley Foothills. (See Valley-wide Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) (HCP/NCCP) MOU with Map and Species List.) The County, as lead local government, has received funding from the State, via U.S. Senate and Appropriations legislation for U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service "for NCCP planning in County of San Bemardino". The overall area encompasses a Significant Natural Area identified by California Department ofFish and Game under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code (SBD 11 O) and requires protection and up-to-date biological surveys. (RMP page I-9) Under no circumstances shall development occur within 50feet of any streambed" (RMP page 11 and Appendix C, Mitigation Measures 4.5-15) Riparian woodland habitat areas shall remain within open space and will be managed in such a manner as to maximize wildlife habitat values and minimize human disturbance associated with adjacent development. (RMP page 1-12) For the Etiwanda/San Sevaine corridor, as well as throughout the Specific Plan area, the free movement of wildlife must be addressed. (see RMP page 1-15) .... as a condition of development, a study of the feasibility of acquisition for preservation must be cornpleted prior to any project approvals in the area. (see RMP page 1-8 at c.) Based on each of the above requirements, the proposed Project is in violation with and conflicts with the Plans, the City's adopted RMP and the HCP/NCCP MOU. The City Page Eight June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Council must not approve the Project or violate CEQA, NCCP Act, State Plant Protection Act, FESA, NEPA, Clean Water Act, Water Code (SB 221 and 610), as well as violate its own adopted plans and regulations. EIR and Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT 16324) The proposed Tentative Tract site is entirely within the Etiwanda Water Drainage Area (see ENSP, STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN, Exhibit 17), SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREA SB 110 (see ENSP RMP page 1-9 and DFG conunent letters) and more than 50% of the site includes lands with constraints (see ENSP, CONSTRAINTS MAP, Exhibit 8). Sage Council encloses herewith a color map (attached) that created using the adopted ENSP Map EXHIBITS on the proposed Tentative Tract map included with the Project. This comprehensive map clearly indicates the multiple land development and land use constraints relating to the Project and immediate Project area. For these reasons and others, the City must not approve the Tentative Tract (TT) as currently proposed for reasons stated. Sage Council is demanding that the City deny the Project TT and recommend that the Project applicant revise the proposed TT to avoid mapped ENSP Constraints. In addition, the City and Project applicant must comply with the ENSP RMP and avoid habitat impacts in the SNA SB 110 area. Sage Council reminds the City and Project applicant that; .... as a condition of development, a study of the feasibility of acquisition for preservation must be completed prior to any project approvals in the area." (RMP page 1-8 at c.) To date the EIR and all other documentation before the City (staff report dated June 9, 2004, L. Henderson) does not contain such a "study" for acquisition and preservation of habitat on-site and/or off-site. Page Nine June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Currently the Project proposes to provide a 1:1 habitat mitigation that is not sufficient mitigation for its impacts to numerous quantities and types of natural resources. This is unacceptable not only to Sage Council, but also experts at the identified responsible public trust agencies, DFG and FWS. While Sage Council's three proposed alternatives are significantly better in avoidance and mitigation of impacts on habitats and water recharge at a 2:1 replacement, it is believed the Project can be revised to partially mitigate impacts at a minimum of 3:l and 5:1 maximum. Sage Council is aware of willing sellers of habitat lands in the area and region, thus it is possible (feasible) for the Project's negative environmental impacts to be mitigated, as the law requires that they be. With on- and off-site conservation of habitats, placement of gates and/or guard stations can help mitigate adjacent and offsite impacts associated with human disturbances such as hiking off trails, off road vehicles and motorcycles/dirt bikes, litter, dumping of trash and garden refuse, shooters/hunters, dogs etc.. Also, having a nature center for interpretive studies would help in educating residents on the importance of wildlife, habitat and water conservation, and how to not impact natural land preserves such as those surrounding the Project area. The three alternatives also include a Natural Rock Wall/Stone faced double-sided at a minimum of 6 fi. completely around the Project site. Having a wall, rather than fencing, along with street circulation adjacent to the wall, will provide a greater defense for adjacent habitat and wildlife conservation areas and act as a buffer for wildfires and minor flooding events. Residential units, if built, should be one story and not two due to the need to protect important viewsheds identified in the ENSP. The ENSP includes a Ranch and Bungalow design that suggests such a horizontal one story structure. Two story homes are less defensible and are at greater risk of fire during wildfire storms fueled by winds coming out of canyons to the north of the Project site. Environmental Review and Impacts from the Proposed Annexation is Deficient The impacts associated with the proposed future uses, land use designations, and the potential and foreseeable impacts related thereto must be analyzed in association with this Project and the environmental review thereto. By the Project applicants attempting to meet the City's desires of an outdated ENSP, doing so jeopardizes the legality and creates planning, zoning, and environmental inconsistencies from the Project. The City's desire to increase the use of horses in a Significant Natural Area, and in and around dedicated habitat conservation lands is incredibly inconsistent. Page Ten June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Under no cimumstances, should LAFCO allow annexation of County, County OS-1 District and SBCFCD lands until the 1991 ENSP is revised with an E1R that reflects current environmental conditions, and analyzes increase level of impacts relating, and proposes appropriate mitigation measures to del with such impacts. The City's current effort to do this via a CEQA negative declaration and 3 other concurrent piecemealed projects violates both environmental review and planning laws. Until such comprehensive environmental review and planning, all development Projects in the ENSP area must be put on hold, or otherwise be processed through the County. However, as similarly true with the County, is also must revise and update its General Plan and West Valley Planning Area to reflect the current environmental conditions, dedicated habitat conservation lands and year 2004 existing mitigation needs. Storm Drainage and Flooding Another major issue not resolved in the Project EIR or TT Map is with regards to Storm Drains and Flooding (see ENSP, STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN, Exhibit 17 and WATER MASTER PLAN, Exhibit 14). The Project includes Annexation of SBCFCD easements and lands included in the approved San Sevaine Water District Project (SSWD). (See attached maps, and final environmental assessment for the SSWP, the project decision and approval files for which is incorporated herein by reference.) The SSWD is being built to partially handle 100 year storm events. According to the SSWD, the Project area is north of the SSWD Debris Basin and immediately adjacent to the levee. However, the Project uses the 1991 ENSP that incorrectly places the future Debris Basin north of the site. The reality is, that during 100 year and 500 year storm events (storm events, while using terms 100 and 500 years, actually can occur at any time), breakout flooding from the levees will occur. The Project is located on a major flood plain and water recharge area, the proposal in the Project EIR to build and pay for gigantic storm drains north of the Project and onsite is severely questioned. The drains and pipelines, north of the LADWP and Edison Utility corridors and on dedicated habitat conservation lands, that were proposed back in 1991 in the ENSP, are no longer going to occur. Therefore, it is not proper for the Project to propose and include such an inconsistent approach to handling expected flood waters. What is necessary is for the City to revise the ENSP and EIR to reflect the current and existing significant changes in the environment, that have taken place since 1991, including the SSWD, dedicated Habitat Conservation Areas, so that the Project, the ENSP, and its associated Water Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan are brought up to date. Page Eleven June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Traffic and Circulation The City and Project applicant rely on the decade old ENSP and its related Circulation Plan (see 1991 ENSP, CIRCULATION PLAN, Exhibit 12). Significant changes have occurred since 1991 which limited the extent of Day Creek Blvd, East Avenue, Wardman Bullock Road and others. (See also Spirit of the Sage Council lawsuits involving the prior University/Crest - Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates developments) most importantly, there are no longer roads/streets along the LADWP and Edison Utility Corridors north of the Project site, nor should there be. Currently, local residents of the City are experiencing traffic jams in the morning and afternoon on Etiwanda Avenue by the school (see public comments on the Project and the other concurrently processed projects, Tracy/Traigh Pacific, Richland Pacific and Plan amendments/annexations) and were trapped by narrow streets during the 2003 wildfires. These real life traffic problems are not surprising since the 1991 ENSP was approved by the City with "overriding circumstances." Furthermore, the City has approved ENSP and General Plan amendments to increase residential densities from Very Low to Low and Utility Corridors to Residential (see Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates projects). Still the City and other project applicants, including this project and for Richland Pinehurst are requesting General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments to increase and almost double residential density AGAIN. The 1991 ENSP Circulation Plans, Street Sections (see ENSP, Exhibits 13 (A) - (F)) include "COMMUNITY TRAIL" of 20' in width. The City needs to revise the 1991 ENSP and EIR to eliminate the Community Trails, as well as Equestrian Trails, in order to better meet the needs of street widths that are needed by residents to move around fire trucks etc. during evacuations. While we do not support development in the ENSP area that is also a high wildfire, flood and earthquake risk, we do believe that the City and Project applicant must address the Health, Safety and General Welfare of its current and future residents. The City must not use "overriding considerations" in General and Specific and residential development project plans. We also remind the City and Project applicant that "General Welfare" includes the need for clean air, water and environment. AS identified by the City in the adopted Plans, the highest, best and most appropriate use for most all of the Project (and related project) lands is for habitat, wildlife and water conservation. Page Twelve June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek S CH No. 2003111057 Landscaoin~ Sage Council requests that absolutely NO non-native ornamental grasses, trees and plants are to bc used on or off thc Project site including road sides. The ENSP plant palette includes such unacceptable plantings and must be revised as not to cause additional negative and adverse effects on habitats and wildlife. The Project must only use native plants and seedlings consistent with those naturally occurring in thc North Etiwanda preserve and other areas. Also, the City should, as a condition of approval, require thc Project applicant and/or developer to salvage native plants on site for use in Project landscaping. Sage Council requests and the law requires avoidance and conservation for native plants. The very least the City should do is require salvaging of plants on site for use in Landscaping. The only trees that should be allowed for use in Landscaping are those native to North Etiwanda and Southern California, including California walnut, California and Engleman Oak, Sycamore, White Alder, Big Cone Pine, California lilac, Mountain mahogony and Yucca. Under the California Native Plant Protection Act, Yuccas and others are to be conserved. The Project site and ENSP area has the largest remaining population of RARE Plummer's Mariposa lilies. Sage Council also expects FWS and/or DFG to have an emergency listing, especially if these rare flowers are pushed closer to extinction by this Project and the related Henderson Creek, Richland Pinehurst and other nearby City development Projects. We recommend that the City and Project applicant reduce their TT map and Project in size and scope so that there is on- site, as sell as off-site, habitat mitigation and avoidance measures to conserve this listed rare and threatened habitat, plants and wildlife to the greatest extent. Fuel Modification ENSP uses a 1990 Fuel Management Plan that is outdated. Furthermore the Project EIR also uses an outdated Fire Management and Fuel Modification Plan. Significant changes have occurred since 1990 and 2003 wildfires, including the County Fire Ordinance and Zoning/Land Use in the West Valley Foothills. The decade old ENSP requires a Fuel Modification Area of 150' with as much as 70% of clearing on natural vegetation. The Project does not mitigate the loss of habitat, wildlife etc. due to associated Fuel Modification. We request, as a Condition of Approval, that any and all Fuel Modification that occurs must be done on and within the boundaries of the Proiect site and only on Project owned lands (excluding the designated habitat preserve areas of the County Flood Control District. No Fuel Modification is to occur on such SBCFCD conservation easements and mitigation lands within or outside the proposed Project site. Page Thirteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Furthermore, all Project-related Fuel Modification must mitigate impacts to habitat at a minimum of 3:1 replacement prior to the approval of the Project TT Map. Urban interface with the National Forest, County Habitat Preserve and SBCFCD Habitat Conservation lands immediately North and East of the Project site increases Fire Hazards and risk to human life. The Project must have some sort of an accountability clause, either the Project applicant, developer/contractor, City Mayor and each City Council and Planning Commissioners, LAFCO or all those individuals collectively approving and/or permitting a disastrous development, that could have been avoided in the first place. Just like a cigarette package has a warning that smoking is hazardous to your health, shouldn't future home buyers also be given such a warning? "ATTENTION! These residential dwelling units are subject to and are known for significant active flooding, wildfires and earthquake events. Living here has great potential to be hazardous to your Health, Safety and General Welfare, and life." Instead, developers advertise these homes as "estates" with beautiful views etc. The only thing the City seems concerned about is development fees and that the signs of the names of the developments are pretty. "Ridgeview Estates" sounds so nice, but underneath it all is an earthquake fault causing the "ridge." General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments We are opposed to City General and Specific Plan Amendments for the Project. Firstly, the Project site is in the County Hazard Overlay District for Flooding, Wildfires and Earthquakes and therefore does not comply with "Health, Safety and General Welfare" needs of the Public. This is not an area in the County and City Sphere of Influence that, anyone in their right mind, should be allowed to use for residential dwellings and widespread equestrian facilities. To amend the City Plans to allow increased density, is absurd and strongly opposed. Why place MORE people at risk? There is no reasonable answer. The "result" of building in the San Gabriel and San Bemardino Mountain foothills area is never going to change from being hazardous. The proposed Plan amendments intend to bring double the amount of residential dwellings and future residents. In addition to placing more people's lives at risk, the current environmental circumstances of traffic jams, air pollution, overcrowding of schools, lack of landfill space, water shortages and energy crisis, the Amendments would further exasperate these conditions rather than improving them. The rational that Page Fourteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek S CH No. 2003111057 environmental conditions are already bad in the area, so making it worse doesn't matter, is unfounded and irresponsible. Under CEQA the Project must mitigate negative impacts on the environment. Reducing and lessening Project specific negative impacts is required by law, whether or not mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level of less than significant is a matter considered after sufficient mitigation measures have been made. Amendments allowing higher density on the Project site, 15om Very Low 1-2 to Low 2-4, also increases the negative impacts to adjacent dedicated habitat conservation lands, habitats and wildlife. More people are going to trespass into areas that are specifically for habitat and wildlife. These preserves are not to be used for any moderately active human recreational uses, dumping, shooting and horse riding. Even passive uses such as observation, bird- watching, scientific study, and other uses need to carefully controlled and regulated. This Project (and the City's other related projects) does not consider thee impacts and propose mitigation for minimizing the same. The habitat preserves are not "parks," yet the Project and ENSP are treating these lands as such, resulting in substantial unanalyzed and unmitigated impacts to significant natural resources. Wildlife Corridors and Buffers The City proposals, including development of County Flood Control lands and Utility Corridors has a significant negative impact on Biological Resources for habitats and wildlife. The file and record for the Project fails to provide any scientific data regarding wildlife movement and buffers within the ENSP area, assuming that "Etiwanda Creek along with adjoining Conservation Areas will continue to provide suitable corridors for wildlife movement." Scientific literature and data suggest otherwise. (See previous and concurrently presented scientific argument and literature regarding wildlife movement corridors, habitat buffers and the effects of substantial fuel modification zones.) It is recommended, by Sage Council that the City revised thc 1991 ENSP and recently versions of thc General Plan to identify and map wildlife corridors and habitat buffer areas, using the best available science, which includes existing and further scientific studies performed, rather than using the old 1984 Environmental Assessment that both Plans have used. The County and cities agreed to do such studies when entering into and signing a contractual agreement with CDFG and FWS for the Valley-wide MSHCP(HCP). The County Museum staff, DR. Robert McKeman and Gerald Braden should be consulted by the City and Project developers as they may already have some preliminary maps and data available. In addition, consult with the lead agencies CDFG and FWS that can also provide the City and Project developers with thc most current and best scientific information on wildlife movement Page Fifteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 corridors and buffers. There is lacking scientific evidence and support for the City's statement that "Future development of up to 95-acres within the Project area, adjacent to Etiwanda Creek, will not have any impacts on riparian, wetland, or related habitat." This is so general as to be meaningless. What is "related habitat" of Etiwanda Creek? The City must identify all habitats on and adjacent to the development site. The use of Habitat Buffers is needed, but not used for the proposal and Projects. Biological Resources Rare plants are found in the thousands on the Project site, especially since the 2003 wildfire that swept through the ENSP area. The Project EIR uses biological data pre- wildfire, but not post-fire. It is necessary to perform additional biological studies post- fire (now) to include with earlier studies as to be more accurate in addressing current environmental conditions. The Project needs to consult with DFG and FWS for the Rare Plummer's Mariposa Lily, SB K Rat, California gnatcatcher, SWestem Arroyo Toad, Red Legged Frog. All of these federally listed endangered species are known to occur in the ENSP Area and adjacent throughout the West Valley Foothills. As above, the City and County are signatories to an HCP/NCCP pre-planning agreement and MOV contract. The Project does not address this regional conservation planning contract and the State NCCP for CSS. The ENSP area is included in the CSS NCCP. The County North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Plan CNEOSHPP) was not supported by CDFG, FWS, Sage Council and others who found it to be a development plan, not a conservation plan (see public comment and letters re NEOSHPP in the County files). The approval documents for the Project, including the proposed findings, statement of overriding considerations, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and FE1R are incorrect to assert that mitigation will be afforded at a 1:1 mitigation ration. Is this for generic "land area" so that merely vacant open space land is being provided, or is mitigation impact be provided to mitigate for the particular resources being impacted and lost? Sage Council contends it is error for the City to approve, and assert that impacts are being mitigated, when the mitigation land area being offered has not been surveyed and it is unknown whether that land possesses the attributes of the affected land (e.g., specific sensitive and rare plant and animal species or habitat therefore). Page Sixteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Cultural Resources The City's findings regarding the direct and cumulative loss of cultural and historic resources are not supported by the record. The City and Projects play ignorant to the fact that the entire ENSP area is part of the larger indigenous village of"Cucamong[n]a" for the Shoshone Gabrielino Nation (a State recognized tribe, a..k.a. Gabrielino Band of California Mission Indians.) The City has information and evidence in its archives a video from a previous presentation at the City, led by FWS John Hanlon and Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council. Also in the City archives is a video submitted by the Sage Council, "No Room for Compromise." Both these videos, along with other public comment given on the 1991 proposed ENSP, Oak Summit Development, and proposed development at Cucamonga Canyon provided substantial information on this historic and cultural resource. The City, the applicants for this Project, and the related projects need to review the video tapes and public comment. It is recommended that the City and developers reduce negative impacts by significantly reducing development on site and throughout the ENSP area. Projects should allow at least 50% of habitat lands on-site to be conserved for these cultural and biological resources, or mitigate for the same at not less than a 5:1 replacement. In addition, the City should require that an archeologist, palentologist and Gabri¢lino "Most Likely Descendant" (MLD) perform on-site surveys, reporting and be on-site during Project grading and earth moving activities. Surveys, studies and reports must be included in the EIR and/or EIR technical appendixes. If the surveys, studies and reports indicate that the Project site includes items and other evidence, the Project must be redesigned to avoid these sensitive areas. If there are cairns, human remains and/or burials the Project must be halted, protected and registered with the State Historic Preservation Officer and nominated to the National Register of Historic Preservation. The landowner must agree to the nomination and work cooperatively with State and Federal Agencies, Gabrielino MLD with Tribal Band and other conservation organizations, including becoming a willing seller and/or donor of the land. The proposed Project, proposed tentative tract map, and overall CEQA compliance is legally deficient in these regards. Page Seventeen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek SCH No. 2003111057 Improper and Outdated Proiect Mappingl Failure to Describe Current Proiect Conditions at the time of Notice of Preparation As argued above, the Project documents and City may not rely on information contained in outdated Plans and other Project-specific mapping which does not reflect the realities or describe the current conditions at and around the Project site at the time the Notice of Preparation for the EIR is issued. The Project Applicant uses old data sources and other outdated information that fails to include the Revised San Sevainc Creek Water Project (2001) with revised maps MAP lA and lB 2001, San Bcmardino County Flood Control District. (See attachment) While the Henderson Project may assert that the 1991 ENSP has "prezoned" this area for development and that is all that is needed, this is not true if SBCFCD has enacted or undertaken actions (e.g., "easement" or other inconsistent land uses) which affect the City's pre-zoning for the Project and its immediately adjacent areas. Based on these County actions, including that with respect to SBCFCD conservation areas, the Lever Road(s) must not be used for thc 1991 ENSP Trails System/Equestrian Overlay District, without analyzing and mitigating the impacts and inconsistencies with the same. Lands in the ENSP tract used for Trails and Equestrian Overlay are currently habitat conservation lands that prohibit or are in conflict with such uses. Thc Project fails to conform with thc realities of today's environment and relics on the outdated and misleading ENSP. Other lands to the East and Southeast of Project arc also habitat conservation lands since 1995 Project mapping. Both Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwanda Estates have purchased and designated lands for habitat mitigation and conservation. Final Remarks and Request for further Written Notification The issues and questions presented herein arc essential for a complete and informative EIR. This office, my clients and thc law require full, complete and good faith responses to thc conunents and questions raised herein. In advance, wc thank you for considering the issues presented in this comment letter. Should you have any questions concerning any of the points raised herein, please do not Page Eighteen June 15, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Henderson Creek S CH No. 2003111057 hesitate to contact this office. Please notify this office of any administrative or legislative hearings, circulation of documents, or any other action or hearing related to the Project, p~,su~t~ Resources Code {} 21092.2. Craig A. Sherman cc: clients Attachments INCORPORATED AND REFERENCED APPENDICES Relevant to the Comments provided herein, Sage Council references and incorporates herein by such reference, the following City file documents which have addressed resource impacts and have conducted environmental review of such resources and impacts which relate to the proposed Project: 1) all the ENSP documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 2) Oak Summit CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 3) University Crest CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 4) Rancho Etiwanda CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 5) Rancho Etiwanda Estates CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 6) Tracy CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 7) Richland Pinehurst CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 8) Sheridan Estates CEQA documents, including public and public trust agencies comments 9) Henderson Creek Flood Control Project CEQA, IX/EPA, USFWS, ACOE Permit application documents, environmental assessments, including public and public trust agencies comments 10) San Sevaine Flood Control Project CEQA, NEPA, USFWS, ACOE Permit application documents, environmental assessments including public and public trust agencies comments. 11) State of California, Resources Agency Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program documents, including scientific literature references and USFWS Environmental Assessment and Biological Opinion for the Special 4(d) rule under the ESA for the California gnatcatcher. 12) USFWS documents regarding the listing of the California gnatcatcher as "Threatened" with a Special Rule. Also, documents relating to the designation of "critical habitat" for the California gnatcatcher. 13) USFWS documents regarding the listing of the San Bemardino kangaroo rat as "Endangered". Also, documents relating to the designation of "critical habitat" for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat. 14) San Bemardino County-wide Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan documents, including financial reports that identify receipt of state and/or federal funding for developing a plan that is consistent with the State NCCP. Also include maps and studies that have been performed by contracted biologists at the County Museum. A-1 CRAIG A. SHERMAN A~FORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRST AVENUE, SUIYE 335 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2322 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE (619) 702-7892 [619) 702-9291 from the Law Office of Craig A, Sherman To: City Clerk From: Craig Sherman, Esq. Fax: (909) 477-2846 Pages (including cover): 20 Phone: (909) 477-2700 Date: June 15, 2004 Re: Comments on FEIR - Henderson Creek CC: [] Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycle s Comments: Dear Deputy Clerk: Please distribute to the City Council for tomorrow's 6-16-04 hearing ** If for any reason the City Clerk has cannot forward this document to the city council, please notify this sender immediately. Thank you very much. HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA HAND DELIVERY THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSiMILE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU AKE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARIE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR DISSEMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG A. SHERMAN AT THE ABOVE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. SCALE SAi'q SEVAIiqE CREEK {{ATER PROJECt MAp I]3 PROPOSEI} ~TIGATION PROP{~I~FY 35 AC (20ac i'or District, lSac to Ceutez) PI~OPOg]SD IF. AS7 ~g ~X~$]O~/ - 1200' [] ~OOU Z~SZ~X~ - TO ~Z USrO ~0~ CO~S~VX~OS ~ '~ SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT ,~.~:_ CO~:Tq.. :.~., COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BE~NAkDINO SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AUGUST 1995 SUBMITTED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1956 - P.L. 84-984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ! ROGER A. SHINTAKU I FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BACKGROUND For the purpose of providing flood control, dependable water supplies, environmental protection, and outdoor recreation opportunities within a portion of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District the County of San Bernardino (County) has applied for a loan under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-984, as amended). The proposed project responds to the needs of the public as provided for by the County Charter and its elected Board of Directors. Flood control reflects the needs for personal safety, economic security, transportation, housing, water supply, recreation, and protection of sensitive wildlife habitat. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) discusses the impacts of the proposed project, identifies mitigation measures, and documents features essential for wildlife enhancement. A final environmental assessment (£A) dated August 1995 was prepared to address environmental issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl. The final EA results from a year of review and revision after publication of the draft in July 1994. Formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and consultation as required by the National Historic Preservation Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was also conducted during this time. The EA meets all requirements of NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, in addition to pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations concerning environmental protection. The Bureau of Reclamation considers the EA to be an adequate disclosure of the environmental effects associated with the proposed project, and concludes that the proposed action, including the described mitigation measures, will not significantly impact the environment and therefore will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This decision is based on the following: Prior to construction: 1. A Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act would be required. Coordination with the Corps is ongoing and the permit will be obtained by the County prior to construction. The County will fully implement all conditions identified in the permit. 2. A 1601 permit under California State law would be required. Coordination with the Department of Fish and Game is ongoing and the agreement must be completed prior to construction. The County will fully implement all conditions attached to the permit. 3. The County will provide a conservation easement of approximately 138 acres of fee title land of coastal sage scrub in the area identified in the EA (Figure 3.15). The Fish and Wildlife Service will review the wording of the conservation and protection agreement. The preserve will be integrated into the Oak Summit Preserve's management plan. ! 4. Approximately 11! acres of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) would be preserved within the conservation easement. Contractor m construction specifications would carefully limit the extent of disturbance to natural vegetation. Access roads would be located on the outside of the levees and no materials would be borrowed from the existing natural channel north of the proposed debris basin. Public access to the preserve area would be prohibited. 5. Approximately 13 acres of Riversidian Upland Sage Scrub (RUSS) would be preserved within the conservation easement. Restoration and revegetation efforts will eventually result in the re-establishment of a plant community most like RUSS on approximately 46 acres of levee and embankment side slopes. debris 6. The northern portion of East Etiwanda levee would be located on or as close to the eastern edge of the flood control fee title property as technically feasible. 7. Final project design shall ensure no loss of habitat outside the project boundaries. 8. A detailed restoration plan will be developed and approved by the Service and Reclamation, which will include the following: a. Restore areas of temporary disturbance by removing and controlling non-native plants, garbage, and man-made debris. b. The outside levee slopes will be revegetated with native coastal sage scrub species endemic to the project area, and the inside levee slopes will be covered with native soil and seedbank. c. Reclamation shall require the County to hire a qualified biologist to develop a monitoring plan to cover a period of five years. Photographs, monitoring of species presence, and relative cover, and hydrology studies will be used. d. Develop a seed collection and transplant/topsoil conservation plan. e. Develop a detailed erosion control plan for culverts, berms, etc., and a reclamation plan for removing and stockpiling topsoil. revegetation/habitat restoration plan for f. Develop detailed reclamation of the levees to an alluvial scrub community. g. Develop a detailed plan for temporary and permanent irrigation systems. h. Develop a detailed monitoring/maintenance plan to monitor the success of the revegetation program and ensure proper care of artificially eroded sites or areas requiring reseeding/planting. 2 co~s~vA~o~ ~As~ ~ EAST LEVEE =~~-~4~r-~ I - .......... ,, :~o ~oo fi~ Bcm~dino ~un~ FI~ Con~J Bisect S~ Scv~nc C~k W~r Project LEGEND CONSTRAINTS MAP EXHIBIT ('/~E tiwanda North Specific Plan 1-19 ADOPTED '4/1/92 ~.uh ~.,,, ~"-~tLg~ LEGEND · ,..,o., ,,~... ~... OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN EX~BIT 1 1 '~' /Etiwanda Nort~ Specific Plan ADOP~D 4/1/92 ~,..~.c.~.~ SPECIAL DIVIDED SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREETS '" ~ * WILSON AVENUE (east of Day Creak Blvd.) .o.h .,o.w,I . .., ~ (A-1 as shown on C~rculahon Plan) f 71~4L CLASS I norlh"~ R.O.W. mOUth (A-2 as shown on Circulation Plan). -_. Specific Plzn IZ-42 ·. Cll~ ol ---~_ ~. ~ It' I: ,","~ · L_,...~; I' c LEGEND ~~ ~ Exlslin. CCWD Bounde~ ~ M~ropolltnn W~ler Dl~trlc~ (MW. DJ Conneellon 0 Water Treatment Planl (W.T,P,) ~%~ ~ '~ WATER MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 14 Specific Plan ~-4~ 'ADOP~D 4/~/g2 ~,~o SEWER MASTER PLAN EXHIBI, T 15 /"-E tiWanda North Specific Plan clly ADOPTED 4/1/92 ~'"'~0 RESIDENTIAL OF 8LOPE . ~ SCREENING TREE8 IN GROUP8 OF ~REE AND FOUR - RESIDENT/~ PROPER~ UNE [OCATI~ VARIES SCRUB AND OTHER EXIS~NG AN~OR NEW ~TIVE P~INGS 4~5~ 10% CLEARIN8 CLEARING CLEARIN8 l-ilO' 'lBO' FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE NOTE: REFER TO APPENDIX C, FIRE PROTECTION STUDY, JANUARY 1990. FUEL MOD/F/CAT/ON CONCEPT ' /- ..EXHIBIT 16 Etiwanda Nort~'~ .... Specific Plan TI-55 ~ · -. City o~ Ra~chQ ~CaNKm8a *~ ~ ~- TORM DRAIN MAS TER PLAN ~ EXHIBIT r ~ ~ ~liwanda Nort~ Specific Plan ADOPT~ 4/1/92 LEGEND L AND USE PLAN Specific Plan ~[-~ ,ADOPTED 4/1/92 OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN ~-~'~*'"~ EXIS~TING CONDITIONS AND USES *~'""~'~~". QPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN ~"'~ , ~ROPERTY O. WNERSHIP Existing Land Use ,,~ ~ ?//, ExhJb!~ - EX/STING CONDITIONS AN? USES ADOPTED 4/1f92 ,¢~¢~,~,.. CONDITIONS AND USES ~ADOPTED 4/1/92 (~DIN~/~. NO. 493 O]D;liz*,~-~;~ No, 49] I, Df~A J. AD~S, ~ (=~qK of ~ City of ~ Cu~amor~, ~y of ~ll, 1992, ~ ~ f~lly ~ a~ a ~= ~ Of ~ Cl~ ~ ~ 1~ ~y of ~11, 199~, a~ ~ ~, ~a. ~ J. ~u~s, City Cl~rk RESOUJTION NO. 92-092 .... A RE~OLDTICN OF TI{E CITY OOUNCIL OF T~E CITY OF P~N(~O CUC.~4~SC~, CALI~L~_A, c~.~rIFYING T~E FINAL ADOI'I'~NG THE STAT~I~:~T OF O%;~W~DI~G, CGNSIDE~ATIONS (i) Tn~xe bas ~ prese, nt~d ~ this Omin~il, in ~njunction with Re-solution NO, 92-092 Page 3 ...... 7) Short tar~ fu~itiv~ dust: Project applicants wiii be conditioned to i~l~nt actio~ to reduc~ fugitive du~t during co~truction to the ~ f~asi~le. Nevered~les~, ~ construction dust will Occur, 8) ~: Project a~licants will be conditioned to partici~ata in City w~ste minimization programs. Nevertheless, thers will r~in an in~act on lan~Ifill capacity as a ~ssult of ~ii as u~ to ~. a~r~ o~ta~ ¢. Find that notwith~tanding th. unmitigat~l adv~z~ ~nviz~n- m~ntal impacts 8~scified in paragraph "b" -h~ve, that specific __-co_.nc~le and sOCial 0~nsic~rations ~ infeasible any proj~ alternative &/~scified in the Final I~nvironmsntal ~mpact Report a~d co~lstit~te~ an ovel~ldij~ basis for (~uncil all--oval of the project; and d. As to those impact~ identified in the Final ~virorm~ntal Impact ~port which ca.not feasibly bs avoia.H by ~nltigation mmasuz~s groJsct alternativ~s, ad.pt of a Stat~e. nt of Ovsrridirg Considerations in mJ]~ta~tial folTa to that set forth i~ Exhibit "A,,, attached hereto inoor~orated her~in by this r~fereno~. 2. ~Ae City Clerk shall cel-tify to the .Hngtion of this P4.~solution, PASSIm, APPRGV]~, a~d AEOIrfED this 1st day of A~rii, 1992. AYES: Aie.~der, B~guet, St~ut, Williams NOES: None ABS~T: Wright Dennis L, Stout, M~yor Ma ~.da~, ci~ ¢i~ I, D~A J. ADAMS, Cl'iX CL~K of th~ City of Rancho California, do hereby c~rtify that the fore~30in~ P~iollJtic~ ~ cklly passed, at~rc~ed, and .a~=H by the City council of the City of Rancho .... California, at a regular m~eting of said City Coup~il held on th~ lst day of A~ril, 1992. Resolution NO. 92-092 Page 5 IX31XnxT ,,~%,, The Final Bnviron~antal ~mpact Repor~ idantifimm cattail impacts which cannot faamibly be evoidad by mitiqation i~bat&nti~l al~a~atlon of_ Exletina O~n Snacm Land Uss ell ,or.1 pro,.ct ,r.. - .~y .An pac~rs~ ~pin Ipace. 0£ tho tOtll, 4,44'2 acres InlXA H delxgnacea al open a~ce. 2,112 aCrll ire p~opoeed for divalopuent and will result in thc 10Il cf existing open space land use character. City Tranmoortation ;oliCtll and Traf~i,~: Applicants for off-miCe impacts, as veil am' c~n~ribu~e a~ter mitigation. Landform #odification: Applicants for doveloiment ehali co~pl¥ visit ~he Hllllide Davsloimimt Ordinance and Development standards. AliO ~Aa prominent ~o11, where the developiin~ vigil por~lonl of ~e hillsides. l~ge, defenlible are~ of open i~oe Ii demised ~o re,aim ~he habita~ v&~ui fo~ ~i ~to~l~ I~ll. & ~O~l~ Of ?~?l~.vill tm)n_ i~ open e~ 1~ Uoe dmsi~aciona, divi~o~t. ~lr, i RilO~Ce G~iq.~ Plan ohll~ Alluvial p~ Se~ ~ahitat ~q-~ APPlioln~ for apace and ~at alluvial fan I~ habitat in Day ~eek wash, Etivanda ~aek yeah, San 8lvaifll WiIA, ~ X45 acres in ~he R~solution No. 92-092 E~OIIBIT "A# Page 7 STAT~fa~F OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Page 3 * Applicmn~8 for divelopmen~ shall comply with Silllide Development Ordinance and OeveloFmen~ ~tandards. Ails ~e prominent knoll, where ~he hllCoric U.S. Forest Sm~ice Fire span apace. ~lxi~i ~he habitat villi for Oho A total of 4,442 aCCel will r~ln F~ open Iplcl land use dagl~aZlonl, including 8pproxhi~ely nor~horn branch of ~he ~e~onqa raul~, a of which vie prevLoualy dooL~a~ ~or ona~z M prepares eno ~api~enc~. * Applicants ~or dovolopmen~ shall ~ condition~ ~o prelate 1 acr~ of alluvial ran .c~ h~l~a~ } acre of alluvial ten sc~ habl~a~ lose. I~ ~ntended tha~ 4,44~ accel shall ~ decimated open apace and ~at alluvial tan .c~ habita~ in Day ~e~ wash, ~lw~nda ~e~ wash, San 8~viint CAe naxin~ e~en~ feasible, reeo~ce conee~aC~on eaaenin21 Ihall ~ ob2alned for ~e atoruenCioned v~dlltl habitat areas. * Applicants rot devolo~ont viii ~ c0nd~oned ~o re,eArl existing rlperhn corrldorl, es ~ 8o provide i ~frer sene Co pro~l~ ~e r~par~an corr~dorl tr~ de~adatLon 8a~l~ v~ urban develo~n~. Also, co~ono v~l M ~or~ Co dei~t~ tra~lo, e~luaion et d~ea~lc cacl orr liut ,to · * Pro~e~ applicaflCo shall co l lone t Pro, icC Ipplican~i ohll~ ~ oondiClon~ Co par~icipaCe In ClOy vae~e minimization pr~auo reduce ~e flow of municipal lol/d waste landfills. ~solutic~ No. 92-092 Page 8 sTATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Feb~l~ 26, 1992 Also, ~he ~tiwanda North Specific Plan, and aaeooia~ad General community which wo~ld o~he~lae occur w~=~ou~ a planna~ and comprehensive approach ~o future ~evelop~ent. The Specific Plan con~aine provisions tallorea ~0 ~evalopmmnt of the alluvial fan and hillside envirom~en~, end ia meant ~o replace existing ci~ywide zoning ra~ulationa th&~ do no~ address of-Influence ~re~ ~nd for the planning n~e~ no~ of ~e N~ion~l Foren~ b~und~ where'ci~Y zoning ordin~ncel do not Conne~en~iy, ~he adoption o~ ~e E~iw~nda No~ specific Plan will result in po~ential enviro~ental ef~ectl that are substantially lees eiqnifican~ in eeo~ and e~en~ ~han Chone e~eo~e which would o~he~iee o~r under ~e exin~lng General in the Final ~viro~on~al Xmp&c~ Ropo~. p~solution No. 92-092 Page 6 EXHIBIT "A# STATEMENT OF OVERRIOING CONSIDERATION8 ?e~rul~ 26, 1992 ~or devllopmen= are alluvial ~mn Ic~ habi~a= whic~ will 1o~. will be conditioned ~o rl~ain existing riparian corridors, aa well as Co provide a ~urfer zone ~o pro~e~ ~he riparian development. Allo, condi~lonl will ~ enforced ~o ~he Relource conle~a~ion areas, including reltric~ion h~an uae =o delig~a~ed ~raill, ex~lulion of d~ael~i~ ca~a and dogl, and ex~/ueion of off-road v~iclel, aa well as ~echni~ea =o divert urban irrigation ~-off and polluted iCo~ flowl. Never~eleee, urbanisa~ion of ~e area viii remain a ~raa~ ~o riparian habitat. conditioned ~o implenen~ scalene ~o ~oduco fugitive duo~ during const~c~on ~o ~o ~xLm~ e~en~ ~: PEo~ocC applicancl will ~ co~i~ioned ~o _. par~icipaCe in ClOy waste niniaiza~ion programs. Neve~heleao, ~ere will re~Ln an ~apaot off landfill capac~W as a reeulc or solid vtf~t Venerated ~ developuen= of approxlla~oXy 3~L57 dwelling ~l~e, aa well as up to acres of conercial .derailment, No~wi~o~andin~ ~ese l~c~s, pro~e~ appr~al ~o reco~en~ea baaed upon a ~lnding ~a~ specific enviro~en=al, economic and tocial considerations ~e infeasible any pro,acc aX~erna=ivee epeci~ied in ~he ~lnai ~viro~en~al In. cc Repor~ and accordingly const~vCeo an overriding basle ~or pro~e~ approval. substantial eflviro~ntal ~nefi~a vail oc~ as a reoul~ approval o~ in ~e ~lva~a North specific Plan~ and aasoc~a~e~ ~eneral PI~ ~t Ho. 90-03B, aa * Of ~e ~o~1 6,840-aore pl~ IFil, develo~en~ shall M delimited aa open building of ~he old. la,ion and nym~u of the co~uni~y ~ mitigating all on ll~e impao~a e~ciried ott-sl~e inpa~e aa velX aB concri~Cing ~o the city's ~afric Ne~e , Fee ._ r P;o~= ~or all other o~f-sL~e l~solution No, 92-092 ~a~ad ~his 2~d day of A~r£1, 1992, at I~ho Cal£forni&. ' Oe~ra J. AAis, city cl~rk R~solutio~ No. 92-092 Page 2 1) Suk~tantial alteration of existin~ ooen soace land use chareS: Almost all of the total project area of 6,840 aCres is currently in na=ural open space. Of the total, 4,442 acres will ke designa~ as open space. Nevertheless, 2,112 acres are Droposed for development and will result in the lc~e of the existing o~en s~ace land use character. 2) C~tv transportation Dglicies and ~k*aff~c: for dew~lo~t will mitigate all on-sit~ impacts and specified off-site l~cts, as w~ll as co~tribu~e to the City's Traffic Nexus Fee p;-c~ra~ for off-site impacts. Nevertheless, as a result of ~1 ltd.-teases to c~/lative traffic i~cts, off-site impacts will occur even after mitigation. 3) Lar~or~ m~if~gation: Applica~ta for will c~ly with the Hilleide Development Or~ and city development st~. Nevertheless, for development within 2,112 acres will ~fy t~ existing character of t~e alluvial fa~ a~ portions of the hillsides. 4) Wildlife habitat immacts: ~ project is designed to retain large, defensible ar~ of open space which will maximize the habitat v~lue fcr the project area. A to,al of 4,442 acres will r~main in ope~ space land use designatlorm. Nevertheless, dsvel~nt of the 2,112 acres will dim~lsh on-site wildlife density diversity a~d frag~snt the re~ainir~ wildlife 5) Alluvia% fan ~cru~ ~bitat lo~s: Applica~ts for dev~l~nt will be c~tio~d to ~ 1-acre of alluvial fan ~ habitat for 1-acre of alluvial s(~ habitat lost. There are eignifica~t areas Of ~atural alluvial fan sc~ habitat: wit~ ~he project area which are available f~r Szceserva%ion or Which can ~e rehabilitated. NeVertheless, aL~t ell of the 2,11Z acres planned for ~o~ ~re alluvial fan scrub habitat ar~ will be lost. 6) Th~ea% ~ NiDarian ~abita~: ~lica~ f~ ~-~kldors, as well as to ~vide a ~uffer zc~e to ~u~ the riparian oorridors f~,% 4._~radation associat~ with urba~ dew~lo~t. Also, conditions will be enforced to ~x~fcect the Rmso~ Conservation areas includin~ restriction of human u~e to trails, exclusion of domestic cat~ and d~, e~clusion of off-road vehicles, a~d ~ to ~lvert urban irrigation ru~-o£f a~d pollut~ ~Tx)r~ flows. Never- ~hel~_-~_, urbanization of the ~-ea will re~in a threat to riparian habitat. LEGEND 'T']~'L ~'~'~ C';'~'~"~ I~l'~"-- ~ Estate Residential ~, OV,/AC (EIIwanda Specific Plan) FLIUC ~1~ C~JroI/UtlII~ Corridor ~ ~ ~~ ~., :/TF OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ ~ ~ ~. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE EXHIBIT 5 Specific Plan 1-14 DRAFT ~.cho ;W Fl~ay PO 2/1 = 20UI1 ACRE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE 'EY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA EXHIBIT 6 /'~tiwanda Nort~ Specific Plan ~-l~ ADOPTED 4/1/92 '~ ......... '~' ....... ,-~.,,,, m %o-..- w~,:, ~o.X" ~ ~ ^'-,,,,, VIEW POTENTIAL MAP EXHIBIT 7 "EtJwan~a NorID Specific Plan City Of z-~8 ADOPTED 4/1/92 ~R.~o¢.c.mo.;,.~ RANCHO CUCAMON~A PROP )OT~HL LIMITS BE~ N'A FJDIN_O I-1o ~ ~- ~~'-... PROJECT SITE ~ ~r ~ ~ rEtiwanda Nort~ ~_, ~ ~~ Specific Plan Rancho C~nga ~ ¢~ ..~-~,..~ .~..,,,_, ~ ~.~ i~ ~ '~"~'" '~-'"'"' Y ~ ~ I i I Etiwanda North Specific Plan .' zz-~6 ~ADOP~ ~/1/92' NEIGHBORHOOD THEME PLAN ..... , ,,, --,, EXHIBI~ Specific Plan City of ADOPT~ 4/i/92 ~..c~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ Planning Commission Attn.: Larry Henderson 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 VIA Electronic Mail Lhenders®ci..rancho-cucamonga.ca.us and Facsimile (909) 477- 2847 RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed "Itenderson Creek" Development Project~ including related proposals~ amendments and permits. Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) continues to provide comments on the Henderson Creek Development Project (Project), Tentative Tract and related documents, including proposals to amend the City General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) and Annexations. Sage Council would first like to thank the developer for arranging a meeting with our legal counsel, Craig Sherman, to discuss Project Alternatives and appropriate mitigation for habitat impacts. Besides meeting in person, the Sage Council has had encouraging phone conversations with the developer and his legal council, Susan Hori. In the phone conversation with the developer, Steve Stewart, he said that he would be willing, and possibly able, to acquire additional land for habitat mitigation and would get back to me. Instead, Steve had his legal counsel phone me. Susan Hod said she would get me a map of the mitigation parcel and the parcel #s. I also, received email from Susan stating the same (see attached email). To date, I have not received the maps or parcel #s as promised. In addition to discussing the matter of where the mitigation lands were going to be, we discussed the matter of what entity would receive the habitat mitigation lands and what the associated management costs and/or endowments would be. It was agreed that the land and funds would be given to the non-profit "The Habitat Trust for Wildlife" (THT) rather than the County. If necessary, the Sage Council would still legally challenge the Project EIR to ensure that adequate mitigation occurs and that all mitigation lands and funds be directed to THT. While the FEIR has provided new language in regards to what entity may receive the mitigation lands, the Sage Council is concerned that it is not specific enough by not naming THT. · If the City and Developer have no objections, please be more specific as to which conservation entity will receive the lands and funding prior to the Planning Commission's vote so it may be on record. · Sage Council is twofold extremely dissatisfied by the way the City has been processing this Project and others regarding circulation of documents and public heatings. ~ The City Planning Commission had their hearing on the DEIR, including the Development Agreement prior to the end of the public commenting period. ,/ The City noticed the public that the Development Agreement was available with the DEIR for public review and comment when it was not. Thus, misleading the public by making false and fraudulent statements to the public. Furthermore, listing the Development Agreement on the Planning Commission hearing agenda at the same time as the hearing on the DEIR. ~' The City continuing to refuse the Sage Council's request for a copy of the Development Agreement so that we could review and comment on it at the time of the DEIR comment period. ,/ The City circulating the FEIR with the draft Development Agreement, allowing only the minimum ten days for the public to review and comment, even though the draft Development A .greement was not made available during the comment period of the DEIR. ,/ The City, Planning Commission taking action on the FEIR with a DRAFT Development Agreement rather than a final Development Agreement that the public has been able to review and comment on. ~ The DEIR and FEIR have not been adequately circulated. It is most tmusual that the City has not received written comments by US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department offish and Game (DFG). The lead public trust agencies have a history of commenting and recommending certain conservation measures needed. With their comments missing, the Sage Council is led to believe that the Project documents have not been adequately circulated. In addition, comments from the ACOE are also absent even though the Project is within a currently designated flood plain. We request that the Planning Commission take the needed corrective actions by withholding your vote on the FEIR and extending the public comment, from ten days, to thirty (30) days so that the public will have the ability to comment on the'draft Development Agreement in situ with the DEIR. CEQA allows such an action of recirculation of documents. After the closing of comment on the draft Development Agreement and recimulated DEIR, the Planning Commission should then hold a public heating, close comment on the draft documents, and vote on the DEIR with the DRAFT Development Agreement. Then the FEIR should be recirculated with a copy of the FINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for a minimum often (days), a public hearing with the Planning Commission follows with a vote. Sage Council believes that without the Planning Commission taking the requested procedural steps, the City is open to a legal challenge. · The FEIR appears to be a revised draf~ EIR since it is severely lacking information that is needed in order for the Planning Commission and public to know how associated plans will impact the environment, i.e. Fuel Modification Plan, Landscaping Plan and Grading Plan. The Sage Council is most concerned about the impacts that the Fuel Modification Plan will have, especially if it entails removal of habitat (off-site) around the periphery of the Project. The Landscape Plan may also have impacts on habitat, on and off-site, also effecting listed and sensitive wildlife species. The utilization of certain non-native trees, plants, including grasses may have a negative impact on surrounding native plant communities through seed distribution and unauthorized dumping of garden waste near habitat preserves. Also, the invasion of brown-headed cowbirds are known to use non-native landscapes and negatively effect native bird species. The Planning Commission needs to take corrective action by not voting on the inadequate FEIR and instead voting to send the inadequate FEIR back to planning staff with direction to include the Fuel Modification Plan, Landscape Plan and Grading Plan in a "revised" FEIR, with mitigation measures as needed, to be recirculated for public review and comment. Response to FEIR Response of Sage Conneil Comments on DEIR - pages 10-75 to 10-98 of FEIR Sage Council expected a reasonable response to our comments on the DEIR, instead we got a bunch of misleading jibber from Lilburn Corporation. 6-1 Sage Council comments are correct. The City is unable to provide an factual data that they have taken actions, since 1994, to conserve habitat and species identified in the Valleywide MSHCP MOU (HCP contract) within the City's Sphere of Influence and jurisdiction. The proposed amendments to the ENSP for this Project, and others, are not needed to conserve habitat and species. Certainly, the proposed smaller size of lots is to assist the developer and not to deter development. Smaller lots lead to more residential units. More residential units = more people = more consumption of water and energy, more waste in the landfills, more cars, trips and traffic = more air pollution. More people also cause greater negative haman impacts on the surrounding natural environment, disturbance and impacts on habitat preserves to the north of the Project, more feral animals, more illegal dumping on trash, garden waste etc. More people near wildlands also increases fire risk. To say that the result of the Project with the amendments to the ENSP are "similar" is a bold face he. It appears that the Project consultant and City are oblivious to the fact that the lead public trust agencies, Service and DFG, along with Sage Council and others opposed NEOSI-IPP when it was processed through the County. NEOSHPP is not an adequate conservation plan, it is a development plan. The regional conservation planning document is the HCP contract, until the final HCP is approved. The HCP contract includes attachments/appendixes with a map and species list. The response by Lilburn is misleading and deliberately leaves out the HCP contract regarding the need for the Project to consider the regional conservation plan. There are more than two sensitive species that require the habitat on site! The HCP contract has a list of all species that need to be conserved within the conservation planning area, yet the Project consultant and City chooses to disregard it. The entire Project site is biologically sensitive according to the lead public trust agencies and the HCP contract. The Project consultant and City, in using the NEOSHPP document and maps as a response are in turn being hypocritical. The NEOSHPP documents identify the Project site as RAFFS, but argue (10-79) that the Project site is "Upland Sage Scrub" 61.3 acres, RAFSS 11.3 acres, buckwheat 2.5 acres and grasslands 16.8 acres. The Sage Council, with over twelve years of experience, knows the Project site to be the RAFFS natural community. Whether or not it is called RAFFS or RUSS is not of any real difference as to rarity and its need to be mitigated for under CEQA. Whether there are dominant patches of grassland, buckwheat, white sage or black sage in the mosaic of the natural community does not change the fact that the natural community is "rare", either S1 or S2 designation by the State Natural Diversity Data Base. If the entire 65 acre Project on-site is to be negatively impacted, and more acres off-site due to Fuel Modification, then all the habitat in these areas must be adequately mitigated for. The entire Project site is 100-acres, if annexed as a whole, and must be mitigated for at a ratio of 2:l at a minimum --- NOT 1:1 as proposed. Lead public trust agencies have recommended 5:1 habitat replacement. The FEIR states that "A minimum of 54-acres will be acquired as mitigation." (F-2). The Sage Council believes that a minimum of l SO-acres needs to be conserved to mitigate for the 75-acres of habitat identified at 10-79. More mitigation may be needed once it is made known what the impacts to habitat associated with Fuel Modification, Landscaping and Grading will be. Again, regarding the issue of whether the site is RAFSS or "Upland Sage Scrub", the Sage Council brings the issue back to "rarity". The Project consultant in their response deliberately leaves out the word "Riversidean". The correct terminology is RIVERSIDEAN Upland Sage Scrub, not simply "Upland". RAFFS and RUSS natural communities/habitat have the same plant mixture, mosaic stands, both depend upon natural fire and flooding regimes and support same species. Both are RARE. (see attached email explanation from expert CDFG, Mary Meyer) The Project consultant admits to using an old literature reference from 1986. There have been numerous scientific studies and publications since that time. Sage Council recommends that Lilburn consultants use more current scientific data in the future. We also ask the Project developer and legal counsel to take note of Lilbum's use of dated material. 6-11 It is to our understanding that the Project proponent and/or City are proposing to have the current Flood Hazard Zone designation changed and./or removed. EPA should be notified and have the opportunity to respond, as does ACOE since the Project is in the Henderson Creek flood plain. 6-12 See our response above regarding the issue of circulation and public comment on the Project Development Agreement. 6-13 The Project does not provide a 1:1 ratio for mitigation of the loss of habitat (see F-2). A minimum of 54-acres is less than a 1:1 replacement. As stated previously and referenced, the lead public trust agencies for natural resources have previously provided letters to the City and County requiring a 5:1 habitat replacement ratio. Sage Council agrees with the lead agencies. Considering available habitat lands available for acquisition by the Project proponent, the City must require a minimum of 2:1 mitigation for habitat loss of 150-acres. The County Flood Control easement has been previously used as mitigation for the levees. Sage Council recommends that the Project consultant and City review the ACOE administrative record on the levees. The County and ACOE consulted with the Service regarding habitat impacts and species effects. The terms and conditions of the ACOE permit required that the land be used as mitigation. It is possible that the County and County Flood Control did not officially place a conservation easement on the land. It is possible that a conservation easement would need to be placed on the land by the landowner, Mr. Clark (?). Nevertheless, the land has previously been used for mitigation of the levees. Therefore, the land is to remain conserved and not to be used for mitigation a second time. Otherwise, double-dipping of mitigation land is unlawful and subject to litigation by the Sage Council or others concerned. 6-14 It is agreed by all that the Project, including proposed amendments, is controversial and requires an EIR. 6-15 Whether it is the intent of the City, or not, to encourage equestrian use of the sensitive and rare habitat area, the Project and ENSP promotes equestrian use. The Project and City must provide for mitigation of these equestrian related impacts on the environment. Requiring the Project developer to give the City money for a future equestrian center is NOT a mitigation measure for impacts to the environment. The FEIR does not provide a realistic or reasonable explanation. Reasonable mitigation measures for equestrian use in association with the Project would include; greater habitat conservation on and off-site at greater replacement ratio than 1:1, creation of a City Ordinance and Penal Code that would ticket and fine equestrian offenders that went off the City trail system, written notification to all City residents that equestrian use of lands outside of the designated trail system is prohibited and subject to severe fines and penalties; City designated Equestrian Trails shall be clearly posted with signs that include warning language about going off trails into Habitat Preserves. The Sage Council strongly recommends that the Planning Commission require the City Planning staff and developer to include the additional mitigation measures outlined above as a condition of approval. 6-16 Clarification was needed. Still did not answer the question as to the date of the TT and SUBTT. 6-17 Sage Council is in disagreement with the Response and believes that our concerns have not been adequately addressed and the environmental issues wrongly dismissed by the Project consultant and City. 6-18 Response admits that the City has used an outdated 1989 Environmental Assessment when updating the City General Plan. Certainly the 1989 EA is "historical", but may no longer be accurate. While the Project consultants may have used more current biological studies and data [which is questionable considering their reference to a 1984 Holland publication for habitat classification] for the Project itself, the City General Plan and ENSP have not updated the biological resources sections to reflect what environmental circumstances are currently. The City must update the ENSP EIR, especially the biological resources section and mitigation measures. The City must not continually amend the ENSP for Projects, reducing lot sizes and residential units without revising and re-circulating the ENSP EIR. Reduction in lot size and increased residential traits cause additional negative impacts to the environment i.e. water/water pressure and energy consumption, more people, cars, trips and traffic, more air pollution [that even this Project alone is unable to reduce to a level of less than significant], more human impacts on the habitat preserves nearby. More people cause more waste in local landfills that are quickly reaching their limits. Taking water from natural resources in State and outside the State are extremely detrimental to the environment, negatively impacting rivers, lakes, watersheds, springs, wells etc. Again, smaller lots to increase residential units has a detrimental effect on the local, regional, State and Western United States water supply. Furthermore, the Project is proposed to be built on a currently designated Flood Zone and flood plain, negatively affecting the local water recharge area. The Project and the City ENSP amendments need to address and mitigate ALL negative impacts on the environment to a level of less than significant. Certainly, the City should require a fiscal analysis of the Project and the ENSP amendment. As explained previously, the Project and ENSP amendments cause more people to be brought into the area. With more people comes increases in student ratios per school and classrooms. The Schools never have the funding that needed for the increased student demand. This is a fiscal issue that the Project EIR and ENSP amendments need to address and mitigate for. With more people there is more traffic issues. A local resident has commented on the Project EIR and states that there are currently problem with traffic congestion that the City needs to resolve prior to approving this Project. Sage Council is in agreement and finds that this is not only a traffic issue, but also a fiscal one. Who's paying for the infrastructure and long-term maintenance to support this Project and others, especially considering that residential units are being increased and lot sizes decreased with each amendment to the ENSP? This is a fiscal issue. California has known energy black-outs. This is also a fiscal issue as well as an energy and environment issue. The General Plan update is sited as resolving issues that were not in the Project EIR. Sage Council is in disagreement. While the City General Plan Update may have touched on some of the issues briefly, it certainly did not analyze and mitigate for the negative impacts. The Project EIR needs to analyze, study and provide mitigation measures for all environmental impacts. Lastly the FEIR Response comments that there is no wetland or riparian habitat on the Project site. Sage Council is in disagreement. The entire Project site is on a known flood plain, flood hazard zone and watershed of Henderson Creek. The Project will make the ground impermeable via paving for development, roads, sidewalks etc. that would otherwise in its natural state be a water recharge source. Also, if the Project site is void of wetland and riparian habitat and/or does not support these habitats, then why is the proposed mitigation site as referenced riparian habitat? Land Protection Partners P.O. Box 24020, Los Angeles, CA 90024-0020 Telephone: (310) 247-9719 June 16, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Re: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163, and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Annexation MIND") Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Henderson Creek Properties (DRC2003-00749 through DRC2003-00753 and SUBTT16324) State Clearinghouse Number 2003111057 ("Henderson Creek EIR") Richland Pinehurst Communities Project EIR, including associated documents, Tentative Tract Map 16072, proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan amendments, and proposed annexation, State Clearinghouse Number 2002091053 ("Richland Pinehurst EIR") Dear .~..~:n.-n.~nn~:.....~: The following comments are provided at the request of attorney Craig A. Sherman on behalf of the nonprofit and environmental conservation organizations Spirit of the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. Land Protection Partners specializes in the review of environmental documentation for consistency with the best available science and current standards and practices in environmental assessment. Please see enclosed CV for qualifications. This letter provides general comments on the three environmental documents referenced above. The three documents share common deficiencies in analyzing the impacts to sensitive biological resources and in mitigation for impacts to those resources. This letter therefore addresses all three projects, although some comments will not apply to every project. 1. Proper Identification of Sensitive Vegetation (Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub) and Mitigation for Its Destruction The environmental documents under consideration present conflicting information about the classification of sensitive habitat types, particularly Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. In the Henderson Creek Draft EIR, 61.3 acres of "upland sage scrub" are identified. The document City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 states that, "[upland sage scrub] is different from KAFSS [Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub] in that it is dominated by white sage (Salvia apiana) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Upland sage scrub has not been identified as sensitive by any resource or local agency" (p. 4.10-3). This assertion is contradicted by the Richland Pinehurst EIR, which describes White Sage Scrub: "Species that characterize this vegetation type include white sage, California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat, and deerweed" (p. 5.2-4). The EIR then identifies White Sage Scrub as a sensitive vegetation type (Table 5.2-1) and establishes that it is one of several plant groupings that make up Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and therefore should be classified as RAFSS for purposes of impact analysis. The Etiwanda Alluvial Fan Group of RAFSS is described in the EIR: "This upland grouping of RAFSS is dominated by white sage and typically occurs on the fan outside the active flood ways (CDFG 1998)" (p. 5.2-8). The Henderson Creek EIR therefore cannot be approved without correcting the mischaracterization of this vegetation type; it certainly appears that the EIR preparers were either unaware of the relevant literature, or chose to ignore it to avoid identifying a sensitive vegetation type. The Annexation MND includes reference to "upland sage scrub." Following the discussion above, this should be amended to be consistent with the Richland Pinehurst EIR by recognizing it as Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Each of the environmental documents proposes a 1:1 mitigation measure for impacts to Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. This mitigation ratio is not commensurate with the rarity of this vegetation type and is inconsistent with the recommendation of the relevant Trustee Agency. Given the rarity of the habitat type, a 5:1 mitigation ratio would he more appropriate. Furthermore, the mitigation measures do not describe any required management practices for mitigation lands. Will they be open to recreational trail use? Will horses, dogs, or off-road vehicles be allowed? The documents should provide enforceable prescriptions for how mitigation lands will be managed so that their mitigation value is preserved in perpetuity. 2. Projects Should Consider and Mitigate Impacts to Southern California Black Walnut Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) is a rare species, which is identified by the California Native Plant Society as a List 4 planQ and is listed as a sensitive species in the guidelines for CEQA implementation of other southern California cities.2 It is also on the California Department of Fish and Game's list of special plants.3 Impacts to this species should be mitigated. Planting within the new developments would not serve as mitigation because of the drastically decreased value to wildlife within an urban setting. 1. Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA, 471 pp. 2. City of Los Angeles. 1998. Draft L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. City of Los Angeles, May 14, 1998, at G-38. 3. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database. April, 2004. Special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list. Quarterly publication, mimeo, 88 pp. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 3. Project Approvals Require Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service All projects would result in the loss of habitat for federally listed wildlife species (California gnatcatcher and/or San Bernardino kangaroo rat). Even though limited surveys by the applicant did not document presence of these species, other surveys have shown presence such that it can reasonably be concluded that development of the projects will result in adverse modification of habitat used by these species, either directly on the project sites or indirectly through various edge effects (see discussion of free-roaming cats below). Such actions are precluded if an incidental take permit is not secured from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4. Analysis Lacks Specificity Impacts to sensitive species are generally dismissed in the analyses because they are considered inconsequential relative to other existing habitats for species. For example, this phrase justifies impacts to both San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse: "However, due to the relatively large amounts of habitat available on the Etiwanda Fan and in Riverside and San Bernardino inland areas, the loss of habitat on the project site was not considered significant" (Henderson Creek EIR, p. 4.10-15). Such claims require quantification of acreages to provide support. How much area of each species range has been lost? How much remains? The general assertion that large areas remain is not sufficiently detailed to draw conclusions about the significance of impacts. A similar lack of specificity is found in the Henderson Creek EIR. It states, "Other recent surveys for the bird [California gnatcatcher] for proposed projects in the vicinity of the site had found only a limited number of individuals and nesting pairs." Where is "in the vicinity"? Howe many birds were observed? What is "recent"? Such vague statements are not useful in a technical disclosure document. 5. Biological Impacts of Fuel Modification The proposed projects may result in actions to reduce fire danger that impact native vegetation both on and off the project site. Activities beyond the developed parcels can cause adverse ecological impacts, which should be disclosed in the EIR and for which mitigation is necessary. The pathways of such impacts are many, and a scientific paper summarizing these impacts is attached.4 Disturbance associated with fire clearance promotes the invasion of plant species already associated with residential development. Alien plant species found in southern California wildlands are largely associated with disturbed areas, including cleared areas.5 This relationship 4. Longcore, T. 2003. Ecological effects of fuel modification on arthropods and other wildlife in an urbanizing wildland. Pp. 111-117 in K.E.M. Galley, R.C. Klinger, and N.G. Sugihara (eds.). Proceedings of Fire Conference 2000: The First National Fire Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 13, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. 5. Rundel, P.W. 2000. Alien species in the flora and vegetation of the Santa Monica Mountains, California: patterns, processes, and management implications. Pp. 145-152 in J.E. Keeley, M. Baer-Keeley and C.J. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 between invasive exotics and disturbance is found throughout California and in other Mediterranean regions.6 The understories of areas subject to fuel modification are rapidly dominated by invasive exotic grasses and forbs, which, incidentally, increases fire frequency. Keeley writes: "Prefire fuel manipulations such as fuel breaks produce conditions that favor weedy aliens and thus act to increase the alien presence, increase the movement of aliens into wildlands, and increase seed sources capable of invading after fire.''? As discussed extensively elsewhere,8 invasive plant species can profoundly affect ecosystem structure and function by modifying fire regimes, nutrient cycling, and erosion patterns. As fuel modification increases the disturbed area across the landscape, invasive species, aided by ongoing disturbance and irrigation, will continue to invade adjacent native habitats. Fuel modification activities also disrupt native arthropod communities, including relationships such as seed dispersal mutualisms.9 Fuel modification usually requires the introduction of a permanent water source in the form of an "irrigated zone" surrounding structures. This irrigated zone, along with disturbance of clearance, promotes the invasion of alien insect species, such as the Argentine ant, into native habitats. The deleterious effect of Argentine ants on native arthropods is well documented, with numerous studies reporting a decrease in arthropod diversity as Argentine ant abundance increases,i° Fuel modification increases the abundance of Fotheringham (eds.). 2nd interface between ecology and land development in California. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California. 6. Kotanen, P.M. 1997. Effects of experimental soil disturbance on revegetation by natives and exotics in coastal Californian meadows. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(3):631-644. Rundel, P.W. 1998. Landscape disturbance in Mediterranean-type ecosystems; an overview. Pp. 3-22 in Rundel, P.W., G. Montenegro, and F. Jaksic (eds.). Landscape disturbance and biodiversity in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 7. Keeley, J.E. 2002. Fire and invasive species in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems of California. Pp. 81-94 in Galley, K.E.M., and T.P. Wilson (eds.). Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire conference 2000: the first national congress on fire ecology, prevention and management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. 8. Mooney, H.A., S.P. Hamburg, and J.A. Drake. 1986. The invasions of plants and animals into California. Pp. 250-272 in Mooney, H.A., and J.A. Drake (eds.). Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer Verlag, New York. Minnich, R.A., and R.J. Dezzani. 1998. Historical decline of coastal sage scrub in the Riverside-Perris Plain, California. Western Birds 29(4):366-391. Rundel, P.W. 1998. Landscape disturbance in Mediterranean-type ecosystems; an overview. Pp. 3-22 in Rundel, P.W., G. Montenegro, and F. Jaksic (eds.). Landscape disturbance and biodiversity in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 9. Christian, C. 2001. Consequences of a biological invasion reveal the importance of mutualism for plant communities. Nature 413:635-639. 10. Cole, F.R., A.C. Medeiros, L.L. Loope, and W.W. Zuehlke. 1992. Effects of the Argentine ant on arthropod fauna for Hawaiian high-elevation shrubland. Ecology 73(4):1313-1322. Erickson, J.M. 1971. The displacement of native ant species by the introduced Argentine ant Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). Psyche 78:257-266. Holway, D.A. 1998. Effect of Argentine ant invasions on ground-dwelling arthropods in northern California riparian woodlands. Oecologia 116(1-2):252-258. Human, K.G., and D.M. Gordon. 1996. Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105(3):405412. Human, K.G., and D.M. Gordon. 1997. Effects of Argentine ants on invertebrate biodiversity in Northern California. Conservation Biology 11 (5): 1242-1248. Kennedy, T.A. 1998. Patterns of an invasion by Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) in a riparian corridor and its effects on ant diversity. American Midland Naturalist 140(2):343-350. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Argentine ants by providing two conditions that increase invasion: a water source,TM and increased disturbance? Argentine ants invade far beyond the water sources and into surrounding undisturbed habitats, with increased abundance documented to a distance of up to 650 feet.~3 Community level analysis indicates that arthropod species composition will change and overall diversity will decrease when habitats are subjected to fuel modification. Disturbed coastal sage scrub sites have fewer arthropod predator species such as scorpions and trap-door spiders, and are dominated by exotic arthropods such as Argentine ants, European earwigs (Forficula auricularia), pillbugs and sowbugs (Armadillidiurn vulgate and Porcellio sp.), and the sowbug killer (Dysdera crocata).~4 These changes in arthropod species diversity will have resonating impacts on vertebrates that use arthropods as prey species. Suarez et al. show that coast homed lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum) prefer native ants (Pogonomyrmex and Messor sp~.) as their food source and suffer when these species are eliminated by invading Argentine ants. 6. Itydrological Function and Soil Stability Several aspects of the projects could adversely impact hydrological function in nearby wildlands. The projects would introduce many new human residents to use trails, both on foot and horseback. This increased usage may reduce shrub cover as new trails are cut (either sanctioned or unsanctioned) and as old trails are more heavily used. Furthermore, any offsite fuel modification could result in the removal of native vegetation. There are two main benefits of native vegetation to hydrological function and soil stability. The first benefit is that of dampening and lengthening the peak of stormwater following precipitation. First, vegetation intercepts water on leaves, which results in greater evaporation. Second, vegetation physically slows the runoff of water across the soil surface, allowing greater soil infiltration. The result is less runoff overall and lower peak flood levels, compared to denuded areas (or areas cleared for fuel modification). 11. Holway, D.A. 1998. Factors governing rate of invasion: a natural experiment using Argentine ants. Oecologia 115(1-2):206-212. Human, K.G., S. Weiss, A. Weiss, B. Sandier, and D.M. Gordon. 1998. Effects of abiotic factors on the distribution and activity of the invasive Argentine ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Environmental Entomology 27(4):822-833. 12. Human, K.G., S. Weiss, A. Weiss, B. Sandier, and D.M. Gordon. I998. Effects of abiotic factors on the distribution and activity of tl~e invasive Argentine ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Environmental Entomology 27(4):822-833. 13. Suarez, A.V., D.T. Bolger, and T.J. Case. 1998. Effects of fragmentation and invasion on native ant communities on coastal southern California. Ecology 79(6):2041-2056. 14. Longcore, T. 2003. Terrestrial arthropods as indicators of restoration success in coastal sage scrub. Restoration Ecology 11(4):397-409. 15. Suarez, A.V., J.Q. Richmond, and T.J. Case. 2000. Prey selection in homed lizards following the invasion of Argentine ants in southern California. Ecological Applications 10(3):711-725. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Table 1. Soil erosion as a function of 24-hour precipitation and chaparral age.16 Erosion (yd3/acre) at maximum 24-hour precipitation of... Years Since Fire 2 inches [ 5 inches I 11 inches I 5 20 180 4 1 12 140 17 0 1 28 50+ 0 0 3 Of the two shrubland vegetation types, chaparral is more efficient at controlling erosion, because of the thick cover formed by the vegetation and the deep roots of the shrubs. Hellmers documented the deep root systems of chaparral plants, finding root systems extending through the upper soil and into cracks in the bedrock below? In this way, chaparral literally holds hillsides down and prevents them from slipping. In studies, only 2.5% of the area covered by chaparral experienced downslope slippage, less than half of the area covered by annual grasses that slipped? The erosion reduction capability of chaparral is directly related to time since fire. Immediately following fire, erosion can be substantial, but as the chaparral matures again, erosion rapidly decreases (Table 1). For mature chaparral, the most severe storms result in only minimal soil erosion. Coastal sage scrub (including alluvial fan sage scrub) is somewhat less efficient at controlling erosion, but nevertheless its plants have deeper and more extensive root systems than annual grasses. As a whole, shrubland root systems have deeper and denser roots than plants from almost any other habitat,~9 and therefore play a special role in the ecosystem in the conservation of soil and maintenance of water quality. The proposed project would reduce the total cover of shrubs off site, and promote a transition to more herbaceous vegetation, resulting in adverse impacts from erosion and stormwater runoff. 7. Impacts to Sensitive Bird Species The environmental documentation does not adequately describe or propose mitigation for impacts of the proposed project on sensitive bird species. The negative effect of urbanization on bird communities is well known and documented,2° and the effect on raptors is often more 16. Kittredge, J. 1973. Forest influences -- the effects of woody vegetation on climate, water, and soil. Dover Publications, New York. 394 pp. 17. Hellmers, H., J.S. Horton, G. Juhren, and J. O'Keefe. 1955. Root systems of some chaparral plants in southern California. Ecology 36(4):667-678. See also Kummerow, J., D. Krause, and W. Jow. 1977. Root systems of chaparral shrubs. Oecologia 29:163-17T 18. Radtke, K. 1983. Living more safely in the chaparral-urban interface. General Technical Report PSW-67. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, California. 51 pp. 19. Jackson, R.B., J. Canadell, J.R. Ehleringer, H.A. Mooney, O.E. Sala, and E.D. Schulze. 1996. A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108(3):389411. Canadell, J., R.B. Jackson, J.R. Ehleringer, H.A. Mooney, O.E. Sala, and E.D. Schulze. 1996. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia 108(4):583-594. 20. Emlen, J.T. 1974 An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure, regulation. Condor 76:184-197; Bessinger, S.R., and D.R. Osborne. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84:75-83; Blair, R.B. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6:506-519; Soul6, M.E., D.T. Bolger, A.C. Alberts, R. Sauvajot, J. Wright, M. Sorice City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 profound because they require large areas to hunt and are disturbed by human activity near their nests.2~ For example, a recent study compared the nesting success and sources of mortality for Cooper's Hawks in urban and native habitats in Arizona (this species of concern possibly forages at the project sites). This study revealed that nestling mortality was significantly greater in urban nests (50.3%) compared to native habitats (4.9%).22 The increased nestling mortality was caused by trichomoniasis, a disease carried by doves, which are a predominant food source for Cooper's Hawks in urban areas. Urban areas also had a higher overall rate of nest failure (zero chicks fledged). Death of adult Cooper's Hawks in urban areas resulted largely from collision with cars and windows (69%), while direct human action (9%) and fertilizer poisoning (7%) also killed adults in urban areas. So although Cooper's Hawks do nest in urban areas, the authors of the study suggest that urban areas function as "ecological traps," areas that serve as sinks for the local hawk population. This means that the population of the urban area is not self-sustaining, but instead relies on immigration from surrounding areas, to the detriment of the species overall. In light of this research, the environmental documents must consider such adverse impacts on raptors because the projects would modify the environment to include those characteristics shown to negatively impact populations (disease vectors, humans, windows, cars, and fertilizer). The CEQA analysis must also consider the impacts on native birds from increased trail use from the additional residents of the property and facilitated by development of a trailhead for recreational use.23 8. Impacts of Noise on Sensitive Species The noise analyses for the projects do not employ the generally accepted techniques needed to describe the impacts of noise on wildlife and other sensitive receptors. Indeed, impacts of noise on wildlife are not considered at all. Current technology allows for production of a map that shows sound level contours throughout a project site, and allows comparison of pre- and post- development sound levels. This analysis can be completed by a professional sound engineer employing commercially available, widely used sound level prediction software that takes into account site topography, building shape and size, and location of noise sources (including construction equipment, bells, playgrounds, roads, loading docks, etc.). Several software packages are available, including NoiseMap 2000, Cadna/A, LIMA, and SoundPLAN, all of which incorporate three-dimensional georeferenced site plans with automated sound propagation calculations to produce maps of sound levels (Figure 1). and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinction of chaparral requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conservation Biology 2:75-92. 21 Richardson, C.T., and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:634-638. 22. Boal, C.W., and R.W. Mannan. 1999. Comparative breeding ecology of Cooper's Hawk in urban and exurban areas of southeastem Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1):77-84. 23. See Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin i3:110-116. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 I · 7.~,( Figure 1. Sample map of noise levels from multiple sources, calculated from three dimensional topographic and building data, multiple sound generation sources, and sound propagation laws by the software package Cadna/A. Full descriptions of the noise created by the projects both on and off site are necessary to assess the potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species, especially birds. Noise disrupts the normal activity patterns of many animals, especially those that depend on aural communication. Birds are especially vulnerable to noise, given the importance of bird vocalizations to reproductive behaviors such as territory defense and mate attraction. The effects of noise on birds have been researched mostly through investigation of traffic noise from roads. The response of birds to noise follows a "threshold" model. Breeding bird densities show no decrease up to a threshold sound level. As sound increases beyond the threshold, density is decreased (i.e. the habitat is degraded). In areas above the threshold, density may be reduced by 30% to 100%, which is known as the "decrease factor." Together the threshold and decrease factor for each species describe the reduction in breeding density that results from noise. For birds in deciduous woodlands, the average threshold value is 42-52 dB(A).24 The threshold is lower when population densities are lower, meaning that rare species are more susceptible to noise effects than are common ones.25 Some species have 24. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. ter Braak, and J. Thissen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:187-202. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen. 1996. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biological Conservation 75:255-260. 25. Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. IV. Influence of population size on the reduction of density close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:481491. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 thresholds as low as 36 dB(A), and others as high as 58 dB(A). Significant effects from noise are found across most bird families and in most species. Of the 45 species investigated in woodland, 33 showed significantly lower breeding density in response to noise, as did 7 of 12 investigated in grassland. Furthermore, areas of depressed breeding density act as population sinks in example species.26 Birds may be attracted to the otherwise suitable structural characteristics of a habitat, but experience reproductive success below replacement levels, decreasing population size for the species over time. Noise from the project, from construction of the project, and from traffic increased by the project should be analyzed for its impact on sensitive wildlife species. 9. Free-roaming Cats The proposed projects will increase the number of free-roaming cats that have access to native wildlife within the project sites and in adjacent natural areas. Cats are efficient predators, even when well fed,27 and would have a significant adverse impact on native bird, reptile, amphibian, and small mammal communities. Increased abundance of cats will radically decrease the potential for sensitive bird species to survive in sensitive habitats adjacent to project sites. In Kevin Crooks' study of residents surrounding a natural habitat fragment in San Diego,28 32% owned cats (1.7 per owner on average), 77% of cat owners let their cats outside, and 84% of outdoor cats brought prey back to their human companions. Each year, the average outdoor hunting cat returned 24 rodents (67% native species), 15 birds (95% native), and 17 lizards (100% native) to the home. These numbers represent underestimates of the total number of animals killed because some prey is not returned to the home. Notwithstanding the proposed wall that would surround the new development, many cats from the homes there would have access to native wildlife, with adverse consequences. The environmental reviews should evaluate the impact of free-roaming cats from the proposed developments on the native small mammal, reptile, amphibian, and bird communities in the surrounding area and propose mitigation measures for adverse impacts that will occur. None of the projects include the feasible mitigation measure of requiring that all developed residences adhere to a "cats indoors" policy. 10. Impacts on Wildlife The environmental documents should also fully analyze impacts to wildlife from collision with vehicular traffic, commonly referred to as "roadkill." The taxonomic breadth of deaths from 2& Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. IV. Influence of population size on the reduction of density close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:481-491. Foppen, R., and R. Reijnen, 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I1. Breeding dispersal of male willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) in relation to the proximity of a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:95-101. 27. George, W.G. 1974. Cats as predators and factors in winter shortages of raptor prey. Wilson Bulletin 86(4):384-396. 28. Crooks, K.R., and M.E. Soul& 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563-566. See also Hawkins, C.C. 1998. Impact of a subsidized exotic predator on native biota: effect of house cats (Felis catus) on California birds and rodents. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 collisions with vehicles is wide and well documented? Near wetlands, amphibians and small mammals are particularly vulnerable. Larger mammals moving across the landscape will also be adversely affected. For example, a recent study in the Santa Monica Mountains tracked 11 bobcats (Fells rufus) and 13 coyotes (Canis latrans).3° During the study one bobcat and two coyotes were killed by vehicles, which accounted for 50% of all mortality. Animals were less likely to cross over roads with higher traffic levels and more lanes. This was consistent with other research showing that the percentage of individuals in a vertebrate population killed on roads increases with the width of the road, and with the number of vehicle trips on the road? Vehicle collisions are also a significant cause of mortality for birds, especially birds of prey, which are often killed along roads where they forage in roadside vegetation? Increased traffic from the proposed projects, combined with new roads constructed as part of the projects, will result in increased numbers of mammals, amphibians, and birds killed on roads in Rancho Cucamonga. Another aspect of urbanization that might affect wildlife species as they move through the project areas is increased desire of future property owners to reduce or eliminate small mammal populations, often using rodenticide. Such actions would have adverse impacts on sensitive native mammals, especially predator species? A study tracking coyote and bobcat populations a similar urban interface zone found that anticoagulant rodenticide was the second leading cause of death for all coyotes after deaths from vehicle collisions, and the leading cause of death for juveniles? Anticoagulant rodenticide was also implicated in the death of two bobcats in the study, causing an annual adult mortality rate of8-11%.35 11. Impacts of Artificial Night Lighting Lighting also can affect wildlife in many ways,36 which should be adequately discussed in each of the environmental documents. Wildlife may be affected by increased illumination from direct 29. See reviews in Groot Bruinderink, G.W.T.A., and E. Hazebroek. 1996. Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe. Conservation Biology 10:1059-1067, and Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 30. Tigas, L.A., D.H. Van Vuren, and R.M. Sauvajot. 2002. Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biological Conservation 108(3):299-306. 31. Cart, L.W., and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. Hels, T., and E. Buchwald. 2001. The effect of road kills on amphibian populations. Biological Conservation 99:331-340. Lode, T. 2000. Effect of a motorway on mortality and isolation of wildlife populations. Ambio 29:163-166. 32. Massemin, S., and T. Zorn. 1998. Highway mortality of barn owls in northeastern France. Journal of Raptor Research 32(3):229-232. Massemin, S., Y. Le Maho, and Y. Handrich. 1998. Seasonal pattern in age, sex and body condition of barn owls Tyto alba killed on motorways. Ibis 140(1):70-75. 33. The Humane Society of the United States [Hadidian, J., G.R. Hodge, and J.W. Grandy (eds.)]. 1997. Wild neighbors: the humane approach to living with wildlife. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado, p. 51. 34. Sauvajot, R.M., E.C. York, T.K. Fuller, H.S. Klm, D.A. Kamradt, and R.A. Wayne. 2000. Distribution and status of carnivores in the Santa Monica Mountains, California: preliminary results from radio telemetry and remote camera surveys. Pp. 113-123 in Keeley, J.E., M. Baer-Keeley, and C.J. Fotheringham (eds.). 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00- 62. 35. Id. 36. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4):191 198. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 or scattered light. Illumination can result in physiological stress, disturbance of the biological calendar (regulating yearly patterns), disturbance of the biological clock (regulating day-night patterns), changes in visibility conditions, and disorientation, all of which may result in changes in endocrinology, physiology, or behavior. Wildlife also can be affected by seeing individual lights at night, which depends on the surface brightness of the lights, called "luminance." If a light is visible, it may result in disorientation, attraction, or repulsion, altering animal behavior? 11.1. Birds Effects of lighting on these and other bird species may be caused through both direct and indirect pathways. Direct effects include those changes in physiology and behavior from exposure to increased lighting levels. Indirect effects are those by which a component of the bird's habitat is altered, with detrimental consequences (e.g., a food source is affected by lighting, lighting promotes competitors or predators, etc.). Direct effects of lighting vary by species. The most likely direct influences of lighting from the proposed development would be on behavior. A controlled experiment to investigate the effects of roadway lighting on grassland birds was conducted in The Netherlands.38 The habitat was wet grassland and the study focused on black-tailed godwit (Limosa l. limosa). In the study, breeding densities of godwits were recorded over two years, comparing lighted and unlighted conditions. When all other habitat factors were taken into account, the density of black-tailed godwit nests was significantly lower up to 300 meters (984 feet) away from the roadway lighting. Also, the researchers noted that the birds that nested first chose sites farthest away from the lighting, while those that nested later filled in the less desirable sites closer to the lights. Direct effects of increased lighting levels on bird behavior also include changes in singing times39 and foraging? Many species of shorebirds and other waterfowl have been recorded foraging or roosting under artificial lights.4t It is not clear whether these behaviors are beneficial or detrimental to those species. Some recent research provides an understanding of which species might be susceptible to small increases in illumination. Small birds with large eyes are found to sing earlier in the morning, while larger birds with relatively smaller eyes sing later? Those birds that sing earliest are responding to increases in illumination so faint that they are undetectable by humans.43 Research has not yet been completed to investigate the energetic costs of singing in the middle of the night, but it is likely not to be beneficial to the individual. 37. Health Council of the Netherlands. 2000. Impact of outdoor lighting on man and nature. 38~ De Molenaar, J.G., D.A. Jonkers, and M.E. Sanders. 2000. Road illumination and nature. III. Local influence of road lights on a black-tailed godwit (Limosa l. limosa) population. Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 39. Bergen, F., and M. Abs. 1997. Etho-ecological study of the singing activity of the blue tit (Parus caeruleus), great tit (Parus major)and chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs). Journal fuer Ornithologie 138(4):451-467. Derrickson, K.C. 1988. Variation in repertoire presentation in northern mockingbirds. Condor 90(3):592-606. 40. Hoetker, H. 1999. What determines the time-activity budgets of avocets (Recurvirostra avosetta)?Journalfuer Ornithologie 140(1):57-71. Frey, J.K. 1993. Nocturnal foraging by scissor-tailed flycatchers under artificial light. Western Birds 24(3):200. 41. Hill, D. 1990. The impact of noise and artificial light on waterfowl behaviour: a review and synthesis of the available literature. British Trust for Ornithology Research Report No. 61. 42. Thomas, R.J., T. Sz~kely, I.C. Cuthill, D.G.C. Harper, S.E. Newson, T.D. Frayling, and P.D. Wallis. 2002. Eye size in birds and the timing of song at dawn. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:831-837. 43. Id. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 We can, however, conclude that birds are sensitive to very low light levels, and that they experience potentially adverse behavior changes in the presence of increased lighting. Apart from direct effects, there are indirect effects from lighting as well. For example, higher lighting levels are likely to attract an important predator, American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). In urban areas, crows roost in areas with elevated nighttime illumination,44 presumably to avoid predation from owls.45 Crows are nest predators of other native species, and increased crow abundance may reduce populations of sensitive species.46 Carrion crows (Corvus corone) are nest predators of ducks, and research has shown that crow removal increases hatchling success of some nests,47 while other studies have found that crow removal is counterbalanced by increases in predation from other species? In either instance, increased crow density is detrimental. 11.2. Amphibians Amphibians are highly sensitive to light and can perceive increases in illumination that are impossible for humans to detect. A rapid increase in illumination causes a temporary reduction in visual acuity, from which the recovery time may be minutes to hours.49 In this manner, a simple flash of headlights can arrest the activity of a frog for hours,so Amphibians also are sensitive to changes in ambient illumination from sky glow. Frogs in an experimental enclosure ceased mating activity during night football games, when lights from a nearby stadium increased sky glow.si In natural communities some amphibians will only forage at extremely low light levels, and foraging times are partitioned among species with different lighting level preferences,s2 The squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirrela) is able to orient and forage at lighting levels as low as 10-6 lux and will stop foraging at illumination above 10-3 lux.53 The toad Bufo boreas 44. Gorenzel, W.P., and T.P. Salmon. 1995. Characteristics of American crow urban roosts in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 59(4):638-645. 45. Brody, J.E. 1997. The too-common crow is getting too close for comfort. New York Times, May 27. Miller, R. 1998. Flocks of crows making urban areas home, so look out below. The News-Times, December 28. [Online: http://www.newstimes.com/archive98/dec2898/lcd.htm]. 46. Schmidt, K.A., and C.J. Whelan. 1999. The relative impacts of nest predation and brood parasitism on seasonal fecundity in songbirds. Conservation Biology 13(1):46-57. Wheelwright, N.T., J.J. Lawler, and J.H. Weinstein. 1997. Nest-site selection in savannah sparrows: using gulls as scarecrows? Animal Behaviour 53(1): 197-208. 47. Broyer, J., J.Y. Fournier, and P. Varagnat. 1995. Effect of carrion crow (Corvus corone) reduction on predation on artificial anatid (Anatidae) nests. Gibier Faune Sauvage 12(2):95-107. 48. Clark, R.G., D.E. Meger, and J.B. Ignatiuk. 1995. Removing American crows and duck nesting success. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73(3):518-522. 49. Buchanan, B.W. 1993. Effects of enhanced lighting on the behaviour of nocturnal frogs. Animal Behaviour 45(5):893-899. 50. Buchanan, B.W. 2002. Observed and potential effects of artificial light on the behavior, ecology, and evolution of nocturnal frogs. Paper presented at Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, February 23-24, Los Angeles, California. 51. Id. 52. Jaeger, R.G., and J.P. Hailman. 1976. Phototaxis in anurans: relation between intensity and spectral responses. Copeia 1976:352407. Hailman, J.P., and J.G. Jaeger. 1976. A model of phototaxis and its evaluation with anuran amphibians. Behaviour 56:289-296. 53. Buchanan, B.W. 1998. Low-illumination prey detection by squirrel treefrogs. Journal of Herpetology 32(2): 270-274. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 forages only at illuminations between 104 and 10.5 lux, while the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) forages only during the darkest part of the night at below 10-5 lux.54 Reproductive behavior of other species is altered at increased illuminations -- 3 x 10-3 lux from streetlights causes the frog Physalaemus pustulosus to hide nesting sites, while sites are distributed randomly in areas with no increased illumination? In the same species, females are less picky about mate choice when lighting is increased, presumably preferring to mate quickly to avoid the increased predation risk of mating activity? By reducing the care that females invest in choosing the most suitable mate, increased illumination may reduce the evolutionary fitness of the species. While we do not have available the preferred lighting levels of amphibians near the project sites, resident species may prefer darker conditions and will be adversely affected by the increased lighting. 11.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates Many families of insects are attracted to lights, including moths, lacewings, beetles, bugs, caddisflies, crane flies, midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush crickets,s7 Mortality at lights is significant, and recent research in Germany has shown that a single streetlight can kill as many caddisflies as are produced along a 200-meter (656-foot) stretch of stream? Insects attracted to lights are subject to increased predation from a variety of predators, including bats, birds, skunks, toads, and spiders? The attraction to lights depends on the visibility of the light and its spectral characteristics. Moths and other insects are more attracted to light with short wavelengths in the ultraviolet spectrum.6° Metal halide lights, along with mercury vapor lights, are the two most deleterious lighting types for insects -- and most other wildlife -- because of their spectral properties, including a large output of ultraviolet energy. For species with small population sizes, lighting characteristic of commercial areas is indeed capable of reducing those populations.6~ In contrast, low-pressure sodium vapor lights do not elicit attractive behavior in moths as frequently as other 54~ Hailman, J.P. 1984. Bimodal nocturnal activity of the western toad (Bufo boreas) in relation to ambient illumination. Copeia 1984:283-290. 55. Tarano, Z. 1998. Cover and ambient light influence nesting preferences in the Tungara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Copeia 1998(1):250-251. 56. Rand, A.S, M.E. Bridarolli, L. Dries, and M.J. Ryan. 1997. Light levels influence female choice in Tungara frogs: predation risk assessment? Copeia 1997(2):447-450. 57. Kolligs, D. 2000. [Ecological effects of artificial light sources on nocturnally active insects, in particular on butterflies (Lepidoptera)]. Faunistisch-Oekologische Mitteilungen Supplement 28:1-136. Eisenbeis, G., and F. Hassel. 2000. [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights -- a study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of Rheinhessen (Germany)]. Natur und Landschaft 75(4):145-156. Sustek, Z. 1999. Light attraction of carabid beetles and their survival in the city centre. Biologia 54(5):539-551. 58~ Eisenbeis, G. 2002. Artificial night lighting and insects in Germany. Paper presented at Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, February 23-24, Los Angeles, California. 59. Frank, K. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Socieiy 42(2):63-93. Blake, D., A.M. Hutson, P.A. Racey, J. Rydell, and J.R. Speakman. 1994. Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in southern England. Journal of Zoology 234:453-462. 60. Frank, K. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 42(2):63-93. 61. Id. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 lamp types and do not disturb circadian rhythms of moths and other insects? Because metal halide and mercury vapor lights attract and result in the death of many individuals of many insect species, they should not be used adjacent to sensitive wetland sites. While it may seem a benefit for diurnal species to be able to forage longer under artificial lights, any gains from increased activity time can be offset by increased predation risk. In a study of butterfly larvae, a higher growth rate associated with longer photoperiod (as could be caused by artificial light) resulted in significantly higher predation on the butterfly larvae from the primary parasitoid species.63 11.4. Reptiles Evidence exists that artificial night lighting reduces activity, and ultimately presence, of some snake species. In an experimental study, rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) were shown to be less active under 3/4 and full moonlight conditions (1.0 and 2.1 lux).64 The significantly depressed activity of snakes under brighter conditions was shown in the field for water snakes.65 In southern California, areas of the international border illuminated at night lack snake species found in other similar habitats? The explanation for these results is presumably the predation risk from visual predators incurred by individuals that forage under higher illumination levels? 11.5. Mammals Artificial night lighting has significant effects on mammals, including bats. Sensitive bat species may forage on the project sites. While faster-flying species of bats congregate at lights to feed on insects, other slower-flying species avoid lights? By favoring some species over others, increases in artificial lighting in a region decreases bat diversity. Even those species that forage under lighted conditions fly faster in lighted areas, as a means to avoid predation. In summary, the installation of permanent, dusk-to-dawn lighting on the project sites has the potential to disrupt native wildlife behaviors both on and off the project sites, and to reduce 62. Robinson, H.S. 1952. On the behaviour of night-flying insects in the neighbourhood of a bright light source. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (A) 27:13-21. Eisenbeis, G., and F. Hassel. 2000. [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights -- a study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of Rheinhessen (Germany)]. Natur und Landschaft 75(4):145-156. Frank, K.D., and W.F. Zimmerman. 1969. Action spectrum for phase shifts of a circadian rhythm in Drosophila. Science 163:688-689. Bruce, V.C., and D.H. Minis. 1969. Circadian clock action spectrum in a photoperiodic moth. Science 163:183-185. 63. Gotthard, K. 2000. Increased risk of predation as a cost of high growth rate: an experimental test in a butterfly. Journal of Animal EcologT 69(5):896-902. 64. Clarke, J.A., J.T. Chopko, and S.P. Mackessy. 1996. The effect of moonlight on activity patterns of adult and juvenile prairie rattlesnakes ( Crotalus viridis viridis). Journal of Herioetology 30(2): 192-197. 65. Andreadis, P.T. 1997. A lunar rhythm in the foraging activity of northern water snakes (Reptilia: Colubridae). In Scott, A.F., S.W. Hamilton, E.W. Chester, and D.S. White (eds.). Proceedings of the seventh symposium on the natural history of lower Tennessee and Cumberland river valleys. The Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. 66. Fisher, R. (United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division). 2002. Personal communication. 67. Lima, S.L., and L.M. Dill. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Canadian ,Journal of Zoology 68(4):619-640. 68. Rydell, J., and H.J. Baagoe. 1996. Bats & streetlamps. Bats14(4):lO-13. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 15 native wildlife diversity over the long term. The EIR should consider the relevant scientific literature to describe and propose mitigation for such impacts. 12. Biological Impacts of Increased Trail Use by Hikers and Equestrians The proposed projects would increase trail use in natural areas of Rancho Cueamonga. The increased use may be by equestrian users, hikers, or off-road vehicle users. Each environmental document must consider the impacts of this additional trail use within nearby natural lands. Recreational use in natural areas has adverse impacts on many aspects of ecosystem function in addition to direct disturbance of sensitive wildlife species (see attached review), effects of trampling on vegetation,69 and the introduction of invasive plant species through trail networks (which increases as use increases and is greater closer to trailheads).7° Equestrian users often require certain maintenance actions to protect the well-being of their animals. For example, burrowing mammals are targeted for poisoning or other control actions because stepping in small holes can seriously injure horses. While this is understandable, it can create significant biological impacts from the method of animal control (e.g., anticoagulant poison), the death to the target animals, and the spillover effects on other animals that use burrows (e.g., burrowing owl). While all recreational trail use increases erosion per unit area over natural conditions (except perhaps immediate post-bum conditions), horse use of wildland trails creates approximately twice as much erosion as does use by hikers,n Horse use also usually results in wider and deeper trails than use by hikers. Increased erosion can affect water quality within a watershed as well as alter habitat for sensitive species. While there is some debate on the topic, horses can and do serve as vectors for exotic plant species along wildland trails. Seeds of exotic plants, if present in the horse's diet, can survive through the digestive tract and remain viable in manure.72 While only a small proportion of such seeds may become established, over time such introductions can substantially degrade the native vegetation in wildland areas. The environmental reviews must consider and evaluate such impacts associated with increased equestrian use. Horse manure on trails may result in adverse impacts to biological resources. Dung is a fertilizer, which tends to aid the establishment and spread of exotic species in southem Califomia ecosystems. Nitrogen from animals may also affect water resources. For example, nitrates and nitrites have been implicated in global amphibian declines. The pathways of effect are many. 69. Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 70. Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitats and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Landscape Ecology 6(4):269-278. 71. Deluca, T~H., W.A. Patterson IV, W.A. Freimund, and D.N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses, and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana, USA. Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. 72. Campbell, J.E., and D.J. Gibson. 2001. The effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse dung on vegetation along trail corridors. Plant Ecology 157:23-35. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 16 Increased nitrates influence prey distribution and behavior? Rouse et al. review laboratory studies that report lethal and sublethal effects of nitrates on amphibians at concentrations equaling 2.5-100 mg/L.TM Recently, laboratory studies have shown significant larval mortality at ! mg/L, which meets safe drinking water standards for humans, with all four species studied (including a toad, Bufo boreas) showing significant effects at 2 mg/L? Studies (also including toads, Bufo americanus) often show larval deformities and altered metamorphosis phenology in response to nitrogen pollution? In another effect pathway, stress, such as that induced by exposure to sublethal nitrogen pollution, is hypothesized to weaken amphibian immune systems, making them vulnerable to infection by pathogens 77 such as bacteria78 or chytrid fungi? 13. Mitigation Measures Are Vague While the environmental documents suggest mitigation for substantial adverse impacts to biological resources, many of the proposed mitigation measures are vague, lacking detail and performance standards to evaluate their effectiveness. For example, the Richland Pinehurst EIR requires that land supporting Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub will be acquired to offset losses from the proposed project. The EIR states, "The quality of offsite mitigation land may affect the total acres needing to be acquired. If the offsite mitigation area contains a higher quality habitat, less land may need to be acquired, likewise, if a lower quality habitat is acquired, more land may deed to be set aside as mitigation" (Mitigation Measure B-l). The EIR contains no standards to judge what would constitute higher or lower quality, nor the amount that acreage would be increased or decreased to adjust for habitat quality. This essentially means that it is impossible to assess whether impacts will be mitigated, because the impacts to some species (e.g., foraging raptors) are closely tied to habitat area and much less to vegetation quality. That is, a small area of high quality alluvial sage scrub would provide less benefit to a foraging predator such as white-tailed kite than a larger area of "lower quality" scrub with more grasses. 73. Watt, P.J., and R.S. Oldham. 1995. The effect of ammonium nitrate on the feeding and development of larvae of the smooth newt, Triturus vulgaris (L.), and on the behaviour of its food source, Daphnia. Freshwater Biology 33:319-324. Rouse, J.D., C.A. Bishop, and J. Stinger. 1999. Nitrogen pollution: an assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environmental Health Perspectives 107:799-803. 74. Rouse, J.D., C.A. Bishop, and J. Strnger. 1999. Nitrogen pollution: an assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environmental Health Perspectives 107:799-803. 75. Marco, A., C. Quilchano, and A.R. Blaustein. 1999. Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in pond-breeding amphibians from the Pacific northwest, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:2836-2839. 76. Xu, Q., and R.S. Oldham. 1997. Lethal and sublethal effects of nitrogen fertilizer ammonium nitrate on common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 32:298-303. Jofre, M.B., and W.H. Karasov. 1999. Direct effect of ammonia on three species of North American anuran amphibians. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:1806-1812. Hecnar, S.J. 1995. Acute and chronic toxicity of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to amphibians from southern Ontario. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14:2131-2137. 77. Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7:355-362. 78. Id. 79. Berger, L, R. Speare, P. Daszak, D.E. Green, A.A. Cunningham, C.L. Goggin, R. Slocombe, M.A. Ragan, A.D. Hyatt, K.R. McDonald, H.B. Hines, K.R. Lips, G. Marantelli, and H. Parkes. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95:9031-9036. Lips, K.R. 1999. Mass mortality and population declines of anurans at an upland site in western Panama. Conservation Biology 13:117-125. City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 17 The Richland Pinehurst EIR therefore must establish a fixed mitigation ratio, and not defer formulation of the actual mitigation ratio until a future date when habitat is acquired. The Richland Pinehurst EIR mitigation measure to reduce impacts to native rodents is equally vague. It essentially consists of requiring that a biological monitor be onsite when brush is initially cleared (Mitigation Measure B-10). The EIR provides no evidence for how this will reduce impacts to sensitive species. The habitat will still be destroyed whether a monitor is present or not. The EIR seems to suggest that if clearance does not kill the target species then impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. This conclusion is not warranted. Sensitive species may be temporarily displaced to adjacent areas if not killed directly, but the significant impact is the loss of habitat, which the mitigation measure does not address. Mitigation for impacts from light and glare in the Richland Pinehurst EIR does not contain performance standards that would allow for conclusions to be reached about whether impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure suggests "low- intensity street lamps," "low-elevation light poles," and "shielding" to reduce potential impacts (Mitigation Measure B-4). This measure does not address impacts for lights from private property, even though it would be feasible to regulate outdoor lighting. Nor does it provide performance standards for the lighting design that establishes thresholds for illumination and glare on sensitive receptors. Without quantified performance standards or detailed design descriptions, the mitigation measure will be ineffective at reducing potential impacts. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Travis Longcore, Ph.D. TRAVIS LONGCORE P.O. Box 24020 Los Angeles, California 90024-0020 Telephone: (310) 247-9719 CURRENT APPOINTMENTS Research Assistant Professor, Center for Sustainable Cities, Department of Geography, University of Southern California 2001-present Lecturer, UCLA Department of Geography, UCLA Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution, UCLA Institute of the Environment 2000-present Lower division: Biodiversity in a Changing World, People and the Earth's Ecosystems, Ecology and Conservation of California Oaks. Upper division: World Vegetation, Forest Ecosystems, Ecology, Environmental Impact Analysis. Principal, Land Protection Partners 1998-present Consultant to attorneys in land protection actions (primarily California Environmental Quality Act, California Coastal Act, and federal Endangered Species Act). Services include issue identification, preparation of biological analysis with supporting scientific literature review, and communication with resource agency personnel. Co-founder and Science Director, The Urban Wildlands Group 1996-present Organization studies and works to protect species, habitats, and ecological processes within urban and urbanizing areas. Projects include restoration and management of habitat supporting endangered butterfly species, education of policymakers on impacts of artificial light and noise on wildlife, re- search on minimizing ecological effects of fuel modification. EDUCATION Ph.D., Geography, University of California, Los Angeles 1999 Dissertation Title: Terrestrial Arthropods as Indicators of Restoration Success in Coastal Sage Scrub. Minor: Biology M. A., Geography, University of California, Los Angeles 1995 Thesis Title: Risk, Technology, and Place: Siting a Radioactive Waste Dump in California's Ward Valley Honors B. A., Geography summa cum laude, University of Delaware 1993 Thesis Title: Information Technology and World City Restructuring: The Case of New York City's Financial District. Minor: French PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Research Associate, Sustainable Cities Program, University of Southern California 1999-2001 Summer Instructor, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies 1997-1999 Staff Researcher, UCLA Department of Geography 1996-1999 Teaching Assistant, UCLA Department of Geography 1995-1996 Travis Longcore Page 2 Geographic Information System Technician, Water Resources Agency, New Castle County, Delaware 1992-1993 GRANTS~ HONORS~ AND AWARDS Professional Defense Logistics Agency 2004 Contract for $38,729 to The Urban Wildlands Group to conduct experimental captive propagation of endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly. San Gabriel and Low Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 2003 Co-PI with J. Wolch and J.P. Wilson, USC Department of Geography, and J. Devinny, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on contract for $105,000 to USC Center for Sustainable Cites for "Green Visions Plan for 21 st Century Southern California: A Guide for Habitat, Watershed Management, and Recreational Open Space." Thomas Reid Associates, Inc. (for County of San Mateo, California) 2003 Contract of $14,200 to USC Center for Sustainable Cities and USC GIS Research Laboratory (J. Wilson, co-PI) to analyze butterfly survey data from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, 1982-2000. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission 2003 Grant of $131,000 to Los Angeles Conservation Corps and The Urban Wildlands Group to restore coastal dune and bluff vegetation and develop a master plan for restoration of E1 Segundo dune and bluff habitat. Supplemented by $20,000 grant to The Urban Wildlands Group from City of Redondo Beach. Defense Logistics Agency 2003 Contract for $43,779 to The Urban Wildlands Group to conduct experimental captive propagation of and surveys for the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly. James C. Zumberge Fund for Innovation, University of Southern California 2003 Grant of $50,000 for interdisciplinary investigation with J. Devinny, USC Viterbi School of Engi- neering, of phytoremediation with native plants. Conservation and Research Foundation 2003 Grant of $5,000 to The Urban Wildlands Group to support preparation of book Ecological Conse- quences of Artificial Night Lighting. Califomia ReLeaf 2003 Grant of $7,500 to The Urban Wildlands Group for project, "Urban Forest Assessment and Outreach at UCLA." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002 Contract for $10,000 to The Urban Wildlands Group to draft management plan for endangered Kern primrose sphinx moth. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002 Contract for $24,000 to The Urban Wildlands Group to draft species recovery plan for endangered Calippe silverspot butterfly. Travis Longcore Page 3 Intemational Dark-Sky Association Executive Director's Award 2002 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 2002 Grant of $5,000 to The Urban Wildlands Group to support conference Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Electric Power Reseamh Institute 2002 Grant of $2,000 to The Urban Wildlands Group to support conference Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Defense Logistics Agency 2002 Contract for $42,665 to The Urban Wildlands Group to conduct experimental captive propagation of endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Landowner Incentive Program 2001 Grant of $37,300 to The Urban Wildlands Group to restore habitat for endangered El Segundo blue butterfly on private property in Torrance, California. John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation 2000 Co-author of $398,000 grant to USC Sustainable Cities Program to assess benefits of urban greening in a dense inner-city neighborhood. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2000 USC Sustainable Cities Program awarded $9,000 contract to assess "Cool Schools" tree planting program. New Research Design Award for a More Sustainable Los Angeles Region, John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation 2000 Awarded $5,000 to develop a research design for the use of native plants in phytoremediation. Graduate Conference Travel Grant, UCLA Department of Geography 1999 Dissertation Improvement Grant, National Science Foundation ($8,000) 1998 Distinguished Doctoral Scholar Fellowship, UCLA Alumni Association ($17,500) 1998 Portable Fellowship, UCLA Graduate Division ($18,500) 1997 Graduate Research Fellowship, National Science Foundation ($64,400) 1993 Chancellor's Fellowship, UCLA Graduate Division (declined) 1993 Undergraduate Alexander J. Taylor Award ("Outstanding Senior Man"), University of Delaware 1993 Geography Faculty Award, University of Delaware 1993 Phi Kappa Phi Graduate Fellowship, Chapter Award, University of Delaware 1993 Mid-Atlantic Region Finalist, Rhodes Scholarship 1992 Fellow, Arizona Honors Academy, Northern Arizona University 1992 Marie Donaghay Award for Excellence in Geography, University of Delaware 1992 Phi Beta Kappa 1992 Travis Longcore Page 4 Pi Delta Phi (French national honor society) 1992 Phi Kappa Phi (national honor society) 1991 Phi Beta Kappa Clift and DeArmond Award, University of Delaware 199 l George and Margaret Collins Seitz Award, University of Delaware 1991 Eugene duPont Memorial Distinguished SchoIar Award, University of Delaware ($44,500) 1989 PUBLICATIONS Articles In Preparation 4. Longcore, T., D. D. Murphy, and R. Redak. Managing and monitoring endangered butterflies: Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) and its habitats in San Diego County (California, U.S.A.). Environmental Management. 3. Longcore, T., K. Jacobsen, C. Zonneveld, and D. Roy. Improved phenological measures for univoltine insects: a reassessment of the climate change signal from hedge brown butterfly. Global Change Biology. 2. Jump, P., T. Longcore, and C. Rich. Ecology and distribution of a newly discovered population of the endangered Kern prirm'ose sphinx moth (Euproserpinus euterpe). Journal of the £epidopterists' Soci- ety. 1. Longcore, T. Christina Li, and J. P. Wilson. Nature's services in a dense urban neighborhood Envi- ronmental Management. Articles In Review 1. Longcore, T., R. Mattoni, and A. Mattoni. Salvage of pupae as a mitigation measure for impacts to endangered butterfly habitat. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society. Forthcoming 2. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. From dusk 'til dawn: conservation planning for the nighttime environ- ment. In Rich, C., and T. Longcore (eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press (forthcoming 2005). 1. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Introduction: ecological light pollution. In Rich, C., and T. Longcore (eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press (forthcoming 2005). Book 1. Rich, C., and T. Longcore (eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press (forthcoming 2005). Refereed Publications 15. Longcore, T., C. Rich, and D. Mfiller-Schwarze. Management by assertion: beavers and vireos at Lake Skinner (Riverside County, California). Ecological Restoration (in press). 14. Longcore, T., C. Li, and J. P. Wilson. Applicability of CITYgreen urban ecosystem analysis software to a dense urban neighborhood. Urban Geography (in press). 13. Longcore, T. Ecological effects of fuel management practices around residential development. Side- bar for chapter by K. Shafer in text on California fire ecology (in press). 12. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2(4):191-198 (2004). Travis Longcore Page 5 11. Langcore, T. Arthropods as indicators of restoration success in coastal sage scrub (California, U.S.A.). Restoration Ecology 11(4):397-409 (2003). 10. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, Z. Krenova, and A. Lipman. Mass rearing the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucophsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis: Lycaenidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 37:55-67 (2003). 9. Longcore, T., R. Mattoni, C. Zonneveld, and J. Bruggeman. INsect Count Analyzer: a tool to assess responses of butterflies to habitat restoration. Ecological Restoration 21 (1):60-61 (2003). 8. Longcore, T. Ecological effects of fuel modification on arthropods and other wildlife in an urbanizing wildland. Pp. 111-117 in Galley, K. E. M., R. C. Klinger, and N. G. Suguihara (eds.). National Con- gress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management Proceedings, No. 1, Tall Timbers Research Sta- tion, Tallahassee, FL (2003). 7. Zonneveld, C., T. Longcore, and C. Mulder. Optimal schemes to detect presence of insect species. Conservation Biology 14(2):476~-87 (2003). 6. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, C. Zonneveld, and V. Novotuy. Analysis of transect counts to monitor population size in endangered insects: the case of the E1 Segundo blue butterfly, Euphilotes bernardino allyni. Journal of Insect Conservation 5(3): 197-206 (2001). 5. Longcore, T., R. Mattoni, G. Pratt, and C. Rich. On the perils of ecological restoration: lessons from the E1 Segundo blue butterfly. Pp. 281-286 in Keeley, J., M. Baer-Keeley, and C. J. Fotheringham, eds. 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-62, Sacramento, CA (2000). (Abstracted in Ecological Restoration 19(2):125 (2001).) 4. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, and V. Novotny. Arthropod monitoring for fine scale habitat analysis: A case study of the El Segundo sand dunes. Environmental Management 25(4):445-452 (2000). 3. Mattoni, R., and T. R. Longcore. The Los Angeles coastal prairie, a vanished community. Cros- sosoma 23(2):71-102 (1997). 2. Mattoni, R., G. F. Pratt, T. R. Longcore, J. F. Emmel, and J. N. George. The endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 34:99-118 (1997). 1. Longcore, T. R., and P. W. Rees. Information technology and downtown restructuring: the case of New York City's financial district. Urban Geography 17(4):354-372 (1996). Book Reviews 2. Longcore, T. Review of From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Plain: .4 History of Environmental Change in Temperate North America from 1500 to Present, by Gordon G. Whitney. Ethics, Place and Environment 4(3):278-279 (2001). I. Longcore, T. Review of ButterjTies on British and Irish Offshore Islands: Ecology and Biogeography, by Roger Dennis and Tim Shreeve. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 35:139-140 (2000). Scientific Reports and Publications 39. Longcore, T. Analysis of butterfly survey data and methodology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982-2000). 2. Survey Methodology. Los Angeles, USC GIS Research Labora- tory and USC Center for Sustainable Cities, 6 pp. (April 2004). 38. Longcore, T., C. Lam, J. P. Wilson. Analysis of butterfly survey data and methodology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982-2000). 1. Status and Trends. Los Angeles, USC GIS Research Laboratory and USC Center for Sustainable Cities, 15 pp. (April 2004). Travis Longcore Page 6 37. Jump, P., T. Longcore, and C. Rich. Ecology and distribution of a newly-discovered population of the threatened Kern primrose sphinx moth (Euproserpinus euterpe). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under permit TE-037806, 18 pp. (January 26, 2004). 36. Scow, J. C., C. Cohen, T. Longcore, and C. Rich. UCLA's campus forest: a community resource. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group, 52 pp. (January 16, 2004). 35. Longcore, T., D. D. Murphy, D. Deutschman, R. Redak, and R. Fisher. A management and monitor- ing plan for Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) and its habitats in San Diego County. Advisory Report to County of San Diego, 48 pp. (December 30, 2003). 34. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Revie~v of biological resources analysis in Supplement to Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for LAX Master Plan. Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 15 pp. (October 20, 2003). 33. Mattoni, R., J. Spmte, and T. Longcore. Final Report for Palos Verdes blue' butterfly year 2003 cap- tive rearing on Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California. Los Angeles, The Urban Wild- lands Group (Defense Logistics Agency Agreement # N68711-03-LT-C3003), 9 pp. (September 30, 2003). 32. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Review of biological impact analysis in Initial Study and Mitigated Nega- tive Declaration (PD-S-942/TT5411), City of Simi Valley. Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 15 pp. (July 24, 2003). 31. Longcore, T., and R. Mattoni. Final Report for 2003 Palos Verdes blue butterfly adult surveys on De- fense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group (Defense Logistics Agency Agreement # N68711-03-LT-C3003), 12 pp. (July l, 2003). 30. Longcore, T., R. Mattoni, and A. Mattoni. Final report for Palos Verdes blue butterfly pupal salvage on Palos Verdes and San Pedro housing, San Pedro, California. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group (Department of the Navy Letter Agreement # N68711-02-LT-C3001), 9 pp. (June 25, 2003). 29. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Conservation value of Catellus West Bluffs property justifies purchase with public funds, Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 11 pp. (May 2, 2003). 28. Pincetl, S., J. R. Wolch, J. P. Wilson, and T. Longcore. Toward a sustainable Los Angeles: a "na- ture's services" approach. Los Angeles, USC Center for Sustainable Cities, 47 pp. (report to John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation, February 2003). 27. Longcore, T., C. Rich, J. Marzluff, and B. Nightingale. Peer review of artificial light and noise impact analysis in Sand Point Magnuson Park Drainage, Wetland/Habitat Complex and Sports Fields/Courts Project Final Environmental Impact Statement [Seattle, Washington]. Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 15 pp. (January 16, 2003). 26. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Review of biological resources analysis in Malibu Bay Company Devel- opment Agreement Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 28 pp. (November 11, 2002). 25. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Action plan for Kern primrose sphinx moth (Euproserpinus euterpe) at Carrizo Plain National Monument. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group, 15 pp. (report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November 1, 2002). 24. Longcore, T., R. Mattoni, A. Lipman, Z. Krenova, and C. Rich. Final report for Palos Verdes blue butterfly year 2002 captive rearing on Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California. Los Ange- les, The Urban Wildlands Group (Defense Logistics Agency Agreement # N68711-02-LT-00010), 18 pp. (October 1, 2002). Travis Longcore Page 7 23. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Effects of light and noise from a proposed Wal-Mart "Supercenter" on the wildlife of Penjajawoc Marsh (Bangor, Maine). Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 18 pp. (June 7, 2002). 22. Longcore, T. and C. Rich. Protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas in proposed Local Coastal Plan for City of Malibu. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group, 19 pp. (May 2002). 21. Mattoni, R. and T. Longcore. Census results for Palos Verdes blue butterfly and associated species, 1994-2001. Pp. 2-10 in Mattoni, R. (ed.) Status and trends: habitat restoration and the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly at the Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California, 1994-2001. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group (April 2002). 20. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, and A. Lipman. Description of habitat characteristics of the Palos Verdes blue butterfly. Pp. 11-15 in Mattoni, R. (ed.) Status and trends: habitat restoration and the endan- gered Palos Verdes blue butterfly at the Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California, 1994-2001. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group (April 2002). 19. Longcore, T. Invertebrate community composition as an indicator of restoration success. Pp. 52~58 in Mattoni, R. (ed.) Status and trends: habitat restoration and the endangered Palos Verdes blue but- terfly at the Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California, 1994-2001. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group (April 2002). 18. Longcore, T., and J. George. Habitat Evaluation for El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes bernardino allyni) at Malaga Bluffs. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group (report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Agreement #1448-11430-I-J041, December 30, 2001). 17. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. A review of the ecological effects of road reconfiguration and expansion on coastal wetland ecosystems. Los Angeles, The Urban Wildlands Group, 12 pp. (November 14, 2001). 16. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Review of biological resources analysis in draft Sully-Miller/Fieldstone Communities Environmental Impact Report (SCH#99101125). Los Angeles, Land Protection Part- ners, 15 pp. (October 19, 2001). 15. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Review of biological resources analysis in LAX Master Plan Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 27 pp. (August 8, 2001). 14. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Review of biological resources analysis in City of Malibu Negative Decla- ration No. 00-010 (Kempin Single Family Residence). Los Angeles, Land Protection Partners, 5 pp. (July 23, 2001). 13. Young, T., with T. Longcore. Creating Community Greenspace: A Handbook for Developing Sus- tainable Open Spaces in Central Cities. Los Angeles, California League of Conservation Voters Edu- cation Fund, 64 pp. (2000). 12. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (A. Anderson, E. Allen, M. Dodero, C. Parmesan, T. Long- core, G. Pratt, D. Murphy, and M. Singer). Draft Recovery Plan for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Portland, Oregon (2000). [finalized January 2001]. 11. Longcore, T., K. Fitzpatrick, and M. Phelan. Assessment of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Cool Schools Program, University of Southern California Sustainable Cities Program (report to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, December 2000). 10. Mattoni, R., and T. Longcore. 2000 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverd- esensis) Adult Population Survey (report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 28, 2000). Travis Longcore Page 8 9. Lassiter, U., T. Longcore, and S. Pincetl. 53rd and Latham: Residents' Preferences for Amenities for an Urban Park, University of Southern Califomia Sustainable Cities Program (report to City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks, January 2000). 8. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, and R. Rogers. 1999 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) Adult Population Survey (report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 28, 1999). 7. Lipman, A., T. Longcore, R. Mattoni, and Y. Zhang. Habitat Evaluation and Reintroduction Planning for the Endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (report to California Department of Fish and Game, June 1, 1999). 6. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, J. George, G. Pratt, and C. Nagano. Recovery Plan for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allynO. Portland, Oregon (September 9, 1998). 5. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, and R. Rogers. 1998 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) Adult Population Survey (report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 10, 1998). 4. Mattoni, R., G. Pratt, T. Longcore, J. George, and J. Leps. Interim Report 1997: Conservation Plan- ning for the Endangered Laguna Mountains Skipper, Pyrgus ruralis lagunae (report to U.S. Forest Service, January 1998). 3. Pratt, G., R. Mattoni, T. Longcore, J. George, C. Pierce, and C. Nagano. Distribution of Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) in Southern San Diego County and Related Obser- vations (report to U.S. Bureau of Land Management, January 1998). 2. Mattoni, R., A. Bonner, J. George, and T. Longcore. 1997 Annual Report: Defense Fuel Support Point Revegetation, Chevron Pipeline Mitigation (report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 1, 1997). 1. Mattoni, R., A. Bonner, J. George, T. Longcore, C. Rich, and R. Rogers. 1997 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) Adult Population Survey (report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 30, 1997). Popular Articles and Miscellaneous Reports 10. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Urban oaks and urban oak woodlands. Oaks (newsletter of the California Oak Foundation), pp. 3, 7 (2003). 9. Longcore, T. Fire clearance. Los Angeles Times (April 29, 2000) 8. Longcore, T. Further enlightenment. Malibu Times (February 4, 1999). 7. Longcore, T. Ask campus community about changes. Daily Bruin, p. 12 (May 19, 1998). 6. Longcore, T., editor. Biological assessment: coastal sage scrub at University of California, Los An- geles. Prepared by Geography 123, Dr. R. Mattoni, Lecturer (unpublished report, December 1997). 5. Longcore, T. The Endangered Delhi sand dunes. Western Tanager 63(8): 1-2 (1997). 4. Longcore, T. LAAS Year in review. Western Tanager 63(7): 1-3 (1997). 3. Longcore, T. Election special: comparative excerpts from party platforms. Western Tanager 63(3):1 3 (1997). 2. Longcore, T. Big Birdathon Day. Western Tanager 63(1):1-3 (1997). 1. Rich, C. and T. Longcore. Consultation issues at UCLA: landscape and construction (unpublished report, February 1996). Travis Longcore Page 9 CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS 15. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting in natural lands man- agement. Invited paper presented at George Wright Society Biennial Conference (San Diego, Califor- nia, April 14-18, 2003). 14. Li, C., T. Longcore, and J. P. Wilson. Nature's services in a dense urban neighborhood. The Asso- ciation of American Geographers 99th Annual Meeting (New Orleans, Louisiana, March, 2003) 13. Longcore, T., C. Zonneveld, J. Brnggeman, and R. Mattoni. Tracking population responses of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly to habitat enhancement using INCA (INsect Count Analyzer). The Ecological Society of America 87th Annual Meeting/Society for Ecological Restoration 14th Annual International Conference (Tucson, Arizona, August 4-9, 2002) 12. Longcore, T. and J. P. Wilson. Applicability of CITYgreen urban ecosystem analysis software to a densely built urban neighborhood. The Association of American Geographers 98th Annual Meeting (Los Angeles, California, March 19-23, 2002). 11. Longcore, T. Obvious and insidious effects of sprawl on wildlife (invited plenary speaker). Smart Growth for Californians and Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation and Planning and Conservation League (San Diego, California, May 19-20, 2001) 10. Longcore, T. Ecological effects o f fuel modification on arthropods and other wildlife in an urbanizing wildland. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention and Man- agement (San Diego, California, November 27-December 1, 2000). 9. Longcore, T. Response of terrestrial arthropod communities in coastal sage scrub to short-term cli- mate change. The Association of American Geographers 96th Annual Meeting (Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- vania, April 5-9, 2000). 8. Longcore, T. Terrestrial arthropods and restoration: if you build it, will they come? Society for Eco- logical Restoration Eleventh Annual Conference/Xerces Society Annual Meeting (The Presidio of San Francisco, September 23-25, 1999). 7. Longcore, T. Putting the bugs in: assessing ecological restoration with terrestrial arthropods. The Association of American Geographers 95th Annual Meeting (Honolulu, Hawaii, March 23-27, 1999) 6. Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 419 acres: UCLA's natural history. 1. Land use, 2. Biological homogeni- zation, 3. Island biogeography. Poster series and display presented at California's Biodiversity Crisis: The Loss of Nature in an Urbanizing World (UCLA, October 24-25, 1998). 5. Mattoni, R., Jeremiah George, T. Longcore, and Gordon Pratt. Scale and the resonating impact of an exotic plant. Southern California Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting (California State University, Fullerton, May 2-3, 1997). 4. Longcore, T., R. Mattoni, G. Pratt, and C. Rich. On theperils of ecological restoration: lessons from the El Segundo blue butterfly. 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California (Occidental College, Los Angeles, California, April 18-19, 1997). 3. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, J. George, and C. Rich. Down memory lane: the Los Angeles coastalprai- rie and its vernal pools. Poster presented at 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California (Occidental College, Los Angeles, California, April 18-19, 1997). 2. Longcore, T. The role of science in Natural Community Conservation Planning. Restoring Our Commitment to Recovery in the Era of the Habitat Conservation Plan, Endangered Species Defense Coalition (Starr Ranch, California, July 30, 1996). 1. Longcore, T. Mainland colonization by endemic insular taxa. XXXth Annual Southwest Population Biology Conference (James Reserve, California, April 20-21, 1996). Travis Longcore Page 10 INVITED PRESENTATIONS California Studies Association Sixteenth Annual Conference, "Sheltering Biodiversity: Living With Other Species In and Around Los Angeles," April 2004 University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Geography, February 2004 City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation, May 2003 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, September 2002 South Coast Wildlands Project Missing Linkages Workshop, August 2002 University of Southern California, Department of Geography, February 2002 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, September 2001 California Native Plant Society, South Coast Chapter, August 2001 California State University, Northridge, Olivatt Library, April 2001 University of California Natural Resources Continuing Conference, Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies, April 2001 Society for Ecological Restoration, California Chapter Annual Conference, October 2000 University of Stockholm, Department of Zoology, September 2000 University of Gothenberg, Department of Applied Environmental Science, September 2000 Lorquin Entomological Society, Los Angeles, California, June 2000 University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Geography, May 2000 Southern California Institute of Architecture, June 1998 Los Angeles Unified School District Target Science, "Butterflies in the City" Workshop Series, South Central Los Angeles Leadership Team, October 1998 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Referee, Restoration Ecology, Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, Environmental Management, Transactions in GIS, Landscape Research Independent Scientific Advisor (Quino checkerspot butterfly), County of San Diego, 2002-2004 Baldwin Hills Park Citizens Advisory Committee, 2002 Conference Co-Chair, The Urban Wildlands Group and UCLA Institute of the Environment, Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, 2001-2002 Member, Advisory Council, Yosemite Restoration Trust, 1999-present Member, Recovery Team (Technical Subteam), Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999-2001 Newsletter Layout, Endangered Habitats League, 1998-2002 Member, Conference Steering Committee, UCLA Institute of the Environment, California's Biodiversity Crisis: The Loss of Nature in an Urbanizing World, 1998 Managing Editor, Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 1997-1999 Member, Recovery Team, El Segundo Blue Butterfly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997-1998 Travis Longcore Page 11 Member, Environmental Review Board, County of Los Angeles (appointed by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors), 1997-present Editor, Western Tanager, newsletter of the Los Angeles Audubon Society, 1997 Vice President, Los Angeles Audubon Society, 1995-1997 Coordinator, Los Angeles Audubon Society Birdathon, 1996 (recognized by National Audubon Society, "Most Money Raised by a Rookie," September-October issue of Audubon magazine) Graduate Student Association Representative, UCLA Academic Senate Council on Planning and Budget, 1996-1999 Member, Graduate Affairs Committee, UCLA Department of Geography, 1995-1997 Member, Instructional Technology Committee, UCLA Department of Geography, 1993-1995 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Ecological Society of America Association of American Geographers Society for Ecological Restoration Southern California Botanists California Botanical Society PUBLIC COMMUNICATION Associated Press, Boston Globe, Daily Breeze (Torrance, California), Daily Bruin (Westwood, Califor- nia), Los Angeles Times, Metro Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz, California), Riverside Press-Enterprise (River- side, California), Sacramento News and Review (Sacramento, California), San .lose Mercury News, Scripps Howard News Service (Washington, DC), The Christian Science Monitor (Boston), The Globe and Mail (Toronto), California Wild, Discover, Life, People, Science, Science News, Reader's Digest (Canada), National Geographic Television ("America's Endangered Species: Don't Say Goodbye"), NBC Nightly News, ABC News, CNN Radio Espafiol, National Public Radio ("Talk of the Nation"), BBC World Service Landscape Ecology vol. 6 no. 4 pp 269-278 (1992) SPB Academic Publishing by, The Hague Trail corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA Ma~y Benninger-Tmax, John L. Vankat and Robert L. Schaefer Institute of Environmental Sciences, Department of Botany, and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056 Keywords: disturbance, edge, exotic species, vegetation Abstract Ground-layer vegetation was sampled along selected trail corridors to determine whether corridors provide habitat for certain species and act as conduits for species movement. Patterns of plant species composition were analyzed in relation to distance from trail edge, level of trail use, and distance from trailheads, junc- tions, and campgrounds. Species composition was significantly affected by distance from trail edge and level of trail use, as species were favored or inhibited by the corridor, depending upon their growth habits. Species composition was also affected by distance from trailheads. These findings, along with the presence of exotic species, indicate that trail corridors in Rocky Mountain National Park function as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species. 1. Introduction cupying the corridor edge also may be favored by its microenvironment (Bates 1935; Dale and The desire to allow public access into natural areas Weaver 1974; Liddle and Greig-Smith 1975; Cole has resulted in construction of trails for pedestrian 1978; Hall and Kuss 1989). and equestrian use. Trails are examples of line Along with providing habitat for certain species, corridors caused by disturbance, and this type corridors may function as conduits of movement of corridor is characterized by a central portion de- for plants and animals (Getz et al. 1978; Wegner void of biota due to continued inputs of energy and Merriam 1979; Baudry 1984; Forman and Go- (Bayfield 1973; Cole 1978; Forman and Godron dron 1986; Verkaar 1988; Harris and Gallagher 1986). Adjacent to the barren center may be cor- 1989). Intersecting line corridors such as trail sys- ridor edge communities which can exhibit distinct terns form networks which may enhance this move- zonation (Clements 1928; Bates 1935; Dale and ment by providing numerous pathways and soumes Weaver 1974; Hall and Kuss 1989) and contain both of species inputs (Forman and Godron 1981, 1986; native and non-native species (Westhoff 1967; Cole Baudry 1984). 1978, 1981; Forman and Godron 1981; Bright These possible effects of line corridors, i.e., 1986). Colonization by exotic species is ofien facili- maintenance of edge habitat and movement of spe- tated by the ongoing disturbance characteristic of cies, are major concerns of resource managers trails (Forman and Godron 1986; Hammitt and responsible for nararal areas. Although others have Cole 1987). In addition to being necessarily studied the effects of trail corridors on plant species disturbance-resistant, exotic and native species oc- composition (e.g., Bates 1935; Dale and Weaver 270 1974; Liddle and Greig-Smith 1975), only one study 3. Methods considered distance from source populations (Bright 1986) and none approached both the From United States Geological Survey topographic habitat and conduit functions from a landscape maps we determined the locations and lengths of ecology perspective, trails in RMNP. We transposed the trails onto vege- Our objective was to determine whether trail cot- ration maps (provided by the park's research office) fidors functioned as habitat and conduits for move- to determine which traversed the various eleva- ment of plant species in Rocky Mountain National tional zones and the most common coniferous Park (RMNP). We focused on patterns of plant forest types, particularly the Pinus ponderosa, Pi- species composition in relation to distance from the nus contorta, and Picea engelmannii-Abies lasio- trail edge, degree of trail use, and distance from carpa types. Using information in the RMNP Trail trailheads, junctions, and campgrounds. Plan (1982), we selected two trails in each of three use types: heavy pedestrian and equestrian, moder- ate pedestrian and equestrian, and light pedestrian 2. Study area and no equestrian (Benninger 1989). With regard to equestrian use, heavy and moderate were defined as Rocky Mountain National Park is located in north- annual use by -> 3000 and < 500 horses, respective- central Colorado, USA between 42" 10' and 40032' ly. Pedestrian use was defined qualitatively in the north latitude and 105031, and 105041' west RMNP Trail Plan (1982) and verified by our field longitude. The park encompasses 1060 km2 of the observations. We could find no suitable trails with Front and Mummy Ranges of the Rocky Moun- other combinations of pedestrian and equestrian rains, and elevations range from 2377 m on the use. eastern slopes to 4345 m at the summit of Longs In June-August 1988, we used a distance-mca- Peak. suring wheel to divide each trail into 50 equal seg- The vegetation in RMNP is divisible into mon- ments with one sample site each. Sample sites were tane, subalpine, and alpine elevational zones. This equidistant, and we randomly selected the distance study investigated trailside vegetation in coniferous from the trailhead to the first site and the side of the forests of the montane (2400-2700 m) and subal- trail for each site. Potential sites located in pine (2700-3400 m) zones. These forests are com- meadows or other non-forested areas were not sam- posed of mosaics of stands of different ages created pled. At each forested sample site, we placed two by fire, wind, and insect disturbance (Peet 1981, 0.5 x I m contiguous plots (to cover a 0.5 x 2 m 1988). They may be classified into several forest area) along and perpendicular to the trail edge and types based on elevation and moisture gradients a 0.5 x 1 m plot perpendicular to the trail and 5 m (Peet 1981, 1988; Vankat 1990). With increasing into the forest. The 5 m distance represented forest elevation, the montane zone forests include a Pinus interior conditions. These plot positions are re- ponderosa forest type, a Pinus ponderosa-Pseudo- fen:ed to as Edge l, Edge 2, and Interior. Within tsuga menziesii type, and a mixed type of Picea each plot, we identified all herbaceous and woody engelmannii, Abies lasiocarpa, Pseudotsuga men- species -< 1 m in height and estimated their cover ziesii, and Populus tremuloides(nomenclature fol- using cover classes: 0-5, 6-20, 21-40, 41-60, lows Weber 1976). The dominant subalpine forest 61-80, and 81-100o7o. is a Picea engelmannii-Abies lasiocarpa, and a Our sampling design was intended to provide Pinus flexilis type occurs on dry sites above 2800 m. data at enough combinations of site factors (slope, Two successional forests, a Pinu$ contorta type and aspect, topography, etc.) for the effects of these a Populus tremuloides type, can be found at all cie- factors to average out across the plot positions and vations, trail-use types. We employed two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine effects of plot po- sition and trail use on species richness, total plot 27 1 Table 1. Results of two-way ANOVA tests examining the effects of plot position and trail use on species richness, plot cover, and average species cover for (A) all species and (B) exotic species. Plot position Trail use Position*use F-value p-value F-value p-value F-value p-value Richness 2.96 .0521 5.31 .0051 0.45 .7705 Plot cover 47.16 .0001 15.95 .0001 0.36 .8340 Avg. species cover 24.71 .0001 11.83 .0001 1.21 .3032 Richness 8.43 .0007 2.31 .1092 0.98 .4273 Plot cover 1.27 .2888 0.61 .5168 0.13 .9695 Avg. species cover 1.70 · 1923 0.38 ,6888 0.22 .9253 cover, and average cover of species. Least square cantly greater in plot position Edge 1 than Interior means (LSM) was used to determine where signifi- (Fig. IA). Also, plot cover and average species cant differences occurred. Because few species oc- cover were lower in Edge 1 and 2 than in the Interior curred at all combinations of plot position and trail plot position (Table lA, Figs. lB and lC). use, we used one-way ANOVA to determine effects Sincethe pioneering work of Bates (1935), differ- of these factors on cover of individual taxa. Chi- ences in the composition of vegetation between the square tests were employed to determine effects of trail corridor and the matrix have been observed in plot position and trail use on frequency of occur- coniferous forests (Dale and Weaver 1974; Cole renceofindividualtaxa. We used correlation analy- 1978, 1981), deciduous forests (Hall and Kuss sis to determine whether richness, plot cover, and 1989), woodlands (Burden and Randerson 1972; averagespeciescoverwererelatedto distances from Bright 1986), grasslands (Bates 1935; Chappell et trailheads, junctions, and campsites for each plot al. 1971; Burden and Randerson 1972), and sand position and along each trail-use type. Alpha = dunes (Liddle and Greig-Smith 1975). There is a 0.05 for all analyses, gradient from constant to rare disturbance from the center of the corridor into the matrix, and different plant species are favored at different positions 4. Results and discussion along this gradient. In addition to stress imposed on the vegetation via direct trampling, floristic differ- 4.1. Trail corridors as habitat encesbetween the trail corridor andthematrixhave been attributed to differences in light intensity Our findings demonstrate that trail corridors in (Bates 1935; Dale and Weaver 1974; Cole 1978; RMNP provide habitat for vegetation different Hall and Kuss 1989), direct precipitation (Dale and from the forest interior. For example, 52 (29%) of Weaver 1974), grazing pressure (Dale and Weaver the total of 178 taxa sampled at the 291 sites were 1974; Cole 1981), soil density (Bates i935), soil restricted to one of the plot positions (30 restricted moisture (Bates 1935; Burden and Randerson 1972; to Edge 1, 12 to Edge 2, and 10to the Interior). In Liddle and Greig-Smith 1975), and root competi- addition, two-way ANOVA suggested (p -- ,0521) tion (Dale and Weaver 1974). that plot position affected species richness (Table Insight into species' responses to trail corridors is IA), and LSM showed that richness was signifi- gained by considering the growth form of species 272 A) ~ B) ~o r.j ~ ~ ~ 40 ~ whose abundance differed among plot positions, greater cover with greater distance from the trail Chi-square tests on species whose abundance was edge, paralleling the general trends noted for spe- sufficient for statistical testing showed that three cies richness and cover above. Taxa more abundant (6%) of 48 taxa differed in number of occurrences along the trail edge included Antennaria spp. (Table 2A) and 16 (12%) of 135 taxa differed in (parvifolia and rosea), Heterotheca fulcrata, average cover among plot positions (Table 2B). Taraxacum officinale, Aster campestris, and As- Thesetaxagenerallyoccurredless frequently or had tragalusparryi, all of which have traits, such as 273 Table 2. Species with significant differences in (Al number of occurrences and (B) cover among plot positions Edge 1 (El), Edge 2 (E2I, and Interior (INTl. In B, values in same row with letters in common are not significantly different. A) Number of Species p-value X2 (dO E 1 E2 INT Antennaria spp. (rosea and parvifolia) .017 8.161 24 26 10 Heterotheca fulcrata .029 7.115 16 19 6 Taraxacum officinale* .008 9.735 14 7 2 B) ANOVA LSD Mean cover Stand. Species p-value F-value R2 E 1 E2 INT Dev. Arnica cordifolia .0001 12.95 .1188 2.3 b 3.3 b 7.9 a 0.8 Aster campestris .0270 7.00 .7000 0.6 a 0.2 b 0.1 Astragalus parryi .0020 20.90 .8745 2.1 0.3 Bromopsis ported .0088 5.49 .2336 1.1 b 1.0 b 5.7 a 1.1 Carex heliophila .0238 4.19 ,2027 IA b 0.8 b 4.8 a 1.1 Chamerion angustifolium .0002 9.41 ,1327 0.9 b 1.4 b 4.4 a 0.6 Chimaphila umbellata .0023 84.04 .9825 1.3 b 0.3 b 13.0 a 0.8 Drymocallls fissa .0227 3.90 .0557 3.7 ab 2.1 b 5.4 a 0.8 Festuca saximontana .0414 3.44 ,1467 1.2 b 2.1 ab 6.0 a 1.4 Juniperus communis ,0096 4.82 .0711 4.6 b 12.7 a 16.1 a 2.7 Koeleria macrantha .0145 4.56 .1380 1.8 b 2.4 b 7.2 a 1.4 Muhlenbergia montana .0038 8.26 .5240 5.5 b 6.0 b 22.5 a 3.4 Populus tremuloides .0086 5.16 ,1467 2.1 b 0.1 b 7.6 a 1.6 Rosa woodsii .0266 3.73 .0559 2.7 b 3.9 ab 6.4 a 1.0 Thermopsis divaricarpa .0243 3.83 .0573 4.2 b 5.0 b 8.6 a 1.2 Vaccinium spp. (myrtillus and scoparium) .0001 24.52 .0994 10.2 b 12.0 b 22.4 a 1.3 * Introduced to RMNP - Absent small ground-level leaves or vegetative reproduc- The importance of growth form to the distribu- tion at or below the ground, which reportedly ena- tion of species is further suggested by the observa- ble them to survive in disturbed areas (cf. Bates tion that these same characteristics apparently pro- 1935; Dale and Weaver 1974; Liddle 1975; Liddle vide some species with the capability of colonizing and Greig-Smith 1975).Antennariaparvifolia and trampled areas outside their normal elevational Astragalus parryi have matted caespitose growth range (Benninger 1989). Examples includeAgropy- forms; Antennaria rosea and Aster campestris ron albicans, Carex heliophila, C. pachystachya, reproduce vegetatively by runners and rhizomes, and Symphoricarpos occidental& all of which are respectively; Heterotheca fulcrata may have a densely caespitose or have shallow perennating spreading habit; and Taraxacum officinale bears a tissue. rosette of basal leaves (Harrington 1964; Weber Other species lack traits adaptive to the distur- 1976). bance of trail corridors. In fact, most of the taxa 274 TableS. Exotic species sampled in plot positions Edge 1 (E I), the 178 taxa were restricted to one of the trail-use Edge2 (E2),and Interior (INT)andalongtrail-use typesheavy categories (29 restricted to light-use trails, 49 to (H), moderate (M), and light (L). moderate, and 20 heavy). Two-way ANOVA and Species Plot position Trail use LSM showed that species richness was significantly greater along light- and moderate-use trails than Acetosella vulgaris E 2 INT M along heavy-use trails (Table 1 A, Fig. 2A), and plot Bromus tectorum E I M cover and average species cover were greatest along Machaeranthera pattersonii E 1 H Nepeta cataria E I E 2 INT M moderate-use trails (Table lA, Figs. 2B and 2C). Phleum pratense E 1 E 2 M The high cover values along moderate-use trails Poa pratensis E I E 2 INT H M may be due to intermediate levels of stress promot- Taraxacum officinale E I E 2 INT H M L ing the invasion of aggressive, opportunistic species without excluding less competitive individuals (Westhoff 1967; Grime 1973; Liddle and Greig- which differed among plot positions had greater Smith 1975). Greater stress, such as along heavy- cover in the interior, away from trampling. These use trails, decreases species richness as disturbance- species included l/accinium spp. (myrtillus and sensitive taxa are lost. scoparium) which are common as ground cover in Trail use was important to some of the taxa Picea engelmannii-Abies lasiocarpa forests. In this whose abundance permitted statistical testing. Al- forest type, as welt as the Pinus contorta type, the though no taxa differed significantly in average undergrowth is dominated by shade-resistant forbs cover among trail-use types, 25 (71%) of 35 taxa characterized by large leaf area and supportive tis- showed significant differences in number of occur- sue, a growth form particularly susceptible to dis- rences (Table 4). None of these taxa were restricted turbance (Cole 1981). to one trail-use type, but seven (28%) occurred Findings for exotic species also support the con- most often on heavy-use trails, eight (32%) on clusion that trail corridors provide habitat for cer- moderate, and 10 (40%) on light. tain species, as all seven exotics occurred in one or Only one of the seven exotic species occurred at both of Edge 1 and 2 and three (43%) were restrict- ail levels of trail use, the rest were restricted to one ed to the edge plot positions (Table 3). These and or both of the heavy- and moderate-use trail types several other exotic plants (e.g., Cirsium arvense (Table 3). Two-way ANOVA showed no significant and Trifoliumpratense) were often observed along effect of trail use on the richness, plot cover, or trails. However, only Taraxacum officinale was average species cover of the exotics (Table lB). sampled often enough for statistical testing, and it Least square means, however, showed species rich- occurred most often in the Edge I position (Table ness to be significantly greater along moderate- 2A). Two-way ANOVA and LSM showed that spe- than along light-use trails (Fig. 2D). cies richness of the exotics was significantly greatest in the Edge 1 plot position (Table lB, Fig. 1D). However, plot cover and average species cover were 4.2. Trail corridors as conduitsfor species unaffected by distance from trail edge (Table 1B). movement Cole (1981), Kuss and Graefe (1985), Forman and Godron (1986), and Hammitt and Cole (1987) also Our finding that trail use affects species composi- concluded that trail corridors are important in the tion along trails suggests that trail corridors func- distribution of disturbance-resistant exotic plants, tion as conduits for species movement. This is sup- In theory, as habitats are modified by trampling ported by our determination that species richness stress, opportunistic exotic species are able to in- and average species cover were affected by distance vade and colonize (Kuss and Graefe 1985). from trailheads. For example, with all trail-use The composition of trailside plant communities types and all plot positions combined, richness was was also affected by trail use. Ninety-eight (55%) of significantly negatively correlated with distance 215 A)~ I B) 40- ~ 2 3 20- LIGHT MODERATE HEAVY LIGHT MODERATE HEA%~ TRAIL USE TRAIL USE C)_~o D)a 2 TRAIL USE TRAIL U$~. Fig. 2. Results of ANOVA and LSM showing the efl%cts of trail use on A) species richness, B) plot cover, C) average species cover, from the trailhead (Table 5A). This relationship With all trail-use types combined, average species was also significant for the Edge 1 plot position cover was significantly positively correlated with when all trail-use types were combined and for all distance from trailheads for all plot positions com- three plot positions along the heavy-use trails. No bined and for all plot positions treated separately other trail-use category exhibited a consistent, (Table 5B). This relationship was also significant statistically-significant relationship for all three for moderate-use trails for all plot positions corn- plot positions (or even for an edge plot position; bined and for both edge positions when treated Benninger 1989). separately. 276 Table 4. Species with significant differences in number of occurrences among trail-use types heavy (H), moderate (M), and light (L). Number of occurrences Species p-value X2 H M Abies lasiocarpa .000 24.92 6 29 6 Achillea lanulosa ,032 6.90 11 14 20 Antennaria spp. (parvifolia and msea) .000 17.3I 5 12 21 Arnica cordifolia .000 36.18 7 43 15 Artemisia friglda .024 5.07 11 3 0 Artemisia ludoviciana ,027 4.88 14 5 0 Aster foliaceus .006 7.59 I 10 0 Bromopsis porteri .014 6.08 0 3 10 Calam~grostis purpurascens .001 14.42 14 I 13 Carex foenea .016 8.27 4 16 12 Carex rossii .000 60.39 3 4 3 I Chamerion angustifolium ,004 11.14 7 15 20 Drymocallis fissa .003 9.06 16 0 2 Erigeron eximius .015 5.90 3 0 10 Festuca saximontana ,034 6.78 10 3 2 Fragaria ovalis .000 16.81 2 14 1 Koeleria macrantha .019 5.50 16 0 4 Penstemon virens .001 14.10 17 6 21 Pyrola minor ,050 3.86 0 I2 3 Rosa woodsii .000 32.91 4 32 7 Senecio £endleri .008 7.12 16 0 3 Solidago spathulata .000 30.04 10 11 31 Taraxacum officinale* ,012 8.88 2 5 10 Thermopsis divaricarpa .000 24.26 13 5 25 Vaccinium spp. (myr011us and scoparium) .000 125.84 18 98 33 * Introduced to RMNP Table 5. Correlation coefficients relating (A) species richness and 03) average species cover to distance from trailhead. Pearson correlation coefficients (R) N All plots Edge I Edge 2 Interior All trails 291 -, 1448' -. 1346* -. 1094 -. 1025 Heavy use 103 -,4053'* -.3530'* - ;2548'* - .3220** Moderate use 105 -.1508 -,1356 -.1657 -.1445 Light use 83 -.2216' -.1691 -.1488 -.2548' All trails 291 .2972** .3415'* .1729'* .2 100'* Heavy use 103 ,1537 .0940 .1312 .1106 Moderate use 105 .3575** ,3955** .2191' .1774 Light use 83 .0964 .1431 .0317 .0965 p < .05 277 Nip-van der Voort et al, (1979) and Bright (1986) 5. Conclusions also observed that distance from source popula- tions effected plant species composition, but their Our findings that plant species composition was al- studies were in non-mountainous areas. As with fected by distance from trail edge and level of trail most montane regions, trails in RMNP usually in- use and that exotic species are present along trails crease in elevation and pass through different forest show that trail corridors in RMNP provide habitat types with greater distance from the trailhead, for certain species. Species are favored or inhibited However, if elevation or changes in forest type by disturbance and microenvironment associated accounted for the decrease in species hchness and with the trail corridor, depending on their adaptive increase in average species cover we observed with characteristics. distance from trailheads, our findings would have Our documentation that speciescomposition was been statistically significant for each of the trail-use affected by level of trail use and distance fromtrail- categories. Instead, significance was observed only heads and that exotic species occur along trails indi- when trail use was moderate (average species cover) cate that trail corridors function as conduits for or heavy (species richness), movement of species. The evidence is inferential be- We expected that distances from trail junctions cause our study was short-term and pattern-based. and trailside campgrounds also affected species Direct evidence for the conduit function awaits richness and cover. In theory, intersecting corridors long-term study of the dispersal process itself, form networks which enhance migration by provid- cause plant dispersal, as a saltatory or step-by-step ing alternative pathways for movement (Forman process (Baudry 1984; Forman and Godron 1986), 1981, 1984; Forman and Godron 1981, 1986). often involveslong periods of time. Baudry (1984) observed that plant species richness and the frequency of occurrence for many species in hedgerows were significantly higher near inter- Acknowledgments sections. Also, campgrounds theoretically could act as nodes or sources of disturbance-related species. We thank the Rocky Mountain Nature Association For example, Cole (1981) observed that plant cover for funding; Curt Bucholtz, David Stevens, and and the presence of certain species were affected by Richard Keigley for assistance at RMNP; Michael disturbance in campgrounds. However, correla- Vincent for plant identifications; and Andrew tions between all three parameters (i.e., richness, Truax for assistance with sampling. plot cover, and average species cover) and distances from trail junctions and campgrounds, as well as between plot cover and distance from trailheads, References were inconsistent (Benninger 1989). Although exotic species showed no significant Bates, G.H. 1935. The vegetation of footpaths, sidewalks, cart- correlations with any distance parameter, their tracks and gateways. J. Ecol. 23: 463-48T presence along trail corridors of RMNP, indicates Baudry, J. 1984. Effects of landscape structure on biological communities: The case of hedgerow network landscapes. In that they use the corridors as a means of migration Proceedings of the first international seminar of the lntema- into natural areas. Furthermore, the presence of tional Association of Landscape Ecology. Vol. 1, pp. 55-65. four of the seven exotics in the interior plot position Edited by J. Brandt and P. Agger. Roskilde University suggests that trail corridors can facilitate the inva- Centre, Roskilde, Denmark. stion of exotic species into the forests of RMNP. Bayfield, N.G. 1973.Useand deterioration of some Scottish hill paths. J. Appl. Ecol. 10: 635-644. Preliminary study indicates that some exotic species Benninger, M.C. 1989.Trails as conduits of movement for plant are dispersed in horse scat (Benninger 1989). species in coniferous forests of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Masters thesis, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Bright, J.A. 1986. Hiker impact on herbaceous vegetation along 278 trails in an evergreen woodland of central Texas. Biol. Con- Harrington, H.D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. serv. 36: 53-59. Swallow Press, Chicago. Burden, R.F. and Randerson, P.F. 1972. Quantitative studies of Harris, L.D. and Gallagher, P.B. 1989. New initiatives for wild- the effects of human trampling on vegetation as an aid to the life conservation: The need for movement corridors. In management of semi-natural areas. J. Appl. Ecol. 9: defense of wildlife: Preserving communities and corridors. 439-457. pp. 11-34. Edited by G. Mackintosh. Defenders of Wildlife, Chappe[l, H.G., Ainsworth, J.F., Cameron, R.A.D. and Red- Washington, DC. fern, M. 1971. The effect of trampling on a chalk grassland Kuss, F.R. and Graefe, A.R. 1985. Effects of recreation tram- ecosystem. J. Apph Ecol. 8: 869-882. piing on natural area vegetation. J. Leisure Research 17: Clements, F.E. 1928. Plant succession and indicators. H.W. 165-183. Wilson Company, New York. Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selectivereview of the ecological effects of Cole, D.N. 1978. Estimating the susceptibility of wildland vege- human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7: tation to trailside alteration. J. Appl. Ecol. 15: 281-286. 17-36. Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recrea- Liddle, M.J. and Greig-Smith, P. 1975. A survey of tracks and tional use and fire suppression in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, paths in a sand dune ecosystem. J. Appl. Ecol. 12: 909-930. Oregon: Some management implications. Biol. Conserv. 20: Nelson, R.A. 1982. Plants of Rocky Mountain National Park. 247-270. Fifth edition, Rocky Mountain Nature Association, Boulder, Dale, D. and Weaver, T. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation Colorado. of the trail corridors of north Rocky Mountain forests. J. Nip-van der Voort, J., Hengefeld, R. and Haeck, J. 1979. Im- Appl. Ecol. 11: 767-772. migration rates of plant speciesin three Dutch polders. J. Bio- Forman, R.T.T. 1981. Interactions among landscape ele- geogr. 6: 301-308. ments: A core of landscape ecology. In Proceedings of the Peet, R.K. 1981. Forest vegetation of the Colorado Front International Congress organized by the Netherlands Society Range. Vegetatio 45: 3-75. for Landscape Ecology, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. pp. Peet, R.K. 1988. Forests of the Rocky Mountains. In North 35-48. Edited by S.P. Tjall~ngii and A.A. de Veer. Centre American terrestrial vegetation, pp. 63-101. Edited by M.G. for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wagenin- Barbour and W.D. Billings. Cambridge University Press, gen. Cambridge, England. Forman, R.T.T. 1984. Landscape ecologyprinciples and land- Rocky Mountain National Park Trail Plan. 1982. Denver Set- scape function. In Proceedings of the first international semi- vice Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the nar of the International Association of Landscape Ecology. Interior. Vol. 5, pp. 4-5. Edited by J. Brandt and P. Agger. Roskilde Vankat, J.L. 1990. A classification of the forest types of North University Centre, Roskilde, Denmark. America. Vegetatio 88: 53-66. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1981. Patches and structur- Verkaar, H.J. 1988. The possible role of road verge and fiver al components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31: 733- dykes as corridors for the exchange of plant species between 740. natural habitats. In Proceedings of the 2nd international Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology, seminar of the International Association for Landscape John Wiley & Sons, New York. Ecology. pp. 79-84. Edited by KarI-Friedrich Schreiber. Getz, L.L., Cole, F.R. and Gates, D.L. 1978. Interstate road- Schoningh, Paderborn. sidesasdispersalroutesforMicrotuspensylvanicus. J. Mam- Weber, W.A. 1976. Rocky mountain flora. Fifth edition, mai. 59: 208-212. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, Colorado. Grime, J.P. 1973. Controlofspeciesdensityinherbaceousvege- Wegner, J.F. and Merriam, H.G. 1979. Movements by birds tation. J. Env. Manag. 1:15 I-167. and small mammals between a wood and adjoining farmland Hall, C.N. and Kuss, F.R. 1989. Vegetation alteration along habitats. J. Appl. Ecol. 16: 349-358. trails in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Biol. Conserv. Westhoff, V. 1967. The ecological impact of pedestrian, eques- 48: 211-227. trian and vehicular traffic on vegetation. Proceedings and Hammitt, W.E. and Cole, D.N. 1987. Wildland recreation. Papers of the Tenth Technical Meeting of 1.U.C.N. 10: John Wiley & Sons, New York 218-223, Influence of Llamas, Horses, and Hikers on Soil Erosion from Established Recreation Trails in Western Montana, USA T. H. DELUCA* trail conditions. Soil erosion potential was assessed by sedi- W. A. PATTERSON IV merit yield and runoff (using a Meeuwig type rainfall simula- University of Montana toO, changes in soil bulk density, and changes in soil surface School of Forestry roughness, Soil moisture, slope, and rainfall intensity were Missoula, Montana 59812, USA recorded as independent variables in order to evaluate the W.A. FFIEIMUND extent that they were held constant by the experimental de- Wilderness Research Institute sign. Horse traffic consistently made more sediment avail- able for erosion from trails than llama, hiker, or no traffic University of Montana, School of Forestry when analyzed across wet and dry trail plots and high and Missoula, Montana 59812, USA Iow intensity traffic plots. Although total runoff was not signifi- D. N. COLE cantly affected by trail user, wet trail traffic caused signifi Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute candy greater runoff than dry trail traffic. Llama traffic caused Missoula, Montana 59801, USA a significant increase in sediment yield compared to the control, but caused erosion yields not significantly different ABSTRACT / Various types of recreational traffic impact hik- than hiker traffic. Trail traffic did not increase soil compaction ing trails uniquely and cause different levels of trail degrade on wet trails. Traffic applied to dry trail plots generally re- tion; however, trail head restrictions are applied similarly suited in a significant decrease in soil bulk density com- across all types of packstock. The purpose of this study was pared to the control. Decreased soil bulk density was nega to assess the relative physical impact of hikers, I~amas, and tively correlated with increased sediment yield and horses on recreational trails, Horse, llama, and hiker traffic appeared to result in increased trail roughness for horse traf- were applied to 56 separate plots on an existing trail at Lu- fic compared to hiker or llama traffic. Differences described brecht Experimental Forest in western Montana The traffic here between llama and horse traffic indicate that trail man- was applied to plots at intensities of 250 and 1000 passes agers may want to consider managing packstock llamas along with a no traffic control under both prewetted and dry independent of horses. Recreational use of mountainous areas has increased and Marion (1996) provide a comprehensive review of greatly over the past half century. Much of this use the influence of environmental factors. The influence occurs on a trail system that both facilitates access to the of use intensity on trail deterioration has also been mountains and reduces resource damage caused by frequently studied. Less is known about how the type of recreation use. Over time, many trail segments deterio- trail use influences magnitude of deterioration. rate by natural processes (gradual or cataclysmic) and On an established trail in Great Smoky Mountains by wear from recreation traffic (Summer 1986, Tinsley National Park, Whittaker (1978) found that horse use and Fish 1985). Substantial sums of money are spent caused more pronounced increases in trail width, trail every yearmaintaining, rebuilding, and relocating dam- depth, and litter loss than hiker use. This partially aged trails, corroborated the finding of Dale and Weaver (1974) The magnitude of trail deterioration is determined that home trails in Montana are deeper but equivalent by characteristics of the trail, its environment, and the in width to hiker trails. In Rocky Mountain National recreation use that the trail receives (Cole 1987). Leung Park, however, Summer (1980) was unable to detect differences in erosion rates between trails used by horses and those used only by hikers. KEY WORDS: Recreational impacts; Sediment yield; Trail degrada- tion In the most rigorously controlled study of impact to existing trails, Wilson and Seney (1994) measured the *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed, effect of hiker, horse, motorcycle, and bicycle traffic on Environmental Management Vol, 22, No 2, pp. 255 262 © 1998 Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 256 T.H. DeLuca and others sediment yield following simulated rainfall. Sediment segment selection was based on consistent slope, his- yield following horse use was significantly greater than toric use, and ease of closing the trail to visitor use. sediment yield following hiker or bicycle use, on both The recreational trails used in this study consisted of prewetted and dry trails, and greater than sediment 300-m segments of two parallel trails that were closed to yield following motorcycle use on dry trails. However, all traffic immediately following snow melt in March sediment yield prior to treatment was significantly lower 1995. The two parallel trails allowed us to apply traffic on hiker trails than on horse trails. Consequently, when simulations to each trail simultaneously and thus re- before-and after treatment differences in sediment yield duce the overall length of trail, minimizing slope and did not differ between home and hiker trails, there was soil variability. some doubt left about what affected impact more--the The section of trail selected is located on a Winkler treatments or the type of trails, gravely loam, which is a loamy skeletal, mixed, frigid, The somewhat equivocal nature of these findings Udic Ustochrepts (Nimlos 1986). The native soil is 50% regarding the relative impact of horses and hikers on sand, 38% silt, and 12% clay, is about 35% coarse trails suggests the need for further investigation. In fragments by weight, and has an average pH of 4.4 (1:2 addition, trails are increasingly being used by nontradi- soil to 0.01 M CaCI2). The parent material for this soil tional types of packstock, particularly by llamas. For type is colluvium that is composed of metamorphosed example, 57% of the wilderness areas in the United Precambrian sedimentary rock (Belt series). The trail States with packstock use have some use by llamas resides on a 4%-8% slope (average of 6%) and the (McClaran and Cole 1993). Proponents of llama use gravelly loam texture provided an intermediate to high argue that llamas have less impact on trails than level of resistance to soil compaction and erosion. traditional packstock (Markham 1990, Harmon and The width of individual trails range from I to 1.5 m Rubin 1992), a sentiment echoed by trail users in and had little entrenchment. Trail segments with ob- Yellowstone National Park (Blahna and others 1995). served entrenchment were eliminated from use in study The primary objective of this research, therefore, was plots. The elevation is 1250 m (4100 ft), and the trail has to assess the relative impact of homes, llamas, and hikers an east aspect. Based on samples from the control plots, on established trails, primarily by evaluating their effect the pretreatment bulk density of the trail's surface 5 cm on sediment yield following a simulated rainfall event. To is 1.5 g/cc. It is located in a Pseudotsuga menziesii/ determinewhetherresultsareconsistentunderwetanddry A~rtostaphylos uva-ursi habitat type (Pfister and others conditions, relative impacts were assessed on trails that were 1977). The location receives approximately 460 mm of both prewetted and dry. Wilson and Seney (1994) precipitation annually, about 40% of which falls as snow found that sediment yields following the application of (Nimlos 1986). traffic were greater on prewetted trails than dry trails. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block A secondary objective was to better understand the design with each of eight blocks (four wet trail and four mechanisms by which trail traffic leads to increased erosion, dry trail) containing seven separate plots: ( 1 ) control Erosion potential should increase if trail traffic increases the (no traffic); (2) 250 hiker passes; (3) 1000 hiker passes: detachability of soil particles or the ability of water or wind (4) 250 llama passes; (5) 1000 llama passes; (6) 250 to move detached particles. Trail traffic can increase erc- horse passes; and (7) 1000 horse passes. Each plot was 1 sion bylooseningsoil (increasing detachabilityofparticles), m wide and 3 m long with a 3-m-long buffer zone compacting the soil (increasingrunoffandsedimenttrans- between plots for turning, this allowed animals and port), or concentrating water flow into channels and hikers to reach a normal stride upon entering the plot. thereby increasing down-trail sediment transport and Trail traffic was applied and data collected during yield. Soil bulk density was measured to assess which of June and July of 1995, To create wet trail conditions, these mechanisms could explain variations in sediment plots and buffer zones received 10 mm of water per unit yield. We also measured soil roughness, as increased area applied by a gas-powered pump through a low- roughness could be indicative of increased loosening pressure, fine-spray nozzle. Immediately after each plot (detachability) or increased ponding of water (and was wet, seven composite soil moisture samples were therefore reduced runoff and transport) (Dixon 1995). taken across the plot to a depth of 5 cm, stored in a sealed container, and later dried in an oven at ll0°C, Materials and Methods Percent soil moisture was determined on a gravimetric basis (Gardner 1986). Following wetting the soils were The study was conducted at the University of Mon- about 25% soil moisture or about 50% of soil water tana's Lubrecht Experimental Forest near Greenough, holding capacity. Montana (lat. 44° 53' 24"N, long. 113° 25' 49"vV). Trail Traffic was applied continuously on plots until the Soil Erosion [rom Recreation Trails 257 specified number of passes was accumulated. Sediment dried at 110°C for 48 h. The total mass in grams of yield by rainfall simulation, soil bulk density, and sur- sediment collected from each rainfall simulation plot face roughness were measured immediately following was used as a measure of the relative erosion potential completion of the traffic applications. Equal numbers of of different trail user types. uphill and downhill passes were made on each plot. Bulk density was measured by an excavation and Horses and llamas were led in such a way that the volume measurement method, Briefly, a 12-cm-diam- person leading the animals stayed out of the plots. No eter circular hole was dug to a depth of $ cra, all soil animals carried packs and any manure from the animals materials removed, and their dry mass determined. The was removed from the trail before further traffic applica- volume of the hole was determined by refilling it with a tion. measured volume of 0.25-0.84-mm quartz sand and the Hikers wore non-lug-sole hiking boots and weighed bulk density determined as mass of soil removed dj- between 55 and 75 kg. The two horses with cleated vided by hole volume. shoes weighed around 400 and 500 kg each and the two Surface roughness was determined using a method llamas (with freshly clipped toenails) weighed 160 and adapted from Beckman and Smith (1974). A grid of six 190 kg each. In all cases, the traffic conditions represent flexible, cotton crochet threads were attached to a conservative estimates of what could occur with loaded 70-cm X 70-cm frame and the thread fitted to the soil horses, llamas, or people on steeper or wetter trails, surface following treatment application. The presence Traffic application required variable lengths of time of vertical variation from a level surface creates a more rangingfrom20minfor the250hikerpassesto2.Shfor tortuous pathway for the thread to follow, which in- the 1000 llama passes, and 6 h to complete the i000 creases the length of thread required to span the frame. horse passes. Average soil moisture content following Threads were run both parallel and perpendicular to traffic application was 10.5% for dry trail traffic and the direction of traffic and the six values averaged for 21.9% following wet traffic application, but was not each plot. An average value of 70 cm would reflect a significantly different for types of trail user. perfectly smooth surface. Simulated rainfall was produced with a modified Wet and dry treatments were applied in two separate Meeuwig drip-type rainfall simulator. This simulator experiments along the same trail instead of being produces a drop size of ;*.8 mm, with a kinetic energy randomly assigned within blocks. Therefore it is most roughly one half that of natural rain when suspended appropriate to consider wet and dry treatments as from a drop height of 2.0 m (Meeuwig 1971). The separate experiments and evaluate them separately. To maximum historic hourly precipitation rate recorded clarify the importance of soil moisture within the for a single rainfall event during the months of June or experimental design, a three-way analysis of variance July for Lubrecht was 61 mm/h for a 15-min interval (ANOVA) was performed with moisture, user type, and (NOAA 1971-1994). To be consistent with previous traffic intensity as independent factors. Ifmoisturewasa research and to ensure generation of adequate volumes significant factor or if there were significant interac- of runoff, a 120 mm/h simulated rainstorm event was tions between moisture and other factors, then the wet applied to all plots for a 15-rain period, and dry trails were analyzed separately, otherwise the Most rainfall simulation studies use intensities of plots were pooled for subsequent analysis. about 170 mm/h, which is far in excess of normal Factors judged to be significant (P--< 0.05), were rainfall rates (Wischmeier and Mannering 1969, Bryan then assessed using Tukey's multiple range test to deter- 1969, Johnson and Bescheta, 1980, Quinn and others mine which treatments were significantly different. We 1980, Quansah 1981, Wilson and Seney 1994). High also used single or two-tailed Dunnet's tests, which intensity is necessary for two reasons: to produce ad- compared individual treatment means to the control equate runoff to make up for limited overland flow; and treatment. Finally, Pearson correlation coefficients were to make up for the low kinetic energy associated with used to determine the relationship between sediment the rainfall simulator, yield and bulk density or surface roughness. All analyses were performed using PC-SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, Each rainfall simulation was applied to a 0.66-m × 0.66-m plot, and all runoff was funneled into polyvinyl North Carolina). collection bottles. Total volume of runoff collected was measured and analyzed as runoff as a percent of total Results water applied as rainfall [% runoff = (liters runoff/ liters water applied)*100]. The sediment in the runoff Sediment yield from trails following simulated rain- was allowed to settle for ar least one day. The water was fall, our primary indicator of trail deterioration, varied then siphoned off the top, and the remaining sediment significantly with user type and traffic intensit~ (Table 258 T.H. DeLuca and others Table 1. Three-way analysis of variance for sediment yield, runoff, bulk density, and surface roughness (control excluded to allow comparison of levels) for high and Iow traffic applications applied to wet or dry trails Sediment yield Runoff Bulk density Surface roughness Factor df MS P df MS P df MS P df MS P Model 6 32,437 0.000 6 851 0.000 6 0.030 0.813 6 12.4 0.000 User (llama, horse, hiker) 2 51,695 0.000 2 331 0.189 2 0.086 0.093 2 33.8 0.000 Level (250 or 1000 passes) 1 26,895 0.032 1 117 0.446 1 0.000 0.919 1 3.63 0.158 Trail (wetordry) 1 11,560 0.151 I 6283 0.000 1 1.212 0.000 1 0.01 0.930 User * level 2 241 0.956 2 159 0.440 2 0.007 0.803 2 0.36 0.815 User * trail 2 8.240 0.229 2 98 0.600 2 0.033 0.389 2 3.57 0.142 Level * trail 1 9,213 0.198 1 24 0.726 1 0.054 0.214 1 1.69 0.331 User * level * trail 2 1,923 0.701 2 43 0.794 2 0.053 0219 2 1.83 0.360 fMS = mean square. 250 · b* 200 Figure 1. Sedimentyield un- ~ der rainfall simulation follow- ~ 150 ing hiker, llama, or horse traf ~ ~ tic averaged across two levels of ~ traffic application intensity and ~ :ZZ:7 ~ wet and dry trail moisture con- c~ ~: ~ ditions. Bars with asterisks are 50 :=--- ~': significantly different than the ~g ~--~=-.Z: ~.:. control (P--< 0.05) by Dunnet's ~ ~ analysis and bars without simi- o I ~' ~ ~ I lar letters are significantly dif Control Hiker l.l~ma Horsz ferent (P--< 0.05) by Tukey's User Type test. 1). Sediment yield did not vary significantly between Although sediment yield from dry and prewetted dry and prewetted trails, and none of the interactions plots was not significantly different for the whole data between factors were significant. Consequently, we con- set (Table 1), the yields from the traffic application on cluded that pooling the sediment yield data from the dry trails were greater than the traffic applications on dry and prewetted trails was appropriate, prewetted trails for six of the seven treatments. The Runoff measured as a percent of total water applied most pronounced difference in sediment yield was as rainfall was greater on trails exposed to wet traffic observed following 1000 horse passes, resulting in an (average of 82%) compared to that on dry (average of average sediment yield of greater than 300 g on dry trail 59%) traffic (Table 1). Although runoff was not signifi- plots compared to an average of 183 g when horse traffic candy affected by the trail user type, runoff was consis- was applied to a prewetted trail. tently higher under horse traffic than under llama or Soil bulk density was measured because changes in hiker traffic, bulk density can be precursors of increased erosion Horse traffic on trails resulted in significantly more from trails. Bulk density differed significantly between sediment yield than either llama or hiker traffic, which the dry and prewetted trails, and there was substantial did not differ significantly from each other (Figure 1). evidence of interaction between trail moisture and Both horse traffic and llama traffic resulted in signifi- other factors; consequently, we analyzed dry and prewet- cantly more sediment yield than controls, but hiker ted trails separately. traffic did not. Mean sediment yield for all user types On dry trails, bulk density varied significantly with following 1000 passes (174 g) was significantly greater both user type and traffic intensity (Table 2). Traffic than the yield following 250 passes (127 g, P < 0.003). application to dry trails significantly reduced soil bulk Both traffic intensities resulted in statistically significant density, with both horse and hiker plots having posttreau (P < 0.003) increases in sediment yield compared to ment bulk densities that were significantly less than on the control (50g, data not displayed in Table 1). control plots. Among the user types, bulk densities Soil Erosion from Recreation Trails 259 following horse traffic were significantly lower than Table 2, Two-way analysis of variance for soil bulk densities following llama or hiker traffic (Figure 2). density on dry and wet trail treatment plots Mean soil bulk density after I000 passes (1.03 g/cc) was Factor df MS~ P significantly less than after 250 passes (1.15 g/cc). Both traffic intensities resulted in bulk densities that were Dry trail traffic applications lower than those on controls (1.50 g/cc). User type (llama, horse, hiker) 2 0.082 0.014 Traffic level (1000, 250) 1 0.031 0.162 Bulk densities were generally higher after treatment User type * traffic level 2 0.016 0.362 when traffic occurred on prewetted trails than when Wet trailtraffic applications they were dry. However, treatments did not cause a User type (llama, horse, hiker) 2 0.037 0.545 significant change in bulk density on prewetted trails, Traffic level (1000, 250) 1 0.022 0.546 and bulk density did not vary significantly with either User type * traffic level 2 0.046 0.470 user type or traffic intensity (Tables 1 and 2). The lower *MS = mean square. bulk density on the dry trails is also reflected in the significantly lower runoff rates from the dry trails traffic. The relative erosion potential of home, llama, compared to the prewetted trails (Table 1). and hiker traffic was consistent at traffic intensities of It is likely that bulk density would increase from the 250 and 1000 passes and on both dry and prewetted compacting effect of trail use on soil and that an trails. This result adds to the evidence from a number of increase in bulk density might result in decreased earlier studies (Whittaker 1978, Dale and Weaver 1974, infiltration, increased runoff, and increased sediment Wilson and Seney 1994) that horse traffic tends to cause yield (Lull 1959, Lal 1994). However, on dry trails, bulk more trail erosion than hiker traffic. It also extends this density declined with trail traffic, apparently reflecting a earlier work by showing that horse traffic is likely to loosening of soil on the trail when traffic was applied. A cause more trail erosion than llama traffic. Differences highly significant negative linear relationship between in erosion potential between hikers and llamas were not bulk density and sediment yield (rz = 0.59; P < 0.001) substantial or consistent enough to be statistically signifi- suggests that soil loosening increased the detachability cant. of soil particles and thus increased sediment yield. Sediment yields were higher on the dry trail plots Soil roughness was also measured as a possible than on the prewetted trail plots, suggesting that dry precursor to increased sediment yield and erosion, trail conditions made the trail more vulnerable to Roughness varied significantly with user type, but not sediment detachment. Bulk density of dry plots was with traffic intensity or soil moisture (Table 1). Interac- decreased by traffic applications, suggesting that the tions between factors were not significant, so the data trail surface aggregate was partially disrupted due to the from dry and prewetted plots were pooled. None of the trail traffic. Conversely, levels of runoff were signifi- user types or traffic intensities resulted in surface cantly greater on prewetted trail plots compared to dry roughness measures that were significantly different trail plots. Traffic applied to prewetted trails apparently resulted in increased armoring of the trail, which from controls. However, roughness measures were increased runoff rates. Traffic applied to dry trails may higher than controls after horse traffic and lower than increase the potential for erosion by increasing sedi- controls after llama and hiker traffic (Figure 3). The ment detachment, whereas traffic applied to wet trails roughness values on home plots were significantly may result in increased runoff resulting in greater down greater than those on either llama or hiker plots. These slope channeling of water and greater potential for results validate field observations that llama and hiker sediment transport (Lal 1994). traffic tended to smooth the trail surface while horse A number of reasons can be advanced for why horses traffic left a more churned up and rough surface. A have more erosion potential than llamas or hikers. significant positive linear relationship between surface Horses are heavier and their weight is carried on a shoe roughness and sediment yield (£z = 0.24; ?-< 0.05) with a small bearing surface. Moreover, horses' shoes suggests that increased roughness is associated with a are typically metal and frequently cleated. Homes are loosened soil surface, with more detachable soil par- also less careful and deliberate than llamas or humans tides and more potential for erosion, about where they place their feet. Our results confirm what has been found in a Discussion number of studies (Cole 1987), that the relationship between the amount of traffic and amount of impact is The principal finding of this study is that horse traffic curvilinear. When we increased trail traffic by a factor of on trails resulted in substantially more sediment yield 4, from 250 passes to 1000 passes, sediment yield following simulated rainfall than either hiker or llama increased by only a factor of 1.4 (from 12'/g to 174 g). 260 T.H. DeLuca and others 1.4 1.2 b* b ~ Figure 2. Soil bulk density · ~, 08 following hiker, llama, and ~ horse traffic averaged across ..,a o6. two levels of traffic application = ~ intensity to dry trail segments. 0.a. Bars with asterisks are signifi- cantly different than the con- 0.2. trol (P~< 0.05) by Dunnet's analysis and bars without simi- o I I lar letters are significantly dif- Control Hiker Llama Horse ferent (P < 0.05) by Tukey's User Type test. 77 b 765 ~ Figure 3. Mean roughness of 76[ soil surface as measured by to- tal vertical variation (70 cm = 75.5 level) across the hiking trail 72.5 ent than the control (P~ 0.05) User Type (ia ~< 0.05) by Tukey's test. Kuss (1983) also found that when hiker traffic was flows across smoother surfaces will have higher veloci- increased by a factor of 4 (from 600 to 2400 passes) ties and there will be less ponding (Ruttimann 1995). sediment yield increased by a factor of only 1.4 1.7. Our findings that bulk density was negatively corm- This suggests that initial trail traffic is much more lated with sediment yield and that surface roughness damaging than subsequent traffic, was positively correlated with sediment yield suggest Our results also provide some insight into the mecha- that soil loosening was the primary mechanism by nisms by which trail traffic leads to accelerated erosion, which trail traffic caused increased soil erosion on our Accelerated erosion greatly results from increased run- experimental trail plots. This supports Wilson and off, increased channel flow of water, increased detach- Seney's (1994) conclusion that sediment yield from ment of soil particles, and increased transport of de- experimental trail plots is detachment-limited rather tached soil particles. Decreased bulk density and than transport-limited. Detachmentofparticlesbyhorse increased roughness should generally be indicative of traffic appeared to be the most important mechanism in soil loosening and therefore increased detachment increasing sediment yield on our plots. We observed (Gabriels and Moldenhauer 1978). Conversely, in- similar runoff rates with all three trail users, but a creased bulk density should be indicative of increased significantly higher sediment load in the runoff with transport capability because increased compaction horse traffic. Horses appear to cause more trail erosion should result in decreased infiltration and increased than either llamas or hikers on dry trails because they runoff (Lal 1994). Decreased roughness should also be loosen the soil to a greater degree, making soil particles indicative of increased transport capability because easier to detach. In future studies, however, larger trail Soil Erosion from Recreation Trails 261 plots would have to be used to adequately address the permits should be inversely related to one's impact effect of trail traffic on erosion due to increased runoff, potential. This approach would make it more difficult The importance of soil loosening also helps explain for horse groups to obtain a permit than for llama or the somewhat unexpected finding that sediment yield hiker groups. following trail traffic was usually greater on dry trails In conclusion, trail users are not equivalent in the than on prewetted trails. This finding is contrary to that extent to which they contribute to accelerated erosion. of Wilson and Seney (1994), who generated greater Horse traffic is capable of causing several times as much sediment yields on prewetted trails. It also is counter to erosion as an equivalent amount of traffic by llamas or the general principle that moist soils are particularly hikers. Managers concerned about trail problems may vulnerable to trail problems (Hammitt and Cole 1987). want to consider this difference when devising trail Since soil loosening was the primary mechanism of management strategies. increased sediment yield on our plots, anything that increases soil cohesion should decrease erosion poten- Acknowledgments tial. The water that we added to the relatively coarse- grained soils of our experimental trail clearly increased The authors wish to thank the Aldo Leopold Wilder- soil cohesiveness and, therefore, decreased vulnerabil- ness Research Institute for funding this work, Marie and ity to detachment. We might have obtained the opposite Max Hillberry for supplying llamas, Frank and Debbie result, however, if we had added much greater quanti- Maus for supplying horses, Dr. Henry Shovick for ties of water or if the soils were clayey, with a tendency to loaning us the rainfall simulator, and Chris Orman and adhere to boots when wet or to harden when dry. Wet Emily DeLuca for field assistance. This work is a contri- trails also might have been more problematic if the trail bution of the University of Montana School of Forestry was steep and more of the forces of trail traffic involved Experiment Station. smearing and shearing. Finally, there are a number of the trail problems Literature Cited other than erosion that are aggravated most by traffic during wet conditions that were not considered in this Beckman, G. G., and K. J. Smith. 1974. Micromorphological changes in surface soils following wetting, drying and study including: (1) multiple trailing; (2) trail widen- trampling. Pages 832-845 in G. K. Rutherford (ed.), Soil lng, and (3) puddling (Cole 1987). Although traffic microscopy, Proceedings of the fourth International work- during periods of high soil moisture or in locations with lng meeting on soil micromorphology. Limestone Press, chronically high moisture often causes problems on Kingston, Ontario. trails, soil erosion can also be a serious problem even on Blahna, D. J., K. S. Smith, and J. A. Anderson. 1995. Backcoun- try llama packing: Visitor perceptions of acceptabilii~ and dry trails, conflict. LeisureScieace 17:185 204. Various options exist for incorporating divergent Bryan, R. B. 1969. The relative erodibility of soils developed in impact potential into management programs. At one the peak district of Derbyshire. Geografiska Annaler 51:145- extreme, types of use with high impact potential (e,g., 158. horse use) can be entirely prohibited. Alternatively, Cole, D. N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilder- these uses can be allowed in some management zones ness: A state-of-knowledge review. Pages 135-177 in R. C. and not allowed in others. Places where these uses are Lucas (comp.), Proceedings, national wilderness research allowed could be selected on the basis oftheir resistance conference: Issues, stateofknowledge, future directions. General Technical Report INT-220. USDA Forest Service. to impact. Trails where these uses are allowed could be Ogden, Utah. specially designed and maintained to tolerate substan- Dale. D.. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation tial disturbance. Our results, as well as the results of a of the trail corridors of North Rocky Mountain forests. study of visitor attitudes about encounters with horses, Journal o£Apfllied Ecology 11:767-772. llamas, and hikers (Blahna and others, 1995) suggest Dixon, R. M. 1995. Water infiltration control at the soil that when zoning on the basis of use type, llamas are surface: Theory and practice. Journal o£ Soil and Water more closely allied with hikers than with horses. Conservation 50:450-453. In a number of parks and wilderness areas, amount Gabriels, D., and W. C. Moldenhauer. 1978. Size distribution of use is limited in order to control user impacts. Several of eroded material from simulated rainfall: Effect over a range of textures. Soil Science Society of Ame~ca Journal scientists have suggested that managers should allocate 42:954-958. a limited numbers of permits on the basis of the Gardner, W. H. 1986. Water content. Pages 493 544 inA. Klute environmental expense of different user groups (ed.), Methods of soil analysis: Part 1. physical and mineral (Hendee 1974, Stankey 1977, Weaver and others 1979). ogical methods. Soil Science Society America, Madison, These individuals argue that one's access to limited Wisconsin. 262 T.H. DeLuca and others Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation: Quansah, C. 1981. The effect of soil type, slope, rain intensity ecology and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, and their interactions on splash detachment and transport. 341 pp. JournaIMSoilScience32:215 224. Harmon, D., and A. S. Rubin. 1992. Llamas on the trail, a Quinn. N. W.. R. i~ C, Morgan, and A. J. Smith. 1990. packers guide. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Mis- Simulation of soil erosion induced by human trampling. soula, Montana. 170 pp. Journal of Environmental Management 10:155-165. Hendee, J. C. 1974. A scientist's views on some current Ruttimann, M., D. Schaub, V. Prasuhn, and W. Ruegg. 1995. wilderness management issues. Western Wildlands 1:27-32. Measurement of runoff and soil erosion on regularly culti- Johnson, M. G., and R. L. Bescheta. 1980. Logging, infiltration rated fields in Switzerland: Some critical considerations. capacity, and Surface erodibility in Western Oregon. Journal Catena 25:127-139. of£orestry78:334-337. Summer, R. M. 1980. Impacts of horse traffic on trails in Rocky Kuss, F. R. 1983. Hikin8 boot impacts on woodland trails. Mountain National Park. Journal of Soil and Water Conserva- Joumal of Soil and Water Conservation 38: l i 9 121. tion 35 :85-87. Lal, R. 1994. Soil erosion research methods, 2nd ed. Soil Water Summer, R. M. 1986. Geomorphic impacts of horse traffic on Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. montane landforms. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Leung, Y., and J. L. Marion. 1996. Trail degradation as 41:126 128. influenced by environmental factors: A state-oPthe knowl- Stankey, G. H. 1977. Rationing wilderness use: methods, edge reviexv. Journal of Soll and Water Conservation 51:130- problems and guidelines. Research Paper INT-192. USDA 136. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Lull, W. A. 1959. Soil compaction on forest and range lands. Utah. Misc. Publ. 768, USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC, Tinsley, B. E.. and E. B. Fish. 1985. Evaluation of trail erosion 33 pp. in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Landscape Markham. D. 1990. Llamas are the ultimate. Snake River Planning12:29-47. Llamas, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 285 pp. Weaver. T., D. Dale, and E. Hartley. 1979. The relationship of McClaran, M. P., and D. N. Cole. 1993. Packstock in wildep trail condition to use. vegetation, user, slope, season and ness: Use, impacts, monitoring, and management. General time. Pages 94-100 in R. Itmer, D. R. Potter, J. K. Agee, and Technical Report INT 301. USDA Forest Service, Intermoun- S. Anschell (eds.), Recreational impact on wildlands. R-6 001- tain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, 33pp. 1979. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Meeuwig, R. O. 1971. Soil stability on high elevation rangeland Portland. Oregon. in the inter mountain area. Research Paper INT 94. USDA Whittaker. P. L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking Forest Service. Ogden, Utah. and horseback riding in the Great Smoky Mountains Na- NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). tional Park. USDI National Park Service, Southeast Region. 1971-1994. Hourly precipitation data, Montana. vols. 21- Management Report 24. Atlanta. Georgia, 32 pp. 44. United States Department of Commerce. Wilson. J. P., and J. P. Seney. 1994. Erosional impacts of hikers, Nimlos, T. J. 1986. Soils of Lubrecht Experimental Forest. horses, motorcycles, and off road bicycles on mountain Miscellaneous Publication No. 44. Montana Forest and trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development 14: Conservation Experiment Stadon, Missoula. Montana, 36 pp. 77 88. Pfister. R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno. and R. C. Presby. Wischmeier, W. H., and J. V. Mannering. 1969. Relation of soil 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. General Technical properties to it's erodibility. Soil Science Socie~ o£ America Report INT-34. USDA Forest Service. Ogden, Utah. Proceedings33:131-137. Plant Ecology 157: 23-35~2001. 23 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. The effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse dung on vegetation along trail corridors Jonathan E. Campbell1'2 & David J. Gibson1 I Department of Plant Biology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-6509, USA; 2Current Address: Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA (e-mail: jcampbel@ucla, edu) Accepted 25 August 2000 Key words: Biodiversity, Endozoochory, Kummerowia striata, Illinois, Rarefraction Abstract It has been suggested that exotic species will colonize within forests more frequently by the continual introduction of seeds through horse dung deposited along trails. Whether or not these exotic species have the ability to spread into and establish in the forest interior has been disputed. To address this, horse dung and soil samples were collected from trails during Autumn 1994 and Summer 1995 from three areas in southern Illinois, USA open to recreational horse travel. In addition, deer dung samples were collected from each of the study areas. Vegetation data were collected from each of the trail systems as well as from a trail along which horse travel was prohibited. The density of vascular plants in 0.25 m2 quadrats placed at varying distances from the trail center to 5 m into the forest interior were recorded. Finally, dung samples were placed in situ along horse trails at one site to examine seedling germination in natural conditions. While 23 exotic species germinated from samples of horse dung placed out in a greenhouse, only one of these exotic species was also found in trail plots (Kummerowia striata). Similarly, while there were empirically more exotic species found along the trails allowing horse travel than there were on the trail lacking horse travel, the relative importance of those species was negligible along both trails. These results suggest that the emigration of exotic species via horse dung does not pose an immediate threat to the plant communities adjacent to trails in these forest systems. Nevertheless, the large number of exotic species in horse dung reflects the constant threat to any system from these species. Care must be taken, when allowing horseback use in areas, to anticipate invasion by exotic species from horse dung Introduction cumulative effect of the unchecked spread of exotic species may be reduced heterogeneity and biologi- A community dominated by native vegetation is con- cal diversity (Mooney & Drake 1986; Soule 1990; sidered relatively desirable, or 'healthy' (Noss 1990). Westman 1990). The primary concern with exotic, or non-native, Disturbance is a component of many natural plant species is their effect on this native vegetation. Exotic communities (Pickett & White 1985; Holland & O1- species often compete with native plant species for son 1989; Hobbs & Huenneke 1992). For example, available resources, thus decreasing the number of na- fire greatly influences the species diversity and veg- rive species and rendering the community 'unhealthy' etative structure of both prairie (Kucera & Koelling (Mooney & Drake 1986; Meekins & McCarthy 1999; 1964; Collins & Gibson 1990) and forest communi- Davis et al. 2000). Williamson (1996) suggests that it ties (Ohmann & Grigal 1981; Scheiner et al. 1988; is common for roughly 10% of non-native species to Bartos et al. 1994). However, areas that experience rte- become established in a community and that 10% of quent disturbance, particularly unnatural disturbance, those will become aggressively invasive species. Al- are most susceptible to biological invasions (Elton though Williamson's (1996) 'Tens Rule' suggests that 1958; Braithewaite et al. 1989; Binggeli 1996). All most invaders have little impact on communities, the contemporary ecosystems are subject to some form of unnatural disturbance, therefore no system is free Kiem 1934) have all been shown to pass viable seeds from the possibility of invasion by exotics (Hobbs & through their intestinal tract. Huenneke 1992). The fear that exotic species may be spread into Horse travel is a source of frequent disturbance in pristine or relatively undisturbed natural areas via many forest ecosystems. Horse trails normally contain the dung from recreational horse travel has led to a barren treadway and a trail edge community with an acute debate between environmental groups and both natural and exotic species; many of these trail equestrian groups. Natural Areas have been estab- edge species cannot survive within the forest interior lished by federal agencies (wilderness or scientific (Bates 1935; Benninger-Truax 1992). The impact to areas) and state bureaus (nature preserves or reserves) trails and adjacent areas from erosion caused by horses to protect high quality natural communities. In some and other users is also well documented (Burde & federal areas, multiple use, including recreation, is Renfro 1986; Hammit & Cole 1987; Wilson & Seney allowed. Recreation and preservation are not always 1994). In addition to erosion, Bates (1935) suggests compatible (Cole 1993). that horses also effect vegetation by grazing along and Land owners, land managers, and environmental- defecating on trails, ists in southern Illinois are concerned about exotic Studies of horse dung show that horses pass large seed dispersal via horse dung (Faulkner 1993; Black- numbers of seeds through their digestive tract. Har- orby 1994a,b, Land 1994). The Shawnee National mon & Kiem (I 934) fed horses seven different species Forest contains over 1000 km of horse trails (Shawnee of seeds and recovered 12.9% of those seeds in the National Forest 1992) as well as a number of exotic resulting dung. Benninger (1989) reported 15 different plant species. Among the aggressive exotics present plant species arising from horse manure in samples in the Shawnee National Forest are Japanese honey- collected from the Rocky Mountain National Park, suckle (Lonicerajaponica), multiflorarose (Rosa mul- USA. In addition, Hammit & Cole (1987) state that tiflora), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata, kudzu- horse manure is a major source for exotic seeds in vine (Pueraria lobata, and sweet clover (Melilotus wilderness recreation areas. Most seeds pass through a spp.) (Evans 1981). Some agencies, such as the Illinois horse's digestive tract within 48 hours of consumption Nature Preserve Commission (INPC) and environ- (Alexander 1946; Vander Noot et al. 1967). How- mental groups like the Illinois Native Plant Society ever, Janzen (1981) showed that guanacaste seeds (INPS), expect land managers to primarily concern (Entemlobium cyclocarpun) may remain viable in the themselves with the preservation of 'natural' condi- horses' digestive tract for up to two months, and de- tions, and believe that natural areas are threatened by duced that horses could contribute to establishing local horse travel (Faulkner 1993). Conversely, The Illinois as well as distant populations. Federation of Outdoor Recreation (IFOR), an eques- Dung can be a source of viable seed for taxa not trian group, feels that natural areas should continue to otherwise present in a community. The role of herbi- be multiple use lands, available for recreational users votes in dispersing seeds is well established (Ridley (Blackorby 1994a). IFOR also believes that sugges- 1930; Harmon & Kiem 1934; Heady 1954; Janzen tionsthathorsesareresponsiblefortheinfluxofexotic 1982; Fenner 1985; Hammit & Cole 1987): seeds species are unsupported. can be spread from one location to another by attach- This research is designed to determine whether ment to the body of animals (epizoochory) or by being there is a relationship between the spread of exotic ingested and later excreted (endozoochory). In some species into forest systems and recreational horse rid- cases, the seed coat of seeds moving through the diges- ing: (1) Does horse dung transport seeds of exotic tive system of herbivores may become scarified, en- species, (2) Can seeds transported via horse dung ger- hancing germination (e.g., legumes). Many native her- minate in situ? (3) Can seedlings emerging from horse bivores such as deer (Heady 1954; Gonzalez-Spinosa dung alter the vegetative composition on or around & Quintana-Ascencio 1986), wild boar (Middleton & trails? Mason 1992), and emus (Brunner et al. 1976), have proven effective seed dispersers. In addition, stock animals such as cattle (McCully 1951; Harper 1977; Janzen 1982; Welch 1985), sheep (Harmon & Kiem 1934; Heady 1954; Piggin 1978), and pigs (Harmon & 25 Fig~tre 2. Total number of species at each of the four trail systems. (TTSF-A = trails subject to horse travel at Trail of Tears State For- est, TTSF-B ---- trails free from home travel at Trail of Tears State · rs~ Forest, J. Hole = Jackson Hole, l'. Hollow = Jackson Hollow). is on the eastern edge of the Salem Plateau (Leighton et al. 1948). Purchased by the State of Illinois in 1929, Trail of Tears State Forest is managed by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Ninety percent of the forest is Oak-Hickory forest, while the remaining 10% is pine plantations (Anonymous 1972). Two trail ~ o ~3 ~ ~a,~n~ systems were studied at TTSF, one which is open to horse travel (TTSF-A) and one in which horse travel Figure 1. Location of the three study sites for the study of seed is prohibited (TI'SF-B). Horse trails receive light to dispersal along horse trails in southern Illinois. A fourth trail that was free from horse travel was studied as TTSF (Trail of Tears State moderate use at TTSF and are open from May 1 until Forest). the second weekend in November (K.A. West, pers. Materials and methods Jackson Hole Ecological Area (1942 ha) and Jack- son Hollow Ecological Area (116 ha) are located within the Greater Shawnee Hills Section of the Study sites Shawnee Hills Natural Division (Leighton et al. 1948; This study was conducted in three forest areas in Schwegman et al. 1973; Stritch 1982). These areas southern Illinois, USA; Trail of Tears State Forest, are dominated by mesic oak-hickory forest, although Jackson Hole Ecological Area, and Jackson Hollow much of the forest on Wellston-Berk soils has suc- Ecological Area (Figure 1). In all, three horse trails ceeded to beech-maple. Horse trails at both Jackson and one hiking trail were examined. Unfortunately, the Hole and Jackson Hollow receive heavy use and are Jackson Hole and Jackson Hollow Ecological Areas open year round (Beth Shimp, personal communica- did not contain trails restricting horse travel. Neverthe- tion). less, the hiking trail at Trail of Tears State Forest was incorporated into this study to allow us to compare and Sampling contrast hiking trails with horse trials. To determine the dominant flora found along horse The Trail of Tears State Forest (TTSF), located trails, 100 sample sites were located randomly along in west-central Union County, Illinois, comprises each of the three trail system (TTSF-A, Jackson Hole, 2070 ha. There are approximately 29 km of horse Jackson Hollow). In addition, to determine the dif- trails in addition to hiking trails. The forest, located ference between trails subject to and trails free from in the southern section of the Ozark Natural Division, horse travel, 100 sample sites were placed out on trails 26 at Trail of Tears State Forest (TTSF-B) that were free Seedlings were removed from the trays upon identi- from horse travel. To attain 100 sample sites, five tran- fication; some were preserved as voucher specimens. sects, containing 20 sample sites each, were placed on Some species with dormancy-breaking requirements each trail system. The 20 sample sites were placed out (i.e., cold, scarification, etc.) may have escaped our along the trail in 5 m intervals. All transects were ran- screening process. domly located by placing a numbered grid over a map To quantify the seedlings arising in situ, five grids, of the study site and picking and x- and y-coordinate each consisting of 32 plots, were placed along the from a random number table. When this random point horse trails at T]'SF-A. The placement of grids used did not fall directly onto the trail, the transect was the same randomization method used to locate tran- placed at the location on the trail closest to this point, sects along the trail. Each of the plots were 12.7 x The determination of the direction that the 20 sample 17.8 cm, corresponding to the size of the green- sites were placed from the original random location house trays. Four hundred mi of horse dung was and which side of the trail the transect was placed spread evenly over 80 of the 160 plots. Forty of those were determined by a coin toss. Sample sites were 80 treated plots received horse dung collected from comprised of a series of four 0.5 x 1 m plots oriented TTSF-A during August and September of 1994, while perpendicular to the trail. The first plot was placed in the other 40 were treated with horse dung collected the center of the of the trail (CENTER), the second from TFSF-A during June and July of t995. The was placed adjacent to the edge of the trail (EDGE), remaining 80 plots in each grid remained untreated. the third was placed I m from the trail center into the Each of the five grids contained 8 plots treated with forest (TRANSITION), and the fourth plot was placed dung collected in the fall, 8 plots treated with dung 5 m into the forest interior (INTERIOR). Density of collected in the summer, and 16 untreated plots. All all plant species less than one meter in height was treatments were randomly placed within each grid. recorded for each plot during summer 1995. Nomen- Stem densities of all herbaceous species were recorded clature and determination of whether or not a species monthly in all plots during Autumn 1994 (August- was exotic to the sites followed Mohlenbrock (1986). November) and 1995 (March-November). To determine the germinable seed bank in horse dung, 40 dung samples (400 ml each) were collected Data analysis from each TI'SF-A, Jackson Hole, and Jackson Hol- low during Summer (June and July) 1995. TTSF-A Normality of all dina sets was tested using SigmaS- samples were supplemented with collections from the tat 2.0 (Jandel Corporation, San Rafael, CA). In most nearby Black Diamond Ranch, located approximately cases, non-parametric statistics were used to analyze I km from TI~SF-A, with direct flail connections onto the data in this study because of their highly non- the TI'SF horse trail system. Forty dung samples were normal distribution. Absolute and relative densities of also collected during Autumn (August and September) all species were calculated for each data set. Rela- 1994 from TTSF-A. All dung samples collected in the tire density was calculated by dividing the density of field (both summer and autumn samples) were approx- each species by the total density of all species in each imately 0-2 days old. Soil samples were taken from respective data set. each of the three trail systems adjacent to each summer Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA: Hill dung sample in the center of the trail to a depth of ap- 1979; Hill & Gauch 1980) was used to describe the proximately 5 cm. In addition, 22 deer dung samples species composition at each of the trail sites. The were collected during Summer (June and July) 1995 DCA was conducted by &trending via 26 segments from the three study sites (5 from TI'SF-A, 10 from using CANOCO for Windows Version 4.02. For each Jackson Hole, and 7 from Jackson Hollow). plot, distance from trail was assigned a rank of 1 To identify the germinable seeds in the dung and (CENTER), 2 (EDGE), 3 (TRANSITION), or 4 (IN- soil, each sample was spread evenly over vermi- TERIOR). These ranks were then compared with sam- culite in a 12.7 x 17.8 cm tray. The trays were then pie scores along the first DCA axis using a one-way placed in the greenhouse. Seedlings germinating in the Kruskal-Wallace Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on greenhouse trays from Autumn 1994 were identified Ranks, followed by a Dunn's Test for all pairwise and recorded until May 1995, while seedlings ger- comparisons, to see if species composition in trail sites minating from greenhouse trays from Summer 1995 varied with distance from trail. were identified and recorded until November 1995. 27 An ANOVA on Ranks extended for factorial de- well as exotic species, was consistently higher near the signs (Zar 1998), followed by a Tukey Test for multi- trail than in the forest interior, whereas the density of pie comparisons, was employed to determine if stem vines was lower (Figures 3a~l). Total relative density density values at different distance differed between of exotic species found on the trail systems was low trails subject to horse travel and trails free from horse (TTSF-A = 4.15%; TTSF-B = 1.23%; Jackson Hole travel at Trail of Tears State Forest (TFSF-A and ~-- 0.65%; Jackson Hollow = 1.06%). In all 1600 trail TTSF-B). All ANOVAs were calculated using Sigma- plots, 5 exotic species were identified on the four trail Stat for Windows Version 2.0 (Jandel corporation, San systems (Table 1). In addition, an ANOVA on Ranks Rafael, CA). extended for factorial designs showed that overall stem The RAREFRAC procedure from the Statistical density values at Trail of Tears State Forest were sig- Ecology software package (Ludwig & Reynolds 1988) nificantly different (F = 5.861, df = 3, p = 0.003) was used to calculate rarefraction curves on horse between trails subject to (TTSF-A, 34.25 stems m-2) dung and soil samples in the greenhouse germina- and trails free from horse travel (TI'SF-B, 26.35 stems tion study (Autumn, n = 40; Summer, n = 120, m-2). The multiple comparison Tukey test showed respectively) and field grid experiment (n = 40). Rat- that all four distances exhibited significantly higher efraction analyses are used to create richness curves stem density values at TFSF-A (CENTER: q=2.905, which illustrate the expected number of species over p < 0.05; EDGE: q = 10.814, p < 0.05; TRAN- an array of theoretical sample sizes (Simberloff 1978; SITION: q = 10.451, p < 0.05; INTERIOR: q = Simberloff 1979; Gotelli & Graves 1996). Juncus 8.379, p < 0.05). tenuis was excluded from the rarefraction analyses on the summer horse dung samples because of its over- Greenhouse trays whelming dominance (>90% relative density) in those plots. A wide variety of species, many of which are exotic Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Tests were used to de- and not normally present in the forest interior, can termine if field grids treated with horse dung had sig- survive passage through the horses' digestive tract: nificantly different stem density values than untreated Digitaria spp., Festuca arundinacea, Melilotus spp., field grids. Poa annua, Trifolium repens, Chenopodium ambro- sioides, Eleusine indica, Kummerowia striata, Ama- ranthus spinosa, and Plantago spp. are some of the Results exotic species that germinated abundantly from dung in the greenhouse (Appendix 1). Kummerowia striata Trail vegetation and Prunella vulgaris were the only exotic species found both growing along the trail systems and ger- The Kruskal-Wallace Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) minating from the horse dung in the greenhouse trays. on Ranks showed that the principal gradient of vegeta- Kummerowia striata was found in horse dung samples tion composition from the Detrended Correspondence collected during Autumn 1994 at TTSF-A and in horse Analysis (DCA) (eigenvalue = 0.679; percentage vari- dung samples collected during summer 1995 at Jack- ance of species data = 3.8) was related to distance son Hole. However, along the four trail systems, it was from the trail center (H = 120.777, df = 3 p < found only at TI'SF-A and with a relative density of 0.001).ADunn'sTest onallpairwisecomparisons fur- 0.2%. Another exotic species, P vulgaris, was also ther showed that species composition on all four trial found in horse dung samples collected during summer distances were significantly different (p < 0.05), with 1995. Several native species also occurred frequently the exception of the CENTER and EDGE positions in greenhouse trays; e.g., Juncus tenuis, Callitriche (Q = 2.559, p > 0.05). Indeed, several species on the terrestris, Erigeron spp., Lobelia intraya, and Leersia four trail systems were identified only at one or two virginica. distances; e.g., the exotic Poa pratensis was limited Horse dung samples collected in the Autumn from to the edge and transition plots. Species richness was TI'SF-A and placed out in the greenhouse yielded always highest in the one of two plots adjacent to the a total of 43 identifiable (4 unidentifiable) taxa, 19 trails (EDGE and TRANSITION), while the CENTER (44.2%) of which were exotic (Figure 4a). Soil sam- plot maintained the lowest species richness values at pies collected from TI'SF-A, Jackson Hole, and Jack- all sites (Figure 2). The density of graminoids, as son Hollow yielded 40, 25, and 38 species, re- 28 Table 1. Relative densities of exotic species identified in trail vegetation plots at each study site. Origin for each species is taken from Mohlenbrock (1986). (TTSF-A = trails subject to horse travel at Trail of Tears Slate Forest, TTSF-B = Irails free from horse travel at Trail of Tears State Forest). Species Origin Density (stems m-2) Re}. density (%) TTSF-A Kummerowia striata Asia 0.10 0.2 Lonicerajaponica Asia 0.85 2.2 Poa pratensis Europe and Asia 0.18 0.5 Prunella wtlgaris Europe 0.28 0.7 Rosa multiflora China and Japan 0.03 0.6 TTSF-B Prunella vulgaris Europe 0.10 0.3 Rosa multiflora China and Japan 0.23 0.8 Jackson Hole Lonicerajaponica Asia 0.08 0.3 Pr~mella vulgaris Europe 0.05 0.2 Rosa multiflora China & Japan 0.03 0. ] Jackson Hollow Lonicerajaponica Asia 0.05 0.2 Prunella vulgaris Europe 0.13 0.6 ~ I a. ~4-, b. c. a5 d. 30 29 Exotic ~ Exotic 4O ~- 30 ~ 30 4 ~ 20 $ 20 ~ = ~ ~0° ~ ~0 0 ~SF-A TTSF-B O. Hole J. Hollow ~SF-A J. Hole J. HolI~ F~ur~ 4. Richness of exotic vemus native s~dii~s ~erminatin~ from (a.) horse dun8 samples and (b.) soil samples. (~SF-A: ~rails s~bjeof to horse [ravel a~ Trail of Te~ Staic Forest, J. Hole ~ J~c~on Hole. J. Hollow ~ ~ackson Hollow). spectively (Figure 4b). The number of unidentifiable t -- Fall dung samples species in each of the soil samples at each site was / ~i gummersoilgamples Summer dung samples 3, 1, 2, respectively. Overall, the percentage of exotic Fielcisoil plots species in the summer dung and soil samples ranged from 6.7 to 34.4%. The mean % exotic species, how- 2s ever, was similar between the dung (15%) and soil . ................. samples (13.9%) at the three study sites. Rarefrac- tion analysis suggested estimated species richness was ~, ~s. .'"" lowest in the autumn dung samples (11 species) and highest in summer dung samples (18 species) (Fig- ~ l0 ./~.-'~, ure 5). Rarefraction analysis was also mn on ex- otic species in the different samples, however exotic species richness was not high enough in all cases to yield interpretable rarefraction curves. Neverthe- less, the richness of exotic species in comparison with native species was higher in fall and summer dung o 20 40 60 80 ~00 ~2o ~0 samples (40.4 and 26.5%, respectively) than they were Number of ~mple$ (Plots) in summer soil samples, trail plots, or field grids (15, Figure 5. Results of rarefaction analysis examining the difference 5.5, and 13.3 %, respectively). In addition, 14 of the 17 between species richness in fall and summer dung samples, summer exotic species found in the summer soil samples were soil samples and field soil and dung plots, The vertical dashed line also found in one or more horse dung samples. These indicates where valid comparisons of species richness can be made results show that the exotic seeds transported via horse among samples and plots. dung to contribute to and remain viable in the soil seed bank. However, of the 30 exotic species found in the FieM grids dung and soil samples, Kummerowia striata was the only one found in trail survey plots; and it occurred Field grid plots treated with dung and untreated plots only at TTSF-A with a relative density of only 0.1%. at TTSF-A yielded 25 and 20 species, respectively. Two species germinated from the 22 deer dung Throe of the species from treated plots and two species samples. Six individuals of Rubus sp. germinated from untreated plots were exotic. The three exotic out of three different greenhouse trays. A fourth tray species that emerged from the treated plots were Dig- contained one individual of Ranunculus sceleratus, itaria ischaemum (relative density = 0.8%), K. striata (39.2%), and Trifolium repens (0.8%). The two ex- 30 otic species emerging from the untreated plots were human-disturbed communities. In addition, he iden- K. striata (9.0%) and Poa pratensis (3.3%). Of these tiffed additional invasive exotics such as Pueraria species, only one individual of K. striata and two indi- lobata and Melilotus alba. Smith (1992) also noted the viduals of P pratensis were found in quadrats placed occurrence of both of the exotic species recorded in along the trials at TTSF-A. These species were not this study at Jackson Hollow. However, Stritch (1982) found on trails at Jackson Hole or Jackson Hollow. did not identify Rosa multiflora growing in any of the Stem densities in treated and untreated plots were sta- communities he sampled. While only comprising a tistically indistinguishable (T -- 932, p = 0.807). relative density of 0.12% along trails at Jackson Hole Rarefracfion analysis showed both untreated grid plots in our study, the presence suggests that this species is and plots treated with horse dung resulted in relatively currently invading these communities. similar estimated species richness (16 and 17 species, The occurrence of exotic species in our study, respectively) (Figure 5). when compared to other studies, was relatively low. Of the eleven U.S. National Parks reviewed by Vitousek (1988), Sequoia-Kings Canyon had the lowest per- Discussion centage of exotic species (6-9%), while the Hawaiian Volcanoes had the greatest percentage (64%). Of the Vegetation along horse trails four sites we studied, the percentage of exotic species ranged from 3.9% at Jackson Hollow to 6.9% at TTSF- Horse trails act as conduits for species dispersal A. Similarly, Shimp (1996)examined three Research through the forest matrix. Our study shows that the Natural Areas in southern Illinois (Dennison Hollow, vegetation along horse trails is significantly related to Panther Hollow, and Barker Bluff) and also found the distance from the trail center. These findings sup- 26 exotic species (3.8% of total species richness). port the results of Adkison & Jackson (1996); i.e., the Lonicera japonica, Rosa multiflora, Micmstegium vi- density of graminoids is higher along trail corridors minium, and Lespedeza cuneata are exotic species than in the forest interior, while the density of vines is found both in our study and Shimp's study. Both lower. These trends in the vegetation along trail corri- L. japonica and R. multiflora were found in the trail dors are partially due to the fact that the perennating vegetation plots at sites in this study. In addition, al- tissue in graminoids is located at ground level allow- though M. viminium and L. cuneam were not found lng some defense against trampling, but vines are not in any of the plots in this study, they were observed so protected. The one vine species that did not fol- growing elsewhere along the horse trails at Trail of low this trend was Parthenocissus quinquefolia: it can Tears State Forest. successfully regrow from severed portions of the shoot (Adkison & Jackson 1996). These findings are consis- Horses as vectors for exotic seeds tent with those of Benninger-Truax et al. (1992) who found that the number of exotic species is higher along A large number of germinable seeds representing a trail corridors than in the forest interior. Compared to whole variety of native and exotic species are present the forest interior, trails are sites of significantly higher in horse dung. Nevertheless, Kummerowiu striata was soil density (Bates 1935; Weaver & Dale 1978), lower the only exotic of seven species that was identified soil moisture (Dale & Weaver 1974; Liddle 1975), both in the dung samples and found growing on the higher light intensity (Cole 1978; Hall & Kuss 1989), horse trails. The other six species, Callitriche ter- and greater trampling pressure (Dale & Weaver 1974; restris, Dichanthelium dichotomum, Juncus tenuis, Hammit & Cole 1987). Trails are sites where corn- Leersia virginica, Lobelia intraya, and Verbena urtici- positional shifts in the vegetation are to be expected folia were not found in trails free from horse travel (Adkison & Jackson 1996). at TFSF. These species may have entered the trail The exotic species found along trails during this system via horse dung. While only K. striata is an ex- study are comparable to those reported in previous otic, the presence of these seven species demonstrates studies. We have found 5 exotic species at Trail of that seeds transported via horse dung can become Tears State Forest (TTSF), three at Jackson Hole, established on trail systems. and two at Jackson Hollow (Table 1). Evans' (1981) Deer dung samples produced many fewer germi- recorded each of the 5 exotic species at TTSF found nating seeds than did the horse dung. Rubus sp. and along trails in this study as growing primarily in Ranunculus sceleratus both germinated from samples 31 of deer dung placed in the greenhouse. While other plant species in a nature preserve. Care must be taken studies found the related congener, Rubus procerus to balance the needs of the recreational community (e.g., Brunner et al. 1974), to be dispersed by ani- against the possibility of establishment of an invasive mals, the species that we found did not occur along plant species. the trails or germinate from horse dung or soil sam- ples. This suggests that recruitment from deer dung may not influence vegetation composition along the Acknowledgements trail corridors. Other studies have observed deer to be important dispersers of seed (Malo & Suarez 1998). Financial support was provided by a three-way chal- Wae field grids yielded similar results to the green- lenge cost share agreement between the U.S. Forest house trays. There was not a significant difference Service, the North Central Forest Experimental Nra- between the controls and the horse dung grids. Never- lion, and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. theless, Digitaria ischaemum, T repens and K. striata Some materials and field assistance were provided were found growing out of the horse dung treated by K. A. West and the staff of Trail of Tears State plots. Digitaria ischaemum is an agricultural weed, Forest. We thank Philip A. Rohertson, Beth A. Mid- whereas/~ repens is widely planted in pastures. Kum- dleton, Beth Shimp and Jerry Van Sambeek for their merowia striata is also an agricultural weed, however, continuous support on this project, and to Mark A. prior to the 1990's it was planted in some areas in Basinger for providing his expertise in plant identi- southern Illinois (although not at our study sites) as flcation. Thanks are further due to Don Combs and a food source for quail and other wildlife. It was noted Nancy Downs, owners of Black Diamond Ranch, for earlier that neither D. ischaemum nor T. repens were allowing collection of samples on their property. found in any of the trail plots, which suggests that they may not be colonizing and establishing along the trails despite germinating from the horse dung. Such species References probably do not constitute a serious threat to the forest around the trail system. However, some exotic species Adkison, G~ R & Jackson, M. T. 1996. Changes in ground-layer from horse dung, though not found in the trail plots, vegetation near trails in midwestem U.S. forests. Nat. Areas J. 16: 14-23. may yet have the capacity to germinate in situ, Indeed, Alexander. F. 1946. The rate of passage of food residues through the Kowarik (1995) points out that a long period of time digestive tract of the home. J. Comp. Pathol. 56: 266-268~ often exists between importation and establishment of Anonymous 1972. Trail of tears state forest. Illinois Department of exotics, often over 100 years. Conservation, Springfield, Illinois. Site Brochure. BartoN, D. L., Brown, J. K. & Booth, G. D. 1994. Twelve years We have shown that a number of the native and biomass response in aspen communities following fire. J. Range exotic species, which can germinate in sim, are trans- Manag. 47: 79-83. ported via horse dung. However, few of these species Bales, G. H. 1935. The vegetation of footpaths, sidewalks, cart- tracks, and gateways. J. Ecol. 23: 463487. were found growing along the trails. This suggests that Benninger, M. C. 1989. Trail as conduits of movement for plant while erosion and soil compaction due to trampling species in coniferous forests of Rocky Mountain National Park, are still considerable concerns along horse trails, the Colorado. M.S. Thesis, Miami University. exotic species present in horse dung constitute only a Benninger-Traax, M. C., Vankat. J. L. & Schaefer, R. L. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species limited threat to plant communities, at least in these in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Landsc. forested ecosystems. Perhaps high light intensities re- Ecol. 6: 269-278. quired by these exotic species for germination and Binggeli, R 1996. A taxonomic, biogeographical and ecological overview of invasive woody plants. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 121-124. growth are not present within the forested trail cor- Rlackorby, C. 1994a. IFOR and horsemen fight to keep trails ridor. This could contribute to the inability of many open in Shawnee National Forest. Illinois Federation of Outdoor species to germinate in situ, become established, and Recreation Newslener. persist in the trail corridor. Nevertheless, one must Blackorby, C. 1994b. Shawnee update. Illinois Federation of Out- recognize the noxious potential of some exotic species door Research Newsleuer. Braithewaite, R. W., Lonsdale, W. M. & Estbergs, J. A. 1989. Alien (Bratton 1982). Their spread is possible within more vegetation and native biota in tropical Australia: the impact of open communities, some of which may be found Mimosapigra. Biol. Cons. 48:189 210. within forests containing horse trails (e.g., glades, hill Brenner, H., Harris, R~ V. & Amor. R. L. 1976. A note on the disper- sal of blackberry Rubu$ procerus P. J. Muelk by foxes and emus. prairies, or barrens). For these reasons, it is impor- Weed Res. 16: 171-173. rant to try and reduce the number of potential invading Bratton, S. 1982. The effects of exotic plant and animal species on Holland, P. & Olson, S. 1989. Introduced versus native plants in nature preserves. Nat. Areas J. 2: 3-13. Austral forests. Prog. Phys. Geog. 13: 260-293. BuMe, J. H. & Renfro, J. R. 1986. Use impacts on the Appalachian Janzen, D. H. 1981. Enterlobinm c?/clocatT~un seed passage rate and Trail. Proceedings, National Wilderness Research Conference: survival in horses, Costa Rican pleistocene seed dispersal agents. Current Research. Pp. 138-143. USDA Forest Service, General Ecology 62: 593-601. Technical Report INT-212. Ogden, Utah. Janzen, D. H. 1982. Differential seed survival and passage rates in Coblentz, B. E. 1990. Exotic organisms: a dilemma for conservation cows and horses. Oikos 38: 150-156. biology. Cons. Biol. 4: 261-265. Kowafik, I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to Cole, D. 1978. Estimating the susceptibility of wi]dland vegetation the success and failure of alien species. Pp. 15-38. In: Pysek, to traiiside alteration. J. Appl. EcoL 15: 281-286. P., Prach, K., Rejmanek, M. & Wade, M. (ers), Plant invasions - Cole, D. 1993. Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, conservation. Pp. 105-122. In: Smith, D. S. & Helhnund, P. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. C. (eds), Ecology of greenways. University of Minnesota Press, Kucera, C. L. & Koelling, M. 1964. The influence of fire on Minneapolis, Minneapolis. composition of central Missouri praiffe. Am. Midland Nat. 72: Collins, S. L. & Gibson, D. J. 1990. Effects of fire on commu- 142-147. nity structure in tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie. Pp. 81-98. Land, F. 1994. Troubled trails. Western Horseman, April, 6-97. In: Collins S.L. & Wallace, L. L. (eds), Fire in North Ameri~ Leighton, M., Ekblaw, G. E. & Hamberg, L. 1948. Physiographic can tallgrass prairies. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, divisions of lflinois. Geology 56: 16-33. Oklahoma. Liddle, M. J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of Dale, D. & Weaver, T. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the human trampling on natural ecosystems. BioL Cons. 7: 17-36. trail corridors of North Rocky Mountain forests. J. Appl. Ecol. Ludwig, J. A. & Reynolds, J. [~ 1988. Statistical ecology: A primer I 1: 767 772. on methods and computing. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Davis, M. A., Grime, J. P. & Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating re- Malo, J. E. & Suarez, 1~ 1998. The dispersal of a dry-fruited shrub source in plant communities: a general theory of inva~ibility. J. by red deer in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Ecography 21: 204- Ecol. 88: 258-534. 21 I. Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. McCully, W. G. 1951. Recovery and viability of Macartney rose Methuen, London, UK. seeds fed to cattle. J. Range Manag. 4: 101-106. Evans, M. 1981. The vascular flora of Trail of'lears State Forest, Meekins, J. E & McCailhy, B. C. 199. Competitive ability of Union County, Illinois. M.S. thesis, Southern Illinois University Alltzrla petiolt~ta (Garlic Mustard, Brassicaceae), an invasive, at Carbondale, noalndigenous forest herb. Int. J. Plant Sci. 160: 743-752. Faalkner, J. 1993. Damage to natural areas purchased with LAW- Middleton, B. A. & Mason, D. H. 1992. Seed herbivory by nilgal, CON funds. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. feral cattle, and wild boar in the Keolado National Park, India. Fenner, M. 1985. Seed ecology. Chapman & Hall, London. Biotropica 24: 538-543. Gonzalez-Espinoza, M. & Quintana-Ascencio, P. E 1986. Seed pre- Mohlenbrock, R. H. 1986. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. dation and dispersal in a dominant plant: Opuntia, ants, birds, Southem Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois. and mammals. Pp. 273-284. In: Estrada, A. & Flemming, T. Mooney, H. A. & Drake, J. 1986. The ecology of biological in- H. (ads), Frugivores and seed dispersal. Df. W. Junk Publishers, vasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New Dordrecht. York. Gotefli, N. J. & Graves, G. R. 1996. Null models in ecology. Noss, R. E 1990. Can we maintain biological and ecological Smithsoalan Institute Press, Washington D.C. integrity? Cons. Biol. 4: 241-243. Griflith, D. & Lacey, J. R. 1991. Economic evaluation of spoited Ohmann, L. E & Grigal, D. E 1981. Contrasting vegetation re- knapweed Centattrea maculosa, control using picloram. J. Range sponses following two forest fin~s in northeastern Minnesota. Manag. 44: 43~.7. Am. Midland Nat. 106: 54~4. Hall, C. N. & Kuss, E R. 1989. Vegetation alteration along trails in Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. S. 1985. The ecology of natural Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Biol. Cons. 48:211-227. disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, Hamnfit, W. E. & Cole, D. N. 1987. Wildland recreation: Ecology Florida. and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Piggin, C. M. 1978. Dispersal ofEchil#n plantagineum L. by sheep. Harmon, G. W. & F. D. 1934. The percentage and viability of weed Weed Res. 18:155 160. seeds recovered in the feces of farm animals and their longevity Ridley, H. N. 1930. Dispersal of plant throughout the world. Reeve, when buried in manure. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 26: 762-767. Aston, Kent, UK. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, Scheiner, S. M., Sharik, T. L., Roberts, M. R. & Kopple, R. V. London. 1988. Tree density modes of tree recruitment in a Michigan pine- Heady, H. F. 1954. Viable seed recovered from fecal pellets of sheep hardwood forest after clear-cutfing and burning. Can. Field-Nat. and deeL J. Range Manag. 7: 259-261. 102: 63~638. Hester, E. E 1991. The U.S. National Pack Service experience with Schwegman, J. E., Fell, G. D., Hutchinson, M. D., Paulson, G., exotic species. Nat. Areas J. l I: 127-128. Shepherd, W. M. & White, J. 1973. Comprehensive plant for Hill, M. O. DECORANA a FORTRAN Program for detrended the filinois Preserves system. Part II - The Natural Divisions correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Ecology and of Illinois. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, Springfield, Systematics, Comefl University, Ithaca, New York. Illinois. Hill, M. O. & Gauch, H. G. 1980. Detrended correspondence Shawnee National Forest. 1992. Shawnee Nation Forest Amended analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47 58. Land and Resource Management Plant Alternative 5 - Final Hobbs, R. J. & Huenneke, L. E 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA, Forest invasion: implications for conservation. Cons. Biol. 6: 324-337. Service Eastern Region. 33 Shimp, J. 1996. Vegetation analysis and vascular floras of three OTA-F-565. United States Government Printing Office, Wash- Research Natural Areas RNAs. in the Shawnee Nation Forest: ing~on, D.C, Barker Bluff, Dennison Hollow. and Panther Hollow in south- Vander Noot, G. W., Symons, L. D.~ Lydman, R, K. & Fonnesbeck. eastern Illinois. M.S. Thesis, Southern Illinois University at R V. 1967. Rate of passage of various feedstuffs lhrough the Carbondale. digestive tract of horses, J. Animal Sci. 26:1309-1311. Simberloff. D. 1978. Use of rarefraction and related methods Vitousek, R M~ 1988. Diversity and biological invasions of oceanic in ecology, pp. 15&165. In: Dickson, K. L., Cairns. J. and islands. Pp. 181-189. In: Wilson, E. O. and Peters. F. M. (eds), Livingston, R. I. (eds). Biological data in water pollution as- Biodiversity. National Academic Press, Washington. D. C. sessment: quantitative and statistical analyses. ASTM STP 652. Weaver. T & Dale, D. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motor- American Society for Testing and Materials, cycles, and horses in meadows and forests, I. Appl. Ecol. 15: Simbefloff. D. 1979. Rarefraction as a distribution-free method of 451457. expressing and estimating diversity. Pp. 159-176. Grassie, J.F.~ Welch, D. 1985. Studies in the grazing of heather moorland in north- Pall, G. P., Smith, W. & Taiffie, C. (eds), Ecological diver- east Scotland; IV. Seed dispersal and plant establishment in dung. sity in theory and practice. International Co-operative Publishing J. Appl. Ecol. 22: 461472. House, Falfland, Maryland. Westman, W. E. 1990. Park management of exotic plant species: Smith, R. G. 1988. The vascular flora of Jackson Hollow. M,S. problems and issues. Cons. Biol. 4: 251-259. thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Williamson, M. 1996. Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall. Soule, M.E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and other London, England. challenges in the coming decades. Cons. Biol. 4: 233-239. Wilson, J. R & Seney, I. R 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, Stfitch. L. R. 1982. A flofistic survey of the Hayes Creek Canyon horses, motorcycles, ~d off-road bicycles on mountain trials in watershed, Pope County. Illinois. M.S. thesis, Southern Illinois Montana. Mountain Res. Devel. 14: 77-88, University at Carbondale. Zar, J. H. 1998. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall. New Jersey. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. 34 Appendix 1. Absolute (seedlings m2) and relative densities of species identified in dung samples. TTSFA-Summer TTSFA - Autumn Jack. Hole Jack. Hollow Exotic species Amaranthtts spinosus 4.20 0.11 86.10 4.75 1.05 0.13 2.10 0.26 Arena sp. 11.55 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 4.20 0.53 Cardimine hirsuta 1.05 0.03 5.25 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cerastiumglomeraturn 2.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 2.10 0.26 Chenopodiu~n atnbrosioides 0.00 0.00 264.60 14.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daucus carom 0.00 0.00 1.05 0,06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Digitaria ischaemum 27.30 0.69 613.20 33.80 2.10 0.25 2.10 0.26 Digimriasanguinalis 2.10 0.05 119.70 6.60 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Eleusineindica 2.10 0.05 130.20 7.18 1.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 Festucaarundinacea 11.55 0.29 12.60 0.69 9.45 1.14 21.00 2.64 Kmmnerowiastriata 0.00 0.00 191.10 10.53 1.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 Matricaria chamomilla 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Meliloms sp. 15.75 0.40 1.05 0.06 25.20 3.04 13.65 1.71 Mollugo verticillatus 1.05 0.03 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plantago lanceolata 1.05 0.03 5.25 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plantago major 0.00 0.00 89,25 4.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poaannua 30,45 0.77 2.10 0.12 9.45 1.14 48.30 6.06 Polygomlm aviculare 0.00 0.00 1,05 0.06 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Polygonttm cespitosum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Polygonum convolw~s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Portulaca oleracea 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Prunella vltlgaris 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 Rumex crispus 1.05 0.03 4.20 0.23 0.00 0.00 5.25 0.66 Rumexobn~sifolius 1.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.25 3.15 0.40 Taraxacum officinale 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Trifolium pratense 5.25 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trifoliumrepens 118.65 3.02 16.80 0.93 35.70 4.31 77.70 9.75 Verbascutnthapsus 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 1.05 0.13 Veronica perigrina 30.45 0.77 2.10 0.12 1.05 0.13 4.20 0.53 Native species Agri~nonia sp. 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ambrosiaartemisiifolia 0,00 0.00 2.10 0.12 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Asterpilosus 0,00 0.00 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Boehmeria cylindrica 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bromus sp. 1,05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Callitriche heterophylla 0.00 0.00 3.15 0.17 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Carex blanda 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.35 0.92 Carex cephalophora 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1.05 0.13 Carexspp. 2.10 0.05 0.130 0.00 1.05 0.13 3.15 0.40 Cyperusovularis 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dichanthelium boscii 0.00 0.00 10.50 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dichanthelium dichotomum 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.12 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Eclipta prostrata 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eleocharix obtusa 2.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Erigeron anuus 0.00 0.00 6.30 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Erigeron philadelphicus 3.15 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Erigeron spp. 1.05 0.03 19.95 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Erigeron strigosus 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lva anm~a 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35 Appendix 1. Continued. TTSFA-Summer TTSFA - Autumn Jack. Hole Jack. Hollow Abs. Rel. Abs. Rel. Abs. Rel. Abs. ReL Jtlnclts marginatlls 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 Jt~nc~tsten~ds 3593.10 91.35 152.25 8.39 642.6 77.57 535.50 67.19 Leersia virginit~ 2. l0 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lepidium virginicum 2.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Lettcosporamtdtifida 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 Lindernia&lbia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.25 0.00 0.00 Lobelia inflata 0,00 0.00 1.05 0.06 2.10 0.25 0.00 0.00 Ludwigia alterlnlfolia 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Myosartls minimtts 2. I 0 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oxalisstricta 3.15 0.08 1.05 0.06 1.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 Panicum sp. 0.00 0.00 6.30 0.35 1.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 Penthortttn sedoides 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 0,26 Pileapumila 0.00 0,00 1.05 0,06 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 Plantago rugelii 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plantago vlrginica 11.55 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,25 0.66 Poa sp. 0.00 0.00 7.35 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ranttncttltls abortivtls 4.20 0.1 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ranunculttsscelerattts 28.35 0.72 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.25 46.20 5.80 Salix nigra 0.00 0.00 6.30 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Senecio glabellus 1.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.13 0,00 0.00 Solidago canadensis 3.15 0.08 6.30 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Solidago ulmifolia 1.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Verbena urticifolia 0.00 0.00 19.95 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Veronica arvensis 8.40 0.21 1.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Woottsia obtttsa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.85 9.76 0.00 0.00 THE EFFECTS OF RECREATION ON BIRDS: A LITERATURE REVIEW 20 APRIL 1999 Prepared by: Karen A. Bennett, Information Manager1 Eric F. Zuelke, Associate Biologist Delaware Natural Heritage Program Division of Fish & Wildlife Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 4876 Hay Point Landing Road Smyrna, DE 19977 (302) 653-2880 Questions regarding this report should be sent to the primary author at the above address, phone number, or email: kbennett~state.de.us. Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The following individuals contributed their knowledge regarding the topic of human disturbance to bird populations and / or their assistance in locating and acquiring copies of relevant literature: Christopher Heckscher (DNHP), Brian Harrington (Manoment Center for Conservation Sciences), Marie Eckhard (Cornell Lab of Ornithology), H. Franklin Percival (Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit), Mary Klein (Colorado Natural Heritage Program), and Pat McAvoy (University of Delaware Library). We would also like to thank Lynn Broaddus for reviewing drafts of this report. Introduction In recent decades increased visitation to national parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges by ecotourists and recreationists has spawned discussion about balancing the needs of visitors, protecting wildlife, and preserving natural resources. Delaware is no exception, and recently has been faced with addressing this challenge with regard to state-owned park land. The Division of Parks and Recreation is charged with management of thousands of acres in the State of Delaware. ~heir management responsibility lies not only with providing recreation and cultural opportunities for the public, but also with management and protection of natural resources found in state parks and natural areas. The latter issue is becoming especially critical as development pressure increases throughout Delaware. The Division recognizes that current approaches to land use and natural resource management need to be adjusted to address increased visitation and demands to have more access to park resources. In response to these issues, the Division has begun developing master plans for priority park lands. One such plan currently being developed for Cape Henlopen State Park (CHSP) in Sussex County, Delaware brought attention to the issue of providing recreational opportunities for park visitors while minimizing disturbance to wildlife and destruction of habitat. In particular, there has been much debate over the proposed alignment for a pedestrian / bike path through the southern portion of the park, and the potential effect of its use on birds that feed and rest in an adjacent 80 ha (200 acre) brackish pond (i.e., Gordons Pond). The Division of Parks and Recreation, in recognizing the need to incorporate sound scientific research into planning decisions, requested the assistance of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program (DNHP) in conducting a literature search for research pertaining to the effects of recreation, specifically pedestrians and bicycles, on birds. This paper summarizes the results of the literature search and the findings reported in the most relevant studies. Methods We conducted a thorough search of the scientific literature for research pertaining to the effects of human disturbance, particularly as it relates to outdoor recreation, on bird populations. Due to the nature of the project that is being proposed by the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation (i.e., bike path), our search specifically focused on the impacts of bicycle and pedestrian traffic on bird populations. Several methods were used to locate publications addressing bird disturbance issues. Organizations that specialize in researching bird populations were 2 contacted by telephone or email to inquire about their knowledge of such studies and were asked to forward citations related to this subject (Table 1). Additionally, several online databases (Table 2), many of which include abstracts, that are available at the University of Delaware or on the Internet were searched using a variety of keyword combinations (Table 3). Finally, the literature cited sections of ITable 1: Organizations contacted for information regarding research pertaining to human disturbance related to outdoor recreation to bird populations. Cornell Lab of Ornithology Marie Eckhardt, Research Assistant, Education Department 159 Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, NY 14850 Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit H. Franklin Percival, Unit Leader P.O. Box 110450, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 Cl Mahomet Center for Conservation Sciences Brian Harrington, Senior Scientist PO Box 1770, Manomet, MA 02345 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Mary Klein, Director 254 General Services Bldg Fort Collins, CO 80523 relevant articles and books were reviewed to identify pertinent articles. References for articles that appeared to be applicable were uploaded or hand entered into a bibliographic database housed in the DNHP office. We reviewed article abstracts to determine the applicability of a given publication prior to acquiring full copies for review. If an abstract or title suggested particular relevance to the Division of Parks and Recreation project (e.g., specifically mentioned the effects of pedestrians and/or bicycle activity on bird populations), then copies were obtained, reviewed, and summarized in the final report to the Division of Parks and Recreation. 3 Table 2: Online databases used to search for publications pertaining to impacts of outdoor I recreation on bird populations. Database Description [] DELCAT Catalogue of the University of Delaware Library University of_ Delaware holdings. rn Carl UnCover Internet accessible database of articles from over The UnCover Company 18,000 multidisciplinary journals from 1988 to date. [2 Biological Sciences Set Citations, with abstracts, for articles, books, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts conference proceedings, monographs, and reports relating to the biological, medical, and agricultural sciences from 1982 to date. [] Biological Abstracts Citations, with abstracts, for articles in scholarly Biological Abstracts, Inc. journals relating to life science from 1990 to date. rn ProQuest Digital Dissertations Citations and abstracts (1980 onwards) for UMI Company, A Bell & Howell dissertations and theses from 1861 to date. Company rn Impact/ACCESS Government Complete Monthly Catalogue of U.S. Government Documents Catalogue Service Publications from 1976 to date. Auto-Graphics, Inc. ~a Fish & Wildlife Reference Service Primarily unpublished research reports produced by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service State agencies under Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration projects. Database contains some published research and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service title publications. [] Park Science Catalogue of issues published from 1980 to present. National Park Service Table 3: Keywords used to search online databases for literature m addressing impacts of outdoor recreation on bird populations. The (*) wildcard character was used to search for variations on root keywords (e.g., bik* searches for BIKE, BIKES, and BIKING). Keywords: ~2 Recreation* and wildlife rn Disturbance* and bik* D Recreation* and bird* O Disturbance* and cycl* rn Human disturbance* and bird* r~ Disturbance* and mountainbik* [] Human disturbance* and wildife c:l Bik* and trail* rn Human impacts and bird* [] Bik* and path* rn Human impacts and wildlife [] Bicycl* and trail* rn Disturbance* and trail* tn Bicycl* and path* 4 RESULTS and DISCUSSION Overview The study of recreation and wildlife has developed into a discipline of natural resource / ecological management over the past few decades. This is attributed mostly to the increased interest and participation in ecotourism and outdoor recreation, particularly in natural areas, parks, and refuges (Boyle & Samson 1985; Knight & Gutzwiller 1995; Liddle 1997). Within the past five years, three texts have been published on issues related to the topic of recreation and wildlife including WildIand Recreation: Ecology and Management (Hammitt & Cole 1998), Recreation Ecology (Liddle 1997), and Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research (Knight & Gutzwiller 1995). These treatises examine the environmental impacts of recreation, including impacts on wildlife, with discussions of how negative effects can be mitigated in areas Where both recreation and protection of natural resources are often dual, but conflicting, goals. Each also includes an extensive bibliography. Research articles discovered during this review ranged from summaries of the literature on the impacts of recreation activity on birds (Boyle & Samson 1983, 1985; Vaske et al. 1983; Hockin et al. 1992; Burger et al. 1995; Knight & Gutzwiller 1995; Hill et al. 1997; LiddIe 1997) to methods for quantifying the effects of human disturbance on wildlife (Pomerantz et al. 1988, Gill et al. 1996) and controlled experiments and cursory observations on the effects of different types of outdoor recreation on bird populations (van der Zande et al. 1980; Burger 1981; Burger 1986; van der Zande et al. 1984; Klein 1993; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997; Gill et al. 1996; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Although an exact count of references for this project was not tallied, hundreds of articles pertaining to the impacts of outdoor recreation on wildlife, including bird populations, were discovered using the search methods described above. However, because our primary objective was to identify research specifically focused on the effects of bicycle and pedestrian traffic on birds, many papers were rejected from the full review process if the abstract lacked relevance to the proposed Division of Parks and Recreation project. We primarily limited our discussion of the existing research to groups of birds that are likely to occur in habitats in and around Gordons Pond (e.g., waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds) and to landscapes similar to those found at CF[SP (e.g., trails or unimproved roads on dikes adjacent to impoundments). Exceptions were made for studies that demonstrated relevance in other respects. A review of literature conducted more than 15 years ago by Boyle & Samson (1983, 1985) identified 536 references concerning the effects of "non-consumptive" outdoor recreation on wildlife. Of these, 106 contained original data on the effects on birds of hiking and camping (27), boating (34), wildlife observation and photography (21), off-road vehicles (9), snowmobiles (2), swimming and shore recreation (8), and rock climbing (5). Hill et al. (1997) conducted a review of bird disturbance research published from 1970 to 1995 and found studies addressing the following types of activities: boating, sailing, windsurfing (31), swimming and shore based activities including ORVs (31), and walking (22), hunting (18), and angling (12). Additional studies on the effects of tourism and recreation on birds were found during this literature search including the effects of jogging, horseback riding, dog walking, children, and worm and clam digging (Burger 1981, Burger 1986, Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Clearly, there is a variety of research addressing the impacts tourism and recreation activities on birds and other wildlife. Bicycling Surprisingly, despite the indication that cycling is increasing both in millions of people participating (second only to swimming in 1992) and frequency of participation (in 1992 nearly 1.5 times higher than any other recreation activity not dependent on wildlife; Flathers & Cordell 1995), none of the studies reviewed for this project specifically examined the effects of bicycle riding versus other types of recreation on birds. Nor was cycling listed in reviews of studies on recreation effects on birds (Liddle 1997; and see above). Either cycling has not been perceived as having an effect on wildlife or it may not be an activity that has occurred with great frequency in areas where wildlife management and recreation activities are both goals. For example, a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuge managers did not identify cycling as a visitor activity, much less one that negatively impacts wildlife (Pomerantz et al. 1988). The lack of information on cycling activity and its effect on birds makes it difficult to interpret its importance as a disturbance factor relative to other types of recreation. One study found during this literature search compared the effects of moutainbiking with hiking and jogging on a mammal population (i.e., chamois, a small goat-like mammal of the mountains of Europe) in Switzerland (Gander & Ingold 1997). In this experimental study, the alert and escape distances of chamois were influenced both by time of day and mode of travel along a trail through their habitat. Late in the morning, the disturbance response of chamois to joggers and mountainbikers was slightly stronger than their response to hikers. The authors suggest the faster pace of the former recreationists may have posed an increased threat to the chamois. Although this study indicates a varying response of a mammal species to different types of recreation, these data should not be directly applied to other taxonomic groups. Rather, this study indicates that bicycling could cause different levels of disturbance to wildlife and should be further investigated. 6 Although not compared with other types of recreation, cycling occurred during four different studies of bird disturbance. In each of these studies, the authors considered the effects of cycling in different ways. 1) Gill et al. (1996) lumped cycling with other activities that they assumed had similar effects on wildlife (e.g., horseback riding). 2) Van der Zande et al. (1984) assumed cycling contributed less to levels of recreation intensity than other types of recreation. Compared to walking, the authors assumed cycling contributed less to recreation intensity due to the higher speed with which cyclists travel, thus exposing birds to disturbance for shorter periods. The authors also assumed the behavior of cyclists, which travel along a consistent path, posed less of a threat to birds than unleashed dogs, which exhibit rapid, erratic movements. 3) Van der Zande et al. (1980) assumed cycling was not a significant disturbance factor related to other modes of travel (e.g., motorized vehicles) being studied and thus cycling activity was not recorded. 4) Klein (1993) lumped cycling with other modes of travel because she assumed the mode of travel (e.g., car, bus, bicycle, or moped) was not as important as the behavior of the visitor (e.g., slow versus quick movements, direct versus tangential approach, noise levels) and purpose for the visit to the refuge (e.g., photography, nature observation, fishing, fitness, driving). [NOTE: Mary Klein was contacted and agreed to provide more data regarding cycling activity during her study, but this information was not yet available by the end of the project period.] Two authors noted that cycling or activity related to fitness (i.e., includes jogging and possibly cycling) occurred so infrequently during their studies that inferences about the data could not be drawn (Klein 1993, Gill et al. 1996). Otherwise, for studies which did not mention cycling, 1) it may not have occurred, 2) the authors assumed it had insignificant effects thus ignored cycling during their study, or 3) lumped cycling with other types of recreation without disclosure in their publications. Two environmental assessments for bike trail projects in National Parks were found during this literature search: Everglades National Park and Cape Cod National Seashore (National Park Service 1987, 1989). These EAs merely list wildlife species found within park boundaries, including rare or endangered species and habitats where they are found. Neither study, however, directly addresses potential impacts to wildlife populations or plans for mitigating impacts. Overall, Hill et al. (1997) noted that EAs written for impacts of sports and recreation on birds generated descriptive results with little assessment of significant effects. An M.S. thesis titled Development ora Bike Path in the Ecologically Sensitive Lake Tahoe Basin (Holderman 1991) was requested through inter-library loan but had not yet been delivered to the DNHP by the end of the project period. This document may address wildlife issues, and upon delivery it will be reviewed and pertinent contents will be forwarded to the Division of Parks and Recreation. Of the research reviewed above, Klein (1993) incorporated two important factors (i.e., visitor behavior and purpose of visit) into her study of recreation impacts on birds (Knight & Cole 1995a). Klein's approach makes sense because the actions of people engaged in one type of recreation activity may vary greatly, and even the effects of different recreation activities may be difficult to separate based on mode of travel alone. Cyclists, for example, in effect become pedestrians if they stop and walk away from their bicycles. If they then proceed to approach a bird for closer observation or photography, or engage in boisterous conversation with companions, they may cause more disturbance to birds than visitors engaged in quiet, consistently paced hiking or cycling activities. With regard specifically to cycling, speed and course (straight vs. erratic) may also have differential effects on birds (Knight & Cole 1995a). Thus in order to identify which aspects of recreation affect birds the most, it is important to include visitor behaviors in addition to the mode of travel as disturbance factors. General Impacts of Recreation and Ecotourism on Birds Although our literature review revealed a lack of research on the specific effects of bicycle activity on bird populations, more general studies conducted on the effects of recreationists and ecotourists on birds should be helpful for making decisions about the placement and management of a pedestrian / bike trail through CHSP. The findings from these studies, as they pertain to the proposed CHSP trail project, are summarized below. Several studies have examined the effects of recreationists on birds using shallow- water habitats adjacent to trails and roads through wildlife refuges and coastal habitats in the eastern United States (Burger 1981; Burger 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). The juxtaposition of landscape features in these studies is similar to what one would find at CHSP, though the project site at CHSP is much smaller in size than some of the refuge study sites and motorized vehicles would not be permitted on the proposed trail at CHSP. Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbance from recreation activities always have at least temporary effects on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or localized area (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). The findings that were reported in these studies are summarized below in terms of visitor activity and avian response to disturbance. Visitor Activi~ Presence: Birds avoided places where people were present and when visitor activity was high (Burger 1981; Klein et al. 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Distance: Disturbance increased with decreased distance between visitors and birds (Burger 1986), though exact measurements were not reported. Approach Angle: Visitors directly approaching birds on foot caused more disturbance than visitors driving by in vehicles, stopping vehicles near birds, and stopping vehicles and getting out without approaching birds (Klein 1993). Direct approaches may also cause greater disturbance than tangential approaches to birds (Burger & Gochfeld 1981; Burger et al. 1995; Knight & Cole 1995a; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997). Photographers: Photographers were more likely to approach birds and thus were more likely to disturb them (Klein 1983). [] Type and Speed of Activity: Joggers and landscapers caused birds to flush more than fishermen, clammers, sunbathers, and some pedestrians, possibly because the former groups move quickly (joggers) or create more noise (landscapers). The latter groups tend to move more slowly or stay in one place for longer periods, and thus birds likely perceive these activities as less threatening (Burger 1981, 1986; Burger et al. 1995; Knight and Cole 1995a). Alternatively, birds may tolerate passing by with unabated speed whereas if the activity stops or slacks birds may flush (Burger et al. 1995). Noise: Noise caused by visitors resulted in increased levels of disturbance (Burger 1982, 1986; Klein 1993; Bowles 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998), though noise was not correlated with visitor group size (Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Children: Groups with children caused increased disturbance probably because children created more noise and made rapid, erratic movements (Burger 1986). ~ Dogs: In general, the presence of dogs caused birds to flush (Burger 1986; Pomerantz et al. 1988; Knight & Cole 1995b). Unleashed dogs, however, pose a direct threat to birds because they can chase and kill them (Burger 1986), and they may disturb birds more by making more rapid, erratic movements (van der Zande et al. 1984) than leashed dogs. Dogs can also create noise disturbance. Horses: People on horseback did not seem to threaten birds even though they frequently moved rapidly (Burger 1986). Birds flushed only to avoid trampling. Burger (1986) surmised that the birds perceived only the horse and not the person riding. Avian Responses: [] Migrants vs. residents: Migrants, including waterfowl, herons and egrets, and shorebirds, tended to be more sensitive to disturbance than resident birds, but variations existed within and among species and family groups (Burger 1981; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Variations within species may have been due to habituation of resident versus migrant sub-populations (Klein 1993; Burger 1981; Burger et al. 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Migrants are particularly sensitive to reduced or lost feeding opportunities because it is critical for them to increase energy reserves to complete migration and initiate breeding (Burger 1986; Burger et al. 1995). Feeding: Feeding time decreased and vigilance increased when people were present and with increased noise levels (Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Increased use of paths near foraging and loafing habitats caused birds to feed farther from path or to leave the area. Once disturbed birds tended to stay farther from path (Burger 1981, Klein et al. 1995, Burger & Gochfeld 1998). [] Cover: Birds tended to retreat to vegetation, if available, while people were present and returned to forage as visitors left area (Burger & Gochfeld 1998). o Habituation: Depending on the species (especially migrants vs. residents), some birds may habituate to some types of recreation disturbance and either are not disturbed or will immediately return after the initial disturbance (I-Iockin et al. 1992; Burger et al. 1995; Knight & Temple 1995; Madsen 1995; Fox & Madsen 1997). More sensitive species will be displaced from their habitat for longer periods of time or will not return, and thus may be denied access to resources they need to survive. [] Habitat preferences and quality: Habitat preferences and quality may confound or override disturbance effects (i.e., birds that appear to avoid habitat because of disturbance may actually be exhibiting preference for microhabitats that happen to be farther from disturbance, or high quality feeding sites may cause birds to ignore disturbances; Klein 1993). Published Recommendations for Mitigation of Recreation Effects on Birds Several recommendations for mitigating the effects of recreation on birds have been made by various authors. These include: [] Buffer zones: Rodgers & Smith (1997) calculated buffer distances that minimize disturbance to foraging and loafing birds based on experimental flushing distances for 16 species of waders and shorebirds. They recommended 100m as an adequate buffer against pedestrian traffic, however, they suggest this distance may be reduced if physical barriers (e.g., vegetation screening) are provided, noise levels are reduced, and traffic is directed tangentially rather than directly toward birds. 10 [] Screening: Vegetation that effectively conceals visitors and provides cover for birds if disturbance occurs will help mitigate impacts of people using trails adjacent to habitat (Hockin et al. 1992; Rodgers & Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Impacts from wildlife viewing and photography can be reduced by providing observation blinds (Boyle & Samson 1985; Klein 1993). [] Prohibit or restrict activity: Seasonally restricting or prohibiting recreation activity may be necessary during spring and fall migration to alleviate disturbance to migrant birds (Burger 1981,1986; Boyle & Samson 1985; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997) [] Restrict noise levels: Screening may not effectively buffer noise impacts, thus visitors should be educated on the effects of noise and noise restrictions should be enforced (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Bowles 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). [] Education: Education is critical for making visitors aware that their actions can have negative impacts on birds, and will increase the likelihood that visitors will abide by restrictions on their actions. For example, Klein (1993) demonstrated that visitors who spoke with refuge staff or volunteers were less likely to disturb birds. [] Enforcement: Increased surveillance and imposed fines may help reduce visitor caused disturbance (Knight & Gutzwiller 1995). u Monitoring: Monitoring is recommended to adjust management techniques over time, particularly because it is often difficult to generalize about the impacts of specific types of recreation in different environments. Local and site -specific knowledge is necessary to determine effects on birds and to develop effective management strategies (Hockin et al. 1992; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997). Closing Comments The existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbance from recreation activities have at least temporary effects on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or localized area (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). However, alteration of bird behavior may not necessarily be negative if they can acquire necessary amounts of food (Burger et al. 1995; Madsen 1997). Disturbance that prevents access to feeding habitat may have negative effects on regional populations if alternative habitats, equal to or better than the quality of the one from which they were displaced, are lacking nearby (Madsen 1995; Hill et al. 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Wildlife refuges, for example, frequently contain impoundments where human access is prohibited, thus providing alternative disturbance-free feeding opportunities (Boyle & Samson 1985; Hockin et al. 1992; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). It is important to consider the relative significance of a 11 given habitat on local and regional scales prior to introducing increased levels of disturbance. The results of studies reviewed indicate wide variation in responses among species and to different disturbance factors (e.g., speed of movement). Many of these differences may be related to regional, local, or site-specific factors. To begin understanding the potential effects of a pedestrian / bike path on birds using Gordons Pond at CHSP, the temporal and spatial patterns of bird activity at this site should be determined prior to establishing a trail. Furthermore, if the Division proceeds with plans to develop the path through this area, the effects of recreation and visitor behavior on birds should be monitored to determine if and how management strategies need to be adjusted. 12 LITERATURE CITED NOTE: Citations in bold print were reviewed and cited in this document. Other citations listed below were either not available in time for review, or were not directly relevant to this particular project but may be useful to the Division for similar project proposals in the future. Bowles A. E. 1995. Response of wildlife to noise. Pages 109-156. in R.L. Knight and D.N. Cole, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Boyle, S. A. and Samson, F. B. 1983. Nonconsumptive outdoor recreation: an annotated bibliography of human-wildlife interactioSpecial Scientific Report on Wildlifens. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Report No. 252. Boyle, S. A., and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. Bratton, S. P. 1990. Boat disturbance of Ciconiiformes in Georgia estuaries. Colonial Waterbird 13:124-128. Buick, A. M., and D. C. Paton. 1989. Impact of off-road vehicles on the nesting success of Hooded Plovers (Charadrius rubricollis) in the Coorong Region of south Australia. Emu 89:159-172. Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:231-241. Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Biological Conservation 13:123-130. Burger, J. 1988. Effects of demolition and beach clean-up operations on birds on a coastal mudflat in New Jersey. Estuarine, coastal and shelf science 27:95 Burger, J. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of Sanderlings (Calidris aIba). Condor 93:259-265. Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the effect of human disturbance on the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research 7:39-52. Burger, J. 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Estuaries 17:695-701. I3 Burger, J. 1998. Effects of motor boats and personal watercraft on flight behavior over a colony of Common Terns. Condor 100:528-534. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1981. Dicrimination of the threat of direct versus tangential approach to the nest by incubating herring and great black-backed gulls. J. Comparative Physiological Psychology 95:676-684. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human distance and birds-tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environmental Conservation 18:158-165. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1993. Tourism and Short-Term Behavioural Responses of Nesting Masked, Red-footed, and Blue-footed Boobies in the Galapagos. Environmental Conservation 20:255-259. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behaviour at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13-21. Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65. Carlson, L. H., and P. J. Godfrey. 1989. Human impact management on a coastal recreation and natural area. Biological Conservation 49:141-156. Clark, K. E., L. J. Niles, and J. Burger. 1993. Abundance and distribution of migrant shorebirds in Delaware Bay. Condor 95:694-705. Cox, J. H., Percival, H. F., and Colwell, S. V. 1994. Impact of Vehicular Traffic on Beach Habitat and Wildlife at Cape Blas, Florida. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U. S. Biological Survey. Technical report 50. Dahlgren, R. B. and Korschgen, C. E. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl: an annotated bibliography. U. S. Dept. of the Interior. FWS Resource Publication 188. DeMauro, M. M. 1993. Colonial nesting bird responses to visitor use at Lake Renwick Heron Rookery, Illinois. Natural Areas Journal 13:4-9. Erwin, R. M. 1996. Dependence of waterbirds and shorebirds on shallow-water habitats in the mid-Atlantic coastal region: An ecological profile and management recommendations. Estuaries 19:213-219. Fitzpatrick, S., and B. Bouchez. 1998. Effects of recreational disturbance on the foraging behaviour of waders on a rocky beach. Bird Study 45:157-171. 14 Flather C. H., and H. K. C0rdell. 1995. Outdoor recreation: historical and anticipated trends. Pages 3-16 in R.L. Knight and D.N. Cole, editors. Wildlife and recreation: coexistence through management and research. Washinton, D.C., Island Press. Fox, A. D., and J.Madsen. 1997. Behavioural and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. The Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. Gander, H., and P. Ingold. 1997. Reaction of male alpine chamois Rupicapra r. rupicapra to hikers, joggers and mountainbikers. Biological Conservation 79:107- 109. Gill, J. A., W. J. Sutherland, and A. R. Watkinson. A method to quantify the effects of human disturbance on animal populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:786-792. Gutzwiller, K. J., K. L. Clements, and H. A. Marcum. 1998. Vertical distributions of breeding-season birds: is human intrusion influential? Wilson Bulletin 110:497-503. Hammitt, W. E. and D. N. Cole, eds. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. J. Wiley, New York. 350pp. Hill, D., D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:275-288. Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M. A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36:253-286. Holderman, J. C.1991. Development of a bike path in the ecologically sensitive Lake Tahoe Basin. University of Nevada Reno. Kirby, J. S., C. Clee, and V. Seager. 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bulletin 68:53-58. Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39. Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. Knight R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight and D.N. Cole, editors. Wildlife and 15 Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Knight R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 in R.L. Knight and D.N. Cole, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationalists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp. Knight, R. L. and S. A. Temple. 1995. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreation: coexistence through management and research. R.L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Isalnd Press, Washington, D. C., pp 81-91. Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation Ecology. Chapman and Hall, Melbourne, Australia, 639 PP. Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137 Snpplemental:S67-S74 Melvin, S. M., A. Hecht, and C. R. Griffin. 1994. Piping Plover mortalities caused by off- road vehicles on Atlantic coast beaches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:409-414. National Park Service. 1987. Parkwide bicycle trail study/traffic safety study/environmental assessment: Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts: draft study. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. 1989. Bicycle trail system study: phase 1: corridor study: alternatives and environmental assessment, Everglades National Park, Florida. U.S. Department of the Interior. Perry, M. C., and A. S. Deller. Review of factors affecting the distribution and abundance of waterfowl in shallow-water habitats of Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 19:272-278. Pfister, C., B. A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebi~ds at a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-126. Pomerantz, G. A., D. J. Decker, G. R. Goff, and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Assessing impact of recreation on wildlife: a classification scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:58-62. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: Evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity Conservation 6:567-581. 16 Retallick, R. W. R., and E. E. Bolitho. 1993. Disturbance of Hooded Plovers by domestic dogs. Stilt 23: Roberts, G., and P. R. Evans. 1993. Responses of foraging Sanderlings to human approaches. Behaviour 126:29-43. Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99. Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. Safina, C., and J. Burger. 1983. Effects of human disturbance on reproductive success in the Black Skimmer. The Condor 85:164-171. Vaske, J. J., A. R. Graefe, and F. R. Kuss. 1983. Recreation impacts: A synthesis of ecological and social research. Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 48:96-107. Watson, J. 1992. Dune-breeding birds and off-road vehicles. Naturalist (S.Africa) 36:8- 12. Yalden, P. E., and D. W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding Golden Plovers (Pluvialis apricarius). Biological Conservation 51:243-262. York, D. 1994. Recreational-boating distr~rbances of natural communities and wildlife: An annotated bibliography. U S National Biological Survey Biological Report. Zande, A. N. v. d., W. J. t. Keurs, and W. J. v. d. Weyden. 1980. The impact of roads on the clensities of four bird species in an open field habitat--evidence of a long distance effect. Biological Conservation 18:299-321. Zande, A. N. v. cl., J. C. Berkhuizen, H. C. v. Latesteijn, W. J. t. Keurs, and A. J. Poppelaars. 1984. Impact of ourdoor recreation on the density of a number of breeding bird species in woods adjacent to urban residential areas. Biological Conservation 30:1-39. 17 A SELECTIVE REVIEW OF TIlE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING ON NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS M. J. L[DDLE Monks bVood Erperimental Station, Huntingdon PELT, 2LS, Great Britain ABSTRACT A statement is giren ~fthe importance ~ftrampliag as an ecological factor, especial~3' in relation to the inereash~g use pf the countr.l.side /br h!/brmal recreation. Some ear/)' ecological ilwestigations q/' the effect q/' trampling are described, .follou'ed b.l' a selectire ret,ie~v ~f modern anah'tieal and experinlental approaches. These are sl,nthesised in the [brm qf a Iogicc~l model that separates, amt examines the relation- s~hips of, some of the biological and physical erents that occur as o resldt of trampling. A scheme 0/' sequential management decisions is proposed incl diog the type ecological input oppropriate to each stage. Resource p/anoing is thought to be the .first process in which the ecologist shouhl be im'oh'ed, and site pkmniog and site creation and management are the subseqaent phases to which ecologists can ton- tribute. The conchtsion attempts to.forecast the type ~/'ecological research t_hat trill be reqaired hi the future and considers the t, iews oJ' Tit,)' (1974). Finally, the respon- sibility ~/' ecologists to commanicate ,~'ith those who manage the eountr)'side is emphasised. INTRODUCTION Changes that have occurred in the social structure of our western European society during this century have emphasised the importance o£ an ecological factor that has been in existence for millions of years, namely trampling and disturbance by animals, especially the human animal. There has been a rapid increase in leisure time available to most people since 1900 when a holiday was the prerogative of the wealthy, to 1969 when 36 million people in the UK had at least one holiday away from home (Patmore, 1970). la addition there was an influx of 5'8 million visitors from overseas (British Travel Association, pers. comm.). The associated increase in 17 Biol. Conser~. (7) (1975)--© Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1975 Printed in Great Britain · ][8 M.J. LIDDL£ ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING 19 mobility as a result of the rise in car ownership from 32,000 in 1907 (Patmore, 197',h ,tc,.,ies for survival, involving either a complete life cycle during a period of Iow to nearly 13 million in 1973 (Whittaker, 1973) has brougfit people flooding into the &,torrance or vegetative persistence during periods of trampling stress. He also countryside for informal recreation. Those seeking a place in which to spc,d c": cd out trampling experiments to find the relative vulnerability of w~rions time in a rural setting have avoided cultivated land, a fact which suggests that there ,rc,'ics of plants, pioneering the combination of analytical and experimental is an instinctive cognizance of plant and animal diversity, and even of differem ! a;,,,roaches used today. types of habitat (cf Klukas & Duncan (1967) and Westhoff (1967) in relation to ecotones). In consequence trampling pressure has occurred on species-rich, semi- . ,:..~tical approaches natural areas of low fertility which are frequently of high conservation va ne. Ihese often involve surveys of worn tracks or paths and of adjacent taller There is, then, a conflict between conservation and amenity requirements in j~*s~ x. ;oration. The basic assumptions are that the whole area was homogeneous before those areas which are least able to regenerate after trampling damage, and overt*se t: tracks or paths were created, that the taller vegetation is undisturbed by is now leading to a degradation of the very resources most sought after by the t' '~npling and that there has not been any overall change in the environment since visitor to the countryside. The need to understand the biological processes occtn, t~ ~ route was introduced. The differences between tracks or paths and the adjacent ring as a result of trampling and to develop suitable management methods for the . ::ctation are then attributed solely to the effects of trampling or vehicles. semi-natural areas therefore arises from the two requirements of amenity m~d conservation. Ecologists have long appreciated the need to investigate these processes and Ois~rlbutlon there exists a body of pertinent knowledge which, because it has not until recently ot V,~ople been considered of high priority, tends to be widely scattered in the literature. Tl~ ,/m/vu [~ . research is now passing from the analytical to the experimental phase, a large number of different disciplines are involved and there is a growing methodology-- c a~lu no it is in fact developing.into a specialised branch of ecology in its own right, vu Igorls The reviews by Tivy (1973) and Speight (1973) have drawn together many of thc frequency 0 references and this paper now considers the approaches used in basic research and some of the published data are built into a hypothetical model which describex the causal relationships between certain measurable events which occur as a result 20 of trampling, tenuis height cm Ecologists have mainly investigated the effects of trampling on vegetation and soils, only occasionally on the associated animals. The early workers presented Soll qualitative comments on the distribution of species in relation to subjective judge- moisture 50 merits of wear. Jeffreys (1917) considered the vegetation of footpaths on the co~te,t Z Durham Coal Measures and comments on the disadvantage of tall stems for 0 survival. Shantz (1917)rep°rted the successional sequence of plants recolonising Soil 30 abandoned roads in Eastern Colorado: he estimated that 50 years were required profile cm -- " for the vegetation to return to its original state. It was Bates (I 934, 1935), however, who began the systematic and experimental study of the effects of trampling, m Using quantitative methods of measuring vegetation and soils, Bates (1935) observed that treading had both direct mechanical effects on the vegetation and Fig. 1. A transect taken on Tresco showing frequency of plant species in relation to topography indirect effects through soil changes. He also noted that plants employed different and other environmental factors. (Redrawn from Goldsmith et al., 1970.) ;~0 M. J. LIDDLE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING 21 Estimates of the relative amounts of trampling have been made by measuring some aspect of soil compaction such as bulk density (Chappell. et al., 1971, and many others), or penetration resistance (Liddle & Greig-Smith, in press a) or by observations of the present distribution of people (Burden, 1969; Goldsmith et al., 1970) or horses (Perring, 1967). The biotic differences are then associated with the wear factor in various ways. 90- Transects may be recorded across paths or tracks in which the percentage cover, oo - frequency or biomass of the vegetation is measured and the results compared graphically with the estimate of wear (Fig. 1 and Burden, 1969; Goldsmith et al., ?o- 1970; Streeter, 1971; Liddle & Greig-Smith, in press b). Alternatively a limited number of plots may be tabulated (Chappell et al., 1971) and direct comparisons made by regression techniques (Randerson, 1969; Goldsmith et al., 1970) or by ~,~ 60- phytosociological analysis (Liddle & Greig-Smith, iR press b). Invertebrate soi~ .~ so- and litter animals have been recorded by Chappell et al. (197l) and F. Leney (pers. comm.). 4o. There is usually a reduction in the total cover of the vegetation and in the number of species in the worn areas where only the most resistant, such as Poa pratensis, Poa annua and Festuca rubra, can survive. But there are a number o1' species with a low habit or growth form that often occur in profusion in inter- 2o- / mediate areas. These include Bellis perennis, Potentilla anserina, Trifolium repens, Thymus drucei, Plantago lanceolata, Carex flacca and many others which are moderately trampling-resistant but cannot normally compete well with species of 0 ~ , , , , , , taller habit (Liddle & Greig-Smith, in press b). It is probable that most of these g species survive by adopting vegetative strategies but, although Poa annua c~n behave in a perennial manner, it is interesting to note that it tends to flower when human trampling is at a relatively low level and this may contribute to its ability '- to survive in many trampled areas. The direct effects of trampling and disturbance on animals have occasionally been examined using the same comparative approach. Earthworms were reduced in number in the track soils but their mean weight was 0'65 g compared with Fig. 2. The numbers of species of spiders in grazed and ungrazed sand dune habitats. ungrazed; .... , grazed. (Redrawn from Duffey, 1967.) 0.26 g under adjacent vegetation (Chappell et al., 1971). Most of the other animals found by these authors in soil cores from under the adjacent natural vegetation after sowing tillered more readily and produced more dry matter in its second did not occur in the path soils, but appreciable numbers of Atari, Collembola and year than did the parent strain when both were grown together under conditions Hymenoptera did survive and there was actually an increase in Homoptera and of intense grazing (Charles, 1972). adult Diptera. The numbers of woodland snail shells were reduced on the path Grazing of sand dune pastures reduces the number of species of spiders from but there was an increase of grassland species, possibly due to the drier and warmer over 100 to below 45 (Fig. 2 and Duffey, 1967). Morris (1968) found a decrease in microclimate (cf Liddle & Moore, in press). Very light trampling made a low nearly all animals in grazed chalk grassland. A more precise measurement of the moss and lichen habitat unsuitable for the spider Trichopterna cito (Duffey, 1974). vegetation structure showed that the highest numbers of individuals and species of animals obtained by vacuum sampling came from areas where the vegetation was Animal trampling, grazing and artificial cutting of the vegetation provide some useful information, but the mechanisms are not the same as those of human between 15 cm and 25 cm high (Morris, 1971). At a larger scale Barrow (1974) trampling and care is needed in using this type of data as a basis for general observed that Red deer were only disturbed to any extent by people who left statements. A grazed ecotype of S24 Lolium perenne that had evolved in ten years recognised tracks, on which occasions the deer moved for distances of up to 0'8 km. 22 M.J. LIDDLE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING 23 Vegetation diversity may increase or decrease ~s a result of trampling, d~pending of tillers of Festuca rubra but reduced their fresh weight, while soil compression upon the condition of the untrampled control areas and the actual intensity of caused both to increase. There was a negative interaction when the two treatments wear. The diversity index N~, where: were applied to the same plants (Liddle & Greig-Smith, in press b). N~ - (Ex)2 (Hill, 1973) Synthesis of the two approaches ~,x2 The effects of trampling are presented in the form eta logical model (Fig. 3) in and x equals a quantitative measure of each species, is a suitable comparative which the relationships are considered to be causal but not all of the same nature. measure. For the data of Chappell et al. (1971) the untrampled vegetation had an Vertical forces applied to the ground by a standing man can be over 200 g/cm- 2 index of 4-05, in lightly trampled areas N2 ~- 4.34 and in the most worn areas ~.Liddle, 1973) while the dynamic forces may exceed 57,000 g/cm- 2 and horizontal N2 = 2'79. The vegetation transect records of Liddle & Greig-Smith (in press b) forces may be up to 32% of the body weight (Harper et al., 1961). Plants and suggest that human trampling reduces this index in relation to a grazed situation, animals, therefore, have to be able to withstand considerable stresses if they are to Animals obtained by vacuum sampling tended to have the highest Brillouin ~urvive on paths. diversity index when the vegetation was between 15 cm and 25 cm high (Morris, 1971) but the N2 index, calculated on the soil animals recorded by Chappell et al. (1971), ranges from 1.8 in minimal wear areas to 3.34 in the areas used by vehicles. I xln¢ic energy i,pu~ from human trampling1 Experimental approach ~ 1[ (:nd horizonlOl forces The amount of basic experimental work on the effects of human trampling is very limited but the consequences of grazing and soil compaction have been widely 01rec~ investigated in the agricultural context. Experimental sheep trampling has been found to reduce the production of a fertilised pasture more than that of an unfertilised one although the total yield was still greater in the former, yield was also depressed more by trampling in wet conditions than when the soil was dry (Edmond, 1966). These findings suggest that productivity, soil moisture and, consequently, plant turgor are important factors in vulnerability of the vegetation Reduction of -- to trampling. Ionimol populations Species biomoss Human trampling at controlled intensities in the field has been carried out by and composition Bayfield (1971); Liddle (1973); A. M. Coker (pers. comm.); and F. Leney (pers. t lConser votion, ogriculturoll comm). Artificial damage by rollers was used by Cieslinski A Wagar (1970) to or amenity value simulate trampling, and Shildrick (1971, 1974) and Youngner (1961), amongst others, have used various 'wear' machines on sports turf. A dropped weight was used by Wagar (1964) and by Kellomfiki (1973) in the field and by Bayfield (1971) Fig. 3. A logical modeIconsideredOf someto be°f causalthe ecoIogicalbut not alleffeCtSof the°fsametrampling'nature.The relationships are in a greenhouse experiment; artificial compression of 'natural' turves taken into greenhouse conditions was carried out by Allcock (1974). However, the artificial Direct mechanical damage to plants is shown most clearly by the persistent wear methods are open to the criticism that the mechanisms are different from reduction in height that occurs in trampled areas. Even after recovery during human trampling and only Kellom~iki (1973) compared his machine with the real summer the height was still reduced by 15% after 48 passages of a walker the effect. His data show that the results appear to be similar at high intensities but previous winter, while 384 passages reduced height by 55~ under the same differ at low levels and between different types of vegetation. Increases in cover or conditions (Liddle, 1973). Reduction in animal populations has been demonstrated biomass of vegetation at low levels of real trampling were recorded by Kellom~iki by measurements of standing crops from trampled and untrampled areas. Earth- (1973) and Liddle (1973), and by Bayfield (1971) in the dropped weight experiment, worm numbers from five 0-25 m- 2 quadrats were reduced from 129 to 27 in the An experiment in which the plant shoots were damaged by a light vehicle trampled zone and other animals from 13 soil cores from the same areas con- independently of soil compaction showed that shoot damage increased the number tracted from 1675 to 257 individuals where most wear occurred (Chappell et al., 24 M. J. LIDDLE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING 25 1971). The effect of trampling on plant populations has apparently not been higher than under adjacent undisturbed vegetation (Lutz, 1945; Chappell et al., recorded. 1971; Liddle, 1973) but in one case an increase of 0.68 gcm- 3 was recorded There was a 57 ~ reduction in the area of leaflets of Trifolium repens growing [Dotzenko et al., 1967). Bulk density initially has a linear positive correlation with on a wide track used 400 times by a light vehicle in summer (Liddle, 1973). Festuca the number of passages of walkers or cars but it is likely to reach a level beyond rubra, a plant that is relatively trampling resistant (Perring, 1967;'Randerson, 1969), which further compression does not take place (Liddle & Greig-Smith, in press had a marked redu~ction of tiller and leaf length and dry weight when growing on Soil penetrometers have also been used to estimate the extent of wear on soils a dry sand dune pa/h, but the number of tillers per plant and leaves per tiller is i LaPage, 1962; Arndt & Rose, 1966; Liddle & Greig-Smith, in press a). Tanner & hardly affected (Fig. 4). O'Connor (1956) found that six passages of a tractor Mamaril (1959) consider that penetration resistance is a better measure than soil bulk density but while it is quick to record and more replicates can be made, thus reducing the variance in the data, it is also very susceptible to variations in soil water and root content. It is therefore advisable to restrict comparisons of Ia Is penetrability to different sites within one soil type. ~ ~ 1I lc[ [ Soil water content may increase as a result of compaction in dry areas (Lutz, Tiller I0 Leaf I 1945; Burden, 1969; Liddle, 1973) or decrease in wetter conditions (Chappell et al., Tiller 1971). Smaller pore size, associated with high bulk densities, reduces the mass s ['~ 0ow and diffusion of air, possibly leading to oxygen shortage (Grable & Siemer, number length numbe em r' 1968). Mass flow and diffusion of nutrients dissolved in soil water may also be 0 0 decreased (Kemper et al., 1971) and the mineralisation of organic matter will be I v T V l~mited by oxygen shortage (Whisler et al., 1965). The microclknate is more severe 20 ,.0 ~ ~ cn dry sand dune tracks than in the adjacent vegetation (Liddle & Moore, in press). N .6 ~t. emoval of the vegetation was shown to increase the soil temperature range while tea f S hoot T i lie r f ~ ompaction of the soil tends to ameliorate conditions. lO dry '5 dry length wt It wta .3 I It is evident that if plants are to survive on paths and tracks, they must be : hie to cope with conditio/~s that are very different from those found in adjacent · m [ ~egetation as well as being resistant to mechanical stress. 0 e- ~ F-"I Germination and establishment of Festuca rubra was reduced by 43~ on a ¥ ¥ t V compacted soil compared with a soil that had been tilled, and that of Pga pratensis Fig. 4. Some aspects of the morphology of Festuca rubra from a sand dune area{ (a) numbero~ v, as diminished by 76~ (Liddle, 1973). But once a plant has become established tillers/plant; (b) length of live tillers; (c) number of live leaves/tiller; (d) length of live leaves: compacted soil can be an advantage; Festuca rubra had a 37 % increase in tiller (e) dry weight g/shoot; (f) dry weight g/tiller: T: plants collected from a dry track; V: plants ~umbers when grown in a soil of 1.36 g em- 3 compared with that grown in a soil collected from adjacent vegetation. I 2 standard errors, Data presented are the mean of measure- ments on 20 plants from one 10 x 10cra quadrat at each site. of 1'08 gcm-3 and survival was improved under drought conditions (Liddle, 1973). It is evident, however, that even very light trampling has a radical effect on reduced the average leaf Iength of Dactylis glomerata from 9.1 cm to 5'8 cm and the vegetation structure (Duffey, 1972) and this, in turn, can dramatically alter the the number of new tillers from 7.3 to 1.1 per plant. The same author also states animal community. that treatment caused the number of new plants of Lotus corniculatus to increase The effect of trampling on plant biomass is complex: very light wear can stimulate by 6 ~ whilst the average number of flower heads was reduced from 29 to 1 and growth of some species of grasses (Bayfield, 1971; Liddle, 1973) and the biomass no seed pods were produced by the trampled plants. Mobilisation of assimilates of the field layer can be increased by as much as one third as a result of one from undamaged source tillers is known to be stimulated by defoliation of Pga 'trampling' per week for eight weeks (Kellom~.ki, 1973). But when this is increased pratensis (Nyahoza, 1971), and this may be a mechanism which aids the survi'cal of ~o an intermediate level there is a reduction in the biomass of dominant grasses grasses under trampling pressure. (Burden & Randerson, 1972). In mixed communities the percentage of dicotyledon- Soil compaction as a result of trampling has been recorded by many workers, gus species increases at the expense of monocotyledonous species at moderate Bulk density on paths or tracks generally ranges between 0.2 g em- 3 and 0.4 g em- 3 levels of pressure, and as the amount of trampling increases further there is a rise 26 M.I. LIDDLE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING 27 decisions from evaluation of regional resources through site planning to site creation and maintenance (Fig. 7). o f / Management stages Processes requiring ecological res~st(Snt 5~ information or experlise · aunty planning < Surveys of ecological value 0 10 20 30 40 weight of thc total biomass in { S~te planning ] < Estimates of corryinq c0pacity. F g. 5 Occurrence percentage relation to soil penetration resistance. The data represent a grad en from undisturbed vegetation L F [ to a heavily trampled area. (Liddlc, 1973.) t ICulturol techniques 1o provide ! L site creation ] < and fertilisinq techniques I to Monitoring of wear and rotation information feedback I ~ j site managers ~ Fig. 7. The potential contribution of ecological information and expertise to various stage.s of J Increasing intensity of management (lc trampling) Resource planning Large-scale surveys have been used to evaluate areas of countryside from an Fig. 6. Diagrams representing the impact upon species density of intensity of management, ecological point of view so that this quality could be considered at the county C: species of high competitive index; Sm: species (or ecotypes) of high resistance to the stresses imposed by management; R: remaining species. (Grime, 1973.) planning level. A system in which the amount of agricultural land, plantation woodland and unsown vegetation was recorded in each half kilometre square was in the percentage of resistant species (Fig. 5), many of which are monocotyledonous, used by Tubbs & Blackwood (1971) to survey South Hampshire. These areas were Bare ground and soil erosion are the ultimate consequences of heavy use. A general given subjective value ratings based on the extent of habitat diversity, value as model which summarises the effects of trampling and environmental management ~;ild life reservoirs and variety of habitat and presence of features of scientific on species of high competitive index, species of high resistance and other species has importance, respectively. This information was then summarised in the form of a been presented by Grime (1973) (Fig. 6). map. A new approach in which habitat area, habitat scarcity, species number and vegetation structure are objectively assessed and used to produce a numerical APPLIED RESEARCH index of ecological value for each kilometre square was proposed by the Conserva- tion Course (1972). Tbe results of this type of survey may be used, together with This section considers applied research in a theoretical sequence of management landscape assessments such as those published by Fines (1968) or Leopold 0971), 28 M.J. LIDDLE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING 29 and other more conv~ntionaI data, for the selection of areas suitable for recreation, estimate the precise number of passages which reduced the vegetation to 50 % In practice there will be a range of uses from completely recreational, where cover (x at y = 50, indicated by the vertical lines on Fig. 8). 'green concrete' may be the most practical ground cover, through various levels -b +_ lb2 - 4a(c - 50)]'~ of multi-use for recreation and agriculture or nature conservation, to places where (x at y = 50) = 2a ecological value is very high and conservation is the only acceptable land use (cf. Brotherton, 1973). A method suitable for the evaluation of site durability within one habitat type A methodology has been proposed by which the vulnerability of different ~s proposed by Cieslinski & Wagar (1970). They carried out standard 'trampling' habitats can be compared (Liddle, 1973). In essence it consists of applying wear by :reatments with a corrugated concrete roller and used multiple regression techniques walking on the habitat and discovering the number of passages it can withstand ~o compare the effects of such factors as soil clay content, pr, tree cover, slope, before the vegetation is reduced to 50 % cover or biomass. Controlled intensity tspect and altitude on the amount of remaining vegetation. The last three factors walking is carried out on a previously unworn area of the habitat to be estimated oroved to be the most important. A similar range of factors was used by Ripley and the vegetation cover is measured at intervals and plotted against the number 1962), but in this case wear was expressed as an independent variable and of passages (Fig. 8). The percentage cover of the live vegetation remaining at the .valuated as the volume of use per table at picnic sites open to the public. It will :ventually be possible to plan the distribution of people in relation to the ulnerability of the various habitats on a quantitative basis and, providing they :an be induced to follow the plan, permanent damage to the environment may be 150 tvoided. ~ite planning Detailed vegetation maps which plot the local distribution of plant communities, g uch as those produced by Edgell (1971) and by Packham & Liddle (1970), can be o lO0 ,~sed at this stage to assess the amenity and ecological values and vulnerability of * "'""'""x .lifferent parts of the site. Estimates of the physical carrying capacity and ~ .lefinitions of the criteria to be used in the assessment of acceptable levels of wear '.viii also be required at this stage. 40 160 640 2560 48705 201102 8o7I Walking passages ~Winter -29423 3.3058 I10 8[ Fig. 8. The effect of walking on the relative cover of sand dune pasture. The equations describing $ummer -4 0177 42.5473 1.4 ] these curves are presented in Fig. 9. , summer treatment; .... , winter treatment. The two -~{win*er -0.7119 IO 90~4 743 I vertical lines indicate the number of passages reducing the vegetation cover to 50~. ,d.:T.~.~l~,~Summer -4 2835 21 99 90 [ various mensurations (y) is then regressed on the log~ of the number of passages (x) l vemc~eSJ~winter -5 666 49.1393 13.3 I producing a curvilinear equation of the formula: y = ax2 + bx + c of passages on sand dune pasture can be calculated. Based on quadratic regression equations y = ax2 + bx + c, y = percentage relative cover, x - number of passages. Data derived from The constants a, b and c derived from this calculation may then be used to field experiments described in Liddle (1973). 30 M.J. LIDDLE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN TRAMPLING 31 The physical carrying capacity of moderately dry sand dune pasture has been ICoker & Coker, 1972), and a simpler mechanical system involves transects of determined by a number of different criteria (Liddle, 1973). These inclmle .lramplometers' consisting of soft wire sensors which bend when struck by percentage cover of the vegetation, relative species number, relative diversity ~alkers--these have been placed across paths to measure the lateral distribution and relative cover of resistant species. Having decided on the criteria to be used, of walkers (Bayfield, 1971). The latter technique was also used to study the factors a curvilinear equation is selected by means of three dichotomous choices (Fig. 9). causing people to spread away from paths while walking (Bayfield, 1973) and a These equations are then used to select the permissible number of passages. If,:for relationship was found between wetness, roughness and path width (Fig. 10). example, a season of recovery were allowed, the wear was going to be caused by Bayfield also found that paths increased in width as they became steeper and people walking during the summer and a 100 % recovery were required, then a changed form at curves as short cgts came into use. The data on roughness showec~ maximum of 1280 passages would be permissible on a single file path 25 cm wide. ii,at if the contrast between paths and adjacent areas was sufficient, walkers could A more complex model involving peaks of holiday use and monitoring adaptation r~-obably be confined to the paths. People tend to follow and 'settle' at vegetation by the vegetation would give more reliable results. Regression techniques were I-,mndaries, and these are often sites of greatest diversity and the location of also used in a model presented by Burden & Randerson (1972), in which the ~:tractive rare species (Westhoff, 1967; van der Maarel, 1971). It is therefore effects of intensity of trampling, soil compaction and animal grazing on dry i~nportant for amenity and conservation that this ecological feature be considered weight of the vegetation of a sand-covered shingle ridge were estimated, hen positioning paths. The position and design of paths in a recreation area should consider the interaction between walkers and the nature of the paths. Methods of monitoring ),:re creation and management the numbers of walkers have been developed by ecologists; one involves a~ Site creation is perhaps the area of achievement that has most depended on electrical recorder and either photoelectric cells or microswitches at selected points ¢~ ological research. Without the experimental work on substrates, seed mixtures :~ ad fertilizers, schemes such as the reclamation of the Lower Swansea Valley could Width cm. not have been successful (Weston et al., 1965). Work on derelict sites is now c ,tensive: examples include the re-vegetation of china clay waste heaps in Cornwall, 0 (,c slate heaps in Caernfirvonshire, coal tips in the Midlands and the north of I ngland, and of tty ash waste from power stations. Such research is, however, a ~ ,ecialised topic which cannot be considered further in this paper. The management of recreation areas involves both the maintenance and the regeneration of vegetation. Ecologists have investigated a number of approaches /~~ \ t~, the maintenance of short turves. Treatment of roadside vegetation with maleic h>drazide (growth retardant) and 2,4-D (selective weedkiller) every year eventually produced a short turf dominated by Poa pratensis and with 14 of the original ~~~~ ,~~~ 27 species remaining. But using growth retardant alone, the vegetation height was still half that of the controls, and there were 29 species present (Willis, 1969). '1 iming mowing to take place in April, May and June kept verges of the M 1 motor- way below 30 cm in height throughout the year (Way, 1969). The effects of different types of machine and of chemicals were also investigated. The question of whether to remove cuttings is discussed by Wells (1969) and by Green (1972). Sheep grazing is also a potential method by which species-rich short turf can be maintained; the stocking rate is critical, however, as one sheep/0'405 ha (1 acre) /~,ot%, ,~.,~. ~. x.,,~.,~,], / 'b ~ allowed tall grasses (Brachypodium sylvaticum and ,4rrhenatherum elatius) to 't. ¢,o'~qx'* dominate, but three/0.405 ha produced a low sward (Wells, 1969). The use of slow-growing species o.f grass is now being investigated by the commercial seed Fig. 10. Relationship between width, wemessandroughness for theStrathNethypath. Computed producers (Wright, undated ca 1970) and these are likely to be widely used in the surface E (log, Y) = 1.623 + 0.428X + 0.504X2. (.Bayfield, 1973.) future where competition from more vigorous species can be avoided or suppressed. 36 M. $. LIDDLE TtYBBS, C. R. &BLt, CKWOOD, J. W. (1971). Ecological evaluation of land for planning purposes. Biol. Conserv., 3, 169-72. VAN DER MAAREL, E. (1971). PIant species density in relation to management. In The scientific management of animal andplant communities for conservation, ed~ by E. Duffey & A. S. Watt, 45-64. Oxford, Blackwell. Who^R, J. A. (1964). The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. Forest Sci. Monogr., 7, VEGETATIONAL CH ANGES IN TH E GALAPAGOS 1-24. - ISLANDS DURING THE PERIOD 1966-73' Wa'/, J. M. (1969). Road verges--research on management for amenity and wildlife. In Road verges, their function and management, ed, by J. M. Way, 61-71. Abbots Ripton, Nature Conservancy. WuLt.s, T. C. E. (1969). The management of sites of ecological value. In Old grassland: it~ archaeological and ecological importance, ed. by J. Sheail and T. C. E. Wells, 68-72. Abbots Ripton, Nature Conservancy. Or~ H^~a^ns W£sr~oFv, V. (1967). The ecological impact of pedestrian, equestrian and. vehicular traffic on vegetation. P.-v. Un. int. Conserv. Nat., 10, 218-23. Institute of Systematic Botany, University of Copenhagen, WES'tON, R. L., GADGIL, P. D., SALTER, B. R. & GOODMAN, G. T. (1965). Problems of revegetation 140 Gothersgade, 1123 Copenhagen, Denmark in the Lower Swansea Valley, an area of extensive industrial dereliction. In Ecology and the In 1971-72 UNESCO associate expert in plant ecology, The Charles Darwin Research Station. industrial society, ed. by G. T. Goodman, R. W. Edwards & J. M. Lambert, 297-326. Oxford, Isla Santa Cruz, Galdpagos, Ecuador Blacltwell. WmS~,£R, F. D., ENC~L£, C. F. & B^~JGHM,~,N, N, M. (1965). The effect of soil compaction in nitrogen transformations in the soil. Bull. W. Va Univ. agrie. Exp. Stn, 516T. W~-lrrrA~c£R, J. (1973). Whiaaker's Almanack. London, J. Whittaker & Sons Ltd. W~t.t.ls, A. J. (1969). Road verges--experiments on the chemical control of grass and weeds. In Road verges, their function and management, ed. by J. M. Way, 52-60. Abbots Ripton. ABSTRACT Nature Conservancy. WVa~}~T, T. W. J. (undated ca. 1970). Aspects oflanct~cape ecology and maintenance. Wye, Ashfor& Kent. Wye College (University of London). Analysis of 12 permanent sample plots established in the Galc~pagos showed that Yovtqo~q~R, V. B. (1961). Accelerated wear tests on turf grasses. Agron. J.. 53, 217-8. introduced mammals have had a destructive influence on the vegetation; closed forest and scrub have been changed into open vegetation. The plots provide information on the regeneration ability of various types ,~f vegetation. Scalesia forest, dominated by the endemic Scalesia pedunculata Hook. J~, might under certain circumstances regenerate rapidly. Miconia scrub, dominated by the endemic Miconia robinsoniana Cogn., regenerates slowly attd is consequently more vulnerable to the activities of man and introduced mammals. ,qrid zone vegetation, characterised especially by endemic species of Opuntia, is able to regenerate, but it is still too earl)' to estimate how the regeneration will proceed. The suggested conservation measures include a continuation qf the programme for elimination or control of introduced mammals, and a stronger control with the National Park areas on inhabited islands. Financial support is needed for the Gal~pagos National Park Service and the Charles Darwin Research Station to continue and enlarge the activities necessary to preserve the l~nique wildlife of the Galgpagos Islands. INTRODUCTION Programmes for conservation of the natural resources of the Galfipagos Islands have been in operation since 1961, and have mainly been concentrated on the preservation of the indigenous fauna and on the control of introduced mat'nmals * Charles Darwin Foundation Contribution No. 170. The author's work in 1971-72 as UNESCO field staff member was supported by the World Wildlife Fund (Project No. 744). 37 Biol. Consero. (7)(1975)--© Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1975 Printed in Great Britain REVIEWS REVIEWS Ecological light pollution Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich Ecologists have long studied the critical role of natural light in regulating species interactions, but, with limited exceptions, have not investigated the consequences of artificial night lighting. In the past century, the extent and intensity of artificial night lighting has increased such that it has substantial effects on the biology and ecology of species in the wild. We distinguish "astronomical light pollution", which obscures the view of the night sky, from "ecological light pollution", which alters natural light regimes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the catastrophic consequences of light for certain taxonomic groups are well known, such as the deaths of migratory birds around tall lighted structures, and those of hatchling sea turtles disoriented by lights on their natal beaches. The more subtle influences of artificial night lighting on the behavior and community ecology of species are less well recognized, and constitute a new focus for research in ecology and a pressing conservation challenge. Front Eco[ Environ 2004; 2(4): 191-198 A~ diurnal creatures, humans have long sought logical interactions across taxa, as opposed to reviewing methods to illuminate the night. In pre-industrial these effects by taxonomic group. We first discuss the scale times, artificial light was generated by burning various and extent of ecological light pollution and its relation- materials, including wood, oil, and even dried fish. ship to astronomical light pollution, as well as the mea- While these methods of lighting certainly influenced surement of light for ecological research. We then address animal behavior and ecology locally, such effects were the recorded and potential influences of artificial night limited. The relatively recent invention and rapid prolif- lighting within the nested hierarchy of behavioral and eration of electric lights, however, have transformed the population ecology, community ecology, and ecosystem nighttime enviromnent over substantial portions of the ecology. While this hierarchy is somewhat artificial and Earth's surface, certainly motable, it illustrates the breadth of potential Ecologists have not entirely ignored the potential dis- consequences of ecological light pollution. The irnportant ruption of ecological systems by artificial night lighting, effects of light on the physiology of organisms (see Health Several authors have written reviews of the potential Councilofthe Netherlands 2000)are not discussed here. effects on ecosystems or taxonomic groups, published in the "gray" literature (Health Council of the Netherlands · Astronomical and ecological light pollution: scale 2000; Hill 1990), conference proceedings (Outen 2002; and extent Schmiedel 2001), and journal articles (Frank 1988; Verheijen 1985; Salmon 2003). This review attempts to The term "light pollut'on' has been in use for a number integrate the literature on the topic, and draws on a con- of years, but in most circumstances refers to the degrada- ference organized by the authors in 2002 titled Ecological tion of human views of the night sky. We want to clarify Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. We identify the that this is "astronomical light pollution", where stars and roles that artificial night lighting plays in changing eco- other celestial bodies are washed out by light that is either directed or reflected upward. This is a broad-scale phenomenon, with hundreds of thousands of light sources In a nutshell: cumolatively contributing to increased nighttime illumi- · Ecological light pollution includes chronic or periodically increased illumination, unexpected changes in illumination, nation of the sky; the light reflected back from the sky is and direct glare called "sky glow" (Figure 1). We describe artificial light · Animals can experience increased orientation or disorienta-that alters the natural patterns o~c light and dark in ecosys- tion from additional illumination and are attracted to or terns as "ecological light poflution". Verheijen (1985) repulsed by glare, which affects foraging, reproduction, commu- proposed the term "photopollution" to mean "artificial nication, and other critical behaviors · Artificial light disrupts interspeciflc interactions evolved in light having adverse effects on wildlife". Because phc- natural patterns of light and dark, with serious implications for topollution literally means "light pollution" and because community ecology light pollution is so widely understood today to describe the degradation of the view of the night sky and the human experience of the night, we believe that a more The Urban Wildlands Group, PO Box 24020, Los Ange/es, CA descriptive term is now necessary. Ecological light poflu- 90024-0020 (bngcore@urbanwildlands.org) tion includes direct glare, chronically increased illumina- © The Ecological Society of America www.frontier sinecology, org Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich eralization. Species in temperate zones will also be susceptible to disruptions if they depend on seasonal day length cues to trigger critical behaviors. · Measurements and units Measurement of ecological light pollution often involves determination of illumination at a given place. Illumination is the amount of light incident per unit area - not the only measurement relevant to ecological light pol- lution, but the most common. Light varies in intensity (the number of photons per unit area) and spectral content (expressed by wavelength). Ideally, ecologists should mea- sure illumination in photons per square meter per second with associated measurements of the wavelengths of light present. More often, illumination is measured in lux (or footcan- Figure 1. Diagram of ecological and astronomical light pollution, dies, the non-SI unit), which expresses the brightness of light as perceived by the human lion, and temporary, unexpected fluctuations in light- eye. The lux measurement places more emphasis on lng. Sources of ecological light pollution include sky wavelengths of light that the human eye detects best and glow, lighted buildings and towers, streetlights, fishing less on those that humans perceive poorly. Because other boats, security lights, lights on vehicles, flares on off- organisms perceive light differently - including wave- shore oil platforms, and even lights on undersea lengths not visible to humans - future research on ecolog- research vessels, all of which can disrupt ecosystems to ical light pollution should identify these responses and varying degrees. The phenomenon therefore involves measure light accordingly. For example, Gal et al. (1999) potential effects across a range of spatial and temporal calculated the response curve of mysid shrimp to light scales, and reported illumination in lux adjusted for the spectral The extent of ecological light pollution is global sensitivityofthe species. (Elvidge et al. 1997; Figure 2). The first atlas of artificial Ecologists are faced with a practical difficulty when night sky brightness illustrates that astronomical light communicating information about light conditions. Lux pollution extends to every inhabited continent (Cinzano is the standard used by nearly all lighting designers, light- et al. 2001). Cinzano et al. (2001) calculate that only lng engineers, and environmental regulators; communi- 40% of Americans live where it becomes sufficiently cation with them requires reporting in this unit. Yet the dark at night for the human eye to make a complete use of lux ignores biologically relevant information. High- transition from cone to rod vision and that 18.7% of the pressure sodium lights, for instance, will attract moths terrestrial surface of the Earth is exposed to night sky because of the presence of ultraviolet wavelengths, while brightness that is polluted by astronomical standards, low-pressure sodium lights of the same intensity, but not Ecosystems may be affected by these levels of illumina- producing ultraviolet light, will not (Rydell 1992). lion and lights that do not contribute to sky glow may Nevertheless, we use lux here, both because of the need still have ecological consequences, ensuring that ecolog- to communicate with applied professionals, and because ical light pollution afflicts an even greater proportion of of its current and past widespread usage. As this research the Earth. Lighted fishing fleets, offshore oil platforms, field develops, however, measurements of radiation and and cruise ships bring the disruption of artificial night spectrum relevant to the organisms in question should be lighting to the world's oceans, used, even though lux will probably continue to be the The tropics may be especially sensitive to alterations in preferred unit for communication with professionals in natural diel (ie over a 24-hour period) patterns of light other disciplines. and dark because of the year-round constancy of daily Ecologists also measure aspects of the light environ- cycles (Gliwicz 1999). A shortened or brighter night is ment other than absolute illumination levels. A sudden more likely to affect tropical species adapted to diel pat- change in illumi~ation is disruptive for some species terns with minimal seasonal variation than extratropical (Buchanan 1993), so percent change in illumination, species adapted to substantial seasonal variation. Of rate, or similar measures may be relevant. Ecologists may course, temperate and polar zone species active only dur- also measure luminance (ie brightness) of light sources lng a portion of the year would be excluded from this gen- that are visible to organisms. www. frontiersinecology, org © The Ecological Society of America T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution Figure 2. Distribution of artificial lights visible from space. Produced using cloud-free portions of Iow-light imaging data acquired by the US Air Force Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Operational Linescan System. Four types of lights are identified: (1) human settlements - cities, towns, and v/l/ages (white), (2) fires - defined as ephemeral lights on land (red), (3) gas flares (green), and (4) heavily lit fishing boats (blue). See Elvidge et al. (2001) for details. Image, data processing, and descriptive text by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric .Administration's National Geophysical Data Center. · Behavioral and population ecology lighted areas (Derrickson 1988) or during the full moon. Ecological light pollution has demonstrable effects on the The effect of these light-induced behaviors on fitness is behavioral and population ecology of organisms in natural unknown. settings. As a whole, these effects derive from changes in ori- Constant artificial night lighting may also disorient entation, disorientation, or misorientation, and attraction or organisms accustomed to navigating in a dark environment. repulsion from the altered light environment, which in turn The best-known example of this is the disorientation of may affect foraging, reproduction, migration, and communi- hatchling sea turtles emerging from nests on sandy beaches. cation. Under normal circumstances, hatchlings move away from lo,v, dark silhouettes (historicall~y, those of dune vegeta- Orientation/disorientation and attraction/repulsion tion), allowing them to crawl quickly to the ocean. With beachfront lighting, the silhouettes that would have cued Orientation and disorientation are responses to ambient movement are no longer perceived, resulting in disorienta- illumination (ie the amount of light incident on objects in lion (Salmon et al. 1995). Lighting also affects the egg-lay- an environment). In contrast, attraction and repulsion lng behavior of female sea turtles. (For reviews of effects on occur in response to the light sources themselves and are sea turtles, see Salmon 2003 and Witherington 1997). therefore responses to luminance or the brightness of the Changes in light level may disrupt orientation in noctur- source of light (Health Council of the Netherlands 2000). nal animals. The range of anatomical adaptations to allow Increased illumination may extend diurnal or crepuscular night vision is broad (Park 1940), and rapid increases in behaviors into the nighttime environment by improving an light can blind animals. For frogs, a quick increase in illumi- animal's ability to orient itselfi Many usually diurnal birds nation causes a reduction in visual capability from which (Hill 1990) and reptiles (Schwartz and Henderson 1991), the recovew time may be minutes to hours (Buchanan for example, forage under artificial lights. This has been 1993). After becoming adjusted to a light, frogs may be termed the "night light niche" for reptiles and seems benefi- attracted to it as well (Jaeger and Hailman 1973; Figure 3). cial for those species that can exploit it, but not for their Birds can be disoriented and entrapped by lights at night prey (Schwartz and Henderson 1991). (Ogden 1996). Once a bird is within a lighted zone at In addition to foraging, orientation under artificial illumi- night, it raay become "trapped" and will not leave the nation may induce other behaviors, such as territorial lighted area. Large numbers of nocturnally migrating birds singing in birds (Bergen and Abs 1997). For the northern are therefore affected when meteorological conditions mockingbird (Mimus poIyglottos), males sing at night before bring them dose to lights, for instance, during inclement mating, but once mated only sing at night in artificially weather or late at night when they tend to fly lower. © The Ecological Society of America www. fr ontiersinecology, or g Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich Nonfiying arthropods vary in their reaction to lights. Some nocturnal spiders are negatively phototactic (ie repelled by light), whereas others will exploit light if avail- able (Nakamura and Yamashita 1997). Some insects are always positively phototactic as an adaptive behavior and others always photonegative (Summers 1997). In arthro- pods, d~ese responses may also be influenced by the frequent correlations betweep light, humidity, and temperature. Natural resource managers can exploit the responses of animals to lights. Lights are sometimes used to attract fish to ladders, allowing them to bypass dams and power plants (Haymes er al. 1984). Similarly, lights can attract larval fish to coral reefs (Munday et al. 1998). in the terrestrial realm, dispersing mountain lions avoid lighted areas to such a degree that Beier (1995) suggests installing lights to deter them from entering habitats dead-ending in areas where humans live. Reproduction Reproductive behaviors may be altered by artificial night lighting. Female Physalaemus pustulosus frogs, for exam- ple, are less selective about mate choice when light levels Figure 3. Attraction of frogs to a candle set out on a small raft. are increased, presumably preferring to mate quickly and Illustration by Charles Copeland of an experiment in northern avoid the increased predation risk of mating activity Maine or Canada described by William J Long (1901). Twelve (Rand et al. 1997). Night lighting may also inhibit or fifteen bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) climbed on to the small amphibian movement to and from breeding areas by stim- raftbeforeitflippedover, ulating phototactic behavior. Bryant Buchanan (pers comm) reports that frogs in an experimental enclosure Within the sphere of lights, birds may collide with each stopped mating activity during night football games, other or a structure, become exhausted, or be taken by when lights from a nearby stadium increased sky glow. predators. Birds that are waylaid by buildings in urban Mating choruses resumed only when the enclosure was areas at night often die in collisions with windows as they covered to shield the frogs from the light. try to escape during the day. Artificial lighting has In birds, some evidence suggests that artificial night attracted birds to smokestacks, lighthouses (Squires and lighting affects the choice of nest site. De Molenaar et al. Hanson 1918), broadcast towers (Ogden 1996), boats (Dick and Donaldson 1978), greenhouses, oil platforms (Wiese et al. 2001), and other structures at night, resulting in direct mortality, and thus inter- fering with migration routes. Many groups of insects, of which moths are one well-known example (Frank 1988), are attracted to lights. Other taxa showing the same attraction include lacewings, beetles, bugs, caddisflies, crane flies, midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush crickets (Eisenbeis and Hassel 2000; Kolligs 2000; Figure 4). Attraction depends on the spec- trum of light - insect collectors use ultraviolet light because of its attractive qualities - and the char- acteristics of other lights in the Figure 4. Thousands of mayflies carpet the ground around a security light at Millecoquins vicinity. Point in Naubinway on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. www. frontiersinecology, or g © The Ecological Society of America T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution (2000) investigated the effects of roadway lighting on black-tailed godwits (Limasa l. limosa) in wet grassland habitats. Breeding densities of godwits were recorded over 2 years, comparing lighted and unlighted con- ditions near a roadway and near light poles installed in a wet grassland away from the road influence. When all other habitat fac- tors were taken into account, the density of nests was slightly but statistically lower up to 300 m away from the lighting at roadway and control sites. The researchers also noted that birds nesting earlier in the year chose sites farther away from the lighting, while those nesting later filled in sites closer to the lights. Communication Visual communication within and between species may be influenced by artificial night Figure 5. Crowned hornbill (Tockus alboterrninatus) hawking insects at a lighting. Some species use light to communi- light at the KibaIe Forest National Park, Uganda. cate, and are therefore especially susceptible to disruption. Female glow-worms attract males up to nities, some foraging times are partitioned among species 45 m away with bioluminescent flashes; the presence of that prefer different levels of lighting. The squirrel artificial lighting reduces the visibility of these communi- treefrog (Hy/a squitrela) is able to orient and forage at cations. Similarly, the complex visual communication lighting levels as low as 10.5 lux and under natural condi- system of fireflies could be impaired by stray light (Lloyd tions typically will stop foraging at illuminations above 1994). 10.3 lux (Buchanan 1998). The western toad (Bufo Artificial night lighting could aisc alter communication boreas) forages only at illuminations between 10'~ and 10.5 patterns as a secondary effect. Coyotes (Canis latrans) lux, while the railed frog (Ascaphus truel) forages only group howl and group yip-howl more during the new during the darkest part of the night at below I0'$ lux moon, when it is darkest. Communication is necessary (Hailman 1984). While these three species are not neces- either to reduce trespassing from other packs, or to assem- sarily sympatric (ie inhabiting the same area), and differ ble packs to hunt larger prey during dark conditions in other niche dimensions, they illustrate the division of (Bender et al. 1996). Sky glow could increase ambient illu- the light gradient by foragers. mination to eliminate this pattern in affected areas. Many bat species are attracte~t to insects that congre- Because of the central role of vision in orientation and gate around light sources (Frank 1988). Although it behavior of most animals, it is not surprising that artificial may seem that this is a positive effect, the increased lighting alters behavior. This causes an immediate conser- food concentration benefits only those species that vation concern for some species, while for other species exploit light sources and could therefore result in the influence may seem to be positive. Such "positive" altered community structure. Faster-flying species of effects, however, may have negative consequences within bats congregate around lights to feed on insects, but the context of community ecology, other, slower-flying species avoid lights (Blake et al. 1994; Rydell and Baag~e 1996). · Community ecology Changes in competitive communities occur as diurnal species move into the "night light niche" (Schwartz and The behaviors exhibited by individual animals in Henderson 199I). This concept, as originally described, response to ambient illumination (orientation, disorien- applies to reptiles, but easily extends to other taxa, such as ration) and to luminance (attraction, repulsion) influ- spiders (Frank pers comm) and birds (Hill 1990; Figure 5). ence community interactions, of which competition and predation are examples. Predation Competition Although it may seem beneficial for diurnal species to be able to forage longer under artificial lights, any gains from Artificial night lighting could disrupt the interactions of increased activity time can be offset by increased preda- groups of species that show resource partitioning across tion risk (Gotthard 2000). The balance between gains illmnination gradients. For example, in natural commu- from extended foraging time and risk of increased preda- © The Ecological Society of America www. frontiersinecolog¥,org Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich tion is a central topic for research on small mammals, rep- behavior known as "diel vertical migration". Diel vertical tiles, and birds (Kotler 1984; Lima 1998). Small rodents migration presumably results from a need to avoid preda- forage less at high illunrination levels (Lima 1998), a ten- tion during lighted conditions, so many zooplankton for- dency also exhibited by some lagomorphs (Gilbert and age near water surfaces only during dark conditions Boutin 1991), marsupials (Laferrier 1997), snakes (Gliwicz 1986). Light dimmer than that of a half moon (Klauber 1939), bars (Rydell 1992), fish (Gibson 1978), (<I0'~ lux) is sufficient to influence the vertical distribu- aquatic invertebrates (Moore et al. 2000), and other taxa. tion of some aquatic invertebrates, and indeed patterns of Unexpected changes in light conditions may disrupt diel vertical migration change with the lunar cycle predator-prey relationships. Gliwicz (1986, 1999) des- (Dodson 1990). cribes high predation by fish on zooplankton during nights Moore et al. (2000) documented the effect of artificial when the full moon rose hours after sunset. Zooplankton light on the diel migration of the zooplankton Daphnia in had migrated to the surface to forage under cover of dark- the wild. Artificial illumination decreased the magnitude ness, only to be illuminated by the rising moon and sub- ofdiel migrations, both in the range of vertical movement jected to intense predation. This "lunar light trap" and the number of individuals migrating. The researchers (Gliwicz 1986) illustrates a natural occurrence, but unex- hypothesize that this disruption of diel vertical migration pected illumination from human sources could disrupt may have substantial detrimental effects on ecosystem predator-prey interactions in a similar manner, often to health. With fewer zooplankton migrating to the surface the benefit of the predator, to graze, algae populations may increase. Such algal Available research shows that artificial night lighting blooms would then have a series of adverse effects on disrupts predator-prey relationships, which is consistent water quality (Moore er al. 2000). with the documented importance of natural light regimes The reverberating effects of community changes caused in mediating such interactions. In one example, harbor by artificial night lighting could influence other ecosys- seals (Phoca vitulina) congregated under artificial lights to tern functions. Although the outcomes are not yet pre- eat juvenile salmonids as they migrated downstream; turn- dictable, and redundancy will buffer changes, indications ins the lights off reduced predation levels (Yurk and Trites are that fight-influenced ecosystems will suffer from 2000). Nighttime illumination at urban crow roosts was important changes attributable to artificial light alone higher than at control sites, presumably because this helps and in combination with other disturbances. Even the crows avoid predation from owls (Gorenzel and remote areas may be exposed to increased illumination Salmon 1995). Desert rodents reduced foraging activity from sky glow, but the most noticeable effects will occur when exposed to the light of a single camp lantern (Kotler in those areas where lights are close to natural habitats. 1984). Frank (1988) reviews predation by bats, birds, This may be in wilderness where summer getaways are skunks, toads, and spiders on moths attracted to artificial built, along the expanding front of suburbanization, near lights. Mercury vapor lights, in particular, disrupt the the wetlands and estuaries that are often the last open interaction between bats and tympanate moths by inter- spaces in cities, or on the open ocean, where cruise ships, fering with moth detection of ultrasonic chirps used by squid boats, and oil derricks light the night. bats in echolocation, leaving moths unable to take their norn~al evasive action (Svensson and Rydell 1998). · Oonolusions From these examples, it follows that community struc- ture will be altered where light affects interspecific inter- Our onderstanding of the full range of ecological conse- actions. A "perpetual full moon" from artificial lights will quences of artificial night lighting is still limited, and the favor light-tolerant species and exclude others. If the dark- field holds many opportunities for basic and applied est natural conditions never occur, those species that max- research. Studies of natural populations are necessary to imize foraging during the new moon could eventually be investigate hypotheses generated in the laboratory, evi- compromised, at risk of failing to meet monthly energy dence of lunar cycles in wild populations, and natural his- budgets. The resulting community structure would be sim- tory observations. If current trends continue, the influ- plified, and these changes could in turn affect ecosystem ence of stray light on ecosystems will expand in characteristics, geographic scope and intensity. Today, 20% of the area of the coterminous US lies within 125 m of a road (Riiters · Ecosystem effects and Wickham 2003). Lights follow roads, and the propor- tion of ecosystems uninfluenced by altered light regimes The cumulative effects of behavioral changes induced by is decreasing. We believe that many ecologists have artificial night lighting on competition and predation neglected to consider artificial night lighting as a relevant have the potential to disrupt key ecosystem functions, environmental factor, while conservationists have cer- The spillover effects from ecological light pollution on tainly neglected to include the nighttime environment in aquatic invertebrates illustrates this point. Many aquatic reserve and corridor design. invertebrates, such as zooplankton, move up and down Successful investigation of ecological light pollution within the water column during a 24-hour period, in a will require collaboration with physical scientists and www. frontiersinecology, org © The Ecological Society of America T Longcore and C Rich . Ecological light pollution engineers to improve equipment to measure light charac- Blake D, Hutson AM, Racey PA, et al. 1994. Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in southern England. J Zoo1234: 453-62. teristics at ecologically relevant levels under diverse field Buchanan BXX~ 1993. Effects of enhanced lighting on the behav- conditions. Researchers should give special considera- iour of nocturnal frogs. Anita Behav 45: 893-99. tion to the tropics, where the constancy of day-night Buchanan BW. 1998. Low-illumination prey detection by squirrel lighting patterns has probably resulted in narrow niche treefrogs. JHerpeto132: 270-74. Cinzano P, Falchi F, and Elvidge CD. 2001. The first world atlas of breadths relative to illumination. Aquatic ecosystems the artificial night sky brightness. Mon Not R Astron Soc 328: deserve increased attention as well, because despite the 689-707. central importance of light to freshwater and marine De Molenaar JG, Jonkers DA, and Sanders ME. 2000. Road illumi- ecology, consideration of artificial lighting has so far nation and nature. II1. Local influence of road lights on a been limited. Research on the effects of artificial night black-tailed godwit (Limosa l. Iimosa) population. Wageningen, lighting will enhance understanding of urban ecosystems The Netherlands: Alterra. Derrickson KC. 1988. Variation in repertoire presentation in - the two National Science Foundation (NSF) urban northern mockingbirds. Condor 90: 592-606. Long Term Ecological Research sites are ideal locations Dick MH and Donaldson W. i978. Fishing vessel endangered by for such efforts, crested anklet landings. Condor 80: 235-36. Careful research focusing on artificial night lighting will Dodson S. 1990. Predicting diel vertical migration of zooplankton. probably reveal it to be a powerful force structuring local LimnolandOceanogr35: 1195-1200. Eisenbeis G and Hassel E 2000. Zur Anziehung nachtaktiver communities by disrupting competition and predator-prey Insekten durch Stra~enlatemen - eine Studie kommunaler interactions. Researchers will face the challenge of disen- Beteuchtungseinrichmngen in der Agrarlandschaft Rein- tangling the confounding and cumulative effects of other hessens [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights - a facets of human disturbance with which artificial night study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of lighting will often be correlated, such as roads, urban Rheinhessen (Germany)]. Natur und Landschaft 75:145 56. Elvidge C, Baugh KE, Kihn LA, and Davis ER. 1997. Mapping city development, noise, exotic species, animal harvest, and lights with nighttime data from the DMSP Operational resource extraction. To do so, measurements of light dis- Linescan System. Photogramm Lng Rem S 63: 727-34. turban~e should be included routinely as part of environ- Etvidge CD, imhoff ML, Baugh KE, et al. 2001. Nighttime lights of mental monitoring protocols, such as the NSF's National the world: 1994-95. ISPRS J Photogramm Rem S 56: 81-99. Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Future Frank KD. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assess- ment. J Lepidop Soc 42: 63-93. research is likely to reveal artificial night lighting to be an Gal G, Loew ER, Rudstam LC, and Mohamnmdian AM. 1999. important, independent, and cumulative factor in the dis- Light and diel vertical migration: spectral sensitivity and light ruption of natural ecosystems, and a major challenge for avoidance by Mysis relicta. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:311-22. their preservation. Gibson RN. 1978. Lunar and tidal rhythms in fish. In: Thorpe JE Ecologists have studied diel and lunar patterns in the (Ed). Rhythmic activity of fishes. London: Academic Press. Gilbert BS and Boutin S. 1991. Effect of moonlight on winter behavior of organisms for the greater part of a century (see activity of snowshoe hares. Arctic .Alpine Res 23: 61-65. Park 1940 and references therein), and the deaths of birds Gliwicz ZM. 1986. A lunar cycle in zooplankton. Ecology 67: from lights for nearly as long (Squires and Hanson 1918). 883-97. Humans have now so altered the natural patterns of light Gliwicz ZM. 1999. Predictability of seasonal and diel events in and dark that these new conditions must be afforded a tropical and temperate lakes and reservoirs. In: Tundisi JG, Straskraba M (Eds). Theoretical reservoir ecology and its appli- more central role in research on species and ecosystems cations. Sic Carlos: International Institute of Ecology. beyond the instances that leave carcasses on the ground. Gorenzel WP and Salmon TE 1995. Characteristics of American Crow urban roosts in California. J Wildlife Manage 59: 638-45. · Acknowledgements Gotthard K. 2000. Increased risk of predation as a cost of high growth rate: an experimental test in a butterfly. J Anita Eco169: 896-902. We thank PJ DeVries for his photographs, and B Tuttle Hailman JR 1984. Bimodal nocturnal activity of the western toad and C Elvidge for the satellite image. Research was sup- (Bufo boreas) in relation to ambient illumination. Copeia 1984: ported in part by the Conservation and Research 283-90. Foundation. We are grateful for constructive comments Haymes CT, Patrick PH, and Onisto LJ. 1984. Attraction of fish to and advice from W Briggs, BW Buchanan, KD Frank, JE mercury vapor light and its application in a generating station forebay. Int Rev Hydrobio169: 867-76. Lloyd, JR Longcore, MV Moore, WA Montevecchi, © Health Council of the Netherlands. 2000. Impact of outdoor light- Perry, and M Salmon. ins on man and nature. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Publication No. 2000/25E. · Relerences Hill D. 1990. The impact of noise and artificial light on waterfowl behaviour: a review and synthesis of the available literature. Beier F~ 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J Norfolk, United Kingdom: British Trust for Ornithology Wildlife Manage 59: 228-37. Bender DJ, Bayne EM, and Brigham RM. 1996. Lunar condition Report No. 61. Jaeger RG and Hailman JR 1973. Effects of intensity on the photo- influences coyote (Canis latrans) howling..Am Midl Nat 136: tactic responses of adult anuran amphibians: a comparative sur- 413-17. vey. Z ~erpsycho13 3 : 352-407. Bergen F and Abs M. 1997. Etho-ecological study of the singing Klauber LM. 1939. Rattlesnakes: their habits, life histories, and activity of the blue tit (Parus caeruleus), great tit (Parus majcrr) influence on mankind. Berkeley, CA: University of California and chaffinch (Fringil!a ccc/cbs). J Ornithol 138:451-67. Press. © The Ecological Society of America www. frontiersinecolog¥.org Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich Kolligs D. 2000. ©kologische Auswirkungen k~instlicher Lichtquel[en Rydell J. 1992. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in auf nachtaktive lnsekten, insbesondere Schmetterlinge Sweden. Funct Ecol6:744 50. (Lepidoptera) [Ecological efl~cts of artificial light sources on noc- Rydell J and Baagoe HJ. 1996. Gatlampor 6kar fladderm~Sssens pre- tumally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)]. dation p~ fjiirilar [Street[amps increase bat predation on Faunistisch-Okolog, ische Mitteilungen Supp128: 1-136. moths]. Entomol T~dskr i 17: 129-35. Kotler BE 1984. Risk of predation and the structure of desert Salmon M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and sea turtles. Biologist rodent communities. Ecology 65:689 70i. 50: 163458. Laferrier J. 1997. The influence of moonlight on activity of wooly Salmon M, Tolbert M~3, Painter DP, et al. 1995. Behavior of logger- opossums (Caluromys philonder). J Mammal 78:251 55. head sea turtles on an urban beach. I1. Hatchling orientation. J LimaSL. 1998. Stress and decision-makingunder theriskofpreda- Herpeto129:568 76. tion: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and Schmiedel J. 2001. Auswirkungen kiinstlicher Be[euchtung auf die ecological perspectives. Adv Stud Behav 27: 215-90. Tierwelt - ein Oberblick [Effects of artificial lighting on the Lloyd JE. 1994. Where are the lighmingbugs? Fireflyer Companion animal world - an overview]. Schriftenreihe Landschaftspflege und I: i, 2, 5, 10. Naturschutz67: 19-51. Long WJ. 190I. Wilderness ways. Boston, MA: Ginn and Schwartz A and Henderson RW. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles of Company. the West Indies: descriptions, distributions, and natural history. Moore MV, Pierce SM, Walsh HM, et al. 2000. Urban light poilu- Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press. lion alters the diel vertical migration of Daphnia. Verh lnternat Squires WA and Hanson HE. 1918. The destruction of birds at the Verein Limno127: 779-82. lighthouses on the coast of California. Co*utor 20: 6-I0. Munday PL, Jones GP, Ohman MC, and Kaly UL. 1998. Summers CG. 1997. Phototactic behavior of Bemisia argentifolii Enhancement of recruitment to coral reefs using [ight-attrac- (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) crawlers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 90: tors. B Mar Sc/63: 581-88. 372-79. Nakamura T and Yamashita S. 1997. Phototactic behavior of hOC- Svensson AM and Rydell J. 1998. Mercury vapour lamps interfere turnal and diurnal spiders: negative and positive phototaxes, with the bat defence of tympanate moths (Operophtera spp; Zool Sci I4: 199-203. Geometridae). Anita Behav 55: 223-26. OgdenLJE. 1996. Collision course: the hazards of lighted structures Verheijen FJ. 1985. Photopollution: artificial light optic spatial and windows to migrating birds. Toronto, Canada: World control systems fail to cope with. Incidents, causations, reme- Wildlife Fund Canada and Fatal Light Awareness Program. dies. Exp Bio144: 1-18. Outen AR. 2002. The ecological effects of road lighting, ln: Wiese FK, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK, et al. 2001. Seabirds at Sherwood B, Culter D, and Burton JA (Eds). Wildlife and roads: risk around offshore oil p[arforms in the North-west Atlantic. the ecological impact. London, UK: Imperial College Press. Mar PoIlu~ Bull 42:1285-90. Park O. 1940. Noctumalism -- the development of a problem. Ecol Witherington BE. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea tur- Monogr I0:485-536. ties and other nocturnal animals. In: Clemmons JR and Rand AS, Bridaro[li ME, Dries L, and Ryan MJ. 1997. Light levels Buchholz R (Eds): Behavioral approaches to conservation in influence female choice in Tungara frogs: predation risk assess- the wild. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ment? Copeia 1997:447 50. Yurk H and Trites AW. 2000. Experimental attempts to reduce pre- Riiters KH and Wickham JD. 2003. How far to the nearest road? dation by harbor seals on out-migrating juvenile sahnonids. Front Ecol Environ 1: 125-29. Trans Am Fish Soc 129: 1360-66. www. frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF FUEL MODIFICATION ON ARTHROPODS AND OTHER WILDLIFE IN AN URBANIZING WILDLAND Travis Longcore The Urban Wildlands Group, EO. Box 24020, Los Angeles, CA 90024 ABSTRACT Fire protection ordinances mandate clearing of large areas of native vegetation around new and existing structures in southern California. Such destruction of wildlife habitat is an inevitable result of development, but the damage to habitat is underestimated because of the piecemeal manner in which development occurs. Fire clearance and concomitant irrigation transform terrestrial arthropod communities, which serve many ecosystem functions. By comparing terrestrial anhropods at disturbed and undisturbed coastal sage scrub sites, the effects of fire clearance can be extrapolated, including interaction of invasive exotic arthropods, elimination of top predators and other sensitive arthropod species, and an overall reduction in native arthropod diversity. Such changes in the arthropod community are likely to have resonating effects on wildlife diversity that extend beyond the area of fire clearance itself. For urbanizing wildlands such as the Santa Monica Mountains, the legal context and rate of development make fuel modification a significant threat to ecosystem health. keywords: arthropods, brush clearm~ce, California, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, fire clearance, fuel management, Santa Monica Moun- tains, wildfire. Citation: Longcore, T 2003. Ecological effects of fuel modification on arthropods and other wildlife in an urbanizing wildland. Pages 111-117 in K.E.M. Galley, R.C. Klinger, and N.C. Sugihara (eds.). Proceedings of Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 13, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. INTRODUCTION for those seeking a rural retreat or commuter home. This intense urbanization pressure adds to the potential Removal of vegetation is one of many manage- future of fuel modification that perforce accompanies ment strategies to reduce the risk of structures burning development. The Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines during wildfires on the urban-wildland interface. The (http://www.lacofd.org/Forestry-folder/fuel.htm) were practice of fuel modification or vegetation manage- developed to help reduce the threat of fire in high haz- ment has widespread application along with structural ard areas in this region (County of Los Angeles Fire design (i.e., roofing, chimneys, siding) and local infra- Department 1998). structure (i.e., access routes, water supply) in mini- mizing fire danger for homes (Vicars 1999). Perhaps because fuel-modification activities are spread across FUEL-MODIFICATION LAWS the landscape, the ecological effects of policies re- Fire-clearance ordinances are found in all jurisdic- quiring extensive clearance of native vegetation are tions in the Santa Monica Mountains. The Los Angeles generally not considered by either fire-prevention pro- County guidelines (County of Los Angeles Fire De- fessionals or fire ecologists. However, the cumulative partment 1998) apply to the majority of the undevel~ effects of fuel-management practices on ecosystems oped portion of the range. These guidelines were pre- are likely to be significant. This paper reviews the el- pared pursuant to the Los Angeles County Fire Code fects of fuel~modification practices on native plants for buildings in very high fire hazard zones, a classi- and animals, with special attention given to terrestrial fication that applies to the entire area of the mountains. arthropods. Effects of these practices are weighed Additionally, there are California statutes that require against the benefits of vegetation removal for fire pre- fire clearance (California Public Resources Code § vention with a discussion of the potential for reducing 4291), as do ordinances in the City of Los Angeles clearance area if it is accompanied by other fire-pre- and City of Malibu. These laws are extremely pow- vention techniques, erful, trumping even private property rights. Because The Santa Monica Mountains in southern Califor- native vegetation is deemed to be a hazard, a property nia provide a case study on the effects of fire clearance owner with no structures can be forced, at his or her on native ecosystems. The east-west mountain range own expense, to clear native vegetation from his or extends from near downtown Los Angeles westward her property to provide protection for a structure on to Ventura County, bisecting much of urban Los An- an adjacent property. Current regulatory standards do geles. The vegetation is a diverse mix of wetlands, not recognize the ecological value or ecosystem ser- riparian forests, oak woodlands, chaparral, and coastal vices of native vegetation in high fire danger areas; sage scrub. Because of the proximity of the mountain rather they treat such vegetation as if it were poten- range to dense urban occupation, it is a favorite site tially explosive. The only properties in the Santa Mon- 111 112 LONGCORE ica Mountains that are not subject to strict enforcement Prior to these revisions, surcharges were assessed in of fire-clearance standards are federal and state park- some areas if clearance was less than 122 m (400 feet). lands, which thus far have not been legally obligated Combined with the county regulations, the FAIR Plan to destroy native habitat for the sake of fire protection, surcharge system guarantees that all structures in the However, parkland managers are under intense politi- Santa Monica Mountains have at least 61 m of fuel cai pressure to clear vegetation surrounding the prop- modification. In 2000, a legislative bill introduced by erties of adjacent landowners (Pool 2000). California State Senator Sheila Kuehl (AB 1983) es- Within this regulatory context, I evaluate the eco- tablished that if a property owner failed to provide logical effects of the predominant fire-clearance stan- brush clearance for a structure on an adjacent property, dards established by the County of Los Angeles and the owner (not the neighbor owning the structure) is implemented in the Santa Monica Mountains. These assessed the FAIR Plan surcharge (California Insur- guidelines provide the basis for fuel-modification plans ance Code § 10100.2). for new and remodeled structures in the mountains, The area affected by fire clearance depends on the and effectively mimic the standards enforced by the distance from the structure that requires modification. Los Angeles County Fire Department for all structures. This area increases geometrically with the increasing A fuel-modification plan must establish four zones sur- radius of the circle of clearance required. For example, rounding structures (County of Los Angeles Fire De- assuming that a home has no area, 30.5 m of clearance partment 1998:4-5). Zone A, the Setback Zone, ex- would affect 0.29 ha (0.72 acres) of vegetation, 45.75 tends 6 m (20 feet) around all structures. Most vege- m (150 feet) affects 0.66 ha (1.62 acres), and 61 m tation in this zone is limited to "ground covers, green affects 1.17 ha (2.88 acres). Assuming a reasonably lawns, and a limited number of selected ornamental sized home, 61 m of fire clearance results in the de- plants." Within this zone, the guidelines require struction of 1.21 ha (3 acres) of surrounding habitat. "[i]rrigation by automatic or manual sprinkler systems These habitat modifications have profound effects on to maintain healthy vegetation with high moisture con- the flora and fauna of the immediate area and have the tent." Zone B, the Irrigation Zone, allows that "[s]ome potential to cause significant landscape-level effects. native or existing vegetation may remain if spaced... and maintained free of dead wood.., but whe "[a] large percentage of existing vegetation may be re- LOCAL EFFECTS OF FUEL moved and replaced with appropriate irrigated fire re- MODIFICATION sistant and drought tolerant plant material." Zone C, the Thinning Zone, requires that native vegetation be Arthropods heavily thinned and selectively replaced by ornamental Although arthropods represent over 65% of species. Certain native plant species are prohibited in Earth's described taxa and play many important eco- this zone because of their flammability. All dead veg- logical roles (Wilson 1987, Samways 1990:56), they etation must be removed and fine fuels reduced to 7.6 receive little attention in discussions of fire manage- cm (3 inches) above the ground. Zone D, the Interface ment, except as pests that may promote fire. However, Thinning Zone, consists of native vegetation thinned as a group, arthropods have received increasing atten- to reduce total mass. While the guidelines provide for tion as useful monitors of ecological conditions (Kre- some flexibility of implementation of the size of these men et al. 1993, Abensperg-Traun et al. 1996, Jansen four zones, they are almost uniformly implemented 1997, Rykken et al. 1997, Williams 1997, Mattoni et where the first three zones are in the first 30.5 m (100 al. 2000). Arthropods have short generation times, re- feet) from the structure, and the fourth zone is an ad- spond quickly to environmental perturbations, and are ditional 30.5 m, with total fuel modification of 61 m easily collected for environmental monitoring. Rela- (200 feet) surrounding each structure. By comparison, tively little has been written about the arthropods of the City of Los Angeles brush-clearance guidelines re- coastal sage scrub and chaparral (Force 1981, Prentice quire 61 m of clearance in high fire-hazard areas, et al. 1998, Longcore 1999, Bolger et al. 2000). How- whereas in the thinning zone (30.5-61 m) shrubs must ever, my study (Longcore 1999) and the extensive be spaced at a minimum of 5.5 m (18 feet) apart, work completed by others on the spread of exotic ar- The insurance industry has greatly influenced the thropods in California and elsewhere (Holway 1995, application of fuel-modification guidelines. For prop- 199Sa, b, 1999; Human and Gordon 1996; Way et al. erties with high fire hazard, the insurer of last resort 1997; Human et al. 1998; Kennedy 1998; Suarez et al. is the California Fair Access to Insurance Require- 1998, 2000) allow for sufficient detail to predict the ments (FAIR) Plan. For properties within designated effects of fire clearance on arthropod communities. "brush areas" (so designated by the Insurance Servic- I analyzed the results of a 5-year survey of the es Office), the FAIR Plan assesses a surcharge based terrestrial arthropods in coastal sage scrub habitats on on the amount of clearance surrounding a property, the Palos Verdes Peninsula in southwestern Los An- Since the most recent revision of these charges in geles County (Longcore 1999). Undisturbed, dis- 1999, all structures with less than 61 tn of brush clear- turbed, and restored coastal sage scrub habitats were ance are assessed surcharges, ranging from $0.13 to continuously trapped with pitfall traps from 1994 to $2.52 per hundred dollars of insurance, based on clear- 1998. The coastal sage scrub of the Palos Verdes Pen- ance distance and other hazard factors, including dis- insula is similar to that of the Santa Monica Moun- tance to fire station, roof type, and type of coverage, rains, and the general patterns observed there can be ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF FUEL MODIFICATION 113 ' ~ axis is also correlated with increased abundance of the 2.0- invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile), which ~ explains 56% of the variation in diversity at all sites . (P < 0.001). The deleterious effect of Argentine ants ~'" on native arthropods is well documented, with numer- 1.5- · ' ' ous studies reporting a decrease in arthropod diversity as Argentine ant abundance increases (Erickson 1971; · Cole et al. 1992; Human and Gordon 1996, 1997; Hel- l.0- · ,, ° way 1998a; Kennedy 1998). Fuel modification in- * · creases the abundance of Argentine ants by providing · q . ," two conditions that increase invasion: a water source ~ °°# (Holway 1998b, Human et al. 1998) and increased dis- m 0.5- turbance (Human et al. 1998). Water sources are pro- vided by the mandatory irrigated zone, and disturbance is au ongoing result of vegetation removal. Argentine 0.0- ° ants invade far beyond the water sources and into sur- rounding undisturbed habitats, with increased abun- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dance documented to a distance of up to 200 m (656 -0.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 feet) (Suarez et al. 1998). DCAI Community-level analysis indicates that the spe- Fig. 1. Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) of arthro- cies composition will change and overall diversity will pod communities sampled at undisturbed (+), disturbed (x), decrease when habitats are subjected to fuel modifi- and restored (1) coastal sage scrub habitats on the Palos Vet- cation. Disturbed sites have fewer predators such as des Peninsula, California (modified from Longc0re 1999). scorpions (Scorpiones) and trap-door spiders (Cteni- zidae), and are dominated by exotic arthropods, such extrapolated to the chaparral, riparian forests, and oak as Argentine ants, European earwigs (Forficula auri- woodlands of the Santa Monica Mountains. Arthropod cularia), pillbugs and sowbugs (Armadillidiurn vulgare communities in cleared areas are likely to be similar and Porcellio spp.), and the sowbug killer spider (Dys- to those at both disturbed and restored sites. First, the dera crocata) (Longcore 1999). These changes in ar- removal of native vegetation and concomitant invasion thropod species diversity will have resonating impacts of annual grasses typical of fire-clearance areas in the on vertebrates that consume arthropods as prey spe- Santa Monica Mountains produce conditions similar to cies. Suarez et al. (2000) showed that coastal horned the disturbed coastal sage scrub at Palos Verdes. Both lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum) prefer native ants have low, regenerating shrub cover, but are drastically (Pogonomyrmex spp. and Messor spp.) as their food simplified in terms of structural diversity and total source, and populations decline when these species are shrub cover compared to mature shrublands. Second, eliminated by invading Argentine ants. sites that undergo fuel modification have some simi- larities to sites that have been restored. In this respect, Birds both restored sites and sites subject to fuel modifica- tion are mechanically disturbed and are subject to ar- Fuel-modification practices by definition decrease tificial irrigation, the structural diversity of chaparral and coastal sage To detect differences and similarities an)ong ar- scrub habitats. Resident and migratory bird species thropod communities at disturbed, native, and restored will respond to these changes in predictable ways. sites in Palos Verdes, ! performed detrended corre- Stralberg (2000) identified three categories of birds in spondence analysis using log-transformed arthropod the Santa Monica Mountains: local and long-distance abundance (Longcore 1999). The resulting ordination migrants, chaparral-associated species, and urban-as- (Figure 1)showed a clear distinction between restored sociated species (Table 1). Her study showed that sites and all other sites on the first axis. This axis is abundance of migrants and chaparral-associated birds negatively associated with arthropod diversity (r2 -- decreases closer to edges with urban developments, 0.46, P < 0.0001). On the second axis, habitats are while abundance of urban-associated species increases. separated by vegetation height with disturbed habitats The effects of urbanization itself will increase edges scoring higher and native habitats with more structural across the mountains, and fire clearance greatly exac- complexity scoring lower. The restorations also erbates the effect. Stralberg's (2000) explanatory mod- showed the same pattern with younger restoration ar- el shows that the increasing percentage of urban area cas scoring higher on the second axis. The effect of on a landscape scale explains variation in bird com- vegetation height on the second axis is quite clear, with munities not explained by site variables. Similarly, 56% of the variation in this axis explained by a height Bolger et al. (1997b) found decreased densities of sen- index of vegetation calculated for each site. sitive species in response to increased edge and frag- Fire-clearance activities will also substantially al- mentation in southern California chaparral. fect arthropod community composition by reducing the Many of the urban-associated bird species are also complexity of vegetation. Relating the first axis to fire- nest predators (e.g., western scrub jay [Aphelocoma clearance practices requires further information. The californica], American crow [Corvus brachyrhyn- 114 LONGCORE Table 1. Suites of bird species in the Santa Monica Mountains, clearance promotes the invasion of plant species al- California (Stralberg 2000). ready associated with residential development. Over Suite Species half of the nonnative species in the Santa Men/ca Mountains are associated with disturbed areas, includ- Local and tong-distance Ash-throated flycatcher, Myiarchus ct- lng cleared areas (Rundel 2000). This relationship be- migrants nerascens Pacific-slope flycatcher, Erapidonax tween invasive exotics and disturbance is found d/fi/ct~is throughout California and in other Mediterranean re- Phainopepla, Phainopepla n/tees glens (Kotanen 1997, Rundel 1998). The understory Black-headed grosbeak, Pheucticus areas subject to fuel modification are rapidly dominat- melanocophalus ed by invasive exotic grasses and forbs. As discussed Chaparral-associated spe- Bewick's wren, Thryomanes bewickii extensively elsewhere (e.g., Mooney et al. 1986, M/n- c/es Wrentit, Chamaea fasciata n/ch and Dezzani 1998, Rundel 1998), invasive plant Blue-gray gnatcatcher, Poi/opt/la ca- erulea species can profoundly affect ecosystem structure and California thrasher, Toxostoma red/vi- function by modifying fire regimes, nutrient cycling, yum and erosion patterns. As fuel modification increases Orange-crowned warbler, Vermivora celata the disturbed area across the landscape, invasive spe- Rufous-crowned sparrow, Aimophila c/es, aided by ongoing disturbance and irrigation, will ruficeps continue to invade adjacent native habitats. Invasive Spotted towhee, P/pile maculatus species are of special concern to federal land manag- California towhee, P/pile crissalis ers, in light of the Executive Order (13112) on Inva- Urban-asSociated species Mourning dove, Zenaida macroura sive Species (3 February 1999) requiring federal agen- American crow, Corvus brachyrhyn- c/es to prevent invasive species introductions and to chos Western scrub-jay, Aphelocoma call- restore habitats invaded by invasive species, while pro- fern/ca h/biting funding of any activities that would promote Northern mockingbird, Mimus polyglot- the spread of invasive species unless "the benefits of res such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species" (Section 2a(3)). Beyond promoting the invasion of vascular plants, chos]). As edges and abundance of these species in- fuel modification disrupts the cryptobiotic crests that crease, nest predation on chaparral-associated species form on soils in arid environments. Soil crusts eom- will increase (Langen et al. 1991, Hogrefe et al. 1998, posed of lichens, mosses, algae, fungi, and bacteria are SOderstrOm et al. 1998), which may reduce popula- common in arid and semiarid regions of the world tions of chaparral-associated bird species (Schmidt and (Belnap 1993, St. Clair and Johansen 1993, Les/ca and Whelan 1999). Shelley 1996). The adhesive qualities of mucilaginous While I do not discuss mammals and reptiles in polysaccharides exuded by blue-green algae and fungi detail, similar patterns of decreasing diversity and in- reduce erosion by increasing soil cohesion (Belnap and creasing dominance by exotic species would result Gardner 1993). Crusts also increase essential mineral from fire clearance (Dickman 1987, Bolger et al. availability (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe) and promote my- 1997a). corrhizal associations (Harper and Pendleton 1993). However, crusts are easily disturbed and recover slow- Plants and Cryptobiotic Crest ly from disruption (Johansen et al. 1997). Fuel-modification activities result not only in the removal of native vegetation but in the active pro- motion of exotic species surrounding structures. The LANDSCAPE EFFECTS OF FIRE Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines (County of Los An- CLEARANCE geles Fire Department 1998) provide a list of recom- mended plant species for the first three fuel-mod/fi- The local ecological effects of fire clearance are cation zones (Zones A-C). Of 369 species listed, only clearly deleterious to native plants, arthropods, birds, 33 (9%) are native to Los Angeles County, and at least and other wildlife. The cumulative effect of these prac- 8 are recognized as noxious weeds in California rices poses a risk to landscape connectivity and water- (County of Los Angeles Fire Department 1998). For shed health. example, capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) and Chi- The California Coastal Commission recently com- nese tallow tree (Sap/urn sebiferum) are recommended pleted an assessment of cumulative impacts to key re- by the county in fuel-modification zones, but are listed sources in the area under its jurisdiction in the Santa as "Red Alert" species with the potential to spread Men/ca Mountains (California Coastal Commission explosively by the California Exotic Pest Plant Coun- 1999). Their study area, which encompassed the ma- cil (1999). Other weedy plant species recommended jority of the Santa Men/ca Mountains, included 33,124 by the county include Acacia spp., Gazania r/gens, ha (81,850 acres) in Los Angeles and Ventura counties Lonicera japonica, Echium fastuosum, Cotoneaster in which there were 9,352 dwellings. The Commission spp., Eucalyptus spp., and Verbena spp. estimated the potential for between 5,522 and 8,396 In addition to the purposeful introduction of in- additional structures, depending on whether or not fur- vasive species, the disturbance associated with fire ther subdivision is allowed. The fuel-modification area ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF FUEL MODIFICATION 115 required for these structures will depend on how they Table 2. Structure loss from the 1961 BOI Air fire, California, are dispersed across the landscape. At the extreme, if by brush clearance and roof type (from Howard et al. 1973). one assumes no clustering and a fuel-modification area Structure loss of 1.21 ha (3 acres) per structure and full subdivision, then the potential new development would destroy Brush clearance Approved roofs Unapproved roofs roughly 9,700 ha (24,000 acres), or 30% of the entire 0-9 m (0-30 feet) 67/275 = 24.3% 158/319 = 49.5% region. If one assumes the likely scenario of moderate 9--20 m (30-60 feet) 13/239 = 5.4% 104/363 = 28.6% 20-32 m (60-100 feet) 2/118 = 1.6% 28/195 = 14.4% clustering, with total average clearance of 0.4~0.6 ha 32+ m (100+ feet) 1/151 = 0.7% 31/310 = 14.8% (1-1.5 acres) per structure, then new development would consume 3,200-4,800 ha (8,000-12,000 acres) of habitat through fire clearance (10%-15%). Of the As reviewed by Cohen (2000a), structures can potential new structures, 470 are close enough to state nite in two ways during a wildfire. First, firebrands and federal parklands to create pressure for clearance (burning pieces of material) can be blown onto the of these public lands (California Coastal Commission structure and its immediate surroundings, causing 1999). them to ignite. This ignition depends largely on the While explicit geographic analysis of the distri- flammability of the structure and the (ornamental) veg- bution of existing fire clearance and future develop- etation immediately around it. Fire clearance does little ment remains to be completed, the magnitude of wild- to reduce this type of ignition because firebrands can life habitat currently and potentially subjected to clear- be blown onto a structure from a significant distance. ance has a significant adverse effect on ecosystem Second, structures can be heated by a fire to the health. For example, the denudation from fuel modi- point of combustion, which is influenced by fire-clear- fication results in increased stormwater flow, higher ance distance. Cohen has investigated this type of ig- peak flows, and more suspended solids in the streams nition through models and experiments and shown that that drain into the Pacific Ocean from the mountains 10-30 m (33-100 feet) is the clearance needed to pre- (Radtke 1983), decreasing water quality for rare and vent ignition (Cohen 200Os,b). This clearance distance endangered fishes. Transformation of vegetative cover is supported by retrospective studies of structure sur- from chaparral to annual grasses increases erosion and vival following fire, which show 90% structure sur- landslides in watersheds (Pitt et al. 1978). As more vival with 10-20 m (33-66 feet) of clearance and non- development occurs along roads, fire clearance extends flammable roofs. This is illustrated in the pattern of the divisive effect of roads to create a barrier of in- toss from the 1961 Bel Air fire in the eastern portion hospitable habitat for native birds and mammals that of the Santa Monica Mountains (Howard et al. 1973) is close to 305 m (1,000 feet) across. The cumulative (Table 2) and the 1990 Santa Barbara "Paint" fire effect of this will be landscape fragznentation greater (Foote 1996). In the Bel Air fire, the probability of than now experienced, even in areas designated as loss for structures with fire-resistant roofs was only wildlife corridors. 0.7% (1 of 151) with 30.5 m of clearance. By contrast, structures with flammable roofs had at least a 14.4% chance of loss no matter how much clearance was pro- POTENTIAL FOR POLICY CHANGE vided (Howard et al. 1973). Howard et al. (1973) therefore recommended brush clearance of 30.5 m and If the negative environmental effects of fuel mod- enforcement of fire-resistant roofs to minimize losses. ification are accepted, what latitude exists for changes It seems to be poor public policy to require 61 m of in the current policies? Protection of human life and clearance in the absence of evidence that it reduces property is the top priority of fuel management, so the structure loss or increases safety. While 30.5 m of challenge is for policies to ensure the safety of fire- clearance is clearly supported, the additional 30.5 m fighters and residents while minimizing ecological of clearance quadruples the loss of habitat while pro- harm. One way is to minimize construction in high viding no additional structure protection. Furthermore, fire danger zones, which would keep both property and predictive models of structure loss show that brush firefighters out of harm's way. In analyzing the envi- clearance is less important to structure safety than re- ronmental impacts of development in high fire danger moving flammable objects near the structure, having a areas, the ecological destruction wrought by fire clear- tile roof, having a low pitch roof, or having brick, ance should be considered fully, stone, or block wails (Wilson 1984). A second way to minimize ecological damage is Fuel-modification guidelines could also be to change the fuel-modification standards themselves, changed to make the practices more amenable to This is likely to be difficult because of the public per- ological resource values. First, landscaping beyond the ception that such clearance is necessary and the finan- first 6 m surrounding structures should be limited to cial pressure exerted by insurers to clear vegetation native vegetation occurring in the local area. This around homes. The 61-m clearance required by the would eliminate the invasive species currently planted California FAIR plan exemplifies this pressure. How- in many fuel-modification zones, and keep the benefits ever, this standard is not based on any published sci- of the deep and extensive root systems characteristic entific study; rather, the published literature on fire of Mediterranean plants. Second, the irrigation zone clearance shows that more than 30.5 m clearance is could be eliminated to minimize the invasion of exotic not necessary, arthropods into fuel-modification areas. These changes 116 LONGCORE must be accompanied by strict enforcement of fire- Bolger, D.T, A.V. Suarez, K.R. Crooks, S.A. Morrison, and TJ. resistant construction (both for new development and Case. 2000. Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in south- em California: area, age and edge effects. Ecological Ap- existing structures), and close attention to vegetation plications 10:1230-1248. immediately adjacent to structures. California Coastal Commission. 1999. Findings and recommen- Any changes to current fuel-modification guide- dations for the Santa Monica Mountains,qVlalibu Regional lines must be considered carefully and discussed with Cumulative Assessment Project (RECAP). California Coast- firefighters and insurance industry representatives to al Commission, San Francisco. ensure that structures remain adequately protected and California Exotic Pest Plant Council. 1999. The CalEPPC list: firefighter safety is maintained. While the solutions exotic pest plants of greatest ecological concern in Califor- nia. California Exotic Pest Plant Council, San Juan Capis- may require long negotiation and political will to im- trano. plement, it is appropriate to begin a public policy dis- Cohen, J.D. 2000a. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the cussion on the effects of fuel modification. Such ef- wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry 98(3):15 21. forts must be accompanied by public education about Cohen, J.D. 2000b. What is the wildland fire threat to homes? the science of structure protection, dispelling the myth Thompson Memorial Lecture [10 April 20001, School of that more clearance always guarantees a safer struc- Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. ture. Rather, property owners must be taught to accept Cole, ER., A.C. Medeiros, L.L. Loope, and W.W. Zuehlke. 1992. Effects of the Argentine ant on arthropod fauna for Hawai- responsibility for the flammability of their structures ian high-elevation shrubland. Ecology 73:1313-1322. and immediate surroundings--a home with a wood County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1998. Fuel modifica- shingle roof is just as vulnerable with 61 m of clear- tion plan guidelines for projects located in fire zone 4 or ance as with 30.5 m of clearance, very high fire hazard severity zones. County of Los Angeles Acknowledgment of the significant impacts to bi- Fire Department, Los Angeles, CA. ological resources discussed in this paper should also Dickman, C.R. 1987. Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate spe- cies richness in an urban environment. Journal of Applied lead to more careful environmental review of policy Ecology 24:337-352. decisions establishing fuel-modification requirements Erickson, I.M. 1971. The displacement of native ant species by to allow for full disclosure of impacts and formulation the introduced Argentine ant lridomyrmex humilis (Mayr). of appropriate mitigation measures. For example, an Psyche 78:257-266. Environmental Impact Report could have been pre- Foote, E.I.D. 1996. Structural survival on the 1990 Santa Bar- pared to disclose and analyze the impacts of the Coun- bara "Paint" fire: a retrospective study of urban-wildland ty of Los Angeles Fire Department (1998) Fuel Mod- interface fire hazard mitigation factors. M.S. Thesis, Uni- ification Plan Guidelines. Such full and open policy versity of California at Berkeley. discussions may result in different fuel-modification Force, D.C. 1981. Postfire insect succession in southern Cali- fornia chaparral. American Naturalist 117:575-582. practices, incentives to avoid constmction in fire dan- Harper, K.T, and R.L. Pendleton. 1993. Cyanobacteria and cy- get zones, or other mechanisms to maintain life and anolichens: Can they enhance availability of essential min- property while protecting the beauty and biological di- erals for higher plants? Great Basin Naturalist 53:59-72. versity of our remaining wildlands. Hogrefe, TC., R.H. Yahner, and N.H. Piergallini. 1998. Depre- dation of artificial ground nests in a suburban versus a rural landscape. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 72:3-6. Holway, D.A. 1995. Distribution of the Argentine ant (Linepi- I thank Anya-Kristina Kroeger for research assis- therna humile) in northern California. Conservation Biology tance, Kevin Shaffer for encouraging my participation 9:1634-1637. in the conference, and Catherine Rich for constructive Holway, D.A. 1998a. Effect of Argentine ant invasions on ground-dwelling arthropods in northern California riparian editorial comments. All remaining errors are nay own. woodlands. Oecologia 116:252-258. Holway, D.A. 1998b. Factors governing rate of invasion: a nat- ural experiment using Argentine ants. Oecologia 115:206- LITERATURE CITED 212. Abensperg-Traun, M., G.T Smith, G.W. Arnold, and D.E. Stev- Holway, D.A. 1999. Competitive mechanisms underlying the eh. 1996. The effects of habitat fragmentation and live- displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. stock-grazing on animal communities in remnants of gimlet Ecology 80:238-251. Eucalyptus salubris woodland in the Western Australian Howard, R.A., D.W. North, EL. Offensend, and C.N. Smart. wheatbelt. I. Arthropods. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1973. Decision analysis of fire protection strategy for the 1281-1301. Santa Monica mountains: an initial assessment. Stanford Belnap, J. 1993. Recovery rates of cryptobiotic crusts: inoculant Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. use and assessment methods. Great Basin Naturalist 53:89- Human, K.G., and D.M. Gordon. 1996. Exploitation and inter- 95. ference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Li- Belnap, J., and J.S. Gardner. 1993. Soil microstructure in soils nepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105: of the Colorado Plateau: the role of the cyanobacterium 405-412. Microcoleus vaginatus. Great Basin Naturalist 53:40-47. Human, K.G., and D.M. Gordon. 1997. Effects of Argentine ants Bolger, D.T, A.C. Alberts, R.M. Sauvajot, R Potenza, C. Mc- on invertebrate biodiversity in northern California. Conser- Calvin, D. Tran, S. Mazzoni, and M.E. Soult. 1997a. Re- vation Biology 11:1242-1248. sponse of rodents to habitat fragmentation in coastal south- Human, K.G., S. Weiss. A. Weiss, B. Sandier, and D.M. Gordon. ern California. Ecological Applications 7:552 563. 1998. Effects of abiotic factors on the distribution and ac- Bolger, D.T, TA. Scott, and J.T Rotenberry. 1997b. Breeding tivity of the invasive Argentine ant (Hymenoptera: Formi- bird abundance in an urbanizing landscape in coastal south- cidae). Environmental Entomology 27:822 833. et]a California. Conservation Biology 11:406-421. Jansen, A. 1997. Terrestrial invertebrate community strncture as ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF FUEL MODIFICATION 1 17 an indicator of the success of a tropical rainforest restora- and biodiversity in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Spring- tion project. Restoration Ecology 5:115-124. er-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Johansen, J.R., L.L. St. Clair, V.A. Flechmer, D. Evans, and S. Rundel, EW. 2000. Alien species in the flora and vegetation of Warren. 1997. The use of cyanobacterial amendments to the Santa Monica Mountains, California: patterns, process- enhance recovery of disturbed cryptogamic crusts in high es, and management implications. Pages 145-152 in J.E. desert sites. American Journal of Botany 84:153. KeeIey, M. Baer-Keeley, and C.J. Fotheringham (eds.). 2nd Kennedy, T.A. 1998. Patterns of an invasion by Argentine ants interface between ecology and land development in Cali- (Linepithema humile) in a riparian corridor and its effects fornia. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA. on ant diversity. American Midland Naturalist 140:343- Rylcken, J.J., D.E. Capen, and S.F: Mahabir. 1997. Ground bee- 350. tles as indicators of land type diversity in the Green Moun- Kotanen, EM. 1997. Effects of experimental soil disturbance on tains of Vermont. Conservation Biology 11:522-530. revegetation by natives and exotics in coastal Californian Samways, M.J. 1990. Insect conservation biology. Chapman and meadows. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:631-644. Hall, London, United Kingdom. Kremen, C., R.K. Colwell, ~EL. Erwin, D.D. Murphy, R.E Noss, Schmidt, K.A., and C.J. Whelan. 1999. The relative impacts of and M.A. Sanjayan. 1993. Tercestrial arthropod assemblag- nest predation and brood parasitism on seasonal fecundity es: their use in conservation planning. Conservation Biol- in songbirds. Conservation Biology 13:46-57. ogy 7:796-808. Saderstr6m, B., T. P~irt, and J. Ryd6n. 1998. Different nest pred- Langen, T.A., D.T. Bolger, and T.J. Case. 1991. Predation on ator faunas and nest predation risk on ground and shrub nests at forest ecotones: an experiment and a review. Oec- artificial bird nests in chaparral fragments. Oecologia 86: ologia 117:108-118. 395-401. St. Clair, L.L., and J.R. Johansen. 1993. Introduction to the sym- Lesica, P, and J. Shelley. 1996. Effects of cryptogamic soil crust posium on soil crust communities. Great Basin Naturalist on the population dynamics of Arabis fecunda. American 53:1-4. Midland Naturalist 128:53-60. Stralberg, D. 2000. Landscape-level urbanization effects on Longcore, T.R. 1999. Terrestrial arthropods as indicators of res- chaparral birds: a Santa Monica Mountains case study. Pag- toration success in coastal sage scrub. Ph.D. Thesis, Uni- es 125-136 in J.E. Keeley, M. Baer-Keeley, and C.J, Foth- versity of California at Los Angeles. eringham (eds.). 2nd interface between ecology and land Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, and V. Novotny. 2000. Arthropod development in California. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacra- monitoring for fine-scale habitat analysis: a case study of memo, CA. the El Segundo dunes. Environmental Management 25:445- Suarez, A.V., D.'E Bolger, and T.J. Case. 1998. Effects of frag- 452. mentation and invasion on native ant communities on coast- Minnich, R.A., and R.J. Dezzani. 1998. Historical decline of al southern California. Ecology 79:2041-2056. coastal sage scrub in the Riverside-Perris Plain, California. Suarez, A.V., J.Q. Richmond, and ~EJ. Case. 2000. Prey selection Western Birds 29:366-391. in horned lizards following the invasion of Argentine ants Mooney, H.A., S.E Hamburg, and J.A. Drake. 1986. The inva- in southern California. Ecological Applications 10:711- sions of plants and animals into California. Pages 250-272 725. in H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds.). Ecology of biolog- Vicars, M. (ed.). 1999. FireSmart: protecting your community ical invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Ver- from wildfire. Partners in Protection, Edmonton, Alberta, lag, New York. Canada. Pitt, M.D., R.H. Burgy, and H.E Heady. 1978. Influences of Way, MJ., M.E. Cammell, M. Palva, and C.A. Collingwood. brush conversion and weather patterns on runoff from a 1997. Distribution and dynamics of the Argentine ant Li- northern California watershed. Journal of Range Manage- nepithema (lridomyrmex) humile (Mayr) in relation to veg- etation, soil conditions, topography and native competitor ment 31:23-27. ants in Portugal. Insectes Sociaux 44:415-433. Pool, B. 2000. Couple's fire hazard catch-22. Los Angeles Williams, K.S. 1997. Terrestrial arthropods as ecological indi- Times, April 24:B 1, B3. cators of habitat restoration in southwestern North America. Prentice, 'ER., J.C. Burger, W.R. Icenogle, and R.A, Redak. Pages 238-258 in K.M. Urbanska, N.R. Webb, and l~J, Ed- 1998. Spiders from Diegan coastal sage scrub (Arachnida: wards (eds.). Restoration ecology and sustainable develop- Araneae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 74:181-202. ment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Radtke, K. 1983. Living more safely in the chaparral-urban in- Kingdom. terrace. General Technical Report PSW-67, U.S. Depart- Wilson, A.A.G. 1984. Assessing the bushfire hazard of houses: ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Re- a quantitative approach. Technical Paper No. 6, National search Station, Berkeley, CA. Centre for Rural Fire Research, Melbourne, Australia. Rundel, I~W. 1998. Landscape disturbance in Mediterranean-type Wilson, E.O. 1987. The little things that run the world (the ira- ecosystems: an overview. Pages 3-22 in PW. Rundel. G. portance and conservation of invertebrates). Conservation Montenegro, and E Jaksic (eds.). Landscape disturbance Biology 1:344-346. RESOLU ,ON NO. o4-** 2-. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RICHLAND-PINEHURST RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 160 ACRES, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072, AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 150.8 ACRES INTO 358 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), IN THE UPPER ETIWANDA NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE-APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, AND 20. A. Recitals. 1. Richland Pinehurst, Inc. (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 358 single-family housing units on approximately 150.8 acres. The total area to be annexed is approximately 160 acres. The average density of the development is approximately 2.38 dwelling units per gross acre for the entire site. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract. Map SUBTT16072, constitute the matters involving the Project which are submitted to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for decision and action. 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto. 4. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines. The Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Project may have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources, including aesthetics, land use and planning, population and housing, air quality, biological resources, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, and utilities and service systems. 5. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Project in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081. The City prepared and issued a Notice of Preparation of the EIR on September 11,2002. 6. The City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other interested agencies and groups in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a). CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - RICHLAND-PINEHURST DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 2 7. The City, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft EIR for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002091053). 8. The City circulated the Draft EIR and the Appendices to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested persons for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 2, 2003 through January 21,2004. 9. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public comment session concerning the EIR on December 10, 2003, to provide an introduction to the Project and CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the Draft EIR. 10. The City received nine written comments in response to the Draft EIR and received oral comments regarding the Draft EIR at the Planning Commission's public comment session concerning the Draft EIR on December 10, 2003. 11. The City prepared wdtten responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the Draft EIR in response to the comments. 12. The City completed the responses to comments on the Draft EIR and preliminary revisions to the Draft EIR in Mamh 2004, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and to the public. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as have the Appendices to the Draft EIR. Those documents together comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR was distributed in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 21092.5, and at least ten (10) days prior to any Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR. 13. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions: (a) Resolution No. 04-56, certifying the Final EIR for purposes of approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 and approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; and (b) Resolution No. 04-57, recommending that the City Council enter into Development Agreement DRC2002-00156. t 4. On May 19, 2004, Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. 15. On June 2, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. After the receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16, 2004. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - RICHLAND-PINEHURST DR02002-00665, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 3 16. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 17. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, TH EREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct. 2. Each finding herein is based upon the substantial evidence in the administrative record of proceedings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, including testimony at the City Council's public hearings on June 2, 2004, and June 16, 2004, the Final EIR, and wdtten and oral staff reports. 3. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines. 4. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to approving the Project. The City Council has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve each of the various applications comprising the Project. 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. 6. The City Council finds that the Final EIR adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. 7. The City Council finds that the additional information provided in the staff report, in attachments to the staff report, in the comments to the Draft EIR, and presented at the Planning Commission and City Council's public hearings, does not represent significant new information so as to require re-circulation of the Final EIR pursuant to Public Resoumes Code Section 21092.1. 8. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as the environmental document for the Project and for the City Council's action in approving Annexation DRC2002-00865, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Development Agreement DRC2002-00156. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - RICHLAND-PINEHURST DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 4 9. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which include, but are not limited to, the staff reports for the Project, as well as all of the materials that comprise and support the Final EIR and all of the materials that support the staff reports for the Project, are located in the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. The custodian of these documents is the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2004. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENTION TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF OBGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California; that WHEREAS, a Final EIR has been certified bythe City Council by way of Resolution No. as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in connection with the City Council's consideration of the proposed annexation described in the title of this Resolution and that such document has been presehted to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the above-described properties are located within and consistent with the established Sphere of Influence of the City, and contiguous to current City limits; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited (as defined under LAFCO), and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the annexation of the property will represent a logical extension of the City's boundaries and urban services; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to provide the usual and necessary urban services to the area upon annexation, as outlined in the Plan of Services set for[h in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the annexation of the properties would be beneficial to the public purposes of the City, in that the properties will provide for development within the City in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and with related development; and WHEREAS, the City Council as governing body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (Annexation) for the subject properties pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, Commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions: a. The property owner has requested that the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiate annexation. The City is, therefore, requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the proposal with the waiver of further conducting authority proceedings as authorized by Govt. Code Section 56663(c). b. The proposed annexation shall be subject to all standard conditions required by the Local Agency Formation Commission. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council as the governing body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does hereby adopt, approve, resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. Richland Pinehurst, Inc. (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 358 single-family housing units on approximately 150.8 acres. The total area to be annexed is approximately 160 acres. The average density of the development is approximately 2.38 dwelling units per gross acre for the entire site. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." b. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUB'1-r16072, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002091053). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 2, 2003 through January 21,2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as have the Appendices to the Draft EIR. Those documents together comprise the Final EIR. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. e. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the Project approvals. f. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. g. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 3 i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. h. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Geology and Soils, Biological Resources, Transportation/Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate, and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "A" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings," the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts to the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Geoloqy and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic hazards, slope instability, and foundation instability. With respect to seismic hazards, this risk arises because of the existence of regional faults located in the area and the existence of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp fault that runs northeasterly across the Project site. The risks presented by these faults include, fault-induced ground rupture, seismically induced slope instability, ground lurching, seismically induced settlement, and seismic ground shaking. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the Applicant to set back structures north of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault by at least 100 feet and to set back all structures south of that fault zone by 50 feet (Mitigation Measure GS-1).- All structures within Seismic Zone 4 of the site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and general engineering standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-2). In addition, graded slopes will be designed to resist seismically induced failures, loose, cohesionless soils located on the surface of the site shall be removed and properly recompacted, and Iow density native surficial and artificial fills shall be removed and recompacted or exported offsite. (Mitigation Measures GS-3 - GS-5). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the potential for fault-induced ground rupture, seismically induced slope instability, ground lurching, and seismically induced settlement will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The City Council finds that even after these mitigation measures, the risks of seismic ground shaking will not be reduced to less than significant levels. With respect to slope instability, graded slopes are proposed on the Project site, with gradients for the slopes to be variable to provide a natural visual appearance, and cut and fill slopes of approximately 40 feet high are proposed to be constructed. Mitigation Measure GS-6 is imposed which requires additional stabilization measures for potentially unstable graded slopes exceeding 15 feet in height. Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the potential for slope instability will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 4 With respect to foundation instability, the upper few feet of native soil onsite and uncontrolled fills existing on the site are potentially compressible. Because of variation in grain size within alluvial fan deposits on the site, potential collapse of soil material may result in localized areas. The presence of oversized rocks on the site and the removal of such rocks can result in deficiencies of fill material. Mitigations measures are imposed which require the Applicant to remove and recompact potentially compressible soils (Mitigation Measure GS-7), to identify methods for eliminating the potential for collapsible soils and after construction, to minimize the infiltration of water into subsurface soils by proper surface drainage (Mitigation Measure GS-8), and to relocate oversize rocks on the Project site during grading operations to reduce the potential deficiency of fill materials (Mitigation Measure GS-9). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the potential for foundation instability will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Bioloqical Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, pdor to the Grand Pdx fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with California Buckwheat-White Sage Scrub (44.1 acres), White Sage Scrub (82.5 acres), Scalebroom Scrub (11.2 acres), non-native grassland (2.1 acres), disturbed and cleared areas (6.0 acres) and ornamental landscaping (4.1 acres), in categorizing the vegetation in accordance with the "Holland System," the Final EIR identifies Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) divided into two subgroups: the Etiwanda Alluvial Fan Group (171.3 acres), the Prickly Group/Alluvial Chapparal Group (39.5 acres). In addition, the final EIR identifies an area of Ornamental Woodland and Disturbed plants (13.8 acres). The proposed Project would result in the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). In addition, the Final EIR identifies 213 trees that satisfy the City's criteria for "heritage trees," 15 sensitive plant specifies as occurring within the general vicinity of the Project site, and the existence of Plummer's mariposa lily plants (a sensitive species) on the site. To mitigate impacts for the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of RAFSS, a mitigation measure is imposed to require the Applicant to acquire 147.7 acres of land within or near the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (N EOSHPP) area that supports similar RAFSS habitat (Mitigation Measure B- 1). In addition, measures are imposed to ensure limits are kept on grading activities, that new landscaping is consistent with native landscaping, that lighting is controlled into areas of sensitive wildlife habitat, and that future residents of the Project are informed about sensitive wildlife areas and encouraged not to plant invasive plants (Mitigation Measures B-2 - B-5). To mitigate impacts to common plant species, all 213 heritage trees shall be removed and replaced with native trees at a replacement ratio of one to one (Mitigation Measure B-6). With respect to sensitive plant species, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, focused surveys for Plummer's mariposa lily shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for possible collection and relocation (Mitigation Measure B-7). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to natural plant communities, common plant species and sensitive plant species will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Final EIR indicates that the site is within the. critical habitat of the federally listed endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, protocol surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2002 and revealed no presence of this species on the site. The site is also within the known range and within designated critical habitat for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. In addition, species of concern were found on the site which include the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, the San Diego desert woodrat, and the Los Angeles little pocket mouse. The site does support nesting habitat for raptor species and suitable habitat for the San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptail (state species of special concern). In addition, 1.13 acres of waters would be affected and drainage courses would be impacted by the Project. To address these impacts, a mitigation measure is imposed to provide follow-up focus surveys for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat and the coastal California gnatcatcher prior to issuance of grading permits (Mitigation Measures B-8 and B-9). A qualified biological monitor will be on-site during CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 5 grading to reduce mortality to sensitive species, including rodent species and incidental species (Mitigation Measure B-10). If grading activities occur during active nesting season, a field survey will be conducted to preserve any active nests and the areas around them until the nesting cycle is complete (Mitigation Measure B-11). With respect to impacts on waters and streambeds, the Applicant shall obtain required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game and comply with those permit requirements (Mitigation Measure B- 12). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and jurisdictional areas (waters and streambeds) will be mitigated to a level of less than significance. iii. Transportation/Traffic. The Final EI R indicates that the proposed Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the Level of Service (LOS) along arterial streets and intersections. LOS levels of "D" or better do not represent a significant traffic impact, whereas LOS levels of "E" or worse do represent a significant traffic impact. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a LOS of "F" during the AM peak hour at the intersections of Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street, Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue, and East Avenue at Banyan Street. During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street, which will operate at an LOS of "E". At build-out, certain intersections in the immediate area will have LOS levels of "F". Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the Applicant to construct various roadway improvements at certain phases of the Project. For example, during the opening year of the Project, the Applicant will be required to construct Wilson Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue and to make various improvements to East Avenue (Mitigation Measures 'I-I'-3 - TT-5). The Applicant will also be required to construct Etiwanda Avenue from the north Project boundary to Golden Praide Ddve at its ultimate half-section width (Mitigation Measure TT-6). In addition, traffic signals, turn lanes and other improvements are required at various intersections in the vicinity of the Project (Mitigation Measures TT-7 and TT-8). Finally, the Applicant will be required to contribute its fair share toward the cost of off-site roadway improvements (TT-1 and TT-2). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Air Quality. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that short-term emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the thresholds of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Short-term emissions are caused by fugitive dust and other particulate matter, exhaust emissions generated by earthmoving activities and operation of grading equipment, emissions generated during building construction as a result of equipment and vehicle operation, electrical consumption, and coating and paint applications. During the building phase of the Project, levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx), reactive organic compounds (ROC) and atmospheric particulates (PM~o) will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD daily thresholds, and NO× and ROC emissions will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD quarterly thresholds, thereby resulting in significant short-term air quality impacts. Long- term emissions are caused by motor vehicle emissions and emissions from the consumption of natural gas and electricity, the use of landscape equipment, and the storage and use of consumer products. These emissions exceed the recommended SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and ROC. Mitigation measures for short-term impacts upon air quality are imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 - AQ-IO) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to limit the treat the site with water or other soil-stability agents, sweep haul roads, suspend grading CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 6 operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour, apply chemical soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas, select equipment based on Iow emission factors, use only Iow volatility paints and architectural coatings, and implement temporary traffic control during soil transport activities. Mitigation measures for long-term impacts upon air quality are imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-11 - AQ-13) which require the Applicant to participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of a mitigation fee, equip the residential structures with energy efficient appliances, and coordinate bus routing with transit agencies to determine locations and feasibility of providing bus stop shelters at Applicant's expense. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, short and long-term emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation measures, short-term construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROC and NOx, and that long-term stationary and mobile emissions will exceed applicable thresholds for NOx, CO and ROC, and therefore, would remain significant after mitigation. v. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of shod-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. In addition, the Final EIR identifies the likelihood of long-term significant noise impacts on residences proposed on the perimeter of the Project site and adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. For short-term noise impacts, mitigation measures are imposed that will require the construction contractors to equip all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained mufflers, implement specific noise reduction measures when construction takes place near existing residences, locate equipment staging areas away from sensitive receptors, and comply with the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity- 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Mondaythrough Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measures N-1 - N- 4). To address long-term impacts to cer[ain residential structures within the Project, sound barriers shall be placed at specified locations near Project road intersections and perimeter street intersections, and residential structures fronting on Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue and East Avenue will have mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain closed, and upgraded windows and other improvements will be installed on said residential structures so that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB CNEL or less (Mitigation Measures N-5 - N-6). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the short term and long-term noise impacts from the Project will be mitigated to less than significant levels. vi. Aesthetics. The Final EIR indicates that implementation of the proposed residential community may substantially alter the existing character of the Project site as well as views of the San Gabriel Mountains. In addition, the proposed Project and the cumulative effect of development in the Project vicinity may permanently alter the visual landscape of the San Gabriel Mountains. To address these impacts, landscaping and perimeter walls shall be installed, landscaped transitions will be made between developed and the natural un-built environment, a strong landscaped edge will be required along roadways adjacent to the Project, utilities will be undergrounded where feasible, and trees and structures shall be used to frame and orient views at key locations (Mitigation Measures AES-1 - AES-5). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that although the implementation of the above mitigation measures will mitigate visual impacts associated with the proposed Project to a level that is less that significant, the cumulative impact of the Project upon aesthetics as well as future development in the Project vicinity will remain significant and unavoidable. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 7 vii. Cultural Resources. The Final EIR indicates that three archeological sites are within the Project area. It is also likety that prehistoric remains may still be buried at these sites. To mitigate for the potential loss in Native American archeologioal resources, the Applicant is required to retain a City-approved archeologist to develop an archaeological mitigation plan and a discovery/treatment plan. These plans will require the monitoring of 50 percent of the excavation activities, the treatment of found material and its recordation, mapping and disposition (Mitigation Measures CRol - CR-6). The Final EIR also identifies the possible presence of buried fossilized remains. To mitigate these impacts, the Applicant shall retain a City-approved paleontologist to monitor excavation activities and to prepare, identify and curate all recovered fossils for documentation and transfer to an appropriate depository. (Mitigation Measures CR-7 - CR-11). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on archeological and paleontological resoumes will be mitigated to less than significant levels. viii. Public Services and Utilities. The Final EIR identifies that the proposed Project will create a demand for fire services, water services, wastewater services, and schools, and will contribute to cumulative impacts to the need for water supplies, wastewater treatment, and schools. Mitigation Measures have been imposed to require the Applicant to obtain approval of the specific designs for fire flow and proposed fire resistant materials (Mitigation Measure F-l), pay a water service development fee (Mitigation Measure W-l), utilize a xeriscape landscape and irrigation design to conserve water on Project common areas (Mitigation Measure W-2), provide funds to the Cucamonga County Water District for sewer service prior to occupancy (Mitigation Measure WW-1 ), and pay the required school impact fee as required by Government Code Section 65995, which is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation of the Project's impacts to schools (Mitigation Measure S-1 ). Based on these mitigation measures and requirements, the City Council 'finds that the impacts of the Project on public services and utilities will be mitigated to less than significant levels. i. The Project is also anticipated to have the potential to create contaminated runoff containing compounds such as landscaped chemicals and automotive fluids. To reduce this impact, the Applicant will be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As part of standard construction practices, best management practices (BMPs) are required to ensure that potentially harmful chemicals or pollutants are not discharged from the site. These measures include sandbags, temporary diversion and temporary containment areas. Based on these requirements, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality will be reduced to less than significant levels. j. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: geology and soils (seismic ground shaking), air quality (short-term and long-term emissions), and aesthetics/visual (cumulative views). k. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that the Project will not create significant growth inducing impacts because the Project will be an extension of existing residential development to the west and the Project is consistent with development contemplated in the 2001 General Plan update as well as the Etiwanda North Specific Plan approved in 1991. The City Council also finds that the Project would result in an irretrievable commitment of natural resources (energy demands) and land. I. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project/No Development" CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 8 alternative, the "Retention of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative," and the "Less Intense Development" Alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and; therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To provide single-family housing units consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. b) To annex the proposed tentative tract into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) To create a project that is generally consistent and compatible with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the project and the community of Etiwanda in general. d) To provide project infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent With City and regional plans related to these services. e) To phase the development of the proposed project to ensure adequate utilities are provided. f) To design and landscape the proposed project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. ii) The "No Project/No Development" Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet any of the Project objectives. As the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within a previously approved Specific Plan is not legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. iii) The "Retention of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub" Alternative assumes that all vegetation classified as RAFFS are not affected by development. As the Project site contains approximately 10.6 to 13.8 acres of disturbed or ornamental woodland, this alternative would only involve the development of those 10.6 to 13.8 acres. Based on the same residential density as the proposed Project (i.e. 2.4 units per acre), 25 to 33 single-family housing units would be constructed. Although this level of development could eliminate the potential significant unavoidable effects associated with the loss of RAFFS, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the Project, including, but not limited to, providing single-family housing units consistent with the intent of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. In addition, the City Council finds, based on substantial evidence, that it is not economically feasible for the Applicant to construct the required infrastructure as contemplated by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan while constructing only 25 to 33 housing units on the entire property. The City Council specifically finds the required improvements to roadways, pipelines, water supplies, and other infrastructure would not be economically feasible with a return on investment of only 25 to 33 housing units. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 9 iv) The "Less Intense Development" Alternative is an atternative that attempts to avoid all significant, unavoidable, adverse long-term air emission impacts. To accomplish this result, approximately 104 housing units would need to be eliminated. This would result in approximately 255 residential units on the site with an average dwelling unit per acre density of approximately 1.7 units per acre compared with the proposed 2.4 units per acre. This project density is not consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and would not meet many of the objectives of the proposed Project. m. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CF'QA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph I above, the City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence presented during the June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004 public hearing, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from seismic ground shaking, the shod-term and long-term impacts to air quality, and the cumulative impacts to aesthetics from the permanent alteration of the visual landscape of this region, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: (i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; (ii) Annexation of the 150-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre area into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; (iii) Implementation and consistency with the policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code and all other City development guidelines; (iv) Creation of a Project that is generally consistent and compatible with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the Project and community of Etiwanda in general; (v) Provision of Project infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans related to these services; (vi) Phasing of the development of the proposed Project to ensure adequate utilities are provided; (vii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST June 16, 2004 Page 10 (viii) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; and (ix) Design and landscaping of the proposed Project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. n. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. o. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resoumes Code Section 21089 (b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 2: Application and proposal is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino for Change of Organizatibn (Annexation) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the property described in Exhibit "A" and as shown in Exhibit "B" and as outlined in the Plan of Services as shown in Exhibit "C," which exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in accordance to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2004 BY: ATTEST: EXHIBIT ,,A" LEGAL DESCRiPTiON REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY Of SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL NO. 1 (225-083-01) THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, AND THE WEST ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST t/, OF THE sOUTHWEST %, ALL IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL NO. 2 (225-083-13) THE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. PARCEL NO, 3 (225-083-12) THE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL pLAT OF SAID LANDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERALS, MINERAL INTEREST, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON, PROCESS OR USE ANY PORTION OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE, AS RESERVED TO RODERICK STEVENSON, ET AL, BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11, 1981, INSTRUMENT NO. 81-202051, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL NO. 4 (225-083-15) THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST 1/~ OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, LYING WEST OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH % OF NORTHWEST t/. OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, SAID' POINT BEING NORTH 89°10'42" EAST, 356.99 FEET, FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH ~ OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % AND SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 15°37'04" EAST, 476.71 FEET; THENCE BY A 1000 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A DISTANCE OF 213.30 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % AND POINT BEING NORTH 89010'35" EAST, 563.40 FEET, FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST t/. OF THE SOUTHWEST %, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE. PARCEL NO.~55 (225-083-16) THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST 1/` OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE couNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT, LYING EAST OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, SAID POINT BEING,/N~O2~T~H: 89°10'42" EAST, 356.99 FEET FRO~ THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH Y= ur., ,~ NORTHWEST I/` OF THE SOUTHWEST '/`, AND SAID cORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 15°37'04" EAST, 476.41 FEET; THENCE BY A 1000-FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A DISTANCE OF 213.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH ~ OF THE NORTHWEST '/~ OF THE sOUTHWEST ¼, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89°10'35" EAST, 563.40 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID ~ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST Y-, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE. EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ~ INTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND/OR OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER SAID LAND BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE THEREOF, BUT WITHOUT ANY RIGHTS TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND OR TO THE TOP 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE THEREOF.. PARCEL NO. 6 THE sOUTHERLY 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH ~ OF THE NORTHWEST 1/, OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EAST 20 FEET. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD cONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 8, 1951, IN BOOK 2730, PAGE 415, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL NO. 7 THE NORTH ?/= OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ~/, OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, NOVEMBER 13, 1881, AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. APN: 0225-083-01-0-000 AND 0225-083-12-0-000 AND 0225-083-13-0-000 AND 0225-083-15-0-000 AND 0225-083-20-0-000 AND 0225-083-16-0-000 AND 0225-083-24-0-000. PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION: LICENSE EXPIRES 6-30-2004 ,~ m Exp. 6/30/2004 No. 5640 , G:~05~10"LEGALSV)'NNEX'DOC ~ BOUNDARY MAP: s~.c~.c~. NWl/4 PARCEL PABCEL 7 ~ 225.~.24 NOT A PART PARCEL 5 p~ 1 DEVELOPMEN AGREEMENT EXHIBI TRACT NO, 160'] PROJE( EXHIBIT '"B"' s,~ ~ U~ '"~'-'"'---' PLAN FOR SERVICES City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Contact: Debra Meier, AICP, Associate Planner Tel (909) 477-2750 Brad Buller, City Planner Tel (909) 477-2750 Prepared for: Richland Pinehurst, Inc. Contact: John H. Schafer, Senior Vice President (949) 261-7010 Prepared By: Sanhamel Consulting, Inc. Contact: Thomas I. Sanhamel, President (909) 981-1153 May 2004 Exhibi~ "C" 1 Plan for Services Table of Contents Section Page I. Introduction 4 A. Introduction 4 B. Background 4 II. Planning and Statutory Considerations 7 A. Planning Consideration 7 B. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan 7 C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan 7 D. Applicable Laws 8 III. Service Considerations 11 A. Roadways and Transportation Services 11 [3. Electricity 11 C. Natural Gas 11 O. Telephone 12 E. Drainage Services 12 F. Water Services 12 G. Sewer Services 13 H. Police Services 14 I. Fire Protection & Ambulance Services 15 O. Libraries 15 K. Street Lighting 16 L. Solid Waste Services 16 M. School Services 16 N. Parks & Recreation Services 17 IV. Fiscal Analysis 18 2 Plan for Services EXHIBITS Figure Page 1. Vicinity Map 6 2. Annexation Map 10 3 Plan for Services I. Introduction A. Introduction This document has been prepared to provide the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and other interested individuals and agencies with pertinent information relating to governmental functions, facilities, services and costs and revenues applicable to proposed Annexation No. 04-XX (Richland/Chen) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. This annexation proposal has been initiated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This document supports the City's petition by addressing all of the service related considerations applicable to the annexation area, thereby permitting the LAFCO Staff and Board Members to fully understand, evaluate and approve the annexation request. This plan of services addresses the basic level of public services that are required to support the future development of the Richland/Chen Annexation and the associated population growth and the manner in which urban and municipal services will be provided. The proposed annexation area is located north of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, in an tmincorporated area of San Bemardino County within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence, and within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) area. The proposed annexation includes a total of 160.35 acres. The total development area of annexation (TTM 16072) consists of 150.8 acres and includes residential lots, open space, and a flood control channel. The remaining 9.55 acres outside the development area to be annexed is owned by W.H. & Joyce Chen Stone and Joanie P. Chen and is currently va6ant but is master planned for 21 single- family residential lots. The proposed project (TTM 16072) is a residential development of 358 single family residential lots encompassing approximately 150.8 acres, with a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and a maximum lot size of 29,086 square feet. B. Project Background The annexation area is located in the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), which was approved in 1991. The ENSP comprises approximately 6,840 acres and is located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere of Influence. The annexation area is located within the unincorporated portion of San Bernardino County. The proposal includes the annexation of 160.35 acres from San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As part of the approval process, the 4 Plan for Services City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared a full scope environmental impact report (EIR) for the project (SCH No. 2002091053). The majority of the annexation area is vacant. A water treatment plant is located immediately south of the property, with a residential development to the south of the treatment plant. An SCE utility corridor is located immediately north of the annexation boundary. A large residential subdivision is located across Etiwanda Avenue to the west of the annexation area. Although the properties to the east and north of the annexation area are currently vacant, a large residential development is currently proposed on the property to the north. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is in the process of submitting four separate annexations to the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Each of the proposed annexations is under separate environmental reviews. 5 Plan for Services ~.~// 6 Plan for Services ~.~/~.~ II. Planning and Statutory Consideration A. Planning Considerations The proposed annexation area is contained within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence. The City's General Plan current land use designation for the site is Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre). The annexation area is also included in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1992. B. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation for the 160.35-acre annexation area is currently shown as Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre). The Low designation covers 86.58 acres and the Very Low land use designation covers 75.77 acres. The Low Residential District is intended as an area for single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre; and the Very Low Residential District is intended as an area for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 20,000 (average lot area of 25,000 square feet) and a maximum density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the project site is within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District. The Overlay District extends generally north of Banyan Street between the western City limits and Milliken Avenue, and then north of 1-210 Freeway between Milliken Avenue and eastern City limits. The District allows the keeping of horses and other farm animals. C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan The Richland/Chen annexation area is subject to the policies set forth in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan is a specific area acknowledged in the City's General Plan subject to land use and community design within the north Etiwanda area. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted on April 1, 1992 (Ordinance 493) and comprises of a 6,840 acres within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City's Sphere of Influence. The annexation area is located in Sub Area 2.2 of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and permits low and very low density residential land uses. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan designates the site as Low and Very Low Residential. The Low Residential portion lies south of the Fault Zone and allows a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet; the Very Low Residential portion lies north of the Fault Zone, allowing a maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. 7 Plan for Services ~,~/3 D. Applicable Laws LAFCO is authorized and mandated by State law as the agency responsible for evaluating and approving annexations to an incorporated city. Subsequent to the initial consideration of an annexation request by the City, a public hearing is held before the LAFCO Board where the annexation proposal is approved, denied, or modified. The following Protest Procedures for LAFCO proceedings are outlined in California Government Code (within Section 57000) and summarized in the LAFCO Procedures and Guidelines. 1. Following a LAFCO Commission action to approve an annexation, a resolution of that action is forwarded to affected agencies and individuals. Thirty days following the LAFCO Commission action the Protest Period is announced though a combination of publication of a legal advertisement in the local newspaper and through mailing of individual notices to anyone who has previously request such notices. The protest period can be no less than 15 days nor more than 60 days, from the date of the announcement. All protests must follow strict LAFCO requirements, but generally they must be in writing and be received during the protest period. The protest must also indicate whether the letter is from a landowner and/or a registered voter from within the annexation area; only those that are either a landowner and/or a registered voter form within the annexation area are eligible to submit a valid protest. 2. At the conclusion of the protest period, LAFCO staff will make a finding of the results of any protests received for adoption by the LAFCO Commission. The Commission must take one of the following actions based on the result of the protest findings: a. For uninhabited annexations (<12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the assessed value of land owners (improvement values are not counted) within the annexation area; or · approve the annexation if written protest is submitted by landowners who own less than 50% of the assessed value of the annexation area. b. For inhabited annexations (>12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the registered voters in the armexation area; · call an election if protest is received from at least 25% and less than 50% of the registered voters, or if 25% to 100% of the number of 8 Plan for Services landowners -who own at least 25% of the total annexation land value - submit a written protest [The voters (whether they own land or not) would then decide the issue by majority vote in a special election]; or approve the annexation without an election if written protest is received from less than 25% of the voters and less than 25% of the landowners (owning less than 25% of the land value). The above referenced requirements also require the submittal of a plan for services for areas to be annexed. This document satisfies this statutory requirement. 9 Plan for Services ~,~ J5 RICHLAND ANNEXATION DRC2003 - 00865 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Miles Annexation Map ~ RICHLAND PINEHURST ANNEXATION Figure - 2 ~C,TY BOUNDARY III. Service Considerations A. Roadways and Transportation Services The proposed annexation area is not located within any Transit Service Corridor. Primary access will be provided via Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. The annexation area is located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. The proposed project (TTM 16072) includes improvements to Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue to accommodate vehicles traveling to and from the site. The proposed project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site and within the project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will assume responsibility for street maintenance of public arterial roadways within the annexation area. B. Electricity The proposed annexation area lies within the service boundaries of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). SCE has indicated that the demands associated with the project are accommodated within their master planning efforts and service can be extended to the site. The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to annexation. Assuming buildout of the 379 lots, electrical consumption for the site, based on SCE designated criteria, is estimated as follows: 379 dwellings X 7kw/unit = 2,653 kw per month; or 31,836 kw annually. C. Natural Gas Natural Gas is provided by The Gas Company. The Gas Company maintains natural gas pipelines in Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue. Natural gas service will be provided via extensions of these existing transmission pipelines. The Gas Company anticipates no problems in extending service to the site and has included the project in its master planning efforts. The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private I1 Plan for Services 3/~ companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to annexation. Annual gas consumption upon development of the annexation area is estimated to be about 799 therms per unit per average year, for a total of 25,235 therms per month or 302,820 therms per year. D. Telephone Services. The telephone service to the project site is provided by Verizon Communications. The facilities will be extended from Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue and East Avenue into the project site. Verizon anticipates no problems in providing communication services to the project site. E. Drainage Services All of the drainage from the annexation area will be collected by on-site underground drain systems and conveyed to the existing Wilson Avenue storm drain, a City of Rancho Cucamonga maintained facility. The Wilson Avenue storm drain was sized to accept the storm waters from the annexation area. Interim on-site detention basins will be constructed within the annexation area to attenuate the storm flows exiting the area until such time as the County of San Bemardino Flood Control District alleviates a downstream drainage bottleneck. The tributary flows upstream of the annexation area will be collected in an interceptor channel along the north line of the annexation area and conveyed easterly to the Etiwanda Creek Spreading Grounds, a County of San Bemardino Flood Control District maintained facility. This interceptor channel is to be maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The County of San Bemardino Flood Control District is responsible for the maintenance of the Etiwanda Creek channel, which lies east of the annexation area. The Channel and improvements to the levee have been designed to capture all flows entering the creek. These improvements are scheduled to occur prior to development of the project. F. Water Services The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) cover approximately 50 square miles, and provides water treatment, storage, and distribution of domestic water to all of Rancho Cucamonga, adjacent unincorporated County areas, and portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana and one tract in Upland. CVWD derives water from three sources - groundwater (43%), surface water (12%) and imported water (45%). Groundwater is derived primarily from the Cucamonga basin. Groundwater may also be pumped from the Chino basin, but must be replenished through purchases of State 12 Plan for Services Water Project (imported) water. Canyon water is derived from surface and subsurface water form Cucamonga, Deer, Day, and East Etiwanda Canyons. CVWD also purchases water from northern California via the State Water Project. The current daily usage in the CVWD service area is approximately 42 million gallons per day. Residential water use amounts to 60 percent of the total water consumed, followed by landscaping at 20 percent. CVWD's master plan estimates demand needs through the year 2030; with residential water demand is expected to continue to be the greatest sources of water demand. CVWD anticipates growth by ensuring that adequate facilities are available to meet the water demand as it arises. CVWD is also one of seven member agencies that operate under the umbrella of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The IEUA had adopted a 10-year growth or capital improvement program that is based upon growth projections provided by the member agencies. CVWD is responsible for collecting developer fees for the construction and operation of water facilities. The CVWD will supply domestic water to the annexation area. The area is currently undeveloped and does not consume any domestic water. Water is currently provided to the area by a 16-inch main located along Wilson Avenue located south of the proposed annexation area and a 10-inch main located along Etiwanda Avenue west of the proposed annexation area. The proposed annexation area includes the future connection of 379 single-family residential units to the CVWD domestic water system. Single-family residential units have a daily water demand of 640 gallons per day (GPD). Thus, the project will result in an increased water demand of the CVWD system of 242,560 GPD. This represents a 0.5 pement increase in water currently demanded fi'om existing development within the City. CVWD is currently upgrading its Zone 4 and Zone 5 water storage and distribution facilities. The upgraded water facilities will be adequate to serve the annexation area. Development in the annexation area will contribute financially to the facilities in accordance with CVWD policies. G. Sewer Services The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) currently covers over 240 square miles and operates four wastewater treatment facilities that serve the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Chino, and Chino Hills. An additional treatment facility is currently planned. Two of the exisisitng treatment plants, Regional Plants 1 and 4, serve development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. CVWD provides conveyance facilities to the treatment plants. The project site is with the service area of treatment plant number 4 (RP-4). RP-4 is located on 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The plant treats approximately 37.9 million gallons per day (MGD) ofwastewater and has 13 Plan for Services ~/~ a capacity of 44 MGD. The water treatment facilities cleanse the treated water to a tertiary level and it is then used for irrigation proposes. Development fees are collected by member agencies for wastewater treatment facilities and passed on to the IEUA to use for new treatment plant construction. With the exception of extending pipelines to the project site, there will be no requirement for the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The project will connect to the existing sewer at Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue and a trunk sewer line to be constructed in East Avenue. Based on the CVWD Master Plan and IEUA estimates, wastewater generation in the project area is approximately 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day. Therefore, the 379 residential units proposed will generate approximately 102,330 gallons of sewage per day. This represents less than one percent of current wastewater treated at RP-4, and will not exceed capacity of the plant. In addition, the proposed project will comply with all regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements and will obtain required N-PDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems) and SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) permits prior to project construction. H. Police Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga has contracted with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department for police service since 1978. Currently the City contract includes 93 uniformed officers - including 11 sergeants, 2 lieutenants and one captain. With a population of 146,700 (January 2003 Department of Finance estimate) the current ratio of officers to residents is approximately 0.63 officers for every 1,000 residents. The projected average response time to an emergency call for service within the vicinity of the project site is at five minutes. The City's Police Department is temporarily located at 8340 Utica Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the permanent facility at 10510 Civic Center Drive, adjacent to City Hall, is currently being expanded and remodeled. Police service calls will incrementally increase as result of the proposed project. The proposed project will increase population by approximately 1,194 residents thus creating the need for approximately 8 additional officers if the current officer/resident ratio is maintained. The funds for additional police officers are provided as part of the City General Fund. Each year the City's annual budget negotiation with the Sheriffs department results in additional officers to be added to the Police rome. 14 Plan for Services 1. Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Response The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical response to approximately 50 square miles, which includes the City Sphere of influence and the project site. Six fire stations are located within the City; and the RCFPD currently maintains a personnel ratio of 0.18 firefighters per 1,000 residents. The goal of RCFPD is to provide a five-minute response time for 90 percent of emergency calls placed within the City. Currently the City is providing five-minute service for 85 percent of the emergency calls. Existing fire stations 173, 175 and 176 will serve the project area. Station 173 - 12158 Base Line Road (3 fire fighters) Station 175 - 11108 Banyan Avenue (6 firefighters) Station 176 - East Avenue at 23~d Street - (3 firefighters) The proposed project will incrementally increase the population in the vicinity by 1,194 residents thus creating the need for 2 additional firefighter personnel in order to maintain the current firefighter personnel/resident ratio. With the recent opening of Station 176, located approximately one-half mile from the site, the current response times will continue to be less than five-minutes to the project site. The RCFPD also participates in an automatic response agreement, known as West End Joint Power Authority (West End), with neighboring fire departments to send the closest fire engine to a reported structure fire without regard to the city boundaries. The American Medical Response (AMR), a private ambulance service, provides ambulance service for the residents in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. AMR is located at 7925 Center Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. J. Libraries The Rancho Cucamonga Public Library system will serve the project area upon annexation. The Rancho Cucamonga Library is located in a 2,200 square foot building in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on Archibald Avenue, north of Interstate I0 Freeway and west of Interstate 15 Freeway. The Library contains approximately 115,000 books (novels, magazines, references, etc,) and serves a full-time population of over 146,000 residents. In addition, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which serve the projected need at build-out of the City. Library funding is derived form a percentage of the property tax allocation and disbursement with the County of San Bernardino (refer to the Fiscal Impact Analysis). 15 Plan for Services 32/ K. Street Lighting The project presently does not contain any streetlighis, however, will be required to install streetlights with development. The project will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. L. Solid Waste Burrtec Waste Industries will collect refuse from the project area under franchise agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Burrtec takes all refuse collected to the Transfer Station on Napa Street, at which point approximately 60% is diverted to the Mid-Valley land fill in Rialto. The remaining refuse is transported out of the county landfill system. The City has implemented recycling programs, as required by state law, Local Source Reduction and Recycling Element. M. School Services The annexation area will be served by the Etiwanda School District (grades K through 8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (grades 9 through 12). Based on the generation factors used by the Etiwanda School District, the area will generate approximately 236 K-8 and 76 high school students from the 379 new homes. Approximately 149 of these students would be elementary level (K-5) and 87 would be intermediate level (grades 6-8). The total students generated would be approximately 312. Historical enrollments in both Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the Etiwanda Elementary School District have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Historical student generation data from the districts indicate the project could generate an addition of approximately 296 students at build out, based on a total of 0.78 students per household. At present enrollments at all schools serving the project are at or over their capacities. However, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of state- mandated developer impact fees represent full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment to capacity conditions of the affected schools. 16 Plan for Services ~.~,~,~ N. Parks and Recreation Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department serves the surrounding parks and recreation facilities. The recreational amenities and programs include - Community Center at Lions East and Lions West, Senior Center, Family Sports Center, Epicenter/Sports Complex, and 20 park sites throughout the City. All programs and facilities are fimded through a combination of user fees and City general fund. 17 Plan for Services ~J IV. Fiscal Analysis The area will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 for perimeter street landscape maintence, the City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared on behalf of the City addressing the general costs and revenue anticipated as a result of the annexation. The report "Richland Pinehurst, Inc., TTM 16072 Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga" by Stanley Hoffrnan Associates, Inc. forms a part of the Plan of Services as an exhibit. By its inclusion into Plan of Services, the City certifies to the report's accuracy. 18 Plan for Services ~,~ RESOLUT,ON NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 358 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 150.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE~ AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0225-083-01,12, 13, 15, 16 AND 20, AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 358 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 150.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 AND 20. A. Recitals. 1. Richland Pinehurst, Inc. (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 358 single-family housing units on approximately 150.8 acres. The total area to be annexed is approximately 160 acres. The average density of the development is approximately 2.38 dwelling units per gross acre for the entire site. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, constitute the matters involving the Project which are submitted to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for decision and action. 3. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after the-receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-56, certifying the Final EIR for purposes of approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 and approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. 4. On May 19, 2004, Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. 5. On June 2, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 2 After the receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16, 2004. 6. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002091053). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 2, 2003 through January 21,2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as have the Appendices to the Draft EIR. Those documents together comprise the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By ResoJution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the Project approvals. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. e. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an envirenmentai impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 3 i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. f. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Geology and Soils, Biological Resources, Transportation/Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate, and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings," the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts to the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. GeoloRy and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic hazards, slope instability, and foundation instability. With respect to seismic hazards, this risk arises because of the existence of regional faults located in the area and the existence of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp fault that runs northeasterly across the Project site. The risks presented by these faults include, fault-induced ground rupture, seismically induced slope instability, ground lurching, seismically induced settlement, and seismic ground shaking. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the Applicant to set back structures north of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault by at least 100 feet and to set back all structures south of that fault zone by 50 feet (Mitigation Measure GS-1). All structures within Seismic Zone 4 of the site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and general engineering standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-2). In addition, graded slopes will be designed to resist seismically induced failures, loose, cohesionless soils located on the surface of the site shall be removed and properly recompacted, and Iow density native sur[icial and artificial fills shall be removed and recompacted or exported offsite. (Mitigation Measures GS-3 - GS-5). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the potential for fault-induced ground rupture, seismically induced slope instability, ground lurching, and seismically induced settlement will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The City Council finds that even after these mitigation measures, the risks of seismic ground shaking will not be reduced to less than significant levels. With respect to slope instability, graded slopes are proposed on the Project site, with gradients for the slopes to be variable to provide a natural visual appearance, and cut and fill slopes of approximately 40 feet high are proposed to be constructed. Mitigation Measure GS-6 is imposed which requires additional stabilization measures for potentially unstable graded slopes exceeding 15 feet in height. Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the potential for slope instability will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 4 With respect to foundation instability, the upper few feet of native soil onsite and uncontrolled fills existing on the site are potentially compressible. Because of variation in grain size within alluvial fan deposits on the site, potential collapse of soil material may result in localized areas. The presence of oversized rocks on the site and the removal of such rocks can result in deficiencies of fill material. Mitigations measures are imposed which require the Applicant to remove and recompact potentially compressible soils (Mitigation Measure GS-7), to identify methods for eliminating the potential for collapsible soils and after construction, to minimize the infiltration of water into subsurface soils by proper surface drainage (Mitigation Measure GS-8), and to relocate oversize rocks on the Project site during grading operations to reduce the potential deficiency of fill materials (Mitigation Measure GS-9). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the potential for foundation instability will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. i. Biological Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, prior tothe Grand Pdx fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with California Buckwheat-White Sage Scrub (44.1 acres), White Sage Scrub (82.5 acres), Scalebroom Scrub (11.2 acres), non-native grassland (2.1 acres), disturbed and cleared areas (6.0 acres) and ornamental landscaping (4.1 acres). In categorizing the vegetation in accordance with the "Holland System," the Final EIR identifies Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) divided into two subgroups: the Etiwanda Alluvial Fan Group (171.3 acres), the Prickly G roup/Alluvial Chapparal Group (39.5 acres). In addition, the final EIR identifies an area of Ornamental Woodland and Disturbed plants (13.8 acres). The proposed Project would result in the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). In addition, the Final EIR identifies 213 trees that satisfy the City's criteria for "heritage trees," 15 sensitive plant specifies as occurring within the general vicinity of the Project site, and the existence of Plummer's mariposa lily plants (a sensitive species) on the site. To mitigate impacts for the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of RAFSS, a mitigation measure is imposed to require the Applicant to acquire 147.7 acres of land within or near the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area that supports similar RAFSS habitat (Mitigation Measure B- 1). In addition, measures are imposed to ensure limits are kept on grading activities, that new landscaping is consistent with native landscaping, that lighting is controlled into areas of sensitive wildlife habitat, and that future residents of the Project are informed about sensitive wildlife areas and encouraged not to plant invasive plants (Mitigation Measures B-2 - B-5). To mitigate impacts to common plant species, all 213 heritage trees shall be removed and replaced with native trees at a replacement ratio of one to one (Mitigation Measure B-6). With respect to sensitive plant species, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, focused surveys for Plummer's mariposa lily shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for possible collection and relocation (Mitigation Measure B-7). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to natural plant communities, common plant species and sensitive plant species will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Final EIR indicates that the site is within the critical habitat of the federally listed endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, protocol surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2002 and revealed no presence of this species on the site. The site is also within the known range and within designated critical habitat for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. In addition, species of concern were found on the site which include the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, the San Diego desert woodrat, and the Los Angeles little pocket mouse. The site does support nesting habitat for raptor species and suitable habitat for the San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptail (state species of special concern). In addition, 1.13 acres of waters would be affected and drainage courses would be impacted by the Project. To address these impacts, a mitigation measure is imposed to provide follow-up focus surveys for the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 5 San Bemardino kangaroo rat and the coastal California gnatcatcher prior to issuance of grading permits (Mitigation Measures B-8 and B-9). A qualified biological monitor will be on-site during grading to reduce mortality to sensitive species, including rodent species and incidental species (Mitigation Measure B-10). If grading activities occur during active nesting season, a field survey will be conducted to preserve any active nests and the areas around them until the nesting cycle is complete (Mitigation Measure B-11). With respect to impacts on waters and streambeds, the Applicant shall obtain required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game and comply with those permit requirements (Mitigation Measure B- 12). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and jurisdictional areas (waters and streambeds) will be mitigated to a level of less than significance. iii. Transportation/Traffic. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the Level of Service (LOS) along arterial streets and intersections. LOS levels of "D" or better do not represent a significant traffic impact, whereas LOS levels of "E" or worse do represent a significant traffic impact. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a LOS of "F" during the AM peak hour at the intersections of Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street, Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue, and East Avenue at Banyan Street. During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street, which will operate at an LOS of "E". At build-out, certain intersections in the immediate area will have LOS levels of "F". Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the Applicant to construct various roadway improvements at certain phases of the Project. For example, during the opening year of the Project, the Applicant will be required to construct Wilson Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue and to make various improvements to East Avenue (Mitigation Measures TT-3 - TT-5). The Applicant will also be required to construct Etiwanda Avenue from the north Project boundaryto Golden Prairie Drive at its ultimate half-section width (Mitigation Measure TT-6). In addition, traffic signals, turn lanes and other improvements are required at various intersections in the vicinity of the Project (Mitigation Measures TT-7 and TT-8). Finally, the Applicant will be required to contribute its fair share toward the cost of off-site roadway improvements (TT-1 and TT-2). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on traffic and cimulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Air Quality. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that short-term emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the thresholds of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Short-term emissions are caused by fugitive dust and other particulate matter, exhaust emissions generated by earthmoving activities and operation of grading equipment, emissions generated during building construction as a result of equipment and vehicle operation, electrical consumption, and coating and paint applications. During the building phase of the Project, levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx), reactive organic compounds (ROC) and atmospheric particulates (PM~0) will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD daily thresholds, and NOx and ROC emissions will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD quarterly thresholds, thereby resulting in significant short-term air quality impacts. Long- term emissions are caused by motor vehicle emissions and emissions from the consumption of natural gas and electricity, the use of landscape equipment, and the storage and use of consumer products. These emissions exceed the recommended SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and ROC. Mitigation measures for short-term impacts upon air quality are imposed CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 6 on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 - AQ-10) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to limit the treat the site with water or other soil-stability agents, sweep haul roads, suspend grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour, apply chemical soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas, select equipment based on Iow emission factors, use only Iow volatility paints and architectural coatings, and implement temporary traffic control during soil transport activities. Mitigation measures for long-term impacts upon air quality are imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-11 - AQ-13) which require the Applicant to participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of a mitigation fee, equip the residential structures with energy efficient appliances, and coordinate bus routing with transit agencies to determine locations and feasibility of providing bus stop shelters at Applicant's expense. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, short and long-term emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation measures, short-term construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROC and NOx, and that long-term stationary and mobile emissions will exceed applicable thresholds for NOx, CO and ROC, and therefore, would remain significant after mitigation. v. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. In addition, the Final EIR identifies the likelihood of long-term significant noise impacts on residences proposed on the perimeter of the Project site and adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. For short-term noise impacts, mitigation measures are imposed that will require the construction contractors to equip all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained mufflers, implement specific noise reduction measures when construction takes place near existing residences, locate equipment staging areas away from sensitive receptors, and comply with the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity- 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measures N-1 - N- 4). To address long-term impacts to certain residential structures within the Project, sound barriers shall be placed at specified locations near Project road intersections and perimeter street intersections, and residential structures fronting on Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue and East Avenue will have mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain closed, and upgraded windows and other improvements will be installed on said residential structures so that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB CNEL or less (Mitigation Measures N-5 - N-6). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the short term and long-term noise impacts from the Project will be mitigated to less than significant levels. vi. Aesthetics. The Final EIR indicates that implementation of the proposed residential community may substantially alter the existing character of the Project site as well as views of the San Gabriel Mountains. In addition, the proposed Project and the cumulative effect of development in the Project vicinity may permanently alter the visual landscape of the San Gabriel Mountains. To address these impacts, landscaping and perimeter walls shall be installed, landscaped transitions will be made between developed and the natural un-built environment, a strong landscaped edge will be required along roadways adjacent to the Project, utilities will be undergreunded where feasible, and trees and structures shall be used to frame and orient views at key locations (Mitigation Measures AES-1 - AES-5). Based on these mitigation measures, the City CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 7 Council finds that although the implementation of the above mitigation measures will mitigate visual impacts associated with the proposed Project to a level that is less that significant, the cumulative impact of the Project upon aesthetics as well as future development in the Project vicinity will remain significant and unavoidable. vii. Cultural Resources. The Final EIR indicatesthatthree archeological sitesare within the Project area. It is also likely that prehistoric remains may still be buried at these sites. To mitigate for the potential loss in Native American archeological resources, the Applicant is required to retain a City-approved archeologist to develop an archaeological mitigation plan and a discovery/treatment plan. These plans will require the monitoring of 50 percent of the excavation activities, the treatment of found material and its recordation, mapping and disposition (Mitigation Measures OR-1 - CR-6). The Final EIR also identifies the possible presence of buried fossilized remains. To mitigate these impacts, the Applicant shall retain a City-approved paleontologist to monitor excavation activities and to prepare, identify and curate all recovered fossils for documentation and transfer to an appropriate depository. (Mitigation Measures CR-7 - CR-11). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on archeological and paleontological resources will be mitigated to less than significant levels. viii. Public Services and Utilities. The Final EIR identifies that the proposed Project will create a demand for fire services, water services, wastewater services, and schools, and will contribute to cumulative impacts to the need for water supplies, wastewater treatment, and schools. Mitigation Measures have been imposed to require the Applicant to obtain approval of the specific designs for fire flow and proposed fire resistant materials (Mitigation Measure F-l), pay a water service development fee (Mitigation Measure W-l), utilize a xeriscape landscape and irrigation design to conserve water on Project common areas (Mitigation Measure W-2), provide funds to the Cucamonga County Water District for sewer service prior to occupancy (Mitigation Measure WW-1 ), and pay the required school impact fee as required by Government Code Section 65995, which is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation of the Project's impacts to schools (Mitigation Measure S-1 ). Based on these mitigation measures and requirements, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on public services and utilities will be mitigated to less than significant levels. g. The Project is also anticipated to have the potential to create contaminated runoff containing compounds such as landscaped chemicals and automotive fluids. To reduce this impact, the Applicant will be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As part of standard construction practices, best management practices (BMPs) are required to ensure that potentially harmful chemicals or pollutants are not discharged from the site. These measures include sandbags, temporary diversion and temporary containment areas. Based on these requirements, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality will be reduced to less than significant levels. h. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: geology and soils (seismic ground shaking), air quality (short-term and long-term emissions), and aesthetics/visual (cumulative views). i. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that the Project will not create significant growth inducing impacts because the Project will be an extension of existing residential development to the west and the Project is consistent with development contemplated in the 2001 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16,2004 Page 8 General Plan update as well as the Etiwanda North Specific Plan approved in 1991. The City Council also finds that the Project would result in an irretrievable commitment of natural resources (energy demands) and land. j. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project/No Development" alternative, the "Retention of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative," and the "Less Intense Development" Alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To provide single-family housing units consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. b) To annex the proposed tentative tract into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) To create a project that is generally consistent and compatible with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the project and the community of Etiwanda in general. d) To provide project infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans related to these services. e) To phase the development of the proposed project to ensure adequate utilities are provided. f) To design and landscape the proposed project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. ii) The "No Project/No Development" Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet any of the Project objectives. As the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within a previously approved Specific Plan is not legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. iii) The "Retention of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub" Alternative assumes that all vegetation classified as RAFFS are not affected by development. As the Project site contains approximately 10.6 to 13.8 acres of disturbed or ornamental woodland, this alternative would only involve the development of those 10.6 to 13.8 acres. Based on the same residential density as the proposed Project (i.e. 2.4 units per acre), 25 to 33 single-family housing units would be constructed. Although this level of development could eliminate the potential significant unavoidable effects associated with the loss of RAFFS, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the Project, including, but not limited to, providing single-family housing units consistent with the intent of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. In addition, the City Council finds, based on CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 9 substantial evidence, that it is not economically feasible for the Applicant to construct the required infrastructure as contemplated by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan while constructing only 25 to 33 housing units on the entire property. The City Council specifically finds the required improvements to roadways, pipelines, water supplies, and other infrastructure would not be economically feasible with a return on investment of only 25 to 33 housing units. iv) The "Less Intense Development" Alternative is an alternative that attempts to avoid all significant, unavoidable, adverse long-term air emission impacts. To accomplish this result, approximately 104 housing units would need to be eliminated. This would result in approximately 255 residential units on the site with an average dwelling unit per acre density of approximately 1.7 units per acre compared with the proposed 2.4 units per acre. This project density is not consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and would not meet many of the objectives of the proposed Project. k. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence presented during the June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004 public hearing, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from seismic ground shaking, the short-term and long-term impacts to air quality, and the cumulative impacts to aesthetics from the permanent alteration of the visual landscape of this region, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: (i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; (ii) Annexation of the 150-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre area into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; (iii) Implementation and consistency with the policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code and all other City development guidelines; (iv) Creation of a Project that is generally consistent and compatible with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the Project and community of Etiwanda in general; (v) Provision of Project infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans related to these services. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 10 (vi) Phasing of the development of the proposed Project to ensure adequate utilities are provided; (vii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; (viii) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; (ix) Design and landscaping of the proposed Project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. I. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and Exhibit "H." m. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Sections I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. The density, design and development standards of the Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the City's General Plan and with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Tentative Tract Map is also consistent with the General Plan's intention of extending the Iow density image of Old Etiwanda into the area as provided in General Plan Policy 2.4.4.5. b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the ' General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. The proposed development is designed to comply with the design theme imposed for North Etiwanda as specified in the North Etiwanda Specific Plan. Specifically, the lots are relatively large, the tract contains a local trail system with connections to the regional trail system, and the design standards for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and community entries comply with the overall thematic design for the North Etiwanda area of the City. c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is located in proximity to existing roadways and infrastructure. The tract is designed to address existing topographical and geological conditions and to achieve compliance with existing legal, biological and geological limitations of the site. Based on the whole record, the City Council finds that the site is physically suitable for the proposed residential housing development. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 11 d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project will have an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project and will comply with the density restrictions imposed by the existing General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The minimum lot size will be 8,400 square feet and the average lot size will be approximately 11,400 square feet. These sizes are compatible with the surrounding developed areas and with the physical conditions and limitations on the site. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. Based on extensive mitigation measures relating to native plants, sensitive species and wildlife, the impact of the project on biological resources is determined to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Further, the mitigation measures related to seismic shaking, fires, wind and other conditions are deemed to be sufficient to avoid substantial injury to humans. f. The Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. As specified in prior sections of this resolution, conditions and Mitigation Measures have been imposed that will reduce risks from seismic activities, fires, winds and other hazards and, based on these conditions and restrictions, the City Council finds that the project will not cause serious public health problems. g. The design of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Based on the evidence in the record of this matter, the project has been designed to recognize and protect existing conservation areas and open space resources maintained by public entities as well as utility easements and other existing private and public easements and restrictions imposed on the Project site. SECTION 4: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1,2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map 16072 and hereby approves the application (Tentative Tract Map 16072) subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) All future applications for Development Review shall be reviewed for consistency with the approved Tentative Tract Map and provisions of the associated Development Agreement, along with the design guidelines of the Etiwanda Nor[h Specific Plan, including standards for parkways and streetscape design, slope planting, and neighborhood monumentation and wall designs. 2) The terrace drain splash walls and the edges of all down drains within the landscaped slopes shall be lined with river rock cobble to maintain a native appearance. 3) The applicant shall provide landscaping and irrigation along the detention basin on the south side of "F" Street. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 12 4) A minimum 3 feet of landscaping is required between the back of sidewalk and any retaining wall; and a minimum of 5 feet of landscape setback is required between the back of the sidewalk and any wall/fence. 5) The applicant shall establish a financial mechanism that would provide money for the future construction of the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood monumentation at both the northeast and northwest corners of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue, in accordance with the Neighborhood design theme of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 6) Any lot that is designed with a retaining wall at the toe of the rear yard slope shall be provided with steps so that the homeowner has appropriate access to the slope area for landscaping and maintenance. 7) Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461 is approved in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, including all environmental mitigation pertaining to biological resources as identified herein. 8) The effective date of the approval of Tentative Tract Map SU B'i-1'16072 shall be the last to occur of both of the following events: (i) the date that Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 has taken effect, and (ii) the date that the annexation of the property into the City has occurred. En.qineerin.q Division 1) A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be created for the maintenance of the proposed landscape/slope areas on either side of the Community Trail within the Fault Zone and any lettered lots in the interior and exterior to the tract, except for the Community Trail fencing and surfaces. Development shall also join Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 7, prior to final map recordation. a) Alternatively, the City will consider creating a new LMD for the above-mentioned areas if the developer can provide a design that can be cost-effectively maintained to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) If entrances are gated, they shall conform to City design standards. 2) The Etiwanda Avenue frontage shall be improved as a Secondary Arterial including curb and gutter, 9500L HPSV streetlights, a parkway Community Trail with HOA or LMD landscaping, and traffic striping and signage, including R26(s) as required. 3) East Avenue shall be improved as follows: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 13 a) Install Collector Street improvements in the west half of the project, from Wilson Avenue to the north tract boundary, plus 18 feet of pavement east of the centerline, for a total of 40 feet along with a 2-foot wide graded shoulder. This would include curb and gutter, sidewalk or parkway Community Trail with HOA or LMD landscaping, 5800L HPSV streetlights, and traffic striping and signage, including R26(s) as required. Additionally, construct 44 feet of pavement width for the first 200 feet north of Wilson Avenue, transitioning back to 40 feet. Install an AC berm along the entire east side length of East Avenue. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost for improvements east of the centerline and south of the south tract boundary, from future development as it occurs on adjacent properties within the City limits. b) South of Wilson Avenue, East Avenue should be constructed 36 feet wide to Banyan Street. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for these backbone improvements, in conformance with City policy. c) If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreements within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 4) Wilson Avenue shall be improved as follows: a) Install full width Divided Secondary Arterial improvements, from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue. This would include curb and gutter, asphalt pavement, a landscaped median, HOA or LMD landscaping, curvilinear sidewalk, 9500L HPSV streetlights, and traffic striping and signage, including R26(s) as required. b) The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for the median curbs and 14 feet of pavement on both sides, in conformance with City policy. The developer may also request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost for improvements other than the "backbone," including median landscaping, south of the centerline and along the Not-A-Part paroel from future development on adjacent properties. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreements within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. c) The right-of-way will need to be obtained from Metropolitan Water District (MW D), as well as a permit for improvements to the south side of Wilson Avenue. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 14 5) Construct parkway Community Trails, per Standard Drawing 1002-A, on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue north of Street "U" and on the west side of East Avenue north of Street "N." Provide a drainage facility along the toe of any landscaped 3:1 (if HOA, 2:1 allowable) slopes adjacent to the trail surface, so that no surface flows drain over the trail. 6) Construct an interior Community Trail, per Standard Drawing 1004, within Lots J and I over the Fault Zone. The trail shall cross Street "A" at an intersection and be publicly maintained. 7) All publicly maintained landscape/slope areas should incorporate attractive, Iow maintenance designs to City public works landscape standards, including 40 pement hardscape. Slope widths should be minimized through the use of 30-inch maximum height freestanding retaining walls and retaining beneath perimeter walls subject to City Planner approval. a) LMD landscaping within the Fault Zone (Lots I and J) and the 65-foot parkway on the south side of Wilson Avenpe shall be designed for minimal maintenance (Xeriscape). 8) Private homeowners (or a HOA) shall maintain interior corner side yards. If new a LMD is formed, eliminate Lots C, D, E, F, and N, and the 5-foot strips that wrap around the corners from Lots L and K. Side yard slope areas can be reduced through the use of retaining walls, 2:1 slopes, and allowing comer lots to drain toward the side street, with curbside drain outlets if necessary. Side yard slopes and fencing shall not infringe on the lines-of-sight for local street intersections. 9) Lot G along the Not-A-Part parcel is not acceptable for public (LMD) maintenance. The owner of said parcel should be approached regarding off-site grading permission, so that the property line can be located at the top of slope. 10) Construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 3 Master Plan Storm Drain facilities along the north property line from Etiwanda Avenue to the Etiwanda Spreading G rounds, including culverts for both Etiwanda and East Avenues to cross the facility. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, in accordance with City policy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover oversizing costs, in excess of fees, from future development. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. a) If required by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to provide an interim detention basin for this facility, Condition No. 15 shall also apply to this facility. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16,2004 Page15 b) Flood protection facilities shall be completed prior to occupancy release. 11) Obtain off-site easements, for grading in the SCE easement north of the proposed channel, prior to grading permit issuance. 12) Install local storm drains to convey development drainage to the existing Master Plan Storm Drain in Wilson Avenue. Extend the local storm drain system as far on-site as needed to contain Q25 within tops of curbs and Q~oe within rights-of-way and provide a 10-foot dry lane in Qlo. The cost of local storm drains shall be borne by this development with no fee credit. 13) Where sump catch basins are used, provide two and intemept Q~0o in both sump catch basins and their laterals. 14) Interim basins shall have secondary overflow mutes to streets without impacting adjacent lots. 15) Construct interim detention basin(s) for the Wilson Avenue storm drain, as follows, justified by a final drainage report approved by the City Engineer: a) Provide a temporary easement to the City for the lots containing the basin. b) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the detention basin or a maintenance agreement shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance of the facility, but providing the City with the right of access to maintain the facility if private maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those costs to the developer. The said agreement shall include a cash deposit as security for any maintenance costs the City may incur. The said agreement shall be recorded to run with the properly. c) Prior to final map recordation, pay an in lieu fee for removal of interim basin improvements within LMD areas and their replacement with landscaping. d) Basin shall be designed to mitigate developed flows for the entire area bounded by Wilson, East, and Etiwanda Avenues and the SCE easement to the north. e) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development using the basin. If the developer fails to submit said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page16 accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 16) Provide vehicular access to all manholes. 17) If any of the above-mentioned facilities (street, storm drain, etc.) are constructed by others, the developer will be responsible for reimbursing their fair share. 18) Provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Identify applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the Grading Plan. 19) Maintenance of BMPs identified in the WQMP shall be addressed in the project CC&Rs. 20) The project applicant shall demonstrate they have received written approval from Metropolitan Water District for any proposed activities within Metropolitan's fee property pdor to proceeding with the proposed improvements to Wilson Avenue or proceeding with any other activity that may infringe upon or impact rights-of-way. Coordination with Metropolitan and submittal of design plans should be in accordance with the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Environmental Mitiqation Aesthetics AES-I: The applicant shall install landscaping and perimeter walls prior to occupancy for the following phases and locations as shown on the Project Phasing Plan (Exhibit 3-8): · Phase 1-Along Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues · Phase 2-Along Wilson Avenue · Phase 3-Along Etiwanda Avenue · Phase 4 Along East Avenue AES-2: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project applicant shall provide transitions between the developed and natural (unbuilt) environment through landscaping techniques. AES-3: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project applicant shall ensure that streetscape design along the roadways adjacent to the project site create a strong landscaped edge, provides a coherent high-quality appearance along a particular route, and enhances the image of adjacent development. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 17 AES-4: The project applicant shall provide for the undergrounding of utility lines and facilities, wherever feasible, to minimize the unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures. AES-5: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, trees and structures shall be used to frame and orient such views at key locations, and obstruction of views should be kept to a minimum along Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. Air Quality AQ-I: The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. AQ-2: During construction, all haul routes shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. AQ-3: Suspend grading operations when wind speeds exceeding 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. AQ-4: Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. AQ-5: The Construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned to and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. AQ-6: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. AQ-7: The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. AQ-8: The construction contractor shall use Iow VOC architectural coating during the construction phase of the project. AQ-9: During construction of the proposed improvements, temporary traffic control (e.g., flag person) will be provided during soil transport activities. Contractor will be advised not to idle trucks on site for more than ten minutes AQ-10: During construction of the proposed improvements, only Iow volatility paints and coatings as defined in SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. All CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 18 paints shall be applied using either high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or by hand application. AQ-11: The proposed project will participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of the traffic signal fair-share mitigation fee. This fee will be collected and utilized bythe City to install and synchronize traffic lights as needed to prevent congestion of traffic flow on East Avenue between Banyan Street and the project boundary, and Etiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and the north terminus of Etiwanda Avenue. AQ-12: All appliances within the residential units of the project shall be energy-efficient as defined by SCAQMD. AQ-13: The project proponent shall contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing in the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at project proponent's expense. Biological Resources B-1: Prior to recording of the first final map of the project, the property owner shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City, in fee, at a ratio of 1:1 (or 147.7 acres) of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the City Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner. If the proponent is unable to acquire all or a portion of the offsite mitigation land, the proponent will deposit the equivalent mitigation cost of $10,000 per developable acre with City-approved agency, which acquires and maintains open space. These funds will be used to purchase and manage mitigation lands. B-2: To reduce impacts on adjacent offsite habitat during site preparation, grading and clearing limits shall be staked prior to issuance of the grading permits. The limits of grading and clearing shall be staked at 50-foot intervals with suitable indicators such as white PVC (polyvinylchloride) pipe with steel bases. Construction equipment shall not be operated beyond the grading and clearing limits, and a restoration program shall be incorporated to restore any disturbed offsite areas. B-3: Landscaping adjacent to natural areas offsite shall use native and drought-tolerant plant species. Such species shall be reflected on Project landscape plans. The use of species known to be weedy invasives, such as CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 19 German ivy (Senecio milkaniodes), periwinkle (Vinca major), or iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.), shall be prohibited. B-4: In areas where night lighting may have adverse impacts on sensitive wildlife habitat, one or more of the following alternatives shall be utilized, recognizing the constraints of roadway lighting requirements: (1) Iow-intensity street lamps, (2) Iow-elevation light poles, or (3) shielding of internal silvering of the globes or external opaque reflectors. B-5: Provide residents of the future development literature pertaining to sensitive wildlife in the area and provide ways the residents can reduce effects on the wildlife, including effects pets have on native wildlife. A list of invasive plants that are commonly planted in landscaping will be included in this literature and it will be recommended that certain plants be avoided, such as giant reed (Arundo donax) castor bean (Ricinus communis) and Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana). This literature shall be approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and included within the conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). B-6: All 213 "heritage trees" shall be removed and replaced with native trees within the proposed development. Replacements have been proposed at a 1:1 ratio. B-7: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, focused surveys for Plummer's mariposa lily shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall be conducted during flowering period (May to July) in all portions of the project site containing suitable habitat. If present, the number and location(s) will be documented and the resource agencies will be notified for consultation and possible collection and relocation. B-8: A follow-up focus survey for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat shall be conducted prior to the issuance of grading permits. If this species is determined to be present onsite, consultation with United States Forestry Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act shall occur and USFWS-approved mitigation measures shall be implemented. B-9: A follow-up focused survey shall be conducted to confirm the absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Special focus will be placed in the northwest corner of the project site, which was not previously surveyed. If this species is determined to be present onsite, consultation with USFWS under the Endangered Species Act shall occur and USFWS-approved mitigation measures shall be implemented. B-10: The project proponent will have a qualified biological monitor present during initial brush clearing to reduce mortality to sensitive species, specifically sensitive rodent species, as well as incidental species. B-11: If grading activities are to occur during active nesting season (generally February 15 -August 31), a field survey shall be conducted by a qualified CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 20 biologist to determine if active nests covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Depadment of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code are present. If active nests are present, the area will be flagged, along with a 100-foot buffer (300-feet for raptors) and will be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. B-'I2: The project proponent shall obtain a Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a 1603 Streambed Alteration Permit from California Department of Fish and Game pdor to grading or any other groundbreaking activities, and shall comply with the permit's mitigation requirements. Cultural Resources CR-'h Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to develop an archaeological mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan. Both of these plans shall be reviewed and approved bythe City. The archaeological mitigation plan shall include monitoring 50 percent of the excavation activities on the project site by a City-approved archaeologist and/or their representative. The discovery clause/treatment plan shall include recovery and subsequent treatment of any archaeological or historical remains and associated data uncovered by brushing, grubbing, or excavation. The treatment plan shall provide procedures for the curation of any detected cultural specimens. Any recovered cultural resources shall be identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard professional archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist shall be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features, or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. CR-2: If the archaeological monitor discovers cultural deposits, earthmoving shall be diveded temporarily around the deposits until the deposits have been evaluated, recorded, excavated, and/or recovered, as necessary, and in accordance with a City-approved recovery plan. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the area after the archaeologist determines the artifacts are recovered and/or site mitigated to the extent necessary. CR-3: Ifa previously unknown cultural site is encountered dudng monitoring and it is determined by the archaeologist that a significance determination is required, the site shall be evaluated and recorded in accordance with requirements of the State Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., DPR 523 form). In this case, if the site is not determined to be significant, no measures subsequent to recording the site on appropriate forms are required. If any of the sites are determined to be significant, an adequate amount of artifacts at the specific archaeological site shall be collected by the City-approved archaeologist. The archaeologist shall determine the amount of artifacts needed to be collected. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 21 CR-4: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the coroner, with the aid of the City-approved archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, he/she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make his/her recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. This recommendation may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). CR-$: Any recovered archaeological resources shall be identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard archaeological practices. Examination byan archaeological specialist should be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. CR-$: A final report of findings will be prepared by the City-approved amhaeologist for submission to the City, project applicant, and the Archaeological Information Center of the San Bernardino County Museum. The report will describe the history of the project area, summarize field and laboratory methods used, if applicable, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support the resultant findings. CR-7: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a City-approved paleontologist. The City-approved paleontologist shall monitor all excavation activities in areas of the project underlain by previously undisturbed sediments. Earthmoving in areas of the site where previously undisturbed sediments will be buried but not disturbed will not be monitored. Monitoring shall begin once earthmoving reaches five (5) feet below the original ground surface. CR-8: Monitoring shall be conducted on a full-time basis in areas of the project underlain by sensitive rock units associated with older alluvium being encountered by earthmoving. CR-9: Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately diver~ construction and notify the monitor of the find. If too few fossil remains are found after 50 percent of earthmoving has been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued in those areas at the project paleontologist's direction. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 22 CR-10: If paleontological resources are detected. Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). CR-11: A final report of findings will be prepared by the City-approved paleontologist for submission to the City, project applicant, and the San Bernardino County Museum. All collected specimens and the final report shall be provided to the San Bernardino County Museum. Geology And Soils GS-I: Prior to issuance of a building permit for structures adjacent to the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault on the project site, all structures north of this fault shall be set back 100 feet from the faulted zone and all structures south of this fault shall be set back 50 feet from the fault zone. GS-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, structures will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and general engineering standards for seismic safety for development within Seismic Zone 4. GS-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, engineered slopes of the project site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code to resist seismically induced failures. Slope design shall be based on pseudo-static stability analyses using soil-engineering parameters established for the site. GS-4: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that the loose, cohesionless soils located on the surface of the site shall be removed and recompacted during grading operations. GS-5: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that the native surficial and artificial fills on the project site that are of Iow density, shall be removed and recompacted or exported offsite. GS-6: Prior to the issuance of a final grading approval, potentially unstable graded slopes that exceed approximately 15 feet in height will require additional stabilization measures such as buttressing cut slopes with compacted fill, adding geogrid reinfomement to fill slopes, using a higher compaction standard, and/or using retaining walls. GS-7: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that potentially compressible soils that are located on the project site shall be removed and recompacted in accordance with standard grading procedures. GS-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project's soil engineer shall identify the method(s) of eliminating the potential for collapsible soils on the grading plan. Potential methods include excavation and recompaction and presaturation and pre-loading of the susceptible soils in-place to induce collapse prior to construction. After construction, infiltration of water into the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 23 subsurface soils shall be minimized by proper surface drainage which directs excess runoff from the proposed slopes and structures. GS-9: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that during grading operations, the soil engineer shall be consulted to relocate oversize rocks on the project site to reduce the potential deficiency of fill materials that could result from the removal of oversize rocks on the project site. Noise N-l: During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers standards. N-2: When construction operations occur in close proximity to occupied residential areas, appropriate additional noise reduction measures shall be implemented, including: changing the location of stationary construction equipment to maximize the distance between stationary equipment and occupied residential areas, installing muffling devices on equipment, shutting off idling equipment, notifying adjacent residences in advance of construction, and installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. N-3: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction related noise and the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. N-4: During all project site construction, the construction contract shall limit all construction related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondaythrough Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays and public holidays. N-5: The project applicant shall construct sound barriers adjacent to the project lots as shown in Exhibit 5.5-2. The heights of the sound barriers shall be between 3 and 6.5 feet and placed at the top of the proposed slope and at the edge of pads on the residential lots that border Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. The sound barriers may be constructed of earthen berms, masonry, wood, or other similar materials, or combination of these materials to attain the total height required. These sound barriers shall be solid, with no openings from the ground to the indicated height. N-6: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, residential structures proposed on all lots adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue will require mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain closed. Furthermore, these residential lots will require upgraded windows such as double-pane windows, if these lots have second story structures. To ensure the specific type of mechanical ventilation and paned windows are included in the building plans, a final acoustical study shall be prepared for CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 24 City approval prior to approval of Development Review applications for product development. The final acoustical study shall identify the specific requirements to reduce future interior noise levels to 45 dB CNEL or less. Public Services And Utilities F-1: Prior to the issuance building permits, the project applicant shall obtain approval from Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) of the designs for the fire flow and proposed fire resistant structural materials. W-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant will be required to submit a water services development fee to ensure that adequate water supplies and facilities are available to meet the project demand. W-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase, the project applicant shall submit a landscaping and irrigation plan for common areas to the City for approval. Landscaping and irrigation within common areas shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. WW-I: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide funding to the Cucamonga County Water Agency for sewer service. $-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay developer impact fees to the Etiwanda School District and Chaffey Joint Union High School District in accordance with Section 65995 of the Government Code for the proposed residences. Transportation/Traffic 1=1'-1 ' The project applicant shall contribute its fair share toward local off-site traffic improvements. On-site improvements will be required in conjunction with the phasing of the proposed development to ensure adequate circulation within the project itself. The fair share contribution of all off-site improvements and timing of all onsite traffic improvements shall be subject to an agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This agreement shall be in place prior to tract map approval. 'rr-2: The project applicant shall update construction cost estimates and prepare a current cost of the project's fair share contribution toward traffic improvements. '1-I'-3: The project applicant shall construct Wilson Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue as a Special Divided Secondary Arterial (165 ft. Right-of-way) in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. 3-1'-4: The project applicant shall construct the extension of East Avenue from the south project boundary with a minimum 36-foot two-way paved $¢8' CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PiNEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 25 access to the project in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. 1-['-5: The project applicant shall construct East Avenue from the north project boundary to Wilson Avenue to provide 44-foot two-way paved access and the full shoulder (curb, gutter, street lights, and side walks) on west side of the street in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. TD-6: The project applicant shall construct Etiwanda Avenue from the north project boundary to Golden Prairie Drive at its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary Arterial (96 ft. Right-of-way) in conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. Tr-7: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide funds in accordance with the City's Transportation Development Fee. Collection of these fees shall represent the project's "fair-share" toward the following transportation improvements required for opening year (Year 2004): · Installation of a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street. · Installation of a traffic signal at East Avenue at Banyan Street. · Construction of a southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue. · l-r-8: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide funds in accordance with the City's Transportation Development Fee. Collection of these fees shall represent the project's "fair share" toward the following transportation improvements required for Buildout Year 2020. · Construction of one additional northbound lane to provide a shared left and through lane, and a shared right and through northbound lane, and one additional southbound lane to provide a shared left and through and a shared right and through southbound lane on East Avenue at Banyan Street. · Construction of a westbound through lane on Highland Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue. · Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue (North) at Wilson Avenue. · Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue (South) at Wilson Avenue. · Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of East Avenue at Wilson Avenue. .SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2004. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 26 BY: ATTEST: ORO,NANCE NO. 5' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 150.8 ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 358 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, AND 20. A. Recitals. 1. California Government Code Section 65864 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The Legislature finds and declares that: (a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. (b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." 2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "(a) Any city...may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property as provided in this article..." 3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows: "A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement..." 4. Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, is proposed Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, concerning that property generally located at the northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue and legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinaffer in this Ordinance, the CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 2 Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development Agreement." 5. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date and recommended approval through adoption of its Resolution No. 04-57. 6. On June 2, 2004 and continued to June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Development Agreement. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. Richland Pinehurst, Inc. (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 358 single-family housing units on approximately 150.8 acres. The total area to be annexed is approximately 160 acres. The average density of the development is approximately 2.38 dwelling units per gross acre for the entire site. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Ordinance as the "Project." b. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Development Agreement DR02002-00156 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002091053). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 2, 2003 through January 21, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 3 prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as have the Appendices to the Draff EIR. Those documents together comprise the Final EIR. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. e. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the Project approvals. f. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. g. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. h. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Geology and Soils, Biological Resources, Transportation/Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate, and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings," the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts to the resources and services listed in this paragraph: CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 4 i. Geology and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic hazards, slope instability, and foundation instability. With respect to seismic hazards, this risk arises because of the existence of regional faults located in the area and the existence of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp fault that runs northeasterly across the Project site. The risks presented by these faults include, fault-induced ground rupture, seismically induced slope instability, ground lurching, seismically induced settlement, and seismic ground shaking. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the Applicant to set back structures north of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault by at least 100 feet and to set back all structures south of that fault zone by 50 feet (Mitigation Measure GS-1). All structures within Seismic Zone 4 of the site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and general engineering standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-2). In addition, graded slopes will be designed to resist seismically induced failures, loose, cohesionless soils located on the surface of the site shall be removed and properly recompacted, and Iow density native surficial and artificial fills shall be removed and recompacted or exported offsite. (Mitigation Measures GS-3 - GS-5). Based on these mitigation measu[es, the City Council finds that the potential for fault-induced ground rupture, seismically induced slope instability, ground lurching, and seismically induced settlement will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The City Council finds that even after these mitigation measures, the risks of seismic ground shaking will not be reduced to less than significant levels. With respect to slope instability, graded slopes are proposed on the Project site, with gradients for the slopes to be variable to provide a natural visual appearance, and cut and fill slopes of approximately 40 feet high are proposed to be constructed. Mitigation Measure GS-6 is imposed which requires additional stabilization measures for potentially unstable graded slopes exceeding 15 feet in height. Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the potential for slope instability will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. With respect to foundation instability, the upper few feet of native soil onsite and uncontrolled fills existing on the site are potentially compressible. Because of variation in grain size within alluvial fan deposits on the site, potential collapse of soil material may result in localized areas. The presence of oversized rocks on the site and the removal of such rocks can result in deficiencies of fill material. Mitigations measures are imposed which require the Applicant to remove and recompact potentially compressible soils (Mitigation Measure GS-7), to identify methods for eliminating the potential for collapsible soils and after construction, to minimize the infiltration of water into subsurface soils by proper surface drainage (Mitigation Measure GS-8), and to relocate oversize rocks on the Project site during grading operations to reduce the potential deficiency of fill materials (Mitigation Measure GS-9). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the potential for foundation instability will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Bioloqical Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with California Buckwheat-White Sage Scrub (44.1 acres), White Sage Scrub (82.5 acres), Scalebroom Scrub (11.2 acres), non-native grassland (2.1 acres), disturbed and cleared areas (6.0 acres) and ornamental landscaping (4.1 acres). In categorizing the vegetation in accordance with the "Holland System," the Final EiR identifies Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) divided into two subgroups: the CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 5 Etiwanda Alluvial Fan Group (171.3 acres), the Prickly Group/Alluvial Chaparral Group (39.5 acres). In addition, the final EIR identifies an area of Ornamental Woodland and Disturbed plants (13.8 acres). The proposed Project would result in the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). In addition, the Final EIR identifies 213 trees that satisfy the City's criteria for "heritage trees," 15 sensitive plant specifies as occurring within the general vicinity of the Project site, and the existence of Plummer's mariposa lily plants (a sensitive species) on the site. To mitigate impacts for the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of RAFSS, a mitigation measure is imposed to require the Applicant to acquire 147.7 acres of land within or near the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area that supports similar RAFSS habitat (Mitigation Measure B-l). In addition, measures are imposed to ensure limits are kept on grading activities, that new landscaping is consistent with native landscaping, that lighting is controlled into areas of sensitive wildlife habitat, and that future residents of the Project are informed about sensitive wildlife areas and encouraged not to plant invasive plants (Mitigation Measures B-2 - B-5). To mitigate impacts to common plant species, all 213 heritage trees shall be removed and replaced with native trees at a replacement ratio of one to one (Mitigation Measure B-6). With respect to sensitive plant species, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, focused surveys for Plummer's mariposa lily shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for possible collection and relocation (Mitigation Measure B-7). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to natural plant communities, common plant species and sensitive plant species will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Final EIR indicates that the site is within the critical habitat of the federally listed endangered San Bernardino kangaroo ret. However, protocol surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2002 and revealed no presence of this species on the site. The site is also within the known range and within designated critical habitat for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. In addition, species of concern were found on the site which include the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, the San Diego desert wood rat, and the Los Angeles little pocket mouse. The site does support nesting habitat for raptor species and suitable habitat for the San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptail (state species of special concern). In addition, 1.13 acres of waters would be affected and drainage courses would be impacted by the Project. To address these impacts, a mitigation measure is imposed to provide follow-up focus surveys for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the coastal California gnatcatcher prior to issuance of grading permits (Mitigation Measures B-8 and B-9). A qualified biological monitor will be on-site during grading to reduce mortality to sensitive species, including rodent species and incidental species (Mitigation Measure B-10). If grading activities occur during active nesting season, a field survey will be conducted to preserve any active nests and the areas around them until the nesting cycle is complete (Mitigation Measure B-11). With respect to impacts on waters and streambeds, the Applicant shall obtain required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game and comply with those permit requirements (Mitigation Measure B-12). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and jurisdictional areas (waters and streambeds) will be mitigated to a level of less than significance. iii. Transportation/Traffic. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project wiJl increase vehicle trips and impact the Level of Service (LOS) along arterial streets and intersections. LOS levels of "D" or better do not represent a significant traffic impact, whereas CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 6 LOS levels of "E" or worse do represent a significant traffic impact. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a LOS of "F" during the AM peak hour at the intersections of Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street, Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue, and East Avenue at Banyan Street. During the PM peak hour, the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan Street, which will operate at an LOS of "E". At build-out, certain intersections in the immediate area will have LOS levels of "F". Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the Applicant to construct various roadway improvements at certain phases of the Project. For example, during the opening year of the Project, the Applicant will be required to construct Wilson Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue and to make various improvements to East Avenue (Mitigation Measures '1-1'-3 - TT-5). The Applicant will also be required to construct Etiwanda Avenue from the north Project boundary to Golden Prairie Drive at its ultimate half-section width (Mitigation Measure ']-1'-6). In addition, traffic signals, turn lanes and other improvements are required at various intersections in the vicinity of the Project (Mitigation Measures -i-1'-7 and Tr- 8). Finally, the Applicant will be required to contribute its fair share toward the cost of off-site roadway improvements (TT-1 and -i-1'-2). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Air Quality. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that short-term emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the thresholds of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Short-term emissions are caused by fugitive dust and other particulate matter, exhaust emissions generated by earthmoving activities and operation of grading equipment, emissions generated during building construction as a result of equipment and vehicle operation, electrical consumption, and coating and paint applications. During the building phase of the Project, levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx), reactive organic compounds (ROC) and atmospheric particulates (PM~o) will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD daily thresholds, and NOx and ROC emissions will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD quarterly thresholds, thereby resulting in significant short-term air quality impacts. Long-term emissions are caused by motor vehicle emissions and emissions from the consumption of natural gas and electricity, the use of landscape equipment, and the storage and use of consumer products. These emissions exceed the recommended SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and ROC. Mitigation measures for short-term impacts upon air quality are imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 - AQ-10) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to limit the treat the site with water or other soil-stability agents, sweep haul roads, suspend grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour, apply chemical soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas, select equipment based on Iow emission factors, use only Iow volatility paints and architectural coatings, and implement temporary traffic control during soil transport activities. Mitigation measures for long-term impacts upon air quality are imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-11 - AQ-13) which require the Applicant to participate in the cost of off-site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of a mitigation fee, equip the residential structures with energy efficient appliances, and coordinate bus routing with transit agencies to determine locations and feasibility of providing bus stop shelters at CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 7 Applicant's expense. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, short and long-term emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation measures, short-term construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROC and NOx, and that long- term stationary and mobile emissions will exceed applicable thresholds for NOx, CO and ROC, and therefore, would remain significant after mitigation. v. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. In addition, the Final EIR identifies the likelihood of long-term significant noise impacts on residences proposed on the perimeter of the Project site and adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. For short-term noise impacts, mitigation measures are imposed that will require the construction contractors to equip all construction equipment with properly operating and maintained mufflers, implement specific noise reduction measures when construction takes place near existing residences, locate equipment staging areas away from sensitive receptors, and comply with the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measures N-1 - N-4). To address long-term impacts to certain residential structures within the Project, sound barriers shall be placed at specified locations near Project road intersections and perimeter street intersections, and residential structures fronting on Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue and East Avenue will have mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain closed, and upgraded windows and other improvements will be installed on said residential structures so that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB CNEL or less (Mitigation Measures N-5 - N-6). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the short term and long-term noise impacts from the Project will be mitigated to less than significant levels. vi. Aesthetics. The Final EIR indicates that implementation of the proposed residential community may substantially alter the existing character of the Project site as well as views of the San Gabriel Mountains. In addition, the proposed Project and the cumulative effect of development in the Project vicinity may permanently alter the visual landscape of the San Gabriel Mountains. To address these impacts~ landscaping and perimeter walls shall be installed, landscaped transitions will be made between developed and the natural un-built environment, a strong landscaped edge will be required along roadways adjacent to the Project, utilities will be undergrounded where feasible, and trees and structures shall be used to frame and orient views at key locations (Mitigation Measures AES-1 - AES-5). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that although the implementation of the above mitigation measures will mitigate visual impacts associated with the proposed Project to a level that is less that significant, the cumulative impact of the Project upon aesthetics as well as future development in the Project vicinity will remain significant and unavoidable. vii. Cultural Resoumes. The Final EIR indicates that three archeological sites are within the Project area. It is also likely that prehistoric remains may still be buried at these sites. To mitigate for the potential loss in Native American archeological resources, the CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 8 Applicant is required to retain a City-approved archeologist to develop an amhaeological mitigation plan and a discovery/treatment plan. These plans will require the monitoring of 50 percent of the excavation activities, the treatment of found material and its recordation, mapping and disposition (Mitigation Measures CR-1 - CR-6). The Final EIR also identifies the possible presence of buried fossilized remains. To mitigate these impacts, the Applicant shall retain a City-approved paleontologist to monitor excavation activities and to prepare, identify and curate all recovered fossils for documentation and transfer to an appropriate depository. (Mitigation Measures CR-7 - CR-11). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on archeological and paleontological resoumes will be mitigated to less than significant levels. viii. Public Services and Utilities. The Final EIR identifies that the proposed Project will create a demand for fire services, water services, wastewater services, and schools, and will contribute to cumulative impacts to the need for water supplies, wastewater treatment, and schools. Mitigation Measures have been imposed to require the Applicant to obtain approval of the specific designs for fire flow and proposed fire resistant materials (Mitigation Measure F-l), pay a water service development fee (Mitigation Measure W-l), utilize a xeriscape landscape and irrigation design to conserve water on Project common areas (Mitigation Measure W-2), provide funds to the Cucamonga County Water District for sewer service prior to occupancy (Mitigation Measure WW-1), and pay the required school impact fee as required by Government Code Section 65995, which is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation of the Project's impacts to schools (Mitigation Measure S-1). Based on these mitigation measures and requirements, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on public services and utilities will be mitigated to less than significant levels. i. The Project is also anticipated to have the potential to create contaminated runoff containing compounds such as landscaped chemicals and automotive fluids. To reduce this impact, the Applicant will be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As part of standard construction practices, best management practices (BMPs) are required to ensure that potentially harmful chemicals or pollutants are not discharged from the site. These measures include sandbags, temporary diversion and temporary containment areas. Based on these requirements, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality will be reduced to less than significant levels. j. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: geology and soils (seismic ground shaking), air quality (short-term and long-term emissions), and aesthetics/visual (cumulative views). k. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that the Project will not create significant growth inducing impacts because the Project will be an extension of existing residential development to the west and the Project is consistent with development contemplated in the 2001 General Plan update as well as the Etiwanda North Specific Plan approved in 1991. The City Council also finds that the Project would result in an irretrievable commitment of natural resources (energy demands) and land. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 9 I. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project/No Development" alternative, the "Retention of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative," and the "Less Intense Development" Alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i. The objectives of the Project are: a. To provide single-family housing units consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. b. To annex the proposed tentative tract into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c. To create a project that is generally consistent and compatible with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the project and the community of Etiwanda in general. d. To provide project infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans related to these services. e. To phase the development of the proposed project to ensure adequate utilities are provided. f. To design and landscape the proposed project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. ii. The "No Project/No Development" Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet any of the Project objectives. As the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within a previously approved Specific Plan is not legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. iii. The "Retention of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub" Alternative assumes that all vegetation classified as RAFFS are not affected by development. As the Project site contains approximately 10.6 to 13.8 acres of disturbed or ornamental woodland, this alternative would only involve the development of those 10.6 to 13.8 acres. Based on the same residential density as the proposed Project (i.e. 2.4 units per acre), 25 to 33 single-family housing units would be constructed. Although this level of development could eliminate the potential significant unavoidable effects associated with the loss of RAFFS, this alternative CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16,2004 Page10 would not meet the objectives of the Project, including, but not limited to, providing single-family housing units consistent with the intent of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. In addition, the City Council finds, based on substantial evidence, that it is not economically feasible for the Applicant to construct the required infrastructure as contemplated by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan while constructing only 25 to 33 housing units on the entire property. The City Council specifically finds the required improvements to roadways, pipelines, water supplies, and other infrastructure would not be economically feasible with a return on investment of only 25 to 33 housing units. iii. The "Less Intense Development" Alternative is an alternative that attempts to avoid all significant, unavoidable, adverse long-term air emission impacts. To accomplish this result, approximately 104 housing units would need to be eliminated. This would result in approximately 255 residential units on the site with an average dwelling unit per acre density of approximately 1.7 units per acre compared with the proposed 2.4 units per acre. This project density is not consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and would not meet many of the objectives of the proposed Project. m. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "A" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph I above, the City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence presented during the June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004 public hearing, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from seismic ground shaking, the short-term and long-term impacts to air quality, and the cumulative impacts to aesthetics from the permanent alteration of the visual landscape of this region, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i. Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; ii. Annexation of the 150-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre area into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; iii. Implementation and consistency with the policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code and all other City development guidelines; CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page 11 iv. Creation of a Project that is generally consistent and compatible with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the Project and community of Etiwanda in general; v. Provision of Project infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans related to these services. vi. Phasing of the development of the proposed Project to ensure adequate utilities are provided; vii. Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; viii. Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; ix. Design and landscaping of the proposed Project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. n. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the envirenmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Ordinance and Exhibit "H" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report. o. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), the findings contained in this Ordinance shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 3: The City Council finds that the Development Agreement does comply with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65865 through 65869.5 in that the Development Agreement does specify in detail and contains the following: a. Provisions are included in Section 3(A) of the Development Agreement requiring periodic review of the Agreement at least every twelve months, .at which time the applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement (California Government Code Section 65865.1). b. The duration of the Development Agreement is specified in Section I(B) of the Agreement as being for ten (10) years (Government Code Section 65865.2). CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLANDoPINEHURST, INC. June 16, 2004 Page12 c. The permitted uses of the property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed structures, and other required provisions are referred to in Section 2(A) of the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). d. The Development Agreement includes conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions in Section 2(B) of the Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). e. The Development Agreement includes terms and conditions in Section 2(C)7 that require the developer to improve portions of public streets around the perimeter of the property and provide for and improve streets inside the development (Government Code Section 65865.2). f. The Development Agreement specifies that the Project is to be constructed in coordination with the construction of certain public infrastructure improvements as specified in Section 2 of the Agreement. (Government Code Section 65865.2). SECTION 4: Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above-referenced public hearinq on June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds that the Development Agreement will provide for development which is consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The City Council bases its findings of consistency with the General Plan on the compliance of the project entitlements specified in the Development Agreement with the General Plan's land use designation for the site, the fact that the project entitlements specified in the Development Agreement provide for the extension of the Iow density image of Old Etiwanda into the area as provided in General Plan Policy 2.4.4.5, the fact that the proposed uses set forth in the Development Agreement are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity, and that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan's intent to keep substantial portions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area as open space. SECTION 5: Based on substantial evidence presented during the above-referenced public hearing on June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds that the Development Agreement will provide for development which is consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The City Council bases its findings of consistency with the Project's consistency with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designations for the site and the fact that the Project is designed to contain a trails system, provide for views of the mountains, and will comply with the Specific Plan's requirements for landscape treatments and required walls, fencing, lighting and community entry that is consistent with the design scheme specified in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. SECTION 6: Based on the findings contained in this Ordinance, this City Council hereby approves Development Agreement DRC2003-00751, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." SECTION 7: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156- RICHLAND-PINEHURST, INC. June 16,2004 Page13 a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the Mayor shall execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City and the City Clerk shall cause the Agreement to be recorded in the offices of the County Recorder for the County of San Bernardino at the time and as required by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2004 BY: A'I-I'EST: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 (as amended 05/12/2004) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RICHLAND COMMUNITIES, INC. CONCERNING PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 16072 This Agreement (the "Development Agreement") is made and entered into this __ day of , 2004, by and between the applicant Hill Country S.A. Ltd., a Texas limited partnership; and Richland Trac¥ Ltd., a Florida Limited partnership, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (the "CITY") pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code. Hill Country S.A. Ltd., and Richland Trac¥ Ltd., and their successors and assigns, if any, are referred to collectively hereinafter as the "Property Owners". The CITY and Property Owners are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". RECITALS: A. To provide more certainty in the approval of development projects, to encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and to reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California has adopted Sections 65864, et seq. of the California Government Code, thus authorizing the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property, in order to establish development rights with respect thereto. B. Section 65865(b) of the California Government Code authorizes the CiTY to enter into a binding development agreement with respect to real property which is in unincorporated territory but also within the CITY's sphere of influence, provided that the effectiveness of the development agreement is conditioned upon the annexation of such real property to the CiTY within the period of time for annexation as specified in the Development Agreement. C. Property Owners owns fee title to approximately 150.79 acres of real property located entirely within the County of San Bernardino (the "County") and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto (the "Project Site"). D. On March 5, 2002, the CITY received an application for Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16072), Development Agreement (DRC2002-00156), and a request for Annexation of the Proposed Project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the potential environment impacts of the proposed project and all discretionary actions anticipated by the CITY and the Local Agency Formation Commission. E. As set forth in Ordinance No. adopted by the City Council on __ (the "Enacting Ordinance"), the execution of this Development Agreement and performance of and compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein by the Parties hereto: (i) is in the best interest of the CITY; (ii) will promote the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices in the CITY; (iii) will promote Exhibit "A" Development Agreement I Richland Communities, Inc. ~,~ ~ preservation of land values; (iv) will encourage the development of the Project by providing a level of certainty to the Property Owners; and (v) will provide for orderly growth and development of the CITY consistent with the CITY's General Plan. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants of the Parties, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which us hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Section t. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effectiveness of Development A.qreement Notwithstanding the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance, this Development Agreement shall only become operative and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall only arise, upon the date that the last of the following have occurred: 1. The project site has been annexed to the CITY and said annexation is final as to any and all administrative actions, and is not subject to judicial challenge; and 2. The Project and the Final EIR have been approved by the CITY and all entitlements have been issued for completion by Property Owners. B. Term The ~erm of this Development Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date of the enacting Ordinance and shall extend for a period of 10 years thereafter, unless this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Development Agreement, including, without limitation, the extensions provided below and any extensions attributable to "force majeure" circumstances described in Section 2D5 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties. Following the expiration of the Term, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that such termination shall not affect any right or duty arising from the project entitlements granted prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Development Agreement and the structures that are developed in accordance with this Development Agreement and the use of those structures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensuring, for land use purposes, that those structures continue to be legal conforming structures and that those uses continue to be legal conforming uses. C. Assiqnment Subject to the terms of this Development Agreement, Property Owners shall have the right to convey, assign, sell, lease, sublease, encumber, hypothecate or otherwise transfer (for purposes of this Development Agreement, "Transfer") the Project Site, in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation or other entity at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, and to the extent of each such Transfer, the transferor shall be relieved of its legal duty to perform such obligations under this Development Agreement at the time of the Transfer, except to the extent Property Owners are in default, as defined in Section 3.C hereof, of any of the terms of this Development Agreement when the Transfer occurs. Development Agreement 2 Richland Communities, Inc. If all or a portion of the Project Site is Transferred and there is noncompliance by the transferee owner with respect to any term and condition of this Development Agreement, or by the transferor with respect to any portion of the Project Site not sold or Transferred, such noncompliance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by that transferee or transferor, as applicable, but shall not be deemed to be a breach hereunder against other persons then owning or holding any interest in any portion of the Project Site and not themselves in breach under this Development Agreement. Any alleged breach shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3.C hereof. In no event shall the reservation or dedication of a portion of the Project Site to a public agency cause a transfer of duties and obligations under this agreement unless specifically stated to be the case in this Development Agreement, any of the exhibits attached to this Development Agreement, the instrument of conveyance used for such reservation or dedication, or other form of agreement with such public agency. Concurrently, with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within ten business days thereafter, the Property Owners shall notify the CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide the CITY with an executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the CITY, by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of the Properly Owners under this agreement. D. Amendment of ARreement This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Development Agreement, the parties may enter into one or more implementing agreements, as set forth below, to clarify the intended application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending this Development Agreement. Property Owners and the CiTY acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Property Owners and the CITY and that, in the course of the development of the Project Site, it may be necessary to supplement this Development Agreement to address the details of the Parties' respective performance and obligations, and to otherwise effectuate the purposes of this Development Agreement and the intent of the Par-ties. If and when, from time to time, the Parties find that it is necessary or appropriate to cladfy the application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, the Parties may do so through one or more implementing agreements (the "Implementing Agreement"), which shall be executed by the City Planner and by an authorized representative of the Property Owners. After execution, each Implementing Agreement shall be attached as an addendum and become a part of this Development Agreement, and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary. Such implementing Agreement shall not require the approval of the City Council of the CITY and shall only be executed by the City Planner (on Behalf of the CITY), if the City Planner has made a reasonable determination that such implementing agreements are not materially inconsistent with this Development Agreement, and applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies of the CITY in effect at the time of execution of this Development Agreement. Any changes to this Development Agreement which would Development Agreement 3 Richland Communities, Inc. Z~¢ impose additional obligations on the CITY beyond those which would be deemed to arise under a reasonable interpretation of this Development Agreement, or which would purport to change land use designations applicable to the Project Site under the applicable Project Entitlements, shall be considered "material" and shall require amendment of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Section 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT A. Land Use and Proiect Entitlements The Project Entitlements are depicted on the Tentative Tract Map and Conceptual Grading Plan attached hereto as Exhibits 1 - 17. Project Entitlements refers to the foliowing matedal related to the approval of the Development Agreement (DRC2002-00156) and the Tentative Tract Map (SUB'F¥16072): all plans that constitute the approved project, all Planning Commission and City Council Resolutions of Approval including the associated conditions of approval, and all mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. The Parties acknowledge that, without being obligated to do so, Property Owners plans to develop the Project Site in substantial conformity with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. During the Term of this agreement, the permitted uses for the Project, or any portion thereof, the density and intensity of use, zoning, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, building and yard setback requirements, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, design and performance standards and other terms and conditions of development of the Project constitute the Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. The specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supersede and be controlling over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Project Entitlements. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total number of lots in the approved tract totals 358 lots and that lots may be modified, without indreasing the overall number of lots, as long as the proposed modification is found to be in substantial conformity with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. The City Planner shall exercise his reasonable discretion in the review of any proposed modifications to lots, and make the determination of substantial compliance. Other certain specific modifications of the Project Entitlements to which the Parties agree are set forth below. All Exhibits attached hereto constitute material provisions of the Development Agreement, and are incorporated herein. B. Rules and Requlations Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65856 and except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, (1) the ordinance, rules and regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of such uses, and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Project and in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement, and (2) and those ordinances of the CITY, as implemented by this Development Agreement, rules, regulations and official policies in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the Project Entitlements, as modified and/or amended by this Development Agreement (collectively the "Existing Laws"), except that the CiTY's street improvement, lighting, storm drain, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Development Agreement 4 Richland Communities, Inc. ~ ? standards shall be followed, and the landscape standards applicable shall be those specified in this Development Agreement or if none are so specified, the CITY's Standards. In the event of any conflict between the Existing Laws and the other CITY ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies, then the Existing Laws shall control. The CITY shall not be prevented in subsequent actions applicable to the Project, from applying new ordinances, rules regulations, and policies in effect ("Future Policies") to the extent that they do not conflict with the Existing Laws. Such conflict shall be deemed to occur if, without limitation, such Future Policies: 1. modify the permitted types of land uses, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height or size of proposed buildings on the property, building and yard setback requirements, or impose requirements for the construction or provisions of on- site or offsite improvements or the reservation or dedication of land for public use, or the payment of fees or the imposition of extractions, other than as are in each case specifically provided for in this Development Agreement; 2. prevent the Property Owners from obtaining all necessary approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements at such dates and under such circumstances as the Property Owners would otherwise be entitled under this Development Agreement; 3. render any conforming use of the Project Site a non-conforming use or any structure on the Project Site a non-conforming structure. C. Desi.qn and Infrastructure Issues 1. Street Sections The CITY desires that the design of Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue be designed as depicted in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 13(B)/Section A-l, Exhibit 13(D)/with community trail, and Exhibit 13(E), respectively. The following deviations from the standard CiTY Engineering Division street standards or policies are acceptable as depicted on the approved plans included as part of the Project Entitlements: Street 'C' is acceptable as a non-standard cul-de-sac design; the centerline radius of Street 'A' is acceptable with a radius of 650-feet; and street sections on straight interior streets may be greater than 800-feet. 2. Dry Utilities The Project Entitlements do not require that Burd vaults be installed and the CITY and Property Owners agree that no Burd vaults will be required throughout the Project Site. The aboveground transformers/switchgear are acceptable subject to selective placement subject to approval of the City Planner and SCE. 3. Private Landscape Maintenance This project shall form a Homeowners Association (HOA), which shall own and be responsible for maintenance of all lettered lots interior and exterior to the tract. Maintenance responsibility shall include all perimeter walls and interim detention basins, as well as slopes and landscape areas adjacent to Community Trails within the Development Agreement 5 Richland Communities, Inc. Fault Zone and along perimeter streets. In addition, the Property Owner agrees to join Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 7. a. City will support the creation of a new LMD for the above- mentioned areas if the Property Owner can provide a design that can be cost-effectively maintained to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This would replace the requirement for a HOA and joining LMD 7. b. If entrances are gated, they shall conform to City design standards and all interior improvements will become private. In that case, the HOA will also assume responsibility for streets, streetlights, sidewalks, utility easements, and storm drains/drainage facilities. 4. View Fencing Open fencing may be utilized in rear-yard conditions only where view opportunities are present, subject to mitigation measures that may otherwise be required for sound attenuation and/or fire protection. 5. Gradinq The Grading Plan, included in the Project Entitlements, shall conform to the Design Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. However, with an average slope across the site of less than 8%, the Project is exempt from the CITY Hillside Development Regulations of the Development Code. 6. Community Trail The Property Owners shall design and construct improvements to the CITY Community Trail network along Etiwanda Avenue north of 'U' Street to the north tract boundary, and along East Avenue north of the Fault Zone Trail to the northerly tract boundary, in accordance with CITY standard Drawing 1002-A. In addition, a Community Trail shall be developed through the Fault Zone, between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, in accordance with CITY Standard Drawing 1004. Improvements to the Regional Trail within the Edison Corridor are not required as a condition of this development. 7. Circulation Issues and Fees a. Revisions to the Etiwanda north Specific Plan/Phasing Plan The Property Owners shall construct East Avenue southerly between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, in lieu of extending Wilson Avenue easterly to connect to Wardman-Bullock Road. b. Transportation Fee/Traffic Impact Analysis The Property Owners shall construct circulation improvements necessary to serve the area in and around the Project Site as generally depicted on Exhibit 18 - 20; and Property Owners shall construct additional regional transportation improvements depicted on Exhibit 22. In addition, the Property Owners shall comply with Development Agreement 6 Richland Communities, Inc. ~ ~, ~ Transportation Development Fees In accordance with CITY ordinance. Upon formation of a Community Facilities District ("CFD") Property Owners may include the cost of the improvement specified in this Section 2.C.7.c as part of the CFD financing. The Property Owners shall receive credit against, or reimbursement of costs, in excess of the Transportation Development Fee for the "backbone" improvements as described herein, in conformance with CITY Policy. c. Circulation Improvements/Reimbursement Requests The Properly Owners shall design, construct, and complete the following improvements: (i) Etiwanda Avenue: Improve as a Secondary Arterial along the property frontage, as depicted in Exhibit 20. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (ii) East Avenue: North of Wilson Avenue to the northerly Tract boundary - Construct Collector Street improvements west of centerline and 18-feet of pavement east of centedine, for a total of 40-feet pavement width along with a 2-foot graded shoulder, as depicted in Exhibit 19. In addition, construct 44-feet of pavement for a distance of 200-feet north of Wilson Avenue, transitioning back to 40-feet north of that point. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Property Owner may request a reimbursement agreement whereby the Property shall recover the cost for improvements east of the centerline from future development as it occurs on adjacent properties in the CITY limits. If the Property Owners fail to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6-months of the public improvements being accepted by the CITY, all rights of the Property Owners to reimbursement shall terminate. South of Wilson Avenue to Banyan Street - Construct 36-feet pavement width, as depicted in Exhibit 19. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Property Owners shall receive credit against the Transportation Development Fee for backbone improvements, in conformance with CITY Policy. The Property Owner may request a reimbursement agreement whereby the Property shall recover the cost for improvements south of the southerly Tract boundary from future development as it occurs on adjacent properties in the CITY limits. If the Property Owners fail to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6-months of the public improvements being accepted by the CITY, all rights of the Property Owners to reimbursement shall terminate. (iii) Wilson Avenue: Between Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue - Install full-width Divided Secondary Arterial improvements as depicted in Exhibit 20. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Property Owners (or future developer) shall acquire right-of-way from Metropolitan Water District (MWD), along with a permit for the improvements, on the south side of Wilson Avenue. The Property Owners shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for the median curbs and 14-feet of pavement on both sides, in conformance with CITY Policy. Development Agreement 7 Richland Communities, Inc. The Property Owner may request a reimbursement agreement whereby the Property Owners shall recover the cost for improvements, other than the 'backbone', including median landscaping south of the centerline and along the Not-A-Part parcel, from future development on adjacent properties. If the Property Owners fail to request said reimbursement agreement within 6-months of the public improvements being accepted by the CITY, all rights of the Property Owners to reimbursement shall terminate. 8. Storm Drains a. Deviation from the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainaqe Policy The Project shall comply with the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Policy with the construction of the 25t~ Street Interceptor Channel along the Projects' north boundary line. The Project will deviate from the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Policy with the construction of an interim detention basin to attenuate only developed storm flows to Wilson Avenue storm drain not currently attenuated by existing basins in Tracts 13527 and 14139. b. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 3 Master Plan Storm Drain The Property Owners shall construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 3 Master Plan Storm Drain facilities along the north property boundary from Etiwanda Avenue to the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds, including culverts for both Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue to cross the facility. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Standard drainage fees for the project shall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, in accordance with CITY Policy. The Property Owner may request a reimbursement agreement whereby the Property Owners shall recover the cost for such improvements from future development on adjacent properties. If the Property Owners fail to request said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of public improvements being accepted by the CITY, or all rights of the development to reimbursement shall terminate. If San Bernardino County Flood Control District requires an interim basin for this facility, the same easement, maintenance and reimbursement issues will apply as for the Wilson storm drain basin(s). c. Interim Detention Basin The Property Owners shall design, construct and install, an "Interim Detention Basin" for the Wilson Avenue Storm Drain, located as shown conceptually on Exhibit 22, justified by a Final Drainage Report, which shall be approved by the City Engineer. The Property Owners shall: (i) Design the basin to mitigate developed flows from area bounded by Wilson, East and Etiwanda Avenues, and Southern California Edison; (ii) Provide a temporary easement to the CITY over the lots that contain the basin; (iii) Provide for maintence of the Interim Detention Basin through annexation to an existing Assessment District, the formation of a new Assessment District, or the execution of a maintenance agreement satisfactory to the Development Agreement 8 Richland Communities, Inc. City Engineer and the City Attorney that guarantees the private maintenance of the facility. The Property Owners shall be responsible for the costs relating to the annexation to an existing Assessment District, the formation of a new District, or the preparation of a maintenance agreement. The CITY shall be provided with rights of access to maintain the facility if private maintenance is insufficient. The CITY shall have the right to assess those maintenance costs incurred by the CITY to the Property Owners. Said agreement shall include a cash deposit as security for any maintenance costs the CITY may incur. Said agreement shall be recorded to run with the property. (iv) Pay an in-lieu fee for the removal of any interim basin improvements within the LMD areas (if applicable) and their replacement with the LMD Landscaping, pdor to final map recordation. (v) Request that the CITY execute a reimbursement agreement to recover the proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development using the basin. If the Property Owners fail to request said reimbursement agreement within 6-months of the public improvements being accepted by the CITY, all dghts of the Property Owners to such reimbursement shall terminate. (vi) Install local storm drains to convey development drainage to the existing Master Plan Storm Drain in Wilson Avenue, and extend the local storm drain system as far on-site as needed to contain Q25 within the tops of curbs, Q100 ' within rights-of-way and provide a 10-foot dry lane in Q10. The cost of local storm drains shall be borne by the Property Owners with no fee credit. 9. Park Fee/Equestrian Fee/Beautification Fee Property Owners shall pay the following development fees: a. The Property Owners shall pay CITY a sum totaling $358,000 (based upon $1,000 per unit) for equestrian purposes. The sum may be paid from CFD formation and funding. However, the prorated share of the fee for each individual tract map must be paid prior to recording of said tract map. The CITY shall reserve said funds for the intended purpose, or the Property Owners may directly participate in the construction of the CITY-approved North Etiwanda Equestrian Arena. b. The Prepedy Owners shall pay the CITY a sum totaling $2,362,800 ($6,600 per unit) for park purposes. The sum may be paid from CFD formation and funding. However, the prorated share of the fee for each individual tract map must be paid prior to recording of said tract map. In addition, the applicant shall receive park credit for improvements to the Community Trail that traverses the site within the Fault Zone, in accordance with General Plan Policy. The Trail Credit Graph (Exhibit 111-12) of the General Plan establishes the basis upon which park credit is determined for Community or Regional Trail improvements. Based on the analysis using the Trail Credit Graph, the Property Owners will receive credit for 1.5 acres, which is 35 percent of the total trail area. The 1.5-acre credit equates to a dollar value of $600,000, which will be applied to the total value of the Park Fee as required in the paragraph above. Development Agreement 9 Richland Communities, Inc. c. The Property Owner shall not pay the CITY Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction if improvements to Wilson south parkway are made. 10. Development Standards The project shall be developed in accordance the CITY's Low-Density Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. a. Number of Housing Units: The project entitlements include 358 housing units. 11. Desi,qn Review Process The Project, and all subsequent applications for residential development, shall be subject to the CITY Development/Design Review process. 12. Architectural Guidelines The Project, and all subsequent applications for residential development, shall be subject to the Architectural Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 13. Etiwanda Avenue Scarp Fault Zone The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp is located within an Alquist-Pdolo Fault Zone as depicted in the CITY General Plan Exhibit V-l; and is identified as a Fault Zone land use district as depicted in the CITY Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 10. The Property Owners have conducted a Geotechnical Investigation (GeoSoils, Inc. November 11, 1998) in order to define and identify the actual zone of faulting of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp where it traverses the project site. A Fault Setback Zone, as recommended by the Investigation, is depicted on the Tentative Tract Map and the Conceptual Grading Plan included in the Project Entitlements. Habitable structures shall not be developed within the Fault Setback Zone, however, portions of the lot area may encroach in the Fault Setback Zone as depicted on the Tentative Tract Map and Conceptual Grading Plan included in the Project Entitlements. All improvements within the Fault Zone, as described in this paragraph and depicted in the Project Entitlements, shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permit of the 150t~ dwelling within the project. 14. Open Space Transfer Plan The Property Owners shall transfer to the County of San Bemardino Special Districts OS-1, other qualified conservation entity approved by the City in fee, a minimum of 150-acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be determined by County of San Bernardino Special Districts (or other conservation entity), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the CITY Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner. The transfer and funding shall occur prior to recording of the first final map of the Project. Development Agreement 10 Richland Communities, Inc. D. Timing of Development and Fees 1. Development of the Perimeter Landscapinq and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Nei,qhborhood Monumentation All perimeter landscaping, including the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood Monumentation as depicted in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 25A-C, shall be completed according the following schedule: (1) the East Avenue Perimeter, the Wilson Avenue perimeter, and the western Project perimeter south of the Fault Zone shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of the 150th dwelling within the project; and (2) the Etiwanda Avenue perimeter, north of the Fault Zone shall be completed prior to the release of the 250th dwelling unit within the project. 2. Development of the Remainder of the Site Neither the Property Owners nor CITY can presently predict when or the rate at which phases of the project shall be developed, since such decisions depend on numerous factors which are not within the control of the Property Owners including, without limitation, market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, competition and other factors. The parties acknowledge and agree that Property Owners, subject to the restrictions and conditions of this Development Agreement, retains flexibility under this Development Agreement to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as are appropriate within the exercise of the Property Owners' business judgment. The CITY further acknowledges that Property Owners may desire to market, sell, or otherwise arrange for disposition of some or all of the Project Site, prior to development, and that the rate at which the Project develops will likely depend upon the business judgment of subsequent owners of the Project Site. 3. CITY's Cooperation CITY shall use good faith, diligent efforts to promptly process and take final action on any applications for permits or approvals filed by Property Owners with respect to the Project. Such cooperation shall include, without limitation, (a) using good faith, diligent efforts to process subsequent Development/Design Review in accordance with state regulations; and (b) promptly processing all ministerial permits in accordance with Section 2.1 below. Without limiting the effect of any other provision of this Development Agreement, any future regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Project Site or the extent thereof, shall be deemed to conflict with Property Owners' vested rights to develop the Project under this Development Agreement and shall, to that extent, not apply to the development of the Project. Processing and review of development proposals shall be subject to established procedures in effect in the entire CITY, including Development and Design Review, as specified in the Existing Laws. However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal shall be based on the objectives, policies and specific development standards specified herein. Development Agreement 11 Richland Communities, Inc. 4. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Development Agreement, Property Owners and CITY shall be excused from performance of their obligations under this Development Agreement during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the Property Owners, as applicable. The time of performance of such obligations as well as the term of this Development agreement shall automatically be extended by the period of such delay hereunder. E, Future Entitlements With respect to any entitlements that Property Owners may require in the future, including, without limitation, tentative tract and parcel map approvals, conditional use permits, and Development/Design Review, the CITY shall retain its discretionary review . authority and the CITY's applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies. However, any such discretionary review shall be expressly subject to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the CITY may only impose conditions upon such discretionary entitlements which are consistent with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement, except as otherwise specifically required by state or federal law. F. Environmental Review Other than the mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in the EIR and the Project Entitlements (and any additional future mitigation programs contemplated therein), no other mitigation measures for environmental impacts created by the Project, as presently approved and as evaluated in the EIR, shall be required. In connection with the CITY's issuance of any further entitlement (as contemplated in Section 2.F above), which is subject to CEQA, the CITY shall promptly commence and diligently process any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA, and to the extent permitted by CEQA, the CITY shall use the EIR and other existing environmental reports and studies as adequately addressing the environmental impacts of such matter or matters, without requiring new or supplemental environmental documentation. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review, the CITY may impose additional measures (or conditions) to mitigate, as permitted by CEQA, the adverse environmental impacts of such future entitlements, which were not considered at the time of approval of the Project. G. CITY Fees and Mandates by State and Federal Laws The Parties acknowledge and agree that the fees and impositions which may potentially be imposed by the CITY on the Project and Property Owners (collectively "fees") fall within one of three categories: (a) fees for processing land use and construction permit applications which are not otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 66000 of the Government Code (but which are subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 66013, 66014, and 66016-66018.5 of the Government Code) (collectively, the "Processing Fees"); (b) fees or other monetary exactions which are contemplated under ordinances or resolutions in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement and which purport to defray all or a portion of the cost of impacts to certain public facilities, improvements and other amenities from the development projects, including any fees described in Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (collectively, the Development Agreement 12 Richland Communities, Inc. ~ 75 "Existing Fee Categories") (the Existing Fee Categories include any increases, decreases, or other modifications to existing fees, so long as such modified fees relate to the same category of impacts identified in the Existing Fee Categories); and (c) fees or other monetary exactions which may be imposed in the future by the CITY for purposes of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities, improvements, or amenities related to development projects, but excluding the Existing Fee Categories ("other Fees"). The Property Owners' obligation to pay Fees shall be specifically governed by the following provisions: 1. Processing Fees. The CITY may charge Planning and Engineering Plan Check and Permit Fees and Building Permit Fees which are in force and effect on a CITY-wide basis at the time of Property Owners' application for a land use entitlement or a construction permit. The amount of any Processing Fees shall be determined by the CITY in accordance with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, Government Code Sections 66013, 66014, and 66017-66018.5 (or any successor laws, as applicable). Unless otherwise agreed by Property Owners and the CITY, the Processing Fees assessed Property Owners shall be the same as those imposed upon other development projects throughout the jurisdictional limits of the CITY. 2. Other Fees. In consideration of the Property Owners' Agreement to modify the Project Entitlements as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and implement the timing of development in accordance with the terms set forth above, no Other Fees shall be imposed upon the Property Owners or the Project dudng the Term of this Development Agreement, except as may be specifically required to carry out any state or federal law or mandate enacted after the effective date of this Development Agreement, as necessary to mitigate environmental impacts of the project in accordance with 2.G above. 3. Fiscal Impact Analysis. CITY does not require Property Owners or the Project to complete a fiscal impact analysis for application or issuance of any approvals or permits that CITY might issue under this Development Agreement. H. Non-discretionary Permits The Parties acknowledge that in the course of implementing the Project, Property Owners will, from time to time, apply to the CITY for various ministerial permits, licenses, consents, cerflficetes, and approvals, including, without limitation, non-discretionary subdivision approvals, grading permits, construction permits, certificates of occupancy and permits required to connect the Project to utility systems under the CITY's jurisdiction (collectively the "Non-Discretionary Permits"). Property Owners shall have the right to apply for any such Non-Discretionary Permits in accordance with the Existing Laws (and any applicable Future Policies under Section 2.B, above). The CITY shall issue to Property Owners, upon such applications, all required Non-Discretionary Permits, subject only to compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the CITY's usual and customary fees and charges for such applications and Non- Discretionary Permits (subject to the previsions of Section H above) and the terms and conditions of the applicable permit applications. The CITY further agrees that upon its approval of any plans, specifications, design drawings, maps, or other submittals of Property Owners in conjunction with such Non-Discretionary Permits (the "Approved Plans"), all further entitlements, approvals and consents required from the CITY to implement the Project which are consistent with and further implement such Approved Development Agreement 13 Richland Communities, Inc. Plans, shall be expeditiously processed and approved by the CITY in accordance with this Development Agreement. I. Cooperation 1. Cooperation with Other Public Aqencies. The CITY acknowledges that the Property Owners may apply from time to time for permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, in conjunction with the development of or provision of services to the Project, including, without limitation, approvals in connection with developing and implementing a tertian/water system, potential transpor[ation improvements and other on-site and off- site infrastructure. The CITY shall cooperate with Property Owners in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals from such agencies (including without limitation, the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency). 2. Construction of Off-Site Improvements. To the extent that Property Owners are required to construct off-site street improvements as a condition of developing the Project, the Property Owners shall make good faith efforts to acquire the off-site property interests required to construct such public improvements. If Property Owners fail to do so, Property Owners shall, at least 120 days pdor to submittal of the first final subdivision map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements under Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the CITY decides to acquire the property interests required for the public improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by Property Owners of all costs incurred by the CITY if the CITY decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of those costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the CITY at Property Owners' cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the CITY prior to commencement of the appraisal. To the extent that such off-site improvements, or the construction of any substantial infrastructure on-site, substantially benefit other property owners or other portions of the jurisdiction of limits of the CITY, the CITY agrees to assist Property Owners to the fullest extent possible in obtaining reimbursement or other fair share contribution by such other benefited property owners. Such assistance may include, without limitation, conditioning the approval of development projects proposed by such benefited property owners upon such owners' contribution, on a fair share, pro-rata basis, to the construction cost of such improvements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the CITY agrees with respect to the infrastructure improvements which are adjacent to and benefit other properties (whether such properties are undeveloped or developed), any further discretionary approvals sought by such property owners shall be conditioned to require fair share reimbursement to Property Owners for construction and related costs incurred in providing such improvements to the extent legally permissible. 3. Public Financinq. The Parties hereby acknowledge that substantial public improvements must be funded in order to contribute to the Park Fee, Equestrian Fee and School Fees and the remainder of the Project Site and that public financing of a substantial portion of these improvements will be critical to the economic viability of the Project. Subject to CiTY's ability to make all findings required by applicable law and complying with all applicable legal procedures and requirements, the CITY agrees to cooperate with and assist Property Owners to the fullest extent possible in developing Development Agreement 14 Richland Communities, Inc. ~ 77 and implementing a public financing plan for the construction of the public infrastructure improvements. The implementation of such plan may include, without limitation, the formation of one or more assessment districts, or Mello-Roos community facilities districts, or the issuance of bonds, certificates of participation, or other debt securities necessary to implement such plan. All formation costs shall be borne by Property Owners subject to reimbursement by the Community Facilities District. J. Creation of the Landscape and Street Liqhtin.q Maintenance District The CITY agrees to promptly form the necessary Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq (the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972") for the Project development to encompass the Project Site as well as the area being annexed by the CITY. However, the Property Owners shall annex to the existing Street Lighting District. The Property Owners shall pay for the formation of the LMD. The Parties agree that the LMD must be established no later than recordation of the first final tract map and that the CITY may create an LMD, which allow annexation of other areas. In addition, if outside agencies, upon their review and approval of vadous components of the project, impose any non-standard improvements that require extraordinary maintenance responsibilities of the CITY, the CITY may impose the creation additional maintenance districts upon the proposed development. Upon formation of the LMD, the CITY (through the LMD) shall assume full responsibility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the improvements to be maintained by the LMD pursuant to the LMDs governing documents. The Parties also acknowledge that assessments for the LMDs are collected annually in June, and to the extent that assessments are collected through the LMD for the pedod ending June 2006, the CITY may request, and the Property Owners agree to provide, a reasonable cash deposit to fund the LMD. The CITY shall promptly upon receipt of assessments the following June, reimburse Property Owners for any such cash advances to fund the LMDs. Section 3. ANNUAL REVIEW A. Good Faith Compliance Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866.1, the CITY shall once every twelve (12) months during the term of this Development Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Property Owners with the terms of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that it is intended that this review shall apply to the Project Site as a whole, as opposed to each individual property owner who may own a parcel comprising the Project Site. In connection with such annual review, Property Owners shall provide such information as may reasonably be requested by the CITY in order to determine whether any provisions of this Agreement have been breached by Property Owners. If at any time prior to the review period there is an issue concerning a Property Owners' compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the provisions of this Section 3 shall apply. B. Certificate of Compliance If Property Owners are found to be in compliance with this Development Agreement after annual review, the City Planner shall, upon written request by Property Owners, issue a certificate of compliance ("Certificate of Compliance") to Property Owners stating that, based upon information known to the CITY, the Development Agreement remains in effect and Property Owners are not in default. The Certificate of Development Agreement 15 Richland Communities, Inc. Compliance shall be in recordable form and shall contain such information as shall impart constructive record of notice of compliance. Property Owners may record the Certificate of Compliance in the Official Records of the County of San Bernardino. C. Findin.q of Default If, upon completion of the annual review, the City Planner intends to find that Property Owners have not complied in good faith with the material terms of this Agreement (a "Default"), he shall first give written notice of such effect to the Property Owners, pursuant to Section 3, Annual Review, subsection M - Notices, of this Agreement. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of all staff reports, staff recommendations and other information concerning Property Owners' compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement as the CITY may possess and which is relevant to determining Property Owners' performance under this Development Agreement. The notice shall specify in detail the grounds and all facts allegedly demonstrating such noncompliance, so Property Owners may address the issues raised on a point-by-point basis. Properly Owners shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice to file a written response with the City Planner. Within 10 days after the expiration of such 20-day response period, the City Planner shall notify Property Owners whether he has determined that Property Owners are in Default under this Development Agreement ("Notice of Default"). Such Notice of Default shall specify the instances in which the Property Owners have allegedly failed to comply with this Development Agreement and the terms under which compliance can be obtained. The Notice of Default shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owners to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date the Notice of Default was served on the Property Owners, and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Propertx. Owners' performance into good faith compliance. D. Riqht to Appeal Upon receipt of the Notice of Default, the Property Owners may appeal the City Planner's decision directly to the City Council. Such appeal shall be initiated by filing a wdtten notice of appeal with the City Clerk within the (10) calendar days following the Property Owners' receipt of the Notice of Default. The hearing on such appeal shall be scheduled in accordance with Section 17.02.080 of the CITY Development Code. At the hearing, Property Owners shall be entitled to submit evidence and to address all the issues raised by the Notice of Default. If, after considering all the evidence presented at the hearing, the City Council finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence the Property Owners are in Default, then the City Council shall specify in writing to Property Owners the instances in which the Property Owners has failed to comply and the terms under which compliance can be obtained, and shall also specify a reasonable time for property Owners to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of such writing from the City Council and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owners' performance into good faith compliance. In the event of a Notice of Default, the timeframe for compliance in Section 3 - Annual Review, subsection C - Finding of Default, of this Agreement cannot be enforced dudng this appeal process. E. Property Owners' Cure Ri.qhts If Property Owners are in Default under this Development Agreement, it shall have a reasonable pedod of time to cure such Default before action is taken by the CITY to terminate this Development Agreement or to otherwise amend or limit Property Owners' rights under this Development Agreement. In no event shall such cure period Development Agreement 16 Richland Communities, Inc. be less than the time set forth in the finding of Default made under Sections 3C or 3D above (as applicable) or less than the time reasonably necessary to cure such Default. Any such cure period shall be extended by force majeure circumstances described in Section 2D5 above. Section 4. ENFORCEMENT A. Enforcement by Either Party Subject to all requirements mandated by applicable state or federal or other law, this Development Agreement shall be enforceable by any of the parties to this Agreement. B. Cumulative Remedies In addition to any other dghts or remedies, any of the Parties may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default (to the extent otherwise permitted herein and in Government Code Section 65864 et seq. or any successor laws and regulations), to enforce any covenant or agreement herein in this Development Agreement or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, and relief in the nature of mandamus. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. The provisions of this Section 4B are not intended to modify other provisions of the Development Agreement and are not intended to provide additional remedies not otherwise permitted by law. C. Attorney's Fees In any legal proceedings brought by either party to enforce any covenant or any of the Parties' rights or remedies under this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any action for declaratory or equitable relief, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and all reasonable costs, expenses and disbursements in connection with such action. Any such attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by either of the Parties in enforcing a judgment in its favor under this Development Agreement, shall be recoverable separately from and in addition to any other amount included in this judgment, and such attorneys' fees obligation is intended to be severable from the other provisions of this Development Agreement and to survive and not be merged into any such judgment. Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Successors and Assiqns Subject to the provisions of Section 1C above, the terms of this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and their successors and assigns. Insofar as this Development Agreement refers to Property Owners, as defined herein, if the rights under this Development Agreement are assigned, the term "Property Owners" shall refer to any such successor or assign. B. Project as a Private Undertaking It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect under this Development Agreement, and that each of the Parties is an Development Agreement 17 Richland Communities, Inc. ~ ~'~) independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between the CITY and Property Owners is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. C. Captions The captions of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. D. Mortqaqe Protection 1. Discretion to Encumber. This Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Property Owners, in any manner, at Property Owners' sole discretion, from encumbering the Project or any portion of the Project or any improvements on the Project, by any mortgage, deed of trust or other secudty device securing financing with respect to all or any part of the Project or any improvements thereon (a "Mortgage"). 2. Effect of Default. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any mortgage subsequently placed upon the property, or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon, including the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust. Despite the foregoing, breach of any provision of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith for value. 3. Mortqaqee Not Obli.qated. Notwithstanding anything in this Development Agreement to the contrary, (a) any holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage ("Mortgagee") may acquire to or possession of all or any portion of the Project or any improvement thereon pursuant to the remedies provided by its Mortgage, whether by judicial or non-judicial foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise, and such Mortgagee shall not have any obligation under this Development Agreement to construct, fund or otherwise perform any affirmative obligation or affirmative covenant of Properly Owners hereunder or to guarantee such performance, and Mortgagee may, after acquiring title to all or any portion of the Project as aforesaid, assign or otherwise transfer the Project or any such portion thereof to any person or entity, and upon the giving of notice of such assignment or transfer to the CITY and the assumption by the assignee or transferee of the obligations of the Property Owners with respect to the Property Owners or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue from and after the date of assignment or transfer, Mortgagee shall be relieved and discharged of and from any and all further obligations or liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to the Project or portion thereof so assigned or transferred; and (b) the consent of CITY shall not be required for the acquisition of all or any portion of the Project by any purchaser at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the terms of any Mortgage, and such purchaser shall, by virtue of acquiring title to the Project or such portion thereof, be deemed to have assumed all obligations of Property Owners with respect to the Project or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue subsequent to the purchase date, but such purchaser shall not be responsible for any prior defaults of Property Owners; provided, however, that in either of the instances referred to in clauses (a) or (b) above, to the extent any obligation or covenant to be performed by Property Owners is a condition to granting of a specific benefit or to the performance of a specific covenant by Development Agreement 18 Richland Communities, Inc. CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the CITY's granting of such benefit and performance of such covenant hereunder. 4. Notice of Default to Mortqa~lee: Right of Mortqa.qee to Cure. If a Mortgagee files with the City Clerk, a written notice requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Property Owners under this Development Agreement and specifying the address for delivery thereof, the CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with delivery thereof to Property Owners, any notice given to Property Owners with respect to any claim of the CITY that Property Owners have not complied with the terms of this Development Agreement or is otherwise in Default under this Development Agreement. Each such Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of thirty (30) days after the expiration of any cure pedod given to Property Owners with respect to such Default, to cure such default; provided, however, that if any such Default cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be necessary to remedy or cure such Default, if such Mortgagee commences to remedy or cure within such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such remedy or cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Default is of a nature which can only be cured by Mortgagee by obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall be deemed to have remedied or cured such Default if such Mortgagee shall, within such thirty (30) day period, commences efforts to obtain possession and carry the same forward with diligence and continuity through implementation of foreclosure, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure or commence to remedy or cure the Default within the cure period specified in Section 3E above. 5. Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5D4 above, if a Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof to obtain possession of the Project Site by any process or injunction issued by any court or by any reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Property Owners, Mortgagee shall for the purposes of this Development Agreement be deemed to be proceeding with diligence and continuity to obtain possession of the Property during the period of such prohibition if Mortgagee is proceeding diligently to terminate such prohibition. 6. Amendment to Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owners agree not to modify this Development Agreement or to allow this Development Agreement to be modified or amended in any way, or cancel this Development Agreement, without the prior written consent of each Mortgagee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding anything stated above to the contrary, the CITY and Property Owners shall cooperate in including in this Development Agreement, by suitable implementing agreement from time to time, any provision which may reasonably be requested by a proposed Mortgagee for the purpose of implementing the mortgagee-protection provisions contained in this Development Agreement and allowing such Mortgagee reasonable means to protect or preserve the lien of the Mortgage on the occurrence of a default under the terms of this Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owners each agree to execute and deliver (acknowledge, if necessary for recording purposes) any implementing agreement necessary to effect such request; provided, however, that any such implementing agreement shall not in any material respect adversely effect any rights of the CITY under this Development Agreement or be materially inconsistent with the substantive Development Agreement 19 Richland Communities, Inc. ¢,~ ~'.~,, provisions of this Development Agreement, the Project Entitlements and the Existing Laws. E. Consent Where the consent or approval of any of the Parties is required in or necessary under this Development Agreement, unless the context otherwise indicates, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. F. Entire A.qreement This Development Agreement and the documents attached to and referred to in this Development Agreement constitute the entire agreement between Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement. G. Further Actions and Entitlements Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated under this Development Agreement in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. H. Governing Law This Development Agreement including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the Parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. I. Recording The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Bernardino no later than ten (10) days following the effective date of this Development Agreement. Once any lot or parcel in the Project has been improved with a structure pursuant to this Development Agreement for which the CITY has issued a Certificate of Occupancy, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated with respect to such lot or parcel. While Parties intend for such termination to be effective without further documentation, the CITY agrees to execute such documentation as a Title Company shall reasonably require to evidence such termination t the public record. J. Time Time is of the essence in this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition of this Development Agreement. K. Waiver The failure of any of the Parties at any time to seek redress for any violation of this Development Agreement or any applicable law or regulation or to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition shall not prevent any subsequent act or omission of the same or similar nature which would have originally constituted a breach of or default under this Development Agreement from having all the force and effect of an original breach or default, and such subsequent act or omission may be proceeded against to the fullest extent provided by this Development Agreement. No provision of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by any of the Parties. Development Agreement 20 Richland Communities, Inc. L. Partial Invalidity if any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Development Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. M, Notices All notices between the CITY and Property Owners and any transferee under this Development Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, mail or facsimile. Notice by personal delivery or facsimile shall be deemed effective upon delivery of such notice to the party for which it is intended at the address set forth below (or, in the case of a transferee in a written notice to the CITY). Notice by mail shall be deemed effective upon receipt or rejection of the addressee. The Parties' current address are as follows: To CITY: Mr. Jack Lam, AICP City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 With Copies to: Mr. James Markman City Attorney Richards, Watson, & Gershon One Civic Center Circle Brea CA 92821 To Property Owners: Mr. John Schafer Hill Country S.A. Ltd./Richland Tracy, Ltd. 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach CA 92660~1403 With Copies to: Either Parties may change its mailing address or the person to whom notices are to be sent at any time by giving wdtten notice of such change to the other Parties in the manner provided above. N. Indemnification Property Owners hereby agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY and its CounciJ members, representatives, agents, officers, attorneys, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Development Agreement, the Land Use Entitlements, or both. Development Agreement 21 Richland Communities, Inc. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Development Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RICHLAND TRACY, Ltd. a Florida limited partnership By: Richland Ventures Inc., a Florida Corporation, its general partner By: By: Mayor Name/Title Date: Date: ATTESTED TO: HILL COUNTRY, S.A. Ltd., a Texas limited partnership By: Richland Stone Oak, Inc. a Texas Corporation, its general partner By: City Clerk Name (Print): Date: Title: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City A~orney Date: Attorney's for Hill Country S.A., Ltd. Attorneys for Richland Tracy, Ltd. Development Agreement 22 Richland Communities, Inc. EXHIBIT "A" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 LEGAL DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL NO. 1 (225-083-01) THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 , AND THE WEST ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, ALL IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL NO. 2 (225-083-13) THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHVVEST ¼ OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. PARCEL NO. 3 (225-083-12) THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LANDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERALS, MINERAL INTEREST, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON, PROCESS OR USE ANY PORTION OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE, AS RESERVED TO RODERICK STEVENSON, ET AL, BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11, 1981, INSTRUMENT NO. 81-202051, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL NO. 4 (225-083-15) THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, LYING WEST OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH % OF NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89010'42'' EAST, 356.99 FEET, FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH ~ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ AND SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 15°37'04' EAST, 476.71 FEET; THENCE BY A 1000 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A DISTANCE OF 213.30 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ AND POINT BEING NORTH 89010'35" EAST, 563.40 FEET, FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE. PARCEL NO. 5 (225-083-16) THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT, LYING EAST OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST %, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89010'42" EAST, 356.99 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, AND SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 15°37'04" EAST, 476.41 FEET; THENCE BY A 1000-FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A DISTANCE OF 213.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89°10'35" EAST, 563.40 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE. EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ~ INTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND/OR OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN AND UNDER SAID LAND BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE THEREOF, BUT WITHOUT ANY RIGHTS TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND OR TO THE TOP 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE THEREOF.. PARCEL NO. 6 THE SOUTHERLY 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH ~ OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EAST 20 FEET. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 8, 1951, IN BOOK 2730, PAGE 415, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. · PARCEL NO. 7 THE NORTH % OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, NOVEMBER 13, 1881, AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMEN'~. APN: 0225-O83-01-0-000 AND 0225-083-12-0-000 AND 0225-083-13-0-000 AND 0225-083-15-0-000 AND 0225-083-20-0-000 AND 0225-083-16-0-000 AND 02:)5-083-24-0-000. PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION: LICENSE EXPIRES 6-30-2004 BOU N DARY MAP: s~c~=.c~. NWl/4 PARCEL 6 PARCEL 7 Am 22.,~m~.24 ~ 22~20 NOT A PART PARCEL 3 NE1/4 SW 1/4 APN ~12 PARCEL 5 ~ ~ PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 APN 225-083-'13 ~ ~ Wl/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 J?=i ~ SWt/4 .... SE1/4 SE114 SW1/4 APfl 225-083-;4 (NOT A PART) 44'~ LLOYD W. MICHAg. W^IER ~EATMENT PLANT _EASEMENT NOTES: DEVELOPMEN' AGREEMENT EXHIBI~ TRACT NO. 1607: PROJEC EXHIBIT "B" S,T DEVELOPMEN'I AGREEMENT EXHIBrl TRACT NO. 16075 TENTATIVI TRACT MA! EXHIBIT NO. I LOT SUMMARY -'NORTH PHABE' (SQU~ FEE1 LOT SUMMARY "SOUTH pHASE" (8QUAR~ DEVELOPMEN'~ AOREEMENT EXHIBI~ TRACT NO. t607: TENTATIVI T~l' MAI EXHIBIT NO. 2 $¢/----~---~-~'~ LOT SUMMARY 'NoIrrH PHASE' (SqUA,qE FE~T) LOT SUMWY 'IOU'TH ~ (~QUANE FEET) ~ . :~ · : ' "~" AGREEMENT ...... EXHIBr - - - T~CT NO. 1607: ~ TENTATI~ EXHIBIT NO. 3 8~----~-~-) LOT _~IIMM&Ry '"NOI{T~{ ~ (SQUARE ~ ~ m L~ ~mM~ ~ ~ (~U~ F~ "= ~ : = :~_ ~. DEVELOPMEN1 "- AGREEMENT EXHIBI1 . :.,. : :~ T~CT NO. t607~ EXHIBIT NO. 4 D~ELOPMEN'I AGREEMENT EXHIBrl TRACT NO. '1607; CONCEPTUAL GRADIN( PLAN INDEX MAI EXHIBIT NO. 5 DEVELOPMEN1 AGREEMENT EXHIBI'I TRACT NO. '!607: CONCEPTUAl GRADING PLAI~ EXHIBIT NO. 6 ~,.6' s~,~'~; ~~'- DEVELOPMEN'! AGREEMENT EXHIBr TRACT NO. 1607', CONCEPTUAl GI~DING ~l~l EXHIBIT NO. 7 ~ ~& ..__s_~_~.~ ~LOPM~' AGREEMENT EXHIBF T~CT NO. CONCE~UA~ G~DING EXHIBIT NO. 8 DEVELOPMEN AGREEMENT EXHIBI TRACT NO. '1607 CONCEPTU,~ GRADING PLA EXHIBIT NO. 9 DEVELOPMEN"I AOREEMENT EXHIBI'~ TRACT NO. t607: CONCEPTUAl GRADING PLAI EXHIBIT NO. 10 :~-..~Z'--_----~::-- AGREEMENT EXHIBr TRACT NO. 1607 CONCEPTUA GRADING PLA EXHIBIT NO. 11 /./~ ___~__~.~ :~'=~'~"~ '-"'- DEVELOPMEN' AOREEMENT EXHIBI' TRACT NO. t607: CONCEPTUA ORADINO Pl..Al EXHIBIT HO. 12 ~/~/ .._.=s_~_~ DEVELOPMEN' AGREEMENT EXHIBI' TRACT NO. t607: CONCEFI'UAI GRADING PLAI EXHIBIT NO. 13 DEVELOPMEN1 AGREEMENT EXHIBI1 TRACT NO. t607~ CONCEI~I'UAI EXHIBIT NO. 14 ~/~.~GRADINGsi~em.~.PI-A~ ." ..... SECTION 'A.-A' SEC'tlON 'B-B' -' SECTIONS SECTION 'D-D' ................... ~c:::.:-- ..................: ..... . ..... -'-'-'-L ....... SECTION SECTION INDEX MAP DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT TRACT NO. 16072 GRADING SECTIONS EXHIBIT NO 16 Sheet 16 of t7 ~ - DEVELOPMEN1 l, ~ IN~'l~ ~ AGREEMENT EXHIBI1 ~~-- T~CT NO. 1607; s~ ~-~ G~DIN~ '--=~'--' SECTION~ EXHIBIT NO. 17 -- ~EE E~IIBIT ,~:. ,~ FOR EAST AVENUI SECTION TO EXISTING ~': IMPROVEMENTS I -- SEE EX]'IIBIT ,- NO. ~0 FOR WILSON AVENUE SECTION DEVELOPMEN'I AGREEMENT EXHIBrl TRACT NO. 1607~ CIRCULATIO! EXHIBIT NO. 18 IMPROVEMENT," sh~T~"~ /-/o7----.-------- ~ 47'(PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS) ~ ": -~: ~- ~- ' ~ :_' . 05 10.5' 14' 2' f ~ SLOPE E~iST. TRACT --' -: '" 1/4,1, BOUNDARY ~ ' L~ '~' " EAST AVENUE (NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE) ~.OPE 1~':.1' -- .: - ' ' EAST AVENUE (SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE TO SUMMIT AVENUE) N.T~. (II~,PROVB'~J~ITS ~ OI'I'CONDi'T10~ OF APPROVAL' FOR T.T. 16113) DEVELOPMEN' AGREEMENT EXHIBr TRACT NO.' 1607: TYPICAL STREE SECTION EXHIBIT NO. 19 WILSON AVENUE (24TH STREET) rt DLY ETIWANDA AVENUE DEVELOPMEN'I AGREEMENT EXHIBI1 TRACT NO. 1607~ TYPICAL STREE'I SECTION~ EXHIBIT NO. 20 z/~, .... s_.G~.~ TABLE 6-2 PROJECT FAIR SHARE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION I 2020 PROJECT " WITH TOTAL % OF PROJF,CT TOTAL EXISTING~ PROJECT PROJECT NEW NEW COST TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC SHARE ~NTERSECT[ON!SEGMENT COS~ TRAFFIC TRAFFIC iwanda Ave. - West (hiS} at-- '" ' "'"' · Wilson A~ $120 000 319 1,492 14~2 1 083 13.1% $15,734 Eliwanca Ave - F. am (NS} at: 13.8% $16,556 · Wilson Ave. (EW} $120,000 291 1,450 15~ 1,159 · Summit Ave. (_=W) $120,000 928 1,~83 112 1,055 10.6% $12,739 99.._...~5 11.0% $33,850 · H~ hlandAve. EW · $309,000 1,214 2,209 10~9 asr Avs. (NS) et: 12.6% $15,172 .... $120.000 0 1,305 165 1,305 · W son Ave. ,,:W; ~738,000 51{~ 1,656 106 1 146 9.2% $58,262 =====~== ~ ~ 5162,324 · SummiIAve. EW $1,527.00(~ DEVELOPMEN" AGREEMENT EXHIBI" TRACT NO. t607: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIOI COST ESTIMATE: EXHIBIT NO. 21 SITE l.__=~.~=-_-_=-_~ ......... ~, .......... ~ / .~ ~ engineering AGREEMENT EXHIBIq TRACT NO. '1607~ REGIONAL TRANSPORTATmOI~ IMPROVEMENT,~ EXHIBIT NO. 22 z../// .... s~_?~ .1Mr1, DETENTION BASIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT TRACT NO. 16072 INTERIM DETENTION BASINI TH E C I T Y OF ~ANCHO C~CA~ONGA StaffRe rt DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed Annexation of approximately 100 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-28 and 29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land and the proposed modification of the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood of the Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - The proposed subdivision of 63.5 acres into 123 lots for single-family development, within the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753; GPA DRC2003-00749; ENSPA DRC2003-00750; TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 June 16, 2004 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226- 081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions in the order presented: A. Adopt the Resolution certifying the Final EIR for SUB'I-r16324, Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 and Annexation DRC2003-00865 B. Adopt the Resolution to initiate proceedings for the annexation of approximately 100 acres of land generally located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection of Colonbero Road; C. Adopt the Resolution allowing a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 63.5 acres of land; D. Adopt the Ordinance allowing an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan changing the district designation for 63.5 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre); E. Deny the Appeal to the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16324, as submitted byCraig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated May 19, 2004; F. Adopt the Ordinance to allow the City to enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00751, a Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Henderson Creek Properties, LLC., for the purpose of developing an approximate 65.3-acre site with up to 123 residential lots. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A. Project Summary The proposed project is located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road. Henderson Creek Properties is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres into 125 lots, including 123 single-family lots and two open space lots. The remaining 25.1 acres are broken down as follows: Flood Control (9.9 acres); Utility Corridor CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753; GPA .DRC2003-00749; ENSPA DRC2003-00750; TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 June 16, 2004 Page 3 (10.0 acres); and Open Space (5.2 acres). The current designations on the 19.9 acre portion is Flood Control and Utility Corridor and no changes are proposed as part of the project. The 5.2 acre area located between Henderson Creek and the Utility Corridor is currently designated as Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and would carry an Open Space designation upon approval of the proposed project. The project would be developed at a density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed 123 residential lots would range in size from 14,025 square feet to 45,755 square feet, with two lettered lots totaling 28,103 square feet for landscaped open space. The interior streets have been designed as public streets, with a 36-foot paved width (curb to curb). Sidewalks would be provided along all of the interior streets. Property owners north of the site would continue to have two points of access to their properties, one at the northeast corner of the site, which would connect to the existing access road leading north, and the second at the northwest corner of the site, which would connect to an existing dirt road. All utilities are available at Wardman Bullock Road and Colonbero Road and can be extended into the project site. The on-site drainage would be directed southerly to the entry road and proceed to catch basins located on both the north and south sides of "A" Street. Additional catch basins would also be provided near the southwest corner of both the east and west sides of "D" Street. The 36-inch to 48-inch storm drain would be connected to an existing 66-inch storm drain located at the intersection of Wardman Bullock Road and San Segundo Road. B. Summary of Planning Commission Action Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested a revision to the Mitigation Measures to clarify that the property owner could transfer mitigation lands to any qualified conservation entity approved by the City or to the County of San Bernardino special Districts. Pam Steele of Hogle-lreland, Inc. gave a brief overview of the history of the project and said it initially began processing in the County with 126 single-family lots but they began working with City staff to annex. Revisions were made to the project to address specific issues including reducing the number of lots to 123, adding 28 equestrian lots and a trail system, and by making revisions to the circulation pattern. She indicated that a community meeting was held with residents of Sheridan Estates (east of Wardman Bullock Road) and with property owners north of the property site. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council, reiterated his objection to the unavailability of the Development Agreement, and potential amendments to the Development Agreement by staff. He indicated his client was concerned about growth-inducing impacts Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, observed that some of the comments made by Mr. Sherman were similar to comments made on the prior project (Richland-Pinehurst SUBTT16072). With respect to the Development Agreement, he noted that the Brown Act requires that when material is transmitted to the Commission, it becomes a public record and can be distributed to the public. He indicated that there is no legal requirement to distribute the '//5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753; GPA DRC2003o00749; ENSPA DRC2003-00750; TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 June 16, 2004 Page 4 agreement before then when it is in a draft stage and in fact could mislead the public in terms of what is being recommended or contained in the Development Agreement. Regarding comments on the legislative process necessary to change the Development Agreement, Mr. Ennis stated that a Development Agreement is approved by Ordinance, which is a legislative act of the City. He said there is then a specified process to amend the Development Agreement, including having the Planning Commission review and recommend action to the City Council before the Council adopts another ordinance after a public hearing. He indicated that type of process is distinguishable from where terms and requirements of the Development Agreement need clarification. He explained that as the project is being implemented and developed, there are situations that are not controlled, restricted, or prescribed by the Development Agreement, but the parties want to be clear about how they are addressing a particular issue. He indicated that clarification of issues could be addressed through an implementing agreement. He stated that even though the reference to the implementing agreements is under the section entitled "Amendment of Agreement," the implementing agreements do not provide for an amendment to the Agreement. The tentative tract map, associated development agreement, and annexation for the project were reviewed and approved at the May 12, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. C. Project Analysis General Plan Amendment - The proposed project includes a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), for approximately 65.3 acres of land generally located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection of Colonbero Road. Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment - The proposed project includes an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to change the district designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 63.5 acres of land generally located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection of Colonbero Road. Tentative Tract Map 16234 - Henderson Creek Properties is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres into 125 lots, including 123 single-family lots and two open space lots. The remaining 25.1 acres are broken down as follows: Flood Control (9.9 acres); Utility Corridor (10.0 acres) and Open Space (5.2 acres). The current designations on the 19.9-acre portion are Flood Control and Utility Corridor and no changes are proposed as part of the project. The 5.2-acre area located between Henderson Creek and the Utility Corridor is currently designated as Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), and would carry an Open Space designation upon approval of the proposed project. The project would be developed at a density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed 123 residential lots would range in size from 14,025 square feet to 45,755 square feet, with two lettered lots totaling 28,103 square feet for landscaped open space. An Appeal to the Planning Commission approval of the Tentative Tract Map was submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attorney for Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753; GPA DRC2003-00749; ENSPA DRC2003-00750; TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 June 16, 2004 Page 5 Wildlife, Inc., dated May 19, 2004. The appeal letter was based on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report. A response to this matter is included in Exhibit "E" - Responses to Correspondence The Development Aqreement: The Development Agreement has been prepared in order to address project-specific improvements, fees, and other development standards and expectations for the benefit of the Property Owner and the City. The Development Agreement allows the applicant to identify all improvements and fees that will be required by the City upon Annexation. The Development Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney as to form and content. The basic points of the Development Agreement are summarized below: 1. Term of the Agreement: 10 years 2. The property owner shall design Wardman Bullock Road and Colonbero Road in accordance with Etiwanda North Specific Plan "Collector Street" standards and "Local Street" standards, respectively. 3. The property owner shall construct Wardman Bullock Road at its ultimate half section width of 66 feet, and install curb and gutter, A.C. pavement and 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights along the west side of the street from Wilson Avenue to the south property boundary. 4. Improvements to the Henderson Creek levee shall be completed under the direction of the San Bemardino County Flood Control District, prior to occupancy of homes in the affected areas. 5. Fees: · The Property Owner shall pay a sum totaling $95,000.00 (based upon $1,000.00 per unit) for equestrian mitigation purposes; · The Property Owner shall pay a sum totaling $811,800.00 ($6,600.00 per unit) for park purposes; and · In exchange for the construction of the landscaping improvements on the east side of Wardman Bullock Road, adjacent to the Henderson Creek Channel improvements, the property owner is not required to pay City Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. 6. The project shall be designed in accordance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Development standards. 7. Open Space Transfer Plan: The Open Space Transfer Plan establishes a requirement that the property owner transfer approximately 54 acres of land to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1, for permanent open space and CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753; GPA DRC2003-00749; ENSPA DRC2003-00750; TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 June 16, 2004 Page 6 habitat preservation, along with funding (in an amount to be determined by County of San Bernardino Special Districts), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. This shall be accomplished prior to recording of the Final Tract Map. The property owner may, subject to City Planner review and approval, select another appropriate non-profit entity to transfer said permanent open space. 8. The Development Agreement establishes timeframes for completion of key infrastructure and community amenities, including the following: a) All perimeter landscaping shall be completed prior to release of occupancy of the 75th dwelling, and b) All Master Plan storm drain improvements shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy for the first dwelling in the project. The Annexation: The proposed annexation would include a 90.4 acre site and an adjacent 10.0 acre site for a total of 100.4 acres, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road. The 10.0 acre site is located north of the project site and is currently used for utility easement and flood control purposes, and is not part of the tentative tract map, and currently has no development proposed. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the project. Environmental Impact Repor[: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address all actions that are anticipated for the review and approval of the project, including the actions by the Planning Commission and City Council and the Local Agency Formation Commission as well as actions that may be required by San Bemardino County Flood Control District, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game, as applicable. Based on the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study that were prepared for the project, the following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed within the EIR: Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, and Biological Resources. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures are provided in Table 2-1 of the EIR. The EIR concluded that upon implementation of project design features and all recommended mitigation measures, short-term impacts to air quality would remain significant. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with existing and proposed development within the community and surrounding area would be significant for the following issues: Air Quality (short-term and long-term air emissions), Noise (short-term impacts related to construction and long-term impacts related to traffic), and Public Services (school impacts). Based on these findings, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081. The statement is attached to the Resolution of Approval. CORRESPONDENCE: Additional comments were sent via e-mail to the Planning Department, after the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2004 was called to order (after 7 p.m.). CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753; GPA DRC2003-00749; ENSPA DRC2003-00750; TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 June 16, 2004 Page 7 Therefore the information is not part of the public record for the purposes of the Planning Commission hearing. Although the documents indicate they were either faxed or hand delivered, they were not, and because of its large size, 71 pages, it was conveyed under separate cover. Responses to these comments are attached as Exhibit "E." CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council to certify the Final EIR for SUBTT16324, Development Agreement DRC2003-00751, and Annexation DRC2003-00865; to initiate proceedings for the annexation of 160 acres of land generally located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue; to allow the General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 63.5 acres of land; to approve the amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to change the district designation for 63.5 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre); deny the appeal thus upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16324; and to adopt and Ordinance to allow the City to enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:LH\Is Attachments: Exhibit"A" Regional Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Minutes dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "E" Responses to Correspondence Exhibit "F" CEQA Findings dated April 2004 Exhibit "G" Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Exhibit "H" Final Conditions Resolution Certifying the Final EIR Resolution to Initiate Proceedings for Annexation DRC2003-00753 Resolution Approving a General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 Ordinance Approving Amendment to Etiwanda North Specific Plan DRC2003-00750 Resolution Approving Tentative Tract SUB'I-I'16324 Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 DECLIFF ROAD I~O~ES~SS.~C; .o~) . Project Site HENDERSON CREEK H RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (3~T I~-TR ~']~1~1~ T,~(~. VICI N ItY M A~ TH CITY OF ANCHO C~CAM ONGA DATE: May 12, 2004 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed Annexation of approximately 100 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-28 and 29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very-Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land and the proposed modification of the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood of the Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - The proposed subdivision of 63.5 acres into 123 lots for single-family development, within the Very-Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00753, DRC2003-00749, DRC2003-00750, SUB-FI-16324- HENDERSON CREEK May12, 2004 Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: Combined net density of the project is 1.9 dwelling units per acre; overall gross density of the project is 1.3 dwelling units per acre. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq - (Etiwanda North Specific Plan unless otherwise noted.): Project Site: - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) - The project site is vacant with the exception of the Henderson Creek Channel, which transverses through the northeast comer of the site. North Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential District - Overhead power transmission lines and associated easements belonging to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Edison ($CE), and vacant land are located north of the site. North of the easements are a few scattered single-family residences near the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. South - Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) - The land area south of the site is presently vacant and is primarily within San Bemardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) and SCE easements or ownership. Immediately southwest of the site is the SBCFCD Preservation Area. East Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) - The City's corporate boundary and Sheridan Estates (Tract 13564) are located east of the site. The Henderson Creek Channel transverses through the northeast corner of the project site. Land uses east of the site include Henderson Creek, Wardman Bullock Road, and Single-Family Residential. West Conservation and Flood Control/Utility Corridor - Land uses include Etiwanda Creek and SBCFCD conservation lands. C. General Plan Desi.qnations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre). North Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential. South - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), currently the site of a proposed 300 acre annexation with a General Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential to Low Residential for approximately 80 acres of land, and from Very Low Residential to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land. East Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), currently the site of the existing Sheridan Estates (Tract 13564). West Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), currently the site of proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749 - Tracy Development Company that includes a General Plan Amendment from Very Low to Low Residential. D. Site Characteristics: The Henderson Creek Channel, trending northwest to southeast, transects the northeast corner of the project site. The Henderson Creek Channel is an improved open, concrete-lined channel south of Colonbero Road; however, north of Colonbero Road, the channel is protected by improved levees, which direct the natural stream flow from the hillside into the improved channel through a concrete headwall at PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00753, DRC2003-00749, DRC2003-00750, SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK May12,2004 Page 3 Colonbero Road. The complete facility is designed to accommodate a 100-year storm event. The project site is located on the Etiwanda Fan, and until the recent Grand Prix fire, which occurred October 24 and 25, 2003, supported four plant communities that included Upland sage scrub, fiat-top buckwheat scrub, disturbed annual grasslands dominated by deerweed, and disturbed annual grassland. The project site is vacant and is surrounded by undeveloped land, with the exception of the area to the immediate east, which includes the improved Henderson Creek Channel and single-family residential development. The southern and western boundaries of the site are adjacent to SBCFCB Preservation Areas. SBCFCD established these areas as mitigation as a result of improvements to Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks. Prior to recent fire events, Upland sage scrub was the dominant vegetation type on-site. Annual grasslands could be found on level terrain in portions along the eastern property boundary. Focused protocol surveys for the federally listed endangered San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and the federally listed threatened California gnatcatcher were conducted on the project site. ANALYSIS: A. Tentative Tract Map: The proposed project is located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road. Henderson Creek Properties is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres into 125 lots, including 123 single-family lots and two open space lots. The remaining 25.1 acres are broken down as follows: Flood Control (9.9 acres); Utility Corridor (10.0 acres); and Open Space (5.2 acres). The current designations on the 19.9 acre portion is Flood Control and Utility Corridor and no changes are proposed as part of the project. The 5.2 acre area located between Henderson Creek and the Utility Corddor is currently designated as Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre), and would carry an Open Space designat!on upon approval of the proposed project. The project would be developed at a density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. The PrOPosed 123 residential lots would range in size from 14,025 square feet to 45,755 square feet, with two lettered lots totaling 28,103 square feet for landscaped open space. The interior streets have been designed as public streets, with a 36-foot paved width (curb to curb). Sidewalks would be provided along all of the interior streets. Property owners north of the site would continue to have access to their properties through two locations, one at the northeast comer of the site, which would connect to the existing access road leading north, and the second at the northwest corner of the site, which would connect to an existing dirt road. All utilities are available at Wardman Bullock Road and Colonbero Road and can be extended into the project site. The on-site drainage would be directed southerly to the entry road and proceed to catch basins located on both the north and south sides of "A" Street. Additional catch basins would also be provided near the southwest corner of both the east and west sides of "D" Street. The 36-inch to 48-inch storm drain would be connected to an existing 66-inch storm drain located at the intersection of Wardman Bullock Road and San Segundo Road. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00753, DRC2003-00749, DRC2003-00750, SUBTT16324- HENDERSON CREEK May12, 2004 Page 4 Public improvements associated with the project include provision of curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project's interior streets. The developer must complete the westerly portion of Wardman Bullock Road using "Collector Street" standards from Wilson Avenue to the south project boundary. The Site Plan was designed to terminate Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection of Colonbero Road to allow project development. Access to properties north of the project site would be provided by a paved roadway at the northeast corner of the site (between Lots 26 and 119), which would connect to the existing dirt road. A Fuel Modification Plan has also been prepared to assist in developing site-specific precautions for fire protection. The purpose of the Fuel Modification Plan is to provide a wildland fire hazards assessment, a long-term perimeter vegetative fuel modification and maintenance plan, and a long-term "firewise landscaping" and fuel modification plan for the landscaped area immediately around all structures. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McPhail, Fletcher, Fong) reviewed the project on January 20, 2004. The Committee discussed access for pdvate property owners north of the site. Upon review of the project, access was shown along both the east and west sides of the site, and was coordinated with the property owners noah of the site, as well as with County Planning and Engineering Land Development staff. Additional discussion of the proposed subdivision included incorporating a row of equestrian-sized lots along the northern boundary of the project site. Access to the rear of the lots is served by the standard 15-foot private equestrian easement that extends from Colonbero Road along the noah boundary to the proposed public street near the west boundary. The four lots along "1" Street are also proposed as equestrian-sized lots. The Committee recommended the Trails Advisory Committee review the project and provide any further comments for consideration in the completion of the project review. C. Technical Review and Gradinq Committees: The Technical Review and Grading Committees reviewed the proposed project on January 20, 2004. The applicant received a tentative list of all City standard codes and requirements that will be applicable to the project, including the street improvements required to accommodate the future traffic generated by the development. All such City Standards and requirements are attached to the Resolution as Standard Conditions of Approval. During review of the project, the Grading Committee recommended the tentative tract map be revised to: 1) Show details of the extension of "E" Street; 2) Include a new section (Section E-E) along the noah project boundary at the Henderson Creek improvements; 3) Revise Section B-B to show all improvements in the equestrian trail including drainage, swale, and walls/fences, and 4) show location of horse corrals on noah lots and include a 70-foot radius buffer area for lots with corrals. The Grading Committee also recommended coordinating with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) to allow slopes along the south project boundary to occur on SBCFCD property. The Technical Review Committee recommended an alternative Master Plan exhibit be provided that depicts access to the south and include a Master Plan of the adjacent property. The Committee also recommended revision of the tentative tract map to show- locations (including ownership) of all existing utility lines, and easements that traverse the property on any proposed relocation. A Title Report was also requested to identify the disposition of all easements across the property. All appropriate issues have been revised PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00753, DRC2003-00749, DRC2003-00750, SUB'F['16324- HENDERSON CREEK May12, 2004 Page 5 in the tentative tract map and/or added to the Resolution of Approval recommending approval of the tentative tract map. D. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the project on January 14, 2004. The Committee paid particular attention to the development of the equestrian-sized lots and recommended the lots be graded in a manner that would allow a horse corral to be located at the same level as the proposed local equestrian trail. The Committee recommended that access be from the local equestrian trails to the nearby Regional trails located within the power corridor north of the site, and/or along the levee adjacent to Henderson Creek, and that appropriate drainage be provided along the trails to minimize erosion. Further recommendations included: 1) The trail width be increased to 20 feet for the first 18 feet from the street side property line; 2) All corner tums receive a corner-cutoff to allow through traffic, and 3) Provide drive approaches at local street entries and include gates and step-thru posts. E. Development Aqreement: The Development Agreement has been prepared in order to address project-specific improvements, fees, and other development standards and expectations for the benefit of the property owner and the City. The Development Agreement allows the applicant to identify all improvements and fees that will be required by the City upon annexation. The Development Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney as to form and content. The basic points of the Development Agreement are summarized below: 1. Term of the Agreement: 10 years 2. The property owner shall design Wardman Bullock Road and Colonbero Road in accordance with Etiwanda North Specific Plan "Collector Street" standards and "Local Street" standards, respectively. 3. The property owner shall construct Wardman Bullock Road at its ultimate half section width of 66 feet, and install curb and gutter, A.C. pavement and 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights along the west side of the street from Wilson Avenue to the south property boundary. 4. improvements to the Henderson Creek levee shall be completed under the direction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, prior to occupancy of homes in the affected areas. 5. Fees: · The Property Owner shall pay a sum totaling $95,000.00 (based upon $1,000.00 per unit) for equestrian mitigation purposes; · The Property Owner shall pay a sum totaling $811,800.00 ($6,600.00 per unit) for park purposes; and · In exchange for the construction of the landscaping improvements on the east side of Wardman Bullock Road, adjacent to the Henderson Creek Channel PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00753, DRC2003-00749, DRC2003-00750, SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK May12,2004 Page6 improvements, the property owner is not required to pay City Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. 6. The project shall be designed in accordance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Development standards. 7. Open Space Transfer Plan: The Open Space Transfer Plan establishes a requirement that the property owner transfer approximately 54 acres of land to the County of San Bemardino Special Districts OS-1, for permanent open space and habitat preservation, along with funding (in an amount to be determined by County of San Bemardino Special Districts), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. This shall be accomplished pdor to recording of the Final Tract Map. The property owner may, subject to City Planner review and approval, select another appropriate non-profit entity to transfer said permanent open space. 8. The Development Agreement establishes timeframes for completion of key infrastructure and community amenities, including the following: a) All perimeter landscaping shall be completed prior to release of occupancy of the 75th dwelling, and b) All Master Plan storm drain improvements shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy for the first dwelling in the project. F. Annexation: The proposed annexation would include a 90.4 acre site and an adjacent 10.0 acre site for a total of 100.4 acres, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road. The 10.0 acre site is located north of the project site and is currently used for utility easement and flood control purposes, and is not part of the tentative tract map, and currently has no development proposed. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the project. G. Environmental Impact Report: An Environmental impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address all actions that are anticipated for the review and approval of the project, including the actions by the Planning Commission and City Council and the Local Agency Formation Commission as well as actions that may be required by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game, as applicable. Based on the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study that were prepared for the project, the following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed within the EIR: Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, and Biological Resources. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures are provided in Table 2-1 of the EIR. The EIR concluded that upon implementation of project design features and all recommended mitigation measures, short-term impacts to air quality would remain significant. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with existing and proposed development within the community and surrounding area would be significant for PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-00753, DRC2003-00749, DRC2003-00750, SUBTT16324- HENDERSON CREEK May12, 2004 Page 7 the following issues: Air Quality (shod-term and long-term air emissions), Noise (short- term impacts related to construction and long-term impacts related to traffic), and Public Services (school impacts). Based on these findings, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081. The statement is attached to the Resolution of Approval. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily .Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and notices were sent to all individuals and organizations that have commented on the EIR during the public comment period. In addition, all individuals that provided comments during the comment period have received copies of the "Response to Comments" at least ten days prior to this hearing, as required by CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions in the order presented: A. Recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan and Efiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments B. Certify the EIR for the purposes of tentative tract map approval and recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR for all other applications; and C. Approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324; and D. Recommend that the City Council enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 associated with the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:LH/jm Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B"- Site Plan Exhibit "C"- Final Environmental Impact Report (under separate cover) Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SU BTT16324 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 HENDERSON CREEK RANCHO CUCAMONgA, CALIFORNIA VICINITY MA~" T'rM '/6324 - SITE PLAN ~ COORIDOR- VACANT ~:~ $.B. COUNTY- RS-20U FLOOD CONTROL - VACANT ~,.~ .,. ,. ~7. S.B. COUNTY- PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER provided to the Spidt of the Sage. He observed that Mr. Sherman indicated the Development Agreement was not available for review prior to the time it became available to the Commission. Ennis said the Development Agreement continued to evolve up until the time it was distribution in the agenda packet as there were changes made last week and a change was ,~n suggested this evening. He observed that under law, the City is not required to disclose it ur :is a document ready to be distributed to the Planning Commission. He said it is a negotiated and things are changing and it would be misleading to distribute a document that is not of being ready for distribution to the Commission. With respect to the Mr. Sherman, he said that they could be submitted but he noted that the EIR three alternatives to the project, a no project alternative, and an alternative that would preserve more of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. He the EIR and the Findings in the Resolution go into why those particular alternatives do no1 the project or are not feasible. With respect to ti the assertion that it provides an opportunity for staff to amend the Agreeme he stated the DeveLopment Agreement provides for the opportunity for staff developer to enter into implementing agreements, but those agreements must with the Development Agreement. He said the staff is not authorized nconsistent with or modify or undercut the basic provisions of the Development He stated that Mr. Sherman noted there was not a specific reference for exh he Development Agreement. He said the Agreement will go up to the City Council and when il makes its decision, the exhibits that relate to the City Council decision will be and they will be clearly specified at the Council level. He observed that Mr. Sherman corn about piecemeal projects and he noted that in the EIR for this project and for another ~genda, there is a discussion about the other projects occurring in the vicinity so as to ¢ ;umulative impacts of this project as well as the other projects so there is an ement and an interrelationship between all of the projects in terms of environmental im Vice Chairman McNiel stated he was the Commission's ability to make a decision. Commission Stewart indicated City Attorney answered her questions and she also was comfortable with the ' to make a decision. Motion: Moved ~ Fletcher, to certify the EIR with respect to Tentative Tract Map SUB'C]'16072; Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; and recommend that the City Council certify the respect to Council actions, and approve Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 Annexation DRC2002-00865; all as amended by staff. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: FI McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: - carded I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment to change from Very-Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, Development Agreement DRC2003-00751, Etiwanda North ,~l Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and ~kt Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. Planning Commission Minutes ~.../~ ..-~ -7-c ~ May 12, 2004 J. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DR02003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment to change from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land and the proposed modification of the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood of the Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. K. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUB'I-r16324- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - The proposed subdivision of 63.5 acres into 123 lots for single- family development, within the Very-Low Residential District (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. L ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. NEW BUSINESS M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES - A proposed Annexation of 96.9 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-28 and 29. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He suggested the resolution for the Tentative Tract Map be revised to indicate that the effective date of the approval would be the last to occur of the following: the effective date of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, the effective date of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, the effective date of the related Development Agreement, and the date the prepedy is annexed into the City. He also suggested a change to the Mitigation Measures to clarify that the property owner could transfer mitigation lands to any qualified conservation entity approved by the City or to the County of San Bemardino Special Districts. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public headng. Para Steele, Hogle Ireland, Inc., 4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, stated that Steve Stewart of Henderson Creek, LLC and Scott Vinton of AEI-CASC Engineering were present. She gave a bdef overview of the history of the project and said it initially began processing in the County with 126 single-family lots but they began working with City staff to annex into the City about two years after starting the process. She said revisions were made to the project to address specific issues including reducing the number of lots to 123, adding 28 equestrian lots and a trail system, and revisions to the circulation pattern. She stated they held a community meeting with residents of the community (Sheridan Estates) and a separate meeting with the property owners to the north. She felt the project works well and addresses all of the issues raised. She stated they reviewed the Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 12, 2004 conditions of approval and the corrections suggested by staff this evening and they concur with the conditions. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spidt of the Sage Council, 1901 First Avenue, #335, San Diego, stated they received a copy of this Draft and Final EIR. He said the availability of the Development Agreement continues to be an issue to his client, as noted in comments regarding the previous project. He felt it is important that staff reports be available to the public because the public does not know what the motion is when the Commission takes action at the meeting. He again suggested that staff reports be available on the Intemet and suggested they could even be forwarded to the Commissioners via Intemet. He reiterated his objection to allowing amendments to the Development Agreement by staff. He acknowleged the City Attorney addressed that issue earlier, but said he disagreed and felt that the Government Code does not allow such clarifications or amendments because that ability is not spelled out in the Code. He remarked he had not seen the staff report, but he believed the Commission was only taking action to certify the EIR with respect to the Tentative Tract but felt it was not clear in the agenda. He asked for clarification to know if the final EIR was being certified and if they need to appeal that decision to the City Council. He noted that the Development Agreement states that it will supersede and be controlling over any conflict with the Project Entitlements. He said it shows the hierarchy of the Development Agreement and the project must be static. He indicated his client was concerned about growth-inducing impacts from the project and asked for clarification of road improvements that may open up development to the north; i.e., the ultimate width of the roads and how they are being developed as part of this project. He again asked for clarification that the Development Agreement would not apply to any other properties the developer may acquire. He said that if the City is to cooperate in assisting the developer to obtain approvals from other agencies, it should list all other agencies. Mr. Sherman believed this project involves a General Plan Amendment and an Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment and stated there are a number of other amendments also coming before the Planning Commission and Council and said his client contends the development is piecemealed because amendments are being made as necessary to fit the projects. He stated he recently received a Negative Declaration with regards to a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment and he did not feel a Negative Declaration would be appropriate since these projects require Overriding Considerations and Mitigating Measures. He said his client provided comments via email and fax on the project but he had not seen them. He acknowledged the EIR attempted to respond to the prior comments and had done a fair job in responding to those comments, but said they had remaining issues presented in the email and fax dated today. He reported they met with the developer and they have been responsive in explaining details and making helpful clarifications, tie commended the efforts of the developer and the City in getting them the information they need to be part of the process. He said his client anticipates obtaining information on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He commented his client requested the documents to compare how these projects interact with the current plan to know what the amendments are and to compare aspects. He said they have not had an opportunity to compare documents and analyze the impacts. Douglas Doepke, representing The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., 1921 Wheaton Avenue, Claremont, indicated he had nothing substantive to add to his eadier comments with regard to Richland Pinehurst except to say they stand ready to work with Henderson Creek if mitigation lands are forthcoming with this project. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public headng. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, observed that some of the comments made by Mr. Sherman were similar to comments made on the pdor project. With respect to the availability of the Development Agreement, he observed staff makes every attempt to make it available to the public once it is ready for distribution. He noted that the Brown Act requires that when matedal is transmitted to the Commission, it becomes a public record and can be distributed to the public. He remarked there is no legal requirement to distribute the agreement before then when it is in a draft Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 12, 2004 stage and in fact that could mislead the public in terms of what is being recommended or contained in the Development Agreement. Vice Chairman McNiel asked for clarification that the City Attorney was stating the information is available Thursday afternoon at the Counter and people can walk in and get it. Mr. Ennis confirmed that was correct. He said there were comments made about not having an idea of what is in the staff report and the action being taken by the Commission because the speaker did not have a copy. He said the staff reports are available Thursday afternoons prior to the meeting and they contain the staff recommendation and are very specific as to what actions are being taken and include drafts of resolutions that memorialize the actions taken by the Commission. He said to be very clear, as was announced by the Vice Chairman and Mr. Henderson, the Commission is to recommend action on the General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment for final action by the City Council. He said that if the Commission takes the staff recommendation, the Commission would certify the EIR for the purposes of taking action on the Tentative Tract Map and would approve the Tentative Tract Map. He said that would be a final action at this level unless appealed to the City Council. He stated the Commission's action with respect to the Development Agreement and Annexation would be a recommendation to the Council and the Council would take final action on those items. Regarding comments on the language in the Development Agreement regarding Amendments, he said it is common in a project of this complexity, that there are times as the project evolves over 10 years that there are questions about what was meant by certain terms, etc. and it is appropriate to memorialize the resolution of those questions and attach that memorialization to the document. He stated it is not a method by which the requirements for public hearing and formal actions for amendments are being circumvented; rather it is merely documenting how the agreement has been interpreted and implemented. He stated it is a very common provision to have the Development Agreement control in the event of any ambiguity between the Development Agreement and other approvals. He explained the Development Agreement must be consistent with the General Plan. With respect to the definitions of the property covered by the Development Agreement, he said that would be addressed before the Development Agreement is forwarded to the City Council. Vice Chairman McNiel asked for clarification regarding Mr. Sherman's comments about the legislative process necessary to change the Development Agreement. Mr. Ennis stated that a Development Agreement is approved by Ordinance, which is a legislative act of the City. He said there is then a specified process to amend the Development Agreement, including having the Planning Commission review and recommend action to the City Council before the Council adopts another ordinance after a public hearing. He said that type of process is distinguishable from where terms and requirements of the Development Agreement need clarification. He explained that as the project is being implemented and developed, there are situations that are not controlled, restricted, or prescribed by the Development Agreement, but the parties want to be clear about how they are addressing a particular issue. He said those types of things can be addressed through an implementing agreement. He indicated that even though the reference to the implementing agreements is under the section under "Amendment of Agreement," the implementing agreements do not provide for an amendment to the Agreement. Vice Chairman McNiel stated the Commission was being asked to recommend certification of the EIR and recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and the Development Agreement. He noted the Commission was also being asked to certify the EIR with respect to the Tentative Tract Map and approve the Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Fletcher stated that the first time he heard the idea to amend the General Plan to increase density he was not in favor of the proposal. He stated the project had gone through a long process of negotiations with different individuals and agencies. He commented the first time he saw Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 12, 2004 the Tract Map Site Plan, he liked the idea of a mix of lot sizes and the equestrian lots on the north side. He thought it is a good plan. Commissioner Stewart noted that even though a density increase was requested, there are actually fewer lots than what was proposed through the County because of the remainder area being Open Space, Flood Control, and Utility Corridor lots. She believed annexation projects are always very difficult for a variety of reasons and said she deeply respects the environmental issues; however, she felt it is better to have the property developed under the City's purview because it is then developed under City standards. She thought that if the property were being developed under the County's control, there would not be any equestrian lots and she wasn't sure they would be dealing with the surrounding property owners to work through access issues. She was comfortable with the development because she felt she had read enough material and studied the Development Agreement and had visited the site. Commissioner McPhail and noted the Commission was going to be able to review the design and quality of the architecture and landscaping. She thought the City could have been stuck with something less than what they wanted if the property was developed as part of the County. She observed the project had been in process for many, many months. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to certify the EIR with respect to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 and approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 and to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR with respect to Council actions, approve General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00753, all as amended by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried N. IENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND INC. - Taken with Iterr O. ENVIRONMENTAL ~,T AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES~ Taken with Items I, J, K, and L. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS p. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16145 - RANDOLPH DAVIS - An appeal of the City denial for incompleteness of a proposed subdivision of 6 lots for residential purposes .34 acres within the Very Low Residential Density (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), including and Hillside Overlay Districts, located north and south of Almond Street, west - APN: 1061-451-05. The project includes an Almond Street crossing of Thorpe Canyon. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 12, 2004 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON FINAL EIR EXHIBIT E Letter A Douglas l~oepRe, Ph. IL Secre~:ary, Tl~e Babitat Trus~ for Wil~ilife, I~C. $0 North Raymonvl Avenue, Suite 303 Pasaaena, CA 91103 May 12, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission c/o Lan3' Henderson 10500 Civic C~nmr Drive Rancho Cucamanglg CA 91730 Re: Comm~.nts for May 12. 2004 planning (~i~mmission Meetlno / Hemin~, Items G, H, I, .l, J, K, L, M. N. P & 0 Henderson Creek (Items I, J, K, L, lq), Riohland Pinehurst (Items G, H, M). and Amcndmcnts to City's Oeacral and Efi~anda North Specific Plan (Items P, 03 To the Chair and Member~ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: Thc Habitat Trust for Wildlife is a 501c3 tax exempt nonprofit land trust dedicated to "Giving Nature Sanctua~." The Habitat Trust for Wildlife (The Habitat Trust or THT) currently holds in fee title three parcels to the immed/at~ north and northeast of the North B~iwanda Habitat Preserve. Our org, niTation has previously made and continues tu makc comments to this Commission on the above matters, and has previously submiRed written comments on tha Henderson Creek l~'oject through our legal con, scl ~nd mpmsentalivc, Craig Sherman. Please consider the below in associalion to any action on thc May 12, 2004 agenda. About TIlE RABITAT TRUST FOR WILDLIli'E. INC. The Habitat Trust was created by an out of court settlemem with Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) over litigation of the Rancho Etiwanda and Rancho Etiwenda Estates developmem projects and the City of'Rancho Cucamonga (City). The three Nature Sanctuary parcels that we hold and manage are mitigation lands from the two projects. The Habitat Trust is a California nonprofit corporation and a federal 501c3 nonprofit. We are also a member of the Land. Trust Ai]ianee www. LTA.or,,. The Habitat Trust is interested and willing to accept the mitigation lands of the Henderson Creek, Richland Pinehurst and others, in fee t/fie for habitat conservation purposes with adequate funding for management. It is our understanding that tho County's Open Space District has also offered to ae~eept lhe mitigation lands and requires habitat management funds greater than what The Habitat Trust has assessed. Management funding is extremely important to The Habitat Trt~st. We are a small land trast that keeps our overhead costs to a minimum in the administration of our Nature Sanctuaries. Our greatest costs are that of consultants, independent contractors and legal representation. Through our membership and dues with the Land Trust Alliance, we receive property insurance. In add/t/om we are billed by the Coun .ty Assessor for associated ~axes. Multiply these costs by years of futm conservation~ one can see that management funding and endowments am needed. The Habitat Trust is currently requiring that management funds and/or endowments bo granted commansurato and relation to the number ofresidant/al units to be built rather than acr~ to be d,ycleped. We believe that The Habitat Trust is a best entity to select that is truly dedicated to the conservation of imperiled habitats and wildlife. Comments Pertaining to Mat~ers on the l~la¥ 12~ 2004 Agenda of the Planning Commission The l-labitat Trust appreciates the proactive steps that the developer tbr Henderson Cr~k PropoSes and its representatives, including Steve Stewart, have taken to our concerns and those made by the other involved non-profit organization, Spirit of the Sage Council. While w~ believe that many of the impacts and mitigation measures are serving to make this project a better and less-impacting one, we stand by those prior commants and continue to generally oppose development which: · Is ufili~ng, swapping, trading and/or developing County Flood Control District lands. These hinds were deemed mitigatinn and open space at~as I A-1 during prior County and Army Corps flood control projects · Do not mitigate ,'are and diminishing sage scrub habitats to a level of less than signitieant, including Riversidean/Alluvial Fan Sago Scrub Habitats I A-2 at mitigation rat/os greater than a 2:1 ratio, and closer to 5:1 rations for AFSS/'RAFFS and RUSS. · Does not adequately buffer home and other structures ~om known and I A-3 active earthquake faults. I Promotes and encourag~ eques~an uses and trail development into I A-4 areas near and adjacent to the North g. tiwanda Pre.nerve I · Change~, reduces or amends the environmental protection and open space standards set forth in the 1992 Et/wanda North Specific Plan A-5 I through reduced lot size and increased density without mitigating the impacts on the environment- water, air, traffio, habitat loss and impacts I A-5 by human disturbances and equestrians. [ Con't The Habitat Trust, by approval of this Project and Plan Amendments, is faced with greater management problems of our current and futm'e Nature Sanctuaries in the North Et/wanda area. More residential un/ts equal more people. Without City and County Ordinance~q in place to place legal penalties on trespa~.qem, shooters, off-road vehicle.% A-6 eques~ans offtrails, pets offleash and feral animals, The Habitat Trot and conservation of habitat sanctuaries are threatened by this development More ~ople aL~o consume mom water, effe~ting our Nature Sanctuaries in Etiwanda and Henderson Canyons. The City must revised the ENSP EIR and place conditions on Project approvals to address these negative knpacts. We appreciate the continued efforts made this between 0aese and other developeIs, this Commi~ion and the City overall to continue to address these issues and conc~'a.s. Please direct all communications to either the Law Offic~ of Craig Sherman (619) 702- 7892 or Leeona Klipl~tein (910) 947-5091 and (626) 676-4116. Thank you. Sincerely, S¢oretm3t, The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Ino. 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91103 CC: Steve Stewm't, Henfle~on Creek ProperlJes Susan Hod, Esq., Manett, Phelps & Phillips. LLP Letter A The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., May 12, 2004 Comment A-1 Use of open space lands deemed mitigation for County and ACOE flood control projects. Response It is not the City's intent to obtain Flood Control lands for the purpose of development of the Henderson Creek project or any other reason. The City is not purchasing or otherwise negotiating with the County to develop Flood Control lands related to this project. The Flood Control and Utility Corridor designated lands within the boundaries of the 100.4-acre project site would be located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga but would not be controlled by the City. The San Bemardino County Flood Control District would continue to maintain its facilities through the project site. The additional land is included in the annexation application because without annexation, the Flood Control land would be a County island within the City's corporate boundaries. Comment A-2 Mitigation is not adequate for habitat identified on-site. Response The project site has been surveyed and was found not to contain any listed or threatened species, and that the habitat found on-site prior to the fire, that would be disturbed by the project is not considered by the resource agencies to be important. Therefore, the replacement of the Upland sage scrub habitat (note: sage scrub habitat in this region is Riversidian, whether it is upland, alluvial, or alluvial fan sage scrub) to be lost with 54 acres ora higher quality of habitat (albeit a riparian/chaparral mix) was considered by the project biologist and the County Museum staff, to be adequate. The RAFSS habitat located on-site would not be disturbed by the proposed project as it occurs in an area that would not be developed with residential lots, but would remain within the Flood Control easement. There are no wildlife or plant species found on the site that meet CEQA protection criteria or listed species (see 15380 CEQA). There is no regulation or plan that requires protection of upland habitat on this property. Alluvial sage scrub habitat is not currently afforded protection. There is no established ratio for replacement of habitat. Each ratio is established individually per project. Comment A-3 The project does not adequately buffer home and other structures from known and active earthquake faults. Response Earthquake hazards were addressed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR. The project site, as the rest of southern Caiifomia is located in an area known to produce earthquakes and all residents are subject to similar hazards if they choose to live in the region. There is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone located southwest of the site but the project site is not within that zone. A geotechnical survey of the site (Appendix E) found that there are no faults on the project site. Proper site grading and preparation, and adherence to the Uniform Building Code for structures adequately addresses impacts associated with seismic events. Comment A-4 The project will promote and encourage equestrian use and trail development. Response The intent of the equestrian lots is to allow residents access to existing and future equestrian trails. It is not the City's intent to encourage equestrians to go offthe trails. However, in keeping with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, equestrian use has been determined to be an important recreational use in the area and the provision of trails and facilities will create trail connections and enable the public to use trails throughout the hills and minimize attempts to go off-trail, creating those desired connections. The equestrian lots described in the EIR would be adjacent to the proposed 15-foot wide equestrian trails that would be constructed along the north property boundary and south side of Henderson Creek Channel. Figure 3-4 in the Draft EIR shows the equestrian lots and adjacent trails. These are intended to allow equestrians to access the existing equestrian trails in the City not to give them access to dedicated open space north or northwest of the property. Rancho Cucamonga has several existing equestrian neighborhoods and encourages this use, particularly in the more rural North Alta Loma and Etiwanda areas of the City. It is the intent of the City to continue to provide and to add to the equestrian trails in the City by linking them to other multipurpose trails (pedestrian, bicycling, and equestrian trails). The proposed project would be consistent with the City's goals. Comment A-5 Environmental protections are changed, reduced or amended through reduced lot sizes and increased density without mitigation for various impacts. Response The proposed general plan and ENSP amendments do not change the designated land use from Open Space to Residential but merely from one residential designation to another. The project density of approximately 1.9 dwelling units per acre is within the parameters of the current land use designation of Very Low Residential; however, due to the flood control and utility corridor easements, the 65.3-acre developable area has been designed to provide residential lots that will range from 14,025 square feet to 45,755, with an average lot area of over 18,000 square feet, rather than a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet as required under the existing designation. The proposed lot sizes therefore necessitate the proposed land use designation amendments. The result is a similar number of lots but slightly smaller lot sizes. 'Comment A-6 The City must revise the Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR and place conditions on project approvals to address negative impacts associated with increased encroachment of people and domestic pets onto the open space lands; and increase use of water effecting The Habitat Trust's Nature Sanctuaries in Etiwanda and Henderson canyons. Response As part of the project review and approval process, the ENSP is being amended to accommodate the lot sizes proposed while adhering to the overall density for the area. The EIR for the project addresses the environmental effects of this amendment and incorporates mitigation measures to address those effects. Letter B CRMO A. SHERMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW (6~9~ 702.9291 . May 19, 2004 V~a Hand Delivery City Cl~rk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cuoamonga, CA 91729-0807 Appeal of the May 12, 2004 Decision of the Planning Comnd~ion Certification of E~vironmental Impact Report, Approval of the Tenta~ve T~'act Map No. 16~24, and Related Discretionary and Mini~ttarfal Action= I-Ionderson Creek proo~ies. LLC~- .dPN: 0225-081-04; 02.26-081-09, ]0; 0225-082.29 Dear Madam C}erk: Please accept this letter and th= enclosed check in the alnount of $251 as en ~ppea~ by my clients Spirit of the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., of [be above May 12, 2004 decisions off. he p|a~'tn[ng Co~0tlmis~[on, rcga~in$ thc H=udgrann Cr~k propvn'~as, I. XC project (APN: 0225-081-04; 0226-081-09, 10; 0225-082-29), iucluding ce~ficat~on cf en~rimnmentel impact report, approval o f T~nt~ti'~¢ Tract Map No. 16324, and related d[serctiona~7 and min~ster[al actions taken on that May t2 The bases for fltis appeal ar~ detmled m the prior presvnteA written and verbal, comments provided by my cli~'nts and this offic.= as contained in the record o£the two · · ' and those further wdttea comments pla~ing Commission me'nSs on this Project, submitted in response to the as Notice ofprvpar~fion ~ad cimulation of the Env~onmental Impact Keport, including but not lim~t~ to: B-1 ~) lacl~ of Project consistencywith the applicable §eneral and specific ptans; 2) falium to suf~c~ntly re~ond to public ~ants pres~ted in the draft 3) failure tosufficiently ~evicw' enalyz=' discl°s¢' and ~mu sate cumulauv¢ impacts; z0 piec¢_mea~ ~=alysis o f impacts and general plau amcndn~ents; fces- being $251 [o appeal ~e t~tatiY~ ~'~ct npprovat aha ~v m ....... hm~ld a~v of the matters be d~n~d treat9ealable, Shollld asY of~=sc amo~cn ye t~c=n~,, ,~ ~ l-~onciar~ rc~nd ot oppommiW fo~ p=ymc~i =upplcme~iatiot~ is ]lercby t~cle Pag~ Two May 1 ~, 2004 City of I~ancho Cucamouga Appeal ofPlam~in~ Coromiss~on (M~' 1:2, 2004) 5) failure to considermxt disclose f°rese'eable impa~ts °gsing fr°m l~r°j ea- 6) f~l~ ~ ~ely c~t~ ~e biolo~ h~imt ~m I~a~ 7) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~ ~ d~ ~ ~ B-1 ~g Con't Co~W flood ~n~l I~ ~ w~ d~at~ ~r ~fi~Ron ~ op~ 10) ~lm ~ ~e ~ d~lopm~ ~t av~bl~ d~g ~ ~g~g ~y of ~e ~v~g~ b~ ~ ~e ~o~ plus do not h~ ~n~t ~g A. ~a~ ~s o~. ~ the 6~g ~ ~ O~lu~ ~' P~ ~o~ of n~, ~c: cUe~s Letter B Craig Sherman, Attorney at Law, May 19, 2004 Comment B-1 This comment raises a series of issues that are addressed as follows: B-I.1 Lack of project consistency with the applicable general and specific plan. Response While the project, as proposed is inconsistent with thc City's General Plan and the ENSP, the proposed project includes amendments to thc General Plan and the Specific Plan. If amended as requested thc project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The project site is currently designated for single-family residential usc. As described on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR, the proposed GPA would change the current designation of Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 65.3 acres of the site; the remaining 25.1 acres of the site is reserved for a combination of Flood Control improvements for Henderson Creek and Utility Corridor for an SCE power line. The project density of approximately 1.9 dwelling units per acre is within the parameters of thc current land use designation of Very Low Residential; however, due to the flood control and utility corridor easements, the 65.3-acre developable area has been designed to provide residential lots that will range from 14,025 square feet to 45,755, with an average lot area of over 18,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes therefore necessitate the proposed land use designation amendments. B-1.2 Failure to sufficiently respond to public comments presented on the Draft EIR. Response The lead agency's responses to comments received on the Draft EIR were prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, and represent a good faith effort to respond in a meaningful way to each comment received. B-1.3 Failure to sufficiently review, analyze, disclose, and mitigate cumulative impacts. Response Chapter 5.0 of the Draft E[R is the evaluation of cumulative impacts for the project and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. The cumulative projects list was prepared based on information received from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Fontana and the County of San Bernardino. Cumulative impacts were identified for Air Quality and Noise generally related to the amount of development in the vicinity. Other issues raised such as biological resources, cultural resources, public services, public utilities, etc. can be mitigated by the individual projects, including the proposed project. Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis was adequate. B-1.4 Piece-meal analysis of impacts and general plan amendments. Response The proposed Henderson Creek project would be developed in one phase. No future phases are proposed, and no additional aspects of the project not reasonable foreseeable have been identified. The development of the project was fully evaluated in the EIR. If the comment is about the project in conjunction with the other three projects the City is reviewing concurrently that will be annexed into the City, then the response is that concurrent projects are all being processed on a similar time line and environmental review has occurred reasonably concurrently. Figure 3-2 on page 3-3 of the Draft EIR shows the location of the four projects in relation to each other. These projects were included in Table 5-1 of Chapter 5.0, Cumulative Impacts, and are also shown on Figure 5-1 along with other proposed ore recently approved projects in the vicinity. B-1.5 Failure to consider and disclose foreseeable impacts arising from project related water service and floodway development projects. Response The project area is within the jurisdiction of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD - formerly named Cucamonga County Water District, CCWD) which has provided for development of the area in its Master Plan. The plan to provide water for this area includes construction of two (2) water storage tanks, one for Zone 4 and one for Zone 5. The developer is assisting CVWD in the construction of both of these water tanks. The project does not propose development in or that will affect any floodway. The existing Flood Control easements within the project boundary that are being annexed to the City will remain in control of the Flood Control District and will continue to provide the drainage functions for which they are designed. B-1.6 Failure to accurately characterize the biological habitat types located in and around the project site, and mitigate for those losses. Response In January 2003, Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. prepared a General Biological Assessment for the Henderson Development Project and concluded there are no woodlands or riparian stands on-site that provide potential nesting and roosting habitats for numerous hawks and falcons. No white-tailed kites were observed to nest or roost on the project site. In addition, there were no wetlands on-site, and therefore no impact to wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed project. As to the accurate description of habitat on-site, the discussion of Riversidean in conjunction with Upland Sage Scrub does not diminish or heighten the value of the habitat on the property. The use of any one standard text on plant communities is a matter of professional discretion. qq7 The consultant chose to provide a description of the habitat rather than a standardized designation (RUSS or RAFFS). B-1.7 Improper use and failure to analyze impacts or deed restrict remainder parcels. Response The proposed project includes two lettered lots that are not developable, as open space lots totaling 28,103 square feet, and a third lot that will be paved as an access road for properties north of the project site. Lot "A" is a narrow strip of land running north and south near the northeast comer of the site, and Lot "B" is a triangular shaped lot located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Wardman-Bullock Road and Colonbero Road, both of these lots are designated for landscape improvements and are not developable. Lot "C" is that triangular area between the Henderson Creek Flood Control easement and the Flood Control easement to the northeast. Lot "C" is proposed to remain as Open Space. These lots will be deed restricted as Open Space lots and will not be available for development. B-1.8 Failure to analyze and consider direct and cumulative impacts and losses of County flood control lands that were designated for mitigation and open space uses. Response It is not the City's intent to obtain Flood Control lands for the purpose of development of the Henderson Creek project or any other reason. The City is not purchasing or otherwise negotiating with the County to develop Flood Control lands related to this project. The Flood Control and Utility Corridor designated lands within the boundaries of the 100.4-acre project site would be located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga but would not be controlled by the City. The San Bemardino County Flood Control District would continue to maintain its facilities through the project site. The additional land is included in the annexation application because without annexation, the Flood Control land would be a County island within the City's corporate boundaries. B-1.9 Failure to accurately assess the direct and cumulative habitat loss impacts arising from project edge effects and brash cleating requirements. Response Project edge effects and bmsh clearing associated with the proposed Henderson Creek project would be minimal. The site is adjacent to Wardman-Bullock Road on the east and on the north is the power transmission line easement that separates the site from undeveloped lands to the north. Potential impacts to open space lands would be limited to adjacent property to the west and south which is flood control land. The proposed project includes the construction and maintenance of a wall around the perimeter of the site which would limit the need for bmsh clearing off-site. On-site individual property owners would be responsible for maintaining their backyards which would be interior of the wall. B-I.10 Failure to have the development agreement available during the time of EIR preparation or circulation. Response As stated by Mr. Kevin Ermis, Assistant City Attorney at the May 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting, there is no legal requirement to distribute a Development Agreement in a draft stage and in fact could mislead the public in terms of what is being recommended or contained in the Development Agreement. The Brown Act requires that when material is transmitted to the Commission, it becomes a public record and can be distributed to the public. An earlier version of the Development Agreement was included in the Final EIR and was distributed to local and state agencies and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR. A revised version of the Development Agreement, including exhibits, was presented as an attachment to the Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of the Agreement by the City Council. qqq Letter C May 12, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Atm.: Lar~ Henderson 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cueamonga, CA 91730 VIA Hand Delivery RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed "Henderson Creek" Development Project, includln~ related proposals, amendments and permits. Spirit of dm Sage Council (Sage Council) continues to provide comments on the Henderson Cr~k Development Project (Project), Tentative Tract and related documents, including proposals to amend the City General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) and Annexations. Sag~ Council would first like to thank the developer for arranging a meeting with our legal counsel, Craig Sherman, to discuss Pro~eet AItema6ves and appropriate mitigation for habitat impacts. Besides meeting in imrson, the Sagu Council has had encouraging phone conversations with the developer and his legal council, Susan Heft. In the phone conversation with the developer, Steve Stewart, he said that he would be willing, and possibly able, to acquire additional land for habitat mitigation and would ge~ hack to me. Instead, Steve had his legal coun~l phone m~. Susan Heft said sl~ would get rn~ a map of the mitigation parcel and the parcel ~ and did so on May llth. (~ attached email communications and fax of Map mitigation parcels X1 and X2, from Susan Heft. If XI is 24.acres and X2 60-acrea, total 84-acres, and both am for mitigation then an additional 84-acree is still needed to mitigate 65-ceres of habitat impacts at a 2:1 ~placement ratio.) In addition to discussing the matter of where the mitigation lands were going to be, we discuased the matter of what entity would receive the h~bitat mitigation lands and what thc associated management cesta and/or endowments would be. It was agx~,d that the land and funds would be g~ven to ~e non-profit 'The Hahimt Trust for W ldl fe (THT) rather than the County. Parcels XI and X2 connect to the Iqa~'e Sanctuaries parcels held by The Habitat Trust for Wildlife. If necessary, the Sage Council would still legally challenge the Project EIR to ensure that adequate mitigation occurs and that all mitigation lands and funds he directed to THT. While the FEIR ha~ provided new language in regards to what entity may receive the mitigation lands, the Sage Council is concerned that it is not specific eunugh. · If the City and Developer have no objections, please be more specific as to which conservation I entity will receive the lands and funding pilot to the planning Commission's vote so it may be on , C-1 record. · Sage Council is twofold extremely dissatisfied by the way the City has been p~OCnssing this Project and others regarding circulation of documents and public hearings. C-2 ,/ The City Planning Commission had their hearing on the DF, IR, including the Developn',~nt Agreement prior to the end of the public commenting period. · / The City noticed the public that the Development Agreement was available with the DEIR for public review and comment when it was not. Thus, misleading the public by making false and fraudulent statemems to the public. Furthermore, listing the Development Agreement on the Planning Commission hearing agenda at the sam~ time as tl~ heating on tbe DEIR. · ,/ Th~ City continuing to refuse the Sage Council's request for a copy of the Development Agreement so that we could review and comment on it at the tirn~ of the DEIR comment period. ,/ The City circulating the FEIR with the draft Developmem Agreement, allowing only the minimum ten days for the public to review and comment, even though the draft Development C-2 Agreement was not made available during the comment period of the DEI[R. Con't · / The City, Planning Commission taking action on the FEIR with a DRAFT Development Agreement rather than a final Development Agreement that the public has been able to review and comment on. '/ The D~IR and FEIR have not been adequately circulated. It ig most unusual that the City has not received written comments by US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department of Fish and Game (DFC}). The lead public u-ust agencies have a history of commenting and C-3 recommending ee. nain conservation measures needed. With their comments missing, the Sage Council is led to believe that the Project documents have not been adequately circulated. In addition, comments from the ACOE are also absent even though tho Project is within a currently designated flood plata. We request ~hat the Pla0ning Commi.n. sign take the needed corrective actions by withholdim, your vote on the FlaIR and extendin~ th~ public enmrn~nt, from ten days, to thirl¥ (~0) days so that the public will have the ability tc~commem on the draft Development.~greement insitu with the DEIR. (~QA allows such an action of rncirunlation of documents. After the closing of comment on the draft Develonment Aexeement C.-4 and mcir~'-!nted DEIR, the plannln~, Commie-sion ~il0uld then hold a public hearing, close comment on the draft d0~'-n~'-nts, and vote 0.n~tlle DEIR with the DRAFT Development Agreement- Then the FEIR should be recirc-In~t with a copy of the FINAL DEVELOPMENT AGENT for a minimum of.tgn ~days}, a nublic heerino ~vith the plannln.~, Cornznission follows with a vote. Sage Council believes that without the Planning Comm½ssion taking the requested procedural steps, the City is open to a legal challenge. · The FEIR appears to be a revised draft EIR since it is severely lacking infonnation that is needed in order for the Planning Commission and public to know how associated plans will impact the environment, i.e. Fuel Modification Plan, Landscaping Plan and Grading Plan. The Sage Council is most concerned about the impacts that the Fuel Modification Plan will have, especially if it entails removal of habitat (off-sire) a.round the periphery of the Project. The Landscape Plan may C-5 also have impacts on habitat, on and off-site, also effecting listed and sensitive wildlife species. The utilization of certain non-native trees, plants, ineleding grasses may have a negative impact on surrounding native plant cornmunili~ through seed dislribufion and unauthorized dumping of garden waste near habitat preserves. Also, the invasion of brown-headed cowbh'ds are known to use non-native Iundscapes and negatively effe~:t native bJxcl species. The FInnnine Commissi011 lleeds to lake corrective action by not voting on the inadequate FEIR and instead votin£ to send the inedequatg FEIR back to elannin~ staff with direction to include the Fuel Modification Plan, Lundscape Plan and Grading Plan in a "revised" P~IR, with mitigation measures es C-6 peeded, tO be re. circulated for public review and comment. · _The Sage Council has been d~eived and lied to by City Planning Staff re~ardiun "the Eaueslrian Center." According to the Drat~ Development Am'cement, the Henderson C~ek Project includes an "F_.aeesUian C'en~er." The Projec.t. DF,.IR and FEIR otherwise fail tO identify the location of the l~luesLrian Center in relatiooship to the Iq,'nd,'~son Creek Project. The Project FEIR. also fails to identify the impaq'ts on the environment associated with the EquestrJall Center and does not mitigate for them. If the 1992 ENSP included an Eaueslzian Center, it was not adequately C-7 identified and located on a Map, nor was it adequately mitigated for. The Sa. ge Council finds it '~ more than a coiocidence that the City's Project Planner, Lan3, Henderson and City Mayor_.ar~ know equestrians and ad._~;ecates of a future Equestrian Cellrer. When I asked Larry Henderson if the Project included an Equ~ni~rian Center? And where was a future Equestrlun Center to be located? He responded that ils location is in the 1992 ENSP documents. Larr'LI'Ieriderson failed to tell me that the Center would be included in the Henderson Creek Project. In my opinion.!this was a d6coption and lie! No wonder the City did not include the Draft Development Agreement in the DI~IR and orovide the docun!~,nt to tho Sage Council and our Ic£al counsel when reauested. C-7 Tho plnnninq Commission must not vote On the Henderson Cr~k Proiect and Plan Amendments Con't tonight! The Planning Ct~mmisnian must scud.the Pmiect back to City PlaILning Staff and direct the Pmiect proponents to go back to the drawing board and submit a NOP. IA and Draft EIR that reflects the ~'uc PmiecL Otherwise the Proiect Description, Analysis, Mitigation and Mitinatinn ]~leanure$ .etc. are false and inconsistent with tho Draft Devolop~ent Agreement - which is unlawful! Response to FEIR Response of Sage Council Comments on DEIR- pages 10-75 to 10-98 of FEIR Sage Council expected a reasonable re~ponse to ou~ comments on the DEIR, instead wa got a bunch of misleading jibber from Lilbum Co~oratinn. 6-1 Sago Counnil cornmonts are con. ct. The City is unable to provide an factual data that they have taken actions, since 1994, to conserve habitat and species identified in the Valley-wide MSI-ICP MOU (HCP conlract) within the City's Sphere of Influonco and jurisdiction. The propoaod amendments to the ENSP for this Project, and othor~, a~ n~t needed to conservo habitat and specie~. C~rminly, the proposed smaller size of lots is to a.~sist thc developer and not to doter development. Smaller lots lead to more residential C-8 units. Mom residential units = more i~oplo = more consumption of water and energy, mere waste in the landfills, more cars, ~ps and ~raffic = more air pollution. More l~ople also cause g~eator negative human impac~ ua the curt'canaling natural environment, disturbance and impacts on habitat preserves to the north of the Project, moro feral animals, more illegal dumping on Uash, garden waste etc. More people near wildlands also increases fire risk. To say that the result of the Project with the amendments to tho La~NSP ara "similar" is a bold face; lie. It appears that the Project consultant and City are oblivioi~s to thc fact that the lead public trust agencies, Service and DFG, along with Sago Council and others opposed NEOSI-IPP when it was prece~ through the County. NEOSHPP is no~ an adequate conservation plan, it ia a dovelop~nt plan. The regional conservation planning document ia tho HCP contract, until the final HCP is approved. The HCP contract includes C-9 attachm~nts/appendixe~ with a map and species list. The response by Lilbum is misleading and deliberately leaves out thc HCP contract regarding the need for the Project to consider the regional conservation plan. There are more than two sensitive species that require the habitat on ~ito! The, HC'P conic'act has a llst of all species that to be. conserved within the conservation planning area, yet the Project consultant and City chooses to disregard it. The cnti~ Project site is biologically sensitive according to the lead public trust agencies and the HCP contract. The Project consultant and City, in using the NEOSI-~P document and maps as a response are in turn being hypocritical. The NEOSHPP documents identify the Project site as RAFFS, but argue (10-79) that tho Project site is "Upland Sage Scrub" C-10 61.3 acres, RAFSS 11.3 acres, buckwheat 2.5 acres and grasslands 16.8 acres. The Sage Council, with over twelve years of exp~rlunce, knows the Project site to be the RAFFS natural community. Whether or not it is called RAFFS or RUSS is not of any rea! difference as to rarity and its need to he mitigated for under CEQA. Whether there are don~.nant patches of grassland, buckwheat, white sage ns black sago in the mosaic of the natural community does not change tho fact that the natural community is "rare", either SI or S2 designation by the State Natural Diversity Data Base. If the entire 65 acre Project on-site is to be negatively impacted, and mote acres off-site due to Fuel C-10 Modification, then all the habitat in these areas must b~ adequately mitigated for. The Con't entire Project site i~ 100-acr~, if annexed as a whole, and must be mitigated for at a ratio of 2:1 at a minimuru -- NOT l:! as propose3. Lead public t~'ust agencies have recommended 5:1 habitat replacement. The FF_,IR slates that "A minimum of 54-acres will be ac. qui~d as mitigation." (F-2). The Sage Council believes that L_minimum oflSO- acres needs to be conserved to mitigate for the 75-ceres of habitat identified at 10-79. More mitigation may be needed once it is made known what the. impacts to habitat associated with Fuel Medifieation, Landscaping and Grading will b~. Again, regaling the issue of whether the sim is RAFSS or "Upland Sage Scrub", the Sage Council bringa the issue back to "rarity". The Project consultant in their response deliberately leaves out the word "Rivarsidean". The corr~t terminology is RIV-E~,S1DEAN Upland Sage Scrob, not aimply "Upland". RAFFS and RUSS natural communities/habitat have the san~ plant mixtu_~ mosaic stands, both deI~nd upon natural fag and flooding repines and suppor~ sang species. Both am RARE. (see attached emait explanation from expert CDFG, Mary Meyer) The Project consultant C-11 admits to using an old literature refea-~ace from 1986. There have been numerous scientific atudi~ and publications since, that time. The most recent, Sawyer and Ke~lez- Wold 1995 and a websire give reference to Riversidean sage scrub, Rivntsidean upland sage scrub, River~idean alluvial fan sage scrub terminology attributed to CNDDB/HolIand. Sawyer & Kealer-Wolf nomenclature for the Riversidean upland sage grub is their Black Sage Se. ri~ on p. 109, in pat. (~ee attached email communication with Ken Core), and Gary Wallace, USFW$) Sage Council l'ecommends that Lilbum consultants u~ more current scientific data in the future. Wealso ask the Protect devulo~r and legal counsel to take note of Lilburn's use of dated material and attel~pl tO mislead by eliminating the word "Riversidaan". 6-I1 It is to our understanding that the Project proponent and/or City are proposing to have the ' current Flood ~1'~.,~ Zone designation changed andJor removed. EPA should be notified C-12 and have the opportunity to respond, as does ACOE since the Project is in d~ Henderson Creek flood plain. 6-12 ProjectSee ourDevelopmentresponse aboVeAgreement.regarding the i~sue of circulation and public comment on the ] C- 13 6-13 The Project dons not provide a 1:1 ratio for mitigation of the loss of habitat (se~ F-2). A minimum of.54-acres is less than a 1:I replacement. Aa stated pruviously and l'~ferenced, the lead public trust agencies for naturaI resources have previously provided letters to the C-14 City and County requiting a 5:1 habitat replacement ratio, Sage Council ag~es with the lead agencies. Considering available habitat lands available for acquisition by the Pro.~ect proponent, the City must require a minimum of 2:1 mitigation for habitat loss of 150- acres. The County Flood Control easement has bean previously used as mitigation for the I levees. Sage Council recommends thac the Project consultant and City review the ACOE I administrative r~ord on the levees. The County and ACOE consulted with the Service C-15 regarding habitat impacts and sp~:ins effects. The terms and conditions of the ACOE permit required that the land be used as mitigation. It is possible that the Celerity and County Flood Control did not officially place a conservation easement on the land. It is possible that a conservation easement would need to be placed on the land by the C-15 landowner, Mr. Clark (?). Nevertheless. the land has pseviously been used for mitigation Con't of the leveea. Therefore, the land is to remain con~erved and not to he used for mitigation a second time. Otherwise, double-dipping of mitigation land is unlawful and subject to litigation by the Sage Council or others concerned. 6-14 It is agreed by all that the Project, including proposed amendments, is controversial and [ C-16 requires an EIR. - 6-15 Whether it is the intent of ~hc City, or no~ to encourage equnsitan use of the sensitive and ~ habitat area, the Project and ~SP promotes equesitan use. The Project and City must provide for mitigation of the~ equns~an related impacts on the envi~onmem. Requiting thc Project developer to give the City money for a furore equestrian center is NOT a mi~igntion measure for impacts to the environment. The FEIR does not provid~ a re. alistic or reasonable explanadou. Reasonable mitigation me.~ures for eques~an use in C-17 association with the P~o.~ect would include; greater habitat conservation on and off-site at greater replacen~nt ratio than 1:1, creation of a CRy OrdinanCe and Penal Code would ticket and fine equea~an offande~ that went off the City trail syatem, written notification to ail City residents that equestrian use of lands outside of the designated trail system is prohibited and subject to ,~vera finns and penalties; City designated Equnsitan Trails shall be clearly posted with signs that include warning languagn about going off h'a~ls ~tO ~Iabi[at l~re~erves. The Sa_Ee Cr~mrl] stl'on~l¥ rec(~mmendg that the ?lanning Com0~ission reunire the City plnnnlnR staff and developer to include the additional rnitiRatiun ~n~,res outlined above as a condition of a_vorovai. 6-16 Clarification wa~ needed. Still did not answer the question as to the date of the TI' and [ C-18 sUBTT. 6-17 Sage Council is in disagreemeot with the Response and b~iieves that our concerns have nut been adequately eddres~l and the environmental issues wrongly dismissed by the C-19 I Project consultant and City. 6-18 Response admits that the City has used an outdated 1989 F, nvironmental Assessment when updating thc City General plan. Cei~linly thc 1989 EA is "historical", but may no longer he accurate. While the Project consultants may have used mom current biological studies and data [which is questionable considc~ng their reference to a 1984 Holland publication for habRat classification] for the Project itself, the City General Plan and ENSP have not updated the biological reanurees sections to reflect what environmental circumstances ag currently. Thc City must update the ENSP EIR, especially thc biological resources s~ction and mitigation measures. The City must not continually C-20 amend the BNSP for Projects, reducing lot sizes and residential units without revising and re-circulating thc ENSP EIR. Reduction in let size and increased residential units cause additional negative impaets to the environment i.e. water/water pressure and enerKv consumption, more people, cars, u'ips and traffic, more air pollution [that even this Project alone is unable to reduce to a level of less than significant], more human impacts on the habitat preserves nearby. More people cause more waste ia local landfills thar ag quickly reaching their limits. Taking water from natural resources in State and outside the State are extremely detrimental to thc environment, negatively impacting five. rs, lakes, watersheds, springs, wells etc. Again, smaller lots to incseasc residentla[ units has a detrimental effect on the local, regional, S~ate and Western United States water supply. Furthermore, the Project is proposed to be built on a currently designated Flood Zone and flood plain, negatively affecting the local water recharge area. The Project and the L-Xlty C-21 ENSP amendments need to address and mitigate ALL negative impacts on the environment to a level of less than significant. Certainly, the City should require a fiscal analysis of the Project and the ENSP amendment. As explained previously, the Project and ENSP amendments cause more people to be brought into the area. With more peOple comes increases in student ratios per school and classrooms. The Schools never have tho funding that needed for the inereasod student demand, This is a fiscal issue that the Project EIR and ENSI~. amendments need to address and mitigate for. With more people there is mom Waffle C-22 issues. A local resident has commented on the Project ~ and states that there are currently problem with traffic congestion that the City needs to resolve prior to approving this Project. Sage Council is in agreement and finds that this is not only a traffic Jason, but also a fiscal one. Who's paying for the infrastructure and long-term maintenance to support this Project and others, especially considering thru residential units are being increased and lot sizes decreased with each amendment to the ENSP? This is a fiscal issue. California has known energy black-outs. This is also a.fiscal issue as well ss. an energy and environment issue. The General Plan update is sited as resolving issues that were not in the Project EIR. · Sage Council is in disagreement. While the City General Plan U~late may have touched C-23 on some of the issues briefly, it certainly did nth analyz~ and mitigat~ for the negative impacts. The Project EIR needs to analyze, study and provide mitigation measures for all environmental impacts. Lastly the FEW, Response compri that tl~re is no wetland or riparian habitat on the Project site. Sage Council is in disagreement. The cadre Project site is on a known flood plain, flood hazard zone and watershed of Henderson Creek- The Project will make the ground impermeable via paving for development, roads, sidewalks otc. that would C-24 othenvisu in its natural state he a water recharge source. Also, if the Project site is void of wetland and riparian habitat and/os does not support these habitats, then why is the proposed mitigation site as referenced riparian habitat? 6-20 The FEIR defers the required Fuel Modification Plan, Landscape Plan and Grading Plan to the future. These Plan and their impacts on the environment must be included in the DEIR and FEIR C-25 for the City and Public to make an informed decision. Will the Fuel Modification impact habitat onsite and offsite? Will the Landscape Plan usa inappropriate non-native plant and tree species'?. The answers need to be within the EIRs, and are not. 6-21 False. The Sage Council provided a Alternative with Recommendations in our comment letter on the DEIR. Habitat was NOT "destroyed" on the Project Site and adjacent Flood Control lands. Fire is C-26 pax~ of-the natural ecology of tho habitat RAFSS, AFS$ and RUFF as is scientifically known and published (see attachments). 6-22 The proposed Plan Amendments for the Project are not "similar". It is smaller lots for inereesedI C-27 residential units par acre. Also the habitat is RAFFS and RUSS both am ram and require I mitigation at 5:1. (see attached ernalls). Undue tin~ restraints and that the FEIR was only circulated for I0 days with the Sage Council receiving the do~un~nt by mail, consuming review and comment time to 4 days. We axe unable to continue our C-28 commentS to Responses in the FEIR. Efiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) The Sage Council onvoses the City and Protect nrononentS m'o_vosal to amend the ENSP by Negative Declaration. The Sage Council reques'ts that the City nrevare and circulate for public review and comment an updated Revised EIR for the ENSP that ~flects thd C-29 present environment and impacts on the e~virenment, including mitieation measures and monitorln~. The ENSP is twelve yeats old - obviously not current - and fails to address the present day issues concexning the environment. In 1992, the E.NSP failed to me~t the habitat mitigation measures despite written and oral comments given by CDFG, USFWS and Forest Service, ~he lead government public trust agencies of natural resources. The Forest Service expressed c~ncarns over the negative impactS on the urban interface assouiateil with bringing in thousands of new residentS into a biologically sensitive area and encouraging eXluestfian uses in the habitat n~cded by wildlife adjacent to the San : ' Bemardino National Fo~.t. The City was told twelve years ago by government experts that eques~an uses in the area were unacceptable and harmful to the anvlromnant, Even more recentiy,'Chaffey College professor, Robin lkeda, submitted scientific dale to the City and County (see anached comment letter on Rancho Etiln, andd Estates). C-30 Nevertheless, with all the biological experts comments, the City st/Il pushes forward with development and equestrian uses in this globally imperiled biological "hot spot". Each time the City has an~nded the .D'qSP, for reduced lot size and increased density/number of residential units, the City has done so with a wave of their hand and developer fairy wand - using a Negative D~:laratian rather than Revising the ENSP EIR. In addition, the City never amends the ENSP to in~,'nease mitigation measures even though CDFG, USFWS and Sage Council have continually explained to the City that it is needed. Significant changes to the environrnent, regarding natural resourCeS, have occun'ed since 1992 that need ~.o be addressed and mitiga~i for in a revised ~ for the ENSP i.e specific wildlife and plant species have been. more rare and federally listed as endangered, some with critical habitat designation within the ENSP area. In 1994, the City and County signed a contractual agreemenCMemorandum with CI)FG and USFWS to conserve habitats and species within the Valley-wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Planning Area, that also falls within the ENSP area. The City recently updated the General Plan using an outdated or "hiator/cal" F~nvironmental Analysis (F_A) from 1989. However, the City did not update or Revise the C-31 1992 ENSP and EIR despite the fact of changed circumstances ia the envkonment and the numerous amendments made by Negative Declaration. We have attached additional References that are relevant to the Project and Plan Amendments, as follows. Sincerely, ~ Leeona Kllppsteln, Executive Director Spirit of the Sage Council 439 Westwood SC #14zl Fayettaville, NC 283 I4 (910) 947-5091 Letter C Leeona Kiippstein, Executive Direction, Spirit of the Sage Council May 12, 2004 Comment C-1 This comment asks which conservation entity will receive the Mitigation lands and funding. Response The Open Space Transfer Plan establishes a requirement that the property owner transfer approximately 54 acres of land to the County of San Bcmardino Special Districts OS-l, for permanent open space and habitat preservation, along with funding (in an amount to be determined by County of San Bcmardino Special Districts), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. This shall be accomplished prior to recording of the Final Tract Map. The property owner may, subject to City Planner review and approval, select another appropriate non-profit entity to transfer said permanent open space, as stated by Mr. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner at thc May 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. Comment C-2 This comment states that the City did not have a copy of the Development Agreement at thc time the DEIR was available for public review, to review and comment upon during thc con~nent period. Response As stated by Mr. Kcvin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney at the May 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting, there is no legal requirement to distribute a Development Agreement in a draft stage and in fact could mislead thc public in terms of what is being recommended or contained in the Development Agreement. The Brown Act requires that when material is transmitted to the Commission, it becomes a public record and can be distributed to thc public. An earlier version of thc Development Agreement was included in the Final EIR and was distributed to local and state agencies and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR. A revised version of the Development Agreement, including exhibits, was presented as an attachment to the Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of the Agreement by the City Council. Comment C-3 This comments states that the DEIR and FEIR have not been adequately circulated given that no comments have been received from US Fish and Wildlife Service. Response The Draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to state agencies, local organizations, and individuals on November 10, 2003 for a 30-day comment period; it is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Seven (7) letters of comment were received. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held on December 10, 2003 in order to obtain input from local residents on the proposed Henderson Creek Properties residential development. Attendees did not raise any issues not previously identified in the Initial Study. The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review and comment period on February 20, 2004, and the Final EIR was distributed for a 10-day notification period for the City beginning May 3, 2004. Comment C-4 This comment suggests that the City extend the comment period, from 10 days to 30 days and recimulate the DEIR with the Development Agreement. Response An early version of the Development Agreement was included in the Final EIR as Appendix K, and was mailed to state agencies, local organizations, and individuals that responded to the DEIR on April 30, 2004. Comment C-5 This comment concerns the lack of information regarding the Landscape Plan, Grading Plan, and to a greater extent the Fuel Modification Plan, as these plans may have impacts on habitat, on and off-site, and the use of non-native trees/plants may have a negative impact on surrounding native plants and bird species. Response The Fuel Modification Plan was included in Appendix G of the DEIR and was circulated for 45-day review period. A copy of the Conceptual Landscape Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan were included as exhibits to the Development Agreement, provided at the May 12th Planning Commission meeting. An early version of the Development Agreement, not including exhibits, was included in the Final EIR and was mailed to local and state agencies, and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR. With respect to impacts on habitat with regards to these plans, the proposed project and associated brash cleating and/or edge effect would be minimal. The site is adjacent to Wardman-Bullock Road on the east and on the north is the power transmission line easement that separates the site from undeveloped lands to the north. Potential impacts to open space lands would be limited to adjacent property to the west and south which is flood control land. The proposed project includes the construction and maintenance of a wall around the perimeter of the site which would limit the need for brash cleating off-site. On-site individual property owners would be responsible for maintaining their backyards which would be interior of the wall. Comment C-6 This comment states that the FEIR did not include the Fuel Modification Plan, Landscape Plan and Grading Plan and should be recirculated for public review. Response The Fuel Modification Plan was provided in Appendix G of the DEIR, and the Conceptual Landscape Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan were included as exhibits in the Development Agreement presented at the May 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Comment C-7 The comment states that the Draft Development Agreement includes an "Equestrian Center" as part of the Henderson Creek Project. The Equestrian Center is not discussed in the EIR. Response The Development Agreement does not include an Equestrian Center as part of Henderson Creek Project. The Development Agreement does provide for an equestrian mitigation fee as required for under the originally adopted ENSP and as required for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Project, Tentative Tract Map 16227. Comment C-8 This comment states the City is unable to provide factual data that they have taken actions, since 1994, to conserve habitat and species identified in the Valley-Wide MSCH MOU (HCP contract) within the City's Sphere of Influence and jurisdiction. More people result in an increased usage of public utilities and an increased fire hazard. Response A special study has not been undertaken to provide factual data of actions taken since 1994 however, since the original adoption of the ENSP, many hundreds of acres have been set aside as resource conservation areas for mitigations by Projects in the area thereby significantly reducing the number of dwelling units for the whole area. Therefore the minor land use amendments contemplated are not significantly greater than those identified in the previous ENSP EIR. The assumption that smaller lots leads to more people and more resource consumption is not necessarily accurate. Single-family density is not affected by lot size, it is affected by number of lots over a given area or density. The response to comment 6-1 states that the project changes the residential designation but does not change the number of lots but the size of the lots. The area density remains 1.3 units per acre. The previous designation allowed 1 to 2 units per acre. With the reduction in development area and the set aside of a conservation easement the total number of units is well within the number allowable under the previous approved density. Comment C-9 The comment states that the lead public trust agencies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and DFG, along with Sage Council and others opposed NEOSHPP when it was processed through the County. NEOSHPP is not an adequate conservation plan. The regional conservation-planning document is the HCP contract. The response is misleading and deliberately leaves out the HCP contract regarding the need for thc Project to consider the regional conservation plan. Response The response to 6.1 refers to the site in relation to the NEOSHPP (referenced). The Sage Council states they have always objected to the NEOSHPP however this does not affect the project's relationship to the sited document. The referenced HCP, despite the signed contract and the cities' agreements to participate, has not proceeded and is not expected to resume preparation in the near future. The HCP has been dropped from the County planning work program and contributions to its preparation are being refunded. We do not refer to the HCP or the HCP contract due to the lack of plan progress. Comment C-10 The comment states that the entire Project site is biologically sensitive according to the public trust agencies and the HCP contact. The natural community is rare, either SI or S2 designation by the State Natural Diversity Data Base. The entire Project site is 100-acres, if annexed as a whole, and must be mitigated for at a ratio of 2:1 at a minimum. Lead public trust agencies have recommended 5:1 habitat replacement. Response CEQA does not protect habitat alone. It only addresses habitat in CDFG Code 1600 or habitat occupied by listed species. There are no wildlife or plant species found on the site that meet CEQA protection criteria or listed species (see 15380 CEQA). There is no regulation or plan that requires protection of upland habitat on this property. Alluvial sage scrub habitat is not currently afforded protection. There is no established ratio for replacement of habitat. Each ratio is established individually per project. Comment C-11 The comment states the issue; once again with whether the site is RAFSS or "Upland Sage Scrub". The Project consultant used literature references from 1986. Current scientific data, such as Sawyer and Keeler Wolf 1995 can be used. The Project developer and legal counsel must take note of Lilbum's use of dated material and attempt to mislead by eliminating the word "Riversidean". Response There was no intent to mislead. The use of Riversidean in conjunction with Upland Sage Scrub does not diminish or heighten the value of the habitat on the property. The use of any one standard text on plant communities is a matter of professional discretion. The consultant chose to provide a description of the habitat rather than a standardized designation (RUSS or ~FS). Comment C-12 The comment states that the Project proponent and or/City are proposing to have the current Flood Hazards Zone designation changed and/or removed. EPA and ACOE should be notified and given the opportunity to respond. Response To our knowledge EPA or ACOE have no jurisdiction over the proposed project. Comment C-13 The comment asks to reference the above issue of circulation and public comment on the Project Development Agreement. Response A development agreement does not become a public document until it reaches the public forum in a PC or Council/Board meeting. The development agreement did not cimulate in the Draft EIR because it was not completed and circulated to the PC. An early version of it was provided in the Final EIR as Appendix K. Also, see response to C-2. Comment C-14 The Project does not provide a 1:1 ratio for mitigation of the loss of habitat. The lead public trust agencies for natural resoumes require a 5:1 habitat replacement ratio. Considering habitat lands available for acquisition by the Project proponent, the City must require a minimum of 2:1 mitigation for habitat loss or 150-acres. Response See response to Comment C-10. CommentC-15 The County Flood Control Easement has been previously used as mitigation for the levees. The Project consultant and City should review the ACOE administrative record on the Levees. Nevertheless, the land has previously been used for mitigation of the levees and can't be used as mitigation a second time. Response We are not proposing to use the County Flood Control Easement for mitigation. The area in the levee is not part of the project. It does not provide mitigation for this project. Comment C-16 This comment states that the project is controversial. Response The proposed project has been controversial and an EIR has been prepared. Comment C-17 This comment suggests the Project and ENSP promotes equestrian use. In addition, the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR pertaining to the sensitive and rare habitat areas in conjunction with equestrian use are insufficient. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended: · Greater habitat conservation on and off-site at greater replacement ratio than 1:1. · Creation of a City Ordinance and Penal Code protecting the Habitat Pressure. · Notification to all City residences regarding the new City Ordinance and Penal Code. · The Equestrian Trails shall be clearly posted regarding the Habitat Preserve. Response For over the 26 years of the City's existence the area has been used by hikers, equestrians, motorized and non-motorized vehicles. With the annexation of the entire Sphere of Influence Area the City will be able to work with all applicable conservation organizations and property owners to enforce, access control measures, trespass, vandalism, and illegal dumping. The net result will be less intrusion and damage to environment than has previously been experienced prior to any control measures being used in the area. Comment C-18 This comment is requesting clarification on the tentative tract map and whether the proposed map is consistent with the Tentative Tract Maps Act. Response The City follows the California Subdivision Map Act and the subject subdivision will meet all applicable requirements. Comment C-19 The comment states that the Sage Council concerns have not been adequately addressed and the environmental issues wrongly dismissed. Response All enviromnental issues were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared for the project and included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Issues not addressed in the Draft EIR were either found to be less than significant or it was found that no impact would occur in that area with the proposed project. Comment C-20 The comment states that with growth negative impacts to the environment and public utilities are expected. Response Response to 6-18 says the 1989 master environmental assessment was utilized for historic purposes. This does not imply an admission to the adequacy of the document. Comment C-21 The comment states the proposed project is to be built in a Flood Zone anal flood plains, negatively affecting the local water recharge area. Response The EIR identified the project site as within a 100-year hazard area. The Henderson Creek Channel and improvements to the levee have been designed to capture all flows entering the creek and conveying the flows and then offsite. These improvements must occur prior to development of the Henderson Creek property. Upon completion of the levee improvements, the levee will protect the property from these flows and potential flooding. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will require the applicant to process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) based on the proposed improvements to the levee and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) following completion of the improvements. Both actions must occur prior to implementation of the Henderson Creek project. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Exhibit Comment C-22 The comment states that the City should require a fiscal analysis (pertaining to school funding, infrastructure and long-term maintenance and energy; blackouts) of the Project and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). Response A Plan of Services and Fiscal Analysis was prepared as part of the Annexation Application as required by Local Area Formation Commission, but it is not a requirement of CEQA. Comment C-23 This comment states they do not believe the General Plan update provides mitigation for issues in the Project E1R. They do not believe the update analyzes or mitigates negative impacts. Response The environmental documents are adequate for the intended purpose. Comment C-24 The comment states that there is a wetland or riparian habitat on site. Response Wetlands are defined by the presence of specific vegetation, soil and hydrologic features which are absent from the project site. Flood plains and flood hazard zones are land management designations used to protect land uses from damage during flood events. All land areas that are subject to flooding are not jurisdictional wetlands. All land (and water) surfaces are watersheds, that is, they shed water. The off site mitigation land (identified in the Draft EIR in Mitigation Measure BIO-l) is not a riparian site but a sage scrub site. Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. in January 2003 prepared a General Biological Assessment for the Henderson Development Project and concluded there were no wetlands on-site. Therefore no impact to wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed project. In addition there are no woodlands or riparian stands on site that provide potential nesting and roosting habitats for numerous hawks and falcons. No white-tailed kites were observed to nest or roost on the project site. Comment C-25 The comment states that the Fuel Modification (will habitats onsite and offsite be impacted?), Landscape (will improper non-native plant and tree species be used) and Grading Plans must be analyzed in the Draft EIR and FE1R as well as the potential impacts. Response A Fuel Modification Plan For Henderson Creek was prepared by Wildlife Aware in October 2003. The primary objective of a fuel modification plan is to provide native vegetation treatment direction for developers, architects, builders, and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District officials to use in making all proposed structures safe from wildland fires in the future. The fuel modification plan for this project was prepared based on requirements listed in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance No. 39. The Fuel Modification Plan includes a wildland fire hazard assessment and expected fire behavior of off-site and on-site native vegetation, a long-term perimeter vegetative fuel modification treatment and maintenance plan to minimize any loss to residential structures within the Henderson Creek project due to wildland fire and a long-term "firewise landscaping" and fuel modification treatment plan to be deployed around all structures. Refer to section 4.7, Public Health Safety of the EIR. The Landscape Plan and Grading Plan typically follow tentative approval and are not included in an environmental document of this type. They were included in the Development Agreement distributed at the May 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Comment C-26 The comment states the Sage Council provided an Alternative with Recommendations. In addition the habitat in question was not destroyed because of the recent fires, as it is a natural ecology of the habitat to bum periodically. Response The Sage Council provided their "alternative" in their comment letter of April 3, 2004, not during the NOP period nor the scoping meeting. It was faxed to the PC public hearing the night of the heating. Comments could have been incorporated into the draft document if provided earlier in the process. Vegetation and vegetative habitat was removed (destroyed) by fire in October 2003. We believe this should be noted. As required by CEQA, the range of alternatives identified and analyzed in the Ell>, are adequate to assess the potential alternative to the project. Comment C-27 The comment states that the proposed Plan Amendments for the Project are not similar. It will increase residential units per acre. Habitat is rare and requires 5:1 mitigation. Response The reader should refer to page 3-9 of the Draft EIR. There it states that the change in General Plan designation from Very Low Residential to Low Residential, when the 25.1 acres of Henderson Creek is removed results in an overall density of 1.3 dwelling units per acres. The General Plan designation "Very Low Residential" indicates 1-2 dwelling units per acres. The increased density does not result in a greater number of units because it is applied to a smaller area. This allows clustering of lots away from the drainage way and keeping the drainage clear of residential lots. The final density of 1.3 du/ac is within the General Plan range of 1-2 du/ac. See also the response to C-10 regarding the mitigation ratio. Comment C-28 The comment states the Sage Council was unable to continue comments to Responses of the EIR because the document was only cimulated for 10 days. Response The Final EIR for the proposed project, contained the following: 1) introduction to the Final EIR; 2) revisions to the Draft EIR; 3) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR and comments received and responses provided; and 4) the latest available version of the Development Agreement. These items in conjunction with the Draft EIR constitute the whole of the EIR as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. As stated in the Final EIR, none of the revisions within the Final EIR represent significant new information nor do they significantly alter the findings of the lead agency. Both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR were circulated for the required length of time as noted previously. Public comments were received at the Planning Commission public heating and can also be given at the City Council heating. In addition to these opportunities, staff is responding to these comments provided after the close of the comment period. Comment C-29 The comment states the Sage Council opposes the City and Project proponents' proposal to amend the ENSP by Negative Declaration. The Sage Council requests a Revised EIR for the ENSP that reflects existing conditions. Response A Negative Declaration was not proposed for the project. An amendment to the ENSP was analyzed as part of the EIR prepared for the project. Comment C-30 The comment states that the ENSP is outdated and fails to address the present day issues concerning the environment. Response The ENSP has a program EIR which anticipated further environmental review on a project by project basis and which has been provided. The current amendments to the ENSP are a response in some cases to efforts e.g.; SBFCD conservation lands being established, with the overall effect being less development than previously planned by either the County or the City. Comment C-31 The comment states the City updated the General Plan using outdated or "historical" Environmental Analysis from 1989. However, the City did not update or revise the 1992 ENSP and EIR despite the numerous changes. Response The City did prepare an entirely new EIR as part of the 2001 General Plan update. The current project is conditioned upon the more current environmental documents there is no need or requirement to amend prior documents if new studies are provided as has been done in this case. CEQA FINDINGS CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Findings Related to the Henderson Creek Residential Development General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment/ Development Agreement/Tentative Tract Map/Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Prepared By: Lilburn Corporation 1905 Business Center Drive San Bemardino, CA 92408 April 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 B. PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1 B.1 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... 2 B.2 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 2 B.3 Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................... 3 C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................... 4 C.1 Custodian and Location of the Record ........................................................................... 5 C.2 Independent Judgment ................................................................................................... 5 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 5 D. 1 Findings Regarding Impacts Analyzed in the EIR and Determined to be Mitigated to Less Than Significant ................................................................................................ 6 1. Land Use and Aesthetics .......................................................................................... 7 2. Traffic and Circulation ............................................................................................. 8 3. Noise ...................................................................................................................... 10 4. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 12 5. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ 13 6. Public Health and Safety ........................................................................................ 16 7. Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 20 D.2 Impacts Analyzed in the Draft EIR and Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable ................................................................................................................. 22 1. Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 22 D.3 Cumulative Impacts Analyzed in the Draft EIR .......................................................... 24 E. PROJECT BENEFITS ....................................................................................................... 26 F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................... 27 F.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected As Infeasible ................................................... 28 F.2 Selection of Alternatives to be Considered in Detail in the EIR ................................. 29 F.2 Findings Regarding Alternatives Considered in Detail in the EIR .............................. 29 1. No Project Alternative - No Development ............................................................ 29 2. Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative ...................30 G. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 32 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings i 6/10/200a q~ 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS H. DEFINITION OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................... 34 LIST OF TABLES Table B-1 Existing Land Use and General Plan/Zoning Designations ..................................... 4 Table D.2-1 Site Grading Emissions and Significance .............................................................. 23 Table D.2-2 Construction Air Pollution Emissions and Significance ........................................ 23 Table D.3-1 Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................... 25 696/Fin al EIR/CEQA Findings ii 6/10/2004~} ~ FACTS, FINDINGS, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE HENDERSON CREEK DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/ ANNEXATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (SCH # 2003111057) A. INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (this "Council") in certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to authorize the Henderson Creek Development project, makes the findings described below and adopts the statement of overriding considerations presented at the end of the findings. These findings are based on the entire record before this Council, including the EIR. The EIR was prepared by the City acting under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Hereafter., the following documents (Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Technical Appendices, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Final EIR containing the Responses to Comments) constitute the EIR for this project. These documents will be referred to collectively as the E1R. B. PROJECT SUMMARY Henderson Creek Properties is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres of a 90.4-acre site into 125 lots including 123 single-family lots and two open space lots. The remaining 25.1 acres are broken down as follows: Flood Control (9.9 acres); Utility Corridor (10 acres); Open Space (5.2 acres). 19.9 acres are currently designated as Flood Control and Utility Corridor; the project proponent has not proposed any change to these existing designations. The 5.2-acre area located between Henderson Creek and the Utility Corridor is currently designated as Very Low Residential and would carry an Open Space designation upon approval of the proposed project. The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) Amendment, Annexation, Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Map for a single-family residential subdivision. The project is located at the northerly end of Wardman- Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project also includes annexation of the 90.4-acre site and an adjacent 10.0-acre site for a total 100.4 acres to be annexed into the City. 696/Final EIP,/C EQA Findings 1 April 2004q6 1~ B.1 Project Objectives CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(b) requires that the project description include a statement of objectives in proposing the project. The intent is to aid the lead agency and decision makers in evaluating the project alternatives and in making findings or statements of overriding consideration, if necessary. Project objectives arc: Bc consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; · Annex the 90.4-acre project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility casement into the City of Rancho Cucarnonga; · Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; · Establish a project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; · Provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of thc project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; · Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e. roads, utilities) to serve project residents and thc surrounding community; · Minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies, and · Provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. B.2 Project Description Henderson Creek Properties is proposing the subdivision of 65.3 acres of the 90.4-acre site into 125 lots to include 123 residential lots and two open space lots (the remaining 25.1 acres of the 90.4-acre site will be used for flood control improvements along Henderson Creek and will have a General Plan designation of Flood Control, Utility Corridor, and Open Space). The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Annexation, Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Map for a 125-1ot residential subdivision (123 residential lots and two open space lots) located at the northerly end of Wardman-Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 696/Final EIP,/CEQA Findin gs 2 April 2004 q70 The proposed annexation would include the 90.4-acre site and an adjacent 10.0-acre site for a total 100.4 acres to be annexed from San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The 10.0-acre site is located north of the project site and is currently used for utility easement and flood control purposes and is not part of the tentative tract map, and no development is proposed. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the current designation of Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 65.3 acres of the 90.4-acre parcel; the remaining 25.1 acres of the site is reserved for a combination of "Flood Control" improvements for Henderson Creek, and "Utility Corridor" for an SCE power line. The gross project density of approximately 1.3 dwelling units per acre is within the parameters of the current land use designation of Very Low Residential; however, due to the flood control and utility corridor easements, the 65.3-acre developable area has been designed to provide residential lots that will range from 14,025 square feet to 45,755, with an average lot area of over 18,000 square feet, or 1.9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lot sizes therefore necessitate the proposed land use designation amendments. The proposed amendment to the ENSP includes a zone change from Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acres, and a modification to the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood to eliminate the proposed street connection between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. The Development Agreement between the Henderson Creek Properties and the City would address specific conditions of development and/or conservation of the 90.4 acres of land. B.3 Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses The City's corporate boundary and Sheridan Estates (Tract 13564) are located east of the site. Overhead power transmission lines owned by LA Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and Southern California Edison (SCE), associated easements, scattered single-family residences and vacant land are located north of the site. The land area south and west of the site is presently vacant, and is primarily within SCE and San Bemardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) easements or ownership. Surrounding land uses, General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts are shown in Table B-1. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 3 ^Pr~ 2004q7/ Table B-1 Existing Land Use and General Plan/Zoning Designations Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Project Vacant land, flood control and Very Low Residential (0.1-2 Very Low Residential Site utility corridor easements dwelling units per acre), Flood (0.1-2 DU/AC), Flood Control and Utility Comdor Control and Utility Corridor North Vacant land, utility corridors Flood Control/Utility Corridor Utility Corridor and and scattered single-family and Hillside Residential Hillside Residential residences Estate (<1 DU per net buildable acre) South Vacant land, utility corridors Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Utility Corridor and and one single-family dwelling Conservation and Very Low Very Low Residential Residential (0.1-2 DU/AC) (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) East Henderson Creek, Wardman- Very Low Residential 0.1-2 Very Low Residential Bullock Road, and Single- dwelling units per acre) (0.1-2 DU/AC) Family Residential (Sheridan Estates -Tract 13564) West Etiwanda Creek Flood Control Conservation and Flood Flood Control basins and conservation area Control/Utility Corridor C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City conducted an extensive environmental review for this project that included a Draft EIR, Final EIR, appendices and attacluncnts, along with public review and comment periods. The implementation of the EIR scoping and review process is described in Chapter 1.0, Page 1-6 of the Draft EIR. The following is a summary of thc District's environmental review for this project. · A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to state agencies, local organizations, and individuals on November 10, 2003 for a 30-day comment period; it is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Seven (7) letters of comment were received. · ,4 public scoping meeting was held on December 10, 2003 in order to obtain input from local residents on the proposed Henderson Creek Properties residential development. Attendees did not raise any issues not previously identified in the Initial Study. · The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review and comment period on February 20, 2004. · The Final EIR was distributed for a lO-day notification period for the City beginning May 3, 2004. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 4 April 2004 qT~ · The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider theproject on May 12, 2004. At that hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the project be approved. · This Council held one public hearing to consider the project on ,June 16, 2004. C.1 Custodian and Location of the Record Findings: The documents and other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings for the City 'S approval of this project, are located at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729. C.2 Independent Judgment The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the EIR for the Henderson Creek Properties residential development project. A decision was made to retain Lilburn Corporation of San Bernardino, California to prepare the documents. The EIR was prepared under the supervision and direction of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department staff and reflects the independem judgment of the City staff and accordingly, the City Council. Findings: The EIR reflects the City's independent judgment exercised in accordance with CEQA Section 21082.1(a)(c) by reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant; circulating the Draft EIR as a City document and certifying that the EIR reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The City's staff report, the EIR, written and oral testimony at public heatings, and these facts, findings and statement of overriding considerations and other information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The Final EIR includes revisions to the Draft EIR, public comments and the City's responses, and the Notice of Determination. The detailed analyses of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Henderson Creek Properties residential development are presented in Chapter 4.0 of the EIR. Written comments and the District's responses are provided in Chapter 10.0 of the Final EIR. Presented below are the environmental findings made by this Council after its review of the documents referenced above, as well as the written and oral comments on the Henderson Creek Properties residential development project presented at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Factual discussion in this document summarizes the information contained in the EIR and the administrative record upon which this Council bases its decision to certify the EIR and approve the project. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 5 contained in the EIR and the administrative record upon which this Council bases its decision to certify the EIR and approve the project. The EIR prepared for the Henderson Creek Properties residential development evaluated eleven major environmental categories for potential significant adverse impacts. Both project specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these eleven major environmental categories, the Council concurs with the conclusions in the EIR that the issues and sub-issues discussed below can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold. For those issues that cannot be mitigated below a level that is less than significant, overriding considerations exist which make impacts acceptable. The following are the remaining sections of this document: Section E: Project Benefits Section F: Alternatives to the Project Section G: Statement of Overriding Considerations Section It: Abbreviations and Acronyms D.1 FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS ANALYZED IN TIlE EIR A_ND DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT This section includes findings for project impacts which are potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the imposition of mitigation measures. This Council finds that all potentially significant impacts of this project listed below can and will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of mitigation measures. Specific findings of this Council for each category of such impacts are set forth below in this section. CEQA Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. This Council hereby finds, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081, that the following potential environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. 696/Final EIR/CEOA Findings 6 Ap~ 2004qlq Each proposed mitigation measure discussed in this section of the findings is assigned a code letter correlating it with the environmental category used in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in Chapter 9.0 of the EIR. 1. Land Use and Planning la. Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Facts: The proposed project is a single-family community developed at a density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed 123 lots range in size from 14,025 square feet to 45,755 square feet with an average size of over 18,000 square feet, with two lettered lots for landscaped open space on 65.3 acres of a 90.4-acre site. Under the ENSP, a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet is required in the Very Low Residential zone. The project as proposed is inconsistent with the Very Low designation because proposed site plans include a minimum lot size of 14,025 square feet and an average lot size of over 18,000 square feet. However, the overall density of 1.9 units per acre is within the range of the Very Low designation. A proposed amendment to the ENSP would include a land use district change from Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2- 4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acres to allow the project to be developed with residential lots of less than 20,000 square feet. As required in the ENSP, development of lots less than 20,000 square feet are required to provide an in-lieu fee of $1,000 per lot for development of an off-site Equestrian Center. The proposed project would be subject to this requirement for each lot that is not designed for equestrian use. The proposed project generally meets the ENSP goal and objectives with regards to creating a community design image that represents Old Etiwanda by providing large lots, including equestrian lots, access to trails, provision of views of the mountains, and complying with ENSP standards for landscape treatments and walls, fencing, lighting and community entry. Mitigation Measure LU-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit and obtain approval ora lan&cape plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure LU-2 The project proponent must pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the development of an equestrian center as specified in the development agreement. 696/Final EIR/C EQA Find mgs 7 ^P~i12004~.,/75 Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds that payment of in-lieu fees for contribution to an Equestrian Center will ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the ENSP, making this impact less than significant. 2. Traffic and Circulation 2a. Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project would increase vehicle trips, and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections. Facts: The project trip distribution patterns were developed based on a review of existing traffic volumes, freeway ramp locations, land uses proposed, and the circulation system projected to be in place by 2004. Opening Year (2004) Without Project Conditions The intersection operations analysis for 2004 without project traffic conditions showed the following intersections are projected to experience LOS E to F operations and are, therefore, deficient: ·Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at: Wilson Avenue (EW) Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at: Banyan Street (EW) Opening Year With Project Conditions The intersection operations analyses for 2004 with project traffic conditions indicated that the following intersections are projected to experience LOS "E" to "F" operations and are, therefore, deficient: ·Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at: Wilson Avenue (EW) · Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at: Banyan Street (EW) Proposed improvements include both funded improvements and any additional improvements needed to achieve LOS D or better during the peak hours. The study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during peak hours, with improvements. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 8 ^Pr~ 2®4 ~//7~~, The project's fair share contribution has been calculated based on the project's traffic volumes at the impacted intersections. The project contribution percentage ranges from 11.5 percent to 73.9 pement. The associated cost of the improvements has been multiplied by these percentages to determine the project's contribution. The total fair share cost is estimated to be $25,676. On-Site Mitigation Measure TC-1 The developer shall participate in the phased construction of off-site traffic signals through payment of established fees. Mitigation Measure TC-2 On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Off-Site Mitigation Measure TC-3 The developer shall construct Wardman-Bullock Road along the project frontage at its ultimate half-section width as a Collector roadway (66-foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development; and complete the westerly portion of Wardman-Bullock Road from the south project boundary to Wilson Avenue. Improvements shall include curb/gutter, traffic signs, striping, etc. Mitigation Measure TC-4 Modify stop sign placement to control east/westbound traffic at the intersection of Wardman-Bullock (NS) and Wilson Avenue (EW). Mitigation Measure TC-5 Install a Traffic Signal at the Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection. The project should contribute towards the cost of necessary study area improvements on a fair share or "pro-rata" basis. Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds that with implementation of proposed improvements, the study area intersections would operate at a level of service of D or better which is considered less than significant. 696/Final EIR/C EQA Findings 9 AP~" 2°°4 g. tg77 3. Noise 3a. PotentiaISignificant Impact: Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators can reach high levels. Grading will generate the highest levels of noise during construction. Facts: Temporary construction noise impacts will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by large earthmoving sources, then by foundation construction, and finally for finish construction. The earthmoving sources are the noisiest with equipment noise typically ranging from 75 to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Point sources of noise emissions are attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance through geometrical (spherical) spreading of sound waves. The quieter noise sources will thus drop to a 65 dB exterior/45 dB interior noise level by about 200 feet from the source while the loudest may require over 1,000 feet from the source to reduce the 90 dB(A) or greater source strength to a generally acceptable 65 dB(A) exterior exposure level. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a community noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on construction activities imposed as a condition on construction and use permits. The City's Development Code limits construction activity to the hours of 6:30 am and 8 pm, Monday through Saturday. Mitigation Measure N-1 Construction contractors shall adhere to the City Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall take place on Sundays or holidays. Findings: Based upon the whole record, this Council finds that with implementation of the above mitigation measure, short-term impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 10 ^P6 2°°4L/rT } 3b. Potential Significant Impact: Noise levels at the building facades of homes nearest to the project exit (Wardman-Bullock frontage) would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic. Facts: At buildout, the proposed project would include 123 single-family residences and two open space lots. Based on the tract map, the Noise Engineer has calculated that homes nearest the project's entry could experience noise levels of 60 dB CNEL. The Noise Analysis used the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model to evaluate future noise associated with traffic on the proposed project. The model calculates the LEQ noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, then makes a series of adjustments for site specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds or noise barriers. Because the proposed project will create traffic volume changes on a number of roadways, generic runs for one arterial roadway source were made and noise levels on all other roadways were calculated based on a logarithmic volume ratio adjustment to the reference volume noise level. A 65 dB exterior noise exposure is considered acceptable for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. Relative to the 3 dB noise level increase as a potentially significant impact, there is only one roadway segment where future buildout with the project noise levels would increase by 3 dB or more above existing levels. The potential noise impact location is Wardman-Bullock Road between Wilson Avenue and the project site entrance. The noise increase on this segment is as follows: · Future without the project +0.4 dB · Future with the project +3.2 dB The future with project condition exceeds the 3 dB potential significance criterion. The 65 dB(A) CNEL contour along Wardman-Bullock Road is currently less than 50 feet from the centerline at buildout. The proposed project would thus cause a perceptible increase in noise along this roadway, but not at levels that would cause usable exterior space residential standards of 65 dB(A) CNEL to be exceeded. The distance from the centerline of Wardman-Bullock Road to the 65 and 60 dB (A) CNEL contour is as follows: · 65 dB CNEL = 28 feet · 60 dB CNEL = 62 feet The first two residences of the project may have rear yard exposure slightly exceeding 60 dB(A) CNEL, but well below the 65 dB. Away from Wardman-Bullock Road, the higher baseline levels and the progressive dilution of project traffic would create maximum project related increases of less than 1 dB. Differences of less than 1 dB are imperceptible to humans even under laboratory 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 11 ^pri12004 ~ 7q conditions, much less over an extended period of time in the ambient environment. The off-site project traffic noise impact is less than significant. The building faCade noise level of homes closest to the project entry would be near 60 dB CNEL. Structural noise reduction with closed single paned windows is 20 dB (10 dB) with windows partially open). Achieving a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior would require the ability to close windows facing Wardman-Bullock Road. Mitigation Measure N-2 The developer shall install air conditioning units as a standard to allow for window closure for future residences in the development that front on Wardman-Bullock Road. Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds that the installation of air conditioning units to homes that front Wardman-Bullock Road would decrease impacts to interior noise levels to less than significant levels. 4. Geology and Soils 4a. Potential Significant Impact: Development of the proposed Henderson Creek housing tract would expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking due to regional and local faults located in the area. Facts: Ground shaking is the most significant seismic hazard. It is the result of waves emanating from the focus of an earthquake being transmitted through the surrounding area bedrock and soils strata. The primary geologic hazard that exists at the site is that of ground shaking. The strength of earthquake-induced ground shaking is commonly measured as maximum or peak ground acceleration. Acceleration is dc fined as the time rate of change of velocity of a referenced point during an earthquake, commonly expressed in percentage of gravity (g). Its value at a particular site is a function of many factors, including, but not limited to, earthquake magnitude, distance of causative earthquake, various seismic-source parameters, site location relative to direction of energy propagation, and geologic conditions at the site. The duration of the movement is also significant, but is not easily expressed or predictable. Shaking is the most serious threat posed by earthquakes to the area. When the San Andreas Fault ruptures, with an expected magnitude of 7.8 to 8.2, initial acceleration o£ up to .Sg is a reasonable expectation. Duration of the shaking varies with distance from the fault and the length of the fault that ruptures in a give~ event. Mitigation Measure GS-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit grading plans that incorporate the general earthwork and grading specifications for rough grading as set 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 12 April 2004 q~b forth in the geotechnical report for the project (Appendix E). These include such measures as clearing and grubbing to remove all vegetation and any preexisting above ground and underground structures; over excavating and recompacting soil; placement or disposal of oversized material; construction of cut or fill slopes; preliminary foundation recommendation; and grading requirements for seismic considerations. Final recommendations shall be noted on all grading plans to be carried out by grading contractors, and monitored by Building and Safety staff. Mitigation Measure GS-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, including permits for utilities, the developer shall submit development plans that incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report (Appendix E) for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs. These include specifications for concrete slabs and footings, temporary excavation for utilities, preliminary pavement design, and protection of foundations from surface drainage. Mitigation Measure GS-3 All structures shall be built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety. Building officials shall review all plans at the time of submittal. Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds that conducting earthwork and grading in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical report and design of on-site structures to meet current building standards presented in the Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety would result in the effects from seismic shaking being less than significant. 5. Hydrology and Water Quality Sa. Potential Significant Impact: During storm events, construction activities, particularly vegetation removal, grading and excavation, could affect the amounts of sediments and suspended solids leaving the site that could affect water quality downstream. Facts: The grading and excavation that would be performed would result in the disturbance of approximately 65.3 acres for residential building pads, streets and utility infrastructure. The amount of sediment in storm runoff is determined by the mount of time since the last rainfall, the intensity and duration of the storm, the existing land uses in the drainage area and the amount of area disturbed by earthwork (excavation and grading). 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 13 April 2004 q~ / The proposed project would require vegetation removal and grading that will expose the soil to erosion by wind and rain. Rainfall could carry more sediment off the disturbed areas of the site, and this increased sedimentation may adversely affect water quality downstream from the project site. Pollutants likely to be present in stormwater discharges in small quantities during earthwork and construction include the following: · Vehicle fluids such as oil, grease and coolants. · Asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete paving operations. · Paints and solvents. · Wood products. · Metal and plated products The proposed project is subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the NPDES. Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity that causes the disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into storm water systems, and to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of a SWPPP is to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of storm water associated with construction activities; and 2) identify, construct and implement storm water pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site during and after construction. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Aha Region has issued an area- wide NPDES Storm Water Permit for the County of San Beruardino, the San Beruardino County Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County. The City of Rancho Cucamonga then requires implementation of measures for a project to comply with the area-wide permit requirements. A SWPPP is based on the principles of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control and abate pollutants. The SWPPP must include (BMPs) to prevent construction of the project from polluting surface waters. These would include, but are not limited to street sweeping of paved roads around the site during construction, and the use of hay bales or sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season. BMPs may also include: · The contractor will attempt to use enclosed storage sheds where possible. Any hazardous materials stored in the open will be placed on pallets to prevent contact with the ground. Materials will be kept in their original containers and adequate supply of clean-up material will be kept on hand at all times in case of a spill. · The contractor will avoid applying materials during periods of rainfall and protect freshly applied materials from runoffuntil dry. · Any washing of equipment or vehicles will be done in a designated place where a sump can be located so wash water can be collected for disposal. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 14 April 2004/~ · All waste will be disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. The contractor will contract with a local waste hauler or ensure that waste containers are emptied weekly. Waste containers cannot be washed out on-site. · All equipment and vehicles will be serviced off-site. Erosion and Sediment Control During construction, areas previously undisturbed will be excavated and graded to prepare the site for development. Contractors will employ BMPs to control erosion and minimize sediment transport off-site. In addition to the BMPs identified for control of pollutants related to equipment, vehicles and construction materials, other control measures for sediment tracking, wind erosion, non-storm water management, and waste management and disposal will be required. Soil stabilization practices and sediment control measures to protect the disturbed area of the project site before the onset of precipitation will be required. Caltrans has identified a number of BMPs to stabilize soils during construction. Samples of these BMPs are presented below. BMPs specific to the Henderson Creek development project will be identified in the SWPPP prepared for the project. · Where possible, limit clearing and grubbing area to the limits of active construction. To limit the time of exposure to erosion, preserve existing vegetation as long as practicable to take advantage of its ability to control erosion and filter sediment. Existing vegetation in the work areas will not be removed until immediately prior to beginning any work in those areas. To prevent any increase in sediment load in storm water that leaves the project site, the contractor will place sandbag barriers to intercept nmoff and force it to pond behind the sandbags. The contractor will remove the sediment from the site in accordance with specifications of local, state and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent (]VOl) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds that after implementation of BMPs set forth in the SWPPP, potentially significant impacts on water quality from construction activity will be reduced to a level of less than significant. 696/Final EIR/C EQA Findings 15 April 2004 ~7/~,~ 6. Public Health and Safety 6a. Potential Significant Impact: The frequency of high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from extreme wind conditions. Facts: Thc Santa Ana winds along the front of thc mountains can reach hurricane force and arc capable of damaging or destroying structures, or causing damage by windblown debris. The proposed project would result in the development of 123 single-family lots and would expose people and structures to high winds particularly during Santa Ana conditions. Winds at speeds reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour have been recorded in the area. Development would subject structures to wind-related damage to roofs, fences, windows, and landscaping. There are a number of health and safety issues related to wind hazards. First, during grading and site preparation vegetation would be removed and earth would be moved, exposing soils to wind erosion. This creates the potential for wind blown dust and soil to migrate off-site, adversely affecting adjacent properties particularly during Santa Ana conditions. Minimum performance standards such as requiring an interim erosion control plan, certified by the project engineer and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, and grading the site to accommodate the percent of natural slope would help in controlling wind erosion. When applied in conjunction with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requirements for controlling fugitive dust, wind erosion can be minimized. The City has identified issues relative to hazards due to high winds, particularly Santa Ana winds including: 1) damage to structures and trees; and 2) public safety issues related to traffic conditions, school operations, and increased demand on fire and police services and the City's Operations Center. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan policies for wind hazards by adhering to the City's standard conditions of approval for notifying potential homebuyers of the risks associated with high wind Santa Ana conditions in the area. In addition, during site grading and construction, the contractors would be required to comply with City provisions for preventing soil erosion and excessive generation of dust where the property is vulnerable to these conditions. The remaining policy related to wind hazards is a policy for the City to adhere to which is to keep the development community apprised of any changes in the City's .development standards for new construction resulting from the introduction of new building materials that could withstand impacts of high winds. This is an ongoing effort for all cities along the front of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountain ranges and the development community that is ongoing. As new building techniques or materials come available they will be introduced into new development projects. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 16 April 2004 ~t~ ~~t Mitigation Measure HS-1 The developer/builder shah utilize the optimum building materials and construction techniques to minimize wind damage to property as set forth in Division IIi,, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. Mitigation Measure HS-2 The home builder/sales agent shall disclose to potential buyers, that the project is in a High Wind Area. This disclosure shall also be included in escrow papers or other documentation for future buyers. Mitigation Measure HS-3 See Mitigation Measure ~4Q-1 for control of PMio emissions during grading and construction. Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds that proper construction methods will reduce the risk from wind hazard to a less than significant level 6b. Potential Significant Impact: Wildfires on adjacent lands including National Forest land and undeveloped properties could threaten residential development on the project site. Facts: According to General Plan Exhibit V-7, the project site and surrounding area are located within a "High Probability, High Consequence" fire hazard area. When occasional high winds occur there is a risk of fire spreading out of control and burning the project residences. The site was burned during the Grand Prix fire that occurred in October 2003. In order to minimize risk to public health and safety, the project applicant has prepared a fuel modification plan, which is summarized here. Off-Site Fire Hazard and Risk With the exception of the residential area to the east, lands surrounding the project site were all burned during the Grand Prix fire in October 2003. Therefore, the vegetation on surrounding lands will recover with the same species composition that existed before the fire. Fires starting north to northeast of the site under Santa Aaa wind situations will be the most dangerous to this site. However, there will be fewer of these fires than during prevailing winds from the southwest to the west. Statistics gathered by fire agencies tell us that as we add people to an area of wildland vegetation, the number of ignitions increases (risk). As the brush grows back after a large fire, the intensity of a fire in the area will also increase (hazard). When homes and other amenities are added to the same area (value), the need for increased fire protection and fuel modification becomes apparent. The assessment of these factors for Henderson Creek is a combination of high risk, high hazard, and high value. Northern Boundary The existing off-site native vegetative fuels along the northern boundary are classified as Fuel Model NFFL FM 1-Grass. Under the proposed project, the developer will construct a 15-foot wide equestrian trail north of the lots 25, 97-119 and 123. There will be a six-foot masom'y wall and a riprap drainage channel, and an area of trees, shrubs, and groundcover between the wall and the residential backyards. This will provide 100 feet between the chaparral vegetation and the homes. The homes will also be constructed with Class A roofs. Wardman-Bullock Road is constructed north to its intersection with Colonbero Road. This intersection is bounded by the Flood Control easement on the north. A parkway with trees, shrubs, and groundcover will be in place between the street and the homes. There will also be a masonry wall shielding lots 120-123 fi:om any fire on the north or northeast side. Western Boundary The wildland fire threat fi:om the western boundary is moderate. The fuels are light annuals. There will be a six-foot masonry wall and landscaping between the native vegetation and new homes. This set of circumstances will reduce the wildland fire threat to within acceptable limits. The homes on the west side (lots 25-36) need to landscape with firewise vegetation that will not compromise the homes to wildland rims (see mitigation measures below). The wall and irrigated landscaping will provide defensible space for homes on the west side. Southern Boundary The Southern California Edison transmission lines are a very short distance south of this project parallel to lots 53-66. The transmission line easement precludes any additional residential construction between the above referenced lots and the transmission lines. The south exposure is a low fire hazard. Landscaping The fuel modification plan designates two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2) as standards for landscaping around structures. Each homeowner will be responsible for maintaining the fuel modification Zones 1 and 2 within their property. Common areas will be maintained as directed by the Landscaping Plan and will be irrigated. The grass, groundcover, and ornamental trees will add to the d~cor of this project as well as decreasing fire hazard for property owners. Fuel Modification Zone 1 includes the first 30 feet around a structure. This landscaping zone is usually irrigated and consists of fire resistant and maintained plants (lawn and ground cover) usually less than 18 inches high. Zone 1 may contain occasional fire resistant trees or single, 696/Final EIR/C EQA Findings 18 April 2004 q ~ well-spaced ornamental shrubs taller than 18 inches intermixed with lawn and/or ground cover. Trees must be planted so that when they reach maturity their branches are at least 10 feet away from any structure. Zone 1 may extend beyond 30 feet and into Zone 2 as deemed appropriate. Regular maintenance and continued irrigation is very important in Zone 1. Non-flammable patios, walkways, rock, and gravel can be used to break up fuel continuity within this Zone as well. Fuel Modification Zone 2 includes the area 30 to 100 feet away from structures. This Zone may include natural vegetation or manufactured slopes that will be treated and maintained to assure fire-resistant conditions. Manufactured slopes may include a single shrub or small clusters of thinned and well-pruned fire resistant shrubs taller than 48 inches and well-pruned single trees limbed up 6 feet above the ground. All dead material must be pruned out of all shrubs annually and disposed of appropriately. Emergency Access During the early stages of the Grand Prix fire in October 2003, fire officials were utilizing the project site to stage water filling operations for some of the helicopters dropping water on the fire. Emergency vehicles were also using Wardman-Bullock Road and other similar local streets in the area to gain access to the fire area during this emergency. This would likely continue after the project is developed because areas north of this site would continue to be undeveloped, and emergency vehicles would continue to require access for emergencies. The proposed project's road network must be developed to City street standards in order to allow adequate emergency access. As a condition of approval, the project must include construction of the westerly portion of Wardman-Bullock Road to "Collector Street" standards from Wilson Road to the south project boundary. In addition, internal streets would be constructed to "Local" standards that would provide adequate emergency vehicle ingress and egress. Mitigation Measure ITS-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan~fuel modification plan that shall contain the following details: Zone 1 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment. Zone 1 areas may be irrigated and/or temporarily irrigated ornamental firewise landscaping. Single, well-spaced trees and shrubs are allowed. These trees and shrubs will be planted and maintained so that at maturity, their branches are at least lO feet from any structure. The purpose of Zone 1 landscaping is to create a non-combustible plant zone for a minimum of thirty feet around each structure. Zone 2 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment Areas. Zone 2 areas may be irrigated or non- irrigated firewise ornamental landscaping and/or native vegetation treated and maintained to Zone 2 Criteria. The purpose of Zone 2 Fuel Treatment is to reduce the amount of combustible fuels to a level where wildland fire intensity is substantially reduced and to 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 19 April 2004 'q ~7 provide a safe zone for firefighters (defensible space) during their wildland fire protection efforts. Common Areas. These areas shah be maintained as directed by the Landscaping Plan, and will be irrigated. The grass, ground cover, and ornamental trees will add to the ddcor of this project and will decrease the fire hazard for property owners. Mitigation Measure HS-5 The installation of residential fire sprinklers as a component of the design approach to protect those properties that may be exposed to future wildland fires coming of the nearby foothills. Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds the combination of landscaping, residential fire sprinklers and introduction of paved surfaces where none currently exist, and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will effectively reduce movement of potential fire into the proposed Henderson Creek properties and thereby reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. 7. Biological Resources 7a. Potential Signifieant Impact: The proposed project would result in the development of 65.3 acres of Upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and a small area of flat-top buckwheat scrub. Facts: Vegetation Prior to the fire, the proposed development would have impacted 1.5 acres of disturbed annual grassland and 4.2 acres of disturbed annual grassland dominated by deerweed. These impacts would not have been considered significant due to the relatively small area impacted (approximately 1/3 of the total extent of the disturbed annual grassland on-site). In addition, the project site had experienced substantial disturbance from previous impacts prior to the Grand Prix fire such as weed control measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads and other roads that cross the property. The proposed development would impact 53.5 acres of upland sage scrub. Upland sage scrub dominated by white sage is unusual, but is not considered to be sensitive habitat by the resource agencies that regulate biological resources. The loss of this plant community and wildlife habitat is not considered to be significant, however, remains important from a cumulative sense. The proposed development would have impacted 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub. This is a common species and is frequently an indicator of prior disturbance. No sensitive species were 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 20 April 2004 q~ found in this plant community and therefore no impacts were expected to occur. The loss of this plant community is not considered to be significant in the absence of sensitive species. Though much of the vegetation previously found on-site would likely grow back if no development took place, the Biological Assessment found no substantial evidence of sensitive plant or wildlife species on the site. The project site was already disturbed prior to the fire by dirt roads from power line maintenance, previous construction activity, commemial harvesting of white sage, and flood control activities. As a result of the Grand Prix fire, much of the appropriate habitat was disturbed and many of the potential on-site species were displaced. Approval of the Henderson Creek Properties residential development would not have an impact on the biological resources. Habitat Conservation Areas The project site lies adjacent to the SBCFCD Flood Control Conservation area, which occurs immediately south and west of the site. This conservation area is managed for the presence of the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, wetland resources and several sensitive species potentially occurring in the area. The project site has been zoned for residential use and would not directly impact the habitat conservation area. In 1992, the County of San Bernardino formed the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) to identify existing open lands having special resource value and to encourage the preservation of these lands. Resource values include critical habitats, unique communities, riparian areas, and corridor connections. Lands with special resource value could be added to existing open space areas to provide connections between open space areas, increasing sizes and reducing fragmentation. The program encourages property owners to preserve key parcels through various mechanisms. The Henderson Creek Properties residential development occurs within the general boundary of the NEOSHPP and is within the County Service Area (CSA 70) Improvement Zone OS-1. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall acquire and convey to County Special Districts, 58 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub. This measure is proposed to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plant and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. This off-site mitigation land (OML) shall be equal or greater habitat value than that of the project site. The identification and transfer of the OML will be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department, in accordance with the NEOSHPP. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 21 April 2004 ~ Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council finds that conveyance of off-site mitigation land to County Special Districts CSA-7O for incorporation into the NEOSHPP would make this impact less than significant. D.2 IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE 1. Air Quality la. Significant Unavoidable Impact: Construction activities included in the Henderson Creek Development would cause the release of fugitive dust and combustion emissions from equipment. Facts: Construction emissions for projects this size and larger, typically exceed SCAQMD's thresholds due mainly to the simultaneous operations of several pieces of heavy construction equipment for site preparation. The construction activities are considered short-term (less than one year) and temporary. They do not impact the long-term air quality of a region but can cause nuisance type air impacts to adjacent land uses and in the local area (i.e. fugitive dust). Grading of the site would also create short-term air quality impacts related to blowing dust. The soils underlying most of the site is relatively loosely consolidated and subject to wind erosion when disturbed by new construction and when unpaved roads are utilized. An air pollutant emissions inventory was prepared to evaluate construction emissions. Emissions were calculated using the Urban Emission Model 2002 (URBEMIS 2002). The criteria pollutants screened include: reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulates (PM~0). Two of these, ROG and NO×, are ozone precursors. Tables D.2-1 and D.2-2 summarize the emission inventories. Table D.2-1 Site Grading Emissions and Significance Emissions (lb/day) Source ROG NOx CO PM~0 Off-Road Diesel 17.23 144.19 118.01 6.72 Worker Trips 0.19 0.37 3.93 0.02 Total 17.42 144.56 121.94 26.74 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 Significant No Yes No No Source: URBEMIS2002 Computer Model; Output in EIR Appendix C. 696/Fin al E]R/CEQA Findings 22 April 2004 q~ ~ Table D.2-2 Construction Air 'ollution Emissions and Significance Emissions (lb/day) Source ROG NOx CO PM~0 Off-Road Diesel 30.09 243.39 212.64 11.19 Building Worker Trips 0.59 0.33 7.01 0.10 Arch Coating 494.50 ...... Arch Coating Worker Trips 0.59 0.33 7.01 -- Asphalt Off-Gas 1.43 ...... Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.34 6.75 1.27 0.09 Total 527.54 250.80 227.92 31.37 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 Significant Yes Yes No No ourc¢: URBEMIS2002 Computer Model; Ou >ut in EIR Appendix C. The estimated air pollutants emissions are not expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants except for ROG and NOx. Construction mitigation measures listed herein would reduce construction exhaust pollutants. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Dust Control · Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as practical. · Terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust controlprocedures when winds exceed 25 mph. · Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Emissions · Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment. · Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Off-Site Impacts · Encourage car-pooling for construction workers. · Limit lane closures to off-peak travelperiods. · Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. · Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. · Wash or sweep accesspoints daily. · Encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 23 ^pall 2004 qq/ Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council ,finds implqmentation of the recommended measures will further reduce construction emissions, minimizing the project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants. However, construction emissions (budding phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and therefore, wouM remain a significant impact. D.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE DRAFY EIR California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as one that is created as a result of a combination of the proposed project together with other projects causing related impacts. The guidelines provide guidance concerning the format and content of a cumulative impact analysis by stating that an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when its incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The incremental effect is defined as a significant irreversible environmental change that would be involved if the proposed project should be implemented (CEQA Guidelines sections 15130(a) and 15165(c)). An adequate discussion of cumulative impacts should be based on either 1) a list of relevant past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects that would produce related or cumulative impacts, or 2) a summary of projections contained in the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Due to the location of the site in thc northeast portion of the City, the identification of related projects was limited to a specific geographic area of the City (both thc City of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana) rather than the City as a whole. Related projects considered in this cumulative analysis are identified in Table D.3-1. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 24 April 2004 qq~ Table D.3-1 Cumulative Projects Development/Jurisdiction Locationt Acres Units Populationz Rancho Etiwanda/City (Formerly University) 2 miles southwest 251 685 2,226 Rancho Etiwanda Estates/City (Formerly Crest Project) 1 mile west 247 632 2,054 Centex/City (Formerly Etiwanda Heights) 2 miles southwest 325 200 650 Coyote Canyons/Fontana 1 mile east 25 660 2,145 Mastercra~City 1 mile southwest 150 300 975 Standard Pacific/City 3 miles southwest 642 306 995 Richland/Wilson3/City (Now TT 16072) 1 mile southwest 151 359 1,167 Tracy (TT 14749) ~ mile west 169 269 874 TTM 16113-16116 (4 maps)/City 2 miles southwest 87 109 354 Rancho Sumrmt-County (Now part of Etiwanda Preserve) 2 miles west NA NA NA Los Osos High School/City 2 miles southwest 50 NA NA Lauren Development/City (Havenview Estates-TT 14771) 5 miles west 25 40 130 TI' 16147/City 2 miles southwest 47 70 225 Lennar TT 14759/City 2 miles southwest 132 358 1,164 Subtotal 2,301 3,988 12,959 Henderson Creek/County (annex to City)3 Proposed Project 100 125 400 Total 2,401 4,113 13,359 1 Approximate distance and direction from proposed project site. NA= not applicable 2 Estimate based on number of units times 3.25 person per unit TT= Tentative Tract TTM=Tentafive Tract Map 3. Henderson Creek has 123 single family lots and 2 Open Space lots. Source: Planning Department, County of San Bemardino and City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 . Updated by Larry Henderson at Rancho and Pat McGuckian at County in March, 2002, and Debra Meier in October 2003. Results of the cumulative analysis were that the proposed project in conjunction with other related projects would have a significant adverse cumulative effect on the following: Air Quality - Construction of development projects in the vicinity would likely have cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. The proposed project would also add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions. This is a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 25 April 2004 qq~ Noise - Noise levels associated with the proposed project are related to 1) short-term construction impacts, and 2) vehicle trips that when combined with other related projects would increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity. Short-term construction impacts are mitigated by limiting the times construction activities can occur on-site, and would cease after the construction schedule is completed. It is expected that any cumulative construction noise impacts can be mitigated at a project level. The developer will mitigate roadway noise along planned residential areas that are not yet developed at the time of design. Area roadways are expected to experience significant cumulative noise impacts due to regional growth (+6 dB), therefore, growth will have cumulatively considerable impact on noise. Long-term noise is associated with new vehicle trips. Because these are residential trips and there are no land uses proposed in the vicinity other than residential, local noise would remain less than significant. However, as residents combine with all other new residents increasing traffic levels on the roadways, cumulative noise impacts would increase. Over time, area roadways are expected to experience significant noise impacts due to city-wide growth in general. Public Services - The proposed project is within the Etiwanda Unified School District and Charley High School District. CEQA allows the payment of developer fees as an adequate mitigation for individual project impacts to schools. However, these fees may be inadequate over the long term to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to schools, since no long-term funding mechanisms have been successfully established. Based on this information, it can be reasonably concluded that growth could have cumulatively considerable impacts on schools, and the proposed project will contribute incrementally to this impact. Findings: The Council finds that the project on conjunction with future development of adjacent areas for residential use wouM have a cumulative affect on air quality and noise generally related to increased vehicle trips. In addition, public services (schools) would be cumulatively affected by the increase in the number of school age residents in the area. Afier consideration of feasible mitigation measures, noise and air quality impacts associated with an increase in the number of vehicle trips, and public service (school) impacts associated with the increased number of school aged residents wouM remain significant when combined with other related projects. Therefore, these impacts are overridden by project benefits (Section E) as set forth in Section G, Statement of Overriding Considerations. E. PROJECT BENEFITS The benefits from approving the Henderson Creek Properties project include: 1) provides quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands; and 2) providing a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area. The District's objectives are as follows: 696/Final E1R/C EQA Findings 26 April 2004 · Be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; · Annex the 90.4-acre project site and adjacent lO.O-acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; · Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; · Establish a project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; · Provide a system of public~community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; · Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e. roads, utilities) to serve project residents and the surrounding community; · Minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies, and Provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. Implementation of the Henderson Creek Properties residential project would benefit the community by offering quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development. It would also provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents. F. ALTERNATIVES TO T}IE PROJECT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of a reasonable range of project alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (Section 15126.6(a). An EIR must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that: (1) offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner and within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors involved. The selection of alternatives for analysis is described in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR. Each alternative to the proposed project was evaluated for its ability to reduce or eliminate impacts. The project alternatives evaluated in detail in Chapter 6.0 of the EIR are the following: · No-Project-No Development Alternative · No-Project- Buildout Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative 696/Final EIR/C EQA Findings 27 April 2004 L/~ ~ The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an altemative is capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly" (Section 15126.6[b]). The following discussion provides the Council's evaluation of each of the alternatives to determine whether there are feasible alternatives to the proposed action (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]) and whether the alternative can eliminate or substantially lessen significant impacts previously described in the document for the proposed action. A discussion of those alternatives eliminated fi:om further consideration is also provided. F.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED AS INFEASIBLE In determining whether an alternative scenario could meet the project goals and reduce impacts, the following alternatives were considered and rejected: a) Alternative Location- An alternative location for the proposed project was not considered because the project site is already designated in the City's General Plan as a residential site. Several properties surrounding the site east, south and west are also designated for residential development. Those not designated residential are designated as open space associated with flood control or utility corridors. b) Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative - An alternative for development under the County of San Bernardino General Plan was not evaluated because: 1) the site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and has been pre-zoned by the City; and 2) under the County General Plan the developable area of the site (65.3 acres) is designated Single Residential minimum 20,000 square-foot lots (RS-20m). This is the same density as allowed under the City's Very Low designation. c) Alternative Land Use - An alternative land use was not considered as an alternative because: the City has planned for the area to be residential and has planned for other, more intense land uses to be located along major thoroughfares. F.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED IN TIlE EIR The environmental analyses in Chapter 4.0 of the EIR concludes that project impacts would be less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant with mitigation for most issues. Impacts that were found to be less than significant were related to Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Cultural Resources. Impacts that can he mitigated to less than significant levels are related to Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, and Biological Resources. During construction, air quality emissions cannot be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. However, air quality impacts would be short-term and would cease once construction activities are complete. Alternatives to the proposed project were evaluated for their ability to 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 28 April 2004/~fq & reduce or eliminate this significant impact. The following alternatives represent the range of reasonable alternatives selected for evaluation. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative This alternative assumes that no development would occur on the site. The 65.3 acres of the site proposed for residential development would remain vacant and not annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The no-project alternative would not meet the project's objectives to provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development in response to market demands. Alternative 2: Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative. Under this alternative the project would be developed as allowed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. For this analysis, it was assumed that development would occur within the same development envelope as that of the proposed project. The area disturbed by grading would be equal to that of the proposed project. Opportunities would exist to create larger pad and lot sizes, and increased development setbacks. Development in this manner would result in minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet with an average lot area of 25,000 square feet verses the proposed development with an average lot size of over 18,000 square feet. The site could be developed as a lot sales program with semi-custom tract homes. Equestrian uses could occur at this density and location. An alternative for development under the County of San Bernardino General Plan was not evaluated, because: 1) the site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and has been pre-zoned by the City; and 2) under the County General Plan the developable area of the site (65.3 acres) is designated Single Residential minimum 20,000 square-foot lots (RS-20m). Similar to the proposed project, under this alternative, annexation would need to occur. Currently the project site is designated for Very Low Residential (refer to Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3.0 for existing Land Use designations). For this analysis, it was assumed that development would occur within the same development envelope as that of the proposed project. The area disturbed by grading would be equal to that of the proposed project. Opportunities would exist to create larger pad and lot sizes, and increased development setbacks. Development in this manner would result in minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet and an average lot area of 25,000 square feet. The site could be developed as a lot sales program with semi-custom tract homes. Equestrian uses could occur at this density and location. Under this alternative, due to the irregular shape of the property, the project could be developed with approximately 90 lots; a difference of 33 lots from the proposed project. Therefore, development under the City's existing pre-zoned designation would have a similar impact on the physical environment including similar traffic, noise, and light and glare because the difference between the two projects is minimal. 696/Final EIP./CEQA Findings 29 April 2004 q~7 Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that the screening criteria to identify alternatives that would lessen or reduce significant effects were appropriate. F.3 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE EIR a. No Project - No Development Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would not be developed. The 65.3 acres of the site would remain vacant, undisturbed land. The General Plan and Zoning designations would not change and the property would not be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This alternative is similar to the discussion of existing conditions for each issue addressed in Chapter 4.0 Environmental Impact Evaluation (e.g., land use, traffic, air quality, noise, etc.). Land Use The No Project-No Development Alternative would not have an impact on land use in the sense that no development would occur and the site would remain an undeveloped area. The site could be used by another developer as mitigation and incorporated into NEOSHPP lands. However, the quality of the habitat on-site before the fire was marginal. Traffic and Circulation The No Project-No Development Alternative would not generate any new vehicle trips. Air Quality The No Project-No Development Alternative would not generate criteria pollutants that would cause an adverse impact on air quality. Noise The No Project-No Development Alternative would not result in a new source of noise. Public Services The No Project-No Development Alternative would not generate a need for additional public services. Biological Resources The No Project-No Development Alternative would not cause an increase in any adverse impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species. 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 30 April 2004 qq ~ Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council concurs that the "No Project-No Development Alternative" results in no significant impacts because no development would occur. Therefore it is considered to be an environmental superior alternative. However, the "No Project-No Development Alternative" would not meet the objectives of proving quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, and t~roviding a system of public~community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents. b. Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative Under this alternative the project would be developed as allowed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and not the County of San Bemardino General Plan, because the site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and has been pre-zoned by the City. The proposed project annexation would need to occur. Currently the project site is designated for Very Low Residential. For this analysis, it was assumed that development would occur within the same development envelope as that of the proposed project. The area disturbed by grading would be equal to that of the proposed project. Opportunities would exist to create larger pad and lot sizes, and increased development setbacks. Development in this manner would result in minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet with an average lot area of 25,000 square feet verses the proposed development with an average lot size of over 18,000 square feet. The site could be developed as a lot sales program with semi-custom tract homes. Equestrian uses could occur at this density and location. Under this alternative, due to the irregular shape of the property, the project would have approximately 90 lots, given ideal circumstances. However, development under the City's existing pre-zoned designation would have a similar impact on the physical environment including similar traffic, noise, air quality, land use, and biological resource impacts because the difference between the two projects is minimal. Traffic and Circulation The alternative is estimated to generate less daily trips at buildout in comparison to the proposed project. An estimated 877 daily trips would likely be generated by the project. Thus, although considered minimal the alternative would result in an increase over existing daily trips. Air Quality Impacts to air quality would be slightly less with 33 fewer homes. Noise Short-term construction noise would be similar to the proposed development. However, long- term traffic noise under this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed development. 696/Final EIR/C EQA Findings 31 April 2004 ql[~ Public Services The Development Under Existing Land Use Designation Alternative would generate a need for additional services. However, the decrease from 123 to 90 lots, or 33 fewer homes would be negligible. Biological Resources Adverse impacts (i.e. loss of potential habitat), would be similar. Findings: Based on the whole record, this Council concurs that the Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation ~4lternative wouM be environmentally superior because traffic trips and related air quality and noise would be less than the proposed project. However, the Development Under the Existing Land Use Alternative would not meet the objectives of the providing quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, and providing a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents. G. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS This section of the findings addresses the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. It requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the project benefits (outlined in Section E). As described in Section D.3 above, the Henderson Creek Properties would produce project specific-unavoidable significant impacts in one environmental area - air quality. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts would occur in air quality and noise related to short-term construction impacts, and vehicle trips that when combined with other related projects would increase vehicle emissions, and ambient noise levels in the vicinity. Cumulative impacts would also result to Public Services (schools). Fees collected, as allowed by CEQA, may be inadequate over the long term to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to schools. Therefore it can be reasonably concluded that growth could have cumulatively considerable impacts to school services, and the proposed project would contribute incrementally to this impact. The Council finds that the previously stated major benefits of the Henderson Creek Development as contained in the proposed action and described in Section E outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above. Each of the separate benefits of the Henderson Creek Development project as cited in Section E is hereby determined to be, in itself and independently of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in these findings. The Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to insignificant levels where feasible, or to the lowest £¢asible achievable levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed alternatives to thc project (Section F) to 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 32 April 2004 ~ ~ determine whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant impact (air quality) of the proposed action. The EIR presents evidence that implementing the Henderson Creek Development project will cause one significant adverse impact which cannot be substantially mitigated to a less than significant level. This significant impact has been outlined above and the Council finds that all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the City or other responsible agencies. The Council finds that the project's benefits are substantial and override the following unavoidable impacts of th'e project: a. The Henderson Creek Development project would have a significant adverse impact on air quality because construction emissions will remain higher than permitted by the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts to Air Quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts a. Construction of development projects in the vicinity would likely have cumulative short- term impacts to air quality during construction. The proposed project would also add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions. This is a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality. b. Noise levels associated with the proposed project are related to short-term construction impacts, and vehicle trips that when combined with other related projects would increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity. Short-term construction impacts are mitigated by limiting the times construction activities can occur on-site, and would cease after the construction schedule is completed. It is expected that any cumulative construction noise impacts can be mitigated at a project level. Long-term noise is associated with new vehicle trips. Because these are residential trips and there are no land uses proposed in the vicinity other than residential, local noise would remain less than significant. However, as residents combine with all other new residents increasing traffic levels on the roadways, cumulative noise impacts would increase. Over time, area roadways are expected to experience significant noise impacts due to city-wide growth in general. Area roadways are expected to experience significant cumulative noise impacts due to regional growth (+6 dB), therefore, growth will have cumulatively considerable impact on noise. c. The proposed project is within the Etiwanda Unified School District and Chaffey High School District. CEQA allows the payment of developer fees as an adequate mitigation for individual project impacts to schools. However, these fees may be inadequate over the long term to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to schools, since no long-term funding mechanisms have been successfully established. Based on this information, it can be 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 33 April 2004 reasonably concluded that growth could have cumulatively considerable impacts on schools, and the proposed project will contribute incrementally to this impact. As the CEQA lead agency for the proposed action, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Council has reviewed the project description in the EIR and Section A of this document and fully understands the Henderson Creek Development project. Further, the Council finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR (the EIR) and public testimony. These impacts 'and mitigation measures are discussed in Section D. The Council also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document (Section F) and that no feasible alternatives that substantially lessen project impacts are available for adoption. The Council has identified benefits and objectives (Section E), which will result from implementing the proposed project. The Council has balanced these benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed project. Implementation of the Henderson Creek Development project would benefit the community by offering quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development in the area. It would also provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping for project residents and surrounding area residents. The Council finds that the benefits identified herein override the unavoidable environmental effects. 696/Final EIIUCEQ^ Findings 34 ^pril 2oo~} ~ H. Definition of Abbreviations and Acronyms AAQS Ambient air quality standards ADA Average daily attendance ADT Average daily traffic AQMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Program BACT Best available control technology BMP Best Management Practices · CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CAAQS Caiifomia Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNEL Community noise equivalent level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon monoxide COz Carbon dioxide dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Endangered Species Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit FESA Federal Endangered Species Act GPM Gallons per minute H2S Hydrogen Sulfide HCM Highway Capacity Manual ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Leq Equivalent noise levels Lmax Maximum sound level Lm~ Minimum sound level LOS Level of service MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program MPE Maximum probable [earthquake] event mph Miles per hour MSL Mean sea level Mw Moment Magnitude NAAQS National ambient air quality standards NDDB Natural Diversity Data Base (California Department of Fish and Game) NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOA Notice of Availability 696/Final EIR/C EQA Findings 35 April 200~3 NOC Notice of Completion NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 Ozone Pb Lead PCE Passenger car equivalent-generally one track being equal to approximately 1.5 to 2 cars PMzs Fine particulate matter (2.5 microns or less) PM~0 1 O-micron or less particulate matter ppm Parts per million ppmv Parts per million by volume ROG Reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SANBAG San Bemardino Associated Governments SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern Califomia Edison Company SO2 Sulfur dioxide SRA State Responsibility Area SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service V/C Volume to capacity VOC Volatile organic compound VP}IG Vehicles per hour of green VqDR Waste discharge requirements 696/Final EIR/CEQA Findings 36 April 200~/~ City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: SUBTT16324/Henderson Creek This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the above-listed project. This pmgrem has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resoumes Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the depadment having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program SUBTT16324 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner o~' responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate wdtten approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after wdtten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. The Division shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants a nd/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Project File No.: Tentative Tract 16324 Applicant: Henderson Creek Properties EIR Prepared by: City of Rancho Cucamon.qa Plannin.q Department Date: February 207 2004 LU-I: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project CP B Review of C 2 proponent shall submit and obtain approval of a landscape Landscape Plans plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. LU-2: The project proponent must pay an in-lieu fee te the CP B Prior to issuance 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga for the development of an equestrian center as specified in the development agreement, of grading permits T~ai,~portatlon/Clrculatlon TC-I: The developer shall participate in the phased CP B Prior to~ssuance C 2 construction of off-site traffic signals through payment of established fees. g permits TC-2: On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3 conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. TC-3: The developer shall construct Wardman-Bullock Road CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3 along the project frontage at its ultimate half-section width as a Collector roadway (66-foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development; and complete the westedy portion of Wardman- Bullock Road from the south project boundary to Wilson Avenue. Improvements shall include curb/gutter, traffic signs, striping, etc. TC-4: Modify stop sign placement to control east/westbound CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3 traffic at the intersection of Wardman-Bullock (NS) and Wilson Avenue (EW). TC-5: Install a Traffic Signal at the Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and CE D Review of plans A/C 2,3 Banyan Street intersection. The project should contribute towards the cost of necessary study area improvements on a fair share or apro-rate" basis. AQ-I: Dust Control CP/BO C Throughout A 4 construction Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as practical. Terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control procedures when winds exceed 25 mph. · Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. .Emissions ·Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment. ·Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. · Encourage car-pooling for construction workers. · Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. · Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways, · Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. · Wash or sweep access points daily. · Encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. Noise N-l: Construction contractors shall adhere to the City BO C Throughout A 4 Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 construction am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall take place on Sundays or holidays. N-2: The developer shall install air conditioning units as a BO D Review of plans NC 2,3 standard to allow for window closure for future residences in the development that front on Wardman Bullock Road. BIO-l: Prior to recording of the first final map of the project, CP B Review of plans B/C the property owner shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City, in fee, a minimum of 54-acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the City Sphere of Influence, other properlies may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner. Geologic PrOblems GS-I: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer CE B Reviewof plans C 2 shatl submit grading plans that incorporate the general earthwork and grading specifications for rough grading as set forth in the geotechnical report for the project (Appendix D). GS-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, including permits CE B Review of plans C 2 !or utilities, the developer shall submit development plans that ~ncorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report (Appendix D) for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs. GS-3: All structures shall be built to Uniform Building Code BO B Review of plans C 2 and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety. Building officials shall review all plans at the time of submittal. Public Health and safety HS-I: The developer/builder shall consult with the Building BO B Review of plans C 2 Official to determine the optimum building materials and construction techniques to minimize wind damage to property as set forth in Division Ig, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. HS-2: The home builder/sales agent shall disclose to potential CP [3 Review of plans C 3 buyers, that the project is in a High Wind Area. This disclosure shall also be included in escrow papers or other mechanism for future buyers. ~,~ HS-3: See Mitigation Measure AQ-la for control of PM~o CP/BO C Throughout A 4 emissions during grading and construction, construction 3 HS-4: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall CP B Review of plans C 2 submit a landscape plan/fuel modification plan that shall contain the following details: Zone 1 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment. Zone 1 areas may be irrigated and/or temporarity irrigated ornamental firewise landscaping. Single wetl-spaced trees and shrubs are allowed, These trees and shrubs will be planted and maintained so that at maturity, their branches are at least 10 feet from any structure. The purpose of Zone 1 landscaping is to create a non-combustible plant zone for a minimum of thirty · feet around each structure. Zone 2 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment Areas. Zone 2 areas may be irrigated or non-irrigated firewise ornamental landscaping and/or native vegetation treated and maintained to Zone 2 Criteria, The purpose of Zone 2 Fuel Treatment is to reduce the amount of combustible fuels to a level where wildland fire intensity is substantially reduced and to provide a safe zone for firefighters (defensible space) during their wildland fire protection efforts. Common Areas. These areas shall be maintained as directed by the Landscaping Plan, and will be irrigated. The grass, ground cover, and ornamental trees will add to the d~cor of this project and will decrease the fire hazard for property owners. HWQ-I: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant CE B Review of plans D 2 shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant CE B Review of plans D 2 shall submit to the City Engineer for approval, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce po utants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines For New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2000. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Res'Ponsible PersOn ~mmunity Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-eite Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map OP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy -- BO - SuiMing Official or designee D - On Completion PO - Police Captain or designee r - Separate Submittal 4 - Stop Work Order FC - Fire Chief or designee 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds 6 - Revoke CUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBTT16324 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICANT: HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE, AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD LOCATION: AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ComoletJon Date A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the altemative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2.Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT16324 is granted subject to the approval of annexation. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No.04-60, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. SC-1~4 t i:~olanning\fin.~al~lngcomm~subtt16324 conds 5-1:~.doc / h',,(hi bi"l- (., -lC,, - ,¢ ¢' .d Project No. SUBTT16324 Completion Date C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include / /.~ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions / / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _.__/ / submitted for City Planner review and approval pri(~r to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __./ / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all __/ / other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with /~/ all receptacles shielded from public view. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single- family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the /___/ adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 10. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed / / control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced with two-rail, 4-inch Iodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as / / veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. c. Local Feeder Trail grades shal~ not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official d. For single family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at /__./ least one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with appropriate fencing. SC-1-04 2 i:~planning\final~lngcornrn~subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc Project No. SUB3~'16324 Completion Date 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine __/ / animals where zoning requirements for, the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 12. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the / / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attomey. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 13. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all /__J lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concems, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 15. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall / / condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous proper~y owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 16. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than / / wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 17. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood .~J___/ gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 18. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / / 19. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and /._~/ enhance views. 20. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The ___/.~/ 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 21. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured _~/ / products. D. Building Design 1. For all residential development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the .__/ / street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. SC-1-04 3 i:',,planning\fJnal'~plngcornm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc Project No. SUBTr16324 Completion Date E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / ./ the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape amhitect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 /__/~ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater /__/ slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously / / maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required. This requirement / / shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in / / the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the ~ / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / / Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall p~:ovide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special / / Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the 210 and I-15 Freeways / / in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. $C-1-04 4 i:~planning\fioai~plngcomm~subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc qll~/~' Project No. SUBTT16324 Completion Date 4. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of / / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $1,000.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete ali actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: .___/ / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e.Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., SUBTT #, SUBTPM#, DRC #) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. / / Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature ara required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to / / the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or wails. __/__/__ 5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can / / contact the Building and Safety Division staff for information and submittal requirements. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / / marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT16324). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in SC-1-04 5 i:~lanning\fina,~lngcomm~s ubtt 16324 conds 5-12.do0 Project No. SUBTr16324 Completion Date effect at the time Of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant / / shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map / / recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday / / through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. J. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. _._/ / 2. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." ----/ / K, Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading ~ / Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to _._/ / perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the .__/ / time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, /._~/ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: / / a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site / / drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over /__./ adjacent pamels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the subdivided / / properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division / / for approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits (this may be on an incremental or composite basis). SC-1-04 6 i:\pranning\finai~plngcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc ,1~/,7 Project No. SUB'CT16324 Completion Date e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or __/ / planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code. 6. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for ~/ / existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, /.__J community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from / /.__ street centerline): 33 feet total feet on Wardman Bullock Road / / 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. / / 4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or / / noted on the final map. 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the / / final map. 6. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests ~/ / necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the improvements. Such ~greement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site properly interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: Wardman Bullock Road (from southerly boundary to Wilson Avenue). M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped /~/ areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement drive approaches, sidewalks, streetlights, and street trees. SC-1-04 7 i:~olanning\final~plngcomm~subtt 16324 conds 5-12.doc Project No. SUB3R*16324 Completion Date 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a source /__/ of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: -/.--/ Street Name ~vmt I w.~k I Appr. I Lights I Other Wardman Bullock Road X X X Colonbero Road X X X Streets A, B, C, D, E, F, X X X X G,H, and I 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights ___/ / on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a /__._/ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: 1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City ../ / Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __/ / adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shalt not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / / installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. SC-1-04 8 i:~planning\final~plngcomm~subtt16324 c°nds 5'12'd°c Project No. SUBTT16324 Completion Date h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prier to submittal for first plan check. / / 5. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / _/ accordance with the City's street tree program. 6. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed __/ / legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet (typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer, Min. / Street Name I Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacingt Size Qty. SEE ATTACHED SEE ATTACHED SEE ATTACHED Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Division. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with / / adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall / / be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Lots "A" and "B." 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas ( %) of mortared cobble / /__ or other acceptable non-irrigated sudaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting _/ / Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shaft be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the _._/ /__ developer until accepted by the City. O. Drainage and Flood Control 1, It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone 'D' designation removed ~ from the project area, The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain an unshaded "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary repods, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of SC-1-04 9 i:~planning\final~olngcomm\subtt16324 conds 5-12.doc ~"2 ~ Project No. SUBTT16324 Completion Date building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 2. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map / / approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 3. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the / /__ property from adjacent areas. 4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its / right-of-way. 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured / / from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. P, Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, / / electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. /_--/ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / /__ Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. / / _ Approval of the final pamel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage /___./ Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all /___/ new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall / / be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED SC-1-04 10 i:~]anning\final~iegcomm~subtt16324 coeds 5-12.do0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION STREET TREE REQUIREMENT FORM LAST UPDATED 6/3/03 DATE: 8-12-03 TO: WILLIE VALBUENA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER COMMENTS PREPARED BY: DAWN ROURK, CONTRACT LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECKER PROJECT: SUBl-F16324 LOCATION: W/S WARDMAN-BULLOCK RD, N/O WILSON AVE ~_ DESIGN NOTES: ' 1. STREET TREES ON NEW STREETS ARE TO BE SELECTED FROM THE CITY'S APPROVED STREET TREE LIST, BASED UPON AVAILABLE pLANTING AREA (TYPICALLY BETWEEN BACK*OF-CURB AND THE S;DEWALK). ESTABLISHED STREETS SHOULD ALREADY HAVE DESIGNATED TREE SPECIES. CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, LANDSCAPE SECTION AT 909-477-2740 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. STREET TREES ARE TO 66 SHOWN ON STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, AND CONSTRUCTED PER THE SAME. 3. STREET T, REES SHOWN ON PLANNING DIVISION SUBMITFALS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY INTERIOR STREETS WILL BE REQUIRED TO SELECT DECIDUOUS TREES FOR EAST-WEST STREI~ [$ AND EVERGREEN TREES FOR NoRTH~OUTH STREETS FROM THE CITY'S APPROVED STREET TREE LIST. WINI~PRONE AREAS MAY BE REQUIRED TO UTILIZE A MORE DECIDUOUS PALETTE. 5. INDICATED SPACINGS AND SIZES ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY-MAINTAINED TREES ONLY. WHERE THE TREE CONCEPT GOES BEYOND AREAS OF INFLUENCE NEAR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR ANY CITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT, SPACINGS AND SIZES WILL BE PER THE ON-SITE PLANS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION. ON~ITE AND OFF~ITE pLANS SHALL BE COORDINATED. 6. STREET iMPROVEMENT PLANS SHALL REFLECT THE LEGEND AND NOTES INDICATED BELOW. IN SOME CASES, WHEN DETAILS ABOUT PARKWAY SIZES OR UTILITIES ARE UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF CONDITIONING, OPTIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR VARIOUS SITUATIONS. IT IS THE DESIGNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ASCERTAIN THE CONTEXT OF THE TREE pLANTING, SELECT THE APPROPRIATE TREE OPTION, AND OMIT ANY ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ON THE FINAL LEGEND. * STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS SHALL REFLECT A LINE ITEM WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LEGEND TO STATE: 7. STREET TREES sHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE NOTES AND LEGEND ON SHEET ? (TYPICALLY SHEET 1) RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT Standard Conditions January 5, 2004 Henderson Creek F_JO Wardman Bullock @ Dona Wy. S/O Henderson Creek Tentative Residential Tract SUBTTI6324 FIRE STANDARD CONDITIONS The following items are listed only as information to the applicant regarding procedures and requirements as they relate to this project. FSC-1 General Requirements for Public and Private Water Supply 1_. General Guidance for Fire Hydrants: The following provides general guidance for the spacing and location of fire hydrants. Remember these are the maximum permitted distances between fire hydrants: a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in commercial/industrial projects is 300-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 150-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not exceed 100-feet. b. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in multi-family residential is 400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 200-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not exceed 150-feet. c. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family residential projects is 500-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 250-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de- sacs the distance shall not exceed 200 ft. d. For single-family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area the maximum distance between fire hydrants is 400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 200-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not exceed 150 ft. e. Fire hydrants are to be located: 1. At the entrance(s) to a project from the existing public roadways. This includes subdivisions and industrial parks. 2. At intersections. 3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. 4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs. 5. The location of fire hydrants is based upon the operational needs of the Fire District to control a fire. 6. Fire hydrants shall be located a minimum of forty-feet (40') from any building. Contact the Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713 2. Minimum Fire Flow: The required minimum fire flow for this project is undetermined until square footage of proposed homes are given. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-A, as amended, and Fire District Ordinances and Standards. RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT STANDARD CONDITIONS - SUBTT16324 January 5, 2004 3. Hazardous Fire Area: The required minimum fire flow for structures located in the designated hazardous fire area shall be not less than 1750 gpm at 20 p.s.i, residual. For structures in excess of 3600 square feet use Table A-Ill-A-1. This flow may be reduced when the structure is protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Contact the Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713 4. Hydrants Used to Supply Fire Flow: Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. 5. Show Existing Fire Hydrants and Mains: Existing fire hydrants and mains within 600-feet of the project shall be shown on the water plan submitted for review and approval. Include main size. 6. Single-family Residential Plans: For single-family residential and accessory structures show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FSC-2 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems- Technical Comments 1_. Hazardous Fire Area Installations: The following buildings constructed in the designated Hazardous Fire Areas (wildland inter'race areas shall be provided with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system: a. All structures that do not meet Fire District access requirements (See Fire Access) b. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate flow or pressure. FSC-3 Fire District Site Access- Technical Comments 1_. Access Roadways Defined: Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets, and highways, as welt as private roads, streets, drive aisles and designated fire lanes. 2. Location of Access: All portions of the structure or facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story shall be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measured by an unobstructed approved route around the exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates, and fences are an .obstruction. 3. Vegetation: Trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum °f 14'feet, 6' inches fram the ground up, so as not to impede fire vehicles. 4. Mitigate or Correct Access Problems: Amend the proposed site access to accommodate Fire District emergency vehicle access or provide Fire District approved mitigation. Any proposed mitigation measures are subject to the approval of the Fire District and other agencies having jurisdiction. FSC-4 Hazardous Fire Area Designated Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located within the "State Responsibility Area" (SRA), the "Wry High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga "Hillside District," or within the area identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Exhibit V-7 as High Probability-High Consequence for Fire Risk. These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire District. This determination is based on maps produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans statinq -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shalt meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the following: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT STANDARD CONDITIONS - SUBTT16324 January 5, 2004 a. Class A roof assemblies, b. Fuel modification/hazard reduction plans, c. Approved Fire District access roadways, d. One-hour fire-resistive construction with protected openings may be required, e. Fire sprinkler system may be required, f. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from an on-site water supply. g. Visit www~c~san~bernardin~ca~us/~anduseservlces/DevC~de/8~5-~verlaY%2~Districts`pdf~ for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety (FR) Overlay District. 2. Construction Standards: Summary of construction requirements for the Hazardous Fire Area: a. The roof shall be a Class A fire-resistive assembly approved by Building and Safety. Fire-retardant Class A wood shakes and shingles shall have completed a 10-year "natural" weathering test. Class A roof assemblies shall be installed in accordance with their listing and manufacturer's instructions. b. The space between rafts at exterior walls shall be solidly filled with tight-fitting wood blocks at one and one-half (1-1/2) inches thick. May be "boxed." c. The exposed surface of exterior wall must be listed as one-hour fire-resistive construction. d. All exterior doors must be solid core or wood portions shall be solid core wood. e. All windows, sliding glass doors or glass insets in does shall be constructed of approved dual-pane glass. f. Cantilevered or standard type desks shatl be constructed of 1 .) A minimum of at least one and one-half (1-1/2) inch wood deck; and/or 2.) Protected on the underside by materials approved for one (one) hour fire-resistive construction; and/or 3.) Be of non-combustible materials, as defined in the Building Code. g. Patio covers attached or within 10-feet of a residential structure shall be constructed of materials not less than one-half (1/2) inch. Plastic, bamboo, straw, fiberglass, or wood-lattice less than one-half (1/2) inch are not permitted. h. All required fences adjacent to fuel modification areas or wildland areas as conditions of approval for a project shall be of non-combustible materials as defined in the Building Code. Any fence within lO-feet of the fuel modification area or wildland area shall be non-combustible. Beyond lO-feet the may be constructed of any approved material. All other fences, including those on the interior of the project are not subject to this requirement. i. Visit www~c~~san~bernardin~~ca~us/~anduseservices/DevC~de/8~5-~ver~aY%2~Districts~pdf~ for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety (FR) Overlay District. 3. Perimeter Roadway Required: A roadway shall be provided along the project perimeter exposed to a fire hazard or fuel modified area. The roadway is to allow fire district vehicle access. Such roadway shall be a minimum twenty (20) feet in width, with a grade not to exceed fourteen pement (14%), and capable of supporting fire fighting vehicles. 4. Power-operated Equipment Use in a Hazardous Fire Area: Submit a "Fire Prevention and Control Plan" to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Fire Safety Division for review and approval. The plan shall include job location, specific fire tools to be maintained on-site, person(s) responsible for supervising the project (on-site), method of reporting a fire (cell phone, etc.), City or County Permit Number, contractors license number, address, telephone number, etc. $. Fire District Approval Required for Equipment Use: No power-operated equipment, including mobile, stationary, or portable, shall be used without Fire Safety Division written approval. 6. Combustible Vegetation: During the declared "fire season" or at any other time when ground litter and vegetation will sustain combustion permitting the spread of fire, contact the Fire Protection District during normal business hours to determine if "special fire protection measures" are required to operate power equipment. Call (909) 477-2713, Monday through Thursday, between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The purpose of the call is to determine if extreme fire weather conditions are present or expected to occur. RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT STANDARD CONDITIONS - SUBTr16324 January 5, 2004 7. Special Fire Protection Required: "Special fire protection measures" include, but are not limited to; a. A stand-by water tender with operating pump; tested and maintained fire hose and nozzles. b. Pre-wetting of the site to avoid the production of sparks, i.e., contact between blades or tracks and rocks, etc. c. The Fire District requires the contractor to maintain a fire watch for a minimum of one-hour following cessation of operations each day. d. For welding, cutting or grinding clear away all flammable material from the area around such operation for a minimum distance of 10-feet. A ~hot-work" permit will be required. e. Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one five (5) gallon backpack water pump-type fire extinguisher fully equipped and ready for use at the immediate area during the operation. FSC-5 Fuel Modification/Hazard Reduction Plan (Required Notes for All Maps and Plans) 1. Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" based on proximity to or exposure urban- wildland interface. Mitigation measures are required. The building(s) shall be constructed in accordance with the standards contained in the San Bemardino County Fire Safety Overlay District- Area FR-1 or Area FR-2. 2. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veqetati.htm for additional information. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. 3. Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Preeliminary grading the applicant shall °btain the Fire District approval of a preliminary fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan(s) shall be prepared by an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildfire hazard mitigation planning. a. Show all property lines, contour lines, locations of proposed buildings or structures, b. Show the 30-foot minimum defensible space for slopes less than 15% and 100-feet for slope 15% or more (Zone 1- Setback Zone) around the perimeter of each building or structure. c. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning). d. Show existing vegetation impacted by the required fuel modification and, if available, proposed vegetation to be planted in the fuel modification area. The preliminary plans should be sensitive to rare, threatened, or endangered species and the applicant must be prepared to address their disposition in the final plans. e. Include photographs of the area that show the type of vegetation currently existing; include height and density; and relationship to grade. f. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. g. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. State on the plan who will have ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. 4. Final Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall obtain Fire District approval of a final fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of achieving an acceptable level of risk to the structures by vegetation. a. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning), indicate locations of permanent zone identification markers. RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT STANDARD CONDITIONS - SUBTT16324 January 5, 2004 b. Include irrigation plans and specifications. c. Attach a landscape plan. The landscape plan must identify the location and type of supplemental plantings. The plans and specifications shall include both the common and botanical names of new and existing plants within the fuel modification area. Clearly indicate on the plans the disposition of impacted existing vegetation. d. The landscape plan shall include any special or specific maintenance intended for the site such as pruning, "limbing" up, mowing, etc. e. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. f. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. g. State on the plan who will ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. h. Include on the title sheet any tract/project conditions of approval, CC&R's, and/or deed restrictions related to the site or final fuel modification area. Include a copy of the approved preliminary fuel modification plans with this submittal i. Provide an appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder showing continued maintenance responsibility in the event of property transfer, change in membership of directors, change in CC&R's. j. Maintenance responsibility requirements and appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder .5. Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District, before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. 6. Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. 6. Phased or Temporary Plans: Phased projects or temporery fuel modification plans must meet the requirements for permanent plans and be approved by the Fire Distdct. 8. Single-family In-fill Projects: For a single-family dwelling project located in the Hazardous Fire Area, a simplified landscaping/fuel modification plan may be acceptable. The plan shall detail the defensible space. Provide a minimum thirty-foot (30') space for slopes less than 15% and a mJnimum one hundred-feet (100') space for slopes of 15% or more. Show proposed and/or existing vegetation. Refer to the following web site for further information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veqetati.htm. The Fire District can provide a single page sheet of standardized notes for inclusion on the construction plans. Call (909) 477-2770 to obtain a copy, and to determine if your project is eligible. FSC-6 Single-family Residential Sales Models 1. Minimum Access and Water: Residential sales model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water supply from a public or private water main system. FSC-7 Alternate Materials and Methods The Fire Safety Division will review requests for altemate materials and methods within the scope of our authority. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents. RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT STANDARD CONDITIONS - SUBTT16324 January 5, 2004 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS- Complete the following: 'J.. Private/On-site Fire Hydrants: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations tor the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District standards. Contac the Fire Safety Division for a copy of "Fire District Notes for Underground and Water Plans.~ 2. Public Fire Hydrants: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and the Water District. On the plan show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. 3. Public Installation: All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Water District personnel shall inspect the installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit a copy of the Water District inspection report to the Fire Safety Division. Contact Water District to schedule testing. 4. Hazardous Fire Area Construction: The building or project is located within the designated Hazardous Fire Area. All buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the previsions of County Fire Safety Review Area (One or Two) [FR-1/FR-2] standards. In the Hazardous Fire Area the applicant shall provide a modified one-hour fire- resistive exterior wall(s) based on exposure to unmodified native vegetation or potential exposure to embers or debris from a wind-driven fire, as determined. No vent openings are permitted on or in building components or sudaces that are parallel to any wall required to be constructed of modified one-hour fire-resistive construction. .~. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans stating -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the following: a. Class A roof assemblies; b. Fuel moditication/hazard reduction plans; c. Approved Fire District access roadways; d. One-hour fire-resistive construction for exterior wails may be required; e. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from the public water system or an on-site water supply. 6. Architectural Plans- Single-family Residential Hazardous Fire Area: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit amhitectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Safety Division. The Fire Safety Division review is intended to ensure that conditions established during the development review have been included in the design of the project. '7. Fuel Modification Plan- Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. 8. Combustible Construction Letter- Required Letter: Pdor to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit a letter to the Fire District on company letterhead stating that the minimum water supply for fire fighting purposes and the all-weather fire protection access roadway that meets Fire District Standards shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on-site. The roadway shall be maintained at all times. RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRCT STANDARD CONDITIONS - SUBTT16324 January 5, 2004 PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION- Complete the following: !. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers." On private property these markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. 2. Fire Sprinkler System- Plans and Permit: Plans for the required automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services for review and approval. No work is allowed without a Fire Construction Services permit. 3. Fire Sprinkler System- Final Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 4. Construction Access: Fire District access, a minimum 26-feet in width and 14-feet, 6-inches minimum clear height shall be provided. These minimum clearances shall be maintained free and clear of any obstructions at all times, in accordance with Fire District Standards. 5. Phased Construction: Each phase shall be provided with approved Fire District access roadways. Dead-end roadways shall not exceed the maximum permitted by the Fire Code or Fire District standards. 6. Address Single-family: New single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100 feet, additional 4- inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 7. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with at least three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site for additional information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I- Zone/XIV/ve etati.htm. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. Contact the Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713 8. Fuel Modification Plan- Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. THIS PAG INTENTIONALLY LFFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 04~** ~, ~) ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HENDERSON CREEK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16324, AND DEVELOPMENT AG REEMENT, FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 63.5 ACRES INTO 123 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD -APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29. A. Recitals. 1. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 123 single-family housing units on approximately 65.3 acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on approximately 25.1 acres of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for annexation and is currently used for a utility easement and for flood control purposes. The total area to be annexed is approximately 100.4 acres. The density of the development is approximately 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, constitute the matters involving the Project which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto. 4. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines. The Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Project may have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources, including land use, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, public health and safety, and biological resources. 5. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Project in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081. The City prepared and issued a Notice of Preparation of the EIR on November 10, 2003. ESI CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - HENDERSON CREEK June 16,2004 Page 2 6. The City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Reseamh for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other interested agencies and groups in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a). 7. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on December 10, 2003, to provide an introduction to the Project and CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR. 8. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057). 9. The City cimulated the Draft EIR and the Appendices to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested persons for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 20, 2004 through April 5, 2004. 10. The City received six written comments in response to the Draft EIR. 11. The City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the Draft EIR in response to the comments. 12. The City completed the responses to comments on the Draft EIR and preliminary revisions to the Draft EIR in April 2004, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and to the public. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR and a copy of the Draft Development Agreement (Appendix K). Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR was distributed in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 21092.5, and at least ten (10) days prior to any Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR. 13. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions: (a) Resolution No. 04-58, recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749; (b) Resolution No. 04-59, recommending City Council approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DR02003-00750; (c) Resolution No. 04-60, certifying the Final EIR for purposes of approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 and approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324; and (d) Resolution No. 04-61, recommending that the City Council enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. 14. On May 19, 2004, Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 3 15. On June 2, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. After the receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16, 2004. 16. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct. 2. Each finding herein is based upon the substantial evidence in the administrative record of proceedings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, including testimony at the City Council's public hearings on June 2, 2004, and June 16, 2004, the Final EIR, and written and oral staff reports. 3. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines. 4. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to approving the Project. The City Council has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve each of the various applications comprising the Project. 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. 6. The City Council finds that the Final EIR adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. 7. The City Council finds that the additional information provided in the staff report, in attachments to the staff report, in the comments to the Draft EIR, and presented at the Planning Commission and City Council's public hearings, does not represent significant new information so as to require re-circulation of the Final EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 4 8. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as the environmental document for the Project and for the City Council's action in approving Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. 9. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which include, but are not limited to, the staff reports for the Project, as well as all of the materials that comprise and support the Final EIR and all of the materials that support the staff reports for the Project, are located in the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cuoamonga, California 91730. The custodian of these documents is the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2004. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04- ~, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California; that WHEREAS, a Final EIR has been certified bythe City Council bywayof Resolution No. as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in connection with the City Council's consideration of the proposed annexation described in the title of this Resolution and that such document has been presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the above-described properties are located within and consistent with the established Sphere of Influence of the City, and contiguous to current City limits; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited (as defined under LAFCO), and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B' attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the annexation of the property will represent a logical extension of the City's boundaries and urban services; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to provide the usual and necessary urban services to the area upon annexation, as outlined in the Plan of Services set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the annexation of the properties would be beneficial to the public purposes of the City, in that the properties will provide for development within the City in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and with related development; and WHEREAS, the City Council as governing body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (Annexation) for the subject properties pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, Commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code; 'and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions: a. The property owner has requested that the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiate annexation. The City is, therefore, requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the proposal with the waiver of further conducting authority proceedings as authorized by Govt. Code Section 56663(c). b. The proposed annexation shall be subject to all standard conditions required bY the Local Agency Formation Commission. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council as the governing body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does hereby adopt, approve, resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 123 single-family housing units on approximately 65.3 acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on approximately 25.1 acres of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for annexation and is currently used for a utility easement and for flood control purposes. The total area to be annexed is approximately 100.4 acres. The density of the development is approximately 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." b. Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 (collectivelythe "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 20, 2004, through April 5, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR and a copy of the Draft Development Agreement (Appendix K). Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ('~the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. e. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the project approvals. f. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 3 imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. g. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. h. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, Biological Resources, Air Quality, and Public Services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings", the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Land Use and Planninq. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and the Final EIR indicates that the Project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, because some of the proposed residential lots would be less than 20,000 square feet. With the approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment that will change the land use district from Very Low Residential (0.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acre area designated for residential development, the Project would then be consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. As a result, the Project site may be developed with lots less than 20,000 square feet. In addition, in order to address the reduction in lot sizes and the likely effect of lots averaging 18,000 square feet, with a minimum size of 14,025 square feet, on the ability of those property owners to own and maintain horses on those lots, a mitigation measure is being imposed (Mitigation Measure LU-2) to require the developer to pay an in-lieu fee to the City for the development of an equestrian center that would serve residents in the area desiring to own and maintain horses. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan also requires a particular design and development theme that is consistent with the character of Old Etiwanda by having access to trails, provisions for views of the mountains and complying with certain design requirements for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and the community's entry points. Mitigation Measure LU-1 is being imposed that requires the project developer to submit a landscape plan that is consistent with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that any inconsistency of the Project with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16,2004 Page 4 ii. Traffic and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a Level of Service (LOS) of "E" or "F" at the intersections of Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW) and at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Street (EW). Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to construct and widen Wardman-Bullock Road along the Project frontage (Mitigation Measure TO-3), to install a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection (Mitigation Measure TC-5), to contribute developer fees for other traffic improvements (Mitigation Measures TC-1 and TC-5), and to modify signing and stripping of certain roadways and intersections (Mitigation Measures TC-2 and TC-4). The City's "City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development" provides for the payment of fees at the time building permits are issued based on a formula adopted by the City Council by resolution. That formula provides for the payment of a fee per dwelling unit of approximately $1,710.03 and a credit against those fees for certain qualifying traffic improvements that mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The City is required to use traffic impact fees to fund City-wide and regional roadway and traffic improvements, and as a consequence, the payment of those fees by the project developer will contribute to the mitigation of the Project's impacts to traffic and circulation. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that traffic at the study intersections will be reduced so that those intersections operate at a LOS "D," and that the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iii. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. Earthmoving equipment is anticipated to create noise ranging between 75 to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure N- 1 ). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the shore term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels at the facades of homes nearest the Project exit at Wardman-Bullock Road would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic. The Final EIR states that if the property owners of the homes fronting on Wardman-Bullock Road can close their windows and still obtain adequate ventilation, then the goal of reducing the interior noise to a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior noise level would be achieved. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to install air conditioning units for the residences that front along Wardman-Bullock Road so as to allow window closure during warm days so as to achieve a less than significant interior noise level for those homes with the windows closed (Mitigation Measure N-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a less than significant level. iv. Geology and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking due to regional and local faults located in the area. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the developer to ensure that all grading plans and grading work are done in compliance with the geotechnical report for the Project so that soil and slopes are properly compacted and grading work achieves all seismic requirements (Mitigation Measure GS-1), that the developer shall submit building plans which incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report for preliminary foundation work, utility CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 5 trenching, and concrete slabs (Mitigation Measure GS-2), and that all buildings and structures are built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-3). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. v. Hydroloq¥ and Water Quality. The Final EIR identifies that during storm events, construction activities (particularly vegetation removal, grading and excavation), could affect the~ amounts of sediments and suspended solid material leaving the site such that water quality downstream of the site could be affected to a level that was potentially significant. Vegetation removal and grading would expose the soil to erosion by wind and rain, and rainfall could carry more sediment off the disturbed areas end adversely affect water quality downstream. In addition, during earthwork and construction activities, pollutants that may be discharged in stormwater include vehicle fluids such as oil, grease and coolants, asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete paving, paints and solvents, wood products, and metal and metal plated products. In accordance with the State of California's implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Project developer will be required to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface waters. Compliance with these permitting requirements will require the Project developer and construction crews to comply with a variety of measures, such as limiting clearing and grubbing areas to the limits of the active construction area, using hay bales and sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season, using enclosed storage sheds where possible, utilizing hazardous materials in a manner that evoids contact with the ground, avoiding the application of certain materials during periods of rainfall, washing of equipment or vehicles in a designated place where a sump can be located to collect wash water for proper disposal, and servicing equipment and vehicles off-site. A mitigation measure is imposed to require compliance with these permitting requirements and BMPs (Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 ). 'The City Council finds that with the imposition of this mitigation measure and after implementation of BMPs set forth in the SWPPP, potentially significant impacts on water quality from construction activity will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi. Public Health and Safety. The Final EIR identifies that the frequency of high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from extreme wind conditions. In addition, wildfires on adiacent lands, including National Forest land and undeveloped properties, could threaten residential development on the Project site. Specifically, the Final EIR indicates that Santa Aha winds along the front of the mountains can reach hurricane force, with winds in the area of the Project detected at reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour. Damage to roofs, fences, windows and landscaping is possible in these types of conditions. Three mitigation measures are imposed to mitigate the impacts of wind hazard to a less than significant level. Those measures include requirements to utilize optimum building materiels and construction techniques as required by the Uniform Building Code, to require disclosure of the potential for high winds in sales documents to prospective homebuyers, and to comply with other mitigation measures for control of particulate matter emissions during grading and construction (Mitigation Measures HS-1, HS-2, HS-3). Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code has been demonstrated to result in structures that are capable of withstanding winds projected for the Project area without serious damage. With respect to the impacts created by wildfires on adjacent lands, the City Council is particularly familiar with these risks after the City and surrounding areas recently experienced the G rand Prix fire in October 2003. The City Council also understands that the addition of persons into an area of wildland vegetation increases the number of ignitions (risk), the growth of brush after a CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 6 fire increases the intensity of new fires in the area (hazard), and the addition of homes and amenities into the same area (value) creates an increased need for fire protection and fuel modification. Design features have already been incorporated into the Project to ensure vegetation areas to the north are separated from residential structures with a trail, a wall and a riprap drainage channel so as to provide approximately 100 feet of distance between chaparral vegetation and the homes. All homes will also be constructed with Class A roofs. Along the western boundary of the site where the wildfire threat is moderate, a six-foot masonry wall and "firewise" landscaping between native vegetation and the homes are to be required. A comprehensive mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure HS-4) requires a detailed landscape plan/fuel modification plan to contain requirements for "firewise" vegetation in specific areas, irrigation plans and specific standards applicable to certain areas of the Project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure HS-5 requires the installation of residential fire sprinklers as a component of the construction. The City Council finds that with the combination of appropriate landscaping, residential fire sprinklers, the introduction of certain new paved surfaces where none currently exist, and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will effectively reduce movement of potential fire into the Project area and thereby mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. vii. Bioloqical Resources. The proposed Project would result in development of a 65.3 acre area of the site, and the Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and a small area of flat-top buckwheat scrub. Specifically, prior to the Grand Prix fire, the portion of the site proposed for development had approximately 1.5 acres of disturbed annual grassland, 4.2 acres of disturbed annual grassland dominated by deerweed, 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub dominated by white sage, and 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub. The impacts on the annual grassland areas is not considered significant because of the relatively small area impacted (approximately 1/3 of the total disturbed annual grassland on the site) and because those areas had experienced substantial disturbance from prior weed control measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads and other roads that cross the property. With respect to upland sage scrub, most of that area was dominated by white sage, which is not considered to be sensitive habitat by the resource agencies that regulate biological resources. However, the City Council recognizes that the loss of this plant community for wildlife habitat is important when considering cumulative impacts on this resource. With respect to the fiat-top buckwheat scrub, this is a common species and an indicator of prior disturbance to the land. The Final EIR indicates that no sensitive species of fiat-top buckwheat scrub were found on the site and therefore no impacts were expected to occur. The Final E IR recognizes that much of the vegetation previously found on the site would likely grow back after the fire if no development took place. However, the Biological Assessment not only found no substantial evidence of sensitive plant or wildlife species on the site, but it also found that due to the area already being disturbed by did roads for power line maintenance, previous construction activity, commercial harvesting of white sage, and flood control improvements and activities, development of the site would not have a significant impact on biological resources. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project site is within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP), as adopted by the County of San Bernardino. To implement the goals and purposes of that Program, a mitigation measure has been imposed to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County, 58 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub (Mitigation Measure BIO-1 ). This 58 acre area is intended to accomplish a "one to one" mitigation in acreage for the loss of the 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. As required by the mitigation measure, the off-site mitigation land shall be equal to or greater in habitat value than that of the Project site. The City CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 7 Council finds that the conveyance into the NEOSHPP of 58 acres of land by the Project developer would mitigate this impact to a level that is less than significant. viii. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These impacts are considered to be short-term (less than one year) and temporary and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust. One cause of these short-term impacts is blowing dust resulting from the grading of the site. In addition, the use of diesel engine equipment dudng grading and construction along with worker trips is anticipated to create levels of nitrous oxides (NOx) that are also above the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Similarly, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to create significant levels of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx) that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. A comprehensive mitigation measure is imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 ) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions, included in those measures are requirements to limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as is possible, terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control measures when winds exceed 25 miles per hour, stabilize disturbed areas if construction is delayed, require 90-day Iow-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment, limit idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment, encourage carpooling for construction workers, limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods, park construction vehicles off traveled roadways, wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site, wash or sweep access points daily and encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, construction emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation requirements, construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and therefore, would remain significant after mitigation. ix. Cumulative Impacts - Air Quality, Noise and Public Services. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of development projects in the vicinity, would likely create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality because the Project would add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions. With respect to noise, the Final EIR indicates that the Project will create short-term cumulative construction noise impacts and long-term cumulative noise impacts due to increased vehicle trips. With respect to public services (schools), state law (Government Code Section 65995(h)) provides for the payment of developer fees and deems such payment to be full and complete mitigation of school impacts. Consequently, as a matter of law, the long-term cumulative impacts to schools from this and other projects are deemed to be fully mitigated by the payment of developer fees and the City is precluded, by law, from imposing additional mitigation to address these potential impacts. The City Council finds that noise and air quality impacts associated with increased vehicle trips would remain significant when combined with existing and anticipated construction projects in the vicinity of the Project. i. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts and short and long-term cumulative impacts) and noise (short-term and long-term cumulative impacts). CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 8 j. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative." Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) To annex the 90.4 acre Project site and adjacent 10 acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ii) The "No Project-No Development" Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet the Project objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project's objective to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. Furthermore, as the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within an area previously approved for ~esidential development would not be legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 9 iii) The "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative" assumes that the Project site would be developed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation (Very Low Residential). Under this designation, and assuming that the area disturbed by grading is equal to that of the proposed Project, the minimum lot sizes would be 20,000 square feet and the number of lots that could be developed would be approximately 90 rather than the 123 as currently proposed. This reduction in development by approximately 33 dwelling units would result in lower traffic, air quality, and noise impacts than the proposed Project, but would not reduce to less than significance the short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from Project emissions and cumulative short and long-term noise impacts. In addition, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. k. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality and noise. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, and cumulative air quality and noise are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: (i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; (ii) Annexation of the 90.4-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; (iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; (iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; (v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-0075351 - HENDERSON CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 10 (vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; (vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; (viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands; (ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs; (x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and (xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. I. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. m. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 2: Application and proposal is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino for Change of Organization (Annexation) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the property described in Exhibit "A" and as shown in Exhibit "B" and as outlined in the Plan of Services as shown in Exhibit "C," which exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in accordance to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2004 BY: ATTEST: EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAFCO NO. THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, AND A PORTION OF TH]E WEST HALF OF SECTION 22 TOWNSHIP i NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MJEPdDIAN, IN TI-IE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNIER OF SAID SECTION 22; TI-IBNCE NORTH 89°40'08" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1325.05 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH1VEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 00°00'03" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE N(JRTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1319.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF TI-IE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 00o00'03" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF ~ SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 659.93 FEET; Tt-I~NCE SOUTH 89034, 15" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1325.86 FEET TO TIlE W]EST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE NORTH 00°01'26" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 660.87 FEET TO THE SOIYTI:IEAST CORNER OF THE NORTIt]~AST QUARTER OF TIRE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE SOUTH 89°15'44" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAIl) NORTHEAST QUARTER OF TIlE NORTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1324.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF ~ NORTHEAST QUARTER; TH]ENCE NORTH 00°00'53" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINIE OF SAiD NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE 1320.82 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 89° 14'46' EAST ALO~NG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 1325.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING IN 100.45 ACRES MORE OR LESS ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED I-1]{RETO AND BY THIS KEFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PPdEPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. NO. 3821 WmLIXU n. ADDINOTON, P.L.S. 3821 DATE ~ EXP. 06/30/04/~ LICENSE EXPIRES 06/30/04 1 ofl O:\word proC~ang\job r~la~t~319 _ Hend~n Cr~k Propk319O l lLEOALSV~FCO-~E~ON C~C ~l~ l~5 SHEET 1 OF yOF TI~E NE 1/4. OF SECl10N 21 I 16.~-"-P'O'B' ~ULLOCK RO. ~ [N89'14'~'E 1325.O9'~ N89~'46~E (Nag'40'08'E 1325.04'~ 1525,05' ~ WARDM~ BU~ ~ ~ NW ~/4, ROAD ~ [ A.P.N. 0226-O81-28 OF SEC~ON 22 ~ CU~ON~ I ~ H~ ~. RO~ ~~13~ ~ ~EA: 1~,~ AC, P,O.B. - POINT OF BE~NNING ROAD~ ENGINEEEINO ANNEXA~ON ~ (1305.86') ~ I' - 300' (NBg'34"15'E) 1325.86' EXHIBIT "II" DECLIFF ROAD I~O.~STS~.WCE 0 HENDERSON CREEK PLAN FOR SERVICES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA HOGLE-~/~ND INC. VICINITY MAP q PLAN FOR SERVICES City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Contact: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner Tel (909) 477-2750 Brad Bullet, City Planner Tel (909) 477-2750 Prepared for: Henderson Creek Properties, LLC Contact: Steven Stewart Tel (714) 839-0850 Prepared By: Hogle-Ireland Inc Contact: Pamela Steele, Principal Sonia Pierce, Senior Associate Project Manager Chris Stamps, Associate Project Manager Tel (909) 787-9222 Fax (909) 781-6014 Revised March 23, 2004 (accepted ali changes) Revised March 4, 2004 January 2004 Il C // Henderson Creek Plan for Services Table of Contents Section Page I. Introduction 5 A. Introduction 5 B. Background 5 II. Planning and Statutory Considerations 8 A. Planning Consideration 8 B. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan 8 C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan 8 D. Applicable Laws 9 III. Service Considerations 11 A. Roadways and Transportation Services 11 lB. Electricity 11 C. Natural Gas 11 D. Telephone 12 E. Drainage Services 12 F. Water Services 12 G. Sewer Services 13 H. Police Services 14 I. Fire Protection & Ambulance Services 14 J. Libraries 15 K. Street Lighting 15 L. Solid Waste Services 16 M. School Services 16 N. Parks & Recreation Services 16 IV. Fiscal Analysis 17 Henderson Creek 2 Plan for Services EXHIBITS Figure Page 1. Vicinity Map 4 2. Annexation Map 7 Exhibit A Fiscal Analysis Henderson Creek 3 Plan for Services ~ FIGURE I HENDERSON CREEK PLAN FOR SERVICES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA VICINITY MAP Henderson Creek 4 Plan for Services I. Introduction A. Introduction This document has been prepared to provide the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and other interested individuals and agencies with pertinent information relating to governmental functions, facilities, services and costs and revenues applicable to proposed Annexation No. 04-XX to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. This annexation proposal has been initiated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This document supports the City's petition by addressing all of the service related considerations applicable to the property, thereby permitting the LAFCO Staff and Board Members to fully understand, evaluate and approve the annexation request. This plan of services addresses the basic level of public services that are required to support the future development of the Henderson Creek Properties Annexation and the associated population growth and the manner in which urban and municipal services will be provided. The proposed annexation area is located at the northwest comer of Wardman Bullock Road and Colonbero Road in an unincorporated area of San Bemardino County within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence, and within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) area. The proposed annexation includes a total of 100.4 acres. The total development area of annexation consists of 90.4-acres and includes residential, open space, and the San Bemardino County Flood Channel. The remaining 10.0-acres outside the development area to be annexed is owned by Southern California Edison easement and used as a utility corridor. The proposed project is a residential development of 123 single family residential lots encompassing approximately 65.3 acres, with a minimum lot size of 14,025 square feet and a maximum lot size of 45,755 square feet. B. Project Background The project site is located in the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), which was approved in 1991. The ENSP comprises approximately 6,840 acres and is located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere of Influence. The project site is located within the unincorporated portion of San Bemardino County. The project includes the annexation of 100.4 acres from San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As part of the approval process, the County of San Bemardino prepared a full scope environmental impact report (EIR) for the project (SCH No. 2003111057). Henderson Creek 5 Plan for Services The majority of the annexation area is vacant. However, the Henderson Creek Channel transverses the area and overhead power transmission lines (Southem California Edison) easements are included within the site. It is surrounded by undeveloped land, with the exception of the area immediate east, which is single-family residential development. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is in the process of submitting four separate annexations to the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Each of the proposed annexations is under separate environmental reviews. Henderson Creek 6 Plan for Services FIGURE 2 HENDERSON CREEK PLAN FOR SERVICES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA · N HOGLE-~,I~E~q~M ,D INC, ANNEXATION MAP Henderson Creek 7 Plan for Services 55~/ II. Planning and Statutory Consideration A. Planning Considerations The proposed annexation area is contained within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence. The City's General Plan current land use designation for the site is Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre). The project is also included in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1992. The project, as proposed, would require amendments to both the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to ensure consistency with adopted land use designations. B. City of Rancho Cucalnonga General Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation for the 100.4-acre project site is currently shown as Very Low Residential, (.1-2 Dwelling Units per Acre) Flood Control, and Utility Corridor. The Very Low land use designation covers 65.3-acres with the remaining 35.1 acres designated for Flood Control and Utility Corridor. The Very Low Residential District is intended as an area for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 20,000 (average lot area of 25,000 square feet) and a maximum density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the project site is within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District. The Overlay District extends generally north of Banyan Street between the western City limits and Milliken Avenue, and then north of 1- 210 Freeway between Milliken Avenue and eastern City limits. The District allows the keeping of horses and other farm animals. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment that would change the current designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 Dwelling Units per Acre) to Low Residential (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) for 65.3 acres of the 100.4-acre annexation site and Open Space/Conservation for 5.2 acres. The remainder of the 100.4 acre annexation area will remain within the existing land use designations of Flood Control and Utility Corridor. C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan The Henderson Creek Properties residential development is subject to the policies set forth in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan is a specific area acknowledged in the City's General Plan subject to land use and community design within the north Etiwanda area. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted on April 1, 1992 (Ordinance 493) and comprises of a 6,840 acres within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City's Sphere of Influence. The project is located in Sub Area 6 of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and permits residential, open space and recreational land uses. Henderson Creek 8 Plan for Services555 The Etiwanda North Specific Plan designates the site as Very Low Residential, allowing a maximum of two dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment that would change the current designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 Dwelling Unit per Acre) to Low Residential (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) for 65.3-acres of the 100.4 annexation area and Open Space/Conservation for 5.2 acres. The remainder of the 100.4-acre annexation area will remain within the existing land use designations of Flood Control and Utility Comdor. D. Applicable Laws LAFCO is authorized and mandated by State law as the agency responsible for evaluating and approving annexations to an incorporated city. Subsequent to the initial consideration of an annexation request by the City, a public hearing is held before the LAFCO Board where the annexation proposal is approved, denied, or modified. The following Protest Procedures for LAFCO proceedings are outlined in California Government Code (within Section 57000) and summarized in the LAFCO Procedures and Guidelines: 1) Following a LAFCO Commission action to approve an annexation, a resolution of that action is forwarded to affected agencies and individuals. Thirty days following the LAFCO Commission action the Protest Period is announced through a combination of publication of a legal advertisement in the local newspaper and through mailing of individual notices to anyone who has previously requested such notices. The protest period can be no less than 15 days nor more than 60 days, from the date of the announcement. All protests must follow strict LAFCO requirements, but generally they must be in writing and be received during the protest period. The protest must also indicate whether the letter is from a landowner and/or a registered voter from within the annexation area; only those that are either a landowner and/or a registered voter from within the annexation area are eligible to submit a valid protest; and 2) At the conclusion of the protest period, LAFCO staff will make a finding of the results of any protests received for adoption by the LAFCO Commission. The Commission must take one of the following actions based on the result of the protest findings: a. For uninhabited annexations (<12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the assessed value of land owners (improvement values are not counted) within the annexation area; or · approve the annexation if written protest is submitted by landowners who own less than 50% of the assessed value of the annexation area. b. For inhabited annexations (>12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the registered voters in the annexation area; Henderson Creek 9 Plan for Services 55 ~ · call an election if protest is received from at least 25% and less than 50% of the registered voters, or if 25% to 100% of the number of landowners -who own at least 25% of the total annexation land value - submit a written protest [The voters (whether they own land or not) would then decide the issue by majority vote in a special election]; or · approve the annexation without an election if written protest is received from less than 25% of the voters and less than 25% of the landowners (owning less than 25% of the land value). The above referenced requirements also require the submittal of a plan for services for areas to be annexed. This document satisfies this statutory requirement. Henderson Creek i0 Plan for Services .5'57 III. Service Considerations A. Roadways and Transportation Services The proposed development is not located within any Transit Service Corridor. Primary access will be provided via Wardman Bullock Road. The annexation area is located north of Banyan Avenue, west of Wardman Bullock Road, and northwest of Colonbero Road. Sheridan Estates (Tract 13564) is located east of the site. The proposed project includes improvements to the existing intersection at Wardman Bullock Road and Wilson Avenue to accommodate vehicles traveling to and from the site. The proposed project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site and within the project, as well as improve the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road from Wilson Avenue to the south boundary of the project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will assume responsibility for street maintenance of public arterial roadways within the annexation area. The project will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing Landscape Maintenance District No. 7. B. Electricity The proposed annexation area lies within the service boundaries of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). SCE has indicated that the demands associated with the project are accommodated within their master planning efforts and service can be extended to the site. The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to annexation. Assuming buildout of the 123 lots, electrical consumption for the site, based on SCE designated criteria, is estimated as follows: 123 dwellings X 7kw/unit = 861 kw per month; or 10,332 kw annually. C. Natural Gas Natural Gas would be provided by The Gas Company. The Gas Company maintains natural gas pipelines in Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue. Natural gas service will be provided via extensions of these existing transmission pipelines. The Gas Company anticipates no problems in extending service to the site and has included the project in its master planning efforts. Henderson Creek 11 Plan for Services The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to annexation. Annual gas consumption upon development of the site is estimated to be about 85 therms per unit per average month, for a total of 10,455 therms per month or 125,460 therms per year. D. Telephone Services. The telephone service to the project site would be provided by Verizon Communications. The facilities will be extended from Wardman-Bullock Road into the Henderson Creek project site. Verizon anticipates no problems in providing communication services to the project site. E. Drainage Services The majority of the drainage from the annexation area will be collected into onsite underground storm drains and then conveyed into a 66-inch storm drain along San Segundo Drive. All streets will be designed to accommodate storm waters that could exceed the top of curbs in the event of a 25-year storm as well as the right-of- way for a 100-year storm. All necessary facilities will be localized in nature and will be inspected and maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Department. The County of San Bernardino Flood Control District is responsible for the maintenance of the Henderson Creek Channel, which traverses the project site. The Henderson Creek Channel and improvements to the levee have been designed to capture all flows entering the creek and conveying the flows offsite. These improvements are scheduled to occur prior to development of the Henderson Creek property. Upon completion of the levee improvements, the levee will protect the property from these flows and potential flooding. The project site is currently located within a 100-year hazard area and will be required to process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) based on the proposed improvements to the levee and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) following completion of the improvements. Both actions will be processed through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). F. Water Services The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) cover approximately 50 square miles, and provides water treatment, storage, and distribution of domestic water to all of Rancho Cucamonga, adjacent unincorporated County areas, and portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana and one tract in Upland. CVWD derives water from three sources - groundwater (43%), surface water (12%) and imported water (45%). Groundwater is derived primarily from the Cucamonga basin. Groundwater may also be pumped from Henderson Creek 12 Plan for Services ~,~ ~ the Chino basin, but must be replenished through purchases of State Water Project (imported) water. Canyon water is derived from surface and subsurface water form Cucamonga, Deer, Day, and East Etiwanda Canyons. CVWD also purchases water from northern California via the State Water Project. The current daily usage in the CVWD service area is approximately 42 million gallons per day. Residential water use amounts to 60 percent of the total water consumed, followed by landscaping at 20 percent. CVWD's master plan estimates demand needs through the year 2030; with residential water demand is expected to continue to be the greatest sources of water demand. CVWD anticipates growth by ensuring that adequate facilities are available to meet the water demand as it arises. CVWD is also one of seven member agencies that operate under the umbrella of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The IEUA had adopted a 10-year growth or capital improvement program that is based upon growth projections provided by the member agencies. CVWD is responsible for collecting developer fees for the construction and operation of water facilities. The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) will supply domestic water to the site. The site is currently undeveloped and does not consume any domestic water. Water is currently provided to the area by a 12-inch main located along Wardman-Bullock Road as a result of the development of the Tract 13564, east of the proposed annexation area. The proposed project includes the future connection of 123 single-family residential units to the CVWD domestic water system. Single-family residential units have a daily water demand of 640 gallons per day (GPD). Thus, the project will result in an increased water demand of the CVWD system of 78,720 GPD. This represents a 0.2 percent increase in water currently demanded from existing development within the City. CVWD is also going to construct a water storage tank (Zone 4) that will be located northeast of the project site and supply about 2/3 of the project site. In addition, the developer will be responsible for the water tank (Zone 5) that will be located near the future CVWD tank to the northwest of the project site. This water tank will supply the other 1/3 of the project site. The supply of both water tanks will produce up to 250,000 gallons of water which is a sufficient amount needed for the proposed project as well as to meet other needs planned by CVWD. G. Sewer Services The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) currently covers over 240 square miles and operates four wastewater treatment facilities that serve the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Chino, and Chino Hills. An additional treatment facility is currently planned. Two of the existing treatment plants, Regional Plants 1 and 4, serve development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. CVWD provides conveyance facilities to the treatment plants. The project site is within the service area of treatment plant number 4 (RP-4). RP-4 is located on 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The plant treats approximately 37.9 million gallons per Henderson Creek 13 Plan for Services ~ ~ ~ day (MGD) of wastewater and has a capacity of 44 MGD. The water treatment facilities cleanse the treated water to a tertiary level which is then used for irrigation proposed. Development fees are collected by member agencies for wastewater treatment facilities and passed on to the IEUA to use for new treatment plant construction. Except for extending pipelines to the project site, them will be no requirement for the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facility or expansion of existing facilities. The project will connect to the existing 8-inch sewer in San Segundo Avenue. Based on the CCWD Master Plan and IEUA estimates, wastewater generation in the project area is approximately 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day. Therefore, the 123 residential units proposed will generate approximately 33,210 gallons of sewage per day. This represents less than one percent of the current quantity of wastewater treated by RP-4, and will not exceed the capacity of the plant. In addition, the proposed project will comply with all regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements and will obtain required NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems) and SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) permits prior to project construction. II. Police Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga has contracted with the County of San Bemardino Sheriff's Department for police service since 1978. Currently the City contract includes 93 uniformed officers - including 11 sergeants, 2 lieutenants and one captain. With a population of 146,700 (January 2003 Department of Finance estimate) the current ratio of officers to residents is approximately 0.63 officers for every 1,000 residents. The projected average response time to an emergency call for service within the vicinity of the project site is at five minutes. The City's Police Department is temporarily located at 8340 Utica Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the permanent facility at 10510 Civic Center Drive, adjacent to City Hall, is currently being expanded and remodeled. Police service calls will incrementally increase as result of the proposed project. The proposed project will increase population by approximately 385 residents thus creating the need for approximately 0.25 additional officers if the current officer/resident ratio is maintained. The funds for additional police officers are provided as part of the City General Fund. Each year the City's annual budget negotiation with the Sheriff's department results in additional officers to be added to the Police force. I. Fire Protection & Ambulance Services The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical response to approximately 50 square miles, which includes the City's Henderson Creek 14 Plan for Services ~/ Sphere of Influence and the project site. Six fire stations are located within the City; and the RCFPD currently maintains a personnel ratio of 0.18 firefighter per 1,000 residents. The goal of RCFPD is to provide a five-minute response time for 90 pement of emergency calls placed within the City. Currently the City is providing five-minute service for 85 percent of the emergency calls. Existing fire stations 173, 175 and 176 will serve the project area. Station 173 - 12158 Base Line Road (3 fire fighters) Station 175 - 11108 Banyan Avenue (6 fimfighters) Station 176 - East Avenue at 23rd Street - (3 firefighters) The proposed project will incrementally increase the population in the vicinity by 385 residents thus creating the need for 0.07 additional firefighter personnel in order to maintain the current firefighter personnel/resident ratio. With the recent opening of Station 176, located approximately one-mile from the site, the current response times will continue to be less than five-minutes to the project site. The RCFPD also participates in an automatic response agreement, known as West End Joint Power Authority (West End), with neighboring fire departments to send the closest fire engine to a reported structure fire without regard to the city boundaries. The American Medical Response (AMP,), a private ambulance service, provides ambulance service for the residents in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. AMR is located at 7925 Center Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. J. Libraries The Rancho Cucamonga Public Library system will serve the project area upon annexation. The Rancho Cucamonga Library is located in a 2,200 square foot building in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on Archibald Avenue, north of Interstate 10 Freeway and west of Interstate 15 Freeway. The Library contains approximately 115,000 books (novels, magazines, references, etc,) and serves a population of over 146,000 residents. In addition, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which would serve the projected needs at build-out of the City. Library funding is derived from a percentage of the property tax allocation and disbursement with the County of San Bemardino (refer to the Fiscal Impact Analysis). K. Street Lighting The project presently does not contain any streetlights, however, will be required to install streetlights with development. The project will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. Henderson Creek 15 Plan for Services ~ ~ L. Solid Waste Burrtec Waste Industries will collect refuse from the project area under franchise agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Burrtec takes all refuse collected to the Transfer Station on Nape Street, at which point approximately 60% is diverted to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill in Rialto, the remaining refuse is transported out of the County landfill system. The City has implemented recycling programs, as required by state law (AB939), local Source Reduction and Recycling Element. M. School Services The annexation area will be served by the Etiwanda School District (grades K through 8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (grades 9 through 12). Based on the generation factors used by the Efiwanda School District, the area will generate approximately 77 K-8 and 19 high school students from the 123 new homes. Approximately 52 of these students would be elementary level (K-5) and 25 would be intermediate level (grades 6-8). The total students generated would be approximately 96. Historical enrollments in both Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the Etiwanda Elementary School District have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Historical student generation data from the districts indicate the project could generate an addition of approximately 96 students at build out, based on a total of 0.78 students per household. At present enrollments at all schools serving the project are at or over their capacities. However, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of state- mandated developer impact fees represent full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment to capacity conditions of the affected schools. N. Parks and Recreation Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department serves the surrounding parks and recreation facilities. The recreational amenities and programs include - Community Center at Lions East and Lions West, Senior Center, Family Sports Center, Epicenter/Sports Complex, and 20 park sites throughout the City. All programs and facilities are funded through a combination of user fees and City general fund. Henderson Creek 16 Plan for Services ~.~ IV. Fiscal Analysis The project will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 to fund the maintenance costs of landscaping and other appurtenant improvements associated with the new roadways.. The project will also be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared on behalf of the City addressing the general costs and revenue anticipated as a result of the annexation. The report "Henderson Creek Properties Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga" by Stanley Hoffman Associates, Inc. forms a part of the Plan of Services as an exhibit. By its inclusion into Plan of Services, the City certifies to the report's accuracy. Henderson Creek 17 Plan for Services t~, ~t EXHIBIT A FISCAL ANALYSIS Henderson Creek 18 Plan for Services ~ SPS Development S~.rv~ces, Inc. Henderson Creek Estates Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga March 25, 2004 SRHA Job #1033 TANLEY ~; r ; ; R'HOFFMAN 11661SanVicenteBIvd. Suite306 ~' ~ ¢ 7 ~ Los Angeles, CA90049 ~(jJ~ [/ -TZO /'~/,~M ~'o," .~-~'-u/~c ~ 310-820-2680, 310-820-8341, fax www.stanleyrhoffman.coms~~ CONTENTS Tables .............................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1 introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Approach .................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Overview .................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2 Project Description ................................................................................. 4 2.1 Development Description After Buildout .................................................... 4 2.2 Public Infrastructure ................................................................................... 4 Chapter 3 Projected Fiscal Impacts ......................................................................... 8 3.1 Rancho Cucamonga General Fund ........................................................... 8 3.2 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ............................................ 11 3.3 Landscape Maintenance District .............................................................. 11 Chapter 4 Fiscal Assumptions ............................................................................... 13 4.1 General Information ................................................................................. 13 4.2 Revenue Assumptions ............................................................................. 15 4.3 Cost Assumptions .................................................................................... 22 Appendix A Persons and Agencies Contacted ........................................................ 31 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. i Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ,,~ . TABLES A Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts After Buildout .......................... iv 2-1 Buildout Development Description ....................................................................... 5 2-2 Housing Valuation ................................................................................................. 6 2-3 Public Street Lane Miles ....................................................................................... 7 3-1 City General Fund Fiscal Impacts After Buildout .................................................. 9 3-2 Ranch Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Fiscal Impacts After Buildout ......... 12 4-1 General Assumptions ......................................................................................... 14 4-2 Estimation of Existing City Developed Acres ...................................................... 16 4-3 Summary of Revenue Assumptions .................................................................... 17 4-4 Estimated Taxable Sales Capture ...................................................................... 19 4-5 Summary of Cost Assumptions .......................................................................... 23 4-6 Police Cost Estimation ........................................................................................ 24 4-7 Estimation of Public Works Costs ....................................................................... 25 4-8 Estimation of Planning and Building and Safety Costs ....................................... 27 4-9 Estimation of General Government Costs .......................................................... 29 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. ii Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis .~,~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES The following is a summary of the projected fiscal impacts of Henderson Creek Estates at full buildout assuming annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Annually recurring fiscal impacts are projected for the City's General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Project Description The Henderson Creek Estates project area is located in unincorporated San Bernardino County, northwest of Wardman and Bullock Roads, near Colonbem Road. This area is in the northeast portion of the City's sphere of influence. Henderson Creek Estates is a proposed residential development of 123 homes on about 62 gross residential acres. The population for Henderson Creek Estates is projected at 387, assuming 3.15 persons per unit. Assessed valuation is projected at $83.5 million based on an average housing valuation of $679,065 per unit. Fiscal Impacts Table A presents the projected recurring fiscal impacts to the City's General Fund and the projected recurring revenues to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides a full range of public services, including: police protection; other related emergency/non-emergency services; public works, including engineering, road maintenance and park maintenance; community services; planning services; library services and general government. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District provides fire protection to the proposed project as a subsidiary district. In addition, a landscape maintenance district (LMD) is a separate entity that covers the maintenance of storm drains, slopes, detention basins, trails or a combination thereof. The LMD has no effect on the revenues and costs presented under the City General Fund. Fiscal impacts are presented in constant 2004 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iiiHenderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE A HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROJECTED RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT (In Constant 2004 Dollars) [ No MVLF Impact [Impact of MVLF' J A. City General Fund Recurring Revenues $160,648 $145,547 Direct Recurring Costs 91,656 91,656 PJus Contingency @ 15% of Direct Costs 13,748 13,748 Total Recurring Costs 105.405 105,405 Net Recurring Surplus 55,243 40,143 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.52 1.38 B. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Revenues $104,100 $104,100 Notes: This assumes that revenues from MVLF will be reduced by about two*thirds due to State budget cuts. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Property tax rates for the project area are based on information provided by the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, the County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller's office and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Due to uncertainty in the full impact of the ongoing State of California's budget adjustments over time, a hypothetical decrease in the Motor Vehicle License Fee has been used in this analysis to test potential changes. However, it is recognized that the actual changes may manifest themselves in different ways. City General Fund - No MVLF Reduction An annual recurring surplus of $55.2 thousand is projected for the City General Fund after full buildout of Henderson Creek Estates. The projected surplus is based on revenues of $160.6 thousand, and costs of $105.4 thousand, including a 15 percent contingency costs estimate. The revenue/cost ratio for the City General Fund is estimated 1.52. The major recurring revenues projected for the City General Fund are property tax; off-site retail sales and use tax; and motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues. Projected major recurring costs for the project are police protection and public works maintenance of public arterial and local roadways in the annexation area. A landscape maintenance district will maintain landscaping, slope areas, trails and landscaped parkways and medians. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iv Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis. City General Fund - With MVLF Reduction Under this scenario it is assumed that revenues from the State for motor vehicle license fees will be reduced by about two-thirds due to budget cuts at the State level. An annual recurring surplus of $40.1 thousand is projected for the City General Fund after full buildout of Henderson Creek Estates. The projected surplus is based on revenues of $145.5 thousand, and costs of $105.4 thousand, including a 15 percent contingency costs estimate. The revenue/cost ratio for the City General Fund is estimated 1.38. Potential Impacts of Recent Passa.qe of Proposition 57 According to the March 16, 2004 City Budget Update memorandum from City Manager, Jack Lam, one outcome of the recent passage of Proposition 57 is that the City will experience a ¼ cent sales tax shift to the State instead of the earlier % cent shift proposal. While this would reduce the sales tax generated by the residents of the project by about $9.3 thousand, the project would still be estimated to have an annual recurring surplus of approximately $30.9 thousand to $46.0 thousand. Rancho Cucamon.qa Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) service area currently includes the incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City's Sphere of Influence; therefore the proposed Henderson Creek Estates development is currently located within the RCFPD jurisdictional boundaries. Based on the information provided by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection services within its jurisdictional boundaries. The Henderson Creek Estates development will contribute annual property tax and earned interest revenues projected at $104.1 thousand to the RCPFD. Landscape Maintenance District The proposed storm drain, landscaped slopes, detention basins and trails are to be maintained by a landscape maintenance district. At this time it has not been determined if the project facilities wilt be included in a new LMD to be formed or if it will be annexed to an existing LMD. Under either scenario the maintenance of the common area landscaping, slopes, and trails will not impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. v Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis,,,,, 7/ CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the fiscal impact analysis for Henderson Creek Estates assuming annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The fiscal impact analysis projects recurring public revenues and costs to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District assuming full development of the project. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District is a subsidiary district with its own budget separate from the City's General Fund. Additionally, an LMD will be used for the operations and maintenance of common areas, but it has not been determined if Henderson Creek Estates will annex into an existing LMD or if a new one will be created. 1.1 Background The property comprising Henderson Creek Estates is located in the northeast portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the City's Sphere of Influence in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County. The project is located at the northeast corner of Wardman, Bullock and Colonbero Roads. Upon annexation, the entire project would be within the City limits of Rancho Cucamonga. Henderson Creek Estates is a community of about 90 gross acres in size, of which some 65.3 acres are proposed for residential development. Proposed development within the project will include 123 residential dwelling units for an overall density of about 1.9 units per acre. Average lot sizes are estimated at 18,200 square feet and the buildout population of the area is estimated at 387 based on a factor of 3.15 persons per unit. The focus of the fiscal analysis is the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as provided through the General Fund revenues plus the Fire Protection District revenues and costs. General Fund revenues include property, sales and use .taxes and other taxes; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; licenses and permits; charges for current services; revenues from other agencies; use of money and property; and other miscellaneous revenues. The Gas Tax Fund receives revenues primarily from Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~ gasoline taxes collected by the Federal and State governments and are restricted for road related capital and operations and maintenance costs. The ongoing range of services that the City of Rancho Cucamonga provides includes: Police protection Planning · Public works, including engineering, road maintenance and park maintenance · Community services · Library services · General government The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, as a subsidiary district governed by the City Council, provides fire protection services to the City and the Sphere of Influence area. 1.2 Approach The fiscal analysis presents the projected recurring impacts of the proposed development associated with Henderson Creek Estates. Fiscal impacts are projected for the City General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The fiscal analysis is based on data and assumptions from the following sources: · City of Rancho Cucamonga revenue and cost factors are estimated based on the General Fund Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2003/2004 and discussions with key City staff. · The fiscal methodology is based on the Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, city of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, October 2, 2000. · Some project information was obtained from the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services, Annexation No. 01-01 to The City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by the City, November 5, 2001. · Residential valuation estimates are based on sales data provided by the project proponent. · Estimated population is based on 3.15 persons per household, as provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Cost and revenue factors are projected in constant 2004 dollars, i.e., not adjusted for inflation. · Existing land uses are provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 2 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis · Property tax rates for the project area are based on information provided by the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, the County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller's office and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Also, there is uncertainty in the full impact of the ongoing State of California's budget adjustments overtime. For this analysis, a hypothetical decrease in the Motor Vehicle License Fee has been used to test potential changes. However, it is recognized that the actual changes may manifest themselves in different ways. 1.3 Overview Chapter 2 presents the detailed project description for Henderson Creek Estates assuming full buildout of the project area. Chapter 3 presents the fiscal analysis for the City's General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Chapter4 presents the assumptions for the fiscal analysis and Appendix A includes a list of persons and agencies contacted in the preparation of this report. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 3 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter presents the detailed development descriptior~ for Henderson Creek Estates assuming full buildout of the area. 2.1 Development Description After Buildout Acres~ Units and Population. Henderson Creek Estates is planned as a 90-acre residential community consisting of 123 single family detached homes on lots averaging 18,200 square feet. As shown in Table 2-1, there are approximately 63 gross acres of residential uses. Other acreage associated with the development includes 27.6 acres of open space areas and 10.6 acres of public streets and/or right of ways (ROWs) within the development area. Buildout population for the Henderson Creek Estates development is estimated at 387 persons based on an average of 3.15 persons per housing unit. Population per housing unit is based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Project Valuation. As shown in Table 2-2, total residential valuation for the Henderson Creek Estates is estimated at $83.5 million after buildout, based on an average value of $679,065 per unit. Housing valuation is based on recent sales information as derived from the project proponent. As presented in Table 2-2, four plan types are proposed with the base pricing estimated to range from $640,000 to $720,000 per unit. The estimated square footages range from 3,600 to 4,200 square feet. 2.2 Public Infrastructure Streets. Primary access to Henderson Creek Estates will be provided via Wardman and Bullock Road. As shown in Table 2-3, there is an estimated 3.54 street lane miles to be developed as a part of the project; this includes local streets within the project boundaries of Henderson Creek Estates. All 3.54 lane miles of streets are assumed to be public streets maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, once annexed by the City. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 4 Henderson Creek Estates 'March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis.~. ,,~ TABLE 2-1 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUILDOUT DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION Acres at I Percent BuildoutI of Total A. Land Use Acreage Gross Residential Acres 51.8 57.6% Open Space Areas 27.6 30.7% Public Streets 10.6 11.8% Total Project Acres 90.0 100.0% B. Other Project Information Residential Units - Single-family 123 Population (@ 3.15 persons per unit)2 387 Residential Assessed Valuation (@ $679,065 per unit)3 $83,525,000 Note: 2. Population is estimated at 3,15 persons per unit, per the City of Rancho Cucamonga 3. Assessed valuation is projected at an average value of $679,065 per unit based on information provided by the project proponent. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 5 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 2-2 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HOUSING VALUATION (in Constant 2004 Dollars) I Plan Base Price Total Plan Type Square Feet Quantity Per Unit Valuation 1 3,600 30 $640,000 $19,200,000 2 3,800 31 665,000 20,615,000 3 4,000 31 690,000 21,390,000 4 4,200 31 720,000 22,320,000 Total 123 $679,065 $83,525,000 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Development Planning & Financing Group O'Donnell/Atkins Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 6 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis iff77 TABLE 2-3 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC STREET LANE MILES Number Length I Length I Total Street Type of Lanes in Feet in Miles Lane Miles Local 2 9,356 1.77 3.54 Total Lane Miles 3.54 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 7 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 3 PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACTS This chapter presents the fiscal analysis of Henderson Creek Estates to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This analysis first focuses on the recurring revenues and costs that impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Fund, described in Section 3.1. This is followed by a projection of recurring revenues to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District presented in Section 3.2. All projections are presented in constant 2004 dollars with no adjustment for future inflation and assume full buildout. 3.1 Rancho Cucamonga General Fund The fiscal impacts presented assume that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive 7.0 pement of the 1.0 percent basic property tax levy for the General Fund and 1.7 percent of the basic levy for the Library Fund. Impacts are also presented assuming: 1 ) no impact on MVLF fees; and 2) a two-thirds reduction in MVLF fees due to proposed State budget adjustments. No Impact on MVLF Table 3-1 presents the projected fiscal impacts for the City's General Fund assuming that there is no reduction in revenues received from the State in the category of motor vehicle license fees. Recurring revenues are projected at $160.6 thousand. Annual direct recurring costs are projected at $91.7 thousand. Added to the projected direct costs is a contingency cost, calculated at 15 pement of direct costs, or $13.7 thousand. Adjusted total recurring costs, including estimated direct costs and contingency costs, are projected at $105.4 thousand. A recurring surplus of $55.2 thousand is projected for Henderson Creek Estates, as shown in Table 3-1. The revenue/cost ratio is calculated at 1.52. Projected Revenues. Projected recurring revenues to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund include property tax; property transfer tax; off-site sales and use tax; motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues; Proposition 172 sales tax; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; charges for services; other revenue; library revenue; and state gasoline tax. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 8 Henderson Creek Estates March25,2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analys/s~ 7~ TABLE 3-1 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT~ (In Constant 2004 Dollars) No MVLF Impact Impact on MVLF After I Percent After I Percent Buildout of Total Suildout of Total Annual RecurrinR Revenues Property tax - general fund $58,468 36.4% $58,468 40.2% Property tax - library fund 14,199 8.8% 14,199 9.8% Property transfer tax 3,216 2.0% 3,216 2.2% Off-site sales and use tax 37,002 23.0% 37,002 25.4% Motor vehicle license in-lieu 22,650 14.1% 7,550 5.2% Proposition 172 sales tax 758 0.5% 758 0.5% Franchise fees: utility 4,838 3.0% 4,838 3.3% Franchise fees: refuse 3,097 1.9% 3,097 2.1% Franchise fees: cable 7,344 4.6% 7,344 5.0% Fines and forfeitures 2,111 1.3% 2,111 1.5% Cha~ges for services 241 0.1% 241 0.2% Other revenue 197 0.1% 197 0.1% Library revenue 582 0.4% 582 0.4% State gasoline tax= 5,946 3.7% 5,946 4.1% Total Recurring Revenues $160,648 100.0% $145,547 100.0% Annual RecurrinQ Costs Police protection $29,761 32.5% $29,761 32.5% Animal control 1,031 1.1 % 1,031 1.1 % Engineering 9,330 10.2% 9,330 10.2% Public works maintenance 19,812 21.6% 19,812 21.6% Facilities maintenance 1,829 2.0% 1,829 2.0% Planning 4,322 4.7% 4,322 4.7% Library 4,993 5.4% 4,993 5.4% Community services 6,169 6.7% 6,169 6.7% Contribution to Fire Disrrct 2,270 2.5% 2,270 2.5% General government 12,140 13.2% 12,140 13.2% Direct Recurring Costs $91,656 100.0% $91,656 100.0% p/us Estimated Contingency costs (@ 15% of direct recurring costs) $13,748 $13,748 Total Recu~ing Costs $105,405 $105,405 Net Annual Surplus $55,243 $40,143 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.52 1.38 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 9 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis.,~,,,~ . The largest projected revenue source is property tax at $58.5 thousand, representing approximately 36.4 percent of total projected recurring revenues. Off-site sales and use tax is the second largest projected revenue source at $37.0 thousand and 23.0 percent of the total revenues. Motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues are projected at $22.7 thousand and 14.1 percent, the third largest recurring revenue. These three revenue sources represent approximately 73.5 percent of total projected recurring revenues. Projected Costs. Table 3-1 also presents projected recurring costs to the City General Fund for Henderson Creek Estates at buildout. Recurring direct costs to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund include police protection; animal control, engineering; public works maintenance; facilities maintenance; planning; library; community services; contribution to the Fire District; and general government costs. Police protection costs are projected at about $29.8 thousand and account for 32.5 percent of the total recurring annual costs. Public works maintenance for public arterial roads is projected at $19.8 thousand and 21.6 percent of the total recurring costs. General government costs (administrative functions) are projected as the third largest recurring cost at $12.1 thousand or 13.2 percent of total projected costs. These three projected costs of police protection, pubic works maintenance and general government represent approximately 67.3 percent of total recurring costs. Impact on MVLF Table 3-1 also presents the projected fiscal impacts for the City's General Fund assuming it is impacted with a reduction in revenues received from the State in the category of motor vehicle license fees. Recurring revenues under this scenario are projected at $145.5 thousand. Adjusted total annual recurring costs, including estimated direct costs and contingency costs, are projected at $105.4 thousand. A recurring surplus of $40.1 thousand is projected for Henderson Creek Estates under these conditions. The revenue/cost ratio is calculated at 1.38. Projected Revenues. The largest projected revenue source is General Fund prepertytax at $58.5 thousand, representing approximately 40.2 percent of total projected recurring Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 10 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis revenues. Off-site sales and use tax is the second largest projected revenue source at $37.0 thousand and 25.4 percent of the total revenues. Library Fund property tax revenues are projected at $14.2 thousand, the third largest recurring revenue. These three revenue sources represent approximately 75.4 percent of total projected recurring revenues. 3.2 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection to both the corporate City and the Sphere of Influence areas. Henderson Creek Estates is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the RCFPD. Table 3-2 presents the projected recurring revenues to the Fire Protection District from the full buildout of Henderson Creek Estates. Annual recurring property tax revenues are projected to total $104.1 thousand after buildout. Annual recurring fire protection costs are not projected for the Henderson Creek Estates development. Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Sen/ices Annexation No. 01-01 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection within its jurisdictional boundaries. 3.3 Landscape Maintenance District For Henderson Creek Estates, an LMD will be used to fund the ongoing operations and maintenance costs related to any storm drains, slopes and trails within the project area. It has not been determined at this time whether or not Henderson Creek Estates will be annexed to an existing LMD of if a new LMD will be created. Under either condition, the costs related to this function are entirely separate from the City's General Fund and there will be no fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 11 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 3-2 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT (In Constant 2004 Dollars) After I Percent Buildout of Total Annual Recurrin.q Revenues Property tax $104,100 100.0% Total Recurring Revenues $104,100 100.0% Annual Recurring Costs n/aI Note: 1. The proposed development lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD). Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services Annexation No, 01-01 to The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection services within its jurisdictional boundaries, Source: Stanley R. Hoffrnan Associates, Inc, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 12 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis__.,,~ ~, CHAPTER 4 FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS Chapter 4 presents the recurring revenue and cost assumptions used in preparing the fiscal analysis for Henderson Creek Estates in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4.'1 General Information Table 4-1 presents the general City information used to calculate fiscal factors. Population. The City population of 146,666 is based on the California State Department of Finance estimate as of January 1, 2003. The population estimate is used to project per capita revenue and cost factors. Housinq Units. For calculating per housing unit factors, the City housing unit estimate of 46,870 from the State Department of Finance (DOF) for January 1, 2003 is used. Employment. Based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City's current employment estimate is 47,205. This estimate is used to calculate revenues and costs based on employment. Population/Employment Ratio. New population and employment generate some revenues and costs, which are calculated based on the split of population and employment and the ratio of each to the sum of the two. The sum of population and employment is 193,871. Population represents 76 percent of the total and employment represents 24 percent of the total. The projected City revenues or costs are split based on this ratio. That is, the share of projected revenues or costs allocated to population is divided by the City population of 146,666 while the employment share of the projected revenues or costs is divided by the City employment estimate of 47,205. Estimated Total City Developed Acres. Some costs, such as public works and planning, are projected on a per-developed acre basis. The number of developed acres within the City is estimated from City's Geographic Information System (GIS) and CoStar databases, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 13 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4-1 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS I Factor I Explanation General Factors 146,666 Rancho Cucamonga total population, January 1,2003, DOF 46,870 Rancho Cucamonga total housing units, January 1,2003, DOF 47,205 Rancho Cucamonga total employment, City Community and Economic Profile 193,871 Population plus employment 76% Population as a share of population plus employment 24% Employment as a shars of population plus employment 3.13 Persons per Household, January 1. 2003, DOF 3.15 Persons per Household, City of Rancho Cucamonga 12,990 Estimated total City developed acres Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, inc. City of Rancho Cucarnonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget City of Rancho Cucamonga State of California. Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2003 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 14 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis as shown in Table 4-2. There are an estimated total of 9,544 developed residential acres in the City; and a total of 3,446 developed non-residential acres within the City. In total, 12,990 developed acres are within the City. 4.2 Revenue Assumptions The revenue assumptions for the City's General Fund are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 also summarizes the revenue assumptions for the Fire Protection District. Projected recurring revenues to the City General Fund include property tax; document transfer tax; off-site sales and use tax; Proposition 172 sales tax revenue; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues; charges for services; other revenues such as rental/leases/and sales of fixed assets; library revenues and state gasoline tax funds. Interest revenues are not projected in this analysis. Taxes Property Tax. Property tax revenues are projected by multiplying the tax allocation percentage for the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund, Library Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District by the projected assessed value within the tax rate area (TRA) in which the project is located. As shown in Table 4-3, the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund allocation is shown at 7.0 percent of the basic 1.0 percent levy. Document Transfer Tax. Real property sales are taxed at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of transferred property value. The property transfer tax is divided equally between the City and the County, with the City receiving $0.55 per $1,000 of transferred property value. As presented in Table 4-3, it is assumed that residential development will change ownership at an average rate of about 7.0 percent per year, or that each home changes hands on the average of about once every 14 years. Off-Site Sales Tax. The City receives sales tax revenue from the State Board of Equalization equal to one percent of all taxable sales generated within the City. The Henderson Creek Estates development does not include on-site retail uses that would generate direct taxable sales and use tax to the City upon annexation. However, indirect sales and use tax revenues will be generated from purchases made by the residents of the Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 15 Henderson Creek Estates March25,2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis~,~¢~ TABLE 4-2 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF EXISTING CITY DEVELOPED ACRES~ Residential Acres Residential- Non RDA 8,261 Residential - RDA 1,283 Subtotal Residential Acres 9,544 Non-Residential Acres Non-Residential - Non RDA 747 Non-Residential - RDA 2,699 Subtotal Non-Residential Acres 3,446 Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 Note: 1. Esitmated City right of way and other public/quasi pubtic acres are not included as developable Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Geographic Information System Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga , October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 16 Henderson Creek Estates March 25,2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis s ~~ TABLE 4-3 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS {In Constant 2004 Dollars) Revenues and/or Assumptions Projection Factors CITY GENERA/. FUND Pr~Oer~y Taxes $2,261,690 AsseSsed v~luatio~ Valuation assump~ons 7.0% Cily General Fund RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. '17 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis proposed project estimated to be captured within the City. It is assumed the City of Rancho Cucamonga will capture 50 percent of the taxable purchases made by the future residents of Henderson Creek Estates. The 50 percent capture assumption is based on the access to existing and planned retail within the City boundaries, including the future Victoria Gardens Regional Mall due to open in 2004. Residential Sales and Use Tax. Residents of Henderson Creek Estates will generate sales and use tax to the City of Rancho Cucamonga through retail purchases in the City. As shown in Table 4-4, taxable sales from Henderson Creek Estates residents are projected at $6.68 million. Taxable sales are projected based on the assumption that the average household income of project residents represents about 25 percent of the total assessed valuation and that 32 percent of household income is spent on taxable retail sales. The fiscal analysis assumes the City will capture 50 percent of total taxable retail sales or about $3.34 million in taxable retail sales. Based on sales tax of 1 percent, potential sales tax to the City is projected at $33.4 thousand after buildout. At 10.75 percent of sales tax, use tax is projected at $3.6 thousand after buildout. Use tax is non-situs taxable sales allocated back to jurisdictions by the State. Total sales and use tax is projected at $37.0 thousand after buildout. According to the March 16, 2004 City Budget Update memorandum from City Manager, Jack Lam, one outcome of the recent passage of Proposition 57 is that the City will experience ¼ cent sales tax shift to the State instead of the earlier ¼ cent shift proposal. While this would reduce the sales tax generated by the project residents by about $9.3 thousand, the project would still be projected to have an annual recurring surplus of approximately $30.9 thousand to $46.0 thousand. Use Tax. In addition to sales tax, the City also receives a use tax allocation equal to approximately 10.75 percent of the one percent sales tax allocation. The use tax factor is derived from two major sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 18 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ,,,~ TABLE 4-4 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES CAPTURE (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Description I Amount Residential Assessed Valuation (@ $679,065 per unit)~ $83,525,000 Household Income (@ 25% of valuation) $20,881,250 Retail Taxable Sales (@ 32% of household income) $6,682,000 Projected Off-Site Taxable Sales Captured in Rancho Cucamonga (@ 50% capture) $3,341,000 Proiected Sales and UseTax to Rancho Cucamon,qa: Sales Tax (@ 1% of taxable sales) $33,410 Use Tax (@ 10.75% of sales tax) 3,592 Total Projected Sales and Use Tax $37,002 Note: 1. Assessed valuation is projected at an average of $679,065 per unit based on information provided by the project proponent. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 19 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~,~ a, · A use tax rather than a sales tax is paid on construction materials from residential and non-residential development. This tax is counted in the county in which construction takes place, not at the point of sale of materials. · A use tax is levied on purchases from out-of-state sellers of goods for use in California. The State Board of Equalization assembles the use tax collections into a number of pools. County pools for each county are based on tax proceeds assigned to a county level. A statewide pool is developed for tax proceeds, which cannot be assigned to individual counties. These pools of use tax proceeds are then distributed to individual cities and counties on a quarterly basis. The distribution percentages to local jurisdictions for the county pool are calculated on the basis of each city's and county's share of total countywide non-situs based sales tax as a percentage of total point-of-sale, sales tax. A similar procedure is used in the allocation of the statewide pool. Proposition 172 Sales Tax (Public Safety Auflmentation). The State's allocation formula for public safety augmentation revenues from Proposition 172 is generally tied to each city's sales tax effort. Therefore, based on Proposition 172 revenues of $299,500 and City sales tax revenues of $14,626,000, these revenues are projected at $20.48 per $1,000 of additional sales tax generated. Franchise Fees The City of Rancho Cucamonga receives a franchise fee for the use of exclusive rights-of- way within the City for gas and electric, refuse and cable television. Gas and Electric Franchise Fees. As shown in Table 4-3, gas and electdc franchise fees are estimated at $12.50 per capita and per employee based on the City budget fees of $2,423,180 and the City population plus City employment estimate of 193,871. Refuse Franchise Fees. Franchise fees for rubbish services are projected at $8.00 per capita, based on residential refuse costs of $1,173,379 and the population estimate of 146,666. Commercial (non-residential) refuse franchise fees are projected at $27.73 per employee based on commercial refuse costs of $1,309,000 and employment of 47,205. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 20 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~ z~, 3-// Cable Television Franchise Fees. Cable television franchise fees are projected at $18.97 per housing unit based on budget figures of $889,260 for this type of franchise and estimated housing units of 46,870. Fines and Forfeitures. These revenues are projected at $5.45 per capita and per employee, based on total revenues of $1,057,180 and the population plus employment estimate'of 193,871. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees. These State allocated revenues, as shown in Table 4-3, are projected at $58.52 per capita based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and a population of 146,666 as of January 1, 2003. Char.qes for Services. Charges for services are shown in Table 4-3 and include revenues such as printing fees and sale of printed materials. This revenue source is projected at $0.62 per capita and per employee, based on annual revenues of $120,460 and the City population plus employment of 193,871. Other Revenues. These other miscellaneous revenues include rentals, leases and sales of fixed assets. Other revenues are projected at $0.51 per capita and employee based on the City preliminary budget revenues of $98,830 and the City population plus employment estimate of 193,871. Interest Income. Interest earnings to the General Fund are not projected as a part of this analysis. Library Fund; As shown in Table 4-3, the City is projected to receive from property tax revenues, 1.7 percent of the basic 1.0 percent levy for the Library Fund. In addition, library revenues of $0.80 per capita are projected based on a total of $118,000 from fines and fees and a population of 146,666. Library revenues of $0.70 per capita are projected based on total media rentals and sales of $102,500 and population of 146,666. Interest earnings are not projected as a significant revenue source. State Gasoline Tax. State gasoline tax revenues are determined based on data provided by the City's budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and the City population of 146,666. These revenues are projected based on the following: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 21 Henderson Creek Estate~ March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysiss~_' State Gasoline Tax Total Amount Per Capita Amount Section 2105 $738,000 $5.03 Section 2106 $465,770 $3.18 Section 2107 $1,049,230 $7.15 No interest earnings are projected as a part of this analysis. Gas Tax Fund revenues are earmarked for public works road related maintenance costs. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) receives an estimated 12.46 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy for the Henderson Creek Estates development. No interest earnings are projected as a part of this analysis. 4.3 Cost Assumptions The cost assumptions for the City's General Fund are summarized in Table 4-5. Recurring costs include police protection, animal control, public works, planning, building and safety, community services, library, fire district and general government activities. Police Protection. The City of Rancho Cucamonga contracts police protection services with the County Sheriff. Table 4-6 presents the police cost estimation. Total annual costs from the City's budget for 2003-2004 are $15,280,650. Based on discussion with the City Finance Officer during preparation of the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Update, a County Administrative Fee of $374,600 is subtracted from the total cost. The total net police cost is $14,906,500, which is allocated to population and employment in their relative proportions, yielding projected costs of $76.89 per capita and per employee. Animal Control. Animal control costs are projected at $2.66 per capita, based on total net costs of $390,490 and a population of 146,666, as shown in Table 4-5. Public Works Estimated public works costs are presented in Table 4-7. Enqineerin_q, Based on City budget information, 2003-2004 engineering costs are estimated to total $3,201,920, while engineering fee revenues are estimated at $1,259,680. Net engineering costs of $1,942,240 are allocated on a per-developed acre basis. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 22 Henderson Creek Estate,~ March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4°5 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF COST ASSUMPTIONS (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Budget FY 2003104 [andlor AssumptionsI Annual Projection Factors I CostCategory i Budget iNetCostt Projection projection Method I Basis CITY GENERAL FUND $7689 per capita and employee Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 23 Henderson Creek Estateu March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4-6 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE COST ESTIMATION~ (In Constant 2004 Dollars) 1. POLICE COSTS Total 2003/04 Budget $15,280,650 minus County Administrative Fee $374,600 equals Net Police Costs $14,906,050 2. PER CAPITA/EMPLOYEE COSTS City Population Estimate 146,666 City Employment Estimate 47,205 Population plus Employment 193,871 Per Capita/Per Employee Cost $76.89 Note: 1. Police cost estimation is based on the methodology used in the General Plan fiscal analysis. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga, October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 24 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4-7 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF PUBLIC WORKS COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollam) 1. ENGINEERING COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Engineering-Administration $332,760 825,700 Engineering-Construction Management 1,186,290 Engineering-Development Management 492,720 Engineering-NPDES Program 144,280 Engineering-Projec~ Management 220,170 Engineering-Traffic Management Total Engineering Costs $3,201,920 minus Engineedng Fees $1,209,680 Engineering Special Services Fees 50,000 Engineedng Revenues $1,259,680 equals Net Engineering Costs $1,942,240 divided by 12,990 Estimated Total Developed Acres equals Engineering Costs Per Developed Acre $149.52 2. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE $854,740 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance times Marginal Increase in Maintenance Vehicles & Equipment @1 50% equals Adjusted Maintenance Vehicles & Equipment $427,370 plus Maintenance Public Works 3,696,890 Total Public Works Maintenance Costs $4,124,260 divided by 12,990 Estimated Total Developed Acres equals Public Works Costs Per Developed Acre $317.49 3. FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE $1,903,950 Facilities Maintenance times Marginal Increase in Facilities Maintenance @~ 20% equals Adjusted Facilities Maintenance $380,790 divided by 12,990 Estimated Total Developed Acres equals Facilities Maintenance Costs per Developed Acre $29.31 Note: 1, Marginal increase assumptions are based on the fiscal methodology used for the General Plan Update. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucarnonga, October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 25 Henderson Creek Estates March25,2004 CityofRanchoCucamongaFiscalAnalys~ Developed acres total 12,990 and net engineering costs are projected at $149.52 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-7. Public Works Maintenance. Public works services include street maintenance and sweeping, maintenance of parks and trees, city facilities, and storm drains. The City public works budget totals $4,124,260. Public works costs are projected on a per-developed acre basis. With an estimated 12,990 developed acres in the City, maintenance costs are projected at $317.49 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-7. Facilities Maintenance. Total facilities maintenance costs in 2003-2004 are $1,903,950. Based on the fiscal methodology used for the General Plan Update, it is assumed that the proposed project would incur a marginal increase in facilities maintenance costs of 20 percent, or an increase of $380,790. This marginal increase of $380,790 is divided by the total 12,990 estimated developed acres, for projected facilities maintenance costs of $29.31 per developed acre, also shown in Table 4-7. Planning Department Table 4-8 presents the estimation of both the Planning Department costs and the Building and Safety Department costs. These costs are projected on a per-developed acre basis. Planning. As shown in Table 4-8, Planning Department functions total $1,749,700, according to the budget for fiscal year 2003-2004. Planning fee and special program fee revenues for the same period total $850,000, for estimated net planning costs of $899,700. Using estimated developed acres of 12,990; planning costs are projected at $69.26 per developed acre. BuildinCl and Safetv. Table 4-8 also presents the estimation of the Building and Safety Department costs. As shown, Building and Safety costs total $4,142,290, according to the 2003-2004 budget. Building permit and plan check fee revenues for the same period total $4,316,200, for estimated surplus of $173,910. The fiscal analysis assumes that building and safety costs breakeven with building permit and plan check fee revenues, thus Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 26 Henderson Creek Estate~ March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Ana~s~ 7 TABLE 4-8 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF PLANNING AND BUILDING AND SAFETY COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) '1. PLANNING COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE $1,749,700 Planning minus $800,000 Planning Fees 50,000 Planning - Special Services Fee Planning Revenues $850,000 equals Net Planning Costs $899,700 divided by 12,990 Estimated Total Developed Acres equals Net Planning Costs per Developed Acre $69.26 2. BUILDING AND SAFETY COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE $4,142,290 Building and Safety minus Building Permits $2,676,200 Plan Check Fees 1,640,000 Building and Safety Revenues $4,316,200 equals Net Building and Safety Costs~ -$173,910 Note: 1. The fiscal analysis assumes that costs for Building and Safety for Henderson Creek Estates will breakeven with associated fee revenues. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis, Genera~ Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga , October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 27 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Anal~ balancing building and safety costs in the long term. The line item of building and safety costs is not projected in the fiscal analysis. Community Services. As shown in Table 4-5, City Community Services costs are estimated to total $2,337,520 in 2003-2004. On a per capita basis, this cost is projected at $15.94. Library. As shown in Table 4-5, the Rancho Cucamonga library costs are projected at $12.90 per capita, based on a library annual budget of $1,891,680 and population of 146,666. Fire District Transfer. Based on the proposed fiscal year 2003-2004 budget the General Fund is transferring $1,136,770 to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to supplement the District's other funding sources. Based on the total population and employment estimate of 193,871, the General Fund transfer cost to the Fire Protection District is projected at $5.86 per capita and employee. General Government Costs. Table 4-9 presents the estimation of general government costs. All City costs are categorized as either general government costs or non-general government costs. General Government costs are related to City administration and are generally not associated with direct line department services to City residents or employees. Non-general government functions provide direct services, such as animal control, police, or community services. As shown in Table 4-9, general government costs are estimated at $10,483,060. Non- general government costs are estimated to total $34,330,390. The general govemment as a percent of non-general government costs is equal to 30.5 percent. Due to economies of scale, it is estimated that the marginal increase in general government costs would be one half of this amount, or 15.3 percent. The 50 percent marginal increase in general government costs is based on the fiscal methodology for the General Plan Update. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 28 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Ana~S~ TABLE 4-9 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dotlam) i~ :~i G E N E~I~ i FU N~ i EXPEND iTU RES:i :i:!:i:i :i:i:i:i:!:i: i:i: i:i:i:i:!: :::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: !:!:i:ii!:!:!:!:i:i:!:i:i:i:ili?i:i Non-Departmental General $3,278.500 $3.278.500 Non-Departmental Personnel 218.030 218,030 City Council 90,850 90.850 City Manager 801.140 801,140 City Clerk 371,430 371.430 Anirnal Control Services 452.250 452.250 Emergency Preparedness 122,090 122.090 Administrative Se~ces - Administration 377,170 377.170 Business Licensing 209.380 209,380 City Facilities 1.485.860 1.485.860 Finance 604.650 604.650 Geographic Information Systems 304.890 304.890 Personnel 291.270 291.270 Purchasing 340.890 340.890 Risk Management t 67.220 167.220 Treasury Management 3,640 3.640 Community Development Administration 0 0 Building & Safety 4.142.290 4.142.290 Engineering - Administration 332.760 332.760 Engineering-Construction Management 825.700 825.700 Engineedog-NPDES 492.720 492,720 Engineering-Project Management 144.280 144.280 Facilities Maintenance 1.903.950 1,903.950 Integrated Waste Management 624.310 624.310 Planning 1.749.700 1.749,700 Planning Commission 9.570 9.570 Street and Park Maintenance 3.648,130 3.648.130 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 854,740 854,740 Community Services - Administration 2.337.520 2.337.520 Park and Recreation Commission 2.730 2.730 Fire Administration 0 0 Police Administration 15.280,650 15.280.650 Redevelopment Agency Administration _0 _0 GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND $44,813,450 $t0,483,060 $34,330,390 Estimated General Government Expenditures $10.483,060 divided by Estimated Non-General Government Expenditures $34.330.390 equals General Government as percent of Non.General Government Costs 30.5% Marginal Increase in General Government Costs ~ 50%~ 15.3% Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 29 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis~ _Contin~. City General Fund contingency costs of 15 percent are applied to projected costs to account for budget and economic uncertainties. The contingency cost factor of 15 percent is based on discussion with City Finance Department staff during preparation of the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Update. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Annual recurring fire protection costs are not projected for the Henderson Creek Estates project. Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Sen/ices Annexation No. 01-01 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection within it jurisdictional boundaries. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 30 Henderson Creek Estate~ March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis~ ~ / APPENDIX A PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED City of Rancho Cucamonga Debra Meier, AICP 909-477-2700 County of San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission Deputy Executive Officer 909-387-5869 County of San Bernardino Auditor Controller's Office 909-386-8831 O'Donnell/Atkins Mackey J. O'Donnell 949-705-5600 SPS Development Services, Inc. Steven Paul Stewart 714-839-0850 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 31 Henderson Creek Estates March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis/ /~¢ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749, TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 63.5 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF- APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29. A. Recitals. 1. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 123 single-family housing units on approximately 65.3 acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on approximately 25.1 acres of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for annexation and is currently used for a utility easement and for flood control purposes. The total area to be annexed is approximately 100.4 acres. The density of the development is approximately 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 (collectivelythe "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, constitute the mattem involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The Applicant's request for General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 is as described in the title of this Resolution and depicted on Exhibit A to this Resolution. 4. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and scattered single-family residences. The property to the west is designated Conservation and Flood Control/Utility Corridor and includes Etiwanda Creek Flood Control basins and conservation area. The propertyto the east is designated Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and includes single-family residential (Sheridan Estates Tract 13564). The property to the south is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and one single-family dwelling, and is the site of the City's proposed 300 acre (Etiwanda Creek) annexation, which includes a proposed General Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land. 5. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 2 04-58, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 along with other associated applications. 6. On June 2, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. After the receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16, 2004. 7. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested pariies were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 20, 2004, through April 5, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR and a copy of the Draft Development Agreement (Appendix K). Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the Project approvals. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 3 d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. e. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. f. The City Council finds, based upon the initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, Biological Resources, Air Quality, and Public Services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings", the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Land Use and Plannin.q. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and the Final EIR indicates that the Project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, because some of the proposed residential lots would be less than 20,000 square feet. With the approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment that will change the land use district from Very Low Residential (0.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acre area designated for residential development, the Project would then be consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. As a result, the Project site may be developed with lots less than 20,000 square feet. In addition, in order to address the reduction in lot sizes and the likely effect of lots averaging 18,000 square feet, with a minimum size of 14,025 square feet, on the ability of those property owners to own and maintain horses on those lots, a mitigation measure is being imposed (Mitigation Measure LU-2) to require the developer to pay an in-lieu fee to the City for the development of an equestrian center that would serve residents in the area desiring to own and maintain horses. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan also requires a particular design and development theme that is consistent with the character of Old Etiwanda by having access to trails, provisions for views of the mountains and complying with certain design requirements for landscaping, wails, fencing, lighting and the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 4 community's entry points. Mitigation Measure LU-1 is being imposed that requires the project developer to submit a landscape plan that is consistent with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that any inconsistency of the Project with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Traffic and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a Level of Service (LOS) of "E" or "F" at the intersections of Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW) and at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Street (EW). Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to construct and widen Wardman-Bullock Road along the Project frontage (Mitigation Measure TC-3), to install a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection (Mitigation Measure TC-5), to contribute developer fees for other traffic improvements (Mitigation Measures TO-1 and TC-5), and to modify signing and striping of certain roadways and intersections (Mitigation Measures TO-2 and TC-4). The City's "City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development" provides for the payment of fees at the time building permits are issued based on a formula adopted by the City Council by resolution. That formula provides for the payment of a fee per dwelling unit of approximately $1,710.03 and a credit against those fees for certain qualifying traffic improvements that mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The City is required to use traffic impact fees to fund City-wide and regional roadway and traffic improvements, and as a consequence, the payment of those fees by the project developer will contribute to the mitigation of the Project's impacts to traffic and circulation. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that traffic at the study intersections will be reduced so that those intersections operate at a LOS "D," and that the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iii. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. Earthmoving equipment is anticipated to create noise ranging between 75 to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure N- 1 ). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the shore term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels at the facades of homes nearest the Project exit at Wardman-Bullock Road would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic. The Final EIR states that if the property owners of the homes fronting on Wardman-Bullock Road can close their windows and still obtain adequate ventilation, then the goal of reducing the interior noise to a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior noise level would be achieved. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to install air conditioning units for the residences that front along Wardman-Bullock Road so as to allow window closure during warm days so as to achieve a less than significant interior noise level for those homes with the windows closed (Mitigation Measure N-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a less than significant level. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 5 iv. Geoloq¥ and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking due to regional and local faults located in the area. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the developer to ensure that all grading plans and grading work are done in compliance with the geotechnical report for the Project so that soil and slopes are properly compacted and grading work achieves all seismic requirements (Mitigation Measure GS-1), that the developer shall submit building plans which incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs (Mitigation Measure GS-2), and that all buildings and structures are built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-3). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. v. Hydroloqy and Water Quality. The Final EIR identifies that during storm events, construction activities (particularly vegetation removal, grading and excavation), could affect the amounts of sediments and suspended solid material leaving the site such that water quality downstream of the site could be affected to a level that was potentially significant. Vegetation removal and grading would expose the soil to erosion by wind and rain, and rainfall could carry more sediment off the disturbed areas and adversely affect water quality downstream. In addition, during earthwork and construction activities, pollutants that may be discharged in stormwater include vehicle fluids such as oil, grease and coolants, asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete paving, paints and solvents, wood products, and metal and metal plated products. In accordance with the State of California's implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Project developer will be required to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface waters. Compliance with these permitting requirements will require the Project developer and construction crews to comply with a variety of measures, such as limiting clearing and grubbing areas to the limits of the active construction area, using hay bales and sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season, using enclosed storage sheds where possible, utilizing hazardous materials in a manner that avoids contact with the ground, avoiding the application of certain materials during periods of rainfall, washing of equipment or vehicles in a designated place where a sump can be located to collect wash water for proper disposal, and servicing equipment and vehicles off-site. A mitigation measure is imposed to require compliance with these permitting requirements and BMPs (Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 ). The City Council finds that with the imposition of this mitigation measure and after implementation of BMPs set forth in the SW PPP, potentially significant impacts on water quality from construction activity will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi. Public Health and Safety. The Final EIR identifies that the frequency of high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from extreme wind conditions. In addition, wildfires on adjacent lands, including National Forest land and undeveloped properties, could threaten residential development on the Project site. Specifically, the Final EIR indicates that Santa Ana winds along the front of the mountains can reach hurricane force, with winds in the area of the Project detected at reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour. Damage to roofs, fences, windows and landscaping is possible in these types of conditions. Three mitigation measures are imposed to mitigate the impacts of wind hazard to a less than significant level. Those measures include requirements to utilize optimum building materials and construction techniques as required by the Uniform Building Code, to require disclosure of the potential for high winds in sales documents to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 6 prospective homebuyers, and to comply with other mitigation measures for control of particulate matter emissions during grading and construction (Mitigation Measures HS-1, HS-2, HS-3). Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code has been demonstrated to result in structures that are capable of withstanding winds projected for the Project area without serious damage. With respect to the impacts created by wildfires on adjacent lands, the City Council is particularly familiar with these risks after the City and surrounding areas recently experienced the G rand Prix fire in October 2003. The City Council also understands that the addition of persons into an area of wildland vegetation increases the number of ignitions (risk), the growth of brush after a fire increases the intensity of new fires in the area (hazard), and the addition of homes and amenities into the same area (value) creates an increased need for fire protection and fuel modification. Design features have already been incorporated into the Project to ensure vegetation areas to the north are separated from residential structures with a trail, a wall and a riprap drainage channel so as to provide approximately 100 feet of distance between chaparral vegetation and the homes. All homes will also be constructed with Class A roofs. Along the western boundary of the site where the wildfire threat is moderate, a six-foot masonry wall and '~irewise" landscaping between native vegetation and the homes are to be required. A comprehensive mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure HS-4) requires a detailed landscape plan/fuel modification plan to contain requirements for "firewise" vegetation in specific areas, irrigation plans and specific standards applicable to certain areas of the Project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure HS-5 requires the installation of residential fire sprinklers as a component of the construction. The City Council finds that with the combination of appropriate landscaping, residential fire sprinklers, the introduction of certain new paved surfaces where none currently exist, and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will effectively reduce movement of potential fire into the Project area and thereby mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. vii. Biolo.qical Resources. The proposed Project would result in development of a 65.3 acre area of the site, and the Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and a small area of flat-top buckwheat scrub. Specifically, prior to the Grand Prix fire, the portion of the site proposed for development had approximately 1.5 acres of disturbed annual grassland, 4.2 acres of disturbed annual grassland dominated by deerweed, 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub dominated by white sage, and 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub. The impacts on the annual grassland areas is not considered significant because of the relatively small area impacted (approximately 1/3 of the total disturbed annual grassland on the site) and because those areas had experienced substantial disturbance from prior weed control measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads and other roads that cross the property. With respect to upland sage scrub, most of that area was dominated by white sage, which is not considered to be sensitive habitat by the resource agencies that regulate biological resources. However, the City Council recognizes that the loss of this plant community for wildlife habitat is important when considering cumulative impacts on this resource. With respect to the flat-top buckwheat scrub, this is a common species and an indicator of prior disturbance to the land. The Final EIR indicates that no sensitive species of flat-top buckwheat scrub were found on the site and therefore no impacts were expected to occur. The Final El R recognizes that much of the vegetation previously found on the site would likely grow back after the fire if no development took place. However, the Biological Assessment not only found no substantial evidence of sensitive plant or wildlife species on the site, but it also found that due to the area already being disturbed by dirt roads for power line maintenance, previous construction activity, commercial harvesting of white sage, and flood control improvements and activities, development of the site would not have a significant impact on biological resources. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project site is within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 7 Program (NEOSHPP), as adopted by the County of San Bernardino. To implement the goals and purposes of that Program, a mitigation measure has been imposed to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County, 58 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub (Mitigation Measure BIO-1 ). This 58 acre area is intended to accomplish a "one to one" mitigation in acreage for the loss of the 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. As required by the mitigation measure, the off-site mitigation land shall be equal to or greater in habitat value than that of the Project site. The City Council finds that the conveyance into the NEOSHPP of 58 acres of land by the Project developer would mitigate this impact to a level that is less than significant. viii. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These impacts are considered to be short-term (less than one year) and temporary and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust. One cause of these short-term impacts is blowing dust resulting from the grading of the site. In addition, the use of diesel engine equipment during grading and construction along with worker trips is anticipated to create levels of nitrous oxides (NOx) that are also above the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Similarly, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-read diesel equipment, are anticipated to create significant levels of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx) that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. A comprehensive mitigation measure is imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 ) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as is possible, terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control measures when winds exceed 25 miles per hour, stabilize disturbed areas if construction is delayed, require 90-day Iow-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment, limit idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment, encourage carpooling for construction workers, limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods, park construction vehicles off traveled roadways, wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site, wash or sweep access points daily and encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, construction emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation requirements, construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and therefore, would remain significant affer mitigation. ix. Cumulative Impacts - Air Quality, Noise and Public Services. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of development projects in the vicinity, would likely create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality because the Project would add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions. With respect to noise, the Final EIR indicates that the Project will create short-term cumulative construction noise impacts and long-term cumulative noise impacts due to increased vehicle trips. With respect to public services (schools), state law (Government Code Section 65995 (h)) provides for the payment of developer fees and deems such payment to be full and complete mitigation of school impacts. Consequently, as a matter of law, the long-term cumulative impacts to schools from this and other projects are deemed to be fully mitigated by the payment of developer fees and the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 8 City is precluded, by law, from imposing additional mitigation to address these potential impacts. The City Council finds that noise and air quality impacts associated with increased vehicle trips would remain significant when combined with existing and anticipated construction projects in the vicinity of the Project. g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts and short and long-term cumulative impacts) and noise (short-term and long-term cumulative impacts). h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative." Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) To annex the 90.4 acre Project site and adjacent 10 acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 9 ii) The "No Project-No Development" Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet the Project objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project's objective to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. Furthermore, as the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within an area previously approved for residential development would not be legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. iii) The "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative" assumes that the Project site would be developed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation (Very Low Residential). Under this designation, and assuming that the area disturbed by grading is equal to that of the proposed Project, the minimum lot sizes would be 20,000 square feet and the number of lots that could be developed would be approximately 90 rather than the 123 as currently proposed. This reduction in development by approximately 33 dwelling units would result in lower traffic, air quality, and noise impacts than the proposed Project, but would not reduce to less than significance the shod-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from Project emissions and cumulative shod and long-term noise impacts. In addition, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. i. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, out~veigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality and noise. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph h above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, and cumulative air quality and noise are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; ii) Annexation of the 90.4-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 10 iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands; ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs; x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "G" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. k. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearings on June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the project site is consistent with neighboring properties, including the City's proposed 300 acre (Etiwanda Creek) annexation, and is consistent with General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2, which expresses an intention to apply the Low Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of Influence CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00749 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 11 where the level of services, including roads, shopping and recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities. b. The proposed change in land use designation will promote housing opportunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs. c. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open space conservation areas abutting the proposed development. d. The proposed change in designations are also consistent with the provisions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which encourages retention of open space and the extension of the image of Old Etiwanda into this area, with relatively large lots and opportunities for an equestrian lifestyle. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DR02003-00749. 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00749 (GPA) ' CITY BOUNDARY HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION ~ PROPOSED LOW EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ~ CONSERVATION ~ FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR ~ VERY LOW EXHIBIT A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750, TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 63.5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, 0226-082-29. A. Recitals. 1. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 123 single-family housing units on approximately 65.3 acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on approximately 25.1 acres of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for annexation and is currently used for a utility easement and for flood control purposes. The total area to be annexed is approximately 100.4 acres. The density of the development is approximately 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Ordinance as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 (collectivelythe "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The Applicant's request for Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750 is for the amendment to the District Designation for 63.5 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), for that portion of land depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance. 4. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and scattered single-family residences. The property to the west is designated Conservation and Flood Control/Utility Corridor and includes Etiwanda Creek Flood Control basins and conservation area. The property to the east is designated Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and includes single-family residential development (Sheridan Estates Tract 13564). The property to the south is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and one single-family dwelling, and is the site of the City's proposed 300 acre (Etiwanda Creek) annexation, which includes a proposed General Plan Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land. 5. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga oonducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after receipt of public testimony, closed CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16,2004 Page 2 the hearing on that date. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-59, recommending approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750 along with other associated applications. 6. On June 2, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. After the receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16, 2004. 7. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 8. All legal prerequisites prior: to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 20, 2004, through April 5, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR and a copy of the Draft Development Agreement (Appendix K). Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ('~he Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the project approvals. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 3 d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. e. Public Resoumes Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. f. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, Biological Resoumes, Air Quality, and Public Services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings", the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i) Land Use and Planninq. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and the Final EIR indicates that the Project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, because some of the proposed residential lots would be less than 20,000 square feet. With the approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment that will change the land use district from Very Low Residential (0.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acre area designated for residential development, the Project would then be consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. As a result, the Project site may be developed with lots less than 20,000 square feet. In addition, in order to address the reduction in lot sizes and the likely effect of lots averaging 18,000 square feet, with a minimum size of 14,025 square feet, on the ability of those property owners to own and maintain horses on those lots, a mitigation measure is being imposed (Mitigation Measure LU-2) to require the developer to pay an in-lieu fee to the City for the development of an equestrian center that would serve residents in the area desiring to own and maintain horses. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan also requires a particular design and development theme that is consistent with the character of Old Etiwanda by having access to trails, provisions for views of the mountains and complying with certain design requirements for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 4 community's entry points. Mitigation Measure LU-1 is being imposed that requires the project developer to submit a landscape plan that is consistent with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that any inconsistency of the Project with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii) Traffic and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a Level of Service (LOS) of "E" or "F" at the intersections of Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW) and at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Street (EW). Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to construct and widen Wardman-Bullock Road along the Project frontage (Mitigation Measure TC-3), to install a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection (Mitigation Measure TC-5), to contribute developer fees for other traffic improvements (Mitigation Measures TC-1 and TC-5), and to modify signing and stripping of certain roadways and intersections (Mitigation Measures TC-2 and TC-4). The City's "City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development" provides for the payment of fees at the time building permits are issued based on a formula adopted by the City Council by resolution. That formula provides for the payment of a fee per dwelling unit of approximately $1,710.03 and a credit against those fees for certain qualifying traffic improvements that mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The City is required to use traffic impact fees to fund City-wide and regional roadway and traffic improvements, and as a consequence, the payment of those fees by the project developer will contribute to the mitigation of the Project's impacts to traffic and circulation. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that traffic at the study intersections will be reduced so that those intersections operate at a LOS "D," and that the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iii) Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. Earthmoving equipment is anticipated to create noise ranging between 75 to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure N- 1 ). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the shore term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels at the facades of homes nearest the Project exit at Wardman-Bullock Road would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic. The Final EIR states that if the property owners of the homes fronting on Wardman-Bullock Road can close their windows and still obtain adequate ventilation, then the goal of reducing the interior noise to a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior noise level would be achieved. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to install air conditioning units for the residences that front along Wardman-Bullock Road so as to allow window closure during warm days so as to achieve a less than significant interior noise level for those homes with the windows closed (Mitigation Measure N-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a less than significant level. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 5 iv) Geoloqy and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking due to regional and local faults located in the area. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the developer to ensure that all grading plans and grading work are done in compliance with the geotechnical report for the Project so that soil and slopes are properly compacted and grading work achieves all seismic requirements (Mitigation Measure GS-1), that the developer shall submit building plans which incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs (Mitigation Measure GS-2), and that all buildings and structures are built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-3). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. v) Hydroloqy and Water Quality. The Final EIR identifies that during storm events, construction activities (particularly vegetation removal, grading and excavation), could affect the amounts of sediments and suspended solid material leaving the site such that water quality downstream of the site could be affected to a level that was potentially significant. Vegetation removal and grading would expose the soil to erosion by wind and rain, and rainfall could carry more sediment off the disturbed areas and adversely affect water quality downstream. In addition, during earthwork and construction activities, pollutants that may be discharged in stormwater include vehicle fluids such as oil, grease and coolants, asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete paving, paints and solvents, wood products, and metal and metal plated products. In accordance with the State of California's implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Project developer will be required to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface waters. Compliance with these permitting requirements will require the Project developer and construction crews to comply with a variety of measures, such as limiting clearing and grubbing areas to the limits of the active construction area, using hay bales and sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season, using enclosed storage sheds where possible, utilizing hazardous materials in a manner that avoids contact with the ground, avoiding the application of certain materials during periods of rainfall, washing of equipment or vehicles in a designated place where a sump can be located to collect wash water for proper disposal, and servicing equipment and vehicles off-site. A mitigation measure is imposed to require compliance with these permitting requirements and BMPs (Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 ). The City Council finds that with the imposition of this mitigation measure and after implementation of BMPs set forth in the SW PPP, potentially significant impacts on water quality from construction activity will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi) Public Health and Safety. The Final EIR identifies that the frequency of high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from extreme wind conditions. In addition, wildfires on adjacent lands, including National Forest land and undeveloped properties, could threaten residential development on the Project site. Specifically, the Final EIR indicates that Santa Ana winds along the front of the mountains can reach hurricane force, with winds in the area of the Project detected at reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour. Damage to roofs, fences, windows and landscaping is possible in these types of conditions. Three mitigation measures are imposed to mitigate the impacts of wind hazard to a less than significant level. Those measures include requirements to utilize optimum building materials and construction techniques as required by the Uniform Building Code, to require disclosure of the potential for high winds in sales documents to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16,2004 Page 6 prospective homebuyers, and to comply with other mitigation measures for control of particulate matter emissions during grading and construction (Mitigation Measures HS-1, HS-2, HS-3). Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code has been demonstrated to result in structures that are capable of withstanding winds projected for the Project area without serious damage. With respect to the impacts created by wildfires on adjacent lands, the City Council is particularly familiar with these risks after the City and surrounding areas recently experienced the Grand Prix fire in October 2003. The City Council also understands that the addition of persons into an area of wildland vegetation increases the number of ignitions (risk), the growth of brush after a fire increases the intensity of new fires in the area (hazard), and the addition of homes and amenities into the same area (value) creates an increased need for fire protection and fuel modification. Design features have already been incorporated into the Project to ensure vegetation areas to the north are separated from residential structures with a trail, a wall and a riprap drainage channel so as to provide approximately 100 feet of distance between chaparral vegetation and the homes. All homes will also be constructed with Class A roofs. Along the western boundary of the site where the wildfire threat is moderate, a six-foot masonry wall and 'ffirewise" landscaping between native vegetation and the homes are to be required. A comprehensive mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure HS-4) requires a detailed landscape plan/fuel modification plan to contain requirements for "firewise" vegetation in specific areas, irrigation plans and specific standards applicable to certain areas of the Project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure HS-5 requires the installation of residential fire sprinklers as a component of the construction. The City Council finds that with the combination of appropriate landscaping, residential fire sprinklers, the introduction of certain new paved surfaces where none currently exist, and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will effectively reduce movement of potential fire into the Project area and thereby mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. vii) Biolo.qical Resources. The proposed Project would result in development of a 65.3 acre area of the site, and the Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and a small area of flat-top buckwheat scrub. Specifically, prior to the Grand Prix fire, the portion of the site proposed for development had approximately 1.5 acres of disturbed annual grassland, 4.2 acres of disturbed annual grassland dominated by deerweed, 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub dominated by white sage, and 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub. The impacts on the annual grassland areas is not considered significant because of the relatively small area impacted (approximately 1/3 of the total disturbed annual grassland on the site) and because those areas had experienced substantial disturbance from prior weed control measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads and other roads that cross the property. With respect to upland sage scrub, most of that area was dominated by white sage, which is not considered to be sensitive habitat by the resource agencies that regulate biological resoumes. However, the City Council recognizes that the loss of this plant community for wildlife habitat is important when considering cumulative impacts on this resoume. With respect to the flat-top buckwheat scrub, this is a common species and an indicator of prior disturbance to the land. The Final EIR indicates that no sensitive species of fiat-top buckwheat scrub were found on the site and therefore no impacts were expected to occur. The Final EIR recognizes that much of the vegetation previously found on the site would likely grow back after the fire if no development took place. However, the Biological Assessment not only found no substantial evidence of sensitive plant or wildlife species on the site, but it also found that due to the area already being disturbed by dirt roads for power line maintenance, previous construction activity, commercial harvesting of white sage, and flood control improvements and activities, development of the site would not have a significant impact on biological resources. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project site is within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 7 Program (NEOSHPP), as adopted by the County of San Bernardino. To implement the goals and purposes of that Program, a mitigation measure has been imposed to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County, 58 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub (Mitigation Measure BIO-1 ). This 58 acre area is intended to accomplish a "one to one" mitigation in acreage for the loss of the 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. As required by the mitigation measure, the off-site mitigation land shall be equal to or greater in habitat value than that of the Project site. The City Council finds that the conveyance into the NEOSHPP of 58 acres of land by the Project developer would mitigate this impact to a level that is less than significant. viii) Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These impacts are considered to be short-term (less than one year) and temporary and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust. One cause of these short-term impacts is blowing dust resulting from the grading of the site. In addition, the use of diesel engine equipment during grading and construction along with worker trips is anticipated to create levels of nitrous oxides (NOx) that are also above the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Similarly, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to create significant levels of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx) that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. A comprehensive mitigation measure is imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 ) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as is possible, terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control measures when winds exceed 25 miles per hour, stabilize disturbed areas if construction is delayed, require 90-day Iow-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment, limit idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment, encourage carpooling for construction workers, limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods, park construction vehicles off traveled roadways, wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site, wash or sweep access points daily and encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, construction emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation requirements, construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and therefore, would remain significant after mitigation. ix) Cumulative Impacts-Air Quality, Noise, and Public Services. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of development projects in the vicinity, would likely create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality because the Project would add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions. With respect to noise, the Final EIR indicates that the Project will create short-term cumulative construction noise impacts and long-term cumulative noise impacts due to increased vehicle trips. With respect to public services (schools), state law (Government Code Section 65995 (h)) provides for the payment of developer fees and deems such payment to be full and complete mitigation of school impacts. Consequently, as a matter of law, the long-term cumulative impacts to schools from this and other projects are deemed to be fully mitigated by the payment of developer fees and the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 8 City is precluded, by law, from imposing additional mitigation to address these potential impacts. The City Council finds that noise and air quality impacts associated with increased vehicle trips would remain significant when combined with existing and anticipated construction projects in the vicinity of the Project. g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts and short and long-term cumulative impacts) and noise (short-term and long-term cumulative impacts). h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative." Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) To annex the 90.4 acre Project site and adjacent 10 acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 9 ii) The "No Project-No Development" Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet the Project objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project's objective to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. Furthermore, as the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within an area previously approved for residential development would not be legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. iii) The "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative" assumes that the Project site would be developed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation (Very Low Residential). Under this designation, and assuming that the area disturbed by grading is equal to that of the proposed Project, the minimum lot sizes would be 20,000 square feet and the number of lots that could be developed would be approximately 90 rather than the 123 as currently proposed. This reduction in development by approximately 33 dwelling units would result in lower traffic, air quality, and noise impacts than the proposed Project, but would not reduce to less than significance the shod-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from Project emissions and cumulative shod and long-term noise impacts. In addition, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. i. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including shod-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality and noise. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph h above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from shod-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, and cumulative air quality and noise are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other CJty Development guidelines; ii) Annexation of the 90.4-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 10 iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands; ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs; x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "G" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Ordinance and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. k. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Ordinance shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearings on June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the Project site is consistent with neighboring properties, including the City's proposed 300 acre (Etiwanda Creek) annexation, and is consistent with General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2 which expresses an intention to apply the Low Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of Influence CITY COUNCIL ~ESOLUTION NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16,2004 Page 11 where the level of services, including roads, shopping and recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities. b. The proposed change in land use designation will promote housing opportunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs. c. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open space conservation areas abutting the proposed development. d. The proposed change in designations are also consistent with the provisions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which encourages retention of open space and the extension of the image of Old Etiwanda into this area, with relatively large lots and opportunities for an equestrian lifestyle. SECTION 4: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1,2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750 to establish a Low Residential District on that portion of land described in this Ordinance and depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-00750 (ENSPA) CITY BOUNDARY HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION ~] PROPOSED LOW EXISTING ENSP ~ FO ~ vt. EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 04-** A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16324 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 63.5 ACRES INTO 123 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29, AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16324 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 63.6 ACRES INTO 123 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081'09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29. A. Recitals. 1. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 123 single-family housing units on approximately 65.3 acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on approximately 25.1 acres of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for annexation and is currently used for a utility easement and for flood control purposes. The total area to be annexed is approximately 100.4 acres. The density of the development is approximately 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 (collectivelythe"Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The property along the north boundary of the site includes overhead power transmission lines (belonging to the LA Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and Southern California Edison (SCE), associated easements, vacant land, and a few scattered single-family residences near the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and is within the Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The property to the south of the site is presently vacant and is primarily within San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) and SCE ownership, and is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The property to the east contains existing single-family residential development within the Very Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The property to the west is unimproved property primarily within SBCFCD ownership and is designated Conservation and Flood Control/Utility Corridor within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 2 4. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-60, certifying the Final EIR for purposes of approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 and approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. 5. On May 19, 2004, Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. 6. On June 2, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. After the receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16, 2004. 7. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that ail of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 20, 2004, through April 5, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR and a copy of the Draft Development Agreement (Appendix K). Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ('~he Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. CItY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 3 c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the project approvals. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. e. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. f. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, Biological Resoumes, Air Quality, and Public Services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings", the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Land Use and Planninq. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and the Final EIR indicates that the Project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, because some of the proposed residential lots would be less than 20,000 square feet. With the approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment that will change the land use district from Very Low Residential (0.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acre area designated for residential development, the Project would then be consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. As a result, the Project site may be developed with lots less than 20,000 square feet. In addition, in order to address the reduction in lot sizes and the likely effect of lots averaging 18,000 square feet, with a minimum size of 14,025 square feet, on the ability of those property owners to own and maintain horses on those lots, a mitigation measure is being imposed (Mitigation Measure LU-2) to require the developer to pay an in-lieu fee to the City for the development of an equestrian center CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 4 that would serve residents in the area desiring to own and maintain horses. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan also requires a particular design and development theme that is consistent with the character of Old Etiwanda by having access to trails, provisions for views of the mountains and complying with certain design requirements for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and the community's entry points. Mitigation Measure LU-1 is being imposed that requires the project developer to submit a landscape plan that is consistent with the Cib/s neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that any inconsistency of the Project with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Traffic and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a Level of Service (LOS) of "E" or "F" at the intersections of Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW) and at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Street (EW). Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to construct and widen Wardman-Bullock Road along the Project frontage (Mitigation Measure TC-3), to install a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection (Mitigation Measure TC-5), to contribute developer fees for other traffic improvements (Mitigation Measures TC-1 and TC-5), and to modify signing and stripping of certain roadways and intersections (Mitigation Measures TC-2 and TC-4). The City's "City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development" provides for the payment of fees at the time building permits are issued based on a formula adopted by the City Council by resolution. That formula provides for the payment of a fee per dwelling unit of approximately $1,710.03 and a credit against those fees for certain qualifying traffic improvements that mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The City is required to use traffic impact fees to fund City-wide and regional roadway and traffic improvements, and as a consequence, the payment of those fees by the project developer will contribute to the mitigation of the Project's impacts to traffic and circulation. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that traffic at the study intersections will be reduced so that those intersections operate at a LOS "D," and that the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iii. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. Earthmoving equipment is anticipated to create noise ranging between 75 to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure N- 1 ). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the shore term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels at the facades of homes nearest the Project exit at Wardman-Bullock Road would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic. The Final EIR states that if the proper'b/owners of the homes fronting on Wardman-Bullock Road can close their windows and still obtain adequate ventilation, then the goal of reducing the interior noise to a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior noise level would be achieved. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to install air conditioning units for the residences that front along Wardman-Bullock Road so as to allow window closure during warm days so as to achieve a less than significant interior noise level for those homes with the windows closed (Mitigation Measure N-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16,2004 Page 5 City Council finds that the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a less than significant level. iv. Geoloqy and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking due to regional and local faults located in the area. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the developer to ensure that all grading plans and grading work are done in compliance with the geotechnical report for the Project so that soil and slopes are properly compacted and grading work achieves all seismic requirements (Mitigation Measure GS-1), that the developer shall submit building plans which incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs (Mitigation Measure GS-2), and that all buildings and structures are built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-3). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. v. Hydrology and Water Quality. The Final EIR identifies that during storm events, construction activities (particularly vegetation removal, grading and excavation), could affect the amounts of sediments and suspended solid material leaving the site such that water quality downstream of the site could be affected to a level that was potentially significant. Vegetation removal and grading would expose the soil to erosion by wind and rain, and rainfall could carry more sediment off the disturbed areas and adversely affect water quality downstream. In addition, during earthwork and construction activities, pollutants that may be discharged in stormwater include vehicle fluids such as oil, grease and coolants, asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete paving, paints and solvents, wood products, and metal and metal plated products. In accordance with the State of California's implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Project developer will be required to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface waters. Compliance with these permitting requirements will require the Project developer and construction crews to comply with a variety of measures, such as limiting clearing and grubbing areas to the limits of the active construction area, using hay bales and sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season, using enclosed storage sheds where possible, utilizing hazardous materials in a manner that avoids contact with the ground, avoiding the application of certain materials during periods of rainfall, washing of equipment or vehicles in a designated place where a sump can be located to collect wash water for proper disposal, and servicing equipment and vehicles off-site. A mitigation measure is imposed to require compliance with these permitting requirements and BMPs (Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 ). The City Council finds that with the imposition of this mitigation measure and after implementation of BMPs set fo~h in the SW PPP, potentially significant impacts on water quality from construction activity will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi. Public Health and Safety. The Final EIR identifies that the frequency of high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from extreme wind conditions. In addition, wildfires on adjacent lands, including National Forest land and undeveloped properties, could threaten residential development on the Project site. Specifically, the Final EIR indicates that Santa Aha winds along the front of the mountains can reach hurricane force, with winds in the area of the Project detected at reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour. Damage to roofs, fences, windows and landscaping is possible in these types of conditions. Three mitigation measures are imposed to mitigate the impacts of wind hazard to a less than significant level. Those measures include CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 6 requirements to utilize optimum building materials and construction techniques as required by the Uniform Building Code, to require disclosure of the potential for high winds in sales documents to prospective homebuyers, and to comply with other mitigation measures for control of particulate matter emissions during grading and construction (Mitigation Measures HS-1, HS-2, HS-3). Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code has been demonstrated to result in structures that are capable of withstanding winds projected for the Project area without serious damage. With respect to the impacts created by wildfires on adjacent lands, the City Council is particularly familiar with these risks after the City and surrounding areas recently experienced the Grand Prix fire in October 2003. The City Council also understands that the addition of persons into an area of wildland vegetation increases the number of ignitions (risk), the growth of brush after a fire increases the intensity of new fires in the area (hazard), and the addition of homes and amenities into the same area (value) creates an increased need for fire protection and fuel modification. Design features have already been incorporated into the Project to ensure vegetation areas to the north are separated from residential structures with a trail, a wall and a riprap drainage channel so as to provide approximately 100 feet of distance between chaparral vegetation and the homes. All homes will also be constructed with Class A roofs. Along the western boundary of the site where the wildfire threat is moderate, a six-foot masonry wall and "firewise" landscaping between native vegetation and the homes are to be required. A comprehensive mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure HS-4) requires a detailed landscape plan/fuel modification plan to contain requirements for "firewise" vegetation in specific areas, irrigation plans and specific standards applicable to certain areas of the Project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure HS-5 requires the installation of residential fire sprinklers as a component of the construction. The City Council finds that with the combination of appropriate landscaping, residential fire sprinklers, the introduction of certain new paved surfaces where none currently exist, and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will effectively reduce movement of potential fire into the Project area and thereby mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. vii. Bioloqical Resources. The proposed Project would result in development of a 65.3 acre area of the site, and the Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and a small area of flat-top buckwheat scrub. Specifically, prior to the Grand Prix fire, the portion of the site proposed for development had approximately 1.5 acres of disturbed annual grassland, 4.2 acres of disturbed annual grassland dominated by deerweed, 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub dominated by white sage, and 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub. The impacts on the annual grassland areas is not considered significant because of the relatively small area impacted (approximately 1/3 of the total disturbed annual grassland on the site) and because those areas had experienced substantial disturbance from prior weed control measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads and other roads that cross the property. With respect to upland sage scrub, most of that area was dominated by white sage, which is not considered to be sensitive habitat by the resource agencies that regulate biological resources. However, the City Council recognizes that the loss of this plant community for wildlife habitat is important when considering cumulative impacts on this resource. With respect to the flat-top buckwheat scrub, this is a common species and an indicator of prior disturbance to the land. The Final EIR indicates that no sensitive species of flat-top buckwheat scrub were found on the site and therefore no impacts were expected to occur. The Final EIR recognizes that much of the vegetation previously found on the site would likely grow back after the fire if no development took place. However, the Biological Assessment not only found no substantial evidence of sensitive plant or wildlife species on the site, but it also found that due to the area already being disturbed by dirt roads for power line maintenance, previous construction activity, commercial harvesting of white sage, and flood control improvements and activities, development of CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page7 the site would not have a significant impact on biological resoumes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project site is within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP), as adopted by the County of San Bernardino. To implement the goals and purposes of that Program, a mitigation measure has been imposed to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County, 58 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub (Mitigation Measure BIO-1 ). This 58 acre area is intended to accomplish a "one to one" mitigation in acreage for the loss of the 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. As required by the mitigation measure, the off-site mitigation land shall be equal to or greater in habitat value than that of the Project site. The City Council finds that the conveyance into the NEOSHPP of 58 acres of land by the Project developer would mitigate this impact to a level that is less than significant. viii. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These impacts are considered to be short-term (less than one year) and temporary and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust. One cause of these short-term impacts is blowing dust resulting from the grading of the site. In addition, the use of diesel engine equipment during grading and construction along with worker trips is anticipated to create levels of nitrous oxides (NOx) that are also above the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Similarly, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to create significant levels of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx) that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. A comprehensive mitigation measure is imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 ) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as is possible, terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control measures when winds exceed 25 miles per hour, stabilize disturbed areas if construction is delayed, require 90-day Iow-NOx tune-ups for off-mad equipment, limit idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment, encourage carpooling for construction workers, limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods, park construction vehicles off traveled roadways, wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site, wash or sweep access points daily and encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, construction emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation requirements, construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and therefore, would remain significant after mitigation. ix. Cumulative Impacts - Air Quality, Noise and Public Services. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of development projects in the vicinity, would likely create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality because the Project would add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions. With respect to noise, the Final EIR indicates that the Project will create short-term cumulative construction noise impacts and long-term cumulative noise impacts due to increased vehicle trips. With respect to public services (schools), state law (Government Code Section 65995(h)) provides for the payment of developer fees and deems such payment to be full and complete mitigation of CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 8 school impacts. Consequently, as a matter of law, the long-term cumulative impacts to schools from this and other projects are deemed to be fully mitigated by the payment of developer fees and the City is precluded, by law, from imposing additional mitigation to address these potential impacts. The City Council finds that noise and air quality impacts associated with increased vehicle trips would remain significant when combined with existing and anticipated construction projects in the vicinity of the Project. g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts and short and long-term cumulative impacts) and noise (short-term and long-term cumulative impacts). h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative." Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final E IR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) To annex the 90.4 acre Project site and adjacent 10 acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 9 h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ii) The "No Project-No Development~' Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet the Project objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project's objective to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. Furthermore, as the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within an area previously approved for residential development would not be legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. iii) The "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative" assumes that the Project site would be developed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation (Very Low Residential). Under this designation, and assuming that the area disturbed by grading is equal to that of the proposed Project, the minimum lot sizes would be 20,000 square feet and the number of lots that could be developed would be approximately 90 rather than the 123 as currently proposed. This reduction in development by approximately 33 dwelling units would result in lower traffic, air quality, and noise impacts than the proposed Project, but would not reduce to les§ than significance the short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from Project emissions and cumulative short and long-term noise impacts. In addition, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would dot provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. i. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality and noise. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph h above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, and cumulative air quality and noise are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; CiTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 10 ii) Annexation of the 90.4-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; and viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs. x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter. xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "G" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. k. Pursuant to previsions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearings and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and the Development Code. The density, design and development standards of the Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended by DRC2003-00749, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 11 and with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, as amended by DRC2003-00750. The Tentative Tract Map is also consistent with the General Plan's intention of extending the Iow density image of Old Etiwanda into the area as provided in General Plan Policy 2.4.4.5. b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and the Development Code. The proposed development is designed to comply with the design theme imposed for North Etiwanda as specified in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Specifically, the lots are relatively large, the tract contains a local trail system with connections to the regional trail system, including the development of 15-foot wide equestrian trails to be constructed along the north property boundary and south side of Henderson Creek Channel, and the design standards for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and community entries comply with the overall thematic design for the North Etiwanda area of the City. c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is located in proximity to existing roadways and infrastructure. The tract is designed to address existing topographical and geological conditions and to achieve compliance with existing legal, biological and geological limitations of the site. Based on the whole record, the City Council finds that the site is physically suitable for the proposed residential housing development. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project will have an average density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre for the entire project and will comply with the density restrictions imposed by the existing General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The lots would range from 14,024 square feet to 45,755 square feet. These sizes are compatible with the surrounding developed areas and with the physical conditions and limitations on the site. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. Based on extensive mitigation measures relating to native plants, sensitive species and wildlife, the impact of the project on biological resources is determined to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Further, the mitigation measures related to seismic shaking, fires, wind and other conditions are deemed to be sufficient to avoid substantial injury to humans. f. The Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. As specified in prior sections of this Resolution, conditions and mitigation measures have been imposed that will reduce risks from seismic activities, fires, winds and other hazards and, based on these conditions and restrictions, the City Council finds that the project will not cause serious public health problems. g. The design of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Based on the evidence in the record of this matter, the Project has been designed to recognize and protect existing conservation areas and open space resources maintained by public entities as well as utility easements and other existing private and public easements and restrictions imposed on the Project site. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 and hereby approves the application (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324) subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. O4- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 12 Planning Division 1) All future applications for development review shall be reviewed for consistenoy with the approved tentative tract map and provisions of the associated development agreement, along with the design guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, including standards for parkways and streetscape design, slope planting, and neighborhood monumentation and wall designs. 2) The construction of the community trail through the project shall incorporate all standard trail improvements in accordance with City Standard Drawings, including gates, access, signage, and fencing as applicable. 3) Construction of the community trail shall include drive approaches at the entry from the local streets, along with gates and step-through posts in accordance with City standards. 4) All corner turns shall receive a corner-cutoff as necessary to allow through traffic. 5) Grading along the trail easement shall be modified to allow construction of a 24-foot by 24-foot or 12-foot by 48-foot corral at the same elevation as the trail. 6) Coordinate with San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) to allow the slopes on the south project boundary to occur on flood control property. If SBCFCD allows permission to grade, the slopes shall be vegetated with native species to be compatible with the native vegetation. 7) Since the actions between Centex Homes and SBCFCD are not finalized, provide an alternative Master Plan exhibit that depicts access to the south along with a Master Plan of the adjacent property. 8) Indicate location, purpose and rights for all easements that traverse the site. In addition, show the location of existing utility lines, if any, that cross the property and indicate who they are serving, and if relocation is proposed. Provide a copy of the Title Report that identifies the disposition of all easements across the property. 9) The effective date of the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 shall be the last to occur of all of the following events: (i) the date that the General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 takes effect, (ii) the date that Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750 takes effect, (iii) the date that Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 takes effect, and (iv) the date that the annexation of the property into the City has occurred. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page13 Enqineerinq Division 1 ) Wardman Bullock Road improvements shall be in accordance with City "Collector Street" standards, including curbs and gutters, a.c. pavement, 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights, sidewalk, street trees, traffic signs, and striping. 2) Colonbero Road improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local Street" standards, including curbs and gutters, a.c. pavement, 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights, sidewalk, access ramps, street trees, traffic signs, and striping. 3) Internal street improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local Street" standards, including curbs and gutters, a.c. pavement, 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights, sidewalk, drive approaches, access ramps, street trees, traffic signs, and striping. a) All cul-de-sacs shall conform to City standards. b) Street "D" shall be extended to the southerly boundary and will be a stub street. In the event San Bernardino County Flood District (SBCFCD) obtains the parcel south of this development, the proposed knuckle at Streets "D" and "A" will be acceptable. 4) Complete the westerly portion of Wardman Bullock Road using "Collector Street" standards from Wilson Avenue to the south project boundary. Improvements shall include curb and gutter, AC pavement, and 5800 Lumens HPSV streetlights. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent offsite improvements from future development of the adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. a) Obtain the ultimate right-of-way dedication from adjacent property owners west of Wardman Bullock Road from the south property boundary to Wilson Avenue. 5) The site is located within Area 13 of the attached EtiwandeJSan Sevaine Area Drainage Policy. The applicable fees and construction requirements are contained therein. 6) Lots "A" and "B" shall be dedicated to the City for landscape purposes. A separate set of Landscape and Irrigation Plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 14 7) Provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and identify applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the Grading Plan. 8) The drainage facilities along the north tract boundary shall be designed to Q10o-year storm frequency with 100 percent bulking. The drainage facilities shall be hard lined channels to City standards. Provide 15- foot wide access road, 3-inch AC / 4-inch AB, along the southerly side of the drainage facilities with a turn around area at the end. The offsite discharge of all drainage facilities is subject to approval of underlying fee owner and/or San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 9) The trail shown on the tentative tract map shall be a private local feeder trail. Environmental Miti.qation LAND USE AND PLANNING LU-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit and obtain approval of a Landscape Plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. LU-2: The project proponent must pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the development of an equestrian center as specified in the development agreement. TRANSPORTA TION/CIRCULA TION TC-I: The developer shall participate in the phased construction of off- site traffic signals through payment of established fees. TC-2: On-site traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project, TC-3: The developer shall construct Wardman Bullock Road along the project frontage at its ultimate half-section width as a Collector roadway (66-foot fright-of-way) in conjunction with development; and complete the westerly portion of Wardman Bullock Road from the south project boundary to Wilson Avenue. Improvements shall include curb/gutter, traffic signs, striping, etc. TC-4: Modify stop sign placement to control east/westbound traffic at the intersection of Wardman Bullock Road (NS) and Wilson Avenue (EW). TC-5: Install a Traffic Signal at the Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection. The project should contribute towards the cost CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 15 of necessary study are improvements on a fair share or "pro-rate" basis. AIR QUALITY AQ-1: Dust Control · Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as practical. ·Terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control procedures when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. · Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Emissions · Require 90-day Iow-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment · Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Off-Site Impacts · Encourage car-pooling for construction workers. · Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. · Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. · Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. · Wash or sweep access points daily. ·Encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. NO/SE N-l: Construction contractors shall adhere to the City Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall take place on Sundays or holidays. N-2: The developer shall install air conditioning units as a standard to allow for window closure for future residences in the development that front on Wardman Bullock Road. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-l: Prior to recording of the first final map of the project, the property owner shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City, in fee, a minimum of 54-acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the property owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 16 maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the City Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological. Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GS-I: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit grading plans that incorporate the general earthwork and grading specifications for rough grading as set forth in the geotechnical report for the project (Appendix E). These include such measures as clearing and grubbing to remove all vegetation and any preexisting above ground and underground structures; over excavating and recompacting soil; placement or disposal of oversized material; construction of cut or fill slopes; preliminary foundation recommendation; and grading requirements for seismic considerations. Final recommendations shall be noted on all grading plans to be carried out by grading contractors, and monitored by Building and Safety staff. GS-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, including permits for utilities, the developer shall submit development plans that incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report (Appendix E) for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs. These include specifications for concrete slabs, footings temporary excavation for utilities preliminary pavement design, and protection of foundations from surface drainage. GS-3: All structures shall be built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety. Building officials shall review all plans at the time of submittal. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY HS-I: The developedbuilder shall utilize the optimum building materials and construction techniques to minimize wind damage to property as set forth in Division III, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. HS-2: The home builder/sales agent shall disclose to potential buyers, that the project is in a High Wind Area. This disclosure shall also be included in escrow papers or other documentation for future buyers. HS-3: See Mitigation Measure Aq-la for control of PM10 emissions during grading and construction. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. O4- SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16,2004 Page 17 HS-4: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan/fuel modification plan that shall contain the following details: Zone 1 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment. Zone 1 areas may be irrigated and/or temporarily irrigated ornamental fire-wise landscaping. Single well-spaced trees and shrubs are allowed. These trees and shrubs will be planted and maintained so that at maturity, their branches are at least 10 feet from any structure. The purpose of Zone I landscaping is to increase a non-combustible plant zone for a minimum of thirty feet around each structure. Zone 2 Landscaping and Fuel Treatment Areas. Zone 2 areas may be irrigated or non-irrigated firewise ornamental landscaping and/or native vegetation treated and maintained to Zone 2 Criteria. The purpose of Zone 2 Fuel Treatment is to reduce the amount of combustible fuels to a level where wildland fire intensity is substantially reduced and to provide a safe zone for firefighters (defensible space) during their wildland fire protection efforts. Common Areas: These areas shall be maintained as directed by the Landscaping Plan, and will be irrigated. The grass, ground cover, and ornamental trees will add to the d~cor of this project and will decrease the fire hazard for property owners. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-I: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, June 2000. 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. O,D,N^NCE NO. ? AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES LLC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 65.3 ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 123 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLONBERO ROAD APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 AND 10, AND 0226-082-29. A. Recitals. 1. California Government Code Section 65864 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The Legislature finds and declares that: (a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. (b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." 2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "(a) Any city...may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property as provided in this article..." 3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows: "A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement..." 4. Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, is proposed Development Agreement DRC2003-00751, concerning that property generally located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road at the intersection with Colonbero Road and legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinafter in CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16,2004 Page 2 this Ordinance, the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development Agreement." 5. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date and recommended approval through adoption of its Resolution No. 04-61. 6. On June 2, 2004 and continued to June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Development Agreement. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: .SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of 123 single-family housing units on approximately 65.3 acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on approximately 25.1 acres of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for annexation and is currently used for a utility easement and for flood control purposes. The total area to be annexed is approximately 100.4 acres. The density of the development is approximately 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Ordinance as the "Project." b. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUB'I-F16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 3 "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003111057). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 20, 2004, through April 5, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR and a copy of the Draft Development Agreement (Appendix K). Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04-60, the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. e. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the project approvals. f. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. g. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the .significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. h. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, Biological Resources, Air Quality, and Public Services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings", the CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 4 City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Land Use and Plannin.q. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and the Final EIR indicates that the Project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, because some of the proposed residential lots would be less than 20,000 square feet. With the approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment that will change the land use district from Very Low Residential (0.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) for the 65.3 acre area designated for residential development, the Project would then be consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. As a result, the Project site may be developed with lots less than 20,000 square feet. In addition, in order to address the reduction in lot sizes and the likely effect of lots averaging 18,000 square feet, with a minimum size of 14,025 square feet, on the ability of those property owners to own and maintain horses on those lots, a mitigation measure is being imposed (Mitigation Measure LU-2) to require the developer to pay an in-lieu fee to the City for the development of an equestrian center that would serve residents in the area desiring to own and maintain horses. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan also requires a particular design and development theme that is consistent with the character of Old Etiwanda by having access to trails, provisions for views of the mountains and complying with certain design requirements for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and the community's entry points. Mitigation Measure LU-1 is being imposed that requires the project developer to submit a landscape plan that is consistent with the City's neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that any inconsistency of the Project with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Traffic and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections. Specifically, the Final EIR found that Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a Level of Service (LOS) of "E" or "F" at the intersections of Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW) and at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Street (E'eN). Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to construct and widen Wardman-Bullock Road along the Project frontage (Mitigation Measure TC-3), to install a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and Banyan Street intersection (Mitigation Measure TC-5), to contribute developer fees for other traffic improvements (Mitigation Measures TC-1 and TC-5), and to modify signing and stripping of certain roadways and intersections (Mitigation Measures TC-2 and TC-4). The City's "City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development" provides for the payment of fees at the time building permits are issued based on a formula adopted by the City Council by resolution. That formula provides for the payment of a fee per dwelling unit of approximately $1,710.03 and a credit against those fees for certain qualifying traffic improvements that mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The City is required to use traffic impact fees to fund City-wide and regional roadway and traffic improvements, and as a consequence, the payment of those fees by the project developer will contribute to the mitigation of the Project's impacts to traffic and circulation. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that traffic at the study intersections will be reduced so that those intersections operate at a LOS "D," and that the impacts of the Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 5 iii. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient I noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is I heavy equipment associated with construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. Earthmoving equipment is anticipated to create noise ranging between 75 to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity - 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure N-l). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the shore term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels at the facades of homes nearest the Project exit at Wardman-Bullock Road would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic. The Final EIR states that if the property owners of the homes fronting on Wardman-Bullock Road can close their windows and still obtain adequate ventilation, then the goal of reducing the interior noise to a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior noise level would be achieved. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to install air conditioning units for the residences that front along Wardman-Bullock Road so as to allow window closure during warm days so as to achieve a less than significant interior noise level for those homes with the windows closed (Mitigation Measure N-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a less than significant level. iv. Geoloqy and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking due to regional and local faults located in the area. Mitigation measures are imposed which require the developer to ensure that all grading plans and grading work are done in compliance with the geotechnical report for the Project so that soil and slopes are properly compacted and grading work achieves all seismic requirements (Mitigation Measure GS-1), that the developer shall submit building plans which incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report for preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs (Mitigation Measure GS-2), and that all buildings and structures are built to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of California standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-3). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. v. Hydroloqy and Water Quality. The Final EIR identifies that during storm events, construction activities (particularly vegetation removal, grading and excavation), could affect the amounts of sediments and suspended solid material leaving the site such that water quality downstream of the site could be affected to a level that was potentially significant. Vegetation removal and grading would expose the soil to erosion by wind and rain, and rainfall could carry more sediment off the disturbed areas and adversely affect water quality downstream. In addition, during earthwork and construction activities, pollutants that may be discharged in stormwater include vehicle fluids such as oil, grease and coolants, asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete paving, paints and solvents, wood products, and metal and metal plated products. In accordance with the State of California's implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Project developer will be required to include Best CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 6 Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface waters. Compliance with these permitting requirements will require the Project developer and construction crews to comply with a variety of measures, such as limiting clearing and grubbing areas to the limits of the active construction area, using hay bales and sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season, using enclosed storage sheds where possible, utilizing hazardous materials in a manner that avoids contact with the ground, avoiding the application of certain materials during periods of rainfall, washing of equipment or vehicles in a designated place where a sump can be located to collect wash water for proper disposal, and servicing equipment and vehicles off-site. A mitigation measure is imposed to require compliance with these permitting requirements and BMPs (Mitigation Measure HWQ-1). The City Council finds that with the imposition of this mitigation measure and affer implementation of BMPs set forth in the SWPPP, potentially significant impacts on water quality from construction activity will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi. Public Health and Safety. The Final EIR identifies that the frequency of high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from extreme wind conditions. In addition, wildfires on adjacent lands, including National Forest land and undeveloped properties, could threaten residential development on the Project site. Specifically, the Final EIR indicates that Santa Ana winds along the front of the mountains can reach hurricane force, with winds in the area of the Project detected at reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour. Damage to roofs, fences, windows and landscaping is possible in these types of conditions. Three mitigation measures are imposed to mitigate the impacts of wind hazard to a less than significant level. Those measures include requirements to utilize optimum building materials and construction techniques as required by the Uniform Building Code, to require disclosure of the potential for high winds in sales documents to prospective homebuyers, and to comply with other mitigation measures for control of particulate matter emissions during grading and construction (Mitigation Measures HS-1, HS-2, HS-3). Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code has been demonstrated to result in structures that are capable of withstanding winds projected for the Project area without serious damage. With respect to the impacts created by wildfires on adjacent lands, the City Council is particularly familiar with these risks affer the City and surrounding areas recently experienced the Grand Prix fire in October 2003. The City Council also understands that the addition of persons into an area of wildland vegetation increases the number of ignitions (risk), the growth of brush after a fire increases the intensity of new fires in the area (hazard), and the addition of homes and amenities into the same area (value) creates an increased need for fire protection and fuel modification. Design features have already been incorporated into the Project to ensure vegetation areas to the north are separated from residential structures with a trail, a wall and a riprap drainage channel so as to provide approximately 100 feet of distance between chaparral vegetation and the homes. All homes will also be constructed with Class A roofs. Along the western boundary of the site where the wildfire threat is moderate, a six-foot masonry wall and 'ffirewise" landscaping between native vegetation and the homes are to be required. A comprehensive mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure HS-4) requires a detailed landscape plan/fuel modification plan to contain requirements for "firewise" vegetation in specific areas, irrigation plans and specific standards applicable to certain areas of the Project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure HS-5 requires the installation of residential fire sprinklers as a component of the construction. The City Council finds that with the combination of appropriate landscaping, residential fire sprinklers, the introduction of certain new paved surfaces where none currently exist, and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 7 implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will effectively reduce movement of potential fire into the Project area and thereby mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. vii. Bioloqical Resources. The proposed Project would result in development of a 65.3 acre area of the site, and the Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and a small area of flat-top buckwheat scrub. Specifically, prior to the Grand Prix fire, the portion of the site proposed for development had approximately 1.5 acres of disturbed annual grassland, 4.2 acres of disturbed annual grassland dominated by deerweed, 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub dominated by white sage, and 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub. The impacts on the annual grassland areas is not considered significant because of the relatively small area impacted (approximately 1/3 of the total disturbed annual grassland on the site) and because those areas had experienced substantial disturbance from prior weed control measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads and other roads that cross the property. With respect to upland sage scrub, most of that area was dominated by white sage, which is not considered to be sensitive habitat by the resource agencies that regulate biological resources. However, the City Council recognizes that the loss of this plant community for wildlife habitat is important when considering cumulative impacts on this resource. With respect to the flat-top buckwheat scrub, this is a common species and an indicator of prior disturbance to the land. The Final EIR indicates that no sensitive species of flat-top buckwheat scrub were found on the site and therefore no impacts were expected to occur. The Final EIR recognizes that much of the vegetation previously found on the site would likely grow back after the fire if no development took place. However, the Biological Assessment not only found no substantial evidence of sensitive plant or wildlife species on the site, but it also found that due to the area already being disturbed by dirt roads for power line maintenance, previous construction activity, commercial harvesting of white sage, and flood control improvements and activities, development of the site would not have a significant impact on biological resources. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Project site is within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP), as adopted by the County of San Bernardino. To implement the goals and purposes of that Program, a mitigation measure has been imposed to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County, 58 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub (Mitigation Measure BIO-l). This 58 acre area is intended to accomplish a "one to one" mitigation in acreage for the loss of the 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. As required by the mitigation measure, the off-site mitigation land shall be equal to or greater in habitat value than that of the Project site. The City Council finds that the conveyance into the NEOSHPP of 58 acres of land by the Project developer would mitigate this impact to a level that is less than significant. viii. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These impacts are considered to be short-term (less than one year) and temporary and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust. One cause of these short-term impacts is blowing dust resulting from the grading of the site. In addition, the use of diesel engine equipment during grading and construction along with worker trips is anticipated to create levels of nitrous CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 8 oxides (NOx) that are also above the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Similarly, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to create significant levels of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx) that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. A comprehensive mitigation measure is imposed on the Project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions, included in those measures are requirements to limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area as is possible, terminate soil disturbance and accelerate dust control measures when winds exceed 25 miles per hour, stabilize disturbed areas if construction is delayed, require 90-day Iow-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment, limit idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment, encourage carpooling for construction workers, limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods, park construction vehicles off traveled roadways, wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site, wash or sweep access points daily and encourage receipt of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, construction emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation requirements, construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and therefore, would remain significant after mitigation. ix. Cumulative Impacts - Air Quality, Noise and Public Services. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of development projects in the vicinity, would likely create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality because the Project would add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in the form of additional vehicle emissions. With respect to noise, the Final EIR indicates that the Project will create short-term cumulative construction noise impacts and long-term cumulative noise impacts due to increased vehicle trips. With respect to public services (schools), state law (Government Code Section 65995 (h)) provides for the payment of developer fees and deems such payment to be full and complete mitigation of school impacts. Consequently, as a matter of law, the long-term cumulative impacts to schools from this and other projects are deemed to be fully mitigated by the payment of developer fees and the City is precluded, by law, from imposing additional mitigation to address these potential impacts. The City Council finds that noise and air quality impacts associated with increased vehicle trips would remain significant when combined with existing and anticipated construction projects in the vicinity of the Project. i. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that affer implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts and short and long-term cumulative impacts) and noise (short-term and long-term cumulative impacts). j. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative." Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 9 do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) To annex the 90.4 acre Project site and adjacent 10 acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ii) The "No Project-No Development" Alternative assumes that no new land uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet the Project objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project's objective to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. Furthermore, as the subject property is under private ownership, the elimination of future development within an area previously approved for residential development would not be legally or financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. iii) The "Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative" assumes that the Project site would be developed under the current City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation (Very Low Residential). Under this designation, and assuming that CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page10 the area disturbed by grading is equal to that of the proposed Project, the minimum lot sizes would be 20,000 square feet and the number of lots that could be developed would be approximately 90 rather than the 123 as currently proposed. This reduction in development by approximately 33 dwelling units would result in lower traffic, air quality, and noise impacts than the proposed Project, but would not reduce to less than significance the short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term impacts on air quality from Project emissions and cumulative short and long-term noise impacts. In addition, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and planned development for the area, would not provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area residents. k. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality and noise. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from shod-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions, and cumulative air quality and noise are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EiR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; ii) Annexation of the 90.4-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16,2004 Page 11 vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; and viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs. x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter. xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. I. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "G" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Ordinance and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. m. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Ordinance shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 3: The City Council finds that the Development Agreement does comply with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65865 through 65869.5 in that the Development Agreement does specify in detail and contains the following: a. Provisions are included in Section 3(A) of the Development Agreement requiring periodic review of the Agreement at least every twelve months, at which time the applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement (California Government Code Section 65865.1). b. The duration of the Development Agreement is specified in Section I(B) of the Agreement as being for ten (10) years (Government Code Section 65865.2). c. The permitted uses of the property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed structures, and other required provisions are referred to in Section 2(A) of the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). d. The Development Agreement includes conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions in Section 2(B) of the Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. June 16, 2004 Page 12 e. The Development Agreement includes terms and conditions in Section 2 that require the developer to improve portions of public streets around the perimeter of the property and provide for and improve streets inside the development (Government Code Section 65865.2). f. The Development Agreement specifies that the Project is to be constructed in coordination with the construction of certain public infrastructure improvements as specified in Section 2 of the Agreement. (Government Code Section 65865.2). SECTION 4: Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above-referenced public hearing on June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds that upon the adoption of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, the Development Agreement will provide for development which is consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The City Council bases its findings of consistency with the General Plan on the fact that the project entitlements specified in the Development Agreement provide for the extension of the Iow density image of Old Etiwanda into the area as provided in General Plan Policy 2.4.4.5, the fact that the proposed uses set forth in this Development Agreement are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity, and that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan's intent to keep substantial portions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area as open space. SECTION 5: Based on substantial evidence presented during the above-referenced public hearing on June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds that upon the adoption of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, the Development Agreement will provide for development which is consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The City Council bases its findings of consistency with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the facts that the proposed Project will contain relatively large minimum residential lot sizes (minimum size of 14,025 square feet and an average lot size of 18,000 square feet), which are larger lots than in many other portions of the City and consistent with the goals of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to provide for larger lots and equestrian lots. In addition, development of lots less than 20,000 square feet will require the developer to contribute an in-lieu fee of $1,000 per lot for the development of an off-site Equestrian Center. The Project is also designed to contain a trails system, provide for views of the mountains, and with the imposition of Mitigation Measure LU-2, will comply with the Specific Plan's requirements for landscape treatments and required walls, fencing, lighting and community entry that is consistent with the design scheme specified in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. SECTION 6: This Council hereby approves Development Agreement DRC2003-00751; attached hereto as Exhibit "A," subject to the condition that the Development Agreement shall not become effective unless and until General Plan Amendment DR02003-00749 and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750 have been reviewed and approved by the City Council and have taken effect. SECTION 7: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC CONCERNING PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 16324 This Agreement (the "Development Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2004, by and between Henderson Creek Properties, LLC, a California limited liability company, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (the "CITY") pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC, and its successors and assigns, if any, are referred to collectively hereinafter as the "Property Owner". The CITY and Henderson Creek Properties, LLC are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". RECITALS_: A. To provide more certainty in the approval of development projects, to encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and to reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California has adopted Sections 65864, et seq. of the California Government Code, thus authorizing the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property, in order to establish development rights with respect thereto. B. Section 65865(b) of the California Government Code authorizes the CITY to enter into a binding development agreement with respect to real property which is in unincorporated territory but also within the CITY's sphere of influence, provided that the effectiveness of the development agreement is conditioned upon the annexation of such real property to the CITY within the period of time for annexation as specified in the Development Agreement. C. Property Owner owns fee title to approximately 90.4 acres of real property located entirely within the County of San Bemardino (the "County") and more particularly described in Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Project Site"). D. On July 28, 2003, the City received an application for a Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16324), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2003-00749), an Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2003-00750), along with this Development Agreement (DRC2003- 00751) and a request for Annexation of the proposed Project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the potential environment impacts of the proposed project and all discretionary actions anticipated by the CITY and the Local Agency Formation Commission. E. As set forth in Ordinance No. adopted by the City Council on __ (the "Enacting Ordinance"), the execution of this Dev---elopment Agreement and performance of and compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein by the Parties hereto: (i) is in the best interest of the CITY; (ii) will promote the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices in the CITY; (iii) will promote preservation of land values; (iv) will encourage the development of the Project by providing a level of certainty to the Property Owner; and (v) will provide for orderly growth and development of the CITY consistent with the CITY's General Plan. Exhibit "A" Development Agreement 1 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants of the Parties, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which us hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Section 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effectiveness of Development Aqreement Notwithstanding the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance, this Development Agreement shall only become operative and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall only arise upon the annexation of the Project Site to the City, provided the annexation is final as to any and all administrative actions and is not then subject to judicial challenge, and further provided that such annexation shall occur on or before February 28, 2005. B. Term The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall extend for a period of 10 years thereafter, unless this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Development Agreement, including, without limitation, the extensions provided below and any extensions attributable to "force majeure" circumstances described in Section 2.D.4 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties. Following the expiration of the Term, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that such termination shall not affect any right or duty arising from the project entitlements granted prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Development Agreement and the structures that are developed in accordance with this Development Agreement and the use of those structures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensuring, for land use purposes, that those structures continue to be legal conforming structures and that those uses continue to be legal conforming uses. C. Assiqnment Subject to the terms of this Development Agreement, Property Owner shall have the right to convey, assign, sell, lease, sublease, encumber, hypothecate or otherwise transfer (for purposes of this Development Agreement, "Transfer") the Project Site, in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation or other entity at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, and to the extent of each such Transfer, the transferor shall be relieved of its legal duty to perform such obligations under this Development Agreement at the time of the Transfer, except to the extent Property Owner is in default, as defined in Section 3.C hereof, of any of the terms of this Development Agreement when the Transfer occurs. If all or a portion of the Project Site is Transferred and there is noncompliance by the transferee owner with respect to any term and condition of this Development Agreement, or by the transferor with respect to any portion of the Project Site not sold or Transferred, such noncompliance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by that transferee or transferor, as applicable, but shall not be deemed to be a breach hereunder against other persons then owning or holding any interest in any portion of the Project Site and not themselves in breach Development Agreement 2 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC under this Development Agreement. Any alleged breach sha~l be governed by the provisions of Section 3.C hereof. In no event shall the reservation or dedication of a portion of the Project Site to a public agency cause a transfer of duties and obligations unless specifically stated to be the case in this Development Agreement, any of the exhibits attached to this Development Agreement, the instrument of conveyance used for such reservation or dedication, or other form of agreement with such public agency. Property owner shall notify the CITY not less than $0 days before any such transfer, and such notice shall contain all material information regarding the contemplated Transfer, including but not limited to the identity of the transferee, and the material terms of such contemplated Transfer including an Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement as to the Transfer property ("Assumption") to be executed by Transferee and delivered to City upon Transfer. Upon City notification as described above, delivered by Property Owner, subject to delivery at closing of the Assumptions, without any additional governmental review or action. D. Amendment of A.qreement This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Development Agreement, the parties may enter into one or more implementing agreements, as set forth below, to clarify the intended application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending this Development Agreement. Property Owner and the CITY acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Property Owner and the CITY and that, in the course of the development of the Project Site, it may be necessary to supplement this Development Agreement to address the details of the Parties' respective performance and obligations, and to otherwise effectuate the purposes of this Development Agreement and the intent of the Parties. If and when, from time to time, the Parties find that it is necessary or appropriate to clarify the application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, the Parties may do so through one or more implementing agreements (the "Implementing Agreement"), which shall be executed by the City Planner and by an authorized representative of Property Owner. After execution, each Implementing Agreement shall be attached as an addendum and become a part of this Development Agreement, and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary. Such Implementing Agreement shall not require the approval of the City Council of the CITY and shall only be executed by the City Planner (on Behalf of the CITY), if the City Planner has determined that such implementing agreements are not materially inconsistent with this Development Agreement, and applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies of the CITY in effect at the time of execution of this Development Agreement. Any changes to this Development Agreement which would impose additional obligations on the CITY beyond those which would be deemed to arise under a reasonable interpretation of this Development Agreement, or which would purport to change land use designations applicable to the Project Site under the applicable Project Entitlements, shall be considered "material" and shall require amendment of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Development Agreement 3 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC Section 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT A. Land Use and Project Entitlements The Project Entitlements are depicted on the Tentative Tract Map, Conceptual Grading Plan, and Conceptual Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibits C - E. Project Entitlements refers to the following material related to the approval of the Development Agreement (DRC2003-00751) and the Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16324): all plans that constitute the approved project, all Planning Commission and City Council Resolutions of Approval including the associated conditions of approval, and all mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. The Parties acknowledge that, without being obligated to do so, Property Owner plans to develop the Project Site in substantial conformity with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. During the Term of this agreement, the permitted uses for the Project, or any portion thereof, the density and intensity of use, zoning, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, building and yard setback requirements, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, design and performance standards and other terms and conditions of development of the Project constitute the Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. The specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supersede and be controlling over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Project Entitlements. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total number of lots in the approved tract(s) total 123 lots. The City agrees that partial final maps may be recorded for portions of the Project Site in accordance with Government Code Section 66456.1. Other certain specific modifications of the Project Entitlements to which the Parties agree are set forth below. All exhibits attached hereto constitute material provisions of the Development Agreement, and are incbrporated herein. B. Rules and Re,qulations Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65856 and except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, the ordinance, rules and regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of such uses, and design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Project, shall be the Project Entitlements and those ordinances of the CITY, as implemented by this Development Agreement, rules, regulations and official policies, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the Project Entitlements, as modified and/or amended by this Development Agreement (the "Existing Laws"), except that the CITY's street improvement, lighting, storm drain, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") standards shall be followed, and the landscape standards applicable shall be those specified in this Development Agreement, and/or the CITY's standards. IN the event of any conflict between the CITY's ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies and the Existing Laws, then the Existing Laws shall control. The CITY shall not be prevented in subsequent actions applicable to the Project, from applying new ordinances, rules regulations, and policies in effect ("Future Policies") to the extent that they do not conflict with the Existing Laws. Such conflict shall be deemed to occur if, without limitation, such Future Policies: 1. Modify the permitted types of land uses, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height or size of proposed buildings on the property, building and yard setback requirements, or impose requirements for the construction or provisions of on-site or offsite improvements or the reservation or dedication of land for public use, or the payment of fees or Development Agreement 4 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC the imposition of extractions, other than as are in each case specifically provided for in this Development Agreement; 2. prevent the Property Owner from obtaining all necessary approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements at such dates and under such circumstances as the Property Owner would otherwise be entitled under this Development Agreement; 3. render any conforming use of the Project Site a non-conforming use or any structure on the Project Site a non-conforming structure. C. Desiqn and Infrastructure Issues 1. Street Sections (il The CITY desires that Wardman-Bullock Road be designed in accordance with CITY Collector Street standards, as depicted in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 13(E). (ii) The CITY desires that Colonbero Road be designed in accordance with CITY Local Street standards, as depicted in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 13(F). 2. Dry Utilities The Project Entitlements do not require that Burd vaults be installed and the CITY and Property Owner agree that no Burd vaults will be required throughout the Project Site. 3. Gradinq The Grading Plan, included in the Project Entitlements, shall conform to the Design Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. However, with an average slope across the site of less than 7%, the Project is exempt from the CITY Hillside Development Regulations of the Development Code. 4. Circulation Issues and Fees a. Transportation Fee/Traffic Impact Analysi~ The Property Owner shall construct circulation improvements as depicted on Exhibit F. In addition, the Property Owner shall comply with Transportation Development Fees in accordance with CITY ordinance. The Property Owner shall receive credit against, or reimbursement of costs, in excess of the Transportation Development Fee for the "backbone" improvements as described herein, inc conformance with CITY policy. b. Other Circulation Improvements The Property Owner shall design and construct the following improvements: (il. Wardman-Bullock Road along the project frontage at its ultimate half section width (66 foot right-of-way). Development Agreement 5 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (ii) The west side of Wardman-BuIIock Road from Wilson Avenue to the south project boundary. Improvements shall include curb and gutter, A.C. pavement and 5800 Lumens HPSV street lights. ADDRESSED BELOW in SECTION 2.1.2. d. Reimbursement Agreement The City agrees that the construction of the Wardman-Bullock Road improvements will benefit other property owners and developers in the vicinity of the Project Site. The City agrees to use its best efforts to condition benefited projects or otherwise seek to obtain fair share contributions from surrounding property owners and developers for the construction of Wardman-Bullock Road and agrees to reimburse the Property Owner to the extent fair share contributions are collected from other property owners for the cost of construction of Wardman-Bullock Road in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.1, below. The obligations hereunder shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall continue until such time as the Property Owner has received payment in full for the cost of the construction of Wardman-Bullock Road; provided, however, that the City's obligation shall be limited to the extent the City can collect such funds. 5. .Storm Drains (i) Improvements to the Henderson Creek Levee are being completed under the direction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. These improvements must be completed prior to occupancy of homes in the affected area. (ii) The site is located within Area 13 of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Plan; applicable fees and construction requirements shall apply. 6. park Fee/Equestrian Fee/Beautification Fee The Property Owner shall pay the following fees: a. Property Owner will pay CITY a sum totaling $95,000.000 (based upon $1,000 per unit for the ninety-five lots which do not conform to equestrian standards) for equestrian purposes. The sum will be paid from CFD formation and funding, prior to recording of the first final map and shall be reserved by the City for the construction and subsequent capital maintenance costs associated with the development of an equestrian enclosed arena complex in the Etiwanda North area. b. The Property shall pay the CITY a sum totaling $ 811,800 for park purposes (based upon a value of $ 6,600 per dwelling unit). The sum shall be paid from CFD formation and funding, pdor to recording of the first final map. c. In exchange for the construction of the landscaping improvements on the east side of Wardman-Bullock Road, adjacent to the Henderson Creek Channel improvements, the Property Owners shall not be required to pay CITY Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. Development Agreement 6 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC 7. Development Standards a. The project shall be developed in accordance with the CITY's Low- Density Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. b. The project entitlements include 123 housing units. 8. Design Review Process The Project, and all subsequent applications for residential development, shall be subject to the CITY Development/Design Review process. 9. Architectural Guidelines The Project, and all subsequent applications for residential development, shall be subject to the Architectural Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 10. _Open Space Transfer Plan The Properly Owner shall transfer to the County of San Bemardino Special Districts OS-1 or other qualified conservation entity approved by the City, in fee, a minimum of 54-acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be mutually agreed upon by the Property Owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the CITY Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the CITY Planner. The transfer and funding shall occur prior to recording of the first final map of the Project. D. Timin,q of Development and Fees 1. Development of the Perimeter Landscepinq and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Neiqhborhood Monumentation All required perimeter landscaping shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of the 75th dwelling within the project. 2. Development of the Remainder of the Site Neither the property owner nor CITY can presently predict when or the rate at which phases of the project shall be developed, since such decisions depend on numerous factors which are not within the control of the Property Owner including, without limitation, market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, competition and other factors. The parties acknowledge and agree that Property Owner retains flexibility under this Development Agreement to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as are appropriate within the exercise of the Property Owner's business judgment. The CITY further acknowledges that Property Owner may desire to market, sell, or otherwise arrange for disposition of some or all of the Project Site, prior to development, and that the rate at which the Project develops will likely depend upon the business judgment of subsequent owners of the Project Site. Development Agreement 7 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC 3. CITY's Cooperation CITY shall use good faith, diligent efforts to promptly process and take final action on any applications for permits or approvals filed by Property Owner with respect to the Project. Such cooperation shall include, without limitation, (a) using good faith, diligent efforts to process subsequent Development/Design Review in accordance with state regulations; and (b) promptly processing all ministerial permits in accordance with Section 2.H. below. Without limiting the effect of any other provision of this Development Agreement, any future regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Project Site or the extent thereof, shall be deemed to conflict with Property Owner's vested rights to develop the Project under this Development Agreement and shall, to that extent, not apply to the development of the Project. Processing and review of development proposals shall be subject to established procedures in effect in the entire CITY, including Development and Design Review, as specified in the Existing Laws. However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal shall be based on the objectives, policies and specific development standards specified herein. 4. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Development Agreement, property Owner and CITY shall be excused from performance of their obligations under this Development Agreement during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the Property Owner, as applicable. The time of performance of such obligations as well as the term of this Development agreement shall automatically be extended by the period of such delay hereunder. E. Future Entitlements With respect to any entitlements that Property Owner may require in the future, including, without limitation, tentative tract and parcel map approvals, conditional use permits, and Development/Design Review, the CITY shall retain its discretionary review authority and the CITY's applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies. However, any such discretionary review shall be expressly subject to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the CITY may only impose conditions upon such discretionary entitlements which are consistent with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement, except as otherwise specifically required by state or federal law. F. Environmental Review Other than the mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in the EIR and the Project Entitlements (and any additional future mitigation programs contemplated therein), no other mitigation measures for environmental impacts created by the Project, as presently approved and as evaluated in the EIR, shall be required. In connection with the CITY's issuance of any fudher entitlement (as contemplated in Section 2.E above), which is subject to CEQA, the CITY shall promptly commence and diligently process any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA, and to the extent permitted by CEQA, the CITY shall use the EIR and other existing environmental reports and studies as adequately addressing the environmental impacts of such matter or matters, without requiring new or supplemental Development Agreement 8 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC environmental documentation. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review, the CITY may impose additional feasible measures (or conditions) to mitigate, as required by CEQA, the adverse environmental impacts of such future entitlements, which were not considered, and could not have been considered, at the time of approval of the Project. G. CITY Fees and Mandates by State and Federal Laws The Parties acknowledge and agree that the fees and impositions which may potentially be imposed by the CITY on the Project and Properly Owner (collectively "fees") fall within on of three categories: (a) fees for processing land use and construction permit applications which are not otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 66000 of the Government Code (but which are subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 66013, 66014, and 66016-66018.5 of the Government Code) (collectively, the "Processing Fees"); (b) fees or other monetary exactions which are contemplated under ordinances or resolutions in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement and which purport to defray all or a portion of the cost of impacts to certain public facilities, improvements and other amenities from the development projects, including any fees described in Govemment Code Sections 66000 et seq. (collectively, the "Existing Fee Categories") (the Existing Fee Categories include any increases, decreases, or other modifications to existing fees, so long as such modified fees relate to the same category of impacts identified in the Existing Fee Categories); and (c) fees or other monetary exactions which may be imposed in the future by the CITY for purposes of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities, improvements, or amenities related to development projects, but excluding the Existing Fee Categories ("Other Fees"). The Property Owner's obligation to pay Fees shall be specifically governed by the following provisions: 1. Processin~l Fees. The CITY may charge Planning and Engineering Plan Check and Permit Fees and Building Permit Fees which are in force and effect on a CITy-wide basis at the time of Property Owner's application for a land use entitlement or a construction permit. The amount of any Processing Fees shall be determined by the CITY in accordance with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, Government Code Sections 66013, 66014, and 66017-66018.5 (or any successor laws, as applicable). Unless otherwise agreed by Property Owner and the CITY, the Processing Fees assessed Property Owner shall be the same as those imposed upon other development projects throughout the jurisdictional limits of the CITY. 2. Existinq Fees. In consideration of the development of the Project Site as set forth in this Development Agreement, and the positive fiscal impact of the Project on the City, the City agrees that neither the Property Owner, nor the Project shall be subject to any increase in the Existing Fees or to any additional City imposed fees, impositions or monetary exactions with respect to the Existing Fee categories for a period of five (5) years following the effective date of this Development Agreement. 3. Other Fees. In consideration of the property Owner's Agreement to modify the Project Entitlements as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and implement the timing of development in accordance with the terms set forth above, no Other Fees shall be imposed upon the property Owner or the Project during the applicable Fee Limitation Period, except as may be specifically required to carry out any state or federal law or mandate enacted after the effective date of this Development Agreement, as necessary to mitigate environmental impacts of the project in accordance with 2.G above. Development Agreement 9 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC 4. Fiscal Impact Analysis. CITY does not require Property Owners or the Project to complete a fiscal impact analysis for application or issuance of any approvals or permits that CITY might issue under this Development Agreement. H. Non-discretionary Permits The Parties acknowledge that in the course of implementing the Project, Property Owner will, from time to time, apply to the CITY for various ministerial permits, licenses, consents, certificates, and approvals, including, without limitation, non-discretionary subdivision approvals, grading permits, construction permits, certificates of occupancy and permits required to connect the Project to utility systems under the CITY's jurisdiction (collectively the "Non-Discretionary Permits"). Property Owner shall have the right to apply for any such Non-Discretionary Permits in accordance with the Existing Laws (and any applicable Future Policies under Section 2.B, above). The CITY shall issue to Property Owner, upon such applications, all required Non- Discretionary Permits, subject only to compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the CITY's usual and customary fees and charges for such applications and Non- Discretionary Permits (subject to the provisions of Section 2.G above) and the terms and conditions of the applicable permit application. The CITY further agrees that upon its approval of any plans, specifications, design drawings, maps, or other submittals of Property Owner in conjunction with such Non-Discretionary Permits (the "Approved Plans"), all further entitlements, approvals and consents required from the CITY to implement the Project which are consistent with and further implement such Approved Plans, shall be processed and approved by the CITY in accordance with this Development Agreement. I. ~ 1. Cooperation with Other Public Aqencies. The CITY acknowledges that the Property Owner may apply from time to time for permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, in conjunction with the development of or provision of services to the Project, including, without limitation, approvals in connection with the developing and implementing a tertiary water system, potential transportation improvements and other on-site and off-site infrastructure. The CITY shall cooperate with Property Owner in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals from such agencies (including without limitation, the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency), and shall provide any documents or certificates reasonably required to process and obtain such permits and approvals. 2. Construction of Off-Site Improvements. To the extent that Property Owner is required to construct any off-site improvements as a condition of developing the Project, the Property Owner shall make good faith efforts to acquire any off-site property interests required to construct such public improvements. If Property Owner fails to do so, Property Owner shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the first final subdivision map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements under Government Code Section 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the CITY decides to acquire the property interests required for the public improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by Property Owner of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of those costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount stated in an appraisal report obtained at Property Owner's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the CITY prior to commencement of the appraisal. To the extent that such off-site improvements, or the construction of any substantial infrastructure on-site, substantially benefit other property owners or other portions of the jurisdiction of limits of the Development Agreement 10 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC CITY, the CITY agrees to assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in obtaining reimbursement or other fair share contribution by such other benefited property owners. Such assistance may include, without limitation, conditioning the approval of development projects proposed by such benefited property owners upon such owners' contribution, on a fair share, pro-rata basis, to the construction cost of such improvements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the CITY agrees with respect to the infrastructure improvements which are adjacent to and benefit other properties (whether such properties are undeveloped or developed), any further discretionary approvals sought by such properly owners shall be conditioned to require fair share reimbursement to Property Owner or City, as the case may be, for construction and related costs incurred in providing such improvements to the extent legally permissible. 3. Public Financinq. The Parties hereby acknowledge that substantial public improvements must be funded in order to contribute to the Park Fee and Equestrian and School Fees and the remainder of the Project Site and that public financing of a substantial portion of these improvements will be critical to the economic viability of the Project. Subject to CITY's ability to make all findings required by applicable law and complying with all applicable legal procedures and requirements, the CITY agrees to cooperate with and assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in developing and implementing a public financing plan for the construction of the public infrastructure improvements. The implementation of such plan may include, without limitation, the formation of one or more assessment districts, or Mello-Roos community facilities districts, or the issuance of bonds, certificates of participation, or other debt securities necessary to implement such plan. J. Creation of the Landscape and Street Liqhting Maintenance District The CITY agrees to promptly annex the Project Site to an existing Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LMD) or form the necessary LMD pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq (the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972") for the Project development to encompass the Project Site as well as the area being annexed by the CITY. In addition, the Property shall annex to the existing Street Lighting Districts. The Property Owner shall pay for the annexation or formation of the LMDs. The Parties agree that annexation to the LMD or the formation of a new LMDs must be accomplished no later than recordation of the final tract map and that the CITY may create LMDs, which allow annexation of other areas. In addition, if outside agencies, upon their review and approval of various components of the project, impose any non-standard improvements that require extraordinary maintenance responsibilities of the CITY, the CITY may impose the creation of additional maintenance districts upon the proposed development. Upon formation of the LMD, and acceptance of the improvements by the City Council, the CITY (through the LMD) shall assume full responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the improvements to be maintained by the LMD pursuant to the LMD's governing documents. The Parties also acknowledge that assessments for the LMDs are collected annually in June, and to the extent that assessments are collected through the LMD for the period ending June 2006, the City may request, and the Property Owner agrees to provide, a reasonable cash deposit to fund the LMD. The CITY shall promptly upon receipt of assessments the following June, reimburse Property Owner for any such cash advances to fund the LMDs. Development Agreement 11 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC Section 3. ANNUAL REVIEW A. Good Faith Compliance Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866.1, the CITY shall once every twelve (12) months during the term of this Development Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Property Owner with the terms of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that it is intended that this review shall apply to the Project Site as a whole, as opposed to each individual property owner who may own a parcel comprising the Project Site. In connection with such annual review, Property Owner shall provide such information as may reasonably be requested by the CITY in order to determine whether any provisions of this Agreement have been breached by Property Owner. If at any time prior to the review period there is an issue concerning a Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the provisions of this Section 3 shall apply. B. Certificate of Compliance If Property Owner is found to be in compliance with this Development Agreement after annual review, the City Planner shall, upon wdtten request by Property Owner, issue a certificate of compliance ("Certificate of Compliance") to Property Owner stating that, based upon information known to the CITY, the Development Agreement remains in effect and Property Owner is not in default. The Certificate of Compliance shall be in recordable form and shall contain such information as shall impart constructive record of notice of compliance. Property Owner may record the Certificate of Compliance in the Official Records of the County of San Bernardino. C. FindinR of Default If, upon completion of the annual review, the City Planner intends to find that Property Owner has not complied in good faith with the material terms of this Agreement (a "Default"), he shall first give written notice of such effec~ to the Property Owner. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of all staff reports, staff recommendations and other information concerning Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement as the CITY may possess and which is relevant to determining Property Owner's performance under this Development Agreement. The notice shall specify in detail the grounds and all facts allegedly demonstrating such noncompliance, so Property Owner may address the issues raised on a point-by-point basis. Property Owner shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice to file a wi'itten response with the City Planner. Within 10 days after the expiration of such 20-day response period, the City Planner shall notify Properly Owner whether he has determined that Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement ("Notice of Default"). Such Notice of Default shall specify the instances in which the Property Owner has allegedly failed to comply with this Development Agreement and the terms under which compliance can be obtained. The Notice of Default shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of the Notice of Default, and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. D. Right to Appeal Upon receipt of the Notice of Default, the Property Owner may appeal the City Planner's decision directly to the City Council. Such appeal shall be initiated by filing a written notice of Development Agreement 12 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC appeal with the City Clerk within the (10) calendar days following the Property Owner's receipt of the Notice of Default. The hearing on such appeal shall be scheduled in accordance with Section 17.02.080 of the CITY Development Code. At the hearing, Property Owner shall be entitled to submit evidence and to address all the issues raised by the Notice of Default. if, after considering all the evidence presented at the hearing, the City Council finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence the Property Owner is in Default, then the City Council shall specify in writing to Property Owner the instances in which the Property Owner has failed to comply and the terms under which compliance can be obtained, and shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of such writing from the City Council and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. E. Property Owner's Cure Ri.qhts If Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement, it shall have a reasonable period of time to cure such Default before action is taken by the CiTY to terminate this Development Agreement or to otherwise amend or limit Property Owner's rights under this Development Agreement or to otherwise amend or limit Property Owner's rights under this Development Agreement. In no event shall such cure period be less than the time set forth in the finding of Default made under Sections 3.C or 3.D above (as applicable) or less than the time reasonably necessary to cure such Default. Any such cure period shall be extended by force majeure circumstances described in Section 2.D.5 above. Section 4. ENFORCEMENT A. Enforcement by Either Party Subject to all requirements mandated by applicable state or federal or other law, this Development Agreement shall be enforceable by any of the parties. B. Cumulative Remedies In addition to any other rights or remedies, any of the Parties may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default (to the extent otherwise permitted herein and in Government Code Section 65864 et seq. or any successor laws and regulations), to enforce any covenant or agreement herein in this Development Agreement or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, and relief in the nature of mandamus. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. The provisions of this Section 4.B are not intended to modify other provisions of the Development Agreement and are not intended to provide additional remedies not otherwise permitted by law. C. ~s Fees In any legal proceedings brought by either party to enforce any covenant or any of the Parties' rights or remedies under this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any action for declaratory or equitable relief, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and all reasonable costs, expenses and disbursements in connection with such action. Any such attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by either of the Parties Development Agreement 13 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC in enforcing a judgment in its favor under this Development Agreement, shall be recoverable separately from and in addition to any other amount included in this judgment, and such attorneys' fees obligation is intended to be severable from the other provisions of this Development Agreement and to survive and not be merged into any such judgment. Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Successors and Assigns Subject to the provisions of Section 1.C above, the terms of this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and their successors and assigns. Insofar as this Development Agreement refers to Property Owner, as defined herein, if the rights under this Development Agreement are assigned, the term "Property Owner" shall refer to any such successor or assign. B. Project as a Private Undertaking It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect under this Development Agreement, and that each of the Parties is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between the CITY and Property Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. C. Captions. The captions of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. D. ~ Protection 1. Discretion to Encumber. This Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Property Owner, in any manner, at Property Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Project or any portion of the Project or any improvements on the Project, by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to all or any part of the Project or any improvements thereon (a "Mortgage"). 2. Effect of Default. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any mortgage subsequently placed upon the property, or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon, including the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust. Despite the foregoing, breach of any provision of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith for value. 3. Mortqaqee Not ObliRated. Notwithstanding anything in this Development Agreement to the contrary, (a) any holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage ("Mortgagee") may acquire to or possession of all or any portion of the Project or any improvement thereon pursuant to the remedies provided by its Mortgage, whether by judicial or non-judicial foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise, and such Mortgagee shall not Development Agreement 14 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC have any obligation under this Development Agreement to construct, fund or otherwise perform any affirmative obligation or affirmative covenant of Property Owner hereunder or to guarantee such performance, and Mortgagee may, after acquiring title to all or any portion of the Project as aforesaid, assign or otherwise transfer the Project or any such portion thereof to any person or entity, and upon the giving of notice of such assignment or transfer to the CITY and the assumption by the assignee or transferee of the obligations of the Property Owner with respect to the Property Owner or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue from and after the date of assignment or transfer, Mortgagee shall be relieved and discharged of and from any and all further obligations or liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to the Project or podion thereof so assigned or transferreci; and (b) the consent of CITY shall not be required for the acquisition of all or any portion of the Project by any purchaser at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the terms of any Mortgage, and such purchaser shall, by virtue of acquiring title to the Project or such portion thereof, be deemed to have assumed all obligations of Property Owner with respect to the Project or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue subsequent to the purchase date, but such purchaser shall not be responsible for any pdor defaults of Property Owner; provided, however, that in either of the instances referred to in clauses (a) or (b) above, to the extent any obligation or covenant to be performed by Property Owner is a condition to granting of a specific benefit or to the performance of a specific covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the CITY's granting of such benefit and performance of such covenant hereunder. 4. Notice of Default to Mortqaqee: Riqht of Mort,qaqee to Cure. If a Mortgagee files with the CITY Clerk, a written notice requesting a copy of any Notice of L~efault given Property Owner under this Development Agreement and specifying the address for delivery thereof, the CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with delivery thereof to Property Owner, any notice given to Property Owner with respect to any claim of the CITY that Property Owner has not complied with the terms of this Development Agreement or is otherwise in Default under this Development Agreement. Each such Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of thirty (30) days after the expiration of any cure period given to Property Owner with respect to such Default, to cure such default; provided, however, that if any such Default cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be necessary to remedy or cure such Default, if such Mortgagee commences to remedy or cure within such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such remedy or cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Default is of a nature which can only be cured by Mortgagee by obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall be deemed to have remedied or cured such Default such Mortgagee shall, within such thidy (30) day period, commences efforts to obtain possession and carry the same forward with diligence and continuity through implementation of foreclosure, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure or commence to remedy or cure the Default within the cure period specified in Section 3.E above. 5. Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.D.4 above, if a Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof to obtain possession of the Project Site by any process or injunction issued by any court or by any reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Property Owner, Mortgagee shall for the purposes of this Development Agreement be deemed to be proceeding with diligence and continuity to obtain possession of the Property during the period of such prohibition of Mortgagee is proceeding diligently to terminate such prohibition. Development Agreement 15 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC 6. Amendment to Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to modify this Development Agreement or to allow this Development Agreement to be modified or amended in any way, or cancel this Development Agreement, without the prior written consent of each Mortgagee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding anything stated above to the contrary, the CITY and Property Owner shall cooperate in including in this Development Agreement, by suitable implementing agreement from time to time, any provision which may reasonably be requested by a proposed Mortgagee for the purpose of implementing the mortgagee-protection provisions contained in this Development Agreement and allowing such Mortgagee reasonable means to protect or preserve the lien of the Mortgage on the occurrence of a default under the terms of this Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner each agree to execute and deliver (acknowledge, if necessary for recording purposes) any implementing agreement necessary to effect such request; provided, however, that any such implementing agreement shall not in any material respect adversely effect any rights of the CITY under this Development Agreement or be materially inconsistent with the substantive provisions of this Development Agreement, the Project Entitlements and the Existing Laws. E. Consent Where the conseni or approval of any of the Parties is required in or necessary under this Development Agreement, unless the context otherwise indicates, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. F. ~ement This Development Agreement and the documents attached to and referred to in this Development Agreement constitute the entire agreement between Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement. G. Further Actions and Entitlements Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated under this Development Agreement in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. H. ~ This Development Agreement including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the Parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. I. Recording The CITY Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Bernardino no later than ten (10) days following the effective date of this Development Agreement. Development Agreement 16 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC J. Tim~ Time is of the essence in this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition of this Development Agreement. K. Waiver The failure of any of the Parties at any time to seek redress for any violation of this Development Agreement or any applicable law or regulation or to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition shall not prevent any subsequent act or omission of the same or similar nature which would have originally constituted a breach of or default under this Development Agreement from having all the force and effect of an original breach or default, and such subsequent act or omission may be proceeded against to the fullest extent provided by this Development Agreement. No provision of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by any of the Parties. L. ~ If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Development Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. M. Notices All notices between the CITY and Property Owner and any transferee under this Development Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, mail or facsimile. Notice by personal delivery or facsimile shall be deemed effective upon delivery of such notice to the party for which it is intended at the address set forth below (or, in the case of a transferee in a written notice to the CITY). Notice by mail shall be deemed effective upon receipt or rejection of the addressee. The Parties' current address are as follows: To CITY: Mr. Jack Lam, AICP City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 With Copies to: Mr. James Markman City Attorney Richards, Watson, & Gershon One Civic Center Circle Brea CA 92821 To Property Owner: Henderson Creek Properties, LLC 16337 Shadbush Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Development Agreement 17 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC With Copies to: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 650 Town Center, Suite 1250 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: Roger A. Grable Either Party may change its mailing address or the person to whom notices are to be sent at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other Parties in the manner provided above. N. Indemnification Property Owner hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY and its Council members, representatives, agents, officers, attorneys, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Development Agreement, the Project Entitlements or both. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Development Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROPERTY OWNER By:. By:. Mayor NAME TITLE ATTESTED TO: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Attorney's for Properly Owner Development Agreement 18 Henderson Creek Properties, LLC EXE[IBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAFCO NO. THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, AND A PORTION OF TI-IE WEST HALF OF SECTION 22 TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, 131 THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE NORTH 89040'08" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAED SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1325.05 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CO~ OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 00°00'03'' WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF TIKE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1319.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF TI-IE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 00°00'03" WEST ALONG TI~ EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARiIzK OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 659.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°34, 15" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1325.86 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22; · THENCE NORTH 00°01 '26' EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 660.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH]E NORTFIEAST QUARTER OF TFIE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE SOLWH 89015'44" WEST ALONG TIlE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF TI-lB NORTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1324.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00000'53" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF TI-IE NORTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE 1320..82 FEET TO TI-lB NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 89°14'46" EAST ALO~NG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 1325.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. cONTAINING IN 100.45 ACRES MORE OR LESS ALL AS SHOWN ON EXIqlB1T "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY TI-IlS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. No, 3821 WILLIAM H. ADDINGTON, P.L.S. 3821 DATE EXP. 06130104 LICENSE EXPIRES 06/30/04 EXHIBIT A SHEET 1 OF OF ~I~E NE 1/4, OF BECIlON 21 P.O.B. (N89'40'OS'E 1325.04') 1325.05' [usg'l~'4s'E ~azs.oe'1 N89~4'46"[ -- ~ I22 mE NE COR ~ ROAD I) A.P.N. 022S-081-28 OF SEC~ON 22 ROAD II AREN 100.45 AC. m P.O.B. - POINT OF BEGINNING ~' ~) ~l~ ( ) - ~.D~CAYES .[CORO DATA ROAD~ OF SEC~ON ~l~ I ~ / [N8915'46"E 1324.88'] N89'15'4~"E 152~.87' ~ ~ ~ j' ~E SE COR.. ~E SW COR.. OF ~E NE 1/*. ' m~ ~ WA DM~ BU~ OF ~E NW 1/4. OF ~E NE 1/4. OF BECKON 21 ~.~ ~ ~ ' ROAD ~ , OF BECKON 22 ~ = A.P.N. 0226-081-~9 A,P.N. 0226-081-10 ~ ~20' ~ ~ ~ WARDMAN BU~OCK "'- G~HIC S~ ~ ~ ROAD ~ 300 o ~5o 300 600 TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT NO. t6324 ! ~77 ..... HENDERSON CREEK' ~CTt~ ~W~LSON CONCEPTUAL ~NDSCAPE P~N ~NCHO CUCAMON~, CAU~RNIA TRACT 16524 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS TRACT WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD TRACT I.~565 TINCT 15564 I c,.cu~,o~ ,~,~o~,~ I I AEI CASC ENGINEERING EXHIBIT F TH E CITY 0 F ~ci~ o Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUB1-1'16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUB'I-1'16324. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162, DRC2003-01163, AND DRC2003-01164 June 16, 2004 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions in the order presented: A. Approve the Resolution to initiate proceedings for the annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and - Wardman Bullock Road; B. Approve the Resolution allowing a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land; C. Approve the Resolution allowing an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan changing the district designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land; BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A. Project Summary The proposed annexation area is currently within an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bernardino and is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. The City boundary is currently adjacent to the proposed annexation area along Wilson Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. Separate annexations associated with Tentative Tract 16072, Tentative Tract 14749, and Tentative Tract 16324, will result in creating a City boundary along East Avenue and the north boundary of this annexation, a total annexation area of approximately 800 acres within four separate annexation actions (Exhibit A). The proposed annexation area, comprised of approximately 300 acres, is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. Approximately 205 acres of the area is characterized by Etiwanda Creek, including the spreading basins and associated conservation area. The proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments will modify approximately 80 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for two 40 acre parcels, one located at the northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue and the second located at the northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road; and, approximately 45 acres of land from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control in association with Etiwanda Creek (located on the east side of the creek along the west side of Wardman Bullock Road); and finally 15 acres within the annexation area (three 5 acre parcels located on the west side of Wardman Bullock Road), will remain Very Low Residential. B. Summary of Planning Commission Action Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report and explained the project is merely for a land annexation, not a tract map or development project. He stated the annexation and amendments are consistent with prior City Council Subcommittee and City Council actions to bring the land under CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162, DRC2003-01163, AND DRC2003-01164 June 16, 2004 Page 3 the control of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He noted that the Henderson Creek project is dependent upon the annexation of these 300 acres because the Henderson Creek project would create an island without approval of this annexation. He stated there was a letter from the School District that expressed concern about the cumulative effect of houses, and therefore students, in the area. He noted the plan takes land out of residential zoning and changes it to open conservation land area. He noted the School District needs a school site in that immediate area and our General Plan calls for one in the area. He said the City would make a commitment to work with the School District when it comes to finding a site. He noted that an Errata Sheet was attached to make changes to the Initial Study to clarify school mitigation measures. With respect to the letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Buller stated Planning staff spoke to them on the phone with the City Attorney present. He said the Service misunderstood this project and once staff clarified that this maintains a consistency with an agreement the Service made with Flood Control on portions of the land and that we are adding conservation land into the area, the Service said they would not have sent the letter if they had understood the action. Related to Mr. Sherman's two letters and Leeona Klippstein's letter, Mr. Buller recommended the Commission hear the testimony from Mr. Sherman and allow staff to respond following that. Shaun Judson, Superintendent, Etiwanda School District, confirmed that the School District's concerns are not for just this proposed 300-acre annexation, but the cumulative effect of all the development in the area. He said they have a school opening near the corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street in September that will open with about 685 students, but it will not be able to handle all of the new development going into the area. He asked that the Commission reaffirm the City's position to have a school site reserved or floating in the area so they will be able to meet student needs. Commissioner McNiel noted that Mr. Buller indicated in his presentation that the City supports the District's need for the second site. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, felt that there is piecemeal environmental analysis on the individualized projects. He believed the proposed land changes should be analyzed with disclosure of direct and cumulative impacts. He stated that a water assessment is needed when there are developments of a certain number of homes and the total homes with all the annexations fall within that threshold. He felt there would be a loss of cdtical habitat for species protection for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and that will be a significant effect. He said there had been discussions with respect to the Equestrian Overlay District and developing houses with corrals or equestrian uses. He believed the amount of equestrian land needed is probably a lot lower than what the City is providing. He felt the issue before the Planning Commission and the City Council is whether a Negative Declaration is appropriate in light of the larger scope of projects, and the particular growth-inducing impacts from this annexation. Bill Hanna indicated he lives adjacent to the property in question. He said his main concern was not the development of the property, but rather the change in density from Very Low Residential at .1-2 dwelling units per acre to Low Residential at 2-4 dwelling units per acre. He expressed concerns about the water, sewer, and electricity needed to provide for twice as many houses per acre. Elaine Wilkins, another resident within the area, was also against the proposed density change. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162, DRC2003-01163, AND DRC2003-01164 June 16, 2004 Page 4 Terence Murphy indicated that he objected to the annexation of Etiwanda Creek for environmental and aesthetic reasons. He believed there are a lot of fire concerns in the area. He believed there has been too much growth in the area. Mr. Buller stated he appreciated the comments from the public. He noted that the development immediately east of Wardman Bullock Road, where he believed Mr. Hanna and Ms. Wilkins live, is zoned Very Low at .1-2 dwelling units per acre but he said the lots are typically 1/4 acre up to 1/2 acre and the density is close to 3 or more dwelling units per acre. He noted that if the project were to be built under the County, the density could be even higher than what the City will ultimately allow. He indicated staff informed the developer they cannot build lots smaller than those immediately adjacent on the east side of Wardman Bullock Road. He reported staff believes that annexing the property into the City will provide better development than if it is left in the County. He said the City has a plan regarding open space and conservation and is working closely with the County and other agencies to preserve open space but the landowners have development rights. In an exhibit of the area, he noted that 45 acres previously designated residential would be turned over to conservafion land with the annexation zoning. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a greater amount of the territory would be devoted to conservation purposes than would be placed under the current Specific Plan or the County standards. Mr. Ennis observed that Mr. Sherman commented about the consistency with the land use designations. Mr. Ennis said that one of the reasons for the changes in land use designation with this project is to conform to various agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the County, and the utility agencies for the conservation areas. He observed there had been agreements in the past to conserve certain areas and these changes conform to those agreements and help to implement those agreements. He said that only 32 percent of the land in the 300 acre annexation area would be designated for development purposes. With respect to water assessments, Mr. Ennis noted that Mr. Sherman indicated SB221 and SB610 require certain special studies of the impact on water supplies when there are projects that include residential developments of 500 or more units. Mr. Ennis stated that SB221 requires water assessments when there is a tentative tract map proposed of 500 or more residential lots. He pointed out there is no tract map at this time so that particular law would not apply. Mr. Ennis said that SB610 applies when there are projects that could create more than 500 dwelling units, but it only applies to the project application being considered and does not count surrounding units. With respect to Mr. Sherman's comment on the loss of habitat and the potential significant effect, Mr. Ennis stated the project will increase the habitat area and noted a mitigation measure is included that requires that any development that may result in the loss of important habitat and sage scrub habitat would be required to replace at a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Ennis stated that equestrian use is a policy issue more than a legal issue. He said the legal issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that there is a significant impact on the environment but there is no evidence it will create an impact because there is not a specific project at this time. Although Mr. Sherman suggested a Mitigated Negative Declaration was not sufficient, Mr. Ennis said that because there is no development project at this time the impacts are not known and he reiterated the annexation would result in a reduction in developed area. He said the consultant and staff reviewed the impacts of the annexation and reduction in developed area and determined there was not a level of significance to warrant an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He said Mr. Sherman believed the project would result in CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162, DRC2003-01163, AND DRC2003-01164 June 16, 2004 Page 5 substantial population growth, but Mr. Ennis noted the area is already planned under the County standards for a higher density of residential development and it is adjacent to an area that is developed so infrastructure borders the development. He noted that Mr. Sherman's letter stated there is opposition and controversy to the project and an EIR is required because of that. Mr. Ennis noted that California Environmental Quality Act Section 21082.2 provides that the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require the preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record of the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McPhail felt that if development occurs under County standards, the City would be forced to accept something the City does not want. She believed having the area under City control allows certain safeguards that are important for the future. Commissioner Stewart felt annexing the area is a positive step because she believed any development under County standards would have a higher density and less open space and the City would have less control over the process. She thought the City has a higher standard of development than the County. She noted the proposal includes considerably more conservation land and open space than under the County standards and she felt that is a positive outcome. C. Project Analysis General Plan Amendment - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment - A request to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. The Annexation - A request to annex approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Bullock Road. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council approval of the project. CORRESPONDENCE: The following agencies and individuals provided written comments on the proposed Negative Declaration: 1) Jonathan J. Mott, Attorney representing Etiwanda School District, letter dated May 12, 2004; 2) Local Agency Formation Commission, letter dated May 26, 2004; 3) United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, letter dated May 26, 2004; 4) Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director, Spirit of the Sage Council, letter dated May 26, 2004; 5) Craig A. Sherman, Attorney for Spirit of the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, letter dated May 25, 2004; 6) further comments from Craig A. Sherman, Attorney for Spirit of the Sage Council and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, letter dated May 26, 2004, 7) County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works, letter dated May 26, 2004, 8) State of CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162, DRC2003-01163, AN D DRC2003-01164 June 16, 2004 Page 6 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit; and 9) Southern California Association of Governments, letter dated May 20, 2004. Responses to the following letters are shown as Exhibit "E" (provided under separate cover) CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Approve the Resolution to permit City Staff to initiate proceedings for the annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Bullock Road; 2) Approve the Resolution allowing a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land; 2) Approve the Resolution allowing an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land. Respectfully submitted, , Brad Buller City Planner BB:LH/Is Attachments: Exhibit"A"- 2004 Annexations Exhibit "B" - Existing General Plan Map Exhibit "C"- Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "D"- Planning Commission Minutes Dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "E"- Response To Comments Exhibit"F" - Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Checklist Resolution to Initiate Proceedings for Annexation DRC2003-01164 Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162 Ordinance Approving Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 2004 ANNEXATIONS ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162 (GPA) DRC2003-01163 (ENSPA) ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162 (GPA) Etiwanda Creek Annexation EXISTNG GP ~VERY LOW LOW CONSERVATION FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL cITY OF ~ANCHO CUCA~ONGA Staff Report DATE May 26, 2004 TO. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and - Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225- 084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. BACKGROUND: On April 28, 2004, the Planning Commission initiated the land use amendments for General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-01162 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. xhibiUr d., PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GPA DRC2003-01162 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG~. ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 26, 2004 Page 2 The proposed annexation area is located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), which was adopted by the City Council in 1991, thereby pre-zoning the entire area. The ENSP covers approximately 6,840 acres, most of which were in the City Sphere of Influence at the time of adoption. The City is in the process of preparing four separate annexations to the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) totaling 800-acres, including: · DRC2002-00865/Richland - Annexation of approximately 160 acres · DRC2003-01051FFraigh Pacific - Annexation of approximately 240 acres · DRC2003-00753/Henderson Creek - Annexation of approximately 100 acres · DRC2003-01164/Etiwanda Creek - City-initiated annexation of approximately 300 acres Each of the four annexations are being reviewed under separate environmental documentation; this City-initiated annexation will run concurrently with that of Tentative Tract 16324/Henderson Creek in order to avoid creating an unincorporated "island" which is prohibited by LAFCO regulations. The proposed annexation area is currently within an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bernardino and is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. The City boundary is currently adjacent to the proposed annexation area along Wilson Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. Separate annexations associated with Tentative Tract 16072, Tentative Tract 14749, and Tentative Tract 16324, will result in creating a City boundary along East Avenue and the north boundary of this annexation, a total annexation area of approximately 800 acres within four separate annexation actions (Exhibit A). The proposed annexation area, comprised of approximately 300-acres, is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardrnan Bullock Road. Approximately 205 acres of the area is characterized by Etiwanda Creek, including the spreading basins and associated conservation area. The proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments will modify approximately 80-acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for two 40 acre parcels, one located at the northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue and the second located at the northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road; and, approximately 45 acres of land from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control in association with Etiwanda Creek (located on the east side of the creek along the west side of Wardman Bullock Road); and finally 15 acres within the annexation area (three 5 acre parcels located on the west side of Wardman Bullock Road), will remain Very Low Residential. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GPA DRC2003-01162 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 26, 2004 Page 3 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Etiwanda Creek, SCE Utility Corridor, and Vacant land (proposed Tentative Tract 16324)~Conservation, Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling unit per acre) South Etiwanda Creek, Fire Station No. 176, and Vacant Land/Conservation/Flood Control, Mixed Use, Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) East Sheridan Estates and Brentwood EstatesNery Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) West Vacant land (proposed Tentative Tract 16072)/Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Desi.qnations: Project Site - Conservation, Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Utility Corridor North Conservation and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) South Conservation, Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) East Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Utility West Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), Conservation and Flood Control/Utility Corridor C. Site Characteristics: A majority of the site is occupied by Etiwanda Creek and related spreading basins, drainage system, and conservation area. Only a few residences have been developed on the west side of Wardman Bullock Road ANALYSIS: Development in the immediate area includes a single-family neighborhood, 'referred to as Brentwood Estates and Sheridan Estates, located on the east side of Wardman Bullock Road; a proposed Tentative Tract 16324, referred to as Henderson Creek, is proposed north of the annexation area at the north end of Wardman Bullock Road; and a proposed Tentative Tract 16072 is currently being processed on the west side of East Avenue; bott3 proposed projects include separate annexations to the City. Future residential development within the area is proposed as Low Residential, and will be compatible and consistent with Brentwood Estates and the proposed Tentative Tract 16072, becoming a part of the larger North Etiwanda Community, and the Etiwanda Highlands and Upper Etiwanda neighborhoods as identified in the Specific Plan. A. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and are attached for the Planning Commission to consider. If the Planning Commission concurs, issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts would be in order. FACTS FOR FINDING: The recommended facts for finding are contained in attached Resolutions for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GPA DRC2003-01162 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 26, 2004 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: These items were advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley ~)aily Bulletiq newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions recommending approval of Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163; thereby forwarding the items to the City Council for final action. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LH/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" 2004 Annexations Exhibit "B" Existing General Plan Map Exhibit "C" Existing ENSP Map Exhibit "D" Initial Study and Negative Declaration Draft Resolution of Approval for Annexation DRC2003-01164 Draft Resolution of Approval for General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-01162 Draft Resolution of Approval for Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. 2004 ANNEXATIONS ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162 (GPA) DRC2003-01163 (ENSPA), ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162 (GPA) Etiwanda Creek Annexation EXISTNG GP VERY LOW LOW CONSERVATION FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162 (GPA) DRC2003-01163 (ENSPA) EXISTING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION EXISTING ZONING ~ VERY LOW <2 ~ LOW 2-4 OPEN SPACE FLOOD CONTROL 500 0 500 1000 Feet ~ FAULT ZONE ~ UTILITY CORRIDOR Rancho Cucamonga ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. Planning Division EXHIBIT "C" '~'~ g' (~ ~ o'~ PC_, May 200~ ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) City of Rancho Cucamonga (Please ~ype or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) Planning Division (909) 477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City Policies, Ordinances, and Guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided !n full. Upon review of the completed Initial Study Part I and the development application, additional information such as, but not limited to, traffic, noise, biological, drainage, and geological reports may be required. The project application will not be deemed complete unless the identified special studies/reports are submitted for review and accepted as complete and adequate. The project application will not be scheduled for Committees' review unless all required reports are submitted and deemed complete for staff to prepare the Initial Study Part II as required by CEQA. In addition to the filing fee, the applicant will be responsible to pay or reimburse the City, its' agents, officers, and/or consultants for all costs for the preparation, review, analysis, recommendations, mitigations, etc., of any special studies or reports. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City =laff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pedains: ANN EXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN~'-DRC2003-01.162 · .ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 Project Title: Name & Address of project owner(s): ' City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91730 [:\pLANNING\Oebra~Annexation-Sphere Issues\3OOAC Annexation\Initial Study Partl.doc Page I of 10 Rev, Contact Person &Address: Lt3,ITM ~ f*r,~OF~. . ~l~] h¢-~ 3~L~ C~am~a . (~) 477. 2750 Name & Address of pemon pmpadng this fo~ (if different from above): Telephone Number Information indicated by an asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the no~h, south, east, end west; views into and from the site from the primary access points that---'serve the site; and representative views of signitlcant features from the site. include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): generally located north of Wilson A~et~'ue between East Avenue and Wardman 13ullocl~ Road - 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (affach additional sheet if necessary): API~: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13 *5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): ~])~) (Z ~ S *6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any pr~p~sed genera/ p~an amendment ~r zone change which w~u~d a~ect the preject stte (attach additional sheet if necessary): . - A propose to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelting units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. i:\pLANNING\Debra~Annexation-Sphere Issues\300AC Annexation\Initial Study pa,Il.doc Page 2 of 10 R~b 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission for Annexation Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, 9) plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, cite all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The proposed annexation area, comprised of approximately 300-acres, is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. A majority of the site is occupied by Etiwanda Creek and related spreading basins, drainage system, and conservation area. Existing pre-zoned land use designations for the 300-acre site include 140 acres within Very Low Residential District, and 160 acres within Conservation/Flood Control. The proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments will .modify approximately 80-acres of land from Very Low Residential (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) for two 40-acre parcels, one located at the northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue and the second located at the northwest comer of Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road; and, approximately 45-acres of land from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control in association with Etiwanda Creek (located on the east side of the creek along the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road); and finally 15-acres within the annexation area (three 5-acre parcels located on the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road), will remain Very Low Residential. Therefore, the proposed project would result in 15 acres Very Low Residential, 80 acres Low Residential, and 205 acres Conservation/Flood Control Development in the immediate area includes a single-family neighborhood, referred to as Brentwood Estates and Sheridan Estates,-Iocated on the east side of Wardman-Bullock Road; a proposed Tentative Tract 16324, referred to as Henderson Creek, is proposed north of the annexation area at the north end of Wardman-Bullock Road; and a proposed Tentative Tract 16072 is currently being processed on the west side of East Avenue; both proposed projects include separate annexations to the City (Table 2). Future residential development within the area is proposed as Low Residential, and will be compatible and consistent with Brentwood Estates and the proposed Tentative Tract 16072, becoming a part of the larger North Etiwanda Community, and the Etiwanda Highlands and Upper Etiwanda neighborhoods as identified in the Specific Plan. I O) Describe the known cultural and/or histodcal aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information (books, published reports and omi history): The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation); and Cultural Resource Assessment of nearby projects have yielded findings of minimal historical or cultural significance. Page3ofl0 Rev. i:~\/1pT~4NNlNO\Debra~Annexafion. Sphere issues\300AC Annexation\Initial Study Partl.d°c ~ ~ ? 1'1) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: iThe project site is not currently within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards , according to General Plan Exhibit V-13. However, future development of the residential ' portions of the annexation area will incrementally increase the level of noise associated with construction and increased traffic. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda - North Specific Plan Amendment includes a modification of approximately 80 acres from Very Low residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per i acre), and an a modification of approximately 45 acres from Very Low Residential to ConservatiOn/Flood Control. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail· This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result fram the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attadh additional sheet(s) if necessary: The proposea annexation area is currently within an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bernardino and is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. The City, boundary is currently adjacent to the proposed annexation area along Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road (Figure 1). Separate annexations associated with Tentative Tract 16072, Tentative Tract 14749, and Tentative Tract 16324, will result in creating a City boundary along East Avenue and the north boundary of this annexation, a total annexation area of approximately 800-acres within four separate annexation actions (Figure 2). The proposed annexation area, comprised of approximately 300-acres, is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. A majority of the site is occupied by Etiwanda Creek and related spreading basins, drainage system, and conservation · :.: area. Existing pre-zoPe~ land use designations for the 300-acre site include 140 acres within Very · ::. Low Residential District, and 16(~ aci'es within Conservation/Flood Control. The proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments will modify approximately 80-acres of land from Very Low Residential (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) for two 40-acre parcels, one located at the northeast comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue and the second located at the nodhwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road; and, approximately 45-acres of land from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control in association with Etiwanda Creek (located on the east side of the creek along the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road); and finally 15-acres within the annexation area (three 5-acre parcels located on the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road), will remain Very Low Residential. Therefore, the proposed project would result in 15 acres Very Low Residential, 80 acres Low Residential, and 205 acres Conservation/Flood Control 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic · te the e of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment aspects. Indica[I J ~, ,t,~r,~.~ eft ) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): houses, shops, oepar[m~r~c ....... ---., North Etiwanda Creek, SCE Utility Corridor, Conservation, Flood Control/Utility Corridor, and and vacant land {proposed Tentative Very Low Residential (proposed GPA and ENSPA Tract 16324) from Very Low to Low associated with TT16324). i South Etiwanda Creek, Fire Station No. 176, Conservation/Flood Control, Mixed Use, and Very , and vacant land Low Residential East Sheddan Estates/Brentwood Estates Very Low Residential West Vacant land (proposed Tentative Tract Low Residential and Very Low Residential 16072 14) Will tn, )roDeo p~uluu, change the pattern, sca/~ , or character of the surrounOmg general area of the project? Page 4 of 10 Rev. i:\pLANNiNG\Debra~Annexation-Sphere Issues\3OOAC Annexation\initial Study Patti.doc Development in the immediate area includes a single-family neighborhood, referred to as Brentwood arid Sheridan Estates, located on the east side of Wardman-Bullock Road; a proposed Tentative Tract 16324, known as Henderson Creek is proposed north of the annexation area at the north end of Wardman-Bullock Road; and a proposed Tentative Tract 16072 is currently being processed on the west side of East Avenue; both proposed projects include annexation to the City. Future residential development within the proposed Low Residential designation will be compatible and consistent with Brentwood/Sheridan Estates and the proposed Tentative Tract 16072, becoming a part of the larger North Etiwanda Community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. '~ 5) Indicate the type of shOrt-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? i~n~- . 'I 6) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: '17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: Existing flood control facilities occupy approximately 120 acres of the site, with an additional 85-acres located along the creek that have been specifically set aside as conservation area for improvements to the Etiwanda Creek basins. No future development will occur in any riparian, wetland, or other areas impacted by Etiwanda Creek. Future development of up to 95 acres within the project area, adjacent to Etiwanda Creek, will not have any impacts on riparian, wetland, or related habitat. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) ~ Peak use (gal/Day) ~ b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) (~ Peak use (gal/min/ec) ~ 19) Indicale proposed method of sewage disposal [] Septic Tank [] Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact ~he Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gaYday) ~ b. Commercial/InduStrial (gal/day/ac) ~ RESIDENTIAL PRO__JECTS: 20) Number of residential units: ~ DetacheC~ (indicate range of paroe/ sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Page 5of 10 ~ i:\pLANNiNG\Debra~Annexation-Sphere Issues\300AC Annexation\Initial Study Part1 .doc ~ 3/17/04 A~ached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $ to $ 22) Specify,number of bedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit fype: 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERClAL~ INDUSTRIALf AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: i~/.~. 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) indicate hours of operetion: i:\pLANNiNG\Debra~Annexation-Sphere Issues\300AC Annexation\Initial Study Partl.doc Page 6 of 10 R, .¢. 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Providebreakd~wn~fanticipatedj~bc~ass~~cati~ns~inc~udingwageandsa~aryranges~aswe~~asanindicati~n~ftherate~l hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: *31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type, and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. 4qn ilaJ~i/l~j r~,se, rv/~ ~ ~ _. · 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic m. ~tedals ? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and descdbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, it known. Page7ofl0 Rev. i:\pLANNiNG\Debra~Annexation-Sphere Issues\300AC Annexation\initial Study Part1 .doc 7~) / 3/17/04 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. Th'e land uses permitted within the annexation area will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Cily of Rancho Cucarnonga. i:\PLANNiNG\Debra~Annexation-Sphere Issues\300AC Annexation\Initial Study Patti.doc Page 8 of 10 Rev. ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003) Single-Family 705 gallons per EDU per day Multi-Family 256 gallons per EDU per day Neighborhood Commercial 1000 gal/day/unit (tenant) ' General Commercial 4082 gal/day/unit (tenant) Office Professional 973 gal/day/unit (tenant) Institutional/Government 6412 gal/day/unit (tenant) Industrial Park 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant) Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/unit (tenant) Sewer Flows Single-Family 270 gallons per EDU per day Multi-Family 190 gallons per EDU per day General Commercial 1900 gal/day/acre Office Professional 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/acre Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/acre Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 Page9ofl0 Rev. I:\pLANNiNG\Debra~,nnexaflon-Sphere Issues\300AC Annexation\~nitia~ Study partl.doc 3/17/04 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school feeS: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 6061 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 h\PLANNiNG\Debra~Annexafion. Sphere Issues\300AC Annexation\Initial Study patH.doc page City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09; and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (..1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood ControVResource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. 2. Description of Project: The proposed annexation area is located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), which was adopted by the City Council in 1991, thereby pre-zoning the entire area. The ENSP covers approximately 6,840 acres, most of which was in the City Sphere of Influence at the time of adoption. The City is in the process of preparing four separate annexations to the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) totaling 800 acres, including: Tentative Tract 16072/Richland - annexation of approximately 160 acres Tentative Tract 14749/Tracy - annexation of approximately 240 acres · Tentative Tract 16324/Henderson Creek - annexation of approximately 100 acres · City initiated annexation of approximately 300 acres Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmentJEtiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 2 Each of the four annexations are being reviewed under separate environmental documentation; thi:; City-initiated annexation will run concurrently with that of Tentative Tract 16324/Henderson Creek in order to avoid creating an unincorporated "island" which is prohibitive by LAFCO regulations. The Proposed Project The proposed annexation area is currently within an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bemardino and is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. The City boundary is currently adjacent to the proposed annexation area along Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road (Figure 1). Separate annexations associated with Tentative Tract 16072, Tentative Tract 14749, and Tentative Tract 16324, will result in creating a City boundary along East Avenue and the north boundary of this annexation, a total annexation area of approximately 800-acres within four separate annexation actions (Figure 2). The proposed annexation area, comprised of approximately 300-acres, is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. A majority of the site is occupied by Etiwanda Creek and related spreading basins, drainage system, and conservation area. Existing pre-zoned land use designations for the 300-acre site include 140 acres within Very Low Residential District, and 160 acres within Conservation/Flood Control. The proposed General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments will modify approximately 80-acres of land from Very Low Residential (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) for two 40-acre parcels, one located at the northeast comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue and the second located at the northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road; and, approximately 45-acres of land from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control in association with Etiwanda Creek (located on the east side of the creek along the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road); and finally 15-acres within the annexation area (three 5-acre parcels located on the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road), will remain Very Low Residential. Therefore, the proposed project would result in 15 acres Very Low Residential, 80 acres Low Residential, and 205 acres Conservation/Flood Control (see Figure 3 and Table 1 ). Development in the immediate area includes a single-family neighborhood, referred to as Brentwood Estates and Sheridan Estates, located on the east side of Wardman-Bullock Road; a proposed Tentative Tract 16324, referred to as Henderson Creek, is proposed north of the annexation area at the north end of Wardman-Bullock Road; and a proposed Tentative Tract 16072 is currently being processed on the west side of East Avenue; both proposed projects include separate annexations to the City (Table 2). Future residential development within the area is proposed as Low Residential, and will be compatible and consistent with Brentwood Estates and the proposed Tentative Tract 16072, becoming a part of the larger North Etiwanda Community, and the Etiwanda Highlands and Upper Etiwanda neighborhoods as identified in the Specific Plan. 3. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 4. General Plan Land/Zoning Designation: See Tables 1 and 2 below for a summary of on-site and surrounding land uses, land use designations, and the proposed land use amendments. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 3 Table 1 - Land Use Amendment Summary Land Use Designation Acreage Average Density I Estimated Number of Dwelling units EXISTING LAND USE Very Low Residential (0.1 to 2 du/ac) 140 1.2 du/ac 168 Conservation/Control Flood 160 NA NA TOTAL 300 168 PROPOSED LAND USE Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 du/ac---'---~' 15 1.2 du/ac 18 Low Residential (2 to 4 du/ac) 80 2.5 du/ac 200 Conservation/Flood Control 205 NA NA TOTAL 300 218 5. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): Table 2 - Surrounding Land Use Summary Land Use General Plan/Zoning Designation North Etiwanda Creek, SCE Utility Corridor, Conservation, Flood Control/Utility Corridor, and and vacant land (proposed Tentative Very Low Residential (proposed GPA and ENSPA Tract 16324) from Very Low to Low associated with TT16324). South Etiwanda Creek, Fire Station No. 176, Conservation/Flood Control, Mixed Use, and Very and vacant land Low Residential East Sheridan Estates/Brentwood Estates Very Low Residential West Vacant land (proposed Tentative Tract Low Residential and Very Low Residential 16072) 6. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division · 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debra Meier, AICP Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 8. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): San Bernardino County Local Agency Formati°n C°mmissi°n f°r Annexati°n Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmentJEtiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 4 GLOSSARY - The following abbreviations are used in this report: EIR - Environmental Impact Report FEIR - Final Environmental Impact Report NOx - Nitrogen Oxides ROG - Reactive Organic Gases PM~0 - Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District URBEMIS7G - Urban Emissions Model ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors chocked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics (,/) Agricultural Resoumes (,/) Air Quality Biological Resources (,/) Cultural Resources (v') Geology/Soils Hazards/Waste Materials (,/) Hydrology/Water Quality (,/) Land Use/Planning Mineral Resoumes (v') Noise (¢) Population/Housing Public Services ( ) Rocreation (./) Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems (v') Mandatory Findings of nificance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (v') I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed projoct MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effoct 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effoct on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared By:~_.~'~Z~'~"-~ ~',~/~ Date: ~////o~//t~ Reviewed .~~ Date: y Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentially UnleSS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial affect a scenic vista? ( ) ( ) ('") ( ) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highwa~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ( ) ( ) ( ) or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ( ) ( ) ("') () which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) The site is within a view corridor of the mountains as viewed from 24th Street (Wilson Avenue) and along Wardman-Bullock Road, according to General Plan Exhibit 111-15 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 7. Development within the 300-acre area will only occur on approximately 40 acres at the northwest corner of Wilson and Wardman-Bullock Road, approximately 40 acres on the northeast comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue, and approximately 15 acres along Wardman-Bullock Road. The Etiwanda Creek conservation area and flood control basins will not be developed, therefore, the view corridor northerly from Wilson Avenue through the creek bed will not be impacted by the annexation nor the proposed land use amendments. All future development will comply with the Community Design, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines section of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. These sections include guidelines for architectural design, landscape treatment, grading techniques. The guidelines and standards set forth within the Specific Plan shall be reflected in the detailed plans that are required at the time of development application submittals. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. In fact, there are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) The site is generally located on the north side of 24th Street (Wilson Avenue) between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. Etiwanda Creek, and the associated Etiwanda Creek conservation area, basins, and drainage system (a total of approximately 205 acres), dominates the 300-acre annexation area. The GPA and ENSPA involves the amendment of 45 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation/Flood Control, and 80 acres from Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre); an additional 15 acres within the annexation area will remain in the Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) land use designation. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of the proposed annexation and the General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments as described above, because the area of proposed development overall will be reduced by approximately 45 acres that will be used to increase the conservation areas surrounding Etiwanda Creek by the County Flood Control District. Design review is required prior to approval of any proposed development Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 6 Significant issues and Supporting Information Sources: applications, in addition, City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) Future residential development within the area (a total of 95 acres) will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant. All areas where potential residential development will occur have been identified as areas for residential development within the General Plan. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on Site Plans which require review for consistency with City standards and the guidelines outlined in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan that requires shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland.., or I Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as I shown on the maps prepared pursu~i to"thel Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the I California Resources Agency, to non-~a~ricultural I ~' ~icultural use, or ( ) ( ) use? I_____J___--L Comments: a/c) The 300 acre site is currently within an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bernardino and is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence, and is within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which was adopted as a pre-zone to the area by the City in ., . he site is ~lenerally ocated north of 24th Street 0Nilson Avenue) between East 1.991 T ...... .~_.7,~ ~.,~,ck Road and does not contain any agricultural uses or activities. Avenue anu vv a,u,, i¢[H-t.~ull~,~ There are approximately 1,300 acres of Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland or Farmland, of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of which about 1/3 is either developed or committed to development according to General Plan Table IV-2. The major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern and eastern portions of our City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Further, 2/3 of the designated farmlands parcels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FEIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. ' Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North, Specific Plan Amendment Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u.,~ 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) applicable air quality ptan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute () ('") () () substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') number of people? Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6), continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the Citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project includes annexation of approximately 300 acres to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, along with an amendment to the General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential to Low Residential for approximately 80 acres of land, and from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control for approximately 45 acres of land. The proposed amendment will result in 45 acres of land being removed from the potential for residential development, and instead being used as conservation land by County Flood control in Etiwanda Creek. b) During the construction phases of future development, on-site stationary sources~ heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. They then transfer to a different site where the process begins again. Therefore, the emissions associated with construction activities are not new to the Rancho Cucamonga area and they would not violate an air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality in the region. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project-specific basis. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented during all future development to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per 7// Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 8 Significa~ Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Unless Mitigaaon No manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that Iow-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high volume, Iow-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: · Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. · Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. · Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time, · Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. · Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. · Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. · Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. · Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmentJEtiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Than 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, short-term construction air quality emissions would remain significant as noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6). Based upon the URBEMISTG model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR, Nox, ROG, and PM~0 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; and therefore, would be cumulatively significant and cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The General Plan FEIR identified the Citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 5.6-4 Of the General Plan FEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a less-than-significant level. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during any future construction activity: 10) All residential structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/Iow polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 11) All residential structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR identified the Citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a statement of overriding conditions was ultimately adopted by the City Council. c) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6), continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the Citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project includes annexation of approximately 300 acres to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, along with an amendment to the General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential to Low Residential for approximately 80 acres of land, and from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control for approximately 45 acres of land. The proposed amendment will result in 45 acres of land being removed from the potential for residential development, and instead being used as conservation land by County Flood control in Etiwanda Creek. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within ~A-mite of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants 7/3 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. Future development within the annexation area is located wit~,~-mile of a sensitive receptor as existing single-family residential homes are located adjacent to the project site along Wardman-Bullock Road. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under b) above will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels. e) Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ("') ( ) ( ) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian () () () (v') habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ( ) ( ) ( ) ("/) protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any () () () (v') native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () () () (¢') protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Comments[ a) The annexation is located on an alluvial fan, one of a series of alluvial fans formed by material transported out of deep incised canyons along the front of the San Gabriel Mountains. Major canyons include Deer, Day, East, Etiwanda and San Sevaine canyons. Other smaller canyons that contribute alluvial material to the fans are Bull, Henderson, and Morse canyons. Collectively the group of alluvial fans are known as the Etiwanda Fan. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentieJly UnlessThan Alluvial fans support a variety of vegetation and wildlife including Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub plants such as white sage and California sagebrush, and such wildlife species as the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Until the Grand Prix Fire, which occurred in October 2003, the area could be generally characterized by flood control facilities (basins and drainage system), power line access and maintenance, and vacant land. The primary plant communities comprised of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) - Etiwanda Group (Draft EIR for Tentative Tract 16072, dated November 2003), Upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and buckwheat scrub (Daft EIR for Tentative Tract 16423, dated February 2004). This RAFSS group is interspersed with open areas of exposed soil and non-native grasses. Etiwanda Creek, along with the associated spreading basins, drainage system, and conservation area managed by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, dominates the site. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the Etiwanda Creek portions of the project site is within an existing Conservation Area. In fact, the proposed GPA and ENSPA will enlarge the current Conservation Area by an additional 45 acres. Future development will adversely affect approximately 95 acres of some form of either Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and/or Upland sage scrub, although no endangered species have been identified by focused surveys for projects in the immediate area. The following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to biological resoumes associated with any future development proposals. 1) Each future project proponent shall prepare a Biological Resources Habitat Assessment for the area of the proposed project site. Focused protocol surveys for federally listed endangered/threatened species, such as the San Bernardlno kangaroo rat and/or the California gnatcatcher, may be warranted based on the results of the Biological Resources Habitat Assessment. Results of the surveys will be evaluated with each specific proposal for development. 2) Each future project proponent shall acquire and convey to the County of San Bernardino County Special Districts land within OS-1 and the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program that supports RAFSS habitat. Land shall be acquired at a ration of 1-acre for each acre of RAFSS disturbed by the proposed project. b/c) Existing flood control facilities occupy approximately 120 acres of the site, with an additional 85-acres located along the creek that have been specifically set aside as conservation area for improvements to the Etiwanda Creek basins. No future development will occur in any riparian, wetland, or other areas impacted by Etiwanda Creek. Future development of up to 95 acres within the project area, adjacent to Etiwanda Creek, will not have any impacts on riparian, wetland, or related habitat. d) Much of the surrounding area has been or is being proposed for development, thereby disrupting any wildlife corridors that may have existed in those locations. However, Etiwanda Creek along with the adjoining Conservation Areas will continue to provide suitable corridors for wildlife movement. In fact, the proposed GPA and ENSPA will result in an additional 45 acres being added to the Conservation/Flood Control area, further enhancing the wildlife corridor provided by Etiwanda Creek. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 7/$ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentJeJ~yUnlSSS Than e) Any heritage trees that exist throughout the 300-acre annexation area will remain, unless proposal for future develop submit a Tree Removal Permit which will require review and approval by the City Planner and/or Planning Commission; therefore, the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment are not in conflict with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance. f) A portion of the project site is located within a conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space, and Conservation Plan, Exhibit IV-4. The proposed GPA and ENSPA are consistent with the General Plan Conservation Plan, and no conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. In addition, the annexation area is within the Study Area Boundary of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Plan (NEOSHPP) which was developed by the County of San Bernardino in 1994, though a cooperative effort by the Departments of Transportation, Flood Control, and Planning, the County Museum, and Special Districts. The purpose of the Program was to identify existing open space lands having special resource value and to design a program that encouraged the preservation of these lands. Resource value included critical habitats, unique communities, riparian areas, corridor connections, and lands with special scenic, archaeological, or historical value. Lands that exemplified resource value could be added to existing open space areas to provide connections between open space areas, increase the size, and reduce fragmentation. The County created OS-1 and OS-3 (created under CSA 70) as a means to own and manage open space lands. To date, the preservation area includes approximately 3,000 acres, which are managed by the oversight of the North Etiwanda Preserve Commission. By enlarging the conservation area surrounding Etiwanda Creek, the goals of the NEOSHPP continue to be accomplished. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () (v') () significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.57 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () (,") () () significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ( ) ('.") ( ) ( ) paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those () () () ("') interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation); and Cultural Resource Assessment of nearby projects have yielded findings of minimal historical or cultural significance. A Cultural Resource Assessment was prepared for the Henderson Creek project (Draft EIR for TT16325, dated February 2004), immediately north of the proposed annexation area, the records research identified 15 archaeological sites within a one-mile radius of the project site. Many of the resources were listed as pending sites (sites whose Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Than existence and location have yet to be confirmed) based on early maps and historic references. The previously recorded sites range from rock wall ruins, stone foundations, sections of metal pipe, and domestic scatter (trash). The most prominent resoume noted was the LADWP Boulder Transmission Line, which was constructed between 1933 and 1936. b) There are no known archeological sites or resoumes recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential amhaeological resources. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented with any future proposal for development: 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: · Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. · Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. · Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage. · Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. · Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardlno County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. c) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the San Bemardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the sphere-of- influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which would have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last "Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium per General Plan Exhibit V-2; therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented with any future proposal for development: 2) A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a preconstruction field survey of the project site. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., '7/7 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmentJEtiwanda North Specific Ptan Amendment Page 14 Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Mitigation Incorporated paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: · Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. · Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. · Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. d) The proposed project is in an area that has experienced some disturbance by the maintenance of flood control facilities and development on adjacent areas. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ( ) ('/) ( ) () delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of () (v') () () topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is () () () (v') unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) () 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmenFEtiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 15 Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentialJy Unle3sThan e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ( ) I ( ) ( ) (v') use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater I disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) The two principal seismic considerations for most properties in southern California are surface rupturing of earth materials along fault traces and damage to structures and foundations due to seismically induced ground shaking. It is generally assumed that the more recent the movement on a fault, the greater the likelihood of movement in the future. An active fault is one that has moved within the last 11,000 years (Holocene time). A fault that moved in the last 1.6 million years (Pleistocene time), but has not been proven by direct evidence to have either moved or not moved within the last 11,000 years, is considered to be potentially active. Any fault proven to be older than 11,000 years is considered to be inactive. According to the General Plan Exhibit V-l, and Section 5.1 of the General Plan FEIR a portion of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment of the Red Hill Fault Zone cresses the northwest corner of the project area (Draft EIR for Tentative Tract 16072, dated November 2003). The Rod Hill fault and the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp are thought to be structurally related to the Cucamonga fault zone, moving co-seismically with an earthquake on the Cucamonga Fault. The height of the scarp suggests that the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp has ruptured repeatedly and is therefore capable of moving again in the future. 1) In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, any future development of the portion of the site that is within the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment of the Red Hill fault zone must be accompanied with a Geotechnical analysis to determine site specific mitigation measures. The Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately one mile north of the site. This fault is capable of producing Moment Magnitude (Mw) 6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Aisc, the San Jacinte fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is approximately five miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is approximately nine miles north of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong greundshaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less-than-significant. b) The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Any future construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however, development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented with any future residential development applications to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 2) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 16 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u,=.s Than 3) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off- site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 4) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 5) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all Inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions. Soils at the site have a slow potential for off-site migratio.n and a slight possibility of erosion due to their excessively drained nature. All soils would require some protection to ensure that movement off-site does not occur. Until the Grand Prix fire (October 2003), the annexation area contained native shrubs, bushes, and other natural elements. Soils left unprotected and bare during construction or grading activities could be eroded by wind (see comments above) or water that could result in sediment transport off-site. The migration of sediments can raise water levels in drainage courses and block culverts increasing the chance for flooding, or can become deposited on roadways making travel more dangerous. Sediments can also transport pollutants off-site and affect water quality. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction Permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavation, or any other activity that causes the disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires developments of one acre or more to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into storm water systems, and to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region has issued an area-wide NPDES Storm Water Permit for the County of San Bemardino, the San Bernardino Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino within the Santa Ana Region. The City of Rancho Cucamonga then requires implementation of measures for a project to comply with the area-wide permit requirements. The SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the project to pollute surface waters. This is a standard condition of approval approvable to every construction project over one acre in size. BMPs would include, but not be limited to, street sweeping of paved roads during the rainy season. Compliance with the NPDES requirements, implementation of the SWPPP, and observance of the additional mitigation measures as outline above, would protect the site from loss of topsoil and off-site sedimentation from wind or water erosion. c/d) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.1) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. Any future residential development within the proposed annexation area would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or other unstable soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 5-2. Soil types on-site include Alluvial Soils consisting of Psamments and Fluvents that are frequently flooded; Soboba Stony Loamy Sand, Soboba Gravelly Loamy Sand, and Hanford Sandy Loam, which are typically gently sloping soils typically found on long broad alluvial fans that have a Iow shrink/swell potential and only Iow to moderate erosion potential. No adverse impacts are anticipated. initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 17 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poteotially Unles.s Than e) At the time of future residential development, any projects within the annexation area will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. 7. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ( ) ( ) ( ) an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a/b) The land uses permitted within the annexation area will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City participates in a Countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the state. The City has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to respond to chemical emergencies. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 18 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. No adverse impacts are expected. c) There is a school located within A-mile of the project site. The project site is located approximately 0.2-mile north of Summit Intermediate School. Typically the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The annexation area is not listed on the Cortese List as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspection did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The annexation area is located approximately six miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 Y2 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from a wind-driven fire in the Urban Wildland Interface area found in the northern part of the City according to the Fire District Strategic Plan 2000-2005; however, much of the annexation area is located within an area designated High Probability/High Occurrence fire hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-7; however, the segment of the site along the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road is designated High Probability/Low Occurrence. In fact, the site and the surrounding area were burned on October 2003, during the Grand Prix fire. Any future development within the annexation area could place people and property at risk, therefore, the following mitigation measures will be applicable at the time of any residential development applications: 1) The annexation area is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" based on proximity to or exposure to urban-wildland interface. Mitigation measures will be required in order to mitigate future development proposals. Any future residential structures shall be constructed In accordance with the standards contained in the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District Area FR-1 and FR-2, and all applicable requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. 2) Applications for future residential development shall include a Fuel Modification Plan, which has been reviewed and approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The plan shall be prepared by an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildlife hazard mitigation planning. 722. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 1 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u.~ 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:. a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pro-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or aroa, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional soumes of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard aroa as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comments: a) Water and sewer service within the proposed annexation area is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Additionally, any future residential development proposals shall be designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u.~ b) According to CVWD, 43 percent of the City's water is currently provided from groundwater in the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CVWD has adopted a master plan that estimates demand needs until the year 2030. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge, although much of the annexation area is within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Exhibit IV-2. Any future residential development of the site will occur only in areas outside of the boundaries of Etiwanda Creek, including the spreading basins and the Conservation Ama. Any future residential development will require grading and excavation; however, would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 288 to 470 feet below the ground sudace. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9), continued development Citywide will increase water needs and is a significant impact; however, CVWD has plans to meet this increased need through the construction of future water facilities. A Hydrology Report is part of the standard requirements with any development proposal to specifically address site- specific drainage and erosions protection measures. c-f) Proposals for future residential development may cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed at the time; however, any proposed projects will not alter the course of any stream or river. At the time of development, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The proposals for future residential development shall include landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. The provision of a Grading and Drainage Plan is a standard requirement of development, and must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits. In addition, the project must comply with State Water Quality Standards as discussed in Section 6, therefore, the impact is not considered significant. The portion of the site that consists of Etiwanda Creek Flood Control and Conservation area would remain in flood control use and control and will not be impacted by future development. The proposed GPA and ENSPA will result in increasing the conservation area associated with Etiwanda Creek by 45 acres. A Hydrology Report will be required with any development proposal. g/h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to convey a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General'Plan Exhibit V-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. j) There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore, impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non-significance within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmentJEtiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 21 Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: u.~ M~tJgation NO 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. WouId the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ( ) (v') b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan' p°licy' °r () / ( / (¢) 1 ()1 regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation () /I / () ~(v') plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a/b) The proposed annexation area is currently within an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bemardino and is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. The area has previously been pre-zoned by virtue of the City's adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in 1991. The City boundary is currently adjacent to the proposed annexation area along Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. Separate annexations associated with Tentative Tract 16072, Tentative Tract 14749, and Tentative Tract 16324, will result in creating a City boundary along East Avenue and the north boundary of this annexation, a total annexation area of approximately 800 acres within four separate annexation actions. The proposed annexation area, comprised of approximately 300 acres, is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bulleck Road. Approximately 205 acres of the area is characterized by Etiwanda Creek, including the spreading basins and associated conservation area. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment will modify approximately 80 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre); and approximately 45 acres of land from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control in association with Etiwanda Creek; and 15 acres within the annexation area, located along the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road, will remain Very Low Residential. Table 1 - Land Use Amendment Summary Estimated Number of Land Use Designation Acreage Average Density Dwelling units EXISTING LAND USE Very LOW Residential 140 I 1.2du/acI 168 (.1 to 2 du/ac) Conservation/Control Flood 160 NA NA TOTAL 300 168 PROPOSED LAND USE Very Low Residential 15 1.2 du/ac 18 .1 to 2 du/ac) Low Residential 80 2.5 du/ac 200 7,Z5 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially UnlesS Than ITC 2 tO 4 du/ac) onservation/Flood Control 205 NA NA OTAL 300 218 Development in the immediate area includes a single-family neighborhood, referred to as Brentwood and Sheridan Estates, located on the east side of Wardman-Bullock Road; a proposed Tentative Tract 16324, known as Henderson Creek is proposed north of the annexation area at the north end of Wardman-Bullock Road; and a proposed Tentative Tract 16072 is currently being processed on the west side of East Avenue; both proposed projects include annexation to the City. Future residential development within the proposed Low Residential designation will be compatible and consistent with Brentwood/Sheridan Estates and the proposed Tentative Tract 16072, becoming a part of the larger North Etiwanda Community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. c) A portion of the project site is located within a conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Exhibit IV-4. The proposed GPA and ENSPA are consistent with the General Plan Conservation Plan (refer to additional discussion in Section 4), and no conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally () () () (v') important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-1; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-l, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there is no impact. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise () ('") () () levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 23 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unte~s Than c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in () (,/) () () ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above i levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) er, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a/c/d)The project site is not currently within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Exhibit V-13. However, future development of the residential portions of the annexation area will incrementally increase the level of noise associated with construction and increased traffic. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment includes a modification of approximately 80 acres from Very Low residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), and an a modification of approximately 45 acres from Very Low Residential to Conservation/Flood Control. These amendments will result in a decrease of residentially zoned property by appreximately 45 acres; however, an overall increase of approximately 50 dwelling units (See Table 1). This anticipated increase in density by approximately 50 dwellings, would not be significant enough to change the predications of long-term noise as identified in the City General Plan. Each future application for residential development is required by City Standards to provide site-specific Acoustical Assessment to address traffic noise along the major thoroughfares such as Wilson Avenue, East Avenue, and Wardman- Bullock Road, in accordance with the City Noise Ordinance. The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.7) indicates that during a construction phase, on-site stationary soumes, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures will be applicable to all future construction projects to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, If noise levels exceed the Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 24 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Ualess Than above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site construction equipment; however, do not address the potential impacts due to the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be required: 3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, If heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. b) The uses permitted within the proposed annexation area normally do not induce ground borne vibrations. As such, no impacts are anticipated. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport. Located approximately six miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private'airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 Y~ miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, () () (v') () either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of reads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, () ( ) ( ) (v') necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CommentS_.' a) The project is located in a developing area and will not induce significant population growth, as less than 32 percent of the proposed annexation area is intended for future residential development. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment will modify approximately 80 acres from Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) (o Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), and 45 acres for Very Low residential to Conservation/Flood Control. The amendment would result in decreasing the residentially zoned land area by 45 acres, however, increasing the number anticipated residential dwelling units by approximately 50 units, which would in turn increase the local Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 25 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than population by approximately 160 persons. No significant impacts are anticipated due to the small anticipated population increase. Roads and other infrastructure will be extended by future development, connecting with existing and proposed development within the area. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. No significant impacts are anticipated. b) The project site contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. c) The project site is vacant land. No impacts are anticipated. 13. PUBLIC SEFIVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( v') a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') Comments: a) The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District provides fire protection within the City and the Sphere of influence. The site is presently located in an unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino within the City Sphere of Influence. The site is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. Development within the proposed annexation area would be served by Fire Station No. 176, located approximately one mile south of the site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. No impacts are anticipated. b) Currently, the County of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department provides police protection within the unincorporated area. Upon annexation, the County Sheriff will provide police protection under annual contract with the City. The nature of any future development within the annexation area will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the area surrounding the annexation area is within an area that is regularly patrolled. c) The annexation area is within the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Both school districts will be notified at the time of any anticipated initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmentJEtiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 26 issues and Supporting Information Sources: potentiatly UnleSs Than development. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment will modify approximately 80 acres from Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), and 45 acres for Very Low residential to Conservation/Flood Control. The amendment would result in decreasing the residentially zoned land area by 45 acres, however, it would also increase the number anticipated residential dwelling units by approximately 50 units, which would in turn increase the local population by approximately 160 persons. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay the School Impact Fees. With this standard mitigation, impacts to the School Districts are not considered significant. d) The site is located with an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bernardino within the City Sphere of Influence. Existing development east and south of the site is within the City, and the nearest park is located approximately Y~-mile from the project site. Upon annexation, the City Community Services Department would provide park and recreational amenities and programs including community centers, designated bicycle and equestrian paths, and parks sites. Any future development is required to contribute impact funds upon issuance of building permits. No significant impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Systems installed to serve existing development within the area are adequate, but may require minor modifications or extensions to serve future development in the area. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase the demand for library services. According to the General Plan FEIR '(Section 5.9.9), the projected increase in library space under the General Plan will not meet the projected demand. The General Plan FEIR identified the cumulative impact on library services as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the EIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at build-out of the City. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and () () () ('/) regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a/b) The site is located with an unincorporated portion of the County of San Bernardino within the City Sphere of Influence. Existing development east and south of the site is within the City, and the nearest park is located approximately Y~-mile from the project site. Upon annexation the City Community Services Department would provide park and recreational amenities and programs including community centers, designated bicycle and equestrian paths, and parks Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan AmendmentJEtiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 27 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Unless sites. Any future development is required to contribute impact funds upon issuance of building permits. No significant impacts are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ( ) ( ) ('") ( ) of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) () supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments.', a) Regional access to the site is provided by the Interstate 15 and State Route 210 (SR-210) Freeways. In addition, various arterial roadways in the vicinity of the site provide local access; the local roadways that will be most affected by development in the annexation area include: Banyan Street, Wilson Avenue, Summit Avenue, East Avenue, and Wardman- Bullock Road. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.5), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment includes a modification of 80 acres from Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre); and the modification of 45 acres from Very Low Residential to Conservation Flood Control. The net result is illustrated as follows: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 28 Issues and Supporting information Sources: Potentially Unless Than Table 1 - Land Use Amendment Summary Land Use Designation Acreage Average Density Estimated Number of Dwelling units EXISTING LAND USE Very Low Residential 140 1.2 du/ac 168 (.1 to2 du/ac) Conservation/Control Flood 160 NA NA TOTAL 300 168 PROPOSED LAND USE Very Low Residential 15 1.2 du/ac 18 (0.1 to 2 du/ac) Low Residential 80 2.5 du/ac 200 (2 to 4 du/ac) Conservation/Flood Control 205 NA NA TOTAL 300 218 Peak hour trips are estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (iTE) Trip Generation Manuel (6th Edition). The proposed project would generate approximately 2,180 trip ends per day, with 163 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 220 vehicle during the PM peak hour. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards, and site-specific conditions of approval will be prepared as each proposal for development is reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission. In addition, the City has established a Transportation Development Fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No substantial impacts are anticipated. b) The residentially-designated land area would result in the future development of approximately 218 dwelling units (approximately 50 dwelling more than the current land use designation would allow), which would result in approximately 2,180 daily trips. As a result, future development witl generate less than 250 two-way peak hour trips; therefore, is below the threshold of the San Bernardino Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria for requiring a traffic impact analysis. The project is in a continually developing area, where street improvements are expanded as development occurs. The project will not negatively impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials due to improvements required at the time of development. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site, and off-site improvements as 752. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 29 I Potentially Irr~act I Impact Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially UnleSs ~ncor~e~ ~mpact determined by the City Engineer with each project application. No significant impacts are anticipated. c) Located approximately six miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site and off- site improvements as determined by the City Engineer with each project application. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and will, therefore, not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project design has adequate parking in compliance with standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and will, therefore, not create an inadequate parking capacity. No impacts are anticipated. g) The project design includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater () () () (v') treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted () () () (v') capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 30 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') regulations related to sotid waste? Comments: a) The proposed annexation area is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Aha Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts or changes in water and sewer distribution will occur as a result of the annexation. b) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which am at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Aha Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts or changes in water and sewer distribution will occur as a result of the annexation. c) All runoff from futura residential development will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows, or as they may be extended or modified to meet the needs of future development. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project is served by the CVWD water system. Them is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within the Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. No impacts or changes in water and sewer distribution will occur as a result of the annexation. f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the currant City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendmeqt/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 31 Issues and Suppoding Information Sources: 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ( ) ('") ( ) ( ) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) ('/) ( ) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that ( ) (,") ( ) () will cause substantial adverse effects on hur'nan beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) Alluvial fans support a variety of vegetation and wildlife including Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub plants such as white sage and California sagebrush, and such wildlife species as the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Until the Grand Prix Fire, which occurred on October 2003, the area could be generally characterized by Flood control facilities (basins and drainage system), power line access and maintenance, and vacant land. The primary plant communities are comprised of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) - Etiwanda Group (Draft EIR for Tentative Tract 16072, dated November 2003), Upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland, and buckwheat scrub (Daft EIR for Tentative Tract 16423, dated February 2004). This RAFSS group is interspersed with open areas of exposed soil and non- native grasses. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the Etiwanda Creek portions of the project site is within an existing Conservation Area. In fact, the proposed GPA and ENSPA will enlarge the current Conservation Area by an additional 45 acres. Future development wiJJ adversely affect approximately 95 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, although no endangered species have been identified by focused surveys for projects in the immediate area. Mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to biological resoumes associated with any future development proposals. Etiwanda Creek along with the adjoining Conservation Areas will continue to provide suitable corridors for wildlife movement. In fact, the proposed GPA and ENSPA will result in an additional 45 acres being added to the Conservation/Flood Control area, further enhancing the wildlife corridor provided by Etiwanda Creek. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) Any future development proposals would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2001 General Plan was adopted along Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation/General Plan Amendment/Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Page 32 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUr~less Than with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of build-out in the City and Sphere of Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to aggregate resources, prime farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. c) The proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment Development, along with any future development within the annexation area, would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less-than-significant levels. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001 ) (,,') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (,/) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992) (,") Draft EIR for Tentative Tract 16072, November 2003 (SCH# 2002091053) (¢') Draft EIR for Tentative Tract 14749, December 2003 (SCH#2003081085) (,/) Draft EIR for Tentative Tract 16324, February 2004 (SCH#2003111057) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Efiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 Public Review Period Closes: June 16, 2004 Project Name: Project Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Location (also see attached map): Generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Project Description: A proposed annexation of approximately 300 acres, including a proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, and a proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwerling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the proJect may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. June 16, 2004 Date of Determination Adopted By Mr. Vandenbroeke replied they hope to open June 7. Commissioner Fletcher believed it is a good location and he wished the apl: Mr. Vandenbroeke stated he talked to previous owners to see why He commented he has been in the restaurant business for over 30 years. Mike McCarthy, 1353 Pebble Springs, Glendora, stated he also I experience in the industry. He commented the previous owners were that either he or Mr. Vandenbroeke would be there at all times, get this location started and hope to grow and start a chain. He indicated they ha ~pplicants and they will begin training their staff within a week. Hearing no further testimony, Macias closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by seconded by McPhail, to adopt the resolutions approving Non- Use Permit DRC2004-00326 and Entertainment Permit DRC2004-00327. , following vote: AYES: _ETCHER, MAClAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NONE G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUB'FI'14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUB'I-r16324. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the Etiwanda North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road -APN: 0225-084-08 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. NEW BUSINESS I. ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A proposed annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 26, 2004 Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested the Commission take some time to review the correspondence items placed in front of them regarding this project. The Commission recessed from 7:46 p.m. to 8:01 p.m. to read the items. Mr. Buller presented the staff report. He explained the project is merely for a land annexation, not a tract map or development project. He stated the annexation and amendments are consistent with prior City Council Subcommittee and City Council action to bring the land under the control of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He reported that Craig Sherman had appealed the Planning Commission approval of the maps for the Richland Pinehurst and Henderson Creek Properties projects that were approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2004. He said that appeal is tentatively scheduled for June 16, 2004. He noted that the Henderson Creek project is dependent upon the annexation of these 300 acres because the Henderson Creek project would create an island without approval of this annexation. He stated that the City and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) do not encourage such unconnected annexations. He explained that the City contacted the landowners, including County Flood Control and County Board of Supervisors. He stated there was a letter from the School District that expressed concern about the cumulative effect of houses, therefore students, in the area. He reported the ultimate density is about the same as it was under the pre-zoning of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He noted the plan before the Commission this evening takes land out of residential zoning and changes it to open conservation land area. He said until a development or tract is presented, there is not an exact number of what the student population might be. He clarified that there is a State fee established by the School District that developers are required to pay. He noted the School District needs a school site in that immediate area and our General Plan calls for one in the area. He said the City would make a commitment to work with the School District when it comes to finding a site. He noted that an Errata Sheet was attached to make changes to the Initial Study to clarify school mitigation measures. With respect to the letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Buller stated Planning staff spoke to them on the phone with the City Attorney present. He said the Service misunderstood this project and once staff clarified that this maintains a consistency with an agreement the Service made with Flood Control on portions of the land and that we are adding conservation land into the area, the Service said they would not have sent the letter if they had understood the action. He noted existing roads will be used as trails and no new trails will be put in with this project because there is no tract map. He said such environmental issues would be addressed when there is a project. Related to Mr. Sherman's two letters and Leeona Klippstein's letter, Mr. Bullet recommended the Commission hear the testimony from Mr. Sherman and allow staff to respond following that. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Shaun Judson, Superintendent, Etiwanda School District, 6061 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he appreciated Mr. Bullet's comments supporting the District's needs. He confirmed that the School District's concerns are not for just this proposed 300-acre annexation, but the cumulative effect of all the development in the area. He thought the three projects there plus development that might occur in the annexed area and the Rancho Summit development will generate about 600 more elementary students and 300 more middle-school students. He said they have a school opening near the comer of East Avenue and Banyan Street in September that will open with about 685 students, but it will not be able to handle all of the new development going into the area. He acknowledged they own a school site on Banyan Street east of East Avenue and they hope they will be able to develop that project. He noted there is currently an agreement between the City and the Flood Control Distdct to switch some land to create a corridor of County Flood Control land going down the Etiwanda Creek Channel and their land is at the southern end of that corridor, which may make it difficult to develop the land based upon concerns of Fish and Wildlife. He asked that the Commission reaffirm the City's position to have a school site reserved or floating in the area so they will be able to meet student needs. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 26, 2004 73 f' Commissioner McNiel noted that Mr. Bullet indicated in his presentation that the City supports the District's need for the second site. Mr. Judson acknowledged Mr. Bullet's comments and said they just wanted to go on the record as well. Mr. Buller noted that the Commission had also received a letter tonight from Kathleen Rollings- McDonald from LAFCO. He said the letter is putting the City on notice of things the City knows they need to address before submitting the application to LAFCO. He thanked Ms. Rollings-McDonald for her attention to detail. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spidt of the Sage Council, 1901 First Avenue, #335, San Diego, stated he was speaking on behalf of Spidt of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife. He noted he spoke at previous meetings on other annexation projects and he thought those pdor comments regarding the impacts relate to this proposal as part of the annexation package that may ultimately be presented to LAFCO. He felt there is piecemeal environmental analysis on the individualized projects. He noted this proposal is separate from the other projects and has a different type of environmental rev!ew and he believed that detracts from the other annexations into the City. He indicated he had submitted two letters that were before the Commission. He stated the impacts for this project are based on how the County had the land designated compared to what the City proposes. He said it was his understanding that County Flood Control has commitments for particular preservation areas as part of the San Sevaine water project. He believed the land changes prepared by the City cause impacts that he felt should not be addressed through a Negative Declaration, but rater should be analyzed with disclosure of direct and cumulative impacts. He noted that the City pre-zoned the area in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted in the early 1990s, and Said there have been changes to the law since that time with respect to what needs to be considered as part of a Specific Plan. He stated that a water assessment is needed when there are developments of a certain number of homes and the total homes with all the annexations fall within that threshold; therefore he believes the water assessment is needed. He felt there would be a loss of cdticel habitat for species protection for the San Bemardino kangaroo ret and that will be a significant effect. He remarked that he had previously submitted comments with respect to equestrian uses in the area. He said there had been discussions with respect to the Equestrian Overlay Distdct and developing houses with corrals or equestrian uses. He believed that when the environmental assessment was done for the Specific Plan, there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding the introduction of significant equestrian uses into the northern area of the City and the edge effects into the preserve area to the north. He said his client has concerns about those effects. He stated he was unaware of whether there have been any workshops to discuss the amount of equestrian use, the projected range, and estimates of how many users there are. He said it was understanding that many people are paving over coral areas and putting in swimming pools and he believed the amount of equestrian land needed is probably a lot lower than what the City is providing. He wanted to be sure the edge effects to the north are addressed. He said the documents presented speak for themselves with respect to other areas of concem. He felt the issue before the Planning Commission and the City Council is whether a Negative Declaration is appropriate in light of the larger scope of projects, and the particular growth-inducing impacts from this annexation. Bill Hanna, 5428 Covina Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives adjacent to the property in question. He said his main concern was not the development of the property, but rather the change in density from Very Low Residential at. 1-2 dwelling units per acre to Low Residential at 2-4 dwelling units per acre. He indicated he spoke to his neighbors and they fear there might be a devaluation of the property by changing to up to 4 units per acre. He commented they pay excess taxes for schools and fire department in addition to their property taxes and he was concerned there would be additional taxes for those services because of the additional houses. He expressed concerns about the water, sewer, and electricity needed to provide for twice as many houses per acre. He noted the land is fairly steep and he said that their development has some steep drop-offs into the backyards Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 26, 2004 of the adjacent homes and they are at .1-2 units per acre and he feared putting 4 units per acre would mean extremely small yards. Elaine Wilkins, 5428 Covina Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they originally lived between Milliken and Rochester and they moved to this area because they were told that everything north of Wilson Avenue would be developed in bigger lots. Mr. Hanna feared increasing the density would change the quality of living. Ms. Wilkins stated she walks every moming and has talked to many of her neighbors and they have concerns. She said that one of the postings on the property has a meeting date of June 2, 2004, and she thought that might be why none of her neighbors were at this meeting to make comments. She said that further south the lots are smaller and houses are on top of each other and she feared her neighborhood would change to that feeling. Mr. Hanna said they chose their development because of the larger lots and he wanted to have 1-acre lots available. Terence Murphy, 6778 Vanderbilt Place, stated he lived in the area about 15 years ago and has been back for approximately 5 years. He objected to the annexation of Etiwanda Creek for environmental and aesthetic reasons. He believed there are a lot of fire concerns in the area. He indicated he lives about 5 miles away but goes into the hills about twice a day with his dogs. He said it is the one area left where there are hills and not houses but there are houses now encroaching on the area. He thought the City has done a beautiful job with parks but he believed this should be an area where further development is stopped. He said he observed the devastation in the area from the firestorm and the new growth of the trees and return of animals. He asked where the line should be drawn with respect to development and he asked that the City look at the area more closely before allowing building. He believed there has been too much growth in the area and said he was saddened also that there are no more vineyards in the City. He suggested the Commissioners walk in the area and observe the peacefulness of nature. Heating no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public headng. Mr. Bullet stated he appreciated the comments from the public. He noted that the development immediately east of Wardman Bullock Road, where he believed Mr. Hanna and Ms. Wilkins live, is zoned Very Low at. 1-2 dwelling units per acre but he said the lots are typically % acre up to % acre and the density is close to 3 or more dwelling units per acre. He noted that if the project were to be built under the County, the density could be even higher than what the City will ultimately allow. He indicated staff informed the developer they cannot build lots smaller than those immediately adjacent on the east side of Wardman Bullock Road. He said an alternate would be to allow the County to build under County standards and the City would not want to do that to the residents in the area. He reported staff believes that annexing the property into the City will provide better development than if it is left in the County. He said the City has a plan regarding open space and conservation and is working closely with the County and other agencies to preserve open space but the landowners have development dghts. He noted that the property east of Wardman Bullock Road was also once open space. He said the City is trying to allow development in a proper fashion at a density that will enhance the surrounding neighborhood. He offered to have staff meet with residents to show how the varying lot sizes on the Henderson Creek project to the north represent good planning. He reported the Commission's action tonight would be to make a recommendation to the City Council for final action. He indicated staff recommends the Commission act on the project even considering the correspondence in front of the Commissioners. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the action includes a General Plan Amendment to change a portion of the land from Very Low Residential to Low Residential but it also reduces the acreage devoted to residential from what would originally have been designated under the Specific Planning commission Minutes -7- May 26, 2004 Plan, so a greater amount of the territory will be devoted to conservation purposes than would be placed under the current Specific Plan or the County standards. Mr. Buller showed an exhibit of the area to be changed from single-family zoning to conservation land. He noted there is a utility corridor that runs east and west but 45 acres previously designated residential would be turned over to conservation land with the annexation zoning. Mr. Ennis observed that Mr. Sherman commented about the consistency with the land use designations. Mr. Ennis said that one of the reasons for the changes in land use designation with this project is to conform to various agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the County, and the utility agencies for the conservation areas. He observed there had been agreements in the past to conserve certain areas and these changes conform to those agreements and help to implement those agreements. He said that only 32 percent of the land in the 300-acre annexation area would be designated for development purposes. With respect to water assessments, Mr. Ennis noted that Mr. Sherman indicated SB221 and SB610 require certain special studies of the impact on water supplies when there are projects that include residential developments of 500 or more units. Mr. Ennis stated that SB221 requires water assessments when there is a tentative trect map proposed of 500 or more residential lots. He pointed out there is no tract map at this time so that particular law would not apply. Mr. Ennis said that SB610 applies when there are projects that could create more than 500 dwelling units, but it only applies to the project application being considered and does not count surrounding units. He commented that sequential annexations under different property owners that may result in more than 500 units would not require that type of assessment under that law. With respect to Mr. Sherman's comment on the loss of habitat and the potential significant effect, Mr. Ennis stated the project will increase the habitat area and noted a mitigation measure is included that requires that any development that may result in the loss of important habitat and sage scrub habitat would be required to replace at a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Ennis stated that equestrian use is a policy issue more than a legal issue. He said the legal issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that there is a significant impact on the environment but there is no evidence it will create an impact because there is not a specific project at this time. Although Mr. Sherman suggested a Mitigated Negative Declaration was not sufficient, Mr. Ennis said that because there is no development project at this time the impacts are not known and he reiterated the annexation would result in a reduction in developed area. He said the consultant and staff reviewed the impacts of the annexation and reduction in developed area and determined there was not a level of significance to warrant an Environmental Impact Report (EIP.). He said Mr. Sherman believed the project would result in substantial population growth, but Mr. Ennis noted the area is already planned under the County standards for a higher density of residential development and it is adjacent to an area that is developed so infrastructure borders the development. He noted that Mr. Sherman's letter stated there is opposition and controversy to the project and an EIR is required because of that. Mr. Ennis noted that California Environmental Quality ACt Section 21082.2 provides that the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require the preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record of the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. He reported City staff concluded there is not a level of significant evidence to warrant an EIR based upon the facts, the record, and the evidence noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Buller stated the notice the residents saw with a June 2 date refers to one of the two previous annexation requests that were scheduled to go to City Council on June 2, 2004. He noted Mr. Sherman filed an appeal of the tract maps that were associated with those annexations and the items will be continued to June 16, 2004. He suggested that the residents call City staff if they have any questions regarding the various headng dates. He stated the previous annexation requests will be on the City Council agenda for June 2 but staff is asking for a continuance to June 16. Commissioner Fletcher thanked the City Attorney for explaining the issues in a clear, concise, and thorough manner. He said it is an annexation of land to protect the City's interests so that the City Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 26, 2004 and its residents will not have to live with what the County dictates. He felt annexation is a better choice for the City. Commissioner McPhail concurred. She said that in a perfect world there would be no more development but that is not reality. She felt that if development occurs under County standards, the City would be forced to accept something the City does not want. She believed having the area under City control allows certain safeguards that are important for the future. Commissioner Stewart stated the action is similar to what the Commission acted upon several weeks ago. She said that annexations are always very challenging. She noted that the City could deal with specific problems and require mitigation measures when a specific project comes before the City in the future. She felt annexing the area is a positive step because she believed any development under County standards would have a higher density and less open space and the City would have less control over the process. She thought the City has a higher standard of development than the County. She noted the proposal includes considerably more conservation land and open space than under the County standards and she felt that is a positive outcome. She noted environmental issues would still be a challenge. Based upon what was before the Commission tonight, she felt the project should be approved. She again noted that equestrian issues could be addressed when a development project is proposed. Commissioner McNiel stated that when the first General Plan was prepared, the Sphere of Influence was addressed because the land was ultimately to become the responsibility of the City, particularly with respect to Police and Fire services. He said that at the same time the City was planning the Sphere, the County was also planning the sphere and the County's document contained some frightening aspects. He indicated one such idea was to allow density transferswhere a 100-acre site with only 10 buiidable acres could take the yield of the 100 acres and put it on the 10 acres, which could result in condominiums. He observed the City plan does not allow that prospect. He said the City has made every possible effort to draw the Sphere projects into the City so that the City would have better control, resulting in less density and a better fit with the community image. He moved approval of the resolutions. Chairman Macias agreed with the Commissioners' comments. He was confident that the process, given the public testimony, would allow the City to better address any significant impacts that occur as a result of future development at the site. He was encouraged by the reduction of what can be built and the increase in conservation land. He felt the project is the commencement of a very straightforward planning effort that will stand the test of any legal challenge. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Annexation DRC2003-00961, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded ~--a ~;n-g'l;-family residence in the Low Residential Dlstnct, located at 8045 Cam Predera, Lo--ct 10035- APN: 0207-631-02. Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, report. Chairman Macias invited public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 26, 2004 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR 300-ACRE ANNEXATION Letter 1 Jonathan J. Mott, Attomey for Etiwanda School District, dated May 12, 2004 (errata sheet attached). Letter 2 Local Agency Formation Commission, dated May 26, 2004. Letter 3 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, dated May 26, 2004. Letter 4 Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director, Spirit of the Sage Council, dated May 26, 2004. Letter 5 Craig Sherman, Attorney for Spirit of the Sage Council, and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, dated May 25, 2004. Letter 6 Craig Sherman, Attorney for Spirit of the Sage Council, and The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, dated May 26, 2004. Letter 7 County of San Bemardino Public Works Depmtment, dated May 26, 2004 (response attached). Letter 8 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, dated May 26, 2004. Letter 9 Southern California Association of Governments, dated May 20, 2004. (All Letters and Response to comments were provided under separate cover) :XmmT -otg 7g¥ City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Secfl'on 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures ara recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained ~n the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be raported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and preper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the odginal authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DRC2003-01164, DRC2003-01162, DRC2003-001163 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is vedfied for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may adse requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after wdtten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. The Division shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: DRC2003-01164, DRC2003-01162, AND DRC2003-01163 Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonqa Initial Study Prepared by: Steve Walker, LSA Associates~ Inc. Date: March 3, 2004 Air Quality The following mitigation measures shall be implemente( during all future development to reduce impacts to less- than-significant levels: All construction equipment shall be maintained in BO C Review of Plans A 4 good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the CP B Review of Plans C 2 developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that Iow-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. AIl paints and coatings shall meet or exceed BO C Review of Plans A 4 performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high volume, Iow-pressure spray. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance BO D Review of Plans A 3 standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. All construction equipment shall comply with BO/CP C Review of Plans A 4 . SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: i ~ 1 of 7 Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. · Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. · Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. The site shall be treated with water or other soil- BO C Review of Plans A 4 stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQE4D and BO/CP C Review of Plans A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PU~0 emissions. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or BO/CP C Review of Plans A 4 clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that CP B Review of Plans C 2 ~1~. construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 2 of 7 All residential structures shall be required to CP D Review of Plans NC 3 incorporate high efficiency/Iow polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. All residential structures shall be required to CP D Review of Plans NC 3 incorporate thermal pane windows and weather- stripping. Biological Resources The following mitigation measures shall be implemented with any future proposal for development: Each future project proponent shall prepare a CP A/B Review of Plans D 2 Biological Resources Habitat Assessment for the area of the propqsed project site. Focused protocol surveys for federally listed endangered/threatened species, such as the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and/or the California gnatcatcher, may be warranted based on the results of the Biological Resources Habitat Assessment. Results of the surveys will be evaluated with each specific proposal for development. Each future project proponent shall acquire and CP NB Review of Plans C 2 convey to the County of San Bernardino County Special Districts land within OS-1 and the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program that supports RAFSS habitat. Land shalt be acquired at a ration of 1-acre for each acre of RAFSS disturbed by the proposed project. Cultural Resources . . : .. ~. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented with any future proposal for development: If any prehistoric archaeological resources are CP C During A 4 encountered during grading, the developer will be Construction retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the . ~ assistance of the archeologist, the City of Rancho ,~ Cucamonga will: -~ 3 of 7 · Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage. · Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, impodant, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information for permanent archiving. A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a CP B Review of Report D/A 4 preconstruction field survey of the project site. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include but not be limited to, the following measures: Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. 4 of 7 Should fossils be found within an ares being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage, if construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. Geology and Soils ~ :'i..: ~ In accordance with the Alquist-Pdolo Eadhquake Fault CE NB Review of Plans D 2 Zone Act, any future development of the portion of the site that is within the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment of the Red Hill fault zone must be accompanied with a Geotechnical analysis to determine site-specific mitigation measures. The following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented with any future residential development applications to reduce impacts to less-than-significent levels: The site shall be treated with water or other soil- BO/CP C Review of Plans A 4 stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a BO/CP C Review of Plans A 4 schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off- site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind BO/CP C Review of Plans A 4 speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 5 of 7 Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Hazards and Waste Materials The annexation area is located in the "Hazardous Fire CP/CE A Review of Plans A/C 2 Area" based on proximity to or exposure to urban- wildland interface. Mitigation measures will be required in order to mitigate future development preposals. Any future residential structures shall be constructed in accordance with the standards contained in the San Bemardino County Fire Safety Overlay District Area FR- 1 and FR-2, and all applicable requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Applications for future residential development shall CP/CE A/B Reviewof Plans D 2 include a Fuel Modification Plan, which has been reviewed and approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The plan shall be prepared by an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildlife hazard mitigation planning. Noise ~ The following mitigation measures shall be implemented with any future construction projects: Construction or grading shall not take place between CP C Review of Plans A 4 the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 6 of 7 Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed CP C Review of Plans A 4 the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the CP C Review of Plans A 4 hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Mo, ltqri~g.~eq~,e,c~ ~ ~l. ~.~, ~ ~ CDD - Community Devetopment Director or designee A- With Each New Development A - On-site inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Pdor To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies I Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Polico Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bends FC ~ Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Citation ~ 7 o17 RESOLUTION NO. ~)~1(- .2, // A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENTION TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia; that WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared and circulated pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in connection with the City Council's consideration of the proposed annexation described in the title of this Resolution and that such document has been presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the above-described properties are located within and consistent with the established Sphere of Influence of the City, and contiguous to current City limits; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited (as defined under LAFCO), and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the annexation of the property will represent a logical extension of the City's boundaries and urban services; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to provide the usual and necessary urban services to the area upon annexation, as outlined in the Plan of Services set forth in Exhibit"O" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the annexation of the properties would be beneficial to the public purposes of the City, in that the properties will provide for development within the City in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and with related development; and WHEREAS, the City Council as governing body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (Annexation) for the subject properties pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hedzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, Commencing with Section 56000 of the Califomia Govemment Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The properly owner has requested that the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiate annexation. The City is, therefore, requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the proposal with the waiver of further conducting authority proceedings as authorized by Govt. Code Section 56663(c). 7s¢ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - ETIWANDA CREEK June 16,2004 Page 2 2. The proposed annexation shall be subject to all standard conditions required by the Local Agency Formation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council as the governing body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does hereby adopt, approve, resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1: Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks approval of a sedes of actions related to the annexation of approximately 300 acres of land from unincorporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the approval of a General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment. The changes in General Plan designation and in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will reduce the acreage permitted for development by 45 acres by changing the General Plan designation for a 45-acre portion of the property from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation and changing that portion of the project site in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation. At the same time, a change is proposed to allow a change in residential density on 80 acres of the property from a General Plan designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and a change for that 80-acre portion of the property in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). These changes in designation for the 80 acres of the site proposed for development will increase the allowable number of dwelling units on the property from 168 to 218 (an increase in 50 dwelling units). The requested actions do not include approval of a specific development proposal or the subdivision of the property. These sedes of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." b. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 (collectively the "Project Applications"). c. Pursuant to CEQA and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the Project. d. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City staff deterr0ined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period (commencing on Apdl 21, 2004 and ending on May 26, 2004) and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. e. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received prior to and at the June 16, 2004 public hearing and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the City Council for consideration and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - ETIWANDA CREEK June 16,2004 Page 3 f. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on aesthetics, agricultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The conclusions for these findings are contained in the analysis of potential impact to these resources that is contained after the listing of each resource in the Initial Study. g. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that the impacts to the resources and services listed in this paragraph will be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures: i. Air Quality. The eventual development of the Project site with homes will result in short-term construction related air quality impacts from on-site stationary sources, construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles and energy use. Eleven mitigation measures will be imposed that include, but are not limited to, requiring, the proper maintenance of equipment, utilization of Iow-emission mobile construction equipment where feasible, use of paints and coatings that meet SCAQMD standards, implementation of measures designed to reduce fugitive dust such as landscaping, phased grading, street sweeping and the suspension of grading operations during high wind periods, the use of water and soil-stabilizing agents, and other measures designed to reduce project emissions, including the use of electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible, the incorporation of Iow polluting mechanical equipment for residential structures, and the use of thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the Project's impacts to air quality will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Bioloqical Resources. This Project does not include the approval of any development of the site and reduces the portion of the site authorized for development by 45 acres. However, to address impacts from potential development of the site, mitigation measures have been imposed to require developers who propose development within the Project site to prepare a Biological Resource Habitat Assessment for the area of the proposed development and to acquire and convey to the County of San Bernardino, or some other qualified conservation entity as approved by the City, land that supports Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitat at a ratio of one acre for each acre of RAFSS disturbed by the proposed project. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iii. Cultural Resources. Although this Project does not involve the approval of any specific development project for the site, there is the potential that when developed, Native American archeological resources could be discovered. Mitigation measures have been imposed to require the use of a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, and to have a qualified paleontologist conduct a pre-construction survey of the site and to follow specified protocols for the salvage of any important resources. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Geology and Soils. The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment of the Red Hill Fault Zone traverses a portion of the Project site. In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - ETIWANDA CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 4 Fault Zone Act, any future development of the site within the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment must be accompanied by a geotechnical analysis to determine site-specific mitigation measures. In order to control dust and erosion, four mitigation measures are imposed that include, stabilization of the soil to reduce particulate emissions, requiring the sweeping of area streets, suspending grading operations in high wind conditions, and the use of chemical soil stabilizers. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to geology and soils will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. v. Hazards and Waste Materials. The Project site faces on-going threats of wind-driven fires and is within a hazardous fire area. The Project site was burned during the October 2003 Grand Prix fire, and after the vegetation returns, the area is likely to face additional wind-driven fire risks in the future. To protect against these threats, mitigation measures are imposed that require the development of the site to comply with standards imposed by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the preparation and implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan. During site planning of any development of the site, fire protection landscaping, design features and planning will be made a part of that development proposal. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the risks of wind-driven fire will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi. Noise. Although no development project is approved with this Project, dudng future construction of the site, on-site stationary soumes, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, is anticipated to generate noise exceeding City standards. Mitigation measures have been imposed to regulate the hours of construction operations, to require the developer to hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring, and to impose additional measures if construction noise exceeds City standards. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the shod-term noise impacts from the development of the site will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. h. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that the Project has the potential for contributing to the cumulative impacts identified in the Program EIR for the 2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Upon approval of that General Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations of significant adverse environmental effects to aggregate resources, prime farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were imposed; however, they did not reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The City Council found that the benefits of the General Plan, including less overall traffic volumes as a result of pedestrian-friendly mixed use development and conservation of valuable open space, outweighed the unavoidable impacts from the General Plan. This Project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and the City Council finds that by clustering the development into a smaller area, that the changes proposed by this Project are consistent with the General Plan's intent to reduce traffic volumes and preserve open space. i. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on all of the findings contained in this Resolution, and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - ETIWANDA CREEK June 16, 2004 Page 5 j. The mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. k. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures dudng project implementation. The City Council hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council staff report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. I. The City Council designates the custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based to be the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. SECTION 2: Application and proposal is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino for Change of Organization (Annexation) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the property described in Exhibit "A" and as shown in Exhibit "B" and as outlined in the Plan of Services as shown in Exhibit "C," in accordance with the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino. Sheet I of 2 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Southeast One-quarter and the Southeast One-quarter of the Northeast One-quarter of Section 21, and the West One-half of the Southwest One-quarter and the South One-half of the Southwest One-quarter of the Northwest One-quarter of Section 22, all within Township 1 North, Range 6 West, San Bemardino Meridian, in the County of San Bemardino, State of California, according to the Official Plat of said land on file in the District Land Office. The area to be annexed is approximately 300 acres. See Sheet 2 of 2 for a plat depicting the above described Land. This real property has been described by me, or under my dire. r.r.~ion, in conformance with the Pr°fessi°nal Lanx~/~ ey°r's ?ct'x~ ~ il WILSON A~NUE 28 27 AREA LEGEND ~ / ~ / / ANNEXATION BOUNDARY '~ I CITY OF RANCHO ~ I CUCAMON~A ANNEXATION AREA = 300~. ACRES VICINI~ MAP ~,~ ~.o~o~ ~..~,o. ~o ~,~ ~ ~ ~~~. ~o:J s.~ n OF ~NCHO CUCAMONGA I ~ PLAN FOR SERVICES City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Contact: Brad Bullet, City Planner Debra Meier, AICP, Associate Planner Prepared for: Annexation of 300 Acres to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared By: City &Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 909-477-2750 March 9, 2004 ,EcX, z,',' C 1 Plan for Services 7~-/ Table of Contents Section Page I. Introduction 4 A. Introduction 4 B. Background 5 II. Planning and Statutory Considerations 9 A. Planning Consideration 9 B. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan 9 C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan 10 D. Applicable Laws 10 III. Service Considerations 12 A. Roadways and Transportation Services 12 El. Electricity 12 C. Natural Gas 12 D. Telephone 13 E. Drainage Services 13 F. Water Services 13 G. Sewer Services 14 H. Police Services 15 I. Fire Protection & Ambulance Services 15 ,I. Libraries 16 K. Street Lighting 16 L. Solid Waste Services 17 M. School Services 17 N. Parks & Recreation Services 17 IV. Fiscal Analysis 19 2 Plan for Services 7~ EXHIBITS Figure Page 1. Vicinity Map 7 2. Annexation Map 8 3 Plan for Services 7~3 I. Introduction A. Introduction This document has been prepared to provide the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and other interested individuals and agencies with pertinent information relating to governmental functions, facilities, services and costs and revenues applicable to proposed Annexation No. 04-XX to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. This annexation proposal has been initiated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This document supports the City's petition by addressing all. of the service related considerations applicable to the property, thereby permitting the LAFCO Staff and Board Members to fully understand, evaluate and approve the annexation request. This plan of services addresses the basic level of public services that are required to support the future development of the properties annexed and the associated population growth and the manner in which urban and municipal services will be provided. The proposed annexation area is located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road, in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence; the area has been pre- zoned by virtue of the City's adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) in 1992. The proposed annexation includes a total of 300-acres. Within the 300 acres, only 95 acres has residential development potential - 40 acres located at the northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue, 40 acres located at the northwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road, and an additional 15 acres located on the west side of Wardman-Bullock Road north of Wilson Avenue. In addition, the annexation area includes 205-acres of land designated Flood Control and Open Space/Conservation and Utility Corridor. There are no specific proposals for development at this time. However, the City has conducted Environmental Review and a General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments to change the residential land use for 80-acres fi.om Very Low Residential (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Future development of the area could yield approximately 218 dwelling units, as illustrated in Table 1 below. 4 Plan for Services 7~ Table 1 Development Potential PROPOSED LAND USE ACRES ESTIMATED ESTIMATED NUMBER DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS Very Low Residential 15 1.2 18 Low Residential 80 2.5 200 Conservation/Flood 205 NA NA Control TOTAL 300 218 B. Project Background The Etiwanda North Specific Plan comprises approximately 6,840 acres and is located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere of Influence. The project site is located within the unincorporated portion of San Bemardino County. The project includes the annexation of 300-acres from San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As part of the approval process, the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study Environmental Checklist to address issues associated with the Land Use amendments and the annexation. The existing and uses within the annexation area presently comprised of Flood Control facilities (Etiwanda Creek basins), vacant land, and one single-family residence located on Wardman-Bullock Road approximately 2,000 feet north of Wilson Avenue. The surrounding area is a combination of Flood Control land and facilities, single-family residential development or land that is being entitled for single-family development. A summary of surrounding land uses and land use designations are reflected in Table 2 below. Table 2 Surrounding Land Uses Current Land Use General Plan Land Use Etiwanda North Specific Plan Land Use ON-SITE Etiwanda Creek Basins, Open Space/Conservation and Very Low Residential (15 acres), vacant land, one SFR Utility Corridor, Very Low Proposed Low Residential (80 acres), Residential and Flood Control, and Utility Con'idor proposed Low Residential NORTH Etiwanda Creek Drainage Open Space/Conservation, Proposed Low Residential, Flood Control Area, Vacant Land/proposed Utility Corridor TT 163214-Henderson Creek SOUTH Etiwanda Creek Flood Low Residential, Open Etiwanda Specific Plan - Open Space, ControI Basins, vacant land Space/Conservation, Flood Low Residential and Very Low Control Residential EAST Single-family residential Very Low Residential Very Low Residential developmenffBrentwood Estates WEST Vacant land/proposed Low Residential Low residential TT16072-Richland 5 Plan for Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga is in the process of submitting four separate annexations to the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) totaling approximately 800 acres. Each of the proposed annexations is under separate environmental reviews. 6 Plan for Services 7~ Figure 1 Vicinity Map N,~V. ~ ~ ~ I I ~1 t .~'. 0 ~00 ~00 F~t ~ I ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION BOUNDARY 7 Plan for Services 7~ 7 Figure 2 Annexation Map 22508405 22608111 22608112 2 '~60811: !26081 22508406 2: 8081~5 0 0 0 ~ m 22508407 o o WILSON ~V. ~"~ I ~ I ~ ' 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet ~ I /E~t ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION CITY BOUNDARY 8 Plan for Services II. Planning and Statutory Consideration A. Planning Considerations The proposed annexation area is contained within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence. The City's General Plan current land use designation for the site is Very Low Residential (130 acres), Open Space/Conservation (160 acres), and Utility Con'idor (10 acres). Of the 130-acres presently designated Very Low Residential, 80 acres are proposed for amendment to Low Residential, and 35 acres are proposed to be amendment to Open Space/Conservation, leaving 15 acres as Very Low Residential. The project is also included in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1992. At this time the proposed project consists of amendments to both the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific, and annexation to the City. No proposals for site-specific development are being considered at this time. B. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation for the 300-acre project site is currently shown as Very Low Residential (0.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) for 130 acres, Open Space Conservation (i.e. Flood Control) for 160 acres, and Utility Corridor on 10 acres. The General Plan Amendment proposes a change from Very Low Residential to Low Residential for 80 acres (40-acres located at the northeast comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue; and 40 acres at the northwest comer of Wilson Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road). In addition, the General Plan Amendment proposes to change 35 acres from Very Low Residential to Open Space/Conservation, for a total area of 205 acres designated Open Space Conservation. A 15-acre portion of the project area will remain as Very Low Residential. The proposed Low Residential District is intended as an area for single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet (average lot area of at least 10,000 square feet) and a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre; and the Very Low Residential District is intended as an area for single family residential uses with a maximum density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the project site is within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District. The Overlay District extends generally north of Banyan Street between the western City limits and Milliken Avenue, and then north of 1-210 Freeway between Milliken Avenue and eastern City limits. The District allows the keeping of horses and other farm animals. 9 Plan for Services 7~q C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan The project area is subject to the policies set forth in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan is a specific area acknowledged in the City's General Plan subject to land use and community design within the north Etiwanda area. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted on April 1, 1992 (Ordinance 493) and comprises of a 6,840 acres within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City's Sphere of Influence. The project is located in Sub Areas 2.3, 6, and 8 of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, portions of the Upper Etiwanda and Etiwanda Highlands neighborhoods. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan designates the site as Very Low Residential, Utility Corridor, and Flood Control. The Very Low Residential portion lies along East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road; the Flood Control portion lies between the two residential areas, surrounding the Etiwanda Creek basins and drainage system; and the Utility Corridor portion lies along a portion of the east-west Southern California Edison corridor near the northern segment of the annexation area. The proposed project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would change the current designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 Dwelling Unit per Acre) to Low Residential (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) for 80-acres of the 300-acre annexation area; and fi.om Very Low Residential to Flood Control for 35-acres. The remainder of the 300-acre annexation area will remain within the existing land use designations of Flood Control and Very Low Residential. D. Applicable Laws LAFCO is authorized and mandated by State law as the agency responsible for evaluating and approving annexations to an incorporated city. Subsequent to the initial consideration of an annexation request by the City, a public hearing is held before the LAFCO Board where the annexation proposal is approved, denied, or modified. The following Protest Procedures for LAFCO proceedings are outlined in California Government Code (within Section 57000) and smmnarized in the LAFCO Procedures and Guidelines. 1. Following a LAFCO Commission action to approve an annexation, a resolution of that action is forwarded to affected agencies and individuals. Thirty days following the LAFCO Commission action the Protest Period is announced though a combination of publication of a legal advertisement in the local newspaper and through mailing of individual notices to anyone who has previously request such notices. The protest period can be no less than 15 days nor more than 60 days, from the date of the announcement. All protests must follow strict LAFCO requirements, but generally they must be in writing and be received during the protest period. The protest must also indicate whether the letter is from a landowner and/or a registered voter from within the annexation area; only those 10 Plan for Services that are either a landowner and/or a registered voter form within the annexation area are eligible to submit a valid protest. 2. At the conclusion of the protest period, LAFCO staff will make a finding of the results of any protests received for adoption by the LAFCO Commission. The Commission must take one of the following actions based on the result of the protest findings: a. For uninhabited annexations (<12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the assessed value of land owners (improvement values are not counted) within the annexation area; or · approve the annexation if written protest is submitted by landowners who own less than 50% of the assessed value of the annexation area. b. For inhabited annexations (>12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the registered voters in the annexation area; · call an election if protest is received from at least 25% and less than 50% of the registered voters, or if 25% to 100% of the number of landowners -who own at least 25% of the total annexation land value - submit a written protest [The voters (whether they own land or not) would then decide the issue by majority vote in a special election]; or · approve the annexation without an election if written protest is received from less than 25% of the voters and less than 25% of the landowners (owning less than 25% of the land value). The above referenced requirements also require the submittal of a plan for services for areas to be annexed. This document satisfies this statutory requirement. 11 Plan for Services 7 7/ III. Service Considerations A. Roadways and Transportation Services The proposed development is not located within any Transit Service Corridor. Primary access will be provided via Wilson Avenue, East Avenue and Wardman- Bullock Road. The annexation area is located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. The proposed project does not include any specific proposals for development at his time. However, based on the analysis in the Environmental Checklist, future development of the residentially zoned properties (95 acres total) will require improvements to East Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and Wardman~Bullock Road at the time of development to accommodate vehicles traveling to and fxom the site. The future residential projects will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along all street frontages of the site and within the project, as well as the completion of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman- Bullock Road. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will assume responsibility for street maintenance of public arterial roadways within the annexation area. B. Electricity The proposed annexation area lies within the service boundaries of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). SCE has indicated that the demands associated with the project are accommodated within their master planning efforts and service can be extended to the site. The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to annexation. Assuming buildout of the approximately 218 lots, electrical consumption for the project site, based on SCE designated criteria, is estimated as £ollows: 218 dwellings X 7kw/unit = 1,526 kw per month; or 18,312 kw annually. C. Natural Gas Natural Gas is provided by The Gas Company. The Gas Company maintains natural gas pipelines in Etiwanda Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. Natural gas service will be provided via extensions of these existing transmission pipelines. The Gas Company anticipates no problems in extending service to the site and has included the project in its master planning efforts. 12 Plan for Services 77:L The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to annexation. Annual gas consumption upon development of the site is estimated to be about 85 therms per unit per average month, for a total of 18,530 therms per month or 222,360 therms per year. D. Telephone Services. The telephone service to the project site is provided by Verizon Communications. The facilities will be extended from Etiwanda Avenue or Wardman-Bullock Road into the respective developable areas of the project site. Verizon anticipates no problems in providing communication services to the project site. E. Drainage Services The majority of the drainage from the annexation area will continue to surface drain to Etiwanda Creek. Future development proposals will be required to convey drainage to the City storm drain system. All streets will be designed to accommodate storm waters that could exceed the top of curbs in the event of a 25-year storm as well as the right-of- way for a 100-year storm. All necessary facilities will be localized in nature and will be inspected and maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division. The County of San Bemardino Flood Control District is responsible for the maintenance of the Etiwanda Creek channel and basin system, which lies within the mid-portion of the project site. The San Bemardino Flood Control District has planned improvements to the Etiwanda Creek Basin system. Channel and basin improvements have been designed to capture all flows entering the creek and conveying the flows ~tnd then offsite.. F. Water Services The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) covers approximately 50 square miles, and provides water treatment, storage, and distribution of domestic water to all of Rancho Cucamonga, adjacent unincorporated County areas, and portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana and one tract in Upland. CVWD derives water from three sources groundwater (43%), surface water (12%) and imported water (45%). Groundwater is derived primarily from the Cucamonga basin. Groundwater may also be pumped from the Chino basin, but must be replenished through purchases of State Water Project (imported) water. Canyon water is derived from surface and subsurface water form Cucamonga, Deer, Day, and East Etiwanda Canyons. CVWD 13 Plan for Services 77~ also purchases water from northern California via the State Water Project. The current daily usage in the CVWD service area is approximately 42 million gallons per day. Residential water use amounts to 60 percent of the total water consumed, followed by landscaping at 20 pement. CVWD's master plan estimates demand needs through the year 2030; with residential water demand is expected to continue to be the greatest sources of water demand. CVWD anticipates growth by ensuring that adequate facilities are available to meet the water demand as it arises. CVWD is also one of seven member agencies that operate under the umbrella of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The IEUA had adopted a 10-year growth or capital improvement program that is based upon growth projections provided by the member agencies. CVWD is responsible for collecting developer fees for the construction and operation of water facilities. The CVW-D will supply domestic water to the site. The site currently contains one exisisitng single-family residence, and which can be assumed to use approximately 640 gallons per day. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. Water is currently provided to the area by a 12-inch main located along Wardman-Bullock Road located along the east boundary of the proposed annexation area. The proposed annexation area holds the potential for approximately 218 single-family residences to be connected to the CVWD domestic water system. Single-family residential units have a daily water demand of 640 gallons per day (GPD). Thus, the project will result in an increased water demand of the CVWD system of 139,520 GPD. This represents a less than one percent increase in water currently demanded from existing development within the City. G. Sewer Services The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) currently covers over 240 square miles and operates four wastewater treatment facilities that serve the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Chino, and Chino Hills. An additional treatment facility is currently planned. Two of the exisisitng treatment plants, Regional Plants 1 and 4, serve development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. CVWD provides conveyance facilities to the treatment plants. The project site is with the service area of treatment plant number 4 (RP-4). RP-4 is located on 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The plant treats approximately 37.9 million gallons per day (MGD) ofwastewater and has a capacity of 44 MGD. The water treatment facilities cleanse the treated water to a tertiary level and it is then used for irhgation proposed. Development fees are collected by member agencies for wastewater treatment facilities and passed on to the IEUA to use for new treatment plant construction. 14 Plan for Services 77~ With the exception of extending pipelines to the project site, there will be no requirement for the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The future projects will connect to the existing sewer lines in the surrounding area. Based on the CVWD Master Plan and IEUA estimates, wastewater generation in the project area is approximately 270 gallons ofwastewater per unit per day. Therefore, the 218 residential units proposed will generate approximately 58,860 gallons of sewage per day. This represents less than one percent of current wastewater treated at RP-4, and will not exceed capacity of the plant. In addition, the proposed project will comply with all regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements and will obtain required NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems) and SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plkn) permits prior to project construction. H. Police Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga has contracted with the San Beruardino County Sheriffs Department for police service since 1978. Currently the City contract includes 93 uniformed officers - including 11 sergeants, 2 lieutenants and one captain. With a population of 146,700 (January 2003 Department of Finance estimate) the current ratio of officers to residents is approximately 0.63 officers for every 1,000 residents. The projected average response time to an emergency call for serviced within the vicinity of the project site is at five minutes. The City's Police Department is temporarily located at 8340 Utica Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the permanent facility at 10510 Civic Center Drive, adjacent to City Hall, is currently being expanded and remodeled. Police service calls will incrementally increase as result of the proposed project. The proposed project will increase population by approximately 685 residents thus creating the need for approximately 0.43 additional officers if the current officer/resident ratio is maintained. The funds for additional police officers are provided as part of the City General Fund. Each year the City's annual budget negotiation with the Sheriffs department results in additional officers to be added to the Police force. I. Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Response The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical response to approximately 50 square miles, which includes the City Sphere of influence and the project site. Six fire stations are located within 15 , Plan for Services 7 7~ the City; and the RCFPD currently maintains a personnel ratio of 0.18 firefighter per 1,000 residents. The goal of RCFPD is to provide a five-minute response time for 90 pement of emergency calls placed within the City. Currently the City is providing five-minute service for 85 pement of the emergency calls. Existing fire stations 173, 175 and 176 will serve the project area. Station 173 - 12158 Base Line Road (3 fire fighters) Station 175 - 11108 Banyan Avenue (6 firefighters) Station 176 - East Avenue at 23rd Street - (3 firefighters) The proposed project will incrementally increase the population in the vicinity by 685 residents thus creating the need for 0.12 additional firefighter personnel in order to maintain the current firefighter personnel/resident ratio. With the recent opening of Station 176, located approximately one-mile from the site, the current response times will continue to be less than five-minutes to the project site. The RCFPD also participates in an automatic response agreement, known as West End Joint Power Authority (West End), with neighboring fire departments to send the closest fire engine to a repdrted structure fire without regard to the city boundaries. The American Medical Response (AMR), a private ambulance service, provides ambulance service for the residents in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. AMR is located at 7925 Center Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. J. Libraries The Rancho Cucamonga Public Library system will serve the project area upon annexation. The Rancho Cucamonga Library is located in a 2,200 square foot building in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on Archibald Avenue, north of Interstate 10 Freeway and west of Interstate 15 Freeway. The Library contains approximately 115,000 books (novels, magazines, references, etc,) and serves a full-time population of over 146,000 residents. In addition, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which serve the projected need at build-out of the City. Library funding is derived form a percentage of the property tax allocation and disbursement with the County of San Bemardino (refer to the Fiscal Impact Analysis). K. Street Lighting The project presently does not contain any streetlights, however, will be required to install streetlights with development. The project will be annexed to the City of 16 Plan for Services Rancho Cucamonga's existing City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. L. Solid Waste Burrtec Waste Industries will collect refuse from the project area under franchise agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Burrtec takes all refuse collected to the Transfer Station of Napa Street, at which point approximately 60% to diverted to the Mid-Valley land fill in Rialto, the remaining refuse is transported out of the county landfill system. The City has implemented recycling programs, as required by state law, local Source Reduction and Recycling Element. M. School Services The annexation area will be served by the Etiwanda School District (grades K through 8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (grades 9 through 12). Based on the generation factors used by the Etiwanda School District, the area will generate approximately 140 K-8 and 30 high school students from the 218 new homes. Approximately 95 of these students would be would be elementary level (K- 5) and 45 would be intermediate level (grades 6-8). The total students generated would be approximately 170. Historical enrollments in both Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the Etiwanda Elementary School District have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Historical student generation data from the districts indicate the project could generate an addition of approximately 170 students at build out, based on a total of 0.78 students per household. At present enrollments at all schools serving the project are at or over their capacities. However, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of state° mandated developer impact fees represent full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment to capacity conditions of the affected schools. N. Parks and Recreation Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department serves the surrounding parks and recreation facilities. The recreational amenities and programs include - Community Center at Lions East and Lions West, Senior Center, Family Sports Center, Epicenter/Sports Complex, and 20 park sites throughout the City. All 17 Plan for Services 777 programs and facilities are funded through a combination of user fees and City general fund. Plan for Services IV. Fiscal Analysis The project will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 for perimeter street landscape maintence, the City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared on behalf of the City addressing the general costs and revenue anticipated as a result of the annexation. The report *,',300-Acre Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga" by Stanley Hoffman Associates, Inc. forms a part of the Plan of Services as an exhibit. By its inclusion into Plan of Services, the City certifies to the report's accuracy. 19 ~Tg~ Plan for Services FINAL REPORT Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared for: :~City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909-477-2700 May 3, 2004 SRHA #1052 ST^NLEY 5'H°,F~M,a~ ,1801SanV, ce,,eB,vd.S~,,e'06 , .-_ _-_ __- ~_ ..... Los Angeles, CA 90049 ,, s s o 310-820-2680, 310-820-8341, fax www.stanleyrhoffman.com CONTENTS Tables and Figure .......................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... iii Chapter I Intro(~uc~ on ......................................................... 1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Approach .................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Overview .................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 Project Description .................................. 2.1 Development Description After Buildout ... 5 2.2 Public Infrastructure ..................................... .............................................. 5 Chapter 3 Projected Fiscal Impacts ..................................................................... 9 3.1 Rancho Cucamonga General Fund ...... _...9 3.2 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ............................................ 12 3.3 Landscape Maintenance District .............................................................. 12 Chapter 4 Fiscal Assumptions ............................................................................... 14 4.1 General Information ................................................................................. 14 4.2 Revenue Assumptions ............................................................................. 4.3 Cost Assumptions .................................................................................... Appendix A Persons and Agencies Contacted ........................................................ 32 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. i Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLES A Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts After Buildout .......................... iv 2-1 Buildout Development Description ....................................................................... 6 2-2 Housing Valuation ................................................................................................. 7 2-3 Public Street Lane Miles ....................................................................................... 8 3-1 City General Fund Fiscal Impacts After Buildout ................................................ 10 3-2 Ranch Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct Fiscal Impacts After Buildout .......... 13 4-1 General Assumptions ......................................................................................... 15 4-2 Estimation of Existing City Developed Acres ...................................................... 17 4-3 Summary of Revenue Assumptions .................................................................... 18 4-4 Estimated Taxable Sales Capture ...................................................................... 20 4-5 Summary of Cost Assumptions .......................................................................... 24 4-6 Police Cost Estimation ........................................................................................ 25 4-7 Estimation of Public Works Costs ....................................................................... 26 4-8 Estimation of Planning and Building and Safety Costs ....................................... 28 4-9 Estimation of General Government Costs .......................................................... 30 FIGURE 1-1 Location Map ........................................................................................................ 2 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. ii Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ETIWANDA CREEK The following is a summary of the projected fiscal impacts of Etiwanda Creek at full buildout assuming annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Annually recurring fiscal impacts are projected for the City's General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Project Description The Etiwanda Creek project area is located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) in unincorporated San Bemardino County. The proposed annexation area, comprised of approximately 300 acres, is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. Approximately 205 acres of the area is characterized by Etiwanda Creek, including the spreading basins, drainage system and conservation area. Etiwanda Creek area could generate a (there is no development proposal currently submitted) residential development of 218 homes on about 95 gross acres. The population for Etiwanda Creek is projected at 686, assuming 3.15 persons per unit. Assessed valuation is projected at $120.5 million based on an average housing valuation of $552,672 per unit. Fiscal Impacts Table A presents the projected recurring fiscal impacts to the City's General Fund and the projected recurring revenues to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides a full range of public services, including: police protection; other related emergency/non-emergency services; public works, including engineering, road maintenance and park maintenance; community services; planning services; library services and general government. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District provides fire protection to the proposed project as a subsidiary district. In addition, a landscape maintenance district (LMD) is a separate entity that covers the maintenance of storm drains, slopes, detention basins, trails or a combination thereof. The LMD has no effect on the revenues and costs presented Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iii Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga under the City General Fund. Fiscal impacts are presented in constant 2004 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation. TABLE A ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROJECTED RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT (In Constant 2004 Dollars) [No MVLF Impact Impact of MVLF~ I A. City General Fund Recurring Revenues $247,237 $220,473 Direct Recurring Costs 152,281 152,281 Plus Contingency @ 15% of Direct Costs 22,842 22,842 Total Recurring Costs 175,123 175,123 Net Recurring Surplus 72,114 45,351 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.41 1.26 B. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Revenues $150,161 $150,161 Notes: This assumes that revenues from MVLF will be reduced by about t, no-t~irds due to State budget cuts. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iv Eliwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Property tax rates for the project area are based on information provided by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, the County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller's office and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Due to uncertainty in the full impact of the ongoing State of Califomia's budget adjustments over time, a hypothetical decr. ease in the Motor Vehicle License Fee has been used in this analysis to test potential changes. However, it is recognized that the actual changes may manifest themselves in different ways. City General Fund - No MVLF Reduction An annual recurring surplus of $72.1 thousand is projected for the City General Fund after full buildout of Etiwanda Creek. The projected surplus is based on revenues of $247.2 thousand, and costs of $175.1 thousand, including a 15 percent contingency costs estimate. The revenue/cost ratio for the City General Fund is estimated 1.41. The major recurring revenues projected for the City General Fund are property tax; off-site retail sales and use tax; and motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues. Projected major recurring costs for the project are police protection and public works maintenance of public arterial and local roadways in the annexation area. A landscape maintenance district will maintain landscaping, slope areas, trails and landscaped parkways and medians. City General Fund - With MVLF Reduction Under this scenario it is assumed that revenues from the State for motor vehicle license fees will be reduced by about two-thirds due to budget cuts at the State level. An annual recurring surplus of $45.4 thousand is projected for the City General Fund after full buildout of Etiwanda Creek. The projected surplus is based on revenues of $220.5 thousand, and costs of $175.1 thousand, including a 15 percent contingency costs estimate. The revenue/cost ratio for the City General Fund is estimated 1.26. Potential Impacts of Recent Passa.qe of Proposition 57 According to the March 16, 2004 City Budget Update memorandum from City Manager, Jack Lam, one outcome of the recent passage of Proposition 57 is that the City will experience a ¼ cent sales tax shift to the State instead of the earlier ¼ cent shift proposal. While this would reduce the sales tax generated by the residents of the project by about Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. v Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Anafys~ May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga $13.3 thousand, the project would still be estimated to have an annual recurring surplus of approximately $58.8 thousand to $32.0 thousand. Rancho Cucamon.qa Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) service area currently includes the incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City's Sphere of Influence; therefore the proposed Etiwanda Creek development is currently located within the RCFPD jurisdictional boundaries. Based on the information provided by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection services within its jurisdictional boundaries. The Etiwanda Creek development will contribute annual property tax and earned interest revenues projected at $150.2 thousand to the RCPFD. Landscape Maintenance District The proposed storm drain, landscaped slopes, detention basins and trails are to be maintained by a landscape maintenance district. At this time it has not been determined if the project facilities will be included in a new LMD to be formed, or if it will be annexed to an existing LMD. Under either scenario, the maintenance of the common area landscaping, slopes, and trails will not impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. vi Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the fiscal impact analysis for Etiwanda Creek assuming annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The fiscal impact analysis projects recurring public revenues and costs to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District assuming full development of the project. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District is a subsidiary district with its own budget separate from the City's General Fund. Additionally, an LMD will be. used for the operations and maintenance of common areas, but it has not been determined if Etiwanda Creek will annex into an existing LMD or if a new one will be created. 1,1 Background The property comprising Etiwanda Creek is located in the northeast portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County. As shown in Figure 1-1, the project is generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman-Bullock Road. Upon annexation, the entire project would be within the City limits of Rancho Cucamonga. Etiwanda Creek is a community of about 300 gross acres in size, of which some 95.0 acres are proposed for residential development. The other 205 acres are allocated for spreading basins, drainage system and conservation areas. Potential development within the area is estimated at 218 residential dwelling units for an overall density of about 0.7 units per total acre and 2.3 units per residential acre. The buildout population of the area is estimated at 686 based on a factor of 3.15 persons per unit. The focus of the fiscal analysis is the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as provided through the General Fund revenues plus the Fire Protection District revenues and costs. General Fund revenues include property, sales and use taxes and other taxes; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; licenses and permits; charges for current services; revenues from other agencies; use of money and property; Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga FIGURE 1-1 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LOCATION MAP ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION LOCATION MAP Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 2 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga and other miscellaneous revenues. The Gas Tax Fund receives revenues primarily from gasoline taxes collected by the Federal and State governments and are restricted for road related capital and operations and maintenance costs. The ongoing range of services that the City of Rancho Cucamonga provides includes: · Police protection · Planning · Public works, including engineering, road maintenance and park maintenance · Community services · Library services · General government The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, as a subsidiary distdct governed by the City Council, provides fire protectior~ services to the City and the Sphere of Influence area. 1.2 Approach The fiscal analysis presents the projected recurring impacts of the proposed development associated with Etiwanda Creek. Fiscal impacts are projected for the City General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The fiscal analysis is based on data and assumptions from the following sources: · City of Rancho Cucamonga revenue and cost factors are estimated based on the General Fund Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2003/2004 and discussions with key City staff. · The fiscal methodology is based on the Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, October 2, 2000. · Some project information was obtained from the Plan for the Prevision of Municipal Services, Annexation No. 01-01 to The City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by the City, November 5, 2001. · Residential valuation estimates are based on sales data provided by similar projects that have been developed or proposed in the City or within the sphere of influence. · Estimated population is based on 3.15 persons per household, as provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Cost and revenue factors are projected in constant 2004 dollars, i.e., not adjusted for inflation. · Existing land uses are provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 3 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga · Property tax rates for the project area are based on information provided by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, the County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller's office and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Also, there is uncertainty in the full impact of the ongoing State of California's budget adjustments overtime. For this analysis, a hypothetical decrease in the Motor Vehicle License Fee has been used to test potential changes. However, it is recognized that the actual changes may manifest themselves in different ways. 1.3 Overview Chapter 2 presents the detailed project description for Etiwanda Creek assuming full buildout of the project area. Chapter 3 presents the fiscal analysis for the City's General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Chapter 4 presents the assumptions for the fiscal analysis and Appendix A includes a list of persons and agencies contacted in the preparation of this report. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 4 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter presents the detailed development description for Etiwanda Creek assuming full buildout of the area. 2.1 Development Description After Buildout Acres, Units and Population. Etiwanda Creek area has a total potential of 95-acres residential land for 218 single family detached homes. As shown in Table 2-1, there are approximately 95 gross acres of residential uses. Other acreage associated with the development includes 205 acres of conservation space/flood control areas. Of the 95 acres, some 15 acres are proposed for 18 units and the remaining 80 acres are proposed for 200 units. The respective average densities are 1.2 dwelling units per acre and 2.5 dwelling units per acre with an overall density of about 2.3 units per residential acre. Buildout population for the Etiwanda Creek area is estimated at 686 persons based on an average of 3.15 persons per housing unit. Population per housing unit is based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Project Valuation. As shown in Table 2-2, total residential valuation for the Etiwanda Creek area is estimated at $120.5 million after buildout, based on an average value of $552,672 per unit. As presented in Table 2-2, the valuation is derived via a weighted average of other single family detached u nits of comparable developments that have been proposed for annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The comparable units have a combined estimated valuation of $414.50 million spread across an estimated 750 single- family units. 2.2 Public Infrastructure Streets. Primary access to Etiwanda Creek will be provided via Wardman-Bullock Road. As shown in Table 2-3, there is an estimated 6.61 street lane miles to be developed as a part of the project; this includes local streets within the project boundaries of Etiwanda Creek. All 6.61 lane miles of streets are assumed to be public streets maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, once annexed by the City. The local street lane miles are Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 5 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 2-1 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUILDOUT DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION I Acres at Percent Buildout of Total A. Land Use Acreage Gross Residential Acres @ 1.2 units per acre 15.0 5.0% Gross Residential Acres @ 2.5 units per acre 80.0 26.7% Conservation/Flood Control Areas 205.0 68.3% Total P,roject Acres 300.0 100.0% B. Other Project Information Residential Units - Single-family @ 1.2 units per acre 18 8.3% Residential Units - Single-family @ 2.5 units per acre 200 91.7% Total Units 218 100.0% Population (@ 3.15 persons per unit)2 686 Residential Assessed Valuation (@ $552,672 per unit)~ $120,482,519 Note: 2. Population is estimated at 3.15 pemons per uni~ per the City of Rancho Cucamonga 3. Assessed valuation is projected at an average value of $552,672 per unit based on information from other similar residential annexation proposals within the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 6 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 2-2 HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HOUSING VALUATION (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Plan Other Proposed Developments Within I Ue't I Base Price TotalI Type the Rancho Cucamon~]a SOl Quantibj Per Unit Valuation 1 Henderson Creek Estates 30 $640,000 $19,200,000 2 Henderson Creek Estates 31 665,000 20,615,000 3 Henderson Creek Estates 31 690,000 21,390,000 4 Henderson Creek Estates 31 720,000 22,320,000 I Etiwanda Heights 54 520,000 28,080,000 2 Etiwanda Heights 54 560,000 30,240,000 3 Etiwanda Heights 80 600,000 48,000,000 4 Etiwanda Heights 81 620,000 50,220,000 n/a~ 'l-tM 16072 35~8 487~260 174~439,080 750 $552,672 $414,504,080 Plan I Unit I BasePdce I Total Type Proposed Proiect Valuation Quantity Per Unit Valuation 1 Etiwanda Creek 18 $552,672 $9,948,098 2 Etiwanda Creek 200 552,672 110,534,421 218 $552,672 $120,482,519 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 7 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga estimated using a factor of 80 lineal feet per dwelling unit and is based on similar developments proposed for annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. TABLE 2-3 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC STREET LANE MILES Number Length Length Total Street Type of Lanes in Feet in Miles Lane Miles Local 2 17,440 3.30 6.61 Total Lane Miles 6.61 Notes: 1. Local street lane miles are estimated using a factor of 80 lineal feet per unit. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Assodates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 8 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi~ May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 3 PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACTS This chapter presents the fiscal analysis of Etiwanda Creek to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This analysis first focuses on the recurring revenues and costs that impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Fund, described in Section 3.1. This is followed by a projection of recurring revenues to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District presented in Section 3.2. All projections are presented in constant 2004 dollars with no adjustment for future inflation and assume full buildout. 3.1 Rancho Cucamonga General Fund The fiscal impacts presented assume that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive 7.0 percent of the 1.0 percent basic property tax levy for the General Fund and 1.7 percent of the basic levy for the Library Fund. Impacts are also presented assuming: 1 ) no impact on MVLF fees; and 2) a two-thirds reduction in MVLF fees due to proposed State budget adjustments. No Impact on MVLF Table 3-1 presents the projected fiscal impacts for the City's General Fund assuming that there is no reduction in revenues received from the State in the category of motor vehicle license fees. Recurring revenues are projected at $247.2 thousand. Annual direct recurring costs are projected at $152.3 thousand. Added to the projected direct costs is a contingency cost, calculated at 15 percent of direct costs, or $22.8 thousand. Adjusted total recurring costs, including estimated direct costs and contingency costs, are projected at $175.1 thousand. A recurring surplus of $72.1 thousand is projected for Etiwanda Creek, as shown in Table 3-1. The revenue/cost ratio is calculated at 1.41. Proiected Revenues. Projected recurring revenues to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund include property tax; property transfer tax; off-site sales and use tax; motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues; Proposition 172 sales tax; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; charges for services; other revenue; library revenue; and state gasoline tax. 7_q5 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 9 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 3-1 ETIWAN DA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT' (in Constant 2004 Dollars) No MVLF Impact Impact on MVLF' After I Percent After I Percent Buildout of Total Buildout of Total Annual Recurrlna Revenues Property tax - general fund $84,338 34.1% $84,338 38.3% property tax - library fund 20,482 8.3% 20,482 9.3% property transfer tax 4,639 1.9% 4,639 2.1% Off-site sales and use tax 53,374 21.6% 53,374 24.2% Motor vehicle license in-lieu 40,145 16.2% t3,382 6.1% proposition 172 sales tax 1,093 0.4% 1,093 0.5% Franchise fees: utiliiy 8,575 3.5% 8,575 3.9% Franchise fees: refuse 5,489 2.2% 5,489 2.5% Franchise fees: cable 13,016 5.3% 13,016 5.9% Fines and forfeitures 3,741 1.5% 3,741 1.7% Charges fo~ se~ices 426 0.2% 426 0.2% Other revenue 350 0.1% 350 0.2% Library revenue 1,031 0.4% 1,031 0.5% State gasoline tax~ 10,539 4,3% 10,539 4.8% Total Recurring Revenues $247,237 100.0% $220,473 100.0% Annual Recurrln Costs Police protectio~ $52,748 34.6% $52,748 34.6% Animal control 1,827 1.2% 1,827 1,2% Engineedng 14,204 9.3% 14,204 9.3% Public works maintenance 30,162 19.8% 30,162 19.8% Facilities maintenance 2,785 1.8% 2,785 1.8% Planning 6,580 4.3% 6,580 4.3% Library 8,849 5.8% 8,849 5.8% Community se~wices 10,934 7.2% 10,934 7.2% Contribution to Fire District 4,023 2.6% 4,023 2.6% General government 20.170 13.2% 20.170 !_3,2% Direct Recurring Costa $152,281 100.0% $152,281 100.0% plus Estimated Contingency costa (@ 15% of direct recurring costs) $22,842 $22,842 Total Recurring Costs $175,123 $175,123 Net Annual Surplus $72,114 $45,351 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.41 1.26 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 10 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga The largest projected revenue source is property tax at $84.3 thousand, representing approximately 34.1 percent of total projected recurring revenues. Off-site sales and use tax is the second largest projected revenue source at $53.4 thousand and 21.6 percent of the total revenues. Motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues are projected at $40.1 thousand and 16.2 percent, the third largest recurring revenue. These three revenue sources represent approximately 71.9 percent of total projected recurring revenues. Projected Costs. Table 3-1 also presents projected recurring costs to the City General Fund for Etiwanda Creek at buildout. Recurring direct costs to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund include police protection; animal control, engineering; public works maintenance; facilities maintenance; planning; library; community services; contribution to the Fire District; and general government costs. Police protection costs are projected at about $52.7 thousand and account for 34.6 percent of the total recurring annual costs. Public works maintenance for public roads is projected at $30.2 thousand and 19.8 percent of the total recurring costs. General government costs (administrative functions) are projected as the third largest recurring cost at $20.2 thousand or 13.2 percent of total projected costs. These three projected costs of police protection, pubic works maintenance and general government represent approximately 67.6 percent of totai recurring costs. Impact on MVLF Table 3-1 also presents the projected fiscal impacts for the City's General Fund assuming it is impacted with a reduction in revenues received from the State in the category of motor vehicle license fees. Recurring revenues under this scenario are projected at $220.5 thousand. Adjusted total annual recurring costs, including estimated direct costs and contingency costs, are projected at $175.1 thousand. A recurring surplus of $45.4 thousand is projected for Etiwanda Creek under these conditions. The revenue/cost ratio is calculated at 1.26. Proiected Revenues. The largest projected revenue source is General Fund propertytax at $84.3 thousand, representing approximately 38.3 percent of total projected recurring Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 11 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga revenues. Off-site sales and use tax is the second largest projected revenue source at $53.4 thousand and 24.2 percent of the total revenues. Library Fund property tax revenues are projected at $20.5 thousand, the third largest recurring revenue. These three revenue sources represent approximately 71.8 percent of total projected recurring revenues. 3.2 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct (RCFPD) provides fire protection to both the corporate City and the Sphere of Influence areas.. Etiwanda Creek is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the RCFPD. Table 3-2 presents the projected recurring revenues to the Fire Protection Distdct from the full buildout of Etiwanda Creek. Annual recurring property tax revenues are projected to total $150.2 thousand after buildout. Annual recurring fire protection costs are not projected for the Etiwanda Creek development. Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services Annexation No. 01-01 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection within its jurisdictional boundaries. 3.3 Landscape Maintenance District For Etiwanda Creek, an LMD will be used to fund the ongoing operations and maintenance costs related to any storm drains, slopes and trails within the project area. It has not been determined at this time whether or not Etiwanda Creek will be annexed to an existing LMD of if a new LMD will be created. Under either condition, the costs related to this function are entirely separate from the City's General Fund and there will be no fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 12 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 3-2 ETIWANDA CREEK CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT (In Constant 2004 Dollars) After Percent Buildout of Total Annual Recurrin.q Revenues Property tax $150,161 100.0% Total Recurring Revenues $150,161 100.0% Annual Recurrin.q Costs n/al Nots: 1. The proposed development lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire protection District (RCFPD). Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services Annexation No. 01-01 to The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection services within its judsdichonal boundaries. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 13 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 4 FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS Chapter 4 presents the recurring revenue and cost assumptions used in preparing the fiscal analysis for Etiwanda Creek in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4.1 General Information Table 4-1 presents the general City information used to calculate fiscal factors. Population. The City population of 146,666 is based on the Califomia State Department of Finance estimate as of January 1, 2003. The population estimate is used to project per capita revenue and cost factors. HousinR Units. For calculating per housing unit factors, the City housing unit estimate of 46,870 from the State Department of Finance (DAF) for January 1, 2003 is used. Using the DaF information, persons per housing unit is about 3.13, this analysis uses a ratio of 3.15 persons per household as provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Employment. Based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City's current employment estimate is 47,205. This estimate is used to calculate revenues and costs based on employment. Population/Employment Ratio. New population and employment generate some revenues and costs, which are calculated based on the split of population and employment and the ratio of each to the sum of the two. The sum of population and employment is 193,871. Population represents 76 percent of the total and employment represents 24 percent of the total. The projected City revenues or costs are split based on this ratio. That is, the share of projected revenues or costs allocated to population is divided by the City population of 146,666 while the employment share of the projected revenues or costs is divided by the City employment estimate of 47,205. Estimated Total City Developed Acres. Some costs, such as publicworks and planning, are projected on a per-developed acre basis. The number of developed acres within the City is estimated from City's Geographic Information System (GIS) and CoStar databases, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 14 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 4-1 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS Factor I Explanation General Factors 146,666 Rancho Cucamonga total population, January 1, 2003, DOF 46,870 Rancho Cucamonga total housing units, January 1, 2003, DOF 47,205 Rancho Cucamonga total employment, City Community and Economic Profile 193,871 Population plus employment 76% Population as a sham of population plus employment 24% Employment as a sham of population plus employment 3.13 Persons per Household, January 1, 2003, DOF 3.15 Persons per Household, City of Rancho Cucamonga 12,990 Estimated total City developed acres Source: Stanley R. Hoffrnan Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget City of Rancho Cucamonga State of California, Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2003 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc, 15 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi= May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamongao~) / as shown in Table 4-2. There are an estimated total of 9,544 developed residential acres in the City; and a total of 3,446 developed non-residential acres within the City. In total, 12,990 developed acres are within the City. 4.2 Revenue Assumptions The revenue assumptions for the City's General Fund are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 also summarizes the revenue assumptions for the Fire Protection District. Projected recurring revenues to the City General Fund include property tax; document transfer tax; off-site sales and use tax; Preposition 172 sales tax revenue; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues; charges for services; other revenues such as rental/leases/and sales of fixed assets; library revenues and state gasoline tax funds. Interest revenues are not projected in this analysis. Taxes ~ Property tax revenues are projected by multiplying the tax allocation percentage for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Fund, Library Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District by the projected assessed value within the tax rate area (TRA) in which the project is located. As shown in Table 4-3, the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund allocation is shown at 7.0 percent of the basic 1.0 percent levy. Document Transfer Tax. Real property sales are taxed at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of transferred property value. The property transfer tax is divided equally between the City and the County, with the City receiving $0.55 per $1,000 of transferred property value. As presented in Table 4-3, it is assumed that residential development will change ownership at an average rate of about 7.0 percent per year, or that each home changes hands on the average of about once every 14 years. Off-Site Sales Tax. The City receives sales tax revenue from the State Board of Equalization equal to one percent of all taxable sales generated within the City. The Etiwanda Creek development does not include on-site retail uses that would generate direct taxable sales and use tax to the City upon annexation. However, indirect sales and use tax revenues will be generated from purchases made by the residents of the Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 16 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi,~ May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga (~) ~.. TABLE 4-2 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF EXISTING CITY DEVELOPED ACRES~ Residential Acres Residential - Non RDA 8,261 Residential - RDA 1,283 Subtotal Residential Acres 9,544 Non-Residential Acres Non-Residential - Non RDA 747 Non-Residential - RDA 2,699 Subtotal Non-Residential Acres 3,446 Estimated Total Developed Acres '12,990 Note: 1. EsJtmated City dght of way and other public/quasi public acres are not included as developable Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Geographic Information System Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga , October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 17 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga {~A OU TABLE 4-3 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) Revenues RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 18 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamong~ ~ proposed project estimated to be captured within the City. It is assumed the City of Rancho Cucamonga will capture 50 percent of the taxable purchases made by the future residents of Etiwanda Creek. The 50 percent capture assumption is based on the access to existing and planned retail within the City boundaries, including the future Victoria Gardens Regional Mall due to open in 2004. Residential Sales and Use Tax. Residents of Etiwanda Creek will generate sales and use tax to the City of Rancho Cucamonga through retail purchases in the City. As shown in Table 4-4, taxable sales from Etiwanda Creek residents are projected at $9.64 million. Taxable sales are projected based on the assumption that the average household income of project residents represents about 25 percent of the total assessed valuation and that 32 percent of household income is spent on taxable retail sales. The fiscal analysis assumes the City will capture 50 percent of total taxable retail sales or about $4.82 million in taxable retail sales. Based on sales tax of 1 percent, potential sales tax to the City is projected at $48.2 thousand after buildout. At 10.75 percent of sales tax, use tax is projected at $5.2 thousand after buildout. Use tax is non-situs taxable sales allocated back to jurisdictions by the State. Total sales and use tax is projected at $53.4 thousand after buildout. According to the March 16, 2004 City Budget Update memorandum from City Manager, Jack Lam, one outcome of the recent passage of Proposition 57 is that the City will experience ¼ cent sales tax shift to the State instead of the eadier ¼ cent shift proposal. While this would reduce the sales tax generated by the project residents by about $13.3 thousand, the project would still be projected to have an annual recurring surplus of approximately $58.8 thousand to $32.0 thousand. Use Tax. In addition to sales tax, the City also receives a use tax allocation equal to approximately 10.75 percent of the one percent sales tax allocation. The use tax factor is derived from two major sources: Stanley R, Hoffman Associates, Inc. 19 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 4-4 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES CAPTURE (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Description I Amount Residential Assessed Valuation (@ $552,672 per unit)' $120,482,519 Household Income (@ 25% of valuation) $30,120,630 Retail Taxable Sales (@ 32% of household income) $9,638,602 Projected Off-Site Taxable Sales Captured in Rancho Cucamonga (@ 50% capture) $4,819,301 Proiected Sales and UseTax to Rancho CucamonRa: Sales Tax (@ 1% of taxable sales) $48,193 Use Tax (@ 10.75% of sales tax) 5,181 Total Projected Sales and Use Tax $53,374 Note: 1. Assessed valuation is projected at an average of $552,672 per unit based on information from similar projects in other annexation areas. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 20 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga · A use tax rather than a sales tax is paid on construction materials from residential and non-residential development. This tax is counted in the county in which construction takes place, not at the point of sale of materials. · A use tax is levied on purchases from out-of-state sellers of goods for use in California. The State Board of Equalization assembles the use tax collections into a number of pools. County pools for each county are based on tax proceeds assigned to a county level. A statewide pool is developed for tax proceeds, which cannot be assigned to individual counties. These pools of use tax proceeds are then distributed to individual cities and counties on a quarterly basis. The distribution percentages to local jurisdictions for the county pool are calculated on the basis of each city's and county's share of total countywide non-situs based sales tax as a percentage of total point-of-sale, sales tax. A similar procedure is used in the allocation of the statewide pool. Proposition 172 Sales Tax {Public Safety Auflmentation). The State's allocation formula for public safety augmentation revenues from Proposition 172 is generally tied to each city's sales tax effort. Therefore, based on Proposition 172 revenues of $299,500 and City sales tax revenues of $14,626,000, these revenues are projected at $20.48 per $1,000 of additional sales tax generated. Franchise Fees The City of Rancho Cucamonga receives a franchise fee for the use of exclusive rights-of- way within the City for gas and electric, refuse and cable television. Gas and Electric Franchise Fees. As shown in Table 4-3, gas and electric franchise fees are estimated at $12.50 per capita and per employee based on the City budget fees of $2,423,180 and the City population plus City employment estimate of 193,871. Refuse Franchise Fees. Franchise fees for rubbish services are projected at $8.00 per capita, based on residential refuse costs of $1,173,379 and the population estimate of 146,666. Commercial (non-residential) refuse franchise fees are projected at $27.73 per employee based on commercial refuse costs of $1,309,000 and employment of 47,205. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 21 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Cable Television Franchise Fees. Cable television franchise fees are projected at $18.97 per housing unit based on budget figures of $889,260 for this type of franchise and estimated housing units of 46,870. Fines and Forfeitures. These revenues are projected at $5.45 per capita and per employee, based on total revenues of $1,057,180 and the population plus employment estimate of 193,871. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees. These State allocated revenues, as shown in Table 4-3, are projected at $58.52 per capita based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and a population of 146,666 as of January 1, 2003. Charges for Services. Charges for services are shown in Table 4-3 and include revenues such as printing fees and sale of printed materials. This revenue source is projected at $0.62 per capita and per employee, based on annual revenues of $120,460 and the City population plus employment of 193,871. Other Revenues. These other miscellaneous revenues include rentals, leases and sales of fixed assets. Other revenues are projected at $0.51 per capita and employee based on the City preliminary budget revenues of $98,830 and the City population plus employment estimate of 193,871. Interest Income. Interest earnings to the General Fund are not projected as a part of this analysis. Libra Fry._~_~9.~. As Shown in Table 4-3, the City is projected to receive from property tax revenues, 1.7 percent of the basic 1.0 pement levy for the Library Fund. In addition, library revenues of $0.80 per capita are projected based on a total of $118,000 from fines and fees and a population of 146,666. Library revenues of $0.70 per capita are projected based on total media rentals and sales of $102,500 and population of 146,666. Interest earnings are not projected as a significant revenue source. State Gasoline Tax. State gasoline tax revenues are determined based on data provided by the City's budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and the City population of 146,666. These revenues are projected based on the following: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 22 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi.~ ~ ~ May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga State Gasoline Tax Total Amount Per Capita Amount Section 2105 $738,000 $5.03 Section 2106 $465,770 $3.18 Section 2107 $1,049,230 $7.15 No interest earnings are projected as a part of this analysis. Gas Tax Fund revenues are earmarked for public works road related maintenance costs. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) receives an estimated 12.46 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy for the Etiwanda Creek development. No interest earnings are projected as a part of this analysis. 4.3 Cost Assumptions The cost assumptions for the City's General Fund are summarized in Table 4-5. Recurring costs include police protection, animal control, public works, planning, building and safety, community services, library, fire district and general government activities. Police Protection. The City of Rancho Cucamonga contracts police protection services with the County Sheriff. Table 4-6 presents the police cost estimation. Total annual costs from the City's budget for 2003-2004 are $15,280,650. Based on discussion with the City Finance Officer during preparation of the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Update, a County Administrative Fee of $374,600 is subtracted from the total cost. The total net police cost is $14,906,500, which is allocated to population and employment in their relative proportions, yielding projected costs of $76.89 per capita and per employee. Animal Control. Animal control costs are projected at $2.66 per capita, based on total net costs of $390,490 and a population of 146,666, as shown in Table 4-5. Public Works Estimated public works costs are presented in Table 4-7. ~ Based on City budget information, 2003-2004 engineering costs are estimated to total $3,201,920, while engineering fee revenues are estimated at $1,259,680. Net engineering costs of $1,942,240 are allocated on a per-developed acre basis. Stanley Ro Hoffman Associates, Inc. 23 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi~ May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga TABLE 4-5 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF COST ASSUMPTIONS (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Budget FY 2003104 ~ Cost Category I Budget ] Net cost'l Projection Projection ;,;=[h~,;I Annual Basis and/or Assumptions Projection Factors CITY GENERAL FUND $76.89 per capita and emp~3yee Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 24 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamongal~ i TABLE 4-6 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE COST ESTIMATION~ (In Constant 2004 Dollars) t. POLICE COSTS Total 2003~04 Budget $15,280,650 minus County Administrative Fee $374,600 equals Net Police Costs $14,906,050 2. PER CAPITA/EMPLOYEE COSTS City Population Estimate 146,666 47,205 City Employment Estimate Population plus Employment 193,871 Per Capita/Per Employee Cost $76.89 Note: 1. Police cost estimation is based on the methodology used in the General Pian fiscal analysis. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. Inc. City of Rancho Cucemonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucernonga, October 2. 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 25 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~// TABLE 4-7 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF PUBLIC WORKS COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) 1. ENGINEERING COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Engineering-Administration $332,760 Engineering-Construction Management 825,700 Engineering-Development Management 1,186,290 Engineefing-NPDES Program 492,720 Engineering-Project Management 144,280 Engineering-Traffic Management 220,170 Total Engineering Costs $3,201,920 minus Engineering Fees $1,209,680 Engineering Special Services Fees 50,000 Engineering Revenues $1,259,680 equals Net Engineering Costs $1,942,240 divided by Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 equals Engineering Costs Per Developed Acre $149.52 2. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE $854,740 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance times Marginal Increase in Maintenance Vehicles & Equipment @* 50% equals Adjusted Maintenance Vehicles & Equipment $427,370 plus Maintenance Public Works 3,696,890 Total Public Works Maintenance Costs $4,124,260 divided by Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 equals Public Works Costs Per Developed Acre $317.49 3. FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Facilities Maintenance $1,903,950 times Marginal increase in Facilities Maintenance @~ 20% equals Adjusted Facilities Maintenance $380,790 divided by Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 equals Facilities Maintenance Costs per Developed Acre $29.31 Note: 1. Marginal increase assumptions are based on the fiscal methodology used for the General Plan Update. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget StanJey R, HoffTnan Associates, Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga , October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 26 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Developed acres total 12,990 and net engineering costs are projected at $149.52 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-7. Public Works Maintenance. Public works services include street maintenance and sweeping, maintenance of parks and trees, city facilities, and storm drains. The City public works budget totals $4,124,260. Public works costs are projected on a per-developed acre basis. With an estimated 12,990 developed acres in the City, maintenance costs are projected at $317.49 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-7. Facilities Maintenance. Total facilities maintenance costs in 2003-2004 are $1,903,950. Based on the fiscal methodology used for the General Plan Update, it is assumed that the proposed project would incur a marginal increase in facilities maintenance costs of 20 percent, or an increase of $380,790. This marginal increase of $380,790 is divided by the total 12,990 estimated developed acres, for projected facilities maintenance costs of $29.31 per developed acre, also shown in Table 4-7. Planning Department Table 4-8 presents the estimation of both the Planning Department costs and the Building and Safety Department costs. These costs are projected on a per-developed acre basis. Planning. As shown in Table 4-8, Planning Department functions total $1,749,700, according to the budget for fiscal year 2003-2004. Planning fee and special program fee revenues for the same period total $850,000, for estimated net planning costs of $899,700. Using estimated developed acres of 12,990; planning costs are projected at $69.26 per developed acre. ~. Table 4-8 also presents the estimation of the Building and Safety Department costs. As shown, Building and Safety costs total $4,142,290, according to the 2003-2004 budget. Building permit and plan check fee revenues for the same period total $4,316,200, for estimated surplus of $173,910. The fiscal analysis assumes that building and safety costs breakeven with building permit and plan check fee revenues, thus Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 27 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 4-8 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF PLANNING AND BUILDING AND SAFETY COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) '1. PLANNING COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE $1,749,700 Planning minus Planning Fees $800,000 Planning - Special Services Fee 50,000 Planning Revenues $850,000 equals Net Planning Costs $899,700 divided by 12,990 Estimated Total Developed Acres equals Net Planning Costs per Developed Acre $69.26 2. BUILDING AND SAFETY COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE $4,142,290 Building and Safety minus Building Permits $2,676,200 Plan Check Fees 1,640,000 Building and Safety Revenues $4,316,200 equals Net Building and Safety Costs~ -$173,9'10 Note: 1. The fiscal analysis assumes that costs for Building and Safety for Etiwanda Creek will breakeven with associated Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R, Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonge , October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 28 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysis May 3, 2004 City °f Ranch° Cucam°nga ~3/~~'~ balancing building and safety costs in the long term. The line item of building and safety costs is not projected in the fiscal analysis. Community Services. As shown in Table 4-5, City Community Services costs are estimated to total $2,337,520 in 2003-2004. On a per capita basis, this cost is projected at $15.94. Library. As shown in Table 4-5, the Rancho Cucamonga library costs are projected at $12.90 per capita, based on a library annual budget of $1,891,680 and population of 146,666. Fire District Transfer. Based on the proposed fiscal year 2003-2004 budget the General Fund is transferring $1,136,770 to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to supplement the District's other funding sources. Based on the total population and employment estimate of 193,871, the General Fund transfer cost to the Fire Protection District is projected at $5.86 per capita and employee. General Government Costs. Table 4-9 presents the estimation of general government costs. All City costs are categorized as either general government costs or non-general government costs. General Government costs are related to City administration and are generally not associated with direct line department services to City residents or employees. Non-general government functions provide direct services, such as animal control, police, or community services. As shown in Table 4-9, general government costs are estimated at $10,483,060. Non- general government costs are estimated to total $34,330,390. The general govemment as a percent of non-general government costs is equal to 30.5 percent. Due to economies of scale, it is estimated that the marginal increase in general government costs would be one half of this amount, or 15.3 percent. The 50 percent marginal increase in general government costs is based on the fiscal methodology for the General Plan Update. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 29 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi,,, May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~115 TABLE 4-9 ETIWANDA CREEK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS (in Constant 2004 Dollars) i~ i~ENE~I~E;iF~:NO!ExPENolT~RE~:!:!:i:!:i:}:i:i:i:i!i!iiiiii!:i!i!i!i:i:!:i i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i i:i i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:?i:i:iiiii:i:iiiii:i:i:i:iii:i:i:iiiii ..................................................... General Non-General Total Govemment I Government Non-Departmental General $3.278.500 $3.278.500 218.030 218.030 Not, Departmental Personnel 90.850 90.850 City Council 801.140 801.140 City Manager 371.430 371.430 City Clerk 452.250 452.250 Anima~ Control Set,cas 122.090 122.090 Emergency Preparedness Administrative Services - Administration 377.170 377.170 209.380 209.380 Business Licensing 1.485.860 1.485.860 City Facilities 604.650 604.650 Finance 304.890 304.890 Geographic Informati~q Systems Management I~ormation Systems 1.938.140 1.938.140 291.270 291.270 Personnel 340.890 340.890 Purchasing 167.220 167.220 Risk Management Treasury Management 3.640 3.640 - 0 0 Community Development Administration 4.142.290 4.142.290 Building & Safety Engineering - Administration 332.760 332.760 Engineering-Construction Management 825.700 825.700 Engineering. Development Management 1.186.290 1.186.29o 492.720 492.720 EngineeHng-NPDES 144.280 144.280 Engineering-Project Management 220.710 220.710 Engineering-Traffic Management 1.903.950 1.903.950 Facilities Maintenance 624.310 624.310 Integrated Waste Management 1.749.700 1.749.700 Planning 9.570 9.570 Planning Commission 3.648.130 3.648.130 Street and Park Maintenance Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 854.740 854.740 Community Services - Administration 2.337.520 2.337.520 perk and Recreation Commission 2.730 2.730 Fire Administration 0 0 Police Administration 15.280.650 15.280.650 Redevelopment Agency Administration 0 0 GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND $44.813.450 $10,483,060 $34,330,390 2~ CAi~C[J~T ON OF ~ENER~I~ GovERNMENT ¢~T:~:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:! ! ! ! ! [ ! ! ! ! ! !!i!!!!!i!i!i!!!i!i!i!!!i!i!i !!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!iiii: Estimated General Government Expenditures $10.483.060 divided by Estimated Non-General Government Expenditures $34,330,390 equals General Government as percent of Non-General Govemment Costs 30.5% Marginal Increase in General Government Costs ~ 50%~ 15.3% Note: 1. Marginal increase assumptions ere based on the fiscal me~odology used for the General Plan Update. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman AsSOc~atas. Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Fiscal Year 2003/04. Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. Fiscal Analysis. General Plan Update. Ci¥ of Rancho Cucamonga . October 2. 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. Inc. 30 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi= May 3. 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~/~_.~ ~ Costs. City General Fund contingency costs of 15 percent are applied to projected costs to account for budget and economic uncertainties. The contingency cost factor of 15 pement is based on discussion with City Finance Department staff during preparation of the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Update. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Annual recurring fire protection costs are not projected for the Etiwanda Creek project. Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services Annexation No. 01-01 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection within it jurisdictional boundaries. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 31 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysio May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ 7 APPENDIX A PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED City of Rancho Cucamonga Larry Henderson, AICP Principal Planner 909-477-2700 County of San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission Kathleen Rollings-McDonald Acting Executive Officer 909-387-5869 County of San Bernardino Auditor Controller's Office 909-386-8831 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 32 Etiwanda Creek Annexation Fiscal Analysi= May 3, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga ~,/~ RESOLUT,ON NO. 2./2-. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162, TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES OF LAND, AND FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO CONSERVATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-08 (PORTION) AND 09 AND 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks approval of a sedes of actions related to the annexation of approximately 300 acres of land from unincorporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the approval of a General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment. The changes in General Plan designation and in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will reduce the acreage permitted for development by 45 acres by changing the General Plan designation for a 45 acre portion of the property from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation and changing that portion of the project site in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation. At the same time, a change is proposed to allow a change in residential density on 80 acres of the property from a General Plan designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and a change for that 80-acre portion of the property in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). These changes in designation for the 80 acres of the site proposed for development will increase the allowable number of dwelling units on the property from 168 to 218 (an increase in 50 dwelling units). The requested actions do not include approval of a specific development proposal or the subdivision of the property. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Etlwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 (collectively the "Project Applications") 3. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is comprised of vacant land, flood control, and utility corridors, and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16324, also referred to as the Henderson Creek properly, for which a General Plan amendment has been filed to change the land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The property to the south is designated Conservation/Flood Control, Mixed Use, and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and includes Etiwanda Creek, Fire Station No. 176, and vacant land. The property to the east is designated Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and includes Sheridan Estates and Brentwood Estates. The properly to the west is vacant and is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16072, also referred to as the Rich'land Pinehurst property. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-01162 - ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION June 16, 2004 Page 2 4. On May 26, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, concluded said headng on that date, and recommended approval by way of Resolution No. 04-67. 5. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the Project and concluded said headng on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the associated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for said Project. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. Pursuant to CEQA and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the Project. b. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period (commencing on Apd121, 2004 and ending on May 26, 2004) and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received prior to and at the June 16, 2004 public hearing and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the City Council for consideration and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. d. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on aesthetics, agricultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The conclusions for these findings are contained in the analysis of potential impact to these resources that is contained after the listing of each resource in the Initial Study. e. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-01162 - ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION June 16,2004 Page 3 staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that the impacts to the resources and services listed in this paragraph will be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures: i. Air Quality. The eventual development of the Project site with homes will result in short-term construction related air quality impacts from on-site stationary sources, construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles and energy use. Eleven mitigation measures will be imposed that include, but are not limited to, requiring the proper maintenance of equipment, utilization of Iow-emission mobile construction equipment where feasible, use of paints and coatings that meet SCAQMD standards, implementation of measures designed to reduce fugitive dust such as landscaping, phased grading, street sweeping and the suspension of grading operations during high wind periods, the use of water and soil-stabilizing agents, and other measures designed to reduce project emissions, including the use of electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible, the incorporation of Iow polluting mechanical equipment for residential structures, and the use of thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the Project's impacts to air quality will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Biolo.qical Resources. This Project does not include the approval of any development of the site and reduces the portion of the site authorized for development by 45 acres. However, to address impacts from potential development of the site, mitigation measures have been imposed to require developers who propose development within the Project site to prepare a Biological Resource Habitat Assessment for the area of the proposed development and to acquire and convey to the County of San Bemardino, or some other qualified conservation entity as approved by the City, land that suppods Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitat at a ratio of one acre for each acre of RAFSS disturbed by the proposed project. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iii. Cultural Resources. Although this Project does not involve the approval of any specific development project for the site, there is the potential that when developed, Native American archeological resources could be discovered. Mitigation measures have been imposed to require the use of a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, and to have a qualified paleontologist conduct a pre-construction survey of the site and to follow specified protocols for the salvage of any important resources. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Geology and Soils. The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment of the Red Hill Fault Zone traverses a portion of the Project site. In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, any future development of the site within the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment must be accompanied by a geotechnical analysis to determine site-specific mitigation measures. In order to control dust and erosion, four mitigation measures are imposed that include, stabilization of the soil to reduce particulate emissions, requiring the sweeping of area streets, suspending grading operations in high wind conditions, and the use of chemical soil stabilizers. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to geology and soils will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. v. Hazards and Waste Materials. The Project site faces on-going threats of wind-driven fires and is within a hazardous fire area. The Project site was burned during the ?z/ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-01162- ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION June 16,2004 Page 4 October 2003 Grand Prix fire, and after the vegetation returns, the area is likely to face additional wind-driven fire risks in the future. To protect against these threats, mitigation measures are imposed that require the development of the site to comply with standards imposed by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the preparation and implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan. During site planning of any development of the site, fire protection landscaping, design features and planning will be made a part of that development proposal. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the risks of wind-driven fire will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi. Noise. Although no development project is approved with this Project, during future construction of the site, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, is anticipated to generate noise exceeding City standards. Mitigation measures have been imposed to regulate the hours of construction operations, to require the developer to hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring, and to impose additional measures if construction noise exceeds City standards. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the short-term noise impacts from the development of the site will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. f. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that the Project has the potential for contributing to the cumulative impacts identified in the Program EIR for the 2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Upon approval of that General Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations of significant adverse environmental effects to aggregate resources, pdme farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were imposed; however, they did not reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The City Council found that the benefits of the General Plan, including less overall traffic volumes as a result of pedestrian-friendly mixed use development and conservation of valuable open space, outweighed the unavoidable impacts from the General Plan. This Project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and the City Council finds that by clustering the development into a smaller area, that the changes proposed by this Project are consistent with the General Plan's intent to reduce traffic volumes and preserve open space. g. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on all of the findings contained in this Resolution, and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project. h. The mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. i. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004, City Council staff report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-01162 - ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION June 16,2004 Page 5 measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. j. The City Council designates the custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based to be the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located at 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 16, 2004, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed changes in land use designation for the site will provide for a greater portion of the annexed area to be designated for conservation and open space. This change is consistent with Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Policy 2.4.4.5, which seeks to have the City preserve a significant portion of the North Etiwanda Area for open space and conservation. b. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the Project site is consistent with neighboring properties, including the proposed Henderson Creek development and the proposed Richland Pinehurst development, and is consistent with General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2, which expresses an intention to apply the Low Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of Influence where the level of services, including roads, shopping and recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities. c. The proposed change in land use designation will promote housing opportunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs. d. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open space conservation areas abutting the proposed development. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162 as shown on attached Exhibit 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01162 (GPA) l 15 Acres from UC to RC 45 Acres from VL (<2) to RC 80 Acres from VL (<2) to L (2-4) UJ Wilson Avenue 800 0 800 1600 Feet L r EXHIBIT ORDINANCE NO. 7~, ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01163, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES AND FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO FLOOD CONTROL/RESOURCE CONSERVATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE BETVVEEN EAST AVENUE AND WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-084-08 (PORTION) AND 09 AND 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of approximately 300 acres of land from unincorporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the approval of a General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment. The changes in General Plan designation and in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan will reduce the acreage permitted for development by 45 acres by changing the General Plan designation for a 45-acre portion of the property from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation and changing that portion of the project site in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation. At the same time, a change is proposed to allow a change in residential density on 80 acres of the property from a General Plan designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and a change for that 80-acre portion of the property in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). These changes in designation for the 80 acres of the site proposed for development will increase the allowable number of dwelling units on the property from 168 to 218 (an increase in 50 dwelling units). The requested actions do not include approval of a specific development proposal or the subdivision of the property. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Ordinance as the "Project." 2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Et~wanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 (collect~velythe Project Applications ). 3. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is comprised of vacant land, flood control, and utility corridors, and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16324, also referred to as the Henderson Creek property, for which a General Plan amendment has been filed to change the land use designation from Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The property to the south is designated Conservation/Flood Control, Mixed Use, and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and includes Etiwanda Creek, Fire Station No. 176, and vacant land. The properly to the east is designated Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) and includes Sheridan Estates and Brentwood Estates. The property to the west is vacant and is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16072, also referred to as the Richland Pinehurst property. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-__ ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 16, 2004 Page 2 4. On May 26, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application, concluded said hearing on that date, and recommended approval by way of Resolution No. 04-68. 5. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the associated Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for said project. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. Pursuant to CEQA and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the Project. b. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment pedod (commencing on April 21, 2004 and ending on May 26, 2004) and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received pdor to and at the June 16, 2004 public hearing and, based on the whole record before it, finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the City Council for consideration and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. d. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on aesthetics, agricultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The conclusions for these findings are contained in the analysis of potential impact to these resources that is contained after the listing of each resource in the initial Study. e. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-~ ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 16, 2004 Page 3 staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that the impacts to the resources and services listed in this paragraph will be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures: i. Air Quality. The eventual development of the Project site with homes will result in short-term construction related air quality impacts from on-site stationary sources, construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles and energy use. Eleven mitigation measures will be imposed that include, but are not limited to, requiring the proper maintenance of equipment, utilization of Iow-emission mobile construction equipment where feasible, use of paints and coatings that meet SCAQMD standards, implementation of measures designed to reduce fugitive dust such as landscaping, phased grading, street sweeping and the suspension of grading operations during high wind pedods, the use of water and soil-stabilizing agents, and other measures designed to reduce project emissions, including the use of electdc or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible, the incorporation of Iow polluting mechanical equipment for residential structures, and the use of thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the Project's impacts to air quality will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Biolo.qical Resources. This Project does not include the approval of any development of the site and reduces the portion of the site authorized for development by 45 acres. However, to address impacts from potential development of the site, mitigation measures have been imposed to require developers who propose development within the Project site to prepare a Biological Resource Habitat Assessment for the area of the proposed development and to acquire and convey to the County of San Bemardino, or some other qualified conservation entity as approved by the City, land that supports Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitat at a ratio of one acre for each acre of RAFSS disturbed by the proposed project. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iii. Cultural Resources. Although this Project does not involve the approval of any specific development project for the site, there is the potential that when developed, Native American archeological resources could be discovered. Mitigation measures have been imposed to require the use of a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, and to have a qualified paleontologist conduct a pre-construction survey of the site and to follow specified protocols for the salvage of any important resources. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Geology and Soils. The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment of the Red Hill Fault Zone traverses a portion of the Project site. In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, any future development of the site within the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp segment must be accompanied by a geotechnical analysis to determine site-specific mitigation measures. In order to control dust and erosion, four mitigation measures are imposed that include, stabilization of the soil to reduce particulate emissions, requiring the sweeping of area streets, suspending grading operations in high wind conditions, and the use of chemical soil stabilizers. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to geology and soils will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. v. Hazards and Waste Materials. The Project site faces on-going threats of wind-driven fires and is within a hazardous fire area. The Project site was burned during the CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-__ ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 16, 2004 Page 4 October 2003 Grand Pdx fire, and after the vegetation returns, the area is likely to face additional wind-driven fire risks in the future. To protect against these threats, mitigation measures are imposed that require the development of the site to comply with standards imposed by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the preparation and implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan. During site planning of any development of the site, fire protection landscaping, design features and planning will be made a part of that development proposal. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the risks of wind-driven fire will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. vi. Noise. Although no development project is approved with this Project, dudng future construction of the site, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, is anticipated to generate noise exceeding City standards. Mitigation measures have been imposed to regulate the hours of construction operations, to require the developer to hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring, and to impose additional measures if construction noise exceeds City standards. With these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the short-term noise impacts from the development of the site will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. f. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff report, and staff and public testimony received at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, that the Project has the potential for contributing to the cumulative impacts identified in the Program EIR for the 2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Upon approval of that General Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations of significant adverse environmental effects to aggregate resources, pdme farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were imposed; however, they did not reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The City Council found that the benefits of the General Plan, including less overall traffic volumes as a result of pedestrian-friendly mixed use development and conservation of valuable open space, outweighed the unavoidable impacts from the General Plan. This Project is within the scope of the General Plan EIR and the City Council finds that by clustering the development into a smaller area, that the changes proposed by this Project are consistent with the General Plan's intent to reduce traffic volumes and preserve open space. g. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on all of the findings contained in this Ordinance, and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. h. The mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. i. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "F" to the June 16, 2004 City Council staff report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04- ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 16, 2004 Page 5 measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Ordinance and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. j. The City Council designates the custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based to be the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located at 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91730. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council dudng the above-referenced public hearing on June 16, 2004, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed changes in land use designation for the site will provide for a greater portion of the annexed area to be designated for conservation and open space. This change is consistent with Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Policy 2.4.4.5, which seeks to have the City preserve a significant portion of the North Etiwanda Area for open space and conservation. b. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the Project site is consistent with neighboring properties, including the proposed Henderson Creek development and the proposed Richland Pinehurst development, and is consistent with General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2, which expresses an intention to apply the Low Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of Influence where the level of services, including roads, shopping and recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities. c. The proposed change in land use designation will promote housing opportunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs. d. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open space conservation areas abutting the proposed development. e. The proposed change in designations are also consistent with the provisions of the North Etiwanda Specific Plan which encourages retention of open space and the extension of the image of Old Etiwanda into this area, with relatively large lots and opportunities for an equestrian lifestyle. SECTION 4: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1,2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Efiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 to change the land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1 - 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (. 1 - 1 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, as shown on Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word ofthis Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-__ ENSPA DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 16, 2004 Page 6 subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, Califomia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01163 (ENSPA) "''" '" :Z350~105'" '''"" ..-.-.......,~w.j.~j.,., ..., .. / / :.g.i.:.-:.i.:,i...~. :::::::::::::: :::::~:::: :::~t~::: :'i'. ........ 'i':' :'i':'i' :::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :3 '~ L4876AC :::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: :: .... ' .... c :.q ' r' .......................,........... :'r'.~ ~':*~ :'"' . ": :": :.L:.u.!.:.!.:.i '.!" :.! :' :' :': :' :' :' :' :'.'.'.'.' :' :' :' :' :' :.U.L:.U.I L 39.13 AC I.:.!.:.! <: ,+-.~ ................. ~..-~ .... ..,.............Z2~O~IO .......... ................. ENSP AMENDMENT ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION~ PROPOSED LOW (2-4) PROPOSED RESOURCE CONSERVATION VERY LOW <2 (NO CHANGE) THE CITY OF I~AN C H 0 C g CAM ON C.A StaffRepor DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Ruben Warren, Planning Technician SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a request that a dog breeding establishment with outside runs is similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) at 10158 Sun Valley - APN: 1074-081-12 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, thus upholding the Planning Commission's Use Determination DRC2004-00093 that dog breeding establishments with outside runs are not similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low Residential District. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from June 2, 2004, to tonight's meeting. There is no new information and the June 2 staff report is attached. City Planner BB:RW/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - June 2, 2004, City Council Staff Repod Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal for Use Determination DRC2004-00093 THE CITY OF -]~ A ~l C H O C[IC^i~ONGA Staff Report DATE: June 2, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Ruben Warren, Planning Technician SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a request that a dog breeding establishment with outside runs is similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) at 10158 Sun Valley - APN: 1074-081-12 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, thus upholding the Planning Commission's Use Determination DRC2004-00093 that dog breeding establishments with outside runs are not similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low Residential District. BACKGROUND: On April 21, 2004, upon consideration of the appeal of this Use Determination, the City Council approved a Motion to direct the appellants to obtain a business license for their dog breeding business and obtain dog licenses. The Council deferred any decision on the Use Determination appeal until the appellants produced valid licenses. The appellants, Mr. And Mrs. Knecht, obtained a business license on April 26, 2004 (Exhibit "A"). A printout of their nine dog licenses is also attached (Exhibit "B"). On April 26, 2004, the attached email was sent to the Council objecting to the dog breeding use and requesting denial of the Use Determination. City Planner BB:RW/Is Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Business License Exhibit "B" - Dog Licenses Exhibit "C" - Email Letter of Objection ~ ~ Exhibit "D" - April 21,2004, City Council Staff Report A Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal for Use Determination DRC2004-00093 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '~.~l~ P.O. Box 807 · 10500 Civic Center Drive · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ~ (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2845 · . BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY, USING INKt - CONFIDENTIAL NOTE: Incomplete applications will not be processed. Post Office boxes or Postal Contract Stations will not be accepted for Business or Residential Addresses, All businesses located within City limits must apply in person at City Hall.) Business Name dba ~' ' ~ Business Name #2 a~~.' Business Location City ~ r~ ~ State Mailing Address ~'~ /i ~ r~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ,,~ ~ ~D~YON Type of ~ Retail ~ Wholesale ~ Contractor/Developer ~e~ice ~ Professional ~ Manufacturing ~ Administrative Headqua~ers Business ~ Warehouse ~ Delivery Vehicle With No Fixed Place of Bu~ness In The Ci~rope~ Rental/Commercial Residental ~ Ente~ainmenFAmusements ~ Non-Profit Organization Description of Business ~X//~4/- Contm~ors Onlv State Lic. No. and Type SIC Code Resale No. Ownership: ~ Corporation ~ Ltd Liability Corp ~ Sole Proprietor ~ General Pa~nershi~ ~ Trust ~ Ltd Liability Pa~nemh~p Home Address /~ /~ ~ City ~ ~ ~'¢' ¢')~¢ d State C~ Zip q/7.~ ;~ Drivers Uconse No.~ Owner Name Title Phone { ) City State Zip Drivers License No. No. of Employees Enter the amourlt from Box 8 [ $ Signature on reverse of this form ~' -- Penatty- 50% (if applicable) [ $ Reasons TOTAL AMOUNT DUE the best of my knowledge and belief is a true, correct, and Please make check payable to: statement of facts. Additionally, I understand that this~ license City of Rancho Cucamonga grant approval of my 5us!ness location and that I must check ~y Development to insure that my business --~'~ate ~/ ,, REFUND/gILLED Ha~ OS 04 05= l~p Joan Knech'lr, 909-a,,~,4-~926 p,3 _ ~611~ LOUIE - OF AGE, ~, GOLDEN R~R, GO~ DOG A26~202 NICK - OF AGE, ~E, GOLDEN RE~, GO~ D~ ~61203 NOVA - OF AGE, FE~, GOLDEN R~R, TAN AND GOLD DOG A2612~ PI~CHU - OF AGE, FE~, GOLD~ R~R, GO~ ~G ~61207 SUNSHINE - 5 MOTHS OF AGE, FE~, GOLDEN R~R, GOLD DOG ~612~ ROC~ - OF AGE, ~LE, GO~EN R~R, GOLD ~G ~61209 ~DIE - OF AGE, FE~LE, GOLDEN R~R, GOLD DOG ~61211 VENUS - OF AGE, FEMALE, GOLDEN R~R, GO~ ~G A261212 ~P - OF AGE, MALE, GOLDEN R~R, ~LD D~ License Information: Tag Number:. Expires: Animal~ Vacc Date: Term: Expires: Amount: Status: L05-011758 04/25/05 /),261199 04/25/04 12 04/25/05 $60.00 C;.RRENT L05-011759 04/25/05 A261202 04/25/04 36 04/25/07 $60,00 C".;RRENT L05-011760 04/25/05 A261203 04/25104 36 04/25/07 $60.00 CURRENT L05-011761 04/25/05 A261206 04/25/04 36 04/25/07 $60.00 CURRENT L05--011762 04/25/05 A261208 04/25/04 36 04/25/07 $60.00 CURRENT L05-011763 04/25/05 A261209 04/25/04 36 04/25/07 $60.30 CURRENT L05-011764 04/25/05 A,?.61207 04/25/04 12 04/25/05 $60.30 OURREN" L05-011765 04/25/05 A261211 -04~25/04 36 04/25/07 $60.00 CURREN" L05-011766 04/25/05 A261212 04/25/04 36 04/25/07 $63.00 CURRENT TOTAL LICENSE FEES: ~540.00 Clerk; J126D ~I~ANCHO Transaction Date: 04/26/04 Pdnt Date: 04/2FJ/04 Bfict'ameln~/$tal~e,:eipt. rpt COUNCIL E-MAIL Distributed Kendrena, Donna From: Nicole Myerchin [nmyerchin@dslextreme.com] Sent: April 22, 2004 7:10 AM To: Council, City Council; Adams, Oebbie Dear Council Members and Mayor, Thank you for not passing the appeal on the dog breeding facility at last night's council meeting. As you mentioned, this is at the heart of the problem of pet over population-the backyard breeder, and this couple does not have just one breeding pair, they have a total often dogs. I would like to see the language cleaned up in the definition of "animal shelter" so as to close the door on this in the future. A backyard breeder should not be able to claim to be an animal shelter, which we all know it is not. This is the unfortunate thing about language. Furthermore, the relativity of an animal's size--i.e., four horses compared to ten dogs, may not be the best angle to look at this from. On those grounds, one could argue that raising forty minks, is equivalent to ten dogs and request they be allowed to run a fur farm in their backyard. Moreover, only now are they going to license their animals and get a business license. This is not about their pets. (Pets are not raised in kennels for breeding). This is a business for them and they have not done their part by licensing their animals, yet now they want the city to reward them for doing things illegally in the past. I agree with the city attorney that this would set precedence, and Alta Loma has a lot of one and a half acre properties in the hill region. I would like to be notified when they come back before council to request that you do not define a breeding facility as a shelter, and in the mean time, I would like to ask that the city attorney and planning commission "clean up the definition" to erase any "ambiguity" as to what exactly a shelter is. If the requires a request from council, please do this. Once again, thank you Mr. Howdyshell and Mr. Mayor for not supporting this. Sincrely, Nicole Myerchin 4/26/2004 THE CITY OF !QAN CII 0 C U CAH 0 N GA Staff Report DATE: April 21,2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Ruben Warren, Planning Technician SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a request that a dog breeding establishment with outside runs is similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low Residential District at 10158 Sun Valley - APN: 1074-081-12 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, thus upholding Planning Commission Use Determination DRC2004-00093 that dog breeding establishments with outside runs are not similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) residential district. BACKGROUND: The appellant, Steve Knecht, filed a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for an Animal Care Facility after being issued a Notice of Violation by the County of San Bernardino-Human Services, Animal Care and Control Services (CSBAC). The appellant has breed 10 dogs typically producing 1-2 litters per year at his residence in the neighborhood generally know as "The Woods." The dog facilities at his residence include two barns (8 feet x 12 feet) and six dog runs (50 feet x 4 feet). As the City Planner does not support this use for the location he asked for a Use Determination by the Planning Commission. On March 10, 2004, the Planning Commission determined the use in question is not of a similar intensity to an Animal Care Facility, which is conditionally permitted in the Very Low Residential District. The Commission's decision was timely appealed by Mr. Knecht. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Animal Requlations, Residential Districts Development Code Table 17.08.030-E - A maximum number of 3 dogs on any site within any district is allowed. Young animals born to a permitted animal may be kept until weaned or for 4 months. Animal Care Facility Defined Development Code Section 17.02.140-C - "A use providing grooming, housing, medical care, or other services to animals including veterinary services, animal hospitals, overnight or short-term boarding ancillary to veterinary care, indoor or outdoor kennels, grooming and similar services." CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT April 21,2004 Page 2 Use Regulations for Residential Districts Development Code Table 17.08.030 - An animal care facility is conditionally permitted in the Very Iow Residential District. Kennel is not listed in the residential use regulation table. Kennel Defined Development Code Section 17.02.140-C - "Any lot or premises on which five or more dogs over four months old are kept for commercial boarding, breeding or training." Special Use Regulations/Aqricultural Uses Development Code Section 17.08.030-E - Prior to development on lots of 2.5 acres or more dog kennels, dog training schools, small animal shelters, and dog breeding establishments with outside runs are conditionally permitted. Use Determination Development Code Section 17.02.040 -The Planning Commission shall determine whether a use not specifically listed as permitted, secondary, accessory, or temporary use in any district shall be deemed a permitted use or conditional use in one or more districts on the basis of similarity to uses specifically listed. The procedure is not an amendment procedure but rather a means for adding new uses to the list of permitted or conditioned uses. The Planning Commission decision may be appealed to the City Council. ANALYSIS: The intent of zoning regulations derived from the City General Plan and Development Code include protection of public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and welfare for the physical, social, and economic stability of land uses. The Development Code also dictates comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning. Potential odor and noise concerns surface when analyzing long-term impacts of dog breeding or kennel facilities in residential districts. Mr. Knecht's appeal (Exhibit "A") gives no reason why he believes the Commission's decision is wrong, nor does his appeal provide any new information for the Council to consider. - City Planner BB:RW/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appellant's Letter of Appeal dated March 22, 2004 Exhibit "B"- Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 10, 2004 Exhibit "C"- Planning Commission Resolution 04-30 Exhibit "D"- Planning Commission Minutes dated March 10, 2004 Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal for Use Determination DRC2004-00093 March 22, 2004 To: City Clerk FtECE:,V-.-[ City of Rancho Cucamonga '[~' 10500 Civic Center Ddve R~cho CUcmong~ CA 91729-0807 Ol~ CLERK Re: USE DE~ATION DRC2004-00093 To Whom It May Concern: Please allow this document to serve as notification that I wish to appeal the decision of the City Planning Commission t}om the meeting held March 10, 2004. Thank you, Steve Knecht Exhibit "A" ~ ¢ c c_.. THE CITY OF I~AN C H 0 C U CAH 0 N GA SlaffR port DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Marina Lounsbury, Planning Aide SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT - A request to determine that a dog breeding establishment with outside runs is similar to an animal care facility within the Very Low Residential District. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Steve Knecht, recently applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) after being issued a Notice of Violation by the County of San Bernardino-Human Services, Animal Care and Control Services (CSBAC). The violation states that the applicant has more than five dogs on the property without a kennel permit, and either needs to reduce the number of dogs or obtain a kennel permit. The CSBAC officer was at the subject site because of an anonymous complaint call. The applicant was asked to comply within 30 days from the original date of violation. The applicant asked CSBCA for an extension while applying for the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has lived at this location for approximately four years, and has developed a kennel with six outdoor runs (five are occupied by dogs and one by chickens), and two barns connected by a breezeway to accommodate the dogs. He has ten dogs in five outdoor runs in the backyard. According to the applicant, he breeds dogs to produce one to two litters a year. Prospective buyers come to his home and all pups are sold. The applicant does not have a City Business License or a Home Occupation Permit, and none of the dogs are registered with the San Bemardino County Animal Care and Control Services. The City Planner was notified of a Conditional Use Permit application, for a dog-breeding establishment within the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District area. Because the City Planner does not support this use for that location, he asked for a Use Determination by the Planning Commission. Attached is a letter from the applicant explaining his dog breeding business and background (Exhibit "A"). The applicant wants the City to allow him ten dogs on his property, with outside dog runs, and to continue to have a dog-breeding establishment at his residence, producing one to two litters a year, with the pups remaining on-site until sold. USE DETERMINATION PROCEDURE: A Use Determination is not property specific, rather it applies to all properties within the same zone; therefore, the location, size, and orientation of the applicant's property are not relevant, if the Planning Commission determines that the use should be classified as an Animal Care Facility, then said use would be conditionally permitted on any property within the Very Low (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District. Exhibit "B" PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT USE DETERMINATION - STEVE KNECHT - DRC2004-00093 March 10, 2004 Page 2 The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code, Section 17.02.040 states: "In order to ensure that the Development Code regulations will permit all similar uses in each district, the Planning Commission, upon its own initiative or upon wdtten request, shall determine whether a use not specifically listed as permitted, seCOndary, accessory, or temporary use in any distdct shall be deemed a permitted use or COnditional use in one or more districts on the basis of similarity to uses specifically listed. The procedures of this section shall not be substituted for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new uses to the list of permitted or conditional uses. The City Planner shall compare the proposed use characteristics with the General Plan goals and objectives, as well as the purposes of each of the use districts and may determine if the proposed use should be a permitted or COnditional use in any of the districts and shall make a report of his findings to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall base its decision upon meeting the following findings: 1. The use in question is of a similar intensity to other permitted or COnditionally permitted uses in the same district. 2. The use in question meets the purpose and intent of the distdct in which it is proposed. 3. The use in question meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan." ANALYSIS: A. Animal Care Facility Defined: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code Section 17.02.140 defines Animal Care Facility as: "A use providing grooming, housing, medical care, or other services to animals, including veterinary services, animal hospitals, overnight or short-term boarding ancillary to veterinary care, indoor or outdoor kennels, grooming, and similar services." Further clarification is found in the definition of a "kennel": "Any lot or premises on which five or more dogs, which are four months old are kept for commercial boarding, breeding, and training." B. Purpose of the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code Section 17.08.020.A states: "This district is intended as an area for very Iow density single-family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to two units per gross acre." Attached is a list of secondary uses that are permitted or may be conditionally permitted in the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District. The intent that the primary use shall be single-family homes, is further explained by Section 17.08.030.E., which states that the following is a permitted use: "Prior to development, the following agricultural uses are either permitted or conditionally permitted on lots of 2.5 acres or more: Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding, or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, subject to the following: Cats and dogs shall be limited to the keeping of no more than four cats and/or four dogs, over four months of age." Later, this section indicates that the following use may be allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit: "Dog PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT USE DETERMINATION - STEVE KNECHT - DRC2004-00093 March 10, 2004 Page 3 kennels, dog training schools, small animal shelters, and dog breeding establishments with outside runs." Clearly, the intent is that dog breeding is an agricultural use more appropriate on larger lots before development of land to its highest and best use (single- family residential). Nevertheless, as discussed earlier in this report, Animal Care Facility does include kennels. After development, Table 17.08.030 E - Animal Regulations, Residential Districts, states that the maximum number of dogs allowed on any site, regardless of lot size, is three, excluding pups up to four months old. C. Land Use Compatibility: The basic intent of zoning regulations is to separate incompatible uses in order "to protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, conveniences, and welfare," and to implement the goals of the General Plan. Implicit in this intent is the concept of separation of land uses of marked differences in intensity. The General Plan states: "Our general policy direction has been and continues to be the protection of our single-family residential neighborhoods from development densities and intensities that would significantly diminish the quality of these neighborhoods." Although this report is not addressing a specific Conditional Use Permit request, it is important to note that the most critical issues to assure neighborhood compatibility of a kennel, including a commercial dog breeding operation, are noise and odor. The City regulation is a maximum of three dogs on any residential lot, regardless of size. The applicant has ten dogs which, when barking, can be expected to be louder than three dogs. Likewise, the greater the number of dogs, the greater the potential for odors from feces and urine. If the Commission determines that Animal Care Facility inciudes commercial dog breeding, then staff will begin processing the applicant's Conditional Use Permit and address specific impacts and mitigations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission determine that a dog breeding business with outside dog runs is not similar to an Animal Care Facility by adopting the attached Resolution of Denial. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:ML/jm Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's letter received January 29, 2004 Exhibit "B" - Site Plan of residence and location of dog runs Exhibit "C" - Copy of Assessor's Map - Site location and surrounding area Exhibit "D" - Development Code Land Use Matrix Exhibit "E" - Development Code Special Land Use Regulations Exhibit "F" - Notice of Violation, issued by CSBAC Exhibit "G" - GIS Site Plan of Surrounding Area Exhibit "H" - Site Photographs Draft Resolution of Denial for Use Determination DRC2004-00093 10158 Sun Valley Drive Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 980 4713 (home) (310) 332-0919 (work) smknecht @ aol.com knechst @ voughtaircraft.com City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Dept 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 To whom it conceres: The attached package is being submitted to request a conditional use permit at our property located at 10158 Sun Valley Drive in Ranch Cucamonga. We are submitting this request due to a violation notice from the county health dept.. They are requiring that we obtain a permit for more than 4 dogs or reduce the number of dogs we own. There are no complaints on file about our dogs as far as we know. My wife and I have been breeding and showing Golden Retrievers for more than 23 years. We currently have 10 dogs that range from 11 years old to less than 1 year old. All of our dogs are AKC registered and exhibit all the good traits of the breed such as calm temperament and ease of training. We only breed the highest quality dogs and produce pups that will fit well in a family setting. Typically we have one to two litters per year and always have homes for the pups before they are 8 weeks old. Our property is situated in the "Woods" of Alta Loma and the lot size is 1 1/8 acres The standard lot spacing in thi~ neighborhood'is V2 acre with many larger lots.' Our lot is fully fenced with six foot high chain link fence on all sides. I have built two small barns - 8 feet x 12 feet to accommodate the dogs. Additionally there are 6 dog runs that are 50 feet long and four feet wide attached to the barns. These runs are 6 foot high chain link fence topped with metal roofs attached to the barns and fencing. The runs also have underground close mesh wire to prevent predators from entering the areas and to positively ensure security for our animals. Large eucalyptus trees provide shade to a big portion of the runs in addition to the metal roofing. Them are two water faucets at the end of the runs as well as overhead lights for added security and utility. The area is cleaned and maintained on a daily basis and no animal waste is allowed to accumulate. This helps ensure the health of our dogs and assures that them is absolutely no waste runoff. The above noted area is in the far north portion of the property as shown on the attached sketches. As can be seen, the closest neighbors are a long distance from the dog runs. The subject area is bordered on the back side by a bridle path and the San Bernardino mountains. In addition, we can provide references as needed about our animals and the veracity of the above statements. Your expeditious review and approval of this request is sincerely appreciated. Sincerely, ," o~ \'~, ~ z / \.~ : ./ ...._. ~'/: - /~ ~ ' ~. ~.'~'~ "/:"' I :~>: ~ .:.. ~o~/ %;:/... I .'~ -- ~. ~-. / ~ .... ~ -.,., ,,~,,~v I ~ ¢C j-,o-oy 76~-dr~ ............. ,,:~BiCs [~ih~r,I R._ancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.08.030 Table 17.08.030- Use Regulations for Residential Districts' USE VL L LM M MH H A. Residential Uses 1. Single-Family Detached P P · P P* 2. Single-Family Attached (du-, tri- and p p p p four-plex) 3. Multiple Family Dwellings P* P P P 4. Mobile Home Parks C C C C C . C B. Other Uses ! ~'~ 1. Animal Care Facility C 2. Cemetery C C C C C C 3. Church C C C C C C 4. Club, Lodge, Fratemity& Sorority C C C C C 5. College or University C C C C C C 6. Convalescent Center C C C C 7. Public Facility' C C C C C C 8. Day Care Facility Accessory - 6 or less P P P P P P Non-Accessory - 7 or more C C C C C C 9. Fire & Police Station C C C C C C 10. Hospital C C C C 11. Outdoor Recreation Facility C C C C C C (non-commercial) 12. Public Park and Playground P P P P P P i3. Residential Care Facility Accessory - 6 or less P P P P P P Non-Accessory - 7 or more C C C C 14. Schools, Private & Parochial C C C C C C 15. Stable, Commercial C 16. Stable, Private P 17.08-3 _Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.08. 030 USE VL L LM M MH H 17. Utility or Service Facility C C C C C C 18. Recreational Vehicle Storage or C C C C C Mini-Storage for public use C. A._ccessory Uses 1. Accessory Structure P P P P P P 2. Antenna P P P P P P' 3. Caretaker's Residence C C C C C C 4. Guest House P P P 5. Home Occupation P P P P P P 6. Lodging Unit P P P 7. Other Accessory Uses P P P P P P 8. Private Garage P P P P P P 9. Private Swimming Pool P P P P P P 10. Second Dwelling Unit (including p p p elder cottage) 11. Feed & Tack Store (if accessory to C commercial stable) 12. Dormitory (if accessory to college or C C C C C C school) 13. Uses in Historic Structures C C C C C C D. T__emporary Uses 1. Temporary Uses as prescribed in Section 17.04~070 and subject to P P P P P P those provisions. 2. Temporary trailers for use in conjunction with religious and C C C C C C agriCultural uses for a specified interim period. Note: Symbol * indicates permitted in conjunc*~ ..... ifh nnfinnnl develooment standards only. Permitted Use Conditional Use Permit required S ecial Use Re ulations 1. Aqricultural Uses. Prior to development, the following agricultural uses are either permitted or conditionally permitted on lots of 2.5 acres or more: 17.08-4 2/04 Rancho Cucarnonga Development Code Section 17.08.030 a. Permitted Uses: (1) Farms for omhards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. (2) Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals: except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, subject to the following: (a) Cats and dogs shall be limited to the keeping of no mom than tour cats and/or four dogs, over four months of age. (b) Small livestock am allowed with the number of goats, sheep, and similar animals limited to 12 per acre of total gross ama, with no more than one male goat. (c) Cattle and homes, including calves and colts over six months of age, with a maximum number of four animals per acre of total gross area. (d) Combinations of the above animals provided the total density on any given parcel shall not exceed that herein specified. (e) In no event shall them be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer, or wild growth and further, where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. (3) Aviary shall be limited to 50 birds per acre. (4) An apiary is permitted provided that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least 400 feet from any street, road, highway, public school, park, property boundary, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. (5) Retail sale of products raised on property excluding retail nursery and sale ~ of animals for commercial purposes. b. Conditional Use Permit required: (1) Wholesale distributor and processor of num ery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display is prohibited except for num ery-plant stock. )Dog schools, small animal shelters, and dog breeding kennels, dog training establishments with outside runs. (3) The raising of chinchilla, nutria, hamsters, guinea pigs, cavy, and similar small animals. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.08. 030 (4) Frog farms. (5) Worm farms. 2. .Animals. Keeping of animal's accessory to residential use shall be limited as follows: a. Number of Animals. The number of animals kept on any site shall not exceed the maximum number and combination of animals allowable as set forth in Table 17.08.030-E. For example, the following combination of animals would be permitted in the Very Low District: two horses, one pony, one cow, four goats, etc. b. Location of Animals. All animals, excluding household pets, shall be kept a minimum distance of 70 feet from any adjacent dwelling, school, hospital or church located on any adjoining site. The location of corrals, fenced enclosures, hams, stables or other enclosures used to confine horses shall conform to this requirement. c. Deed Restrictions. New subdivision Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animals, where district requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners shall have the option of keeping equine animals without the r~ecessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowner's associations for amendments to CC&R's. A copy of the CC&R's for single-family subdivisions shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final map recordation. Except as provided herein above, this section shall not be construed to supersede animal regulations contained in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions of any site or dwelling unit. However, in no case shall private deed restrictions permit animals or numbers of animals beyond those allowable in this section. d. Exotic or Wild Animals. Keeping of exotic or wild animals shall be permitted subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. e. Offspring. Young animals born to a permitted animal kept on the site may be kept until such animals are weaned (cats and dogs - 4 months; large animals - 6 months; horses - 12 months). - ~" Table 17.08.030-E - Animal Regulations, Residential Districts Minimum Site Maximum Allowable Area Per Number Of Residential Type of Animal Animal(s) Animals On Reclulred Any Site(A) District 1. Each horse, mule, donkey or pony® 10,000 6. VL, L(c) 2. Each large animal other than a horse 20,000 3 VL, L® pony, mule, or donkey 3. Each small animal 5,000 6 All 4. Each 5 birds or rodents® 5,000® 25® All 5. Each cat None 3 All -- · 6. Each dog None 3 . All 7.o8.6 i Department of Public Health ~' ~'~'/'~---'~ I ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES , 606 East Mill Street Name ~ ~ Re: PREMISES/ANIMAL(S) A~ ~ - ~ ~ are h otified that you are in violation of ~ ~ - ~ , ~ Questions relative to this violation should be directed to: Phone ~, RESOLUTION NO. 04-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING USE DETERMINATION I DRC2004-00093, BY DETERMINING THAT DOG BREEDING ESTABLISHMENTS WITH OUTSIDE RUNS ARE NOT SIMILAR TO AN ANIMAL CARE FACILITY WITHIN THE VERY LOW (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. ' A. Recitals. 1. Steve Knecht filed an application for Use Determination DRC2004-00093, for a dog- breeding kennel for ten dogs he has been operating for four years, located at 10158 Sun Valley Drive. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Use Determination request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of March 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the Use Determination and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on March 10, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, the commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The use in question is not of a similar intensity to other permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the same district. The purpose and intent of the Development code, stated in part in Section 17.02.010.C. is "to protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, conveniences, and welfare." The application applies to property at 10158 Sun Valley Drive in the Ven/ Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District. The Development code Section 17.08.020.A, states that: '"This distdct is intended as an area for very Iow density single-family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and a maximum residential density of up to two units per gross acre." b. The Development Code Table 17.08.030, lists the secondary permitted and conditionally permitted uses that may be allowed in the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District, and in said Table, "Kennel," "dog kennel" or "dog-breeding kennel" is not listed. Rather, the applicant's dog-breeding kennel is specifically listed as an agricultural use that should only be permitted prior to development. Development Code Section 17.08.030.E., states that the following is a permitted use: "Prior to development, the following agricultural uses are either permiffed or conditionally permitted on lots of 2.5 acres or more: Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding, or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial Exhibit "C" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-30 USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT March 10, 2004 Page 2 poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, subject to the following: Cats and dogs shall be limited to the keeping of no more than four cats and/or four dogs, over four months of age." Later, this same section indicates that the following use may be allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit: "Dog kennels, dog training schools, small animal shelters, and dog breeding establishments with outside runs." Therefore, the intent is that dog breeding is an agricultural use more appropriate on lots of 2.5 acres or larger before development of land to its highest and best use (i.e., single-family residential). The proposed site for the use is on a lot smaller than 2.5 acres and already developed with a single-family residence; therefore the property does not quali~ to have agricultural uses, such as dog breeding facilities. Therefore, this use is not allowed on the subject property. c. The use in question does not meet the purpose and the intent of the dis~ct in which it is proposed. The application applies to property at 10158 Sun Valley Drive within the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units 'per acre) Residential District. The intent is that the primary use shall be single-family homes according to Development Code Section 17.08.020.A, which states: 'q'his district is intended as an area for very Iow density single-family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and a maximum residential density of up to two units per gross acre." d. The use in question does not meet and conform to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan states: "Our general policy direction has been and continues to be the. protection of our single-family residential neighborhoods from development densities and intensities that would significantly diminish the quality of these neighborhoods." The City regulation is a maximum of three dogs on any residential lot, regardless of size. The applicant has ten dogs which, when barking, can be reasonably expected to be louder than three dogs. 3. Based upon. substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on March 10, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, the commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. The application contemplates the keeping and breeding of dogs, currently 10 in number, which exceeds the number of dogs currently permitted or conditionally permitted in the same district. b. The use is in conflict with the uses currently permitted in the Very Low Residential District and is only noted as an agricultural use permitted prior to development on lots of 2.5 acres or more. c. The use is in conflict with the pdmary intent of the Very Low Residential District, which is '~or very Iow density single-family residential use." d. The use does not conform to the applicable goals and objectives of the General plan because of the number of dogs being kept and the potential for excessive noise, and possible odor concerns resulting from keeping this number of dogs. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above referenced meeting and upon specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby determines that the keeping and breeding of dogs in the Very Low Residential District is not similar to an Animal Care Facility, is not of a similar intensity to other permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the same district, does not meet the purpose or intent of the Very Low Residential District, and does not conform to the goals and objectives of the General Plan. pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-30 USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT March 10, 2004 Page 3 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. I APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Rich Macias, Chairman A'rTE~ I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do h~reby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of March 2004, by the following vote-to-wit: , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: F_-LETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Mamh 10, 2004 Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Cdstine McPhail, Lam/McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City 'Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Joe Stofa, Associate Planner; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Bred Buller, City Planner, gave a bdef overview of the meeting format and public headng process. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel, cen'ied 4-0-0-1, to approve the minutes of February 11, 2004. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 25, 2004. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS A. USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT- A request to determine that a dog breeding establishment with outside runs is similar to an Animal Care Facility within the Very Low Residential District. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias invited public comments. Steve Knecht, 10158 Sun Valley, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property is a little over an acre and the closest house to the dog runs is approximately 200 feet away. He presented notes that had been signed by the neighbors on either side indicating they have not experienced problems with the dogs. He indicated they have been breeding and showing dogs for about 23 years and a lot of the dogs they have are retired show dogs and they are part of their family. He stated they take the dogs for walks all the time. He said he considers his operation an animal care facility because they always have a standard open option to anyone who buys a dog from them that they will take back the dog at any point because they want to be sure they go to good homes. He said it was his understanding that no one in the City had ever applied for a kennel license. He stated a complaint was made to the County and that started the investigation and the complaint was dght after the fires. He thought it might have come from one of the County workers behind his property. He did not think there had been any complaints to the City about their operation. He said he built the kennels to be very secure including fencing over the top because he wants to protect the dogs from predators, as they back up to the mountains. He said he was more than willing to acquire a business license and register all the dogs. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the picture on page A16 of the staff report depicts a neighbor's house. Mr. Knecht stated that was the closest house, and it is over 200 feet. Paul Moore, 13054 23rd Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he purchased a dog from Mr. Knecht. He said he takes care of the dogs whenever the Knechts are out of town. He said the dogs are all caged and well taken care of. He indicated the dogs are very tame. He hoped the operation would be allowed to continue. There were no further public comments. Commissioner McNiel felt that this area would be as near to ideal in a residential area for this kind of use if it were permitted. He believed the Municipal Code does not allow the use because of the size of the parcel being less than 2% acres. He said that although the location may seem good, it can not exist by law. Commissioner Stewart stated that three elements of facts or findings that are necessary: 1) that it meets the intent of the General Plan and the District, 2) that it meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and 3) is it a similar use as to what is allowed in the District. She did not feel the application meets those findings. She believed it might have met the findings years ago before the land was developed into acre or ~ acre residential lots. She did not feel it is a compatible land use because the land is already developed. She stated it was disconcerting that tonight's decision would apply to the entire district at large. She felt that the proposed use was problematic. She said that to determine this use to be possible with a conditional use permit would mean others could also have a kennel or an animal shelter facility in their back yard. She feared that if a conditional use permit were granted, the Commission would in time be asked to revoke the permit in the future since there had already been an anonymous complaint. Commissioner McPhail concurred. She noted the lot is smaller than the 2% acre size that could be considered. Commissioner Fletcher agreed. He said he does not like to impose on what individuals can do on their own property, but he stated the Commission must look at what is compatible for the rest of the residents. He believed the use is a dog kennel, rather than an animal care facility and any other finding would be a tweaking of the Code to fit one particular circumstance. He said if the Commission were to make a favorable determination, it would mean any other similar size lot could have a similar operation. He noted it was not a question of whether the applicant has a good operation and raises healthy dogs, but is more a use determination. Chairman Macias felt staff did a good job with a straightforward explanation and the Commissioners had addressed the issues with respect to purpose and intent. He noted the Use Determination is for an entire district and it is not a site-specific issue. He believed the Commission's role is to be concerned about the preservation of the spirit, purpose, and intent of what the General Plan has in it. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 10, 2004 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution denying Use Determination DRC2004-00093. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Brad Buller, City Planner, requested that the City Attorney explain the options available to the applicant. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Commission approved a resolution denying the Use Determination and the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Knecht asked if there was a way to bdng the matter before the Planning Commission as a site- specific request. Mr. Bullet explained that the Commission made a determination this evening that the proposed use does not fit the definition or the lot size or the other factors for the Very Low Residential area. He said that means there is no provision for an applicant to even ask for a conditional use permit for that use in that area. Mr. Ennis said the action was a determination on the ability to apply for a conditional use permit and because a use determination had been made by the Commission indicating this is not a use that would be permitted in this particular zone; then the available option would be to appeal the determination, rather than to apply for a conditional use permit. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS B. DESIGN AWARDS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, distributed ~hs of nominated ~cts completed in 2003. He commented that several months ago, ti projects completed in 2002 and decided it would be ,ine those awards with the winners for projects completed in 2003. It was the consensus of the the votes would be turned in to staff to tally. ADdOURNMI Motion: ~ McNiel, seconded by McPhail, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission p.m. to a workshop. The workshop adjourned at 8:00 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 10, 2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093, BY DETERMINING THAT DOG BREEDING ESTABLISHMENTS WITH OUTSIDE RUNS ARE NOT SIMILAR TO AN ANIMAL CARE FACILITY WITHIN THE VERY LOW (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Steve Knecht, filed an application for Use Determination DRC2004-00093, for an operating dog-breeding kennel for ten dogs, located at 10158 Sun Valley Ddve, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Use Determination request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of March 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. Following the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 04-30 denying the application. 3. The decision represented by Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-30 was timely appealed by Mr. Knecht to this Council. 4. On April 21,2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed meeting on the application and deferred a final decision on the appeal until the appellants returned to the Council with a business license for their dog breeding business and with licenses for their dogs. 5. On June 2, and continued to June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted another meeting on the application. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 21,2004, including wdtten and oral staff reports, and the subsequent meetings of this Council on June 2, and dune 16, 2004, the minutes of the above- referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-30, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located in the Very Low (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT June 16, 2004 Page 2 b. The use in question is not of a similar intensity to other permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the same district. The purpose and intent of the Development Code, stated in part in Section 17.02.010.C. is "to protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, conveniences, and welfare." The Development Code Section 17.08.020.A, states that: 'q'his district is intended as an area for very Iow density single-family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and a maximum residential density of up to two units per gross acre." c. The Development Code Table 17.08.030, lists the secondary permitted and conditionally permitted uses that may be allowed in the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District, and in said Table, "Kennel," "dog kennel" or "dog-breeding kennel" is not listed. Rather, the applicant's dog-breeding kennel is specifically listed as an agricultural use that should only be permitted prior to development. Development Code Section 17.08.030.E., states that the following is a permitted use: "Pdor to development, the following agricultural uses are either permitted or conditionally permitted on lots of 2.5 acres or more: Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding, or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, subject to the following: Cats and dogs shall be limited to the keeping of no more than four cats and/or four dogs, over four months of age." Later, this same section indicates that the following use may be allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit: "Dog kennels, dog training schools, small animal shelters, and dog breeding establishments with outside runs." Therefore, the intent is that dog breeding is an agricultural use more appropriate on lots of 2.5 acres or larger before development of land to its highest and best use (i.e., single-family residential). The proposed site for the use is on a lot smaller than 2.5 acres and already developed with a single-family residence; therefore the property does not qualify to have agricultural uses, such as dog breeding facilities. Therefore, this use is not allowed on the subject property. d. The use in question does not meet the purpose and the intent of the distdct in which it is proposed. The application applies to property in the Very Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential District. The intent is that the primary use shall be single-family homes according to Development Code Section 17.08.020.A, which states: "This district is intended as an area for very Iow density single-family residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and a maximum residential density of up to two units per gross acre." e. The use in question does not meet and conform to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan states: "Our general policy direction has been and continues to be the protection of our single-family residential neighborhoods from development densities and intensities that would significantly diminish the quality of these neighborhoods." The City regulation is a maximum of three dogs on any residential lot, regardless of size. The applicant has ten dogs which, when barking, can be reasonably expected to be louder than three dogs. f. The March 22, 2004, appeal letter filed by the applicant, Mr. Knecht, gave no reason why he believes the Commission's decision was wrong, nor did his appeal provide any new facts or other evidence for the Council to consider. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The application contemplates the keeping and breeding of dogs, currently 10 in number, which exceeds the number of dogs currently permitted or conditionally permitted in the same district. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. USE DETERMINATION DRC2004-00093 - STEVE KNECHT June 16,2004 Page 3 b. The use is in conflict with the uses currently permitted in the Very Low Residential' District and is only noted as an agricultural use permitted prior to development on lots of 2.5 acres or more. c. The use is in conflict with the primary intent of the Very Low Residential District, which is "for very Iow density single-family residential use." d. The use does not conform to the applicable goals and objectives of the General plan because of the number of dogs being kept and the potential for excessive noise, and possible odor concerns resulting from keeping this number of dogs. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1,2, and 3, above, this Council hereby denies the appeal, and upholds the action of the Planning Commissionrepresented by Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-30. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to Mr. Steve Knecht, the appellant and original applicant, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Mr. Steve Knecht at the addresses identified in City records. [~ A N C H O C U C A M 0 n G A COMMUNITY <~I~I~VI CE & Staff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Dir6ctor,, ~ BY: Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent ~[/~. SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED AGREEMENT WITH THE OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION THAT INSURES RANCHO CUCAMONGA HOMEBOUND SENIORS ARE SERVED HOT MEALS INSTEAD OF FROZEN MEALS AND THAT THE ANTICIPATED EXPANDED PARTICIPATION IN THE CENTRAL PARK CONGREGATE SENIOR LUNCH PROGRAM WILL ALSO BE ACCOMMODATED RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider and approve the revised agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Oldtimers Foundation. BACKGROUND Several months ago the City Council had been notified that the Oldtimers Foundation would begin serving frozen meals to Rancho Cucamonga homebound seniors. The frozen meal program was implemented by the County of San Bernardino as a means to continue serving homebound seniors with decreasing funding. San Bernardino County funds the Oldtimers Foundation and had directed them to implement the program. The frozen meal program was implemented in September of 2003 and has not been well received by the seniors. During this time, the City Council had directed staff to reseamh and attempt to resolve this issue so that homebound seniors in Rancho Cucamonga could continue to receive hot meals. Staff had met with the County staff and Oldtimers Foundation staff several times exploring possible solutions. During these meetings another issue became apparent. Once Central Park would open it was determined that senior congregate lunch participation could expand CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION June 16, 2004 Page 2 30%-100% as has occurred in other cities that have developed new senior centers. Oldtimers did not have the ability to serve any expansion nor was the County able to increase it's funding to Oldtimers. Original cost estimates to serve the anticipated increase of congregate meals and to provide hot meals to homebound seniors by the Oldtimers Foundation could cost the City up to an additional $192,000 annually. City staff began researching the possibility of conducting the program with City staff and applying directly for funding through the County. On top of the County funding, the total net cost to the City would be over $20,000 per year not including new duties incurred by existing staff. Prior to the City applying for funding, the Oldtimers Foundation proposed a new offer to provide hot meals to homebound seniors and to meet the anticipated expansion of the congregate meals at Central Park for an additional $12,000 per year and the annually requested CDBG allotment of $8,500. The Oldtimers Foundation have recently undergone some internal restructuring in order to serve the Rancho Cucamonga senior nutritional needs in a manner that meets the concerns of City Council and that is affordable to the City. FISCAL IMPACT In addition to the existing City CDBG allocation of $8,500 each year then the City will allocate through the Community Services Department Recreation Fund an additional $12,000 each year. The City staff are currently exploring other outside funding options for this purpose. Attached for your consideration and review is the revised agreement that has been approved and signed by the Oldtimers Foundation. McArdl~ Comn ~unity Services Director Attachment: Revised Facility Use Agreement Between City of Rancho Cucamonga and Oldtimers Foundation I:COMIvACouncil&Boards\CityCouncil~SlaffReports~2004\OldtimersAg reement.6.16,04 City of Rancho Cucamonga and Oldtimers Foundation FACILITY USE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the signature of the respective parties hereto, by and between Oldtimers Foundation, a California nonprofit agency, (hereinafter "Foundation") and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter "City") concerning the provision of nutritional services to senior citizens. A. Recitals (i) Foundation is a nonprofit agency and those persons executing this Agreement on its behalf hereby covenant that they are fully empowered to execute this Agreement on behalf of Foundation. (ii) Foundation, through its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, has undertaken to operate a program that provides meals to senior citizens, including those senior citizens which may live within the City. This includes all eligible seniors who reside within City boundaries for both the congregate and homebound delivery nutrition programs. Foundation desires the nonexciusive right to use City owned facilities to further its program. (iii) Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, and pending transfer of this nutritional program to the Central Park Senior Center once opened, City desires to permit the nonexclusive utilization of a portion of its senior center, located at 9791 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, California by Foundation so as to assist in the efficient delivery of services to City's senior citizens. Hereinafter, the term "Center" shall mean the current Senior Center unless and until this nutritional program is transferred to the Central Park James L. Brulte Senior Center, whereupon "Center" shall mean the Central Park James L. Bruite Senior Center. B. Agreement NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between City and Foundation as follows: 1. Specific Provisions A. Term of Aqreement. This Agreement shall be for a term of one (1) year commencing as of the latest date appearing opposite the signatures of the respective parties hereto, and shall be deemed renewed from year to year without further action of the parties, unless terminated in the manner as provided herein the Agreement. Either City or ! Foundation may terminate this Agreement for any or no reason upon delivery to the non- terminating party of written notice of such termination, which such notice shall be delivered not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such termination. Further, in the event of total or partial destruction of the Center, this Agreement will be deemed terminated immediately without prior notice. City shall have the sole right to determine and declare that the Center is fully or partially destroyed for purposes of this termination provision. This Agreement grants only a revocable license to use the Center. Nothing herein shall be deemed to create a leasehold or any other kind of interest, other than a revocable license. B. Cost Allocation. City shall bear all costs for and related to the maintenance and operation of the Center except as may be expressly set forth herein this Agreement. City will continue to support Foundation with an annual allotment of $20,500. Currently, $8,500 of this allotment is derived from CDBG Funding while the remainder ($12,000) is from Community Services (City of Rancho Cucamonga) funding. Annual CDBG funding will apply towards the City annual support; however, if CDBG funding is not approved the City will make up the difference so that the total allotment is paid. The allotment from Community Services will be allocated in the fiscal year of 2004-2005 and each fiscal year (July 1 - June 30 of the year following) thereafter so long as this Agreement remains in effect. This payment ($20,500) to the Foundation will supplement County funding to provide nutritional services for Rancho Cucamonga seniors to meet current participation levels. This is not a donation. Both parties have agreed that the services provided are generally intended to serve up to an average of 150 congregate per day and 71 homebound delivered hot meals per day during a fiscal year from July 1 to June 30. It is understood that funding resources or climbing expenses may impact the effectiveness of the City's contribution. If participation levels are significantly less or more than expected (150 congregate and 71 homebound) then the payment amount may be renegotiated. C. Senior Nutrition Meals. Foundation agrees to serve up to an average of 150 seniors per day per fiscal year (July I to June 30) for the daily congregate lunch program (Monday - Friday). Foundation will also serve up to an average of 71 homebound seniors daily per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) using two (2) Foundation drivers. All homebound delivered meals must be hot meals and not frozen. All meals served must comply with the food and serving standards set by the County of San Bernardino Office of Aging and its dietician's requirements. D. Use of Center. 1. Foundation's use of the Center shall be limited to the provision of nutritional services to senior citizens including preparation and service of meals, program administration, and related administrative activities. Foundation shall have the use of the Senior Center kitchen and designated space in the Center Monday through Friday of each week, excluding holidays, as outlined below: Current Senior Center Central Park James L. Brulte Senior Center Kitchen: 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Kitchen: 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Mission Room: 10:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. David Dreier Hall 10:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Shared Office: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Shared Office: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. City will designate one or more restrooms for non-exclusive Foundation's use. City will furnish the on-site shared office with desks, chairs, telephones and telephone service while the Foundation will supply its own daily clerical supplies. The foregoing designated portions of the Center may be utilized by Foundation on weekdays, Monday through Friday, excluding City holidays, or alternatively as may be mutually scheduled and approved by the Center coordinator and the Foundation site coordinator (Nutrition Manager). 2. City reserves the right to use, or allow the use of, Center premises, including those allocated to Foundation, for activities at such time and dates that will not conflict with the established nutrition program for seniors. Any change in the scheduled utilization of the Center may be made by mutual consent of the parties hereto if such changes do not limit prescribed "nutrition program for seniors" funding requirements. Foundation acknowledges it has not been granted the exclusive right to possess or utilize any part or all of the Center. Foundation further acknowledges and agrees that City may require Foundation to transfer its nutrition program operations, at no cost to City, from the current Senior Center to the Central Park James L. Brulte Senior Center, upon its completion following no less than fourteen (14) days prior written notice by City. In such event, Foundation shall restore the Center as required by the provisions of Section 1.E. 3 hereof. After such transfer and it needed, the provisions of Section 1.D.1 hereof shall be revised upon mutually agreeable terms, however, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall continue in full force effect. 3. Foundation may request use of Senior Center facilities for other nutrition related programs that serve seniors who are Rancho Cucamonga residents. Approval will be subject to availability of rooms. 4. Any and all recreation programs, which may arise by and through this Agreement shall at all times remain solely subject to the supervision and control of City. E. Condition of Center. 1. City offers, and Foundation accepts for its use, the Center, and any portion thereof, in "as is" condition, without any warranty, express or implied, whatsoever, and City hereby disclaims, and Foundation agrees to not assert the existence of, any such warranties. Foundation shall keep the Center in good, safe and suitable condition for the uses contemplated therein, including the storage, securing and maintenance of equipment not intended for public use or for rental. No physical alterations of any kind, including, but not limited to, improvements, fixture installments or equipment additions or removals, may be made, authorized or permitted by Foundation unless and until Foundation receives prior written consent of the City. Any alterations, improvements, fixtures installments or equipment additions or removals undertaken by Foundation must conform to and be in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances or laws. 2. City agrees to clean at night (using contracted maintenance) the floor, walls, carpet, chairs, ceiling, hood to the stove and all other counter and equipment surfaces. Foundation staff shall clean its office areas, ail equipment and food areas used each day at the end of their use, included, but not limited to, all counters and surfaces used to prepare food, sinks and all equipment surfaces (stove/oven, steam table, dishwasher, refrigerator, microwaves, toaster, etc.). Foundation is responsible for supplying its kitchen staff with the appropriate amount of cleaning supplies at the Foundation's expense. Foundation will lock up all cabinets designated by City for Foundation's use, including all of its supplies, understanding that other groups will also be using the kitchen. 3. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Foundation agrees to leave the Center, and any portion thereof that it may utilize, in the condition Center is in upon Foundation's commencement of use thereof, absent allowance for normal wear and tear. Foundation shall either perform any necessary repair or renovation activities which may be required to return the Center to the required condition, or alternatively pay to City, upon demand by City, the reasonably calculated sums to accomplish such renovation or repair. F. Telephone; Utilities; Fixtures City and Foundation agree that City shall, at no cost to the Foundation, install and be responsible for charges related to installation and operation of a separate telephone line and equipment to be used solely by Foundation to 4 conduct Foundation business. City shall furnish Foundation with all electrical power, water, heating, air conditioning and gas, if available. Any and all equipment, fixtures and materials attached or otherwise affixed to said site by Foundation in a permanent manner shall be attached or affixed in a manner which conforms to all existing City codes or regulations for such installation, following written City's approval. Any such materials, fixtures or equipment attached or affixed shall, at City's option, become the property of City at the time of such installation and such shall be included in an agreed- upon inventory list. Any and all equipment, fixtures, personal property, or other items utilized on the premises by Foundation, which are of a portable nature shall remain the property of Foundation and City shall have no responsibility to contribute in any manner to the repair or replacement of such equipment. G. Foundation shall maintain, in safe condition and in a first class manner, all portions of the Center which it may utilize and further, shall administer its program in a safe and first class manner that complies with all applicable federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, fair labor practices, fire safety provisions, health and safety provisions, sanitary conditions, nondiscrimination regulations and building codes. Foundation's failure to be in compliance with any applicable law, policy or regulation of any jurisdiction shall be grounds for City to immediately suspend, without written notice and without affecting its right to terminate this Agreement, Foundation's right to use the Center unless and until, in the City's sole discretion, such violation is cured. H. Indemnification. Foundation shall indemnify, defend and hold City and City's Redevelopment Agency, and City's and Agency's elected officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers, free and harmless from any and all claims for damages caused by injury or death to any person, or injury to properly, and/or any other loss whatsoever, arising out of or connected to the acts or omissions of Foundation or any of its officers, employees, agents or invitees, in connection with Foundation's use and occupancy of the Center and its related operations. Foundation's obligation to indemnify herein includes payment of all attorneys' fees, experts' costs and cost of suit as may be incurred by or on behalf of any of the foregoing indemnities. Further, Foundation agrees that it shall promptly pay all charges for which it may become legally responsible in connection with its performance of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, charges for food, beverage and supply purchases, and Foundation shall indemnity, defend and hold City harmless from any failure to make any such pumhases. I. Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, and unless otherwise required by City's risk manager, at Foundation's sole cost and expense, Foundation shall keep or cause to be kept in full force and effect, for the mutual benefit of City and Foundation, comprehensive, broad form, general public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from Foundation's operation and the use, occupancy, or disuse of Center, or adjoining areas and ways, with such insurance providing protection of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodily injury or death to any one person or for any one accident or occurrence, and at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property damage. All insurance required by express provision of this Agreement shall be carried only in responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California. Foundation agrees that City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insureds on all such policies. All such policies shall contain language, to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against City and City's officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents and representatives, (2) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried by City, and (3) such policies shall not be cancelled or materially changed except after thirty (30) day written notice by insurer to City. Foundation shall furnish City with copies of all such policies, or certificates and endorsement(s) promptly upon receipt. Foundation may effect for its own account insurance not required under this Agreement. J. Limitations on Assiqnment. No interest in or arising out of this Agreement may be transferred or assigned, nor may any required performance be subcontracted, in whole or in part, by Foundation, without the prior written consent of City and any such transfer, assignment or subcontract made without City's consent shall be void. K. Emerqency Operation Center. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, Foundation acknowledges that the Center has been designated an auxiliary emergency operation center for City. At any such time as the City, in its sole discretion, determines that it requires the use of Center as an emergency Center, Foundation agrees that it shall promptly cease utilization of the Center for such time as the City requires the Center's use for emergency operation services. City shall not be responsible to Foundation for any costs or reimbursement for any losses Foundation may sustain as a result of such emergency operation use, including but not limited to, loss of food or wages. L. Foundation Fundin.q. The parties agree and understand that Foundation may intend to use the Agreement as a basis for claiming "in-kind" rent expenditures from the nutrition funding agency as reviewed by the California Department of Aging. City may verify any such claim upon written request from the funding agency. Further, it is understood that the financial commitments of Foundation that serve as an underlying basis for this Agreement are based on the availability of Foundation and auxiliary grant funding. Should any such funding diminish below the minimum program needs, or be denied in their entirety, Foundation may terminate this Agreement as provided herein. However, if the appropriate amount of funding is approved by the County of San Bernardino and the City pays the amount agreed upon herein and the Foundation is unable or willing to provide the number of meals required herein, then the Foundation will be considered in default and City may terminate this Agreement upon forty-eight (48) written notice. Furthermore, if the City fails to pay the amount specified in this Agreement then the Foundation and City may renegotiate its daily serving limits for congregate meals and homebound meals including the potential distribution of frozen meals to the homebound. However, if there is a significant decline in participation levels then the City and Foundation may renegotiate the payment amount. 2. General Provisions. A. Notice. Any notice required or permitted pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by personal service or by deposit of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the parties as follows: Foundation: Greg Alvarado, Director Business & Service Development Oldtimers Foundation 8572 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 City: Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mailed notice should be deemed served on the third business day following mailing. ' B. Amendments. This Agreement may only be amended in writing by a document, signed by both parties hereto. C. Section Headinqs. Any section headings in this Agreement have been provided solely for the convenience of the parties and in no way shall serve, or shall be construed or interpreted to serve, to alter, amend, limit, or expand the express provisions set forth in each section. This Agreement shall be construed as if drafted by all parties hereto and shall be construed against any single party. D. Governinq Law. The law of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and any action brought to enfome any provision of this Agreement shall be filed in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino. E. City Contributions. City retains the right, at its sole discretion, to from time to time contribute services, funds, or any other consideration to Foundation. Any such contribution by City shall not be deemed to create an ongoing obligation from City to Foundation and Foundation hereby waives any claim to such entitlement or right. F. Permits and Approvals. Foundation shall, at its sole cost and expense, obtain any and all governmental permits, approvals or concurrences required for the use of the Center and/or provisions of the services required herein. G. Nondiscrimination. Foundation agrees that in its performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate against any person, including, but not limited to, any employee, agent, volunteer, or officer of Foundation, or any recipient of Foundation's nutritional services on the basis of gender, ancestry, color, marital status, sexual preference or age. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the latest date set forth below. Greg Alvaredo, Director ~siness & Service Development CITY Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent T H E O I ~ Y 0 F l~A N C H 0 C U CAM 0 N GA Slaff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL AS THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council appoint the City's Building and Safety Official, Trang Huynh, as the representative to the West valley Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Directors. Back,qround In April 2004, a property owner election was held by the West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (the District) in Rancho Cucamonga and portions of Ontario and Montclair. The election was for approval of a $10 annual assessment for vector control services and to approve the annexation of these areas into the District. The measure passed and Rancho Cucamonga is now a part of the District. The District is governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the City Council of each City in the District and an at large member appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. This means that Rancho Cucamonga will have a seat on the Board of Directors. It is recommended that our Building and Safety Official, Trang Huynh, be appointed as the City's representative to the District. It has been the duty of the Building and Safety Official to oversee our contract with the District and this gives him familiarity with the issues the District confronts. Also, the Building and Safety official oversees the Code Enforcement Division which has responsibility for abating code violations like overgrown weeds, green pools and conditions that impact public health and safety because of their source as a breeding ground for mosquitoes and other vermin. Page 2 June 16, 2004 APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL AS THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS These official responsibilities give our Building and Safety Official the ability to make sure that programs of the District are integrated with programs of the City in the most efficient and effective way possible. The District is also considering adopting new regulations regarding inspections of vacant property before grading can be allowed. While there are legitimate public health reasons for this policy, how it is executed can have a direct impact on the local economy and economic development activities in our City. The Building and Safety Official can bring professional expertise on development regulations to the District to help balance any deliberations. For these reasons, it is recommended that our Building and Safety Official, Trang Huynh, be appointed as the City's representative to the District. Re~,p_~ectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager COMMUNITY c~ EI~VI C E & StaffRepor DATE: June 16, 2004 TO' Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director Joe O'Neil, City Engineer Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner SUBJECT: PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE BACKGROUND In accordance with the City Council's request to become more informed of park and recreation facility issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent issues, projects and programs occurring in the Community Services Department, the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering and in the Planning Division. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Central Park: · Wood and metal framing is almost complete. Roof dry - in is complete. Working on the in- wall and overhead mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Mason wall footings have begun and exterior piaster is underway. On site grading and placement of berms is continuing as well as installation of the curb and islands in the north parking lot. Undergrounding for the street signals and lights along Milliken is complete. Wood and Metal Framing City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 Central Park- Looking South Central Park Landscape and Irrigation Project: · The Landscape Contractor, American Landscape, started work on May 3rd, and is working along side the General Contractor, Douglas Bamhart, in the placement of the sleeves and irrigation system. Rancho Cucamonga Cultural Center Parking Project: · Work has been proceeding very well. Items completed this month for the west structure include the steel welding, hoistway framing and HVAC for both elevators, steel erection and welding for the canopy and dome structures at the entries, as well as installation of steel stair #1 and landings. On the east structure, the level 2 deck pours have been completed along with the fire, plumbing and electrical rough-ins. Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail: · The Master Plan was completed and adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2000. Federal and State grant funds of $4,000,000 have been obtained. Phase I, between Haven and 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda, is still in federal environmental review. Engineering construction design plans are in second plan check for Phase II between Amethyst and Amhibald. (Staff has provided a project status chart on the end of this report for your information.) Etiwanda Railway Station Property: · A Master Plan was completed and adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2000, that identified the station as a signature trailhead high priority for the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) construction funds of $50,000 were approved in FY 2004-2005, mostly for demolition of accessory structures on the property. Staff will be continuing to explore conceptual plans for the property in the upcoming months. SANBAG (property owner) agreed to pay for hazardous material clean up and staff is in the process of obtaining estimates. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Senior Services: · Senior Advisory Committee will hold its next regular meeting on Monday, June 21st at 9:00 a.m. at the Senior Center. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 · Independence Day Stars & Stripes, Thursday, July 1, 2004. Join us while we celebrate the independence of our great country with fabulous entertainment and good old American food. There will be plenty of fun for all including games and door prizes. This event is co- sponsored by the V.I.P. Club. · Senior Billiards Tournament, July 9, 2004, 9:00 am. Rack em' up! The Senior Center is hosting a senior billiards tournament. This double elimination tournament will feature refreshments, cash prizes, and great play. The tournament is limited to the first 16 participants. Cost is $5 per person. Human Services: ~ Homeowners and Renters Rebate - Volunteers from AARP will soon be preparing homeowners and renters rebate forms for all members of the community. Appointments are not necessary; guests will be assisted on a first come, first served basis. Please call (909) 477-2780 for more information. · CSS Senior Help Line - Sponsored by Community Senior Services, the Senior Help Line is a service which will guide one through the maze of local senior services, with quick and easy information about hundreds of agencies. The extensive database enables the Help Line staff to identify the service needed and provide the correct information to access it, free of charge. Trips and Tours: · "The Marriaqe of Fiqaro" ("Le Nozze de Fiqaro"), June 19, 2004. Ride with us to the beautiful Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, home of the Los Angeles Opera, to enjoy the famous opera, "Le nozze di Figaro" by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Before the show, we'll enjoy a buffet dinner at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion catered by Patina Catering and continue to the Grand Hall for an entertaining and informative presentation about "Le nozze di Figaro". Then it's off to the show! Cost: $98.00 per person. · Federal Reserve Bank, June 23, 2004. Show me the money! We'll visit the Los Angeles Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank, one of the most secure buildings in the nation. During this truly unique tour you'll see how the nations banking system works. Watch as millions of dollars are shredded before your very eyes, and millions more are printed and stored in vaults. On the way home we'll stop for lunch (on your own) at the world famous Philippe's "Home of the French Dip Sandwich". All attendees must have photo identification, a current address and phone number. Registration must be received before June 15, 2004. Cost: $24.00 per person. Volunteer Services: · The table on the following page summarizes Community Services Department's volunteer usage for the month of April 2004 and year-to-date: City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 Month: April 2004 YEAR TO DATE ftof gof Volunteers ~t of Hours $ Value* Volunteers ~t of Hours $ Value* Administration 5 15 210 20 60 840 Sports 87 343 7,182 685 5,875 82,250 Seniors & 65 441 7,084 250 1,863 26,082 Human Services Special 7 261 196 59 303 4,242 Events Youth 74 246 2,996 284 767 10,738 Programs based on S f 4. 00/hour Teens: · The table below and on the next page summarizes teen proqram participation for the month of May 2004: Program Attendance/Participation - May 2004 Teen Center 769 Homework Room 12 TRAC - Babysitting 44 @articipants TRAC - Monthly Activities 56 participants Spruce Skate Facility 820 Teen Connection 6 volunteers/6.5 hours of service · Teen Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) Awards were distributed at the May 20th Park and Recreation Commission meeting. · TRAC snack bars will begin in the middle of June at the Alta Loma and Etiwanda High School pools. During July and August TRAC teens will also be volunteering at our Movies in the Park and Concerts in the Park programs. · TRAC teens are looking forward to their upcoming Summer Swim Party on June 26th from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. at Alta Loma High School pool. The first 50 TRAC members to sign up for this event are free. Cost: $10/person and includes swimming, music, food and prizes. · Spruce Park Skate Facility continues to be a hub of activity. Staff meets with the local skaters on the first Thursday of each month and updates them on the latest safety awareness laws, upcoming events and discusses facility issues. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 In our continuing effort to provide a safe skate environment at Spruce Park, staff is also presenting safety awareness assemblies to fourth grade students at our local elementary schools. City staff and a semi-pro skater present the power point safety assembly. These presentations have been well received by school staff, parents and the students. Staff will be presenting to Coyote Canyon Elementary School during the month of June. Youth Activities: · The Playschool year ended with a graduation ceremony on June 1st at Red Hill Community Park. Over 300 4 and 5 year olds graduated from our progressive Playschool and are off to kindergarten next year. Priority reg strat on for Playschool's next school year is underway. There will be a total of 51 classes offered during the 04-05 school year and many are already filled. · The Mobile Recreation Program "Fun on the Run" is becoming a fun neighborhood event. This past month, 632 children were served through the program at 5 park sites. The program continues from March Ist through June 11th, Monday through Friday from 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm. The table bellows outlines the parks being visited during the reporting period: Weekday Park Location ~,,~'~/J'~_~'~~T ~ Monday Bear Gulch Park Tuesday Hermosa Park Wednesday Old Town Park ~%.%%--p,~.o~*.~ Thursday Day Creek Park Friday Windrows Park During the summer months (July 12th through August 13th) the schedule for Fun on the Run will be as follows: Weekday Park Location Timeframe Monday EIlena Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Tuesday Old Town Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Wednesday Heritage Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Thursday Mountain View Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Friday Windrows Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm · A Pet Fest event was held at Ralph Lewis Park on May 8th from 11:00 am until 3:00 pm. This event was sponsored by Lewis Apartment Communities and served over 1,500 residents. The event included many games and contests ranging from Best Costume to the Owner/Pet Race. Lizard Wizard also came out and performed along with many different animals and reptiles. Youth Enrichment Services Grant Program: .IRST 5 · The table on the following page illustrates attendance/participation figures for City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 programs/services provided through the YES Grant for the month of May 2004. Program Attendance/Participation FACTS Center Visits 1,572 Parent Education Classes 13 classes; 35 participants Car Seat Checks 20 Child Care 30 Staff is working with First 5 San Bernardino on the closeout of the YES qrant and ensuring that whatever resources purchased through the grant as allowed by the Commission remain local for our residents' use. Youth Sports: · The fall/winter field allocation for 2004/2005 (August 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005) was approved at the May 12th Sports Advisory Committee meeting. A sub-committee began meeting May 26th to review the field allocation policies. The next meeting of the Committee will be on August 11% · The table below summarizes youth sports activities for the reporting period: Activity # Participants Age/Gender # Teams Pee Wee Baseball 620 3-5/boys & girls 62 Youth Basketball 920 6-16/boys & girls 120 Youth Volleyball 120 8-14/boys & girls 14 Cucamonga Middle School 80 8-adult N/A (CMS) Judo Cucamonga Middle School 140 8-14/boys & girls 14 (CMS) Youth Basketball Practice RC Family Sports Center: · The table below provides drop-in/open play participation at the Center for the reporting period: Activity # Participants Adult Basketball 528 Youth Basketball 972 Adult Racquetball 324 Youth Racquetball 57 Adult Volleyball 33 Youth Volleyball 7 Jazzercise 1,250 · The table below summarizes organized adult activity at the Sports Center during the reporting period: Activity # Participants Age/Gender # Teams Racquetball 24 Adult~Male & Females N/A Basketball (full court) 180 Adult/Males 18 Basketball (3-on-3) 60 Adult/Males 12 City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 Adult Sports: · Two (2) adult softball tournaments are scheduled at the Epicenter and Adult Sports Complex during the month of June 2004. Two additional tournaments were cancelled due to the emergency shutdown of the main water line that serves our region by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. · Thirty-six (36) adults are participating in our tennis lea~lues. · The table below summarizes adult sports activities at the Epicenter for the reporting period: Activity # Participants # Teams Gender Softball 2,640 165 Males/Females Soccer 672 42 Males/Females Flag Football 50 5 Males Non-Profit Sports Organizations: · Bi-annually, the Community Services Department, through the Sports Advisory Committee allocates sport fields for non-profit orqanized youth sport leaques. For the reporting period, 10 non-profit sport groups utilized 18 City parks and had 59,907 participants and spectators enjoying our parks during both practices and game times. Special Events: · Due to anticipated construction at Chaffey College, the 2004 Jul,/4th Fireworks Spectacular "Salute to Heroes" will be held this year at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter located at 8408 Rochester Avenue. Stadium gates will open at 6:00 p.m. Live entertainment will begin at 6:30 p.m. Fireworks will begin at 9:00 p.m. Advance tickets sales (June 1st - July 3rd) are Adults - $6.00 and Youth (3-12) - $4.00 per ticket. Children under the age of 2 are free but must sit on an adult's lap. Tickets are available at Lions Center East, City Hall and the Senior Center during normal business hours. We will be having a Fun Zone for the kids with interactive fun rides and games. The Fun Zone will be open from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Tickets will be $5.00 per child for unlimited rides. Tickets available at the Fun Zone gates only on July 4th. There will be no pre-sale tickets available for the Fun Zone. Event day tickets for the Fireworks Spectacular will be available at Lions Center East and at the Epicenter Box Office. The cost for all tickets purchased on the 4th of July will be $8.00 a ticket. Stadium concessions will be available for food service. Field seating, alcohol, tobacco, coolers, and lawn chairs are NOT permitted inside the Epicenter. For automated information concerning our 4th of July festivities please call (909) 919-2658 or visit our website at www. RCpark.com. · Join us for an evening under the stars for our Concerts in the Park series. Concerts will take place on Thursday evenings at Red Hill Park Amphitheater. All concerts starts at 7:00 p.m. This summer's lineup for entertainment includes: July 8th Doo Wah Riders (Country) July 15th Person to Person (Top 40) July 22nd Ronnie & the Classics (Oldies) July 29th 80'z All Stars (80's Rock) City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Se~,ices Update June 16, 2004 August 5th Reno Jones (Jazz/Blues) August 12th Down with Three (Latin) August 19th The Fenians (Irish Rock) August 26th The Answer (Classic Rock) Food vendors, everything from BBQ, Mexican food to delicious deserts, (funnel cake and kettle corn) will be available starting at 6:00 p.m. · In the warmth of the summer nights ... grab your blankets and lawn chairs and enjoy our fantastic line-up of Movies in the Park with your entire family. Movies will be shown at Milliken Park on Monday evenings, Windrows Park on Wednesday evenings and Red Hill Park on Friday evenings beginning July 12~h through August 20~h. All movies start at dusk. This summer's lineup for movies includes: Agent Cody Banks (PG) Freaky Friday (PG) Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas (PG) Holes (PG) Piglet's Big Movie (PG) Finding Nemo (G) Snack items will be available for purchase at our Movies in the Park courtesy of our TRAC program. Performin~l and Cultural Arts: · Four young ladies were the first to be awarded scholarships from the James V. Curataio Performin¢:l Arts Scholarship Preqram. Each award offers the recipient up to $200 to be used towards the City's performing arts classes, workshops and programs. The awardees have one full year in which to draw on the funds for enrollment in our classes and programs. Three of the successful candidates will be performing in the City's summer musical "The Music Man" and will apply a portion of their scholarships towards their registration fee. The first round of scholarships was awarded to: Annie Curasi (age 17), Jessica Seyler (age 13), Holly Seyler (age 10) and Christine Hoffman (age 14). Each quarter new grants will be offered for our community's youngsters. A maximum four scholarships will be granted per quarter. Eligible youth must be between the ages of 8 and 18 years of age, be a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and complete an application form and written essay describing their interest in the performing arts. The scholarship application is available on the website at www. RCpark.com. · The all American musical, "The Music Man" will be presented July 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18 at Los Osos High School. The 85-member cast are currently rehearsing 3 days per week at Lions Center West and will move the production to the new high school theatre at the end of June. The show is directed by Barbara Hinrichsen who has directed five past community theatre productions for the City. Assisting Hinrichsen with the production is Doug Austin as Vocal Director. Austin is the Vocal Director at Citrus College and conducts the prestigious Citrus Singers. This is the second production Austin has vocal directed for the City, following last summer's production of "Bye, Bye Birdie." Choreography for the show is provided by Michele Stevens, who recently accepted the position of Assistant Artistic Director at Biola City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 University. The City is honored to have such distinguished local talent guiding the youth and adults in this upcoming production. Tickets for the production go on sale starting June 14th at the Civic Center, Lions Center East and RC Senior Center and are priced at $10.00 for General Admission and $8 for Seniors and Youth. Park and Facilities: · The table below provides usage information for park picnic shelters and special use facilities for the month of May 2004. Location/Facility Attendance Number of Number Hours of Use Applications of Processed Rentals Red Hill Community Park Picnic 3,163 45 57 207 Shelters Heritage Community 1,195 21 23 99 Park Picnic Shelters Hermosa Park Picnic Shelter 405 13 16 51 Milliken Park Pi(~nic Shelter 907 30 30 113 Coyote Canyon Picnic Shelter 405 12 17 51 Civic Center Courtyard* 50 1 1 2 Amphitheater 400 3 3 16 Equestrian 302 8 8 34 * ~-~'e r,~,,~ ,~_,~. 's not available for public rental due to the Ci~ ,'s construction project, howeve~ TRAC members were allowed to have an informal reception following their awards presentation at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on May 20, 2004. Heritage Park Equestrian Center: · Equestrian Center usage for the month of June 2004 is shown in the table below. Group Date Event/Time Frame Alta Loma Riding Club June 3rd Board Meeting/7:00 pm-8:30 pm Rising Stars Equestrian June 5th Special Olympics Qualified7:00 am-4:00 pm Therapy Equestrian Patrol June 10th Meeting/6:00 pm-9:00 pm Alta Loma Riding Club June 13th Play Day/9:00 am-3:00 pm 4-H Club June 21 Awards Picnic/6:00 pm-9:00 Dm Facilities: · The table below displays buildinq rentals and recreation contract class attendance numbers for the month of May 2004. Activity Program Numbers May Attendance Lions East Rentals 96 bookings 480 Lions East Building 734 facility hours 8,630 Lions West Rentals 195 bookings 936 Lions West Building 835 facility hours 7,291 Spring 2004 Recreation Contract Classes 300 classes 20,707 City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 ,, Staff is continuing to meet quarterly with users of the Equestrian Center to address maintenance needs and programming. Our local groups are very cooperative and supportive of the City's efforts. · Park monitors keep daily reports of activities in our parks, often helping out residents in need of assistance. Departmental / City Marketing: · Marketing efforts continue being implemented for the promotion of the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the Promoting Arts and Literacy fundraising campaign. May 15th the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes hosted "Quakes Connect with Culture" to assist with spreading the word about the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. The RC Performance Troupe performed prior to the game and during the 7th Inning Stretch, members of the Kids Culture Company distributed fliers as fans entered the Stadium and a display booth with information and staff was on-hand to share information and answer questions regarding the Cultural Center. · June will introduce the first in a series of seven Central Park Bookmarks that will be created every other month visually showing the construction progress of the Central Park facility on one side and promote City Activities, Events and the CSD RCpark.com website on the other. A sponsorship by Barnhart Construction was obtained to assist with the cost. The Bookmarks will be distributed through check-outs at our City Library and through a partnership with our local Barnes and Noble Bookstore. · The primary focus for June will be to promote the 4th of July Firework Spectacular and it's location for 2004 at the Epicenter Stadium due to anticipated construction at Chaffey College. Multiple communication avenues are being used in order to aid in the public being aware of this relocation. Epicenter Marketing: · Epicenter postcard is in final 3roduction phase at printer for a mailing to Location Scouts set for July. Park and Recreation Commission: · The next meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission is scheduled for June 17, 2004. At this meeting the following items are scheduled to be discussed/acted upon by the Commission: Update on Senior Advisory Committee. Update on Sports Advisory Committee. Update on Central Park Project. Update on Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Project. Consideration of appointments of Park and Recreation Commissioners to various subcommittees. ~ Review of proposed agreement between the City and Rancho Cucamonga/Fontana Family YMCA for use of the Central Park facility. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update June 16, 2004 Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation: · The Rancho Cucamonqa Community Foundation met on June 8, 2004 and discussed/acted upon the following agenda items: Update on Victoria Gardens Cultural Center project. Update on major sponsorship policy for the PAL fundraising campaign. Consideration of a Community Foundation Restructuring Plan. Approval of revised program plans and budget for the 2005 Community Foundation Gala. Consideration of additional appointment to the Community Foundation Board of Directors. Consideration of conducting a joint special meeting with the Library Foundation regarding adoption of the FY 2004-2005 PAL budget. Review and approval of the Community Foundation's Fiscal Year 2004-2005 annual budget. ~ Update on James V. Curatalo Performing Ads Memorial Scholarship Fund. ~' Foundation Members update and discussion on accomplishments of goals for the PAL Campaign. Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter: · The following activities/rentals took place during the reporting period: Maintenance Superintendents Association - Mini Equipment Shew- May 27, 2004 - Epicenter Parking Lots A & B. RC Police Department - Bike Rodeo - June 5, 2004 - Epicenter Special Event Area. Daily Bulletin/Quakes/City - Ali-Star Game - June 8, 2004 - Epicenter Stadium. Rancho Cucamonga High School - Graduation - June 10, 2004 - Epicenter Stadium. Kevin McArdte/ // / Joe O Nell Brad Buller Comrr ~nity Services Director ~ City Engineer City Planner hlCOMMSERVtCouncil&BoardslCityCouncillStaffReporfs120041update6.16.04, doc ATTACHMENT Pacific Electric Inland Empire Tail Project Status Chart PACIFIC ELECTRIC INLAND EMPIRE TRAIL PROJECT STATUS 5/20/2004 ELECTRIC TRAIL STATUS.xls Master Plan Planning Done - CC approved 12/6/00 Prelimina~ Construction Cost Estimates Planning Done SAFETEA (TEA-3) Grant Planning Next funding cycle is unknown pending Congressional re-authorization. 4/2/03 SANBAG has included set-aside funding as high-priority regional project conditioned upon local match - these funds are construction only (cannot be used for engineering design or environmental). City had commitment from SANBAG that we would be funded next available cycle because they already funded Fontana and Upland, TEA-3 - Earmarks Planning Done. Draft $6.4 million application rejected by lobbyists because City asking for Base Line/Il5 ;i~[e~chan,~e fundin,~. Non-Motorized Trails Grant (2000 Park Bond Act) Planning Denied because we do not have ownemhip or 20 year min. lease. Recreational Trails Progrem Grant Planning Denied because we do not have ownership or 20 year min. lease. Contract w/Boyle Engineering Corp. Ongoing contract administration. CC approved expanded scope 11/20/02. Kick-off meeting 9110/02. CC approved 12/6/00 SANBAG Coordination Planning Ongoing JPA coordination Planning Ongoing Vineyard Planting Agreement w/i 45' rail reserve Planning 5/20/04 Winery's attorney promised response to agreement "very shortly". 2/11/04 Gino Filippi area prornised to retum agreement within 1 week. SANBAG approval required. 11/24/03 Resent Draft Agreement to Gino Filippi. 9/15/03 Draft Agreement completed by City Attorney and sent to Filippi Winery. 10/7/03 City Engineer approved Agreement. 614/03 PW Subcommittee approved deal points. Ultimately will need CC Executive Session to approve. Aerial Topography Planning Done March 2003 by Boyle Engil~eering Environrnental Clearance (see subtasks below) Planning 12/8/03 Cultural/Historic Resources Study to be submitted to City this week. NEPA in progress. Krat trapping done March 2003. Revised PES Form submitted to Caltrans 4/1/03. CC adopted Neg Dec 10/17/01. Draft Phase I ESA 9/02. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Planoing/Lilbum 4/1/03 Revised PES sent to Caltrans, Oricjinally drafted 9/02. Prepare an ISA Planning/Lilbum On hold pending Caltrans cultural resources staff completing their Field Review (which may happen week of March 10~ 2003). Protocol trapping survey for SBKR Planning/Lilbum Done March 3, 2003 - no SBKR trapped/found, Cultural Resources Study Lilburn Still waiting for completion of Cultural Resources Study (2/26/04 left message for Dr. Sparky White). Done 12/10/02; however, Steve Hammond, Caltrans cultural resources staff, didn't attend. H, Field Review with Caltrans Planning/Lilburo has asked his supervisor David Bdcker to handle because he's too busy. Hoping to get Mr. . Bdcker to inspect week of March 10~ 2003, Engineering Design 5/5/04 Phase 2 (Amethyst to Archibald) 100% plans in for 2nd plan check. Phase 1 On hold pending environmental clearance and funding authorization, We cannot spend any STE money until these are done. Construction Bids Engineerin~ Construction & Inspection Engineedn~ Lease Corridor Plannin~l DONE - Lease effective 2/4/04. Marketing 2/17/04 REI agrees to support project. 2/11/04 Planning met with Francie Marfindale, Marketing Manager, to discuss ideas. Merchandise fundralsing: Poster complete; Map, T- sh r~s/Jackets on ho d pend n,q t me (Potent a for non-profit or(jan zat on to se ). PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL STATUS.xls Page 1 Non-Profit Community Based Organization 2/t 1/04 Francie Martindale Marketing Manager agrees that, initially, we should use Community Foundation. Fdends of the Pacific Electric disbanded?? Bob Curtis only one still active. Signs Planning DONE - 2/5/04 retumed comments to artist, Staff designed Project Construction signs. Obtained non-commeroial use d,qhts from Sunkist for packing crate labels. Contract w/Boyle Engineering Corp. Ongoing contract administration. CC approved expanded scope 11120102. Kick-off meeting 9110102. CC approved 12/6/00 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates Plannin~l Done STE Grant - Phase I bet. Haven & Etiwanda Planning Still waiting for completion of Cultural Resources Study. 411/03 Revised packet of info sent to Caltrans. 3/20/03 Meeting w/Caltrans. Field Review meeting done 12/10/02 - waiting for Caltrans cultural resources staff review. N EPA in process. Packet of federal forms sent to DLAE. $3.78 million approved by CTC in April 2002. Engineering Design On hold pending completion of federal environmental review. Bids/Contract Award Construction Contract w/Boyle Engineering Corp. :3ngoing contract administration. CC approved expanded scope 11/20/02. Kick"off meeting ;)/10/02. CC approved 12/6/00 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates ~lanning Done BTA Grant Planning 2/25104 90% engineefin~l plans plan checked and returned to Boyle. Engineering Design by Boyle Engineering Corp., 5/5/04 Phase 2 (Amethyst to Archibald) 100% plans in for 2nd plan check. including Landscape Design Bids/Contract Award Construction Ongoing contract administration. CC approved expanded scope 11/20/02. Kick-off meeting Contract w/Boyle Engineering Corp. 9/10/02. CC approved 12/6/00 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates Planning Done BTA Grant Plannin,q Denied - 1st Application Filed Nov. 12, 2002 for ~;227,000 was denied. Safe Routes to School Grant Planning Application filed 2/25/04 for $208,568, PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL STATUS.xls Page 2 , Land A~nda Station traill DONE - Lease effective 2~4/04. Secure Pro e fencin , boardin -u de ot DONE ~ HazMat Remediation (Depot Building) - includin'--~ ~ On hold pending funding. asbestos and lead based paint HazMat Remediafion (other than Depot Building) Planning/SANBAG Mike Bair, SANBAG agreed to pay for remediation and clean-up. Planning has obtained estimates. Demolition of out-buildings (except packing house) Planning 12/16/03 $50,000 CDBG application submitted for construction program funds ~ncil COnfirmation of m__.~..~..~ uses ~ ~ ~r Communi~ Garden ~ ~ Design Community Garden ~lannin'--'~"~'-~ 5/13/04 Concept Plan completed. Architerra agreed to donate their services to prepare landscape and irrigation plans. 4/29/04 Planning met with Robert Schuller, Master Gardener Coordinator who offered the r assistance in creat ng/operating garden through their Build C~ Garden volunteers. Architectural/Structural Engineering surveyofdepot ~ ~ ~ ~ house Re--of ~roblems -- Rehabilitate depot as museum, including ~ waterlsewer/electrical connections interior depot finish work for museum and displays Rehabilitate packing house as Community Garden teaching center/office, including water/sewer/electrical connections ~vements -- ~ 2/11/04 Planning met with Francie Martindale Marketin Mana er, to discuss ideas. Landscape improvements, including new perimeter Potential single vine row along north property line to be planted and maintained by Joseph fence, extedor displays and trailhead amenities Filippi Winery. Land Acquisition (County owned museum property) On Hold due to lack of funds. Need strategy to acquire properly or joint use agreement, Funding Design Parking lot improvements (seal, re-stripe) I*¥~p~'ovements, including new north perimeter fence, trailhead sign~ drinking fountain~ bike racks PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL STATUS.xls Page 3 T H E C I T Y 0 F ]~AN CHO CUCAH ONGA Slaff Report DATE: June 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council Members Jack Lam, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Dire~~ SUBJECT: Solicitors This report is being provided in response to the inquiry of Council Member Robert Howdyshell regarding business licensing requirements for solicitors doing business within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City's business license ordinance provides that, "it shall be unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling, or occupation in the city without first having procured a license from the City to do so, or without complying with any and all applicable provisions of this chapter". As a business operating within City limits, solicitors are required to obtain a City business license. Depending upon the type of business, the amount of business license tax may be calculated based upon gross receipts, gross payroll or a fiat rate. In addition to a business license tax, solicitors are required to obtain a solicitors permit. Under section 5.04.350, "Peddlers and persons soliciting, canvassing, or taking orders from house to house or from place to place in the city, or for any goods, wares, merchandise, or article to be delivered in the future...." shall pay a license tax on a per person basis in the amount of $10.00 per day or $50.00 per year. Upon approval of the solicitors permit application, the City's Business License Division issues a permit, which the solicitors are required to wear. The ordinance requires that, "any licensee transacting and carrying on business, but not operating at a fixed place of business in the city, shall keep the license upon his person at all times while transacting and carrying on such business". R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: Juno 16, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director SUBJEC'r: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES SUB- COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FILLING THE VACANCIES ON THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the City Council Community Services Sub- Committee's recommendations regarding filling the two vacancies on the Park and Recreation Commission. BACKGROUND The terms of office for Park and Recreation Commissioner's Patricia Carlson and Ann Punter are due to expire. The City Council Community Services Sub-Committee is scheduled to meet on June 15th to consider filling the vacancies. The Sub-Committee will present their recommendation to the Council at their June 16th meeting. Respect/ully submitted, Com~ Jnity Services Director ~:[c~MMSERV~c~unci~&B~ardsicityC~unci~iSta~Rep~rts~2~Park&RecAppts~616~4~d~c R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A CO~I~NITY ~EDVICE& DATE: June 16, 2004 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES SUB- COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FILLING TWO VACANCIES ON THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the City Council Community Services Sub- committee's recommendation to re-appoint Patricia Carlson and Ann Punter to serve additional four-year terms on the Park and Recreation Commission. BACKGROUND: The terms of office for Park and Recreation Commissioner's Patricia Carlson and Ann Punter are due to expire. Both Commissioners have indicated their interest in continuing to serve on the Commission and have submitted letters requesting re-appointment. The City Council Community Services Subcommittee, consisting of Councilmembers Gutierrez and Kurth, recently met regarding filling the two vacancies and are now recommending the re- appointment of Commissioners Carlson and Punter to additional four-year terms. Resp, ctfully submitted, Kevir Comr~ ~nity Services Director Attachment I:~X~)MMSERV~Cou nCil&Boar~s~Cit¥Courlcil~StaffRepo~ts~04~Park& RecAppt.061604.doc