Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999/09/08 - Agenda Packet
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel m Vice Chairman Macias __ Com. Mannedno __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 25, 1999 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from July 28, 1999) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15320 - MWH REALTY, LTD. - A subdivision of 6.99 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Industrial Park Development Distdct (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Oveday District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northeast comer of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN: 209-401-01. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (TO BE CONTINUED) V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS C. AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR THREE PARCELS IN CONNECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-05A - A request to change the land use and zoning designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for land totaling 18.5 acres in size located between 4th and 6th Streets on the west side of Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-062-31. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 2, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 2 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 89/88/1999 17:24 6267449931 ESA NETWORK PAGE Ell Bologtcal Dlvev,slty0 N~ Phi~ N~ ~.ls ~ N.~ A ~n-pm~t pm~ of ~al and ~mn~nta] b~ 5~, I~.], Mal~u, ~ September 8. 1999 Rod, a, City ofRancho Cucamonga ~q~s/~ s.~, Planning Commission c/4.~.n~sn~,, 10500 Civic Center Drive Raneho Cucaraonga, CA 91729 ~,t~, .alp~t,,. At~: Bn:nt LaCount, Project Ca-fo~dt'r th.r,~en,in~o~., Brad Builcr, City Planner mragt.s ~vle. RE: "Bartart American" Development Project. Environmental Trysum* Assessment and Development Review 98-10. St~t~ V~er. Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) stands on our p/~vious ~,t written comments of July 28. 1999 1o the City of Rancho s~-.,2p~r.~c...,~, Cucamonga (City). The Sage Council is opposed to the referenced ~s,~, ~,~,t. Bartart American Project, including design. aka TT 13316 ~ic NVatrs consist/n8 of 123 lots on 84 acres ofRiv~rsideam Mluvial Fan Sag~ c.~.~vtet.~c~.~., Scrub (RAFSS) habitat in the very-low residential district nt~-m ~ The Sage Council has reviewed the planning staff report to the City s~ c..~,~,, Planning Commission, including findings, resolution, mitigation monitoring program and standard conditions that ax~ Ix:fore you sab. tonight. Upon such review the Sage Council finds th~ staff reports PU~IC c~r~ and proposed mitigated negative declaration inadequate, inaccurate. misleading and not otherwise in accordance with CEQA, Natural sure. Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, ESA, NEPA. Cen~fmrd~t~s Native Plant Protection Act and the Clean Water Act City Planning Staff and Project Applicant fail to accurately identify lhat the project. if approvcd. w~uld dcsu'oy 75-84-acres of the rare, unique and "very thff~tened" Riverside~n Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat RAFSS is a type of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) and designated S1.1 by the Sune of California Natural Diversity Data Base. The fact that RAFSS habitat is on the project site requh-cs a full EIR punuam to CEQA guidelines. It is of no consequence wh~thcr RAFSS habitat is disturbed or not. the fact remains that this habitat type must bc adequately addressed and mitigated for through an EIR. The City planning staff and applicant have mislead the Planning Commission and public by only partially addressing 5- acres of CSS on the project site. 30 North Rayntortd Av.~nu~ · S4~t~ 302 · Pasadt'~a CA 9tl03 U.S~. ' 89/88/1999 17:24 6267449931 ESA NETWORK PAGE 82 City ofi~z~he Cocamo~ga Pl~ Commission EE: "Bei'~tl Amcri¢.~" Dc~elopmczlt Roject. Environm~tal Ar,,s~smczlt and I)¢v¢!o!~ocnt Review 98-I 0. l:'ro]pes~ Miti6a~ed Nel~ltiv¢ D~clara~ozi P~c 2 As the City is aware, the County of San Berna~'dino is the acting local lead agency for regional planning. including the NCCP (subregion 13.0) and the Valley-wide Multi-Species Habilat Conscxva~on plan (MSHCP). The City is a signatory to such statewide and regional plans and is rcs:luired to comply wilh CEQA. NCCP ACt, NEPA and the ESA. Such cnviromnental laws utilize the best scientific information in detefnsining significant impacts. In regards to sensitiv~ habitats and species in San l~-rnardino County. the County hes coah~cted scientific experts at the San Bcmardino County Museum (G~zrald Braden end Dr. Robert McKeman) to provid~ guidance and advicz on how to best cons~rv~ $1x~:ies and habltam. It is the Sage Council's undeislanding that scientific e,~fTerts from the M~ have advised the City a~irlM approving the referenced project. It is also th¢~ Sage Counci|'s understanding the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have also advised e~inst approving the Project. The City does ha~,e the discretion at this time to deny the Project. including the design element, to ensm that fig cutire projeot is in eom!Mianc¢ with the r~fcrene.,ed stat~ and federal e~ti~onm~ntal laws. As a public trustee of natural resources and signatory to regional conservation plans it is the City's responsibility to deny the Project tonight end request n full EIR. The City Plealing Staff is under the false assumption that only habitat that spe4;ies nre actively m~ting or burrowing in ~re of uny importance for mitigation purposes. Again. the Sage Council brings to your attention that the best available scie~lce must be cormidercxl when addressing environmental impacts. The Sage Council ha~ provided the City with documents that indicate whet ~ are telling you is in fact the truth. The recent scientific publication. which h~s been presented to the City by the Saga Council, "His'tory m~d Status of the California C. matcatchar in San Bemardino Cottory" concludc~ that both oexupied and unoccupied habitat needs to be protected in order for the federally listed gnatcatcher to survive ..a recover. The County Museum ¢xpeTts have stated that the surveys for the endangered San Bemardino hngaroo- rnt were inadequately performed. The Sage Council requmts that the City Planning Commission note that while somc "surveys" hav~ bo:n pefformod, there is a lack of actually biological studies. AccoMing to the experts at the Coun~ Museum, this Project, as well as others that axe in the NCCP/MSHCP planning are~ need to go through a comparative analysis to d~t;nllilg what effecB i; will. have on a vmbte habitat reserve aree/regiona[ plan. Such comparative analysis on the Ba~att project has not heen performed to da~e. The Project design, including gTading will have detrimental impacts on the environment that have not been adequately addressed or mitigated for. The gnidlng design will destroy all but 2.5-acre~ of R. AFSS habitat on aite as wfil as displacing numerous large mammals (coyotes) that forage on site. Natures design is tIE best design and thi~ Proje~-'t does not conform with the natural landscape and vegetative term/n. Whilt was once a conceptual approval by the City must now be analyzed in detail to ensure tlutt it is in complfimce with the law. Again the Sage Council stat~ that the ProJect is not in compliance with the law and luts not adccluately addressed or mitignted for biological impacts. Mitigation ratio for impects to RAFSS mtmt be at l~a.st 3:1, thtm re. quh'ing the project applicant to set aside 252-acres of · · 08/08/1998 17:24 6267449831 ESA NETWORK PAGE 03 O~ of~cho C~o~ Pl~ng Co~ission ~: "B~R ~c~' ~el~t ~j~ En~mm~ ~t ~ ~vel~ent Renew 98-10. ~o~g e~ S~ Co~cil ~3 inkind habitat if he intonds on destroying all 84-acrcs in the project area. Them has been no analysis of /mlrncts on regional planning. The City's General Plan is 20 years old and does not accurately take into account biological resources, open spacc and h'aflic. This Project is not in compliance with the Ci.ty's General Plan or State and Count~dc t=gional conservation planning. In closing the Sage Council requests that you do the right thing by dcnying thc Project with a mitigated ne~hvc declaration and requesting a full EIR that includes biological studies, not just surveys, and the projects effects on regional planning that the City and County are signatories of.. Please rcmcmb~r that thc City planning staff arc NOT biological experts and the applicants consultants are not in&pen,teat biological experts because ~cy are paid, Thc court has identified US Fish and Wildlife as experts and tnbiic Uustees. County Mnscum experts arc indcpcndent and contracted to provide guidance on thc MSHCP. Included wiffi this commcmt lctter are thrcc pages of cmail comments exchanged bchve, cn Gerald Bradcn, County Museum expert and the Sage Council regard/ng this Project and issues concerning the MSHCP/NCCP process. Please inchtic our commenls and supporting documents in the Administxativc record for this project. Thank you For your consideration. If you have any questions do not hesitate in contacting thc Sage Council. Conservation Programs Director Spirit of the Sage Council cc: Cra/g Sherman, Attorney at Law Gt-mld Brader~ San Bermmt/no County Museum P.J. White, US Fish and Wildlif~ Service 89/88/1_999 17:24 6267449931 ES~, NETWORK PP, GE B4 Subjeer: Barrat American update l)nte: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09~1:4~ -0700 From: *Brad~ Gerald" <gbraden~ccL co. san-bemardino.ctus> To: 'Leeona Kl/ppsttin,~ ~i Leeona, Barrat American is ~ticking with their proposed mitigation of 5 ac. for the entfre Archibald project. The 5 ac consist of 2.5 ac. on-site in a detention basin and 2.5 ac. off-site in an un-specified area. FWS met with Barrat two weeks ago and told them that agreed with SBCo Museum, there are at least 75 &c of high quality CS$ on site and that the appropriate mitigation is 3:1. Barrat insisted that the issue was a CEQA issue and FWS did not have jurisdiction. A new CDFG person was present, but didn't understand CEOA. Glenn Black was supposed to attend the meeting but didn't show. I took a video of the site to show the extent of CSS/AFSS and mailed it to Glenn Black. Ne has not responded yet to my phone calls Or the video. PSBS, Mich Beauchamp, prepared a Quino report, after the fact, and FWS accepted it as valid. Parvus trapping was done, but the trapping was inadequate, which is a common problem on the fan. The corridor issue has never been addressed. The importance o{ the site to the Valley Plan was never addressed. R.C. plannlng is apparently going to recommend pro3ect approval this evening at the planning commission meeting. Gerald T. Braden Research Biologist San Bernardino County MUseum Biological Sciences Phone: (909) 307-2669 xt. 251 FAX: (909) 307-0539 t 1 9~99 10'~6 AM ':' ' .p.s./.ee_/,1.2_s9,.,,17:24 6267449931 ESA NETWORK PAGE 85 Subject: nil NCCPNalI,,y MSHCI'? Dat~: W~ 8 ~p 1~ 11:54:05 ~7~ F~m: 'B~e~ ~mld" <~ccr. co.~-~o.~.~ To: "~ ~i~'' <l~n~~i[.~ See answers to the ~sstions below. I'll follow up with a formal letter. ..... Original Message ..... From: Leeona Klippstein [mallto:leeona~sageco~cil com] Sent: We~ay, Septe~e~ 08, 1999 12:21 ~ ' TO: Braden, Gerald S~ject: NCCP~alley MS~CP? Hi Gerald, The Sage Council has several questions that I would appreciate an answer to. 1. Could you please explain the "process" that the County is using with local govt signatories regarding NCCP/MSHCP planning? It appears that the County and cities do not have their own "interim" process guidelines and are not complying with the NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines. To the best of our knowledge (the Museum Biology Department as tech/lical lead for the Valley Plan), the only advise the County has issued to the signatories of the Valley Plan have come from the Museum Biology Department by way of comment letters On some projects. To our knowledge, the County has not issued any formal or informal "process" or Conservation guidelines to Valley Plan signatories in regards to NCCP or the valley Plan. We may not be aware of actions taken by SHCo Planning Department and suggest you contact Randy Scott for additional information. 2. I am aware that Bob and you are contracted by the County as the technical advisors for habitat conservation planning, yet it has become very apparent that the County and title6, eapecially Rancho Cucamonga, are completely ignoring your Bdvice as well a~ CDFG and [WS. Have you reported this problem to Valerie Pilmer in Planning or SupervisOr Jerry Eaves? Who exactly do y~u report to at the County? Please provide the Sage Council with copies Of your letters and documents. Valetie Pllmer is no longer with the County. Handy Scott is our current contact with County Planning. We have raised our concerns with Randy Scott via small and phone messages that the lac~ of cooperation by plan signatories and the pace of development throughout the valley, but especially on the Fan, will thwart any reallsitc chances for a meaningful Valley Pla~. - 3. Does the County and cltles notify you of projects in the planning area such as Barrett American and University projects? or do you research the development threats on your own? On occasion, County Planning has notified us of projects in the planning area. However, the notifications are not early in the planning process. Thus~ Our input on proposed developments is not effective. The majority, (approx. 95%) Of the projects in the planning area Come to our attentIOn from sources outside of the County, usually private interests. On occasion 09/88/1999 1~: 2~ 6267~89~1 ESA NETWORK PAGE we have researched the development threats on our own. However, we nave received no mandate from the county to do 4. Do you and/or Bob meet with County and cities planners on e regular basis to review and consider projects in the habitat planning area? DO you meet with CDFG and FWS also? No, we have had no meetings with the County or the city planners to review and consider projects in the planning area with the exception of the Barrat Development in Rancho Cucamonge. We were invited to the meeting by RanCho Cuca~onga specifically to discuss the Barrat Project with the city planners, Barter, and Barrat's consultant. We have ~ade small and phone requests to County Planning specifically to begin a formal process of review for projects within the planning area in regards to the affects On the valley Plan. Me have not received a response and still persue the issue. No, we have had no formal contact with CDFG Or FWS since the County Supervisors re-authorized the Valley Plan in January 1999. we have discussed, via phone, the need for review of projects in the planning area with P.J. White (NS). ~r CUrrent ~derstanding is that P. J. White iS Organizing such a meeting with CDFG, County Planning, City Planners, and FWS. The tentative meeting date ia mid 5eptemeber, but has not been finalized. We have had no contact ,formal Or informal, with CDFG since the Valley Plan was re-authorized though we have made repeated attempts to do so. 5. since the County and City do not have their own "interim" process and conservation guidelines, sh0uld~'t they be using the NCCP process and conservation guidelines that have been adopted by the CDFG anG FWS? AS the technical lead for the Valley Plan, we have no authority to issue interim process conservation quidlines. Mowever, we have informally notified FWS and County Planning months ago that some type Of interim process quilinee are warranted. Based on the apparent Ineffectiveass Of the NCCP interim G~/ldlines and the limited areas for potential reserves, we would probably advise the County, FW5, and CD~G that NCCP quidlines are too liberal. Thank yOU for answering these questions. It is very difficult for the public to understand what is happening with the so called habitat conservation plan and NCCP. Shouldn't there be a competitive analysis in the Project EIR as to whether the projects are in compliance with regional planning? Yes, it is our opinion that project EIR's and Negative Declarations should include s comparative analysis of project impacts to the Valley Plan, a regional planning effort. It is our understanding that CEQA requires project EIR'e and/or Negative Declaratioins to do so. Nevertheless, we have never encountered a such a~ analysis in our reviews of EIR'S and Negative Declarations for projects within the planning area. Leeone Klippeteln, Co-founder Conservation Programs Director Splrit Of the Sage Council 30 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 302 Pasadena, CA 91103 626-744-9932 http://www.sagecouncil.com 9~&99 1:05 PM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRA'I'I' AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. BACKGROUND: At it's July 28,1999, meeting, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project to September 9, 1999, to allow time for the applicant and Planning staff to meet with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The intent of the meeting was to discuss the July 28, 1999, USFWS letter commenting on the project. In the letter, USFWS acknowledged the applicant's San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Protocol surveys and the Quino Checkerspot ButterTqy survey which show no signs of any of the species on site. However, USFVVS opined that the site contains approximately 80 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub and recommended that it be mitigated through off-site replacement at a ratio of 3:1 (3 acres of replacement for every acre removed or 240 acres of replacement). Planning Division staff met with the applicant and representatives of USFWS on August 31, 1999, the earliest date USFWS was able to meet. At the August 31, 1999, meeting, USFWS clarified that the 3:1 Coastal Sage Scrub replacement ratio is a recommendation based upon current desires of USFWS relating to the regional loss of Coastal Sage Scrub as opposed to a project specific recommendation. Coastal Sage Scrub is a type of plant community which provides habitat for threatened and endangered species such as the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and the California Gnatcatcher. As development occurs in the foothills. Coastal Sage Scrub is being diminished. The applicant's biological surveys indicate that the site actually contains 5.04 acres of undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub and 77.6 acres of very disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub. Itdoesnotappearnecessaryorreasonabletorequirethedeveloper to mitigate the removal of very disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub and there is no clear justification for requiring more than the 1: 1 replacement for the undisturbed habitat as recommended by the project biologist. Copies of the July 28, 1999, and June 9, 1999, Planning Commission staff reports are attached for reference. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff recommends the following mitigation measure be adopted to ensure that the potentially significant environmental impacts related to Coastal Sage Scrub are mitigated to a level of less than significant: ITE~ "A" PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 September 8, 1999 Page 2 The developer shall mitigate removal of the on-sita undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (5.04 acres) at a ratio of 1:t by establishing 2.5 acres of native shrub land on the detention basin slopes and through the purchase and preservation in perpetuity of a minimum of 2.54 acres of off-site lands in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed all other issues relative to potential environmental impacts associated with the project. It has been demonstrated that the site does not contain sensitive or endangered species. Based on this information, including the above new mitigation measure, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. Ifthe Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. OFF SITE DRAINAGE: A letter was received from Dianna Santini, homeowner at 5207 London Avenue expressing concern related to off site drainage improvements associated with the project. A letter was received from Matt Rees, homeowner at 5217 London Avenue, expressing similar concerns. Tentative Tract 13316 was approved in 1987 with conditions of approval which include constructing a debris basin, storm drain system, and overflow protection for Lots 9 and 10 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Dudng the review process for the design of these drainage facilities, various property owners to the south voiced concerns regarding the portion of the facility which extends 107 feet south of the south tract boundary, within a City drainage easement dedicated to Tract 9590. Staff met with these property owners, discussed several options and concluded that while the outlet channel could be extended further south,there was little additional benefit and the developer had met all the requirements of the tentative map. With a time extension in 1989, the Planning Commission directed that the channel be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Design was concluded and the map recorded in 1990. In a 100-year storm; the debds basin will direct about 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) into a storm drain which will outlet into an open channel between Lots 9 and 10. Site flows will bring the total ouffiow to about 380 cfs. The channel has been designed with energy dissipaters and a stilling pond to reduce outlet velocities. The channel extends the entire width of Ms. Santini's property, the northernmost lot fronting London Avenue, thereby diverting all off-site flows which currently reach her north property line. Even if the storm drain were extended or relocated, a channel would still be needed to accommodate the emergency spillway for the debris basin. The City Attorney has responded directly to both of these letters (see copies attached). OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT: Severalofthesurroundingpropertyownershavesubmittedletters since the first Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 1999. · The one letter that seems to summarize the concerns is from Cindy Shannon, a homeowner at 9574 Hidden Farm Road (west of the project site). Her concerns are as follows: 1. Hidden Farm Road should not be continued across Archibald Avenue because of the difference in age of the existing tract to the west and Tract 13316, danger to children who fide their bikes and skateboards on the street and might try to cross Archibald, and Hidden Farm Road is a cul-de-sac which doesn't go anywhere. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 September 8, 1999 Page 3 Response: The Final Tract Map, which included street alignment, was recorded in 1990. Therefore, the issue of street alignment has already been resolved and is not currently before the Planning Commission nor part of the applicanrs request. For public safety reasons, City policy requires that streets intersecting with residential major streets and collector streets, like Archibald Avenue, align to minimize conflicts between left turning traffic. Furthermore, by Ms. Shannon's rather accurate observation, Hidden Farm Road on the west side of Archibald is a cul-de-sac, it does not go anywhere and will not therefor function as a thru street connection between the Barratt project and any other destination. Traffic on the existing portion of Hidden Farm Road will not increase as a result of the Barratt project. 2. There are three exits from the tract onto Archibald Avenue and only one onto Hermosa Avenue. This would make emergency exiting dangerous. Response: 'As noted above, the street alignment has already been approved and recorded with the Final Tract Map and is not part of the current project. City policy requires two means of access for residential tracts. The street layout and alignment for the tract are in conformance with City policy. 3. The proposed project does not meet the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and the previous Development Review had a condition requiring only one- story homes. Response: The project is in conformance with all applicable sections of the Development Code, including Hillside Development Standards. The homes are designed within a maximum 30-foot high building envelope, and the terrain is proposed to be graded with variable, undulating slopes, consistent with Hillside standards. The previous Development Review approval was for a grading concept for single-story homes only, but it did not include home design. A condition of approval required a new Development Review application for any change in the home product, The previous Development Review approval has expired and no longer has bearing on the site. The applicanrs project includes two-story homes and the applicant has filed a new Development Review application accordingly. A Pre-Application Review workshop was held by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1998, and it was determined that two -story homes would be appropriate so long as they are sensitively planned. The applicant has pk~tted two-story homes in such a way as to minimize view blockage to existing homes. 4. Barratt graded the site without City approval on June 7 through 9, 1999. Response: It is true that Barratt performed brush clearance work on the site and did so without any approvals from the City. The City issued a stop work order and Barratt did stop work. A dust control substance has been applied to the scrubbed portion of the site and the site has been secured with chain link fencing. While it is not the ideal situation, the fact that Barratt cleared brush from a portion of the site does not prevent the Planning Commission from making all necessary findings in support of approval of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 September 8, 1999 Page 4 · The Spirit of the Sage Council has also issued correspondence regarding the project. The Council is of the opinion that the project would "diminish and destroy the pursuits and abilities of the Sage Council [to enjoy the uniqueness of the site's habitat]." The Council also asserts that no mitigation is being required for the Coastal Sage Scrub on-site and therefore the project should either be denied or the City should require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Response: The Environmental Assessment indicates that the project will have an impact to on-site Coastal Sage Scrub, and identifies replacement mitigation accordingly. The applicant has agreed to the mitigation. All other potentially significant impacts have been addressed and can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Therefore, no "Statement of Overriding Considerations" need be made and an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. · Staff has received two letters in support of the project. One from an individual interested in purchasing a home in the project who is frustrated by the continuances to date. The other letter in support is from Don Blunk, a homeowner at 9745 Carrari Street. Mr. Blunk and his neighbors along Carrad Street are perhaps those most affected by the project since Carrari Street lies along the south boundary of the tract. Mr. Blunk welcomes the project and feels it will enhance the area. CORRESPONDENCE: While not required by City Ordinance or State Law, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site notifying them of the September 8, 1999 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and attached standard conditions, and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation for the debds basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. City Planner BB:BL:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Correspondence not included with previous staff reports Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, and June 9, 1999 Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Reports dated July 28, and June 9,1999 Resolution of Approval with Conditions R E C EI V E D To: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 JUt 2 July 17, 1999 Dear Mr. Le Count, CityofRancho Cucam0nga P~anning Division I am sending my concerns in writing for the proposed develop- ment at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File NO. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). 'I find this necessary since the date for this public hearing has been changed three times now. (It was originally scheduled on July 14th, then Aug. llth and now July 28th.) Myself and many of my neighbors have tried to schedule around these constant changes in the hearing date. This last date is impossible for me to schedule around. I ask once more for a hearing date in Septem- ber, when more residents can attend. Although moving up the hearing date clearly benefits the developer, please consider the residents wishes as well. I would to reiterate several points made at the planning commission meeting on June 9th for your consideration. On this date, I presented you with a petition signed by 23 residents. The petition opposes the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald into the new Barratt Development and requests the new housing be one story only homes and/or fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Twelve out of sixteen homes on Hidden Farm are represented, with the remaining signatures from residents on the development peri- meter--including Almond St. and Jadeire Ave. to the west, Archi- bald to the north and Carrari to the south. The reasons for opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road into the new tract are: 1. The difference in age between the tracts is approximately 20 years. When originally planned there would only have been a few years difference. 2. Most importantly, the danger to children in both tracts. Currently kids ride their bikes and roller skate on our street, if the road continues across Archibald, kids would be more likely to try to cross this 50 mph, downhill road. And as one resident said, "lowering the speed limit will not make it safe." 3. Hidden Farm road is a cul-de-sac, it doesn't go anywhere, so why connect it into the new tract? I suggest off setting the streets, as most already are in the area. So children would not be tempted to try to cross Archi- bald. Hillside ordinance issue The Planning commission workshop minutes from June 10, 1998 state: 1. "Previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes" This was intended to minimize visual impact and 2 story homes would have more impact. 2. Concerns were voiced about 2 story homes being built without stepping the pads and that allowing this project to proceed is allowing a dangerous precedent to be set for hillside develop- ment. 3. Our questions are: a. Do the proposed flat pads "fit the terrain" as the Hillside Ordinance stipulates? b. What is being done to retain "minimal visual impact"? c. At the design review meeting I saw planning commissioners taking great care to assure visual impacts from structures and yards were minimized. Since this new development does not have an association, how will this be maintained? Also of concern are the 3 exits proposed on Archibald, with only 1 exit on Hermosa that mentions impact on emergency access. This is a severe fire danger area! In the event of a wildfire people will want to get there pets and possessions and get out. How does the proposed mitigation of one through street connection from Archibald to Almond solve the emergency exit problem? Especially when Archibald narrows to one lane below Hillside! With 3 exits on Archibald and one on Hermosa, I think most will try to exit on Archibald. My last concern is with the grading done over June 7-9th. This grading was done "without city approval" according to asso- ciate planner,' Brent Le Count. Shrub removal for fire prevention usually is done on the perimeter of the property. On June 8th, one fourth to one half of the area was cleared from north of Almond St. south to Carrari. Including the middle portion, not just the perimeter. My understanding is this type of grading is done after mitigation is complete. Ralph Crane of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department said normal fire clearance includes mowing, discing or hand cutting the area 100 feet in from the curb. Since the residents have complained, Barratt development has erected an ugly, barbed wire chain link fence around the entire property. We feel this is in retaliation for our com- plaints and to prevent the movement of wildlife through the neighborhoods, as it has done. I ask you, to please consider the residents in your decisions, and this developer's lack of consid- eration for the residents in this area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the co~nunity identity. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it. There- fore, myself and the signers of this petition hope you will con- sider these points. Thank you for your time. Cindy Shannon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning COL~LiSSiOn Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager RECEIVED TO: The Planning Coramission 10500 Civic Center Drive JUt 2 1 39 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 Dear Planning Commission, City0fRancho Cuca~ 17, 1999 Planning Division I am sending my concerns in writing for the proposed develop- ment at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I find this necessary since the date for this public hearing has been changed three times now. (It was originally scheduled on July 14th, then Aug. llth and now July 28th.) Myself and many Of my neighbors have tried to schedule around these constant changes in the hearing date. This last date is impossible for me to schedule around. I ask once more for a hearing date in Septem- ber, when more residents can attend. Although moving up the hearing date clearly benefits the developer, please consider the residents wishes as well. I would to reiterate several points made at the planning con~nission meeting on June 9th for your consideration. On this date, I presented you with a petition signed by 23 residents. The petition opposes the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald into the new Barratt Development and requests the new housing be one story only homes and/or fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Twelve out of sixteen homes on Hidden Farm are represented, with the remaining signatures from residents on the development peri- meter--including Almond St. and Jadeire Ave. to the west, Archi- bald to the north and Carrari to the south. The reasons for opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road into the new tract are: !- The difference in age between the tracts is approximately 20 years. When originally planned there would only have been a few years difference. 2. Most importantly, the danger to children in both tracts. Currently kids ride their bikes and roller skate on our street, if the road continues across Archibald, kids would be more likely to try to cross this 50 mph, downhill road. And as one resident said, "lowering the speed limit will not make it safe." 3. Hidden Farm road is a cul-de-sac, it doesn't go anywhere, so why connect it into the new tract? I suggest off setting the streets, as most already are in the area. So children would not be tempted to try to cross Archi- bald. Hillside ordinance issue The Planning conunission workshop minutes from June 10, 1998 state: 1. "Previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes" This was intended to minimize visual impact and 2 story homes would have more impact. 2. Concerns were voiced about 2 story homes being built without stepping the pads and that allowing this project to proceed is allowing a dangerous precedent to be set for hillside develop- ment. 3. Our questions are: a. DO the proposed flat pads "fit the terrain" as the Hillside Ordinance stipulates? b. What is being done to retain "minimal visual impact"? c. At the design review meeting I saw planning co~nissioners taking great care to assure visual impacts from structures and yards were minimized. Since this new development does not have an association, how will this be maintained? Also of concern are the 3 exits proposed on Archibald, with only 1 exit on Hermosa that mentions impact on emergency access. This is a severe fire danger area! In the event of a wildfire people will want to get there pets and possessions and get out. How does the proposed mitigation of one through street connection from Archibald to Almond solve the emergency exit problem? Especially when Archibald narrows to one lane below Hillside! With 3 exits on Archibald and one on Hermosa, I think most will try to exit On Archibald. My last concern is with the grading done over June 7-9th. This grading was done "without city approval" according to asso- ciate planner, Brent Le Count. Shrub removal for fire prevention usually is done on the perimeter of the property. On June 8th, one fourth to one half of the area was cleared from north of Almond St. south to Carrari. Including the middle portion, not just the perimeter. My understanding is this type of grading is done after mitigation is complete. Ralph Crane of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department said normal fire clearance includes mowing, discing or hand cutting the area 100 feet in from the curb. Since the residents have complained, Barratt development has erected an ugly, barbed wire chain link fence around the entire property. We feel this is in retaliation for our com- plaints and to prevent the movement of wildlife through the neighborhoods, as it has done. I ask you, to please consider the residents in your decisions, and this developer's lack of consid- eration for the residents in this area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the cormnunity identity. It also says the review coL~ittees value public participation and encourages it. There- fore, myself and the signers of this petition hope you will con- sider these points. Thank you for your time. Cind~ Shannon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 RECEIVED JUL 2 1 1999 Krishna K & Vidya K Kudva 9683 Carrari Court City o~ Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA-91737 P~anning Division July 19,1999 Planning Division City ofRancho Cucamonga P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA-91729 Sub: Environmental Assessment and Development review 98-10 - Bartart American Dear Sirs, We received your Notice of Public Hearing and Environmental Notice dated July 15,1999 on the above subject. We oppose the proposed construction of the 123 dwelling units on the 84 acres of land on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court. As the area residents of nearly twenty (20) years, we strongly feel that the proposed construction will have negative and damaging impact on the environment, and degrade the quality of life the area residems are currently enjoying. We are, therefore, voicing our strong objections to any further land development or construction of any nature in the proposed area. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our views on this issue. Vidya Kudva 3UL--28--99 O2 ;152 PI'I DON I=LUNK 969 98~ Z997 P. 6)3. MY NAME IS DON BLUNK, i RF,,SIDF,, AT 9~'4S CARRAIL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, THIS B DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THf, PROPOSED TRACT 13316. [ HAVE LIVED TBgRt fOR 20 YRARS. t KAV~ WATCKED AS THREE DLFFERENT RESIDENTIAL 61jJi,DgR.~ ILAVE ATTEMIrTED TO BUILD ACR(Y~ I~iOM MY HOME. THE FIRST ONE WA~NEVs'-RREALLyAFACi'OiL FREgDMANHOMI~IWAS Tile SECOND BUILDER TO ATTEMPED TO BUILD IN THIS LOCAl'ION. AITER MUCH DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY AND IrREEBMAN HOME~, THERIg WA~ A MEETING OF THE MINDS AND THE TItACT WAS APPROVED UNANIMASLY BY THE PLANNING COMMITTE ON MARCH 25th, 19~7. TWO OF FgOPI~E FROM THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ARE ON THIS BOARD. MANY OF OUR NEIGHBOllS ~WERE INVOLVED IN DISCtJSSIONS WITH THIS BUILDER, AND MANY LITTERS WRITI'EN TO THE CITY ABOUT TIllS AREA MOSTLY CONCERNING THE FACT THAT HOI61'~ WEB GOING TO DE ALLOWED IN THiS AREA, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERI~ VERY MUCII AGAINST !IAVLNG FARMS ANAMAL$ IN THEE NEIGRBOEIIOO II, Till TRACT WAS TO BE OF MIXED HOUSinG, ONE AND TWO STORY HOMES, BUT BECAUSE OF AN A~PEAL IT WENT TO THE crrY COUNCIL. AND WITH MUCH ADDITIONAl, WORI~ IT W,~ APPROVED BY TIlE COUNCIL, PEOPLE ON ALL SIDE3 OF THIS TRACT 03316) WERE SOMEWHAT RESIGNED TO THE FACT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE IUILT. EVERYONE ON IX)NDON AT THAT TIME WM AWARE OF Tile PLANS ItOR THE FLOOD CONTROL, AND MOST PEOPLE AT THAT TIME AGREED WITH THE FINAL APPROVRD MAP. I AM NOT AWARE Of ANY OIr THE OIIGtNAL OWNERS STILL LIVING ON I,ONDON. i WOULD THINK THAT A~NYONE MOVING TO THOSE LOT WOULD WANT TO I~IND OIIT lit ANy THING MIGHT EFI~ICCr THEM IN THE FUTURE BEFORE 111EY WOULD INVE,ST IN TilgRE HOMES. i IOIOW 111AT THERE I: zLE REPORT WOULD SIIOW THE CURRI~NT EASEMENT. THE TRACT WAS FINALLY APPRO~rgD IN JUNE 1~80, BUT TIllS TRACT ~ITOPPED WHEN gREEDMAN HOMES CEASED WORK ON THE PROJECT AND LET THE LAND GO BACK TO THE BANK... rf SEEMS IRONIC ~I!AT AT THAT TIME THERE WERE NO LOUD C~F.~ FOR gNDANGEID BIRDS, RAT, BUl-i-ze-srLY OR EVttN SAGE BRUSH. OR IF TllE RE WAS, IT WAS NOT VERY LOUD. O}t COI/ZD iT 2~ I]]~iT 2Zi,I~P~; PIPiNg' NOT ANY ENDANCiP. RED PLANTS OR AMIMAL~' AT TIIAT 'lTMl~'. SINC~ TL[E ZI341~' 7IL4T I HAFE IJVED IIF. RI,.; 771E BRUSII ACI(O,~' 'lZll:' 57REET ll/IS Itl.:EN CUT IFl~ll A DI,%U , IT ItA5 BEEN Ctrl' ~7711A D8 TRACTY)R DOWN T~) TIIE DII(T. IT IIAS I~EEN CUT ON AIJ. SID~S. NO RT.rl O I. CARRARI ~TREI:T AT I. F.A.~I,:D JOO FI.:I~r. IT ~,1,~ I~EEN CIfI' ON BOTII .~IDF~ OF l~llz' ~[l TII~T GO~' D087~' TIIP.' MII)I)f.E Ol.'lTIE I'ROPERTY IN A C/(/'.'k~,' (.'R(.~hT:,· PATIERN . I EI~ILLY WONDI.2R IF AN't' ENDANG ,I:2Rk. Z~ ANAL~,~4LS GR pLA.zV'T COflI,D.~TZI. L F_JLTST [N IZII.%'/IRt~t., tITI?[ ALL TIllS C{RTYNG OR IF 7YlERE WOULD BE A CI bIN(,"/'.' I'~)R ITIEM TO R/,.;/'2,S7:4/]/J571 IYlE~4SI'j3'I'~ . IN TIll." W~'A~7/,.R MONTII. Y MANf MOT()RC]'CLE RIDERS PI~4C',IICA' 711~2RE tlOBBY IN T! IL~' I' 7ELD, ,f I~t~,VT IIE, IRI) lr) MUCtl OF A I.OUD ~7J1(7~ R) $TOP TIllS PR`4(~77Ck; '[~) PRO77'.'CT IIIE ENDANGI,3eI.;D PIANTS AND ANIg41.~ JUST LrKE MANY OF OUR NEI(jlIBORS Wt,' SEE WILI) LII't:'INTIIE~'II'3.D...IK~VOIVOFCOI'OT~%', 0PO, g~UM. SKtJNK2~, P,.4TS. S(JUARREI.~, .eJ'II)I,3I~/fND E~, ,TEtV' AN (X;AoYSJONAL DF.~.R. Y/I~.' I I/D ~' !lAD MORI'.' I;tlAN OUR SIL4RE OIo' R/I Z7Z!~ritK~.5' TIIZ~' FK4R AS W~21J. ~IS TI/E L4~T FEW I'I'YtR.%L , l WOUIJ) MI.~%' TIlE NATt~.4L BK4~rlT OI" 17IE llILI~ Bffr I AM .c, O MICWI 1,47' OF A RE.4I.~7'. Wk' IIAVE BEEN AMAZI..'L1TIIAT TIllSARK4 IIAS NOT ~ DDT,2LOPED IN/llJ. 711~-'~t.' 1 tL4VI.: ALWAY.%' KNOWN fTIAT WIll:iV YOU MO~ ~ INTO) AN ARF_4. ESI'F(.'ZALL~' WII]t VA(2ANT BI;IIJ).4BLE LAND TllAT YOU SIIOULtJ IIE READF TO $1~.'.~,Y)AH:' THING E~' ,TEN'I~JALLy C. O1NG IN. WE IM!,t.' fAlt~III'2D p~jOptF 0.%' BO'lTI Nll)~: OF ARCIIIB,41,1).~40~TE AJ. FAF .4N/).~EW PEOPLE MOI~' IN_ TfI~I..'.tRE t'EOPLE ARE. NOT/1 WARE' OF 7~IE 1.1GIFI,'Y IlIAT IIAVI,: ('tONk' ON ~ITtl BUIIJJKFFI~' 70 (il~T TIlE BE57'FOS~IBI. E DEI7zT.01'AIENT Y?IAT 77IE CTTY CAN II/i~?-;.AND .......NOW W~.'ARI:'AT FIIAT,~4ME DOOR ,4C,,41N. 771E crl~ HAS ~'ORK El) I [~IRD ~ FIND .SOMEONE TO DE$;ELO t' llll:' LAND. BUT WITI I NEW P~;OI'IJ:' IN Till:' ~, NO5' 11.41 ~.'.4 NEg" FIGIIT. lZlIS' TIME TIlE LI';17~;RS IIL4T.4RE B 'IaNG D~Tll:2N ~ILIo IIAVI;' END~INGI':R~;I) /,MIMALS IN lZlI.M IN~TEAD OF AIIOffr'IIORSI:~ TIII~ W/ISll /~'AGAIN.4 N~:W CIIAIJAN(jE. BUT17IE CTTY ISS7YlJ~IR~YAtGTOGETlllI. YTIIRt;; N/E.~IOUI. D77.'I.£ Etll~'BI. ylJ)l.2~$'llkiT17[D'JRE1NPOR FIGIFI' IF llll~T WAFt' 1U BUILD IN TIllS Crib; ]'IIERE ARE PEOI'I~' WIIO 1~41V'I' 3Y) MAKE A PRI~$'ERVE OUT OF TIlE lAND. OF COURSE 111AFE .%~;E.~r NO I°I.,1NS I~ DO TIII, Y. MA}'Bt; Y~flk,'}' IllINK TIlE C17"t' BUY TIII~; I.~ ND IoROM TIlE DI~,~.LOPER . I./-.Th' JU57 SPI~ND MORE MONEY IN57F. AD OF IIAFIN(i IZll': 1AND MAKk'.~IOzVE]' IN NI.;W T/L~'AND FIH'.'S I'YJR 7IIE CIT¥, I~'('I. UDIN(i MORE R~]T!NUI,' J;~DR Be~N~ IN IIIE ARI'~., II; Y,/E IVKRK l'fi LET TItE L4ND fiO SL~CK TO fI.~'.~47UR.]L STATE.. LYA FEW YI"~4R.~ WIII*;N .~J~L1711:' BR{f~II ItAS GROIVN B, iCIC, TII~: I,IRK MAR,$~IAI, WOUI.D T~7.L SO.~42~'ONE IO CCrl' YYlE BRO'S'II AGAIN TO JUL--28--99 8~2:54 PM DON BLUNK 989 98~ 1997 P.82 ~' I IA~ ~' ~,VED ... TI I~' ~ZU~I, a~ ~... 01,' COUP.. AIJ. 771E 77~.~ll TIt ~T G~75' DUA~'FD IN Z?IE FI~. AId. 711~: IN Ob~ WINDY T~l~. Yl~ ~NI) ~)At~' P~:OP~' WI~ .~711.L lt4~' 171b~' Vl~'~. tll~' Pb:OPl~' W!IO ~: NOT ~Y)R IZllC C()A~,~O,V I0 .~7~)1~ l'~}Th'G ~1111 TIll.~ IJNO OR W~ ~'lld. BE ~ING TIllS AG~N IN ~lll~ ~ ~I~RS ~71LV ~Afi~ I)~.'~OPl~ ~,~'~ IRY AND BLED. ~71AT YOU ( ~ TELL 1 AM PDR Hllg ~(~ ~ ~N ONI. I' II~ TO ENIflNCIC MIN~' AND Ttt~' SU~ONI)ING PROfF~I'Y Y~].t:D~ IIIA',INL~ Wild..%'1'I1~ BE 711~.~.L...B~f ~IIAT H:.~)ME Db.'k'~:LOP~ MIGIIT ONLY WA~I'I~) P~ 57R~:~71~' ]IOAIE.~ 1 UNi)~$1~L~D 771A T lIl~' ARh: I)IFI.~'T PROCEEDUR~' F()]~ ~/1,$'.4NI) 171b~E .~GIFI' NOT BE N~:~ I,DR A PUIII dC ~71NG. IT G~ MK ~TIHNG 1~ tl~ Al~' ilflT 1 WOUld) NOT ~' I~l'f WITft.. H'ORK I~FIH TIlE A'b~EC ~ I'I~'OP~ O~ LO,VI~.~'5Y. THANK YOU ~N BLUNK 9745 C~ ST, ~0 CUCAMONGk CA. /::7 ,/z United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Brent LeCount dlJL Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91727 Re: Proposed Residential Development by Barratt American on Tentative Tracts 13316 and 15914, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California Dear Mr. LeCount: This letter responds to your July 20, 1999, facsimile request for comments on two reports involving a proposed residential de~velopment by BarmR American on Tentative Tracts 13316 and 15914 in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California. One report was a habitat assessment for the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino, "Quino"), while the other report described live-trapping surveys for the federally endangered San Bemardino kangaroo rat (Dipodornys merriamiparvus, "kangaroo rat") on the subject tracts. Because the proposed development may impact federally listed species and their habitats, we are commenting pursuant to our responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, and a Federal agency under section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The protocol survey for the kangaroo rat on Tentative Tract 13316 appears adequate, based on the preliminary July 18, 1999, report summarizing these surveys, and conversations with biologists from Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. No kangaroo rats were captured during the 5-night live-trapping survey. However, several acres of potential habitat for kangaroo rats on the western portion of this site were grubbed prior to this survey and without the approval ofltte City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). As a result, we recommend that Barratt American offset impeels to grubbed sage scrub by preserving sage scrub at an appropriate ratio (e.g., 3 to 1). The habitat assessment for Quino appears to be adequate if this effort focused on detecting Plantago and Castilleja plants on the site. If the survey botanist was not specifically searching for these Quino host plants, then we recommend an appropriate habitat assessment be conducted next spring. The survey botanist should clarify the focus and rigor of these surveys with regards to Quino host plants. Recent sightings have provided insights into the distribution of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatcher") on the Eliwands alluvial fan complex, and the importance of this area for the recovery of this subspecies in San Bemardino County. Although protocol surveys conducted during 1998 did not detect the gnatcatcher on the proposed project site, the habitat is suitable and contiguous with areas where gnatcatchers recently have been sighted. For example, a gnatcatcher was observed during the 1999 nesting season near the earthen levees along Etiwanda Creek, which is approximately 5 miles from Tentative Tract 13316. In Brent LeCount 2 addition, a gnatcatcher pair was observed in February 1998 immediately across Highland Avenue from the proposed University development, within habitat similar to that on Tentative Tract 13316. Given that gnatcatchers can pass through or reoccupy the project area at any time and that protocol surveys are valid for only 1 year, another protocol survey for gnatcatchers should be conducted before any areas of suitable habitat are directly or indirectly impacted by the project. The proposed project highlights several problems regarding the impacts of continuing development along the Etiwanda fan. First, the continued loss of habitats to development may hinder ongoing, regional multi-species planning efforts. Coastal sage scrub has been categorized as an endangered ecosystem (85-98 percent decline) by the National Biological Service, U.S. Department of Interior (Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment o fLoss and Degradation, Biological Report 28, February 1995). These ecosystems support several endangered and threatened species, and numerous species that are proposed to be covered in the San Bemardino Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan 0vISHCP), including the greenest tiger beetle (Cicindela tranquebarica viridissiraa), coastal western whiptail (Cneraidophorus tigris multiscutatus), San Bernardino ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus), coastal rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longiraembris brevinasus). Hence, protecting coastal sage scrub is an obvious way to promote the conservation of listed species that depend on these ecosystems for their long-term survival. The establishment of a viable regional preserve system is vital to the survival and recovery of the federally listed and sensitive species mentioned above, and is a central goal'of the MSHCP that is now in the planning stage. As a result, the protection of remaining coastal sage scrub will be a high priority in the MSHCP, and continued unmitigated losses of blocks of sage scrub may affect the County's ability to develop a viable preserve system in the future. To assist in the MSHCP effort, the City, a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the development of the MSHCP, should minimize and mitigate further losses of this ecosystem type. Although the project site was cleared of native vegetation prior to 1972, coastal sage scrub has re-grown over much of the site and it appears to be recovering rapidly. The diversity and quality of this habitat will likely continue to improve if it is left undeveloped because it is contiguous with one of the largest remaining blocks of this habitat type. Second, the conservation measures proposed by the applicant are not sufficient to offset the impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed project. Specifically, the mitigation proposed by Barratt American is inadequate to offset impacts to sage scrub, and will conwibute to a net loss of this endangered ecosystem. BarmR American has proposed to mitigate for impacts to 0.3 acres of jurisdictional stream habitats (i.e., "remnant" sage scrub) at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 2 acres of preserved habitat for each acre of permanently lost habitat). In addition, they have committed to creating approximately 2.5 acres of shrub and wetland habitat on the slopes of a proposed detention basin. However, no compensation for the loss of "recovering' sage scrub was offered, even though a large portion (approximately 75 acres) of the proposed project site supports "large patches of buckwheat, white sage, and coastal sagebrush" and "provide suitable habitat for the California Gnatcatcher" (December 18, 1999, letter from R. Mitchel Beauchamp, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, to Brent LeCount, City of Rancho Cucamonga). Barratt American's rationale.for not compensating for recovering sage scrub was that the project was the subject of a negative declaration in 1989 that did not require such mitigation. If all projects impacting coastal sage scrub were to mitigate only for relatively-undisturbed sage scrub, and to do so at low ratios of preserved sage scrub to permanently lost sage scrub, then the regional distribution of this ecosystem type will continue to be reduced and Brent LeCount 3 fragmented. Due to the imperiled status of coastal sage scrub throughout southern California, and its importance for the survival and recovery of listed species and species that are proposed to be covered in the MSHCP, we recommend that mitigation be required for any impacts t6 coastal sage scrub, even if it has been previously disturbed and is now recovering. As mentioned above, the diversity and quality of these areas would likely continue to improve if they were not permanently disturbed, as evidenced by the recovery of Tentative Tract 13316 following prior disturbance. An appropriate replacement rate for impacts to coastal sage scrub would be, minimally, 3 acres of preserved sage scrub for each acre lost or degraded, although somewhat lower ratios may be applicable for highly disturbed areas or monotypic patches of scrub. In addition, we recommend that impacts from this project to sage scrub be offset by the acquisition and protection of alluvial fan sage scrub on the Etiwanda fan. An endowment for the management of the acquired land in perpetuity should be established and, prior to any transfer and dedication of mitigation lands, the title and related documents must be reviewed for conflicting easements and prior dedications for the purposes of natural open space. Finally, multi-year delays between the approval of development projects and their implementation may constitute significant, changed circumstances under CEQA owing to changes in habitat conditions, use of the site by listed species, and species listing status. Hence, the use of outdated environmental reports to approve development projects and mitigation requirements for impacts to biological resources raises questions regarding the adequacy of CEQA compliance. CEQA guidelines require that impacts to sensitive and listed species and their habitats be addressed in an environmental document and mitigated. If multi-year delays occur between the approval of development projects and their implementation, then site occupancy and species listing status may change substantially in the interim. As a result, unmitigated losses of habitats and sensitive or listed species may occur. As mentioned above, environmental clearance and mitigation requirements for the development of Tract 13316 was based on the adoption of a negative declaration in 1989. Since that time, additional species have been listed under the Act, including the gnatcatcher and kangaroo rat, and the sage scrub on the site has recovered to the point where it now provides suitable habitat for these species. We recommend that the City review pending development applications to identify those that rely on biological information in CEQA documents that are several years old, or fail to address species that have been federally listed since their application was received. The City can then notify the applicant and us of the potential need to reassess the possible impacts to biological resources owing to their proposed projects. We appreciate the oppommity to comment on this proposed project, and your conscientious consideration of this issue. We look forward to further involvement in this project and regional planning for species and habitat conservation in general. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact P.J. White of this office at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Assistant Field Supervisor 1-6-99-HC-294 cc: Glenn Black, California Department of Fish and Game CITY OF RAN(~HO PKqkNNIN6 COMMI8810N July 28, 1999 RANCHO CUGAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CEN'IER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONCA CAI.IFORNIA B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN Materinl presented by: Dinna Santini 5207 London Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Diana Santini 5207 London Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 June 9,1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissioners: As a follow-up to my letter of June 3, 1999 addressed to Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer (ATTACHMENT A), I am expressing specific concerns and requests to be considered pdor to approval of the housing project identified as Tract 13316. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the corner of London and CarTad Avenue. It is my understanding that the drainage project consists of an underground pipe which will surface above Can'ad and empty into a cement storm drain which will be in my immediate backyard and will be directed towards the existing natural draina.qe flow. When I purchased my home in 1993, I was informed by the City that I was not allowed to interrupt the natural drainage of water, therefore, not allowed to interrupt or permanently construct on my property. I am therefore requesting the following issues be taken into consideration: 1. On February 15, 1989, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed, approved and adopted Resolution No. 89-066 which in part required construction of a Master Plan Storm Drain line through the site which will dewater the system into an existing open channel. It appears that the current Drainage Plan does not extend the storm drain line to the existing open channel but allows the water to be directed onto dry land which may impair the integrity & stability of existing slopes private property. (ATTACHEMENT B) 2. Verify that the drainage easement includes drainage construction., It may be limited to allowing for the natural drainage flow vs. directed drainage which will now be directed to empty into a channel and onto natural surface property. Planning Commission 6/9/99 Page 2 3. GeoSoils Engineering Inc., conducted a limited Geotechnical Evaluation of my property in 1992 (A'R'ACHMENT C). Issues of concorn include: > Drainage of adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. ~. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site ranoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. ~, Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. > Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnicel consultant should be contacted. ~, A stability analysis should be performed on the 'existing slopes to verify stability. > Since the approval of the resolution in 1989, I have constructed a suspended woeden deck which overhangs the existing natural drainage area and an in ground pool has been installed. I therefore request a copy of the geographicel evaluation of the property and proposed development & drainage system plan conducted after 1992. If one has not been conducted after 1992, that such evaluation be performed and reviewed prior to approval for commencing construction. 4. If a drainage plan is approved, that it consist of a buded pipe emptying into the existing storm drain as per the City's approval in 1989. 5. If an open channel is considered, that it be located on the East portion of the property which will essentially extend the existing channel southerly of my property. This was identified as a viable concept by Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer in 1990 which would extend the channel 250 feet south. (ATTACHMENT D). Planning Commission 6/9/99 Page 3 6. If an open channel is approved as currently planned, that a crossover bddge be provided to reach the East portion of my property without having to exit into the Community Trail as was decided on June 22, 1989 by the Design Review Committee meeting. (ATTCHMENT E) 7. Request that no two-story homes be built immediately adjacent to my property in o~de~ to prese~e p~va~. _ 8. All debds left in the existing street in front of my property be cleared daily. ~c~\ Sincerely, Diana Santini Diana Santini 5207 London Ave. Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 June 3, 1999 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Tract 13316 Dear Mr. James: I am writing regarding concerns over the housing project identified as Tract 13316 which apparently was approved 10 years ago. I recently attended a meeting at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center held by the developer of this project. I also met with Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, on June 2, 1999. Both of these sources have described the drainage system planned for this housing tract. It is my understanding that included in the planned drainage system will be a pipe that will be placed underground for the new homes being built. The pipe will then surface just above Carrari and empty into a "rfp wrap" which will be fenced. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the comer of Carrari and London Avenue. It has been described that the "~p wrap" will be in my immediate back yard with the gutter and drainage water directed to empty onto my property. When I purchased my home in 1993, it was my understanding that the city had an easement on my property for Natural Drainage Flow that prohibits any construction on the east portion of my lot. I am not aware of an existing construction easement the city may hold on my property. My objection is that the drainage will no longer be a natural drainage but a permanent interruption and deliberate direction of water flow into my property and permanent construction related to this redirection. This plan for a fenced "~p wrap" in my backyard will be an unsightly eyesore and may violate the existing drainage easement rights. In addition, a Geotechnical Evaluation conducted on my property in 1992 made several observations and recommendations regarding water drainage. A portion of this report specifically states that "... off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site and water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. Measures should be taken to prevent the undemutting and erosion at the toe of the slopes that descent into the ephemeral drainage." My request is that the underground pipe be extended to reach and empty into the existing storm drain system. I plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 9. 1999 to address my concerns. Should this topic not be appropriate at that meeting, I request that a meeting with the appropriate individuals be scheduled to expeditiously address this issue. Cc: William J. O'Neil. City Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer CI'FY OF RANCI-iO CUCAI~IONGA ~i ~ STAFF REPORT ./-'A,., r,l: City Council and Acting City Hanager ~ " FROM: Russell N. Maguire. City Engineer BY: Gary H. Sheu, Assistant CIvil EnOineer SUBJECT: Approval of a Resolution accepting an offer of dedication of a irainane eas~ent offend to the City of Ra~ho Cucamon~4 on Tract No. 95g0 lccaMd east of Archibald Avenue and south o'~ Almond Avenue Staff nd that City C,uncil approve the attached resolution rr. co~e s ~cc~.pLing the .dratn.~ge ease~,ent as shown on the map of Tract No. gS-aO and dc.~cribed on the attached resolution. Backaround/Analyst s The p~'ooosed developmen~ ,~ Tract 13316 (Fric~--h~n Homes) is required to construct a Master Plan Stanm Drain line thrnugh the site which will dewater the sys~m into an ex(stfng open channel. Ctb' p~viau~ly had an offer of dedication for drainage purposes within this open channel as a p,~rt of develo~ent of T~act ~)SgO. To facilitate the draining of the ~to~ drain sys~ for Tract 13316, tt f= necessary to accept this offer of dedication. An exhfbtt is enclosed to show the proposed Tract 13316 and lccation o~ thn offer of dedtcaUon. Att3ch~ent l~,lnch3 Cucam0nga, CA 91730 RESOLUTION t~O. 89-066 A PZSOLUTIO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITy OF CHO 'S-' CUC.~J4ONGA, CALIFOPJ4IA, ACCEPTItlG A DPJ~INAGE EASEMENT .7 ~) C :. DEDICATION ON T~CT NO. 9590 LOCATED EAST OF ~CHIB~D A~NUE ~D SOUTH OF HOND A~NUE ~'. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cuc~onga does hereby resol'~e as follows: SECTION 1: The offer to dedicate to the City of Ranch6 Cuc~onga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, the property herein described for drainage purposes, is hereDy accepted. Said proper:y is described as follows: Those ~rtions of the easement as offered to dedicate to the City of Rancho Cuc~onga ~ Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48. Co~encing at the southeast corner of Tract No. 9B90 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48, OfficiaX Records of said County, recorded January 6, I978; thence north 0 23'01" east, 6.18 feet to the tru~ ~in: of beginning; thence north 51 11'19" west, 290.09 feet; thence nor:h 56 37'07" west, 1~4.49 feet; thence north 18 50'18" west, 89.81 feet; thence north 10 39'37" west, 86.49 feet; thence north 38 14'47" west, 108.23 feet; thence north 20 15'23" west, 89.54 feet; thence north 28 58'28" east,'46.26 fee: :o a point in the north line of said Tract; thence north 80 33'14" east, 480.00 ,. fe~ to ~e northeast cornet of sal~ Tract; thence south O .~, '64~.04 feet along the east line of said Trot: to the true point of beginning. SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution :o be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. PASSED, APPRO~D, and ~OPTED this 15th ~ay of February, 1989. AYES: AXexander, Brown, Buyer, stout, Wright NOES: None ~SENT: None ATTEST: C.'.::' L'; 'L:;~ ;;. -: - .. ...- -.. .... .. .f~ ~ . _: Beverly A/Authelet, City Clerk ' ........ I, BEVERLy A. AUTHELET, CITy CLERK, of the City Of Rancho Cucamonca 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 15th day of February, 1989. Executed this 16th day of February, 1989 at Rancho cucamonga, California. 4 , Beve~ly/A.'Authelet, City Clerk GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering · Engineering Geology 24890 ;e~rerson Avenue · P.O. Box 490 · Murrieto, Culifornio 92564 · (714) 877-9651 · FAX (714) 677-9301 September 3, 1992 W.O. 562-A-RC Better Homes and Gardens Realty 6642 Carnellia Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Attention: Ms. Heidi Burns Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation of 5207 London Avenue, Alta Loma Area of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Reference: "Approved Standards," 1980, by Home Owners Warranty Corporation. Dear Ms. Burns: In accordance with your request and authorization, this report presents the findings of our limited geotechnical evaluation of the subject property. Inasmuch as this study was performed without the benefit of sAte-specific subsurface information, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are limited and should be considered preliminary in nature. In addition, our observations were performed on the exterior of the residence only. BACKGROUND The subject site is currently under ownership of a financial institution. The following is our understanding from the client, Ms. Heidi Burns, the real estate representative for the owner. 1. The residence is an approximately 14-year-old home. 2. The home recently has been refurbished in preparation for sale. During this refurbishment, Ms. Burns noticed evidence of surface water run-off during recent rains from the adjacent, northerly property. 3. The client has expressed concerns regarding drainage on the site and drainage from adjacent properties affecting the site; therefore, the client requested this evaluation of site conditions Los Angeles Co. (8161785-2158 · Orange Co. (714( 647-0277 · San Diego Co, (61g] 438-3155 Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review and reconnaissance of general site conditions from a geotechnical viewpoint with an emphasis on site drainage conditions. 2. Geotechnical analysis of the data collected. 3. Preparation of this report. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot, consisting of about 1.17 acres. The property fronts on London Avenue in the Alta Loma area of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The site i~ bounded by adjacent residential property on the south, London Avenue on the north, and vacant property on the north and west. The west half of the lot has been developed for the residential structure, while the east half of the lot remains in an essentially natural condition. A slope, about 10 feet high, descends from the south property line to the adjacent property at a gradient of about 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). A natural, ephemeral drainage transects the subject lot and drains to the south. This ephemeral drainage is about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep. Slopes descend into the ephemeral drainage at a gradient of about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Block walls exist on the western portions of the north and south property boundaries. In the front yard, the walls are about 2 feet high and serves as a retaining wall between the site and adjacent properties. The remainder of each block wall is about 6 feet high and serves as divider between properties. A two-story, wood-frame residence with stucco and wood siding occupies the central portion of the lot. It appears that the residence is rounded on continuous perimeter footings with concrete slab-on-grade floors. OBSERVATIONS OF DRAINAGE FEATUR~ Our observations of the drainage conditions indicate: 1. Gutters and downspouts are not present on the residence. Drainage devices have not been constructed on any of the slopes on the site or slopes adjacent to the site. GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 3 2. An ephemeral drainage, about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep, transects the subject lot and drains toward the south. 3. Drainage On the front (west) portion Of the site generally is toward the southwest corner of the lot, to the street. 4. Drainage on the south side of the house is generally toward the south. 5. Drainage on the north side of the house is generally to the south, toward the north wall of the house. 6. Drainage on the rear (east) portion of the site is generally directed from the rear of the residence to the east, toward the ephemeral drainage and from the rear of the property to the west, toward the ephemeral drainage. 7'. Natural drainage on the vacant property, located north of and adjacent to the site, is g~nerally to the southeast toward the subject site and the ephemeral drainage. This ~phemeral drainage has caused a rill to be eroded in the slope as it drains into the ephemeral drainage on the subject property. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The drainage features observed on the site at the time of our site reconnaissance indicate that the current drainage patterns generally direct water runoff away from the residence and toward the rear of the property or to the street. However, surface gradients on the north side of the residence directs drainage toward the residence. In addition, drainage of the adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. The following preliminary recommendations are presented: 1. Positive drainage should be established and maintained on the property. Positive drainaoe may be accomplished by providing a gradient of at least 4 Fercent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from the residence. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A~RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 4 providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. 2. Eave gutters should be installed where appropriate and connected to downspouts. Downspout discharge should be directed to a nonperforated drain system that outlets to an appropriate location. Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. 3. A grade stabilization structure or drainage device should be installed at the north property line on the slope to carry concentrated water runoff from the adjacent, northerly property down the slope and into the ephemeral drainage and reduce erosion of the slope. 4. Drought-tolerant vegetation should be planted on the slope into the ephemeral drainage to reduce erosion of the slope. 5. Irrigation should be reduced to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. 6. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy. rain periods, performance of the drainage systems should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. 7. Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or bl~assing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. 8. Animal burrows should be filled, because they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil failures. 9. Any open bottom planters adjacent to settlement-sensitive structures should be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. GeoSoiis, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 5 10. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. 11. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. 12. A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify stability. 13. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and erosion at the toe of the slopes that descend into the ephemeral drainage. 14. Consideration should be given to consulting a qualified design civil engineer to review the above recom4nendations with respect to line and grade and surface drainage. This evaluation Of surface conditions at the property should not be construed to be a evaluation of subsurface conditions. This evaluation has not assessed the potential for changes in surface or subsurface conditions in the future. If site conditions do not change in the future, the integrity of the lot would be expected to remain consistant with respect to past performance; however, GSI can make no statement as to the specific integrity/performance Of the property in the future, due to changes in surface or subsurface conditions. The property is located in a seismically-active region, and intense ground shaking at the site should be anticipated in the future. This ground shaking could cause distress features at the subject site. If in the future any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided based on a subsurface evaluation of site conditions. A proposal for this type Of site evaluation could be provided upon request. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. GeoSoils, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty W.O. 562-A-RC 5207 London September 3, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga, California Page 6 These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or if you need any clarifications, please contact us at (714) 677-9651. Respectfully submitted, GEOSOILS, INC. '~herry'~. Eaton Senior Geologist John P. Frank in 'jEngineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 49754 SLE/RCS/JPF/Sh Distribution: (4) Addressee GeoSoils, Inc. - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 1990 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Contract Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes RECOI~4ENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. i and 2, and authorizing the ,Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, in the Very Low Density Residential District, was approved by tl~e Planning Commission on March 25, 1987, for the division of 84.5 acres into 123 lots. During the review process, various property owners to the south of the tract have voiced their concern regarding the proposed storm drain facility that extends southerly of the tract boundary approximately 107 feet. This facility is an emergency spillway channel and is part of the debris basin system. Staff has met extensively with these property owners over the past few years to listen to their concerns and desires. First, they wanted to underground the system in a pipe and fill in the canyon to enlarge their backyards. This is not possible due to the fact that this is part of a debris basin system a5d must be an open channel with a service road to maintain the outlet' structure. Their second desire was to terminate the channel at the southerly boundary of Tract 13316. This also cannot be done because the channel has to pass under the Community Trail and then be directed towards the existing natural drainage channel. Their third choice is to extend the channel southerly of their properties. This is a viable concept and the channel could be extended approximately 250 feet south, but it is not needed for development and there is little or no benefit for the abutting properties. Friedman Homes have met all the requirements of their tract and state law requires that administrative action be taken to approve the map. If the channel is to be extended, it will I~ave to be conditioned upon future developments in the area. ~ \,. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REHORT TRACT 13315 - FRIEDMAN HOMES ~AY 16, 1990 PAGE 2 ~ The Developer, Friedman Homes, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Street Storm Util i ty Improvements Drain Landscaping Undergrounding Faithful Performance Bond: $2,100,000 $1,300,000 $380,000 $435,000 Labor and Material Bond: $1,050,000 $ 650,000 $190,000 $217,000 Copies of the agreement, security and offer of dedication are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts. C.C. & R.'s have been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. RespectfUl iy, ~ubmi tted, :) RH(:_EH:jAA:sjm~ Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 29, 1990 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: · Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes (Continued from 5-14-g0) RECO~4ENDATION It is reconm~ended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the ,'.) Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND The above referenced project was continued froin the City Council meeting of May 16, 1990. At that meeting, local residences expressed concern regarding tim development, particularly the storm drain facilities. Due to the massiveness of the project, the Council requested additional time to visit the site and directed staff to provide more detail background analysis. TIle Planning Commission unanimously approved Tentative Tract 13316 at the March 25, lg87 meeting. Two main issues were brought out by surrounding property owners. They are: 1) orientation of the Ilomes backing onto Carrari Street and 2) requirements of local Equestrian trails and keeping of horses~ No records were found of the property owners voicing any concerns about the proposed storm drain facilities. Although the tentative map shows the storm drain going to the east, the Conditions of Approval for the tract specifically state that the debris basin and tile entire storm drain system shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that lots 9 and 10 which are located at the southerly extension of the main north/south street and adjacent to the southerly tract boundary shall contain a flood protection wall or other overflow protection device to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The conditions combined required the storm drain facility as it is now designed. SITY COUNCIL STAFF Rh TR 13316 NAY 29, 1990 PAGE 2 At the May 6, 1987 City Council meeting an appeal of Tentative Tract 13316 with regards to Planning Commission's decision of orientations of homes on Carrari Street along with the requirements of local equestrian trails and keeping of horses was heard. City Council modified the Planning CommnissioHs' decision relative to Carrari Street to provide increased landscape area and placement of walls along the top of the slope. The City Council upheld the General Plan policies and Development Code standards regarding equestrian trails and keeping of horses. Once again, no conerns were raised with regards to drainage. Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13316 went before the Planning Con~ission on April 26, 1989. The Plannfng Division received letters froin several homeowners along London Avenue expressing their concern of the proposed drainage facilities. The time extension was approved to May 6, 1990, but Planning Conmnission discussed the issue of storm drain spillway and requested that the Planning Department review the storm drain plans to be sure tile channel was as aesthetically pleasing as possible as it crossed over the affected properties. At the June 22, 1989 Design Review meeting, the con~ittee stated that the final design of the spillway should be reviewed by the committee for aesthetics, after the technicial part of the design is tentatively approved. An access should be provided to the homeowner to get to tile rear of the lot east of the spillway. Planning requested that Friedman Homes submit revised plans for additional comnittee review. The Design Review Committee on February 8, 1990 recommended at the request of Engineering that the foot bridge be deleted due to the fact that the foot bridge is only 40' away from the proposed Community Trail bridge with an access road on the east side of the bridge which is available to allow access to the easterly side of the homeowners property. In addition landscaping surrounding the spillway will require tile final approval of tile Design Review Committee prior to the final approval of the improvement plans by the City Engineer RHM:jS:dlw Attachments Staff Report 5-16-90 August 30, 1999 RECEIVED Brent Le Count, AICP City ofRancho Cucamonga AUG 3 I 1999 Planning Division P. O. Box 807 City of Rancho Cucamon,:j~ Rancho Cucmnonga, CA 91729 Planning Oivision Re: Barratt Development 98-10 Dear Mr. Le Count: I am writing to express my support for the Barratt development known as tract 98-10. My wife and I have rented a home in the community for over six years. We have wanted to purchase a new home for some time now, but there is no new housing which meets our criteria. Although there has been a tremendous amount of construction in this city, there are virt,ally no new homes being built that qualify as "very-10w residential", i.e., less than two homes per acre. Given the reputation of the builder, the size of the homes and anticipated quality, we have been on Barratt's "interest list" since October of 1998. My wife and I have attended the last two Planning Commission meetings regarding this project. We have also requested and reviewed the materials, including the environmental checklist. We are frustrated by the contin- ued dehy over red herring issues which are typically raised at the eleventh hour. From what we have re- viewed we believe Bartart should be permitted to proceed with this project without any further delays. Overall, this neighborhood would be a welcome addition to our community. We look forward to the opportu- nity to voice our support at the upcoming meeting on September 8, 1999. Sincerely, Curtis L. Metzgar 10699 Champagne Rd. Alta Loma, CA 91737 909-948-1903 cc: Barratt American ,4 - 3q ' Spirit of the SageC0uncil Protecting and Conserving Biological Div~, Native Plants, Native Animals and Native Lands A non-profit proj~t of ~dal and E~mnm~ntal En~mneu~ (SEE, lnc.), Mal~u, July ~8, ~999 ve~ Rocha, Ci~ of R~cho Cuc~onga V Co-Founder s~o~o~-~,i~o~t,o~ Pla~ingCommission cultuml A~i~ Oi~lor 10500 Civic Center Dhve R~cho Cuc~onga. CA 91729 Co-Found~ ': ' _ T ' ' ' Conse~otionP~mmsDimctof . ~ pm~nt Proje essment Oouglas Do~pke, Development Review ~ti~,coo~t~ SP~ OF ~ SAGE CO~C~ ("Sage Co~cil") is stun Fishy, ~inco~rat~d non-profit envirom~nml project ~d association ~lo~st headq~ers in the Ci~ of P~adena, Los ~gel~s Co~. The Sage ~ience~ramsc~rdinatot sup~ning members, including indigenous Native ~edcans, scien~sts, ht~ K. ight. educators ~d citizens. some of whom reside in the Ci~ of Rancho Cuc~ Co~tol Wetlon~ Co~inotor na~al r~so~cCs, ecosystems, o~n spaces, Public Affai~ ..... Ann Belis, w~ch sup~nS a ~versg ~s~mblage of s~ci~s ~d thcir needs. More Public Affai5 s~cifically, the Sage Co~cil ~ focused consedation efforts on the communi~o.5 w~t~ sag~ is o~en domi~ ~d ~o~ pl~s w~ch ~e desired to protect said ~bi~B ~d s~cies which to be of s~ci~ concern to ~e S~te ~or feder~ly listed en~gcr~. ~e decision of Ci~ to approve de~men~ impacB on ~e Sage Co~cil, its mem~rs, ~d ~nB, ~ ud ouBide of~e CiW ~d ~sit ~e ~ea of ~e Project, enjoying ~e of~e ~bimt ~ea t~ou~ p~sive ~creafion omd~r educatio~ scientifi way, ~mi~sh ~d des~oy such p~suits ~d abilities ~e Sage Co~il 30 Noah R~ond A~nue · Suite ~2 - ~d~ Tele: 626-7~-9932 · N.ggecoundl.com · F~: 62~7~-9931 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 2 includes its members, agents and individuals who reside in the project neighborhood and have protested the project at previous public hearing and by signing a neighborhood petition. The Sage Council, as well as individual member, has also provided comments and wrote letters objecting to the proposed action of a City staff recommended negative declaration in a timely fashion. Since 1991, Sage Council members have actively defended Southern Califomia CSS natural communities, through public and govemment education as well as enfomement of environmental regulations. Related to such environmental concerns, in 1993 new innovative federal and state conservation programs and laws were created to give specific protection to Southern Califomia Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) natural communities, including the habitat of certain targeted umbrella plants and animals that share the natural community with the so-called "indicator" species, the California Coastal Gnatcatcher (Gnatcatcher). The State of California Resources Agency entitled the referenced new program Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program for Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) and Govemor Pete W!lson enacted the program into law under the NCCP Act. Such new Califomia Public Resource Codes encouraged the U.S. Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the Gnatcatcher as "threatened," rather than endangered, under the ESA. Before a species may receive protection under the ESA, it must be listed by one of the Services as "endangered" or "threatened." An "endangered" species is one is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range ...."16 U.S.C. § 1532(6) (emphasis added). A "threatened" species is one "which is likely to become an endangered species with- in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Id. at § 1532(20). Once a species is listed, it receives critical protections under various provisions of the ESA. One of the primary reasons the FW'S adopted the State NCCP program and Act was that it was meant to conserve not only the Gnatcatcher but CSS natural commumties as defined in the adopted Conservation and Process Guidelines, including maps of the NCCP subregional planning areas throughout Southern California, including San Bernardino County (NCCP subregion 13.0) (Sage Council has provided the City with related documents in November 1998 - see pg. 18, Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas "Subregional CSS NCCP Planning Unit Map" of the State NCCP Conservation Guidelines, November 9, 1993. NOTE NCCP subregion 13.0 is identified by the State as "Contain[ing] functional biological twits of high conservation value" and should be planned as a whole rather than subdivided). Therefore, the Coastal California Gnatcatcher became federally listed with a section 4(d) special rule on December 10, 1993, under the ESA (16 U.S.C. §1533(d)), as applied by the Title 50, Sec. 17.41(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations and the rules expressly referenced and promulgated thereto. (see attached 50 CFR 17.41(b) and in City files the "Californian Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines.") Two years after the new State and federal laws went into effect to conserve CSS natural communities, for the Gnatcatcher and other target species, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Banart American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 3 "In 1995, the County, 12 of the 15 cities [including City of Rancho Cucamonga} within the San Bemardino Valley, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and several utility companies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to prepare a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the San Bemardino Valley." (see Dec 9, 1997 letter from County, Supervisor Jerry Eaves to William Tippets, CDFG) The County, acting as lead local agency for the participating cities, requested approval from the State CDFG on December 9, 1997, that the 1995 MSHCP MOU, which expired on December 31, 1997, to be revised and extended to December 31, 2000. In response CDFG and FWS approved the request. In addition to the MSHCP MOU, on August 8, 1995 the County as lead agency for valleywide conservation planning, entered into another MOU with CDFG "regarding Natural Community Conservation Planning" for the period of October 5, 1996, through September 30, 1997 CNCCP MOLF' or "Contract No. 95-731") and that was also extended to the year 2000 so that the County would be eligible to receive funds appropriated through Congress for Southern California counties participating in the NCCP program. (see attached NCCP MOU). "The Fiscal Year 1998 Depm tment of the Interior Appropriations bill approved by the President contains $2 million dollars for planning purposes as part of the Natural Communities Conservation Program for southern California. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will jointly oversee the allocation of the $2 million dollars and ensure the match of non- Federal dollars as intended by Congress... We are in receipt of the suggested allocation of funds by region/jurisdiction dated November 5, 1997, from the Five County Planning Group:... 3. San Bemardino County $450,000.00... ". (Nov 19, 1997 letter from CDFG & FWS to County) Such NCCP funding for 1998 was in addition to the previous years, including the $100,000 that the County was eligible for at the signing of the NCCP MOU in 1997. The Sage Council has previously noticed the City Council and on or about November 18, 1998 reminded the City once again of their contractual obligations under the NCCP Act and Gnatcatcher 4(d) rule, submitting associated documentation for the administrative record that, absent of evidence, had not been previously considered or analyzed for project compliance. The Sage Council, through oral and written comments on the project, including project design, has presented and made available to the City "new information" regarding the Project' noncompliance with State NCCP for CSS and the new federal special rule under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Gnatcatcher, as well as a newly published scientific literature on the status of the Gnatcatcher in San Bemardino County, that was not previously in the Project's administrative record and in which the City failed to consider and adequately address prior to final project approval. This is considered "new" significant information is consideration of the City's previous review of this project and in which it is obvious, by the Staff report and recommendations, that the City has not made or provided the public with a comparative analysis for NCCP/MSHCP compliance. Nor is it reported anywhere that the City Staff has utilized the CSS NCCP Evaluation Logic Flow Chart in their decision making process. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 4 Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the City Planning Commission has previously not had the opportunity to review the referenced "new information" that the Sage Council has submitted for consideration and resolve in relationship to oar alleged violations of the NCCP Act and related CEQA Concerns. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, even though certain laws and protective mechanisms, as referenced, have been put in place, the pressares of development and actions of the City continue to compromise conservation measares and serve to permanently thwart the above NCCP conservation planning efforts. The County contracted biologists for the MSHCP/NCCP at the County Nataral History Museum have also informed the City that approval of projects, such as Barrail Homes, during the interim planning stages for the MSHCP/NCCP are precluded the future creation of viable reserves. The City has been made aware of these laws and regulations but continually ignore them and fail to apply them to this Project and others. These changes in environmental laws require that the CEQA process be re-opened up and that mitigation for CSS losses "shall be" imposed. There is no "substantial evidence" which allows City to deny and ignore that (1) that Project site: falls within the State's delineated NCCP subregional 13.0 zone and has been identified as "of high conservation value" and of regional significance (2) that CSS natural communities associations exists at the site, (3) mitigation is required, (4) the Project is likely to preclude connectivity and future viable reserve design, and (5) the negative declaration offered no in-kind mitigation for CSS losses (6) that the project and project design is "controversial" and strongly opposed. By opening the Project to discretionary action, the City has failed to impose mandatory CSS mitigation and therefore is abusing its "public trust" discretion and failed to proceed in a manner required by law. As a matter of law, the CEQA process should be continued and the City Planning Commission deny staff recommendation, requiring an EIR rather than a negative declaration. The following facts and procedaral events are pertinent to the referenced Project and proposed action by the City: · In 1970, the State Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. (hereafter "CEQA") in order to prevent environmental damage "while providing a decent home and satisfying living conditions for every Callfurman." Pub. Res. Code § 21000(g). The California Supreme Court has stated that CEQA is "to be interpreted...to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247, 259 (1972); Citizens nfGoleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cat. 3d 553,563 (1990). · On or about September 17, 1991 the Coastal California Gnatcatcher was proposed for Federal endangered status (56 FR 47053). City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Bartart American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 4 · On or about December 4, 1991 a "MemOrandum Of Understanding By And Between The California Department Of Fish And Game And The United States Fish And Wildlife Service Regarding Coastal sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning In Southern California" was entered into. · In 1991 the NCCP Act was established by the State of California through enactment of the Natural Commumty Conservation Planning Act (CA Fish and Game Code 2800 et seq.). · In August of 1992 the Califomia Department of Fish and Game published the "Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Commumty Conservation Planrang Process Guidelines," including a technical report by the Scientific Review Panel entitled "Subregionalization For Natural Communities Conservation Planning." · On or about March 25, 1993 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gnatcatcher as a threatened species (58 FR 16742) and proposed a special rule. "Unde; the special rule, incidental take of the gnatcatcher by land-use activities addressed in an approved NCCP would not be considered a violation of section 9 of the [Endangered Species} Act, provided that the Service meets the issuance criteria for the "incidental take" permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 50 CFR 17.32 (b)(2).", and "Under the special rule, a limited amount of incidental take of the gnatcatcher within the subregions actively engaged in preparing a NCCP would also not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, provided that such take results from activities conducted consistent with the Statc's NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines." (see on file with the City the Final EA of the proposed section 4(d) rule to define the conditions under which incidental take of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher would not be in violation of section 9 of the ESA. November 1993) · On or about November 9, 1993 the State of California, Department of Fish and Game published the amended "Southern Califomia Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Guidelines." · On or about December 10, 1993 the Coastal California Gnatcatcher became federally listed with a section 4(d) special rule, under the ESA (16 U.S.C. §1533(d)), as applied by the Title 50, Sec. 17.41 (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations and the rules expressly referenced and promulgated thereto. Thus, creating obligatory mitigation measures to ensure the protection of CSS natural communities in Southern California, as well as the Gnatcatcher itself. ~ · In 1995 the City of Rancho Cucamonga was one of fifteen Cities in Southwestem San Bemardino County that entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the County, CDFG and the Service "For the purpose of developing and implementing a habitat conservation plan to conserve wildlife and plant species of concern in the San Bemardino Valley. Such participation by the City in the MOU also gave away its local lead agency authority to the County and identified Scott Murphy,. Associate Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga as the designated Point of Contact. (See MSHCP MOU Revised 8-4-95 Section 4.0 et seq., pg 6) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Bartart American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 6 · On or around February 11, 1997, the County, acting on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other "signatory members" of the MSHCP MOU, entered into a NCCP MOU (a.k.a. Contract No. 95-73 1 and 97-93) to ensure that "The County and its constituent members participating in the San Bernardino Valley MSHCP concur with the goals of the NCCP Act..." and is "[i]ntended to supplement, not replace, any existing written agreement between the parties." In addition, the County' s Minutes of the Board of Supervisors made clear that although the County was not enrolling in the NCCP "The approach that the County has taken on the San Bernardino Valley MSHCP has been to develop a plan that is "consistent with the goals" of the NCCP..." The FWS has defined the "goals" of the NCCP in the 1993 Biological Opinion for the Section 4(d) special rule for the listing of the Gnatcatcher, as follows; · . "The ultimate goal ofa NCCP Program is to provide for the establishment and management of permanent multi-species preserves. This establishment of preserves under the NCCP includes the incorporation of biological coredors and linkages with other natural lands. Local governments, environmental groups, land owners, land developers, the CDFG and Service will be collaborating on the development of such plans. There are two important features of the special rule. The first aspect of the special rule defines the conditions under which a limited amount of incidental take of coastal California gnatcatchers not violate Section 9 of the Act, prior to the development of an approved conservation plan pursuant to the NCCP. This loss of coastal sage scrub habitat and coastal California gnatcatchers could only occur within areas that were participating in, and preparing conservation plans under the NCCP. The mount of interim loss permitted would be that which the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) has found acceptable (i.e. no more than 5% of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat) and which occurred in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game's Conservation Guidelines. The area included in the NCCP Planning Area includes portions of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, Sun Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties." (See Figure I of the Conservation Guidelines where the SRP has identified CSS in San Bernardino and Project area as having "high" conservation value.) The SRP recommended during the interim when long-term plans are being drafted that no more than 5% of coastal sage scrub should be lost to prevent foreclosure of future conservation planning options. "It was recommended that these short-term losses of habitat occur in areas of low conservation value." (See on file with the City USFWS Nov 19, 1993 Biological Opinion on the Proposed Special Rule) The City's decision not to prepare an EIR is to be upheld if its decision is supported by "substantial evidence" in the administrative record. Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162 CCEQA Guidelines"); Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App.3d 1467. California case law interpreting Pub. Res. Code § 21166 and CEQA Guideline § 15162 have concluded that the law and regulations requiring further CEQA environmental review have been created to balance the finality of CEQA review (having fully reviewed the project in the context of a prior EIR or mitigated negative declaration) with the need to provide the fullest protection of the environment within the meaning of CEQA. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barraft American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 7 The general presumption and understanding is that Pub. Res. Code § 21166 is meant to "provide a degree of certainty and finality" in the absence of changed circumstances. Kostka and Zischke, Practice under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 19.37; Bowman v. City of Petaluma, (1986) 185 Cat. App. 3d 1065. This case involves the mere preparation nfa 1990 Negative Declaration, for which the environmental analysis and conclusions merely have every single box checked "no impacts." Not a single mitigation measure is offered notwithstanding the obvious pristine location of undisturbed sage scrub habitat filled with sensitive species. This "box checking" is only a "preliminary analysis" by comparison with an environmental impact report which is a much more substantial document. The City' s Failure to Proceed in a Manner Required by Law is a Prejudicial Abuse of Discretion. An agency has abused its discretion if it has not complied with procedures required by law, or if its determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 393 (1988). "As a result of this standard, '[t]he court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an inforlnative document' [citation]," and any reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of the administrative finding and decision. Id.. An adequate EIR provides enough analysis and information to enable decision makers to account for environmental consequences and an agency abuses its discretion when it fails to include relevant information that precludes informed decision making and public participation, which are the stated goals of CEQA. Laurel Heights, supra at 403,405; CEQA Guidelines § 15151. A court presumes prejudice when an agency fails to obtain information necessary to a meaningful assessment of potentially significant environmental impacts, the development of mitigation measures, and project alternatives. In regards to the referenced project, the City's failare to follow federal and state mandates to re- open the CEQA process and provide adequate mitigation "consistent with the goal of the NCCP' creates the automatic situation where non-compliance with CEQA and the NCCP Act exists such that the decision makers and the public did not have all of the information they needed and were required to have to fully understand the ramifications and impacts arising fi'om this Project. As a matter of law, the City and fanst recognize that the changes in environmental conservation laws, as applied to this Project, amounts to "substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project us undertaken" and "new information." Pub. Res Cede § 21166(b) & (c). Earlier consideration of these environmental conslxaints could not have been done earlier as part of the Project's environmental review because such laws and planning efforts became "new information" in 1993 and therefore, due to the fact of their non-existence, could not be considered, reviewed or presented by the City, Sage Council (or any other person for that matter) in the exercise of reasouable diligence. In 1993, the State and Federal governments, adopted rules and criteria for development of the Project site. Specifically, review under CEQA would analyze planning efforts to conserve of large blocks of contiguous and analyze the impacts to coastal sage scrub (CSS) and determine the amount and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barran American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 8 type of mandatory mitigation for any loss of CSS. As a result of the 1993 changes in laws and regional planning efforts, the Project is now being undertaken under circumstances for which substantial changes in the impacts - and the importance of those impacts - cannot be questioned as a matter of law. Substantial changes to the checked boxes of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration are necessary so that the decision makers can review and be accountable for their decisions to not require mitigation and to ignore State and Federal regional conservation planning efforts. The requirement of CEQA, within the context of this Project, mandates that (1) the City must avoid or reduce all environmental harm by adopting feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, and (2) decision maker and an apathetic public must be informed on the environmental consequences of proposed projects. Based on the CEQA Negative Declaration/Initial Study for this Project, there is no possible way the decision makers and the public can be informed. The failure to proceed in a manner required by law in order to disclose impacts arising from the Project further impairs the City's challenged decisions such that they must be overturned via a writ. The only way a Court could find that the 1993 changes in law are not substantial and will not require major revisions of the 1990 negative declaration, is to ignore them. Changes in Circumstances and New Information under Pub. Res. Code § 21166 The Project is now subject to supplemental CEQA environmental review based on the threshold conditions for such further analysis. Cal Public Resources Code § 21166(b)-(c) provides that; When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplement environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:... (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known, and could not have been known at the time of the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. Cal Public Res. Code § 21166 [emphasis added] Under subsection (b), supplemental environmental review will only be required where "major revisions in the environmental impacts report" is required. This is not the case with subsection (c) which requires that "new information," arising since the time of prior CEQA environmental review, must be considered within the context of CEQA. And as will be proven below, the specific 1993 ("new information") laws specifically reference this supplemental environmental review. (See discussion below) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barraft American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 9 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) parallels the Code that an SEIR shall be prepared when, based on the substantial evidence: (2) "substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration"; (3) "new information of substantial importance, which was not known, and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration , · · (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerable different from those analyzed in the previous E1R would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the environment... CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) [emphasis added] Because the there has not been a single disclosure of an environmental impact in the previous Negative Declaration/Initial Study, the changes in laws creating the impacts easily invokes the threshold for further environmental review under Section 15162(a)(3)(A) & (a)(3)(D). ~ Laws and NCCP Planning Efforts Adopted Since 1990 CEQA Review Expressly Require Further CEQA Analysis and Mitigation. The federal listing of the Califomia Coastal Gnatcatcher as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) requires the conservation and preservation of the alluvial fan and coastal sage Gnatcatcher habitat where this Project is located pursuant to the ESA. 50 C.F.R § 17.41(b) [special rule under Section 4(d) of ESA]. The 1993 State and Federal rules and laws adopted to ensure the protection of the Gnatcatcher created binding rules to protect coastal sage scrub habitat. The protection of CSS habitat was expressly to be "implemented through the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP ("Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP"). Id., 50 C.F.R § 17.41(b)(2)(i) & (ii). Pursuant to that codi~ed adoption, not greater than 5% of the CSS loss would be allowed in the "interim" period while the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP is being prepared. The 1993 State and Federal rules and laws to protect CSS habitat require jurisdictions, such as the City, participating ("contracted" or "enrolled") in the NCCP to follow specific procedures (through "Process Guidelines") which requires specific analysis and mitigation for CSS losses during the interim period while the CSS NCCP is being prepared. 50 C.F.R § 17.41(b)(2). See, CSS NCCP Conservation Guidelines and Process Guidelines respectively. In accordance with the State-adopted CSS NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, there are procedures set forth to satisfy the Federal government's ESA 4(d) requiring the mitigation of all interim CSS habitat losses. The purpose of the City's participation (or "enrollment") in this NCCP plan is to: 1) protect "enrolled" coastal sage scrub habitat during the interim planning period, and 2) to initiate the collaborative planning process which will result in long-term habitat protection through a NCCP. (Process Guidelines § 1.5) The Process Guidelines specifically set forth the mandatory process for CSS mitigation and NCCP planning considerations to be followed: Project design must be consistent with the Conservation Guidelines ...and must, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize habitat loss. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat and the target species must be mitigated to insignificant level as required by the Califomia Environmental Quality Act... [a]ppropriate mitigation must be identified in a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant. Process Guidelines § 4.3, .l~ [emphasis added] Furthermore, with continuing relevance to this Project, the Process Guidelines require "Interim Habitat Loss Approvals" where an application must be processed and approval pursuant to CEQA whether or not prior CEQA review has already been conducted: The application for interim habitat loss must be submitted to the local jurisdiction with the entitlement responsibility for the associated project. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, consistent with applicable requirements of state law, will be undertaken by the local agency to provide an appropriate level of analysis in order to make the required findings. ( 1 ) If the project proposed for interim habitat loss has already obtained final CEQA approval, the local government will determine whether the CEQA document addressed potential CSS impacts and potential impacts on gnatcatcher populations and minimized and mitigated the impacts to the gnatcatcher. If the local jurisdiction determines that the project impacts have not been mitigated consistent to the above standards then the project must meet mitigation requirements of 4.3. (2) If no CEQA review has previously been undertaken, then CEQA review shall be necessary, consistent with current la. Lw, and the project must meet the mitigation requirements of 4.3. (Process Guidelines § 4.2, ~ [emphasis added] Therefore mitigation of CSS habitat through the CEQA process is required for this Project. Because the City is contracted in the CSS NCCP, enabling it to benefit from the from the interim take provisions of the ESA 4(d) rule, the compliance with the NCCP Guideline mitigation requirements are mandatory. Even if the City were not specifically participating (not "enrolled") in the CSS NCCP, the Federal ESA 4(d) Gnatcatcher role and the State's agreement to implement it through the CSS NCCP, still requires CEQA analysis and mitigation for lands within the CSS NCCP program area based on the ESA Section 9 prohibition against destroying "taking" Gnatcatcher habitat as admitted and recognized by the City.; See also, Process Guidelines § 3.4 [discussing non-enrolled jurisdictions].. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barrare American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 1~ For these reasons and others, the Sage Council requests that the City Planning Commission reject the Planning staff recommendations and request that an EIR be prepared to ensure adequate mitigation measures for biological resources have been met, as well as to adequately address other concems by residents regarding design height of structures and road safety (project ingress and egress) for children. If you should have any questions please contact Leeona Klippstein, Conservation Programs Director at (626) 744-9932. Thank you. For the wild Earth, Leeona Klippstein, Co-founder Conservation Programs Director Spirit of the Sage Council cc: Craig Sheman, Legal Counsel Glenn Black, CDFG Ken Berg, USFWS December 9, 1997 %Millam E. Tippets California Department of Fish and Game 4949 Vlawridge Ave. Sen Diego, CA 92123 Dear Mr. Tiplets: In 1.995, the County,. 12 of the 15 ciUet wehin~Ren. Bamardino Valley, the U,S. Fish and W'ddle Service, the California Department of Fish end Game, and several utility companies ligned a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to prepare · Multi-Species Habitat Consentetion Ran (MSHCP) for the San Bemlrdino V/lay. As you know, the plan has not gone forward due to · lack of funds. However, the County has recently received $400,000 from the National Fmh and VVtldlife Foundation and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Even though this amount is not eetough to complete the. el/b~, it will allow us to proceed with the biological and land use data collection work that needs to be done. The current version of the MOU tormlnates as of December 31, 1997. I am requesting that your depa~ment aplxove 8 revised MOU that identifies December 31, 2000 as the new target date for final aplxovel of ~e plan Nffi the new termination date of the MOU. Pleaas process and sign the revised MOU as so~n as poeBible and retum it to Randy Rannlng Manager, Land Use Services Department, 385 N. Am3whead Ave., San Bemardlno, CA 92415-0182. Thank you for your interest and cooperation. JE:JS cc: Llam H. Davis, Assoc. WikJlife Biologist Sen Befnmdino Cot~qtv Govtfneqeent Center · 385 North ArrowhiM Av~e , Sin krnifd~o, CA 92415-0110 , ¢~9) 3874M5 50 CFR Ch. I (10-1-~6 Edjlton) Wildlife Sew., Inledm' §17,41 shull ·pply to auly threatened h~ld (3) During the period thP. t. 8 identi~cstlon or other reason8 conalst~ ticsLion or withdrawal if the ~ervic~ determine8 that Lhl8 provision faJl8 t~ es~le, ~xcept that nJay persuit i~sued plan referred to in parsgruph (i~mt21 of C~P/j). When It has been established by aim black bear. aremen) tn monte of §§ 17.31 and 1?.32 for that au- gnatcatcher will not tma v ~ aLi~n of Mongolia, al,,I thorlzel activity, and a second permit ue~:tion 9 of tits! Acl. j[ 8uch'tj ko the :~ervlce, in conagitation with the (j) Argali (Opts . ..,.,...,.,.._,,o.,."'"""' """"""'"'""""""":';^ "nc~ a .,o,,da ,..thor ,.e,. coT;J;' '"'"~;:"'""'~ '" ~..,rsd ..dot .,~.. for an. · ,oea, .overn,.ent ·~e.~. t,,al ,~ ,,.- ,o, ,%~./.;.';""; cau..,h,"oas of ?l o'J~;i.";~.,,;,i,.,..,~, .or ~overs. h. a.. ~.-,t ie- re,,ed and e,,t, vc,y ...nged ,,, the __.., nan,.,~ .... he~; ;., l;~c... ander ...~ or ,--rt "of t.,..,.'.t,o. of ..e. a p,a. ~.. apply {~t) [Reserved] in accordance with the NCCP oft, simile r~nge t~,, (b) Coastal C·llfornl· gnatcatcher tionCtulde]lnesandProceaaCuidL.]ltl,'u. ereLion of the Florida Gee and Fresh Mongolia, and Tajikistan isciamlfiedaaendan~ere,landc°ve~: (Poliop£ilac~li/ornicucolj]*omiCo),(l)l~x* (4) The Service will monitor the tin- Water Fish Cornminion, with the can- (~ln all other perth of curfence of t~e ~ and Wildlife 8erv- atoll ' cept se not~,d in parseraph8 (bXa) end pleaentering of the NCCP Coneerva- by §fill). 13) of tide section, all prohibitions of Lion a!~d Procee.~ Guideline8 as · whole, (1) Upon receiving from the lovetel. lc~}T·ke f°rreae°ca°fhulnaneafetY monte of Kyrgyzstan, Mengull·, ~,,i:l Jl~.3l(·) and (b) shall apply Lo the and will conduct a review every ts allowed as 8peelfled under 50 CFR TaJikletan properly docutnenthd ar,'- coutal California gn·tcateher. mont~8 to d~ttermine whether the ll;ll(cX2) and i~.ZI(oX3Xiv)- verifiable c~rtlfication th~.t (t) argali (2) Incidental take of the coastal ~uidelines, as implemented, are errs!c- (5) ticlenitY thrge to eastsin eport huel~ sldered a violation of oection 9 Of the regional and subregional conservaLj**n 0aX4) ing, (it) regulating authorities have th0 Kndangered Species Act of 19~3, se obJectJves during the interim planning in wrtttn~ to the U.8- Fbda mud Wildlife Service, Dlvioton of taw Enforcement" capacity to obtain 8ound data on them ended (Act), if it rumalia from antivl- period. If the ,c~ervico determine~ th.~t tiemconducted purwuant to tbe State of the guideline8 are not effectlog a~io- P 0 Rex ~/4t ArUngqson, Vhlinta ~208,popel·Lions, (lit) regulating ·uthorttiu w~in, ~;~. ~be s,lme, ~ co'l', ,~,,, the, pe~atio,. "· """* ~shfore,a's ,·t.~ ~o.,,,,l~y ~co* ~na, ~ te,,~ or ~eetl,g ~- be retained dispuled of, or Iml aged (NCCP), filehal and subregional conservetinsEl ' pnmtJcal capacity to man~tge them i, and in scourdance with a NCCP pl·n object, Ivan, the Service will accordance with dJrectioM from the able reesurce ami have the le~d an~ letration Planning Ant of IS91 lot the I~ote0tion of coastal me scrub with the California Delmrtment of Fish Service. habitat, prepared consistent with the and Game pursuant to the M0U to (I) Louthi0J~ binnil bear (Ursu3 such, (iv) the habitat of these mae~tnu3 lu201tm). (1) Excaph es noted letions ia secure, (v) rekml·ting e~ 8thte's NCCP Conservation and Proc- appropriate modification of the in I~arngraPh (IXR) of this esction, all thorltice can ensure that I,he invohld mOuidelince, prodded lhnt: lince or their ·pplic~,tton a8 defill~,d prohibittolmofJlt.31amiexemPti°ca°f trophies have in fact been lek~il~ (I)The NCCp plan hasbeen prepared, therein. If approprl·te modification **f ~ 2~;"J",r~.'~;".°:.p.ved. and ,mp,o__.ted pu__..tthe gu,de... or th,,,, ·pp.,..o. §lq.3R shall apPlY to any black bear taken from the -~ wlthinthehistarlcrmn~9oftbeLeulal' and (vi) fund8 ited~p~* tuCallforni·FishandClameCodeeec- defined therein does not occur, the volved sport hunting a P ' tiefro Z800-~840; and -_1 ann black bear (Tern, ldoulalana and re a pi marfly to argalt.connervatlon, * (it) The ~'iah and Wildlife Service 8errice may revoke the interim t.tke provisions of t.his special rule on a ~tlb- Mllmtm~iPPi). rector may, centintent with the P~' (R) 8uheection lq.4~(lX i) and §1~.31 poses of the Act. authorize by pu~le~ ] ,~ervlce) ha8 illsued written cancur- regiotlal or Butarcs basis. The Serv~.~e ahldl not I~obibit effecto incidental to Lion of a ilotJoe in the FgD~gAI, el0 ~nco that the NCCP plan moete the will publish the findings for revocation normal font manag~nmnt activities can~ Meaderda cot forth in 50 CFa in the FI~DgRAL P~GISTEa and provide within the hietoric range of the l~°ulal" ~ the importation of pe ll.3~bX Z). The Service shall IMue its for a 30-day public comment perJl,d ann black bear except for activities spelt, hauLed Lrffali t, rophiee, thk8~l~ ~ncurrence lmreua~t to the provialoce prior to the effective date for revok lt~i; causing damage to or It2s of den trees, ,raJikiatan after the date of aucb m~ 9f the Memorandum of rJnderetandlng the provisions of the special rule in or candidate den tree~ ffally in Klrri~18tan, Mongolia, ~ll0U), dated December 4, 19~1, between particular area. Revocation would re- den tree etth~ tics, without a Threatened Spectel I~ the Califorela Delmrtment of Fish and suit in the reinstatement of the take forest matmgmment activities am tie- mth~trstJ~tntteli'f.3:tofthisPart'lm Game and the Service regarding cmmt- prohibitJogs set forth under ,~ CFI~ For purpomm of this exemption, no: rid the aDPlicable la'oviaten0 d d M4te ecrub natural community con- l~.31(a) and (b) in the affected NeCk' ageLathed yield of timber prodncte ~urvatlon pl·nning in snubhorn Callfor- fined a~ those activitice that, support · ~0 CPa lift ill have been met. area. wild§lie habitats, thereby maintaining t40 PR t4415, Sept. ms, IMS] m~, (Copies of the SLato's NCCP Con- tat. For perpoem of this special rule, the MOU are available from the U.8. · I camitdato den trees are canaldoted to tations affectlm~ II't.40, see the l~Atds Me elah and Wildlife Service, Carlshad lMgl be bald cYPre~8 and tupelo gufft with 94metiron8 Affected in the Flndtni Field Office, Z~J0 Loker Avenue WeaL, C, dll0ad, CA 92~8.) The Service shall i1~.41 8pedml rokm--replik& visible cavities, I~avlng a minimum dl- Lion of this volume. anleter at brevet height (DBH) of 36 mmllthr the implementation of the (a) American allik'ator inches, and occurring in or along riv~ § 1'/.41 Special era, lahes, 8treems, b~yolm, alongbe, or (a) Bald egglee (Itmik¢~ a~~Cl' plan and may revoke its concur- m~si~vipp/eui.t~-(I) r~Fmition.t. For Ic, ucoceph~ul) wherever llst~J II '.. ftll~ under this paragraph (bX2X II) if purpose of t~18 parn4~raph (a): "ArnPr- threatened under § l~.ll(h). "~m NCCP plan, as implemented, fails ican alligator" 6halt mean any memh,'r other water halice. ~ Idhere to the standards oct forth In of the species ,4~ltffutor (3) Thin exprea~ exemption for normal ~roei3iun3 All ptol~ql. a 1~ forest management activitie~ provided (1) ~pPllca~e (~' ,3Z(bX3). whether alive or dead, and any by this special rule is subject to mud§- tiolm and menarea of JJ 17~ql and II. .' 171 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGARDING .NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNING . WHEREAS, the California LegLslatum eutherized · Natural Community Cormewatlon Planning (NCCP) Program edminlalemd by the Deparlment to proted hat~;;,,~, for multiple species, Including thinalerted end endangered apedes, end WHEREAS, thegoais offfie NCCPproeesecomptementandmggggl~eU.8. Fish and Wtkfllfe Service (hereinefter the 'SewIce') murd4pecles conservation pinning WHEREAS. at the spedtic direction of the U.S. Congrace. up to $1.5 millon wfil be dlstzibuted to four en6~es to support the NCCP Program efforts for the presefvalion of ' coastat sage scrub habitat end ~e natural comrnunNe it Iupport~, and WHEREAS, of the $1.5 rrdlllon, lhe County I~ eligible to receive a total of up to $100,000. Challenge ~rant funding Is administered by the Departmen~ through · grant agreement with the National Fish and VVItdle Foundation (her the 'Foundation'). end WHEREAS, ~e County end the NCCP Program am committed to effec~lng regional ~otectlon end perpemalion of natural wlklie diveraity while elk~ng compalible and epprop~te development ~ growth, and wish to ef~jre lhe coopemtNe de'd~iopment. monitoring, end repealing of ~e County's program ectlvffies by means of this MOU, NOW, THEREFORE, it is rrmtually agreed end underVcood as folbws: A. Prindpa)s of Agreement The County end Its ¢onalituent members pattiling in the San Bernard*too Valley MultMpeok~ Habitat CormeNalion Plan (heroinefie'the MSHCP) concur with the goads of the NCCP Act end hewe detqmd. ned that the NCCP Act may provide ~ approi:h'~ie roeerie for the County end is conltlNent rnmnl3erl to fufflllh adequate lyoteclk)~ for rangeofblotoglcalresourceswhGestthesa~etlmesaf~lngtheeconornt~eodal, a ~an Bernat'dlno Valley M,SHCP for lands ~ t~e Juridi,:~:ms of the slgna~ membemof~r, eMemoran~mofUndemar~lng ByAnd BewsenTheU.S. F'isi~And BemaMino.'rheFIflaenAlT~clsdC_R~_lnSouttwvestsmSanBemardrf~C~jntyAnd August 8, lees, (Contract No. 1. The County agree~ to provide documentation of peformance for the MSHCP lacks beb'q3 funded through the Foundation Challenge grant edmlntstored by the identilkd below and detailed In County Attachment I of this :,,-,,eeme~! end a, Coliectfon of field survey biological data; c. ~ nlysb to ~ sendfive resources not FesenUy under conservation; d. Design of a regional ecosystem reserve system; e. Public Outrsach PaSSIon 2. The Depertmertt mint be Informeel In v4Nng ~ arty bixlget adjustments between compor~nt tasks 30 days Fior to exceeding a oomponent task. 3. The County Mrsas to furnish to the Oepatlment n final re4x~t of pefformiince will~In 00d~ysfromffietermofthegmntegreementar~l, uput m~topmvide copies of all suppo,"ting do~umematlon Includlftg copies of aft contracts and wott pmgrsms entered Into by t~e ~. 4. Upon signatures of this MOU, the Oei~Y~ment agrees to notify ~he Found~io~ to release $100,000 to the Co~r4y as provided for under the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. B. Terme of Agreeme~t · 1. Thetetmofthbagreeme~ellbefrom~5, 1996, thmugh~eptember30, 19r/. 2. The term of this agreement may be extended by mutual coneent of both pertiss ttu~ugh ,n mnendment =e q)ecled in p~ragreph E cd'this egreemenL . C. Plyntent ObllgitJonl The Department will not Incur fie:el ~. under ~te MOU. 1. The Depertment'e designated Project Manager for ~ MOU is: Ron Rernpel, NCCP Program Manager 1416 Nlret Sheet Sacran-b-do, C.,a~omb 95814 (916) 654-996o FAX 81 9- 653-2588 n,_ . The County$ designated Project Men/get for this MOU Randy Scott, thing Manager County of 8an Bererdino Pub4~Sewic~Group 385 N. Anewheed Avenue, 3rd Boor (e0~) 3874146 FAX 909-387*3223 E. Amendment and Temdnation 1. Thl~MOUmaybeemendedwiththewrlttenaPProvalofbothsignat~k~offfie MOU. Amendments may be proposed by ellher party end will be subrnNed for · ably (6o) day pedod oerev by eher pm /. 2. The County or the Depefirrent may terminate its pa~cipatJon in the MOU upon e thirty (30) day prinf wffiin not~;e to the ottter party. -,,co FEB 11 Department of Fieh and Game '- By:, Date: 'TIle: ,a4~p~ved ss t~ Fown: 'fltb: U.6. FiahsndV~,~; Cilimb I:)epa.tmaddRih 8rid M Veget~vemreane~M~w..d~y(elS) 3. RaRPrelwaim · tllmonls 4. EnvlnmmenklCamplkme 8n.xdhs I 5. Pmg~wna~PewnlPmpaabnmdbX~ernent.tbn~gmement 4nml~ -- 6. PknAdopaan 1 mo. lh \ Teata~v. Sd~edub Yr.'l - Y~.2 Yr. 1 D-I ( [mrm~1al Po~mgd Lower PotsaM Vslu® F~r tong-term C~nudmd~n ~lovember 9o 1993 OZ05 7 ./ '4CCP Region hnp:/tceresca.gov,'cr~NCCP,'cssreghun Southern Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Region ;) San Bernardino Los Angeles ales Angefe ePalrn Springs Pales Verde; RJverside Hem et Dana Poir a Pov~y NCCP Region Sulkregional Planning Areas Camp Pendleton Resource Management Plan Coastal/Central Orange County NCCP Northern Orange County Subregion Pales Verdes Peninsula NCCP San Bernardino Valley-wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan San Diego MulUple Habitat Conservation and Open Space Program (MHCOSP) San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) San Diego Muillple Hallitat Consentation Program (MHCP) San Diego Northern MSCP Subarea Southern Orange County' NCCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Search I Comment I DFG I Resources Aeencv I CERES :~ L: ';'! Copyright © 1997 California Resoun:~ ASe~cy. AH fights RICHARDS, WATSON 8~ GERSHON ......... °'~ .... '"'~'"' 23 1999 Michael Dee Rees, Esq. 9587 Arrow Route, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Reference: City's Proposed Use of Drainage Easement in Connection with Development Review 98-10 (Barratt American, Tract 13316) Dear Mr. Rees: Our office serves as the City Attorneys' Office for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In my capacity of Assistant City Attorney, I am responding to your letter dated July 28. 1999 addressed to the members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. In your letter, you raised several policy and legal objections to the proposed drainage facility improvements planned to be constructed in the City's drainage easement that lies across the rear of your property in connection with the City's approval of the Barratt American project (Tract 133 16) that lies north of your property. This letter responds to, and hopefully allays, both areas of concern expressed in your letter. By way of background, the properties along and east of London Avenue, including your lot, were created through a subdivision (Tract Map No. 9590), the final map for which was recorded on January 6. 1978. The final map contained an offer of dedication of a drainage easement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose for which the dedication was required, as set forth in the conditions for Tract 9590, is to construct adequate improvements, together with the necessary offsite easements to convey drainage from Tract 9590 to the natural drainage swale existing offsite at the tract boundary. Further, the conditions specify that flowage or County drainage easements would be required to convey runoff where flow dewaters onto private property. FilCHARE)S, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23, 1999 Page 2 In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council accepted the drainage easement offered by Tract 9590 per Resolution No. 89-066, adopted on February 15, 1989. On May 29, 1990, the City Council approved Tract 13316 and the Improvement Agreement securing the drainage facilities. The recorded drainage easement duly appears in pertinent title reports, including the title report for your property located at 5217 London Avenue. Accordingly, you were provided actual notice of the existing drainage easement upon your purchase of the property in 1991. The City's Senior Civil Engineer, Mr. Dan James, has reviewed your objections to the drainage facilities that are under review for the Barratt American project and has concluded that your assertions regarding the purpose, design and operation of those facilities are incorrect in several significant respects. In addition, he has concluded that the modifications you have proposed are not required by the terms of the easement, would increase the risk of flooding, including flooding of your property, and would be contrary to accepted engineering principles. According to Mr. James, the drainage system to be constructed within Tract 13316 and then downstream and within the drainage easement across your property has a two-fold purpose. First, site drainage from Tract 13316 is collected in an underground pipe system and is discharged towards the drainage easement. In addition, drainage from the undeveloped area to the north of Tract 13316 will flow into a debris basin at the north end of that tract before entering the underground pipe system. The debris basin has a spillway to accommodate flow in the event the inlet of the debris basin plugs up (an occurrence which must be anticipated, and preventive measures incorporated to perform, during flood conditions). The flows drain south within a public street towards a concrete channel. This channel acts as a spillway from the site to the existing ravine downstream. The spillway is specifically designed to dissipate the flows and to thereby minimize the risk of flooding. Therefore, the spillway is essential to the proper design of the drainage facility. It basically consists of a concrete 12' by 9' channel extending from the southerly boundary of Tract 13316 across lot 14 of Tract 9590. The spillway outlets to the northerly portion of your lot (Lot 13 of Tract 9590) where quarter ton "rip rap" will be constructed to dissipate the flow and further reduce the risk of flooding. These flows then enter the existing ravine and continue south. It is Mr. James' position that the underground pipe system and spillway, and the other improvements described above, will better accommodate anticipated flows than if only an underground pipe were utilized through Tract 13316 and then across your property. As Mr. James explains, if the inlet for that pipe were to plug up and no above-ground channel existed to take the flow, both Tract 13316 and your lot would likely be flooded, with a greater likelihood that the flooding would not be contained within the drainage easement area. The proposed drainage system was designed by a reputable engineering firm hired by the project developer in accordance with accepted, standard engineering principles. The plans have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. Based upon this review, Mr. James has RICHARE)S, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23, 1999 Page 3 concluded that the above-described drainage system meets or exceeds applicable codes, and that the drainage facilities are specifically designed and intended to implement and accomplish the purposes of the drainage easement. In your letter, you assert that the drainage facilities will destroy all the natural drainage. shunt everything into an impervious pipeline, and aim it at your backyard. This misstates the design and effect Of the improvements. As explained above, the drainage system contains both above and below ground features which, together, are designed to accommodate the flow of surface and flood waters, channel them through the existing natural drainage pattern, dissipate them to reduce flood risk, and remove them from the area downstream, and southerly, from your property and the adjacent residences. The planned facilities follow the natural watercourse for the subject watershed area and channel the surface flow into the natural drainage pattern. While some increased flow may be anticipated with the proposed development, the protection afforded by the planned drainage facilities should increase from the current level of protection existing in the natural and unimproved state. You also suggest that the underground pipe should be "buried" to the point of a drainage pond existing in an unspecified location. This proposal is not required by the terms of the easement and would be unreasonable and imprudent from an engineering standpoint. An above- ground spillway and debris basin are integral aspects of the flood protection afforded by the drainage facilities, removal of which would jeopardize its integrity. The City is not aware of any cost issue (which you alluded to as being a concern of the developer's) in connection with undergrounding the pipe. Simply, from a public safety standpoint, the City could not approve the undergrounding you suggest for the reasons stated. In addition, the above design is entirely consistent with applicable legal principles. The citations you provided, with one exception, pre-date two leading cases by the California Supreme Court that caused a significant evolution in this area of law. See Locklin v, City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327, 367 (1994); Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District, 47 Cai.3d 550 0988). The Locklin Court explains as follows: "A natural watercourse 'is a channel with defined bed and banks made and habitually used by water passing down as a collected body or stream in those seasons of the year and at those times when the streams in the region are accustomed to flow.' . . . A natural watercourse includes 'all channels through which, in the existing conditions of the country. the water naturally flows.' and may include new channels created in the course of urban development through which waters presently flow." Locklin, 7 Cal.4th at 334 (emphasis added). "IT]he natural watercourse rule has two aspects. The first permits the riparian landowner to gather surface waters and discharge them into the watercourse at a location other than that at which natural drainage would occur. The second RICHAROS. WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23. 1999 Page 4 permits the owner to make improvements in the bed of the stream to improve drainage and to protect the land from erosion by constructing dikes or embankments even though the result may be increased flow and velocity which might damage the property of lower riparian owners. Both aspects of the rule have as their purpose facilitating the development of upstream properties." Locklin, 7 Cal.4th at 351. The proposed drainage facilities conform expressly to the principles enunciated in the natural watercourse rule. Those facilities were reasonably and prudently designed in conformance with applicable technical principles and codes, and in accordance with the express purpose of the drainage easement for the area. The City is unaware of any available alternative or mitigating measures which could decrease the risk of flooding or damage due to storm water runoff or increased surface flow. The cases you cite, and specifically the Yue decision which you attached to your letter, provide no basis for any legal challenge to the Bartart American project. The Yue decision, in particular, involved reversal of a demurrer in a situation where the city allegeally failed to require the developer to mitigate the storm water runoff and failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water caused by the subdivision. Here, by contrast, your objections are directed at the developer's mitigation efforts and to the design of the upgrading of the drainage facilities which are intended to accommodate the increased flow anticipated from the proposed project. Moreover. unlike the Yue situation, the existing drainage system downstream of the proposed facilities has ample capacity to handle any increased flow created by construction of the development. You also raise certain objections at page two of your letter to improvements at the end of the proposed channel on your property, the proposed level of maintenance of the facilities, and to putting up a fence around the facility. You are correct that the City has no fee title interest in your property including your backyard. However, the City has an easement for drainage purposes over most of your lot, including the area of your lot where the facility is to be constructed. As noted above, you purchased the property with notice of, and subject to, this large drainage easement. These City's easement rights include the rights to use the easement in a reasonable manner to further the purpose of the easement; to enter the servient tenement to install pipes or other devices necessary for the City's enjoyment of the easement in a reasonable matter and to further the purpose and character of the easement. See Laux v. Freed, 53 Cal.2d 512, 525 (1960); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Abar, 275 CaI.App.2d 456, 464 (1969). These easement rights are reasonably construed to include the right to construct a drainage channel, "rip-rap" at the end of the channel to slow the water flow in the dominant tenement, and the erection of a fence around those facilities to protect people from injuring themselves on the facilities or in the easement area. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23. 1999 Page 5 Likewise, the City is entitled to use and enjoy the easement without undue or unreasonable interference by the owner of the servient tenement. See Herzog v. Grosso, 41 Cal.2d 219, 228 (1953). This may include such reasonable measures as entering the property to conduct maintenance on the facilities. Indeed, an additional benefit of the proposed drainage facilities and project is the assumption by the City of regular maintenance of both the drainage facilities and the ravine. Currently, in its unimproved state, no public agency has responsibility for nor involvement in maintenance of the drainage facilities in the area. The City is committed to ensuring reasonable use of the drainage easement including conditioning and/or approval for the public safety of any and all plans for reasonably and prudently designed drainage facilities in accordance with applicable laws, and conditioning of approval upon reasonable measures to the public's aesthetic concerns. The City welcomes input from residents, such as yourself, and will consider any reasonable and feasible suggestions or alternatives in connection with the Barratt American (and any other) project. We trust that this letter provides you with additional information necessary to alleviate the concerns you have expressed. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to submit them to the attention of the undersigned and we will endeavor to respond promptly. Very truly yours. Keyin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney STA: KGE: sta cc: Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Brad Buller, City Planner Saskia T. Asamura, Esq. Diana Santini (5207 London Avenue) The Law Office of Matthew Dee Rees Attorney at law 9587 Arrow Route, Ste. "D" (909) 945-2225 Telephone Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 945-2227 Fax July 28, 1999 The Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 OBJECTION TO APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 BY BARRATT AMERICAN: TRACT 13316 Dear Planning Commission Members, My name is Matthew Rees, residing at 5217 London Avenue, Alta Loma, California, just south of the planned development, with my wife and child. It has come to my attention that today is a hearing upon the approval of the proposed development plan, which I have objected to more than once in the past few months. Though I am impressed by the scope of the development, and the design of the planned homes, it would appear that little or no thought has been given to the impact of this proposed development upon the lower easement land owners. Our property backs up against a dry creek bed which drains the development area during adverse weather conditions. My property is impressed with an ~easement for natural drainage". The proposed development intends to drain about half the proposed plan area into my backyard, collecting all the storm waters from the entire hillside above my home, and dumping them into my back yard and the yard of Diane, immediately north of my property. This plan is unlawful, ill advised, a clear eye sore for the immediate property owners, a danger to children, and an unlawful taking of my property without compensation. I oppose this plan vociferously. I have suggested in the past that I would be amenable to a continuation of this 5-6 pipe down the hill to the lower drainage pond. The pipe needs to be buried. This is expensive and this is why it is opposed by the developer. I'm sorry, but we will have a buried pipeline or we will have a lawsuit. the City is about to accept the dedication of this drainage pipe, therefore the City is hereby placed on notice that I will take whatever action is necessary to prevent this abomination from appearing in my backyard. The Commission is hereby advised to have the City Attorney take a close look at this law before approving this plan. The proposal is a clear burden upon the lower easement holders. Do not buy into this proposal. When I met with the Planning Department (which occurred after a recent public hearing hosted by Barrett) I was told the city planned to decorate the end of this pipe, put in some debris catchers, clean the pipe out once in a while, and pour a ~ittle cement in my backyard, and put up a fence to keep the kids out. Well this all sounds fine and dandy except the City doesn't own my backyard, and the City will not be puring cement in my backyard and the City will not be putting up any fencing in my backyard. Remember this pipe is 5 to 6 feet in diameter. Kids will be walking up this pipe unless it is fenced off, and the city does not own any property. This is a ~natural drainage" easement. It should remain a natural drainage easement. When the developer lays miles of impervious roads and ~utters, and collects all the water off this system of streets, and destroys all the natural drainage, and shunts everything into an impervious pipelene and aims it at my backyard, threatening to erode my property and destroy my patio and backyard, I get a little angry. Fix the problem, do not let this get any worse. I have attached a little case law as an attorney is apt to do in the event somebody would like to actually read what the law has to say about my right and the rights of my family. Do not concentrate the entire drainage of this mountain into my backyard. Concentrating the entire drainage of the mountain in time and space, and discharging it into my backyard is not ~natural drainage". Believe me, I have done the research, this cannot be happening, but it just might tonight. nevertheless, unless some thoughtfull action is taken immediately. I thank you A-L f for your time, and should anyone wish to discuss this matter I am easy to get ahold of. Matthew ' " D P.S.: If it makes any difference ~environmentally", there are also desert tortoises in my backyard. One has walked into my backyard, been fed lettuce for lunch, and directed back into the desert for dinner. And we have pictures to prove it. Legal Authorities: (Drainage Easements) 1. Albers vs. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250 2. Inns vs. San Juan U.S.D. (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 174 3. Frustruck vsl City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 4. Burrows vs. State of California (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 29 5. Sheffet vs. County of Los Angeles (1970} 3 Cal.App.3d 720 6. Weaver vs. Bishop )1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 7. Yue vs. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751 Yue v. City of Auburn (1992) 3 CaI.App.4th 751, 4 CaI.Rptr.2d 653 View This Case Only · Cases Citing This Case ] [No. C009412. Third Dist. Jan31, 1992.] WILBERT J. YUE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF AUBURN, Defendant and Respondeat. StrMMARV An individual, on behalf of a corporation doing business as a restaurant and bar, filed a complaint against a city, alleging a taking by inverse condemnation, and seeking damages for loss in value to the real property and for loss in value to the corporation's business and leasehold interest in the property, based on several incidents of flooding. Plaintiffs alleged that the construction of a subdivision increased imp. ervious surfaces which in turn substantially increased storm water nmoff onto plaintiffs' property, and that the city had failed to require the developer of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runorE and had failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water. The city demurred to an amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead that the city's flood control project failed to work as intended and that the failure was the result of some unreasonable conduct on the pan of the city. The trial court entered judgment dismissing the complaint. (Superior Court of Placer County, No. 76821, Richard L. Gilbert, Judge.) The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment dLqmi~sing plaintiffs' complaint, and ordered the trial court to overrule the general demurrer to the complaint. The court held that plaintiffs' complaint was sufficient, since it alleged that plaintiffs had a private property interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by the project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the harm, and that the harm was substantially caused by the project. ha-~uch as the case involved surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, the court held that plaintiffs need not have alleged that defendant's drainage system failed to function as intended. The allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not previously subject to flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the repeated incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffs dated from the time the upland subdivision was developed. (Opinion by Marler, J., with Blease, Acting P. J., and Sim~ J., concurring.) [page 752] HEADP/OTES (1) Pleading §23--Demurrer tO Complaint--Demurrer as Admission--Application of Rule on Appeal--Standard of Review.--On appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a general demurrer, the appellate cotat treats the demttrrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which reasonably arise by implication, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. Further, the appellate court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. When a demurrer is sustained, the court determines whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on any theory. Moreover, the allegations of the complaint mast be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs ability to prove those allegations. (2a-2d) Waters §98--Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings--inverse Condemnation--Sufficiency of Complaint--In an inverse condemnation action, in which plaintiffs alleged that their restaurant and bar had been damaged by flooding and excessive water caused by the city/s failure to require a subdivision developer to mitigate storm runoffwater, and by the city~s failure to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased water flow, the trim court erred in sustaining defendant's general demurrer, where the complaint alleged that plaintiffs had a private property interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by the project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the harm, and that the harm was substantially caused by the project. Inasmuch as the case involved surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, plaintiffs need not have alleged that the city's drainage system failed to function as intended. Further, the allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not subject to historical flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the repeated incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffs dated fi'om the time the subdivision was developed. (3) Waters §89 Surface and Hood Waters--Protection Against Surface Waters--Inverse Liability of Public Agencies: Eminent Domain §131--Remedies of Owner--Inverse Condemnation--Inverse Liability of Public Agencies--Water Damage.--Inverse [page 753] liability of public agencies due to water damage is determined primarily by private law rules governing interference with surface waters, flood waters, and stream waters. First, one has no fight to obstruct the flow onto his or her land of what are technically known as surface waters. Second, one has the right to protect oneself against flood waters, and for that purpose to obstruct their flow onto his or her land, even though such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of another. Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a natural watercourse. (4) Waters §98--Surface and Hood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings--Inverse Condemnation--Foreseeability and Substantial Cause.--A cause of action for inverse condemnation based on surface water damage must conform to general inverse condemnation principles and must be grounded in the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to the owner ( Cal. Coast., art. I, § 14). An owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where actual physical damage is caused to his or her property by a public imp. rovement as deliberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable, and a governmental agency may be held strictly liable, with or without fault, if the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even ifouly one of several concurrent causes. [Damage to private property caused by negligence ofgovermnental agents as "taking," "damage," or "use" for public purposes, in constitutional sense, note, 2 A.LR.2d 677. See also Cal.Jur.3d (Rev), Eminent Domain, § 307; 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, § 1057 et seq.] (5) Waters §98---Surface and Hood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings--Protection Against Surface Waters--Inverse Condemnation--Rule of Reasonableness.--An inverse condemnation cause of action based on damage by surface water is governed by a nde of reasonableness peculiar to that genre. fithe upper owner is reasonable and the lower owner is unreasonable, the upper owner wins. fithe upper owner is unreasonable end the lower owner is reasonable, the lower owner wins. If both the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins. However, this reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be determined in each case upon a consideration of all the relevent circum~tences. A plaintiff need not plead the defendant's unreasonableness to state a cause of [page 754] action. Instead, the defendent must enswer end raise the issue of the plaintiffs unreasonableness to prevail. Further, there is no incentive to try to plead end prove that the upper owner's diversion of surface water has been unreasonable, since the lower owner may prevail, regardless of the nature of the upper owner's conduct. (6) Waters §89 Surface and Flood Waters--Protection Against Surface Waters--Inverse Condemnation--Utility of Project Versus Harm to Landowner.--Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balencing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff.. The gathering of surface waters into a system of imp. ervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity, end concentration of water, end thus may constitute en unreasonable method of disposing of such water when weighed against the seriousness of the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result. (7) Waters §9e Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleaclings---Surface Water and Flood Control inverse Condemnation--Governing Policies.--The policies governing surface water end flood control inverse condemnation cases are different. In flood cases, the purpose of requiring allegations of both substential causation end unreasonableness on the part of the government entity defendent is to prevent discouraging construction of flood protection facilities. However, no such concern is involved in surface water cases, since surface water damage Wpicaily follows alteration of natural drainage patterns by a party who has developed a piece of property for profit, instituting improvements which are later incorporated into a governmental infrastructure. While this type of development is socially beneficial, there is no reason why the economic cost incident to the expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the adjoining landowners, rather then by those undertaking such projects for profit. (8) Waters §97---Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies---Inverse Condemnation--Duty to Upgrade Drainage Systems-Surface Waters Versus Flood Controi.--in en action against a city for inverse cond~-..ation. in which plaintiffs alleged that their property was damaged by flooding end excessive water caused by a poorly engineered drainage system, the trial court erred in snsta/n/ng defendent's general demurrer, even if defendent did not have a duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by eny end all fi~ture storms. Where the evidence discloses that flood control projects [page 755] undertaken by the defendant decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise naturally have occurred on the plaintiffs lend, the defendent is not liable. HOwever, plaintiffs were not alleging that defendent had a duty to build or upgrade a flood control system to prevent naturally occurring flood waters ~om flowing onto plaintiffs' lend: rather, they were cl~imlng that defendent approved a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, end then built a culvert emptying into en inadequate drainage system, inevitably causing plaintiffs' land to be flooded. COUNSEL Daniel P. Patterson, Curten & Alschuler end Donald W. Curren for Plaintiffs end Appellants. Smmbos, Mason & Thomas and Douglas W. Brown for Defendant and Respondent. Oe~oN MARLER, J.-- This appeal is taken from an order and judgment of dismissal entered by the trial court after sustaining the general demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint for inverse condemnation without leave to amend. We shah reverse. Facts and Procedural History On May 23, 1986, Richard Yue, on behalfofRHRH, Inc. (doing business as the Shanghai Restaurant and Bar) filed a ciaim against the city of Auburn alleging that his restaurant and bar, located in the old city portion of Auburn, was damaged on February 18, 1986, by flooding and excessive water "caused by [a] poorly engineered drainage system." This claim was rejected by the city on June 12, 1986. On December 3, 1986, plaintiffs filed a complaint in superior court alleging a taking by inverse condemnation and a second cause of action for negligence. After a succession o1 amendments and demurrers, plaintiffs abandoned their negligence cause of action because of their failure to meet the filing requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act ( Gov. Code, § 900 et s.eq.), and ultimately filed a second amended complaint based solely on inverse condemnation. This complaint sought money damages for loss in [page 7561 value to plaintiffWilbert Yue's ownership interest in the real property and for loss in value of RHll. ffs business and leasehold interest in the property based on several separate incidents of flooding. The gxavamen of the complaint is as follows: A development known as the Skyline Subdivision Project was built above plaintiffs' property. Defendant "planned, approved, designed, ... constructed, ... and otherwise substantially participated in activities for the public use or benefit including the exercise of dominion and control over drainage courses which included offsite storm drainage facilities both mAn-made and natural dedicated for public use as a condition for the development of the upstream Skyline Subdivision Project. ..." The subdivision is in the Brewery Lane drainage basin and plaintiffs' land is below, in the Old Town area. The construction of the subdivision substantially increased impexvious surfaces which in turn substantially increased storm water nmot][ The maximum inflow from the Brewery basin culvert is 105 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the capacity of the preexisting drainage structure below is 75 cfs. Defendant failed to require the developer of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runoff and defendant failed to up~l'ade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water. Defendant's drainage facilities are inadequate to handle the increased storm water runoff and plaintiffs' land has been inundated with water repeatedly as a consequence. On April 11, 1990, the city demurred to the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on May 23, 1990, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead that the cit3/s "flood control project failed to work as intended and that the failure was the result of some unreasonable conduct on the part of the public agency." Thereafter, the judgment dismissing the complaint was entered, ~'om which plaintiffs timely appealed. Discussion I (1) The standard of review on an appeal from judgment ofdi~,nissal following sustaining of a general demurrer is guided by long settled rules. We treat the demttrrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which reasonably arise by implication, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 CaL3d 311, 318 [216 Cal. Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58]; Douglas v. E. &~. Gallo Winery (1977) 69 Cal. App.3d 103, 114 [137 Cal. Rptr. 797];Beason v. Gr/ff(1954) 127 Cal. App.2d 382, 386-387 [274 P.2d 47].) "Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their [page 757] context." (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts .~f~cient to constitute a cause of action on any theory. (Ibid.; Benson, supra, 127 Cal. App.2d at pp. 386-387.) Moreover, "'the allegations of the complaint must be hberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the patties.'" (Heckendorn v. City of San Marine (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 481,486 [229 Cal. Rptr. 324, 723 P.2d 64], quoting Foungrnan v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 244-245 [74 Cal. Rptr. 398, 449 P.2d 462].) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the troth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs ability to prove those allegations. (Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 913,922 [216 Cal. Rptr. 345, 702 P. 2d 503].) II The dispute on appeal centers on the requirements for pleading an inverse condemnation cause of action based on water damage. That a dispute exists is understandable as there is considerable confusion in the law regarding the requirements for such a cause of action. 1( 1 ) (2a) Defendant contends that the trial court was correct in ruling that the second amended complaint is defective because it fails to plead the conjunction of substantial causation and unreasonableness as set forth in Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist. (1988) 47 CaL3d 550 [253 CaLKptr. 693, 764 P. 2d 1070]. Defendant argues we should follow the trial court's lead and apply the specific holding of Belair that "when a public flood control improvement fails to function as intended and properties historically subject to flooding are damaged as a proximate result thereof; plaintiffs' recovery in inverse condemnation requires proof that the failure was attributable to some unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant public entities." (Id. at p. 567, italics added.) Plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain that they have adequately pleaded a caus~ of action in inverse condemnation under the requirements applicable to the facts ofthit ease. For reasons which follow, we conclude that Belair does not apply to the case at bar and that plaintitfq have stated a cause of action in inverse condemnation. [page 758] There are causes of action for inverse condemnation due to water damage which differ according to the type of water involved. (Van Alstyne, Inverse Condemnation: Unintended Physical Damage (1969) 20 Hastings L.J. 431,448-465; 4 Witkin, Summaty of Cal. Law (3d ed. 1985) Real Property, §§ 797-806, pp. 975-983; Condemnation Practice in Cal., supra, Inverse Condemnation, §§ 13.13-13.17, pp. 348-354; 5 Miller & Starr, Cat. Real Estate Law 2d (1989) Adjoining Landowners, §§ 14.20-14.23, pp. 343-357; 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3d ed. 1990) Taking and Damage, § 6.08[3], pp. 6-50 - 6-51. ) The policy considerations and pleading requirements vary considerably with each type. Thus, the determination of whether there is a cause of action in inverse condemnation for water damage begins with the traditional analytical approach of finding what type of water caused the damage. This categorization process originated in ton cases and is followed in inverse condenmation lawsuits as well. (3) "[I]nverse liability of public agencies is determined in the main by the peculiarities of private law rules governing interference with" 'surface waters,' 'flood waters,' and 'stream waters.'a" (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 448-449.) The legal rights and consequences following such categorization of water types have recently been mmmadzed as follows: "'" 'First, one has no right to obstruct the flow onto his land of what are technically known as surface waters .... Second, one has the right to protect him~elfagainst~oodwaters ... and for that purpose to obstruct their flow onto his land, and this even though such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of another .... Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a naturalwatercourse. [Citations.]' ""' (Weaver v. Bishop (1988) 206 Cal. App.3d 1351, 1353-1354 [254 Cal. Rptr. 425] [private litigants], italics added.) In the present case, the complaint permits the inference, appropriate on general demurrer, that the water which inundated plaintiffs' property was surface water. The complaint describes increased "impervious surfaces," increased "storm water runoff;" "storm waters," and a culvert, built upland ~'om plaintiffs land to collect "runoff." In Keys v. Romley (1967) 64 Cal. 2d 396 [50 Cal. Rptr. 273, 412 P. 2d 529], the Supreme Court described surface water as being "[w]ater diffused over the surface of land, or contained in depressions therein, and resulting from ram, mow, or which rises to the surface in springs .... It is... distinguishable from ... water collected in an identifiable body, such as a river or lake. The extraordinary overflow of rivers and streams is known as 'flood water.' "(Id at p. 400, italics added.) The facts alleged in the complaint are very similar to those in other inverse condemnation cases involving property damage caused by the diversion or obstruction of surface waters. For example, in Shefret v. County of[page 759! Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal. App.3d 720 [84 Cal. P, ptr. 11] the plaintiff recovered for damages caused by reduction in the natural absorption surface in a new development which created an increased and different pattern of surface flow from the upland tract and concentrated runoff to plaintiffs property. Burrows v. State of California (1968) 260 Cal. App.2d 29 [66 Cal. Rptr. 868] was a case in which defendant's road resurfacing and widening project eliminated a drainage ditch, thus changing drainage paRems of surface water and causing flooding ofphintiffs land. Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 CaLApp.2d 345 [28 Cal. Rptr. 357] involved damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land adjoining plaintiffs property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiffs existing ditch. The coral noted the basis of the cit3?s liability was its failure to appreciate the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Finsrock property, functioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the diversion of waters from their normal channels, would result in soma damage to private property. (ld at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid.) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency." (Id at pp. 362-363.) Finally, in Inns v. San Juan Un~edSchoolDist. (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 174 [34 Cal. Rptr. 903] a school altered its property's natural surface drainage pattern through a wide, vegetation- covered swale to direct water through a 28-inch culvert onto plaintiffs property. Although the plaintiff had always been subject to a "servitude" for the water liom the school's land, this court held the increase in volume and velocity of water released into the swale created inverse condemnation liability.. (/d. at p. 177, citing LeBrun v. Richard3 (1930) 210 Cal. 308 [291 P. 825, 72 A.L.R. 336].) (4) A cause of action for inverse condemnation based on surface water damage must conform to the general inverse condemnation principles set forth in Albers v. County o/ Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 250 [42 Cal. Rptr. 89, 398 P.2d 129], and grounded in California's Constitution.2(2) (Sheffet, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at pp. 73 1-732.) In certain circumstances, an owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where [page 7601 actual physical damage is caused to his property by a public improvement as dehberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable. (Albers, supra, 62 Cal. 2d at pp. 262, 263-264; contra Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 567 [re Hood Waters]; Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 296, 306-307 [90 Cal. Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441].) In certain circumstances, a governmental agency may be held strictly liable, with or without fault, if the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even if ouly one of several concurrent causes. (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 165, 171 [210 Cal. Rptr. 146]; accord, Belair, supra, at pp. 559- 560.) (2b) The complaint alleges that plaintiffs are owners in fee of certain described real property in the Old Town portion of the City of Auburn, and are lessees of a restaurant sited on that property. Thus, the requirement that plaintiffs have a private properly ownership interest in the damaged property is satisfied. The complaint further alleges that "as a direct and proximate result of [city's design and operation] of the improvements ... and exercise of dominion over man-made and natural watercourses ... for the management and control of storm waters, plaintiffs' ... real properties have since development of upstream properties repeatedly been subject to inundation and invasion by storm waters and suffered damage ... because of the unreasonable activities and conduct of[city]." This satisfies the requirement of alleging damage to plaintiffs' property caused by the project as designed and built. The complaint alleges that the city "dedicated for public use" the drainage facilities located above plaintiffs' property, thus satisfying the necessity of alleging a public project caused the harm. Finally, the complaint alleges, albeit somewhat unclearly, that defendant constructed the Brewery basin culvert, with a capacity of 105 cfs, and sent water from the surface runoff of the subdixdsion through it into a preexisting 75 cfs drainage facility adjacent to plaintiffs' property, and that defendant's "failure to reco~ni~e" the existing storm "drainage facilities [were] inadequate" to collect the increased storm water runofffrom Skyline Subdivision "proximately and substantially caused" damage to phintiffs' property. Thus. the Albers requirement of pleading substantial causation is satisfied. (5) An inverse condenmation cause of action based on damage by surface water is governed by a rule of reasonableness that is peculiar to that genre. (Burrows v. State oJ California, supra, 260 Cal. 2d at pp. 32-33.) Ipage 761 ] Burrows, which first apphed the reasonableness role of private surface water law to an inverse condemnation case, succinctly summarized this rule as follows: "1. If the upper owner is reasonable and the lower owner [is] unreasonable, the upper owner v/ms; 2. It]f the upper owner is unreasonable and the lower owner [is] reasonable, the lower owner wins; ... 3. It]f both the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins." (Burrows, supra, at pp. 32-33; accord Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at p. 728. ) However, this reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be determined in each case upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. (Keys v. Romley, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 410.) Plaintiffs need not plead defendant's unreasonableness to state a cause of action. (Burrows, supra, 260 Cal. App.2d at p. 33.) Instead, defendant must answer and raise the issue of plaintiffs' unreasonableness to prevail in this case. As the Burrows court wryly notes, there is no incentive "to try to plead and prove that the upper owners diversion of surface water has been unreasonable. He prevails, whatever the nature of the upper owner's conduct. Why should he undertake the burden of proving the upper owner's diversion to be unreasonable? (6)(See fn. 3.) The reasonable diverter's money spends just as nicely." (Ibid.)3(3) (2c) Inasmuch as the case involves surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, defendant's reliance on Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., supra, 47 CaL3d 550 is misplaced and plaintiffs need not allege defendant's drainage system failed to function as intended. First, as the Belair case deals with flood water (id at pp. 554-555), another body of law altogether, it is inapposite. Second, the Belair coun's use of the phrase "failed to function as intended" was a means of fleshing out the requirement for pleading substantial causation (id. at p. 560) based upon the particular factual underpinnings of the case. In Belair the subject water had escaped from a dike constructed to protect a site that had been historically subject to flooding. (Id. at p. 556.) Therefore, to show that defendant's facility was a substantial cause of injury to that site, it was necessary for the plaintiff in Belair to eliminate the other probable causes of damage, i.e., natural flooding. This in turn required focusing on the functional capability of the failed public project: if the dike had overflowed after [page 7621 it reached its design capacity, instead of when it was still below capacity, the cause of flooding might have been nature alone. (Id at pp. 558-560.) Although nature had a hand in the injury produced in Belair, the dike there failed to protect plaintiff even when it was not operating at capacity, thus it failed to function as intended, presenting a substantial cause of the injury. (Id. at p. 560.) The facts of the case at bench present no similar obstacle. The allegations allow the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not subject to historical flooding; the complaint also expressly alleges that the repeated incidents of inundation suffered by plaintiffs dates from the time the upland subdivision was developed. (7) Third, we note that the policies governing surface water and flood control inverse condemnation cases are different. In flood cases, as Belair states, the purpose of requiting allegations of both substantial causation and unreasonableness on the part of the government entity defendant is to prevent discouraging construction of flood protection facilities. (47 Cal3d at p. 558.) However, no such concern is involved in surface water cases. Ifanythlng, the opposite is true: surface water damage typically follows alteration of natural drainage parterns by a party who has developed a piece of property for profit, in this case a land subdivider, instituting imp. rovements which are later incorporated into a governmental infxastructure. (See, e.g., Frustuck v. City of Fairfax, supra, 212 Cal. App.2d at pp. 362-363.) The courts have held that while this type of development "[is] socially beneficial, there [is] no reason why the economic cost incident to the expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the adjoining landowners, rather than by those undertaking such projects for profit." (Shefret, supra, 3 CaLApp.3d at p. 73 1, citing Armstrong v. Francis Corp. (1956) 20 N.J. 320 [120 A. 2d 4, 59, A.L.R. 2d 413].) Finally, we note that Belair is inapposite because it deals with unintended damage resulting ~om breach of a dike and the flooding that occurred thereafter. (Belair. supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 554.) As Burrows noted, "in ... surface water cases we do not usually deal with nnintended, though foreseeable consequences of acts or omissions, but rather with intended results which may or may not be reasonable, depending on all of the circumstances." (Burrows v. State of California, supra, 260 Cal. App.2d at p. 34.) (2d) The trial court erred in applying Belait~s pleading standards to a complaint alleging surface water invasions. {page 763] (8) Plaintiffs allege that the cit~/s unreasonable "failure to recognize" the obvious problem in design, and its corresponding unreasonable "failure to upgrade" the existing drainage system, resulted in damage to their property. Defendant contends these allegations traderrain e plaintiffs' cause of action for inverse condemnation because defendant is under no duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by any and all future storms. But defendant is relying on inapposit_fl~od control cases)for authority. (E.g., Tri. E~_CChem. Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1976} 60 Cal. App.3d_.3,.06 [132 CaLRptr. 142]; ~haeffer v. State ofCali['ornia (1972) 22 CaLApp.3d 1017 [99 ~ Cal. Rptr. 861] (overruled on other ~rounds in County of San Diego v. Miller (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 684, 693 [119 Cal. P, ptr. 491, 532 P. 2d 139]).) The cited cases did not involve a failure to plead a cause of action for inverse condemnation under any possible theory. Instead, they concerned the plaintiffs' failure to prove the defendants' flood control projects caused flood waters to inundate plaintiffs' properties. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal. App.3d at pp. 310-312; Shaeffer, supra, 22 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1019-1021.) The defendants were not liable because the evidence disclosed the flood control projects decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise have occurred naturally on the the plaintiffs' lands. (Tri- Chem, supra, at p. 310; Shaeffer, supra, at p. 1019.) Unlike the cited cases, plaintiffs are not alleging defendant had a duty to build or upg~ade a flood control system to prevent naturally occm'riag flood waters ~'om flowing onto plaintiffs' land. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal. App.3d at pp. 308-3 12; ShaeJfer, supra, 22 Cal. App.3d at pp. I019-1021.) Instead, they are contending defendant approved the development of a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, then built a culvert to divert these surface waters even though defendant knew, or should have known, the new culvert would empty into an existing drainage system with a si~i~cantly smaller capacity, inevitably causing plaintiffs' land to be flooded. In other words, plaintiffs are alleging defendant had a duty to prevent harm to plaintiffs' land caused by conditions defendant approved or created. Since the cited cases do not hold that a defendant has no duty to upgrade an existing drainage system to accommodate an increase in and diversion of surface waters caused by the defendant, defendant's reliance on these cases is unavailing. [page 764J Disposition The judgment digmissing plaintiffs' second amended complaint should be reversed and the trial court ordered to overrule the general alemutter to the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs should recover their costs on appeal. Blease, Acting P. J., and Sims, J., concurred. [page 765! FOOTNOTE 1. A practitioner~s manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should recognize that each case is decided on its particular factual situation, with little reliance on precedent. The characterization of inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddled and disorderly° [citation] is particularly descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal. (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.) FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shah not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to ... the owner .... "( Cal. Const., art. I. former § 14.) FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the g~avity of the harm caused to the plaintifi~ "IT]he gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity and concentration of water. and thus may constitute an unreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness of the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property. is damaged as a result." (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, On. omitted.) Endnotes I (Popup) FOOTNOTE 1. A practifioner's manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should reco~nize that each case is decided on its particular factual situation, with little reliance on precedent. The characterization of inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddled end disorderly' [citation] is particularly descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal. (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.) 2 (Popup) FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shah not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to ... the owner...." ( Cal. Const., art. I, former § 14.) 3 (Popup) FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do vv~th balencing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff.. "[T]he gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity end concentration of water, end thus may constitute en unreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness of the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result." (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, fla. omitted.) RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9007t August 23 1999 Diana Santini 5207 London Avenue Alia Loma, California 91737 Reference: City ConsideratiOn of Plans by Barrail American (Tract 133 16) Dear Ms. Santini: Our office serves as the City Attorneys' Office for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In my capacity of Assistant City Attorney, [ am enclosing for your information a letter that is bcing sent to your neighbor, Mr. Michael Dce Rees, responding to certain questions and objections he raised regarding use of the Rancho Cucamonga Drainage Easement and the proposed Barrat/American project. It is my understanding you previously wrote to the City (attention Mr. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer) raising similar concerns and issues, and that you have met with City staff to further address those issues. The enclosed letter should provide you with some additional information which may be of interest. As stated in our letter to Mr. Rees, the City is committed to ensuring reasonable use of the drainage easement including conditioning and/or approval for the public safety of any and all plans for reasonably and prudently designed drainage facilities in accordance with applicable laws, and conditioning of approval upon reasonable measures to the public's aesthetic concerns. The City welcomes input from residents, such as yourself, and will consider any reasonable and feasible suggestions or alternatives in connection with the Burrart American (and any other) project. RICHARDS. WATSON & GERSHON Diana Santini August 23, 1999 Page 2 If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to submit them to the attention of the undersigned and we will endeavor to respond promptly. Very truly yours, ~ ~'/~~,ll~~' Keyin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney STA:KGE:sta cc: Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Brad Bullet, City Planner Saskia T. Asamura, Esq. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 28, 1999 hairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning ~mission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho ~nga Civic Center, 10509 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman ~en led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL ~ COMMIS~ PRESENT: John Mannedno, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias . STAFF PRESENT: strada, Deputy City Attorney; Larry J. Henderson, Principal Planner; Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, ning Commission Secretary; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There werenoannouncements. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF VICTORIA STREET ODSIDE HOMES- A request to vacate the southerly portion of Victoda Street west of Etiwan ~ Tentative Tract 15915 - APN: 207-101-04. B. - A review of the detailed site plan and building consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northeast of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35. Motion: Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Tolstoy, carded 4-0-1 Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north ofCarrari Court-APN: 1074-061-15through27, 1074-041-08through21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, and indicated the Commissioners had additional information in front of them including a letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service which was received today. He said staff had concerns regarding the comments related to the amount of on-site coastal sage scrub, how much needs to be mitigated, and at what rate. He stated staff had not had time to address this new information and staff recommended an additional continuance of six weeks to allow the applicant time to resolve the matter with Fish and Wildlife. Chairman McNiel noted that the public hearing was still open. Ronald Rouse, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, stated the law firm is counsel for Barrett American on the project. He said they have conducted all of the surveys and all requirements and have wdtten proof of satisfaction of all the requirements. Hestatedtheywouldnotconsenttoafurthercontinuanceofthehearing. Heasked to go on record that there was more than adequate compliance with all elements that are relevant for the Commission's consideration on the Design Review. He felt the federal government was playing games with local government by submitting an incomprehensible letter at the last minute and said they wished to proceed forward. He commented that the matter had been before the Commission on June 9, 1999, following earlier meetings regarding the project. He asserted that the matter before the Commission was design review for a project which has a final map which was recorded in 1990. He said the matter was continued from June 9 to answer three issues: 1) whether the California Coastal Gnatcatcher, a threatened species, is present; 2) whether the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or the host plants associated with them are present; and 3) whether the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, an endangered species, is present. He indicated earlier studies conducted last year and a letter from the United States Wildlife Service approved the survey for the California Gnatcatcher which indicated it was not present. He said that letter asked that there be further trapping and surveying for the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and that study was conducted between June 9, 1999, and tonight's headng and the letter received today from Fish and Wildlife indicates the protocol survey for the Kangaroo Rat appears adequate. He stated the City has a biological report by a certified and licensed biologist indicating that a specific focused survey was conducted for the two host plants for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and neither were found. He felt they have answered those three issues satisfactorily and the applicant is entitled to proceed forward. He thought there may be larger issues about the California and Federal Endangered Species Act and the loss of habitat in California but he believed the applicant is entitled to a decision on the merits of this project insofar as its satisfaction with the uniformly applied principals and standards applicable to the dght of a property owner to develop homes consistent with the neighborhood. He felt the letter from Fish and Wildlife raises irrelevant issues. Commissioner Mannerino questioned if Fish and Wildlife has jurisdiction to stop the project. He observed that the letter from Fish and Wildlife talks of insignificant mitigations and the applicant's attorney differs with that interpretation, making it difficult for the Commission to reach a decision. Mr. Rouse stated that the blanket statements made in the letter could be true of any project within Southern California because potential habitat is lost any time there is development of raw land. He asserted that the federal and state Endangered Species Act do not protect habitat per se, but only threatened and endangered species and there are no protected or endangered species on site. He Planning Commission Minutes /q-'7'7 -2- July 28, 1999 reported Fish and Wildlife has the authority to cite the applicant if the habitat is protected. He said the matter before the Commission is the Development Review and the kind of evidence relied upon by reasonable people in making important decisions as to specific investigations as to the presence of the three types of endangered and threatened species and those species were not found. He asserted the other issues raised by Fish and Wildlife are outside the current matter. He felt they had been asked to prove there is no needle in a haystack and that there is no way to prove that those species may not return in the future but he believed they were entitled to go forward and make reasonable use of the property. He thought the applicant had presented facts that the project does not interfere with the survival and continued replenishment of any threatened or endangered species. Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney, stated he agreed in part with the speaker's comments regarding the letter from Fish and Wildlife but he was troubled by the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 2 which states that the conservation measures proposed by the applicant are not sufficient, specifically with respect to the sage scrub and recovering sage scrub. Mr. Rouse stated the project has mitigation measures requiring them to acquire a certain amount of acreage of offsite habitat in addition to some on-site preservation in the northern portion of the site. He thought the letter infers there was an unauthorized additional taking and is asking for additional mitigation. He suggested Fish and Wildlife could bring an enforcement action against the applicant if that is the case and said the applicant believed they only performed brush management actions in accordance with the City's ordinance and that does not constitute a taking. He said the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to the applicant after consulting with Fish and Wildlife and the additional surveys were conducted to answer the remaining questions. Mr. Estrada referred to Fish and Wildlife's letter indicating '~'e recommend that mitigation be required for any impacts to coastal sage scrub, even if it has been previously disturbed and is now recovering" and suggesting an appropriate ratio. He asked if it was the applicant's position that they are willing to take their chances and Fish and Wildlife should bring an enforcement action against the applicant if they feel the mitigation is insufficient. Mr. Rouse responded that the City has imposed mitigations for 5.9 acres of coastal sage. Mr. Estrada asked if that includes the recovedng sage referred to in the letter. Mr. Rouse replied the recovering sage is not protected by the Endangered Species laws. Mr. Estrada questioned if Mr. Rouse was disputing the claim that there should be mitigation for previously disturbed sage. Mr. Rouse said the City has already imposed mitigation in accordance with uniformly applied federal and state mitigation standards for both on-site preservation and off-site acquisition. He thought the references in the letter from Fish and Wildlife pertain to something unrelated and not called for either by local ordinances or by the broadest and most expansive reading of the EndangeredSpecieslaws. Heacknowledgedthatifthreatenedorendangeredspeciesarepresent, their critical habitat is subject to protection, but he asserted recovering sage or grasslands are not endangered species and are not protected by any law. He said they have fully mitigated any environmental impacts associated with the project. Chairman McNiel questioned what the Commission must do and whether the City Attorney agreed or disagreed with the applicant's attorney. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 28, 1999 Mr. Estrada stated the Commission has the authority to continue the hearing irrespective of the applicant's consent. He felt the paragraph he had just referred to is the critical paragraph. He said it was his understanding that there is no protection for recovering sage; however, he had just received the letter and had no opportunity to adequately review it or conduct any research to verify his belief. He suggested the Commission could continue the matter to allow time for research and verification, approve the project with a condition that the matter be mitigated to the satisfaction of Fish and Wildlife, or approve the project with proposed mitigation measures in the resolution. He thought that Fish and Wildlife would bring an enforcement action and stop the project if they felt mitigation is not sufficient. He said it would be better to know the answers ahead of time; however. He felt the letter is not clear cut and concluded it would be hard at this stage to answer the question regarding the need to mitigate the loss of recovering sage scrub, He did not think that is a requirement, but could not give a clear cut answer without time to research the matter, Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City should take a closer look at the matter because there is doubt about the letter and the City has only had it for a couple of hours. He noted the City had also received several other letters which he had not had time to review. He thought there are a lot of unsolved problems. Commissioner Stewart concurred with Com missloner Tolstoy that there was too much new material for her to make an informed decision. Chairman McNiel noted the matter will not become less complex. He obsen/ed that the public hearing was open and two Commissioners had suggested the matter be continued. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested asking staff what time frame would be desired to address the matter. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated that at least 30 to 45 days would be required if the goal was to have a three-way meeting with staff, the applicant, and Fish and Wildlife. He thought the Fish and Wildlife letter raises a lot of legal questions and interpretations. He noted that the California Environmental Quality Act indicates that the proper mitigation is what the deciding body determines is reasonable and sufficient. He thought the Commission would have a hard time determining if Environmental Mitigation Condition No. 11, regarding acquisition of equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank 1 is adequate. He also noted that Fish and Wildlife is a responsible agency and must also determine it is adequate. He said it was staffs desire there would be enough time for the studies to be done, Fish and Wildlife could comment, and the applicant could work out a mutually agreeable solution to the problem. Mr. Rouse reported that meetings have previously been scheduled and Fish and Wildlife personnel do not show up. He pointed out the City called a meeting in June and Barratt. City staff, and members of the public were there; however, Fish and Wildlife did not show up. He felt Fish and Wildlife have been unresponsive. He stated that the applicant is entitled to a decision under CEQA based on the facts in the record before the Commission and those facts are that there are no Quino Checkerspot Butterflies, California Gnatcatchers, or San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats present and the other areas are outside the scope of the Commission's appropriate deliberations. He encouraged the Commission to go ahead and take action at this time. Chairman McNiel stated the original Negative Declaration was issued on the project a little more than a decade ago and he did not feel that six weeks would make that much of a difference. He asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment if they could not attend on September 8, 1999. There were no comments. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 28, 1999 Motion: Moved by Stewart to continue Development Review 98-10 to September 8, 1999. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to ensure that staff will do everything possible to ensure that Fish and Wildlife will attend the meeting and he wanted documentation of when they are contacted and who is spoken to and their response if they do not attend. Mr. Estrada observed that Mr. Rouse was correct regarding the previous efforts to contact Fish and Wildlife. He said it is not as critical for the City as it is for Barratt to accommodate Fish and Wildlife. He said it is critical for the City to make sure that all potential environmental impacts are adequately mitigated. He thought staff and the City Attorney could respond to the letter sooner than the six weeks but the ideal situation would be accommodation with Fish and Wildlife. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded Commissioner's motion to continue Development Review 98-10 to September 8, 1999. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that a three-way telephone conference be utilized if necessary since the office of Fish and Wildlife office is in Cadsbad. D. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTIMEEXTENSIONFORTENTATIVETRACT - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, ' design review, for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side ~= western City limit - APN: 202-021-37. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and that an adjoining property owner had submitted a letter indicating that the failed to contact her regarding removing and replacing a block wall but that the of approval require the developer to replace the wall to the satisfaction of owner. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned why the wall is being Mr. Le Count responded that some properly is be adjacent property owner as a result of the vacation of an unneeded road and the developer is to replace the wall and make other landscaping improvements on property. Chairman McNiel opened the public I Peter Fan, 3223 East Garvey West Covina, requested approval of the time extension. He stated he visited the Droll's e ' and the Drolls do not want the wall knocked down. He suggested that the , be incorporated into the project and leave the Droll's property status quo and the wal Maria Droll, 680 ~ Rancho Cucamonga, stated her wall is a retaining wall. She said she does not want property and just wants to keep what she has. She observed that utility meters are on the other side of the wall and the utilities have frequently dug up the area. Planni Minutes -5- July 28, 1999 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Chairman McNiel commented that new information had been received regarding this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the did not have a chance to review the information received. He requested the item be continued. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that several letters had been received earlier in the day from the Department of Community and Cultural Resources, Spirit of the Sage, Diana Santini, and Cynthia Shannon. In light of that, he suggested a 30-day continuance. Kazem Zommorodian, Atlantic Engineering 5505 Avenida Encinas, Suite 230 Cadsbad, requested that the item not be continued because the delay would be costly. Commissioner McNiel invited public comment. Matthew Rees, 5217 London Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he also had not seen the new material being presented, but expressed his joint concern with his neighbors about the drainage, hydrology, and the overburdened easements on the project site and asked the Commissioners to "take a longer look" before approving this project. Commissioner Mannedno expressed his concern that the item was not noticed as a public headng and therefore everyone that would like to comment might not be in attendance. Mr. Buller pointed out that this item is a Development Review and would not necessarily be noticed as a public headng. He also noted that the residents are aware of this issue and that staff has been in contact with the residents as well as the residents being in contact with staff. He said staff is also aware of the drainage issues and was prepared to address that issue this evening. He indicated the concerns raised at this time were environmental issues as opposed to the actual Development Review. Commissioner Mannedno expressed that enough impact from this project had occurred on the project and therefore he moved to continue the item for 30 days. Chairman McNiel suggested that if there were interested parties present that were unable to attend the suggested meeting date of July 14, 1999, that they be allowed to speak on the item now. Planning Commission Minutes -2- /z~, ~/ June 9, 1999 Cynthia Shannon, 9574 Hidden Farm Road, presented a petition signed by 23 neighbors opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald as well as requesting the new housing development have one-story homes and fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Ms. Shannon mentioned that most of the neighbors were not completely opposed to the project, but suggested "we do it right." She cited issues of safety for children crossing the street and questioned why it was necessary to continue Hidden Farm Road across Archibald. She also suggested the road be offset to lessen the danger. She expressed concern that the pads for the homes were not stepped pads and therefore may not be in compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. She also asked what was being done to minimize the visual impact to the neighborhood already in place. She cited the following concerns about the initial study: emergency access and the threat of wildfires, impact on the migration of animals living in the area, a lack of public education about how to live with the wildlife, the grading and whether it had been properly approved to be done prior to mitigation, and the extension of the horse trail. She indicated that she would not be in favor of allowing the developer to get away with grading prior to approval. Robert Lang, Barratt American, 2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160, Carlsbad, noted that the bulldozing the residents had observed was to clear the site forweed abatementJbrush fire purposes and that it was not their intention to "jump the gun." Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to pull the item from the Consent Calendar and notice the item as a public hearing for the July 14, 1999, meeting and direct that notices be sent to all'parties within 300 feet of the project. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES site plan and building elevations for Phases 3 and 4 ~g of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-461-05 to 42. Chairman McNiel asked the public if there that needed to address this issue. Seeing a response from McNiel invited the public to address the issue. Donna Mayer, 12661 Rid Rancho Cucamonga, presented to the Commissioners photographs taken of the ~g trucks and equipment. Ms. Mayer stated that she had documented 78' per day had been added to the site over the course of the last three weeks phase going in, and that many feet of dirt ~ported from another site and subsequently had increased the elevation of the She continued by stating her concern that the soil had not been propedy that it would be unsafe to build upon. She added that she had expressed her project planner, Torn Grahn, and that he had changed what he had told her from a She indicated that Mr. Buller, the City Planner, had admitted he saw dirt over to the Masterpiece site. She added that Tom said the plans were approved in 1988 and that they do not have to conform to current regulations. Planning Commission Minutes -3- /~'zf2- June 9, 1999 CrFY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Cour~ - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. BACKGROUND: At irs July14,1999 meeting, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project to the July 28, 1999 meeting to allow the applicant time to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the project will not adversely impact the environment. The site is indicated as potential habitat for threatened and endangered species; the California Gnatcatcher, the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. The applicant has provided documentation that the site is not adequate habitat for any of these species, nor are any of the species present. The following is a chronology of events that have transpired thus far: March 25, 1987 Tentative Tract 13316 was approved by the Planning Commission. June 4, 1990 Final map was recorded to create legal lots on June 4, 1990. May 24, 1993 Planning Division notified the previous owner, Chino Valley Bank, that the subject property is within a habitat which may be affected by federally listed endangered or threatened species. The certified letter explained that "taking" of habitat by "grading, mowing, discing, trenching, and other construction activities" is subject to stringent regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The applicant was encouraged to contact USFWS for further information. April 29, 1998 Application submitted by Barratt American for Development Review 98-10. May 26, 1998 Application deemed incomplete for processing. June 10, 1998 Due to significance of grading design issues, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 98-06. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 2 June 25, 1998 Consultation meeting with applicant and California Dept. of Fish and Game (USFVVS did not attend). August 27, 1998 Gnatcatcher Surveys submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants (June 8, 1998). October 20, 1998 Biological report submitted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (Oct. 16, 1998). March 23, 1999 Application deemed complete for processing. May 13, 1999 Neighborhood meeting. June 9, 1999 Planning Commission continues item and directs staff to advertize as a public headng. Continuance was to allow staff and the applicant time to respond to issues raised regarding the adequacy of the biological studies relied upon for preparation of the Initial Study. The same week, prior to Commission meeting, the applicant clears vegetation from westerly half of site for weed abatement. June 22, 1999 Staff met with the applicant, the applicanrs biologist, and biologists from the San Bernardino County Museum to discuss the matter. Staff also consulted with the USFVVS and the California Department of Fish and Game. Staff indicated that the site is potential San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) and that a USRNS protocol survey is necessary. Staff also determined that a habitat assessment is necessary to determine if the site is adequate Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat. July 14, 1999 The Planning Commission continues the item for a second ti me to allow time for biological surveys to be completed. July 19, 1999 Reports submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants regarding protocol trapping survey for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and by Pacific Southwest Biological Services regarding a habitat assessment for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. A copy of the June 9, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report is attached for reference. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Since the Tentative Tract Map was appmved in 1987, substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. Three species have been listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, two of which are associated with the coastal sage scrub habitat present on the site. Following is a summary of the affected species. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 3 A. SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT (endangered~ species, 1/27/98) -Latest correspondence from USFWS and County Museum biologist recommend protocol "trapping" surveys. Although surveys may be done year-round, this is the ideal time of the year. The applicant has conducted a protocol trapping survey and no San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats were captured, nor were any other species of Kangaroo Rat. B. CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER (threatened2 species, 3/30/93) - Protocol surveys were performed from March 17, 1998 through April 28, 1998, and no Gnatcatchers were found on the site. Tierra Madre Consultants concluded that only 5 acres of the site is coastal sage scrub habitat which is located within the ravines. The habitat is identified by the California Department of Fish and Game as "very threatened communities" which is important to the long term protection of the species, particularly of value to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan effort. A recommended environmental mitigation measure requires approximately 2.5 acres of coastal sage scrub mitigation on site within the basin and any remaining mitigation to be accomplished off site within the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank located in Cajon Wash. C. QUINO CHECKERSPOT BU'I'I'ERFLY (endangered species, 1/16/97) - Maps published by USFWS indicate that the alluvial fans along these foothills are potential habitat areas which require study. The applicant has provided a habitat assessment forthe Butterfly and found that the site is so disturbed by past activities that neither the Butterfly nor adequate Butterfly habitat are present. The plants needed to support the Butterfly were not found in surveys of the site. Staff has forwarded a copy of the report to Fish and Wildlife for their comment. Pending acceptance by USFWS of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat protocol trapping survey and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat assessment, it is staffs opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed all outstanding issues relative to potential environmental impacts associated with the project. It has been demonstrated that the site does not support adequate habitat for sensitive or endangered species and no such species were detected on site. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. OFF SITE DRAINAGE: A letter was received from Dianna Santini, homeowner at 5207 London Avenue expressing concern related to off site drainage improvements associated with the project. IThe term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 2The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (Endangered Species Act of 1973) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 4 Also, during the Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 1999, Matt Rees, homeowner at 5217 London Avenue expressed similar concern. Tentative Tract 13316 was approved in 1987 with conditions of approval which included constructing a debris basin, storm drain system, and overflow protection for lots 9 and 10 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. During the review process for the design of these drainage facilities, various property owners to the south voiced concerns regarding the portion of the facility which extends 107 feet south of the south tract boundary, within a City drainage easement dedicated with Tract 9590. Staff met with these property owners, discussed several options and concluded that while the outlet channel could be extended further south, there was little additional benefit and the developer had met all the requirements of the tentative map. With a time extension in 1989, the Planning Commission directed that the channel be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Design was concluded and the map recorded in 1990. In a 100-year storm the debris basin will direct about 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) into a storm · drain which will outlet into an open channel between lots 9 and 10. Site flows will bring the total ouffiow to about 380 cfs. The chan~el has been designed with energy dissipaters and a stilling pond to reduce outlet velocities. The channel extends the entire width of Ms. Santini's property, the northernmost lot fronting London Avenue, thereby diverting all off site flows which currently reach her north property line. Even if the storm drain were extended or relocated, a channel is still needed to accommodate the emergency spillway for the debris basin. CORRESPONDENCE: While not required by City Ordinance or State Law, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site notifying them of the July 28, 1999 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation for the debds basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. City Planner BB:BL:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report from June 9, 1999 Meeting Exhibit"B"- Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Assessment dated July18,1999 Exhibit "C" - Kangaroo Rat Protocol Survey date July 18, 1999 Exhibit "D" - Resolution of Approval CITY OF ILANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: June 9, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074o061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Staff has propared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from the northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north, through the site, to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44). ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: The subdivision was approved prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance and the map has been recorded. Since then, a Design Review application was approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a mass grading concept, had undulating and variable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as much as possible. Also, a condition of approval limited the developer to one-story homes. That Design Review has since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously approved grading design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on June 10, 1998, regarding the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the two-story proposal. The Commission provided the following direction (Exhibit "H"): PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 2 1. The site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by existing single family neighborhoods with mass graded, flat pads and two-story homes. The project has a significant history of resolving design issues pdor to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading scheme is acceptable so long as two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual impacts. 2. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two story high walls without one-story elements. 3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture. 4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible, 5. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrad Street, is believed to be the most affected by the project. Special attention should be paid to how the project impacts this neighborhood. B. General: Six home plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Three of the home plans are single-story, three are two-story. Each home plan has four elevation styles: Eady Californian, Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch. VVhile the homes are not proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain, they are designed within the 30-foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development standards. It is proposed to have 20-foot by 20-foot home corrals on several of the lots, each with access to a home trail. California Sycamore trees are proposed for slope planting. C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Hendemon), reviewed the project on April 20, 1999, and recommend approval with conditions. See the attached Design Review Action Agenda for further details. D, Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. E. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains several Eucalyptus trees and an Oak tree. The applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit for Commission consideration for removal of the Eucalyptus trees. The Oak tree will be required to be preserved in place. Eucalyptus trees may be removed per the Tree Preservation Ordinance subject to replacement at a ratio of 1 to 1, F. Environmental Assessment: On March 27, 1987, the Planning Commission issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tract 13316. Sinca that time, the California Gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat have been added to the list of threatened and endangered species, respectively; therefore, the site is identified as potential habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, the odginal Mitigated Negative Declaration is now over twelve years old. Staff has completed a new Initial Study forthe project. Habitat assessment PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 3 and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine potential habitat value and any potential impacts. The results of the surveys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The surveys also indicate that the site is not suitable habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. No other potential impacts were identified beyond those addressed with the odginal Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Commission in 1987. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order· NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant conducted a neighborhood meetin9 at City Hall on May 13, 1999. Several homeowners in the vicinity were present. The primary issues included the drainage outlet south of the tract east of London Avenue, construction phasing, view preservation, · inconvenience due to sewer line installation on Archibald Avenue, and dust control. The detention basin/storm drainage system for the tract was designed consistent with the conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map. According to the developer, construction will be divided into 15 phases beginning at the southeast corner of the site. The homes have been designed and plotted to maximize views to the degree possible. The City has not adopted a view preservation ordinance. A Standard Condition of Approval requires the developer to provide special street posting and dust control for construction. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headng 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. Staff has received several letters from area residents opposing the project. The primary issues are increased traffic, why Hidden Farm Road on the east side of Archibald Avenue is approved to be aligned with the existing intersection on the west side, drainage, impacts upon sage scrub and other vegetation and wildlife, noise, cdme, view preservation, and preservation of a "quiet, peaceful, friendly" atmosphere. See attached copies of letters (Exhibit "J"). The Final Tract Map was recorded in 1990; hence, the street alignment and lots are already approved. The increase in traffic and storm water drainage does not exceed that anticipated by the General Plan and the street and storm drain system has been designed to accommodate the project. For public safety reasons, City policy requires that streets intersectin9 with residential major streets and collector streets, like Archibald Avenue, align to minimize conflicts between left turnin9 traffic. Impacts to sage scrub and other vegetation/wildlife were addressed by the Initial Study Part II based upon detailed biologicel surveys of the site. The studies concluded that there are no sensitive animal species on-site and there is only a small area of actual Coastal Sage Scrub; the removal of which is being mitigated by purchasing off site habitat. The increase in noise due to the project is not in excess of that anticipated by the General Plan. No uses or activities are proposed beyond that permitted by the Development Code. The developer anticipates selling prices for the homes to start in the low $500,000's. Such high priced homes are not typically associated with increased crime. The homes are designed to preserve views to the degree possible. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has not adopted a view preservation ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation forthe debris basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. City Planner BB:BL:gs Attachments: Exhibit."A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "E" - Walls and Fence Plan Exhibit "F" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Elevations Exhibit "H" - Minutes of Planning Commission Workshop Dated June 10, 1998 Exhibit "1" o Design Review Action Agenda - Apdl 20, 1999 Exhibit "J" - Letters from Homeowners Exhibit "K" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval DETAILED SITE PLAN CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN I- I SCALE 1"=40' SCALE 1~=100' 11 PIt~ 2 Plato ~ · ~-~-~ ---Z . ---, ...... ~.1_ ~/' .,. ~ Plan ~ Plan e -. -- ,,,,,:,:,:,,, :*:*:*:':***,* ~ :,:,:~:,:,:,:,; ~ :. ::;,:::::::~::: ,***,~,*,*,***, .~: 4. *~ ...:.:~:.: ... ..,.,,,.,~,,*****,; . ....: .~:*:.' ' * ~* r * ~.::::'~:' '::.::::~:~:~::'~:~::~,~::~:::::::::::;::::: ':'***':*:*:*:**: :.:.:.>..:. :: "'-'- 'T .:.... · ,, . ~ '~/.' :: ~ '~.~- .... ,, : ~:.:.. , . : ..,~,,. ..... ,~: ~ ',.'.',' , ~ f~' I I <it> :t .... ~__~___: ~,. ~ ~' ~. Plan 1 ~'::~ ~ ~ ~,s69sq. fi. Ri~t [JFI'fiF~I.B~ Rl'lR LMII I1~,---~--~, I I R~at .J ,,~ _. _, ·~ Roe[ Pla~ ~ ~,,,,,.,,,-,,,,,,,Plan 1 2, 869 sq. ft. Right BARRATT AMERICAN, INC.Rancfio Cucaraonga LeFt noof ela. ca,,~o;.,aRo.chPlan 1 2, 869 sq. ft. B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho CHcamonga ~-~,~ ~ ~ ' R ~f Plan ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~,o~ Plan 1 2, 869 sq. ft. Right B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Raacho Cucamonga ~-~,, Left ~ Ear,,ca,,fo~.,a. Plan 2 3, 124 sq. ft. B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga ,-,,~ 3, 124 sa. ft. Right BARRATT AMERICAN, INC.Rancho Cttcamong8~-~,,,4, LeFt ~ ~,~o~o~o~Plan 2 3, 124 sq. ~. B~TT ~~C~, ~C. R~HChO CHC~OHg8 ,-~,~ Left I I I T _ ~ R ~f Plan ~***. Plan 3 3, 145 sq. ft. Right B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho CHca~onga .~,-~ .~, Left ~ RoorP/a~ .,~,~o~ Plan 3 3, 145 sq. ft. R~ht B~TT ~~C~, ~C. RaHcho Cucamonga ,-,,-, ,~. / Lea ~1 L ~ ~,,,~o,~,,,,,,~,,Plan 3 3, 145 sq. ft. Right BARP~TT AMF. RICAN, INC.RBncho ~HCBmOHgB ~-~-~ .~ Left Roof Plan 3, 145 sq. ft. Right BARRATT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamoaga ,-,,-~ ~ ~ c;.,,m..Plan 4 '. 3,392 sq. ft. Right BARRATT A1VI'ERICAN, INC.Rancho Cucamonga.-..-...~. ~.~. ~ ~ Eor,~ca,ifo;o,a.Plan 4 .. . ~' 3,392 sq. ft. Right BARRATT ~mC~, ~C. R3ncho Cuc3mongs ~-~,-..~, LeFt 3,392 sq. ft. Right B~TT ~mC~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga ,-~,-..~, ' ' ''Left []~[]~~] -~. ,..,.,o.Plan 4 ~ ~ . ~ 3,392 sq. ~. Ri~t BARRATT AMF, RICAN, INC.Rancho Cucamonga ~-~,-~ .~, 7-9-98 24 LeFt ITII ' ', ....,.' <l I> / I / - R~FPlaB ~~~ ~ ~~ -, ,o,~ ......."" ~,,~,,~,Plan 5 _ ~ ' 3, 433 s¢. ft. Right B~TT ~mC~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga ~,~-~ ,-,-~.~ Left V ~ 1 /~ ~ Roof Plan ~ ~ ~ ~,~.~o~ Plan 5 ~ 3, 435 sq. ft. Ri~t B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho CHC~OHga ~_,._. ......~, LeFt Rear ~ ,'/"'7~ --/~*~'~ Roof Plan I ~mm2li! ~~ m ~',,,Fo,,,,,~,,,hPlan 5 3,43~ sq. ft. Right B~TT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga Left , I I Rea~' <~ ~> \ ~~ ~ ~~ ~,,o, Plan ~ . ' 3,43~ sq. ~. Right BBTT ~~C~, ~C. Rancho CuCamonga ,-,.-. ,-0-. 3, 600 sq. ft. Rigat BARRATT ANIERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Left Re4~r <1 ~ '~~~ ~ ] ~""""' c_,_~ Plan 6 3, 600 sq. ft. R~t B~TT ~mC~, ~C. Rancho Cucamonga ,,,-. ._, ' "~"' ~r ~~ ~ ~~ ~- ---- ' ~ ]F~r ~I~ ~ ~ J ~ .... /' '~~ :-.~.. .~]' h~ ' ' ~,,~,,o, Plan 6 ~ . ~, ~00 sq. ft. ~~~ ~~, ~. Rancho Cucamon~a ,-,,-.._, t/// ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 10, 1998 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning - Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS:PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Larry McNiel ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Eiuller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE~APPLICATION REVIEW 98-06 - BARRATT - A request for Design Review for Tract 13316, a previously approved tract consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres ot' land in the Very Low Residential District (less that 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street- APN: 210-071-14, 37, and 45. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process. David Jacinto. representative from Barraft, indicated that this is a previously approved project which his group has inherited. He said the project will have fiat pads per the previous approval but Barratt is proposing two story homes designed to meet the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Ordinance. Bart Crandell, project architect, indicated that the pads are wide and fiat and the homes would be built within the building envelope. He said there are 3 one-story and 3 two-story home plans proposed. He commented the proposal is diverse because there are six overall plan types, each with four elevations with color variation. He said substantial setbacks are proposed. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, indicated that the reason for holding the Pre-Applicalion Review is that the previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes with a caveat that any two-story home proposal would require an entirely new design consistent with the Hillside Ordinance. He said the applicant is attempting to utilize the previously approved grading, mass grading concept with ~at pads, and add two-story homes. He observed applicant's ustification is that the homes, whether one- or two-story, meet the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Ordinance even though they are proposed on flat pads instead of being designed to fit the terrain. He indicated the Commission is being asked its opinion as to whether this is an appropriate direction to take. Commissioner McNiel asked what the existing grade of the site is. Mr. Jacinto indicated that the grade is approximately 12 percent. Commissioner McNiel asked how much grading is proposed. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, indicated that the proposal involves significant grading and that the site is more like l(S percent natural average grade. Commissioner McNiel questioned what kind of precedent this type of development would set. Mr. Buller indicated that surrounding home developments to the west and south have typical mass graded flat pads with flat land style homes, and to the east the Woods development also has flat graded pads with homes nestled in amongst Eucalyptus Trees. He pointed out that other large tracts have been built that don't technically meet the Hillside Ordinance so this would not be the first. He commented this project has a significant history of resolving design issues which happened before the Hillside Ordinance went into effect. He noted there is a recorded map and an approved conceptual grading plan. He said the design issue before the Commission was whether to allow two- story homes without stepping the pads. He believed the project's history is unique enough that it would not be precedent setting to look at various design options. Chairman Barker indicated that there are really two issues at hand; one is whether a fiat pad grading concept is acceptable and the other is whether two-story homes are appropriate. He raised the question of what the impact of two-story homes would be given the type of terrain involved. Mr. Jacinto said that the homes are designed to meet the building envelope. Mr. t3uller indicated that lhe odginal requirement for one-story only homes was intended to minimize the visual impact of the project and obviously, two-story homes would have that much more of a visual impact. Commissioner McNiel remarked he is not sure what the proper mix of one-story and two-story homes would be, but that the site is surrounded by developments oi' similar style and the front elevations look good. He did not necessarily have a problem with the applicant's proposal but stated side and rear elevations should have as much quality of design as the front. Chairman Barker stressed the imporlance of 360-degree architecture, with all elevations of the best possible quality. He felt that is especially true for this type of development where an up-slope neighbor has views of a down-slope neighbors rear elevation. He expressed concern about the impact of two-story homes and said the applicant will have to demonstrate that views to the valley and views to the mountains will not be degraded by the project. He voiced concern about drainage issues. He felt the focus should be on the total environment created by the project rather than home-to-home details. If the project does not negatively impact existing surrounding properties, he was not opposed to two-story development. He commended the project architect for the hidden garage design, and said he hopes to see more of such quality design. Mr. Jacinto asked the Commission to elaborate on how to demonstrate that the project will not have negative visual impacts. Chairman Barker said that the project should not just be looked at in terms of street scape but also in terms of flow from east to west and north to south, flow of terrain. He felt it will be difficult to add two-story homes to the projecFwithout increasing visual impacts and said the homes must be properly plotted to avoid these impacts. Mr. Jacinto claimed that mixing one- and two-story home provides more visual variety because of the variation in roof lines. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- June 10, 1998 Mr. Bullet observed that the Hillside Ordinance requires homes to be designed to fit the terrain. He felt the argument of providing variety by mixing one- and two-story homes is reaily a fiat Iand design method and does not necessarily apply in this case. Commissioner Bethel did not support the two-story proposal. He voiced concerns about two-story homes without stepping the pads. He was not convinced that adding various tack-on elements such as shutters and different architectural styles, such as Mediterranean and Craftsman, can be developed using the same overall home massing from home to home. He felt the project should be designed in full conformance with the Hillside Ordinance. He feared that by allowing the project to proceed, the City is allowing a dangerous precedent for future hillside development- Commissioner McNiel thought the overall concept is well rounded. Given the surrounding development, he did not feel the ten'aced grading concept with two-story homes will have a negative visual impact. He recommends focusing on preserving views between homes rather than over homes. He felt homes should not have repetitive roof lines. He reminded the group that the City does not have any legislation designed to protect views. Mr. Bullet summarized the Commissioner's comments. He stated the Commission appears reluctant to allow two-story homes without very careful attention to plotting and design to minimize visual impacts. He commented that staff can work with the applicant to plot homes based upon the three-dimensional building envelope volume to maximize view corridor opportunities and minimize visual impacts. He said two-story high walls, without one-story elements such as side and rear elevations presented tonight, should have one-story elements so that the mass of homes flows with the terrain. Mr. Buffer reminded the Commissioners that when the tract was originally processed, neighbors living along Carrari Street were very concerned about having two-story homes along the south project boundary and that the tract to the south is the most vulnerable to potential visual impacts from the subject projec{. PUB~ There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Brad Bul er Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -3- June 10, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:30 p.m. Brent Le Count April 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRA'I'I' AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded Tract Map (Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27. 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074- 051-09 through 16. Backqround: The subdivision was approved prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Since then, a Design Review application was approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a mass grading concept, had undulating and variable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as much as possible. Also, a condition of approval limited the developer to one-story only homes, That Design Review has since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously approved grading design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the two-story proposal. The Commission provided tffie following direction: 1, The site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by existing single family neighborhoods with mass graded, fiat pads and two-story homes. The project has a significant history of resolving design issues, prior to adoption ofthe Hillside Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading scheme is acceptable so long as two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual impacts. 2. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two-story high walls without one-story elements. 3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture. 4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible. 5. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrari Street, is believed to be the most vulnerable to the project. Special attention should be paid to how the project impacts this neighborhood. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has very steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north, through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature Oak tree. Proposal: Six home plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Three of the home plans are single story, three are two-story. Each home plan has four elevation styles; Early Californian, Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch. While the homes are not proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain, they are designed within the 30- foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development standards. Twenty foot by twenty foot horse corrals are proposed for several of the lots, each with access to a horse trail. California Sycamore trees are proposed for slope planting. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-10- BARRA'FF AMERICAN April 20, 1999 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks. In some cases this may require re-plotting of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas given slopes. 2. Plot one-story homes along the south and west sides of Almond Street. on Lots 55 through 61 on Saddlewood Place, and on corner lots wherever possible. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. For the most part, the side and rear elevations have upgraded treatment consistent with the front elevations. Provide further details, such as corbels, shutters. and belly bands. 2. Provide either decorative masonry walls or decorative wrought iron fencing for interior yard ·. fences that are visible from surrounding streets, either due to grade differences or proximity to horse trails (such as along north side of Carrari Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. 3. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall. 4. Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope. 5. ' Provide a more naturalized rip rap treatment for storm drain outlet south of tract. 6. Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within terraces between retaining walls to create a more natural appearance and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be continued around side and rear elevations as well. 2. The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected in place according to the requirements of Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. 3. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall. 4. All perimeter walls, between home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be decorative masonry with pilasters on freestanding walls. Provide either decorative masonry walls or decorative wrought iron fencing for interioryard fences that are visible from surrounding streets, either due to grade differences or proximity to horse trails (such as along north side of Carrari Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. ,4 DRC COMMENTS DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN April 20, 1999 Page 3 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pare Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments and the following additional comments: 1. Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to the north. No other re- plotting of homes is necessary. 2. Eliminate the PVC fencing on the north side of the Community Trail on the north side of Carrari Street and replace with concrete curb/mow strip. 3, Gates shall be wrought iron instead of wood, 4. ' Provide wrought iron fencing for fences at top of slopes instead of solid masonry walls, 5, Provide a color coded Site Plan showing plotting of one- and two-story homes for Planning Commission review. 6, Provide a perspective rendering of a typical trail and surrounding landscaping, Suggest a view ~-- of the southwest corner of the site showing the Community and Local Feeder trails on the north '. side of Carrari Street and associated slope landscaping. RECEIVED TO: Brad Buller ""' ~~,~z~ City Planner FEB'O 10500 Civic Center Drive ' e 9 ~ Rancho Cuca~nga', Ca. 91730 CitYotRancho Cucarnon Dear Mr. Bullet, Ptannin9 O~is~R ga I m sending this letter ~er c~cem for the proposed devel- o~nt for the area at the north end of ~c~bald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, =~tative tracts 13316, 15914). ~is area of ~cho ~ca~nga, ~o~ as "Alta ~" is a ~iet, friendly ~d peace=ul area. I am concemed that this-develo~en= threatens the ~ality of life we now enjoy due Co increase traffic, noise levels ~d crib. I am concemed ~out proper drainage do~chibald ~d the fact that current studies on these mtters are not ~ing us~ to access i~acts. I M also concemed ~ou= the wildlife =ha= is est~lish~ in the area. on the City of Rancho ~camonga W~ Site. it says the goals of ~he Pla~in~ Co~ssion include; protecting the natural enviro=ent and the coEity identity. ~e develo~ent of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review comttees value p~lic par~ictpation and encourages it by "neig~rh~ meetings" to receive input fr~ the residents ~d ~sting p~ltc hearing notices. we have not had any t~e of "neig~rh~ meeting" for the applic~t to e~lain their pro- ject. I ~derst~ that since ~his area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not retired to ~il notices or even post the ~te of a p~lic hearing. However, this area has changed ~astically since the e~ly 1980~s when ~his pl~ was approved. In oMer to prese~ the~allty of ~r neig~rho~, I am r~esting the city leave this area as "o~n space." ~ts would allow it to continue to sere as a buffer for ~ise, ~raffic ~d ~ainagebetween neig~rh~s, ~d a h~ita= for wtl~ife. We also u~e up ~o date studies on traffic, noise, trim ~d drain- age (especially in hid rain years, su~as lasc year's E1 Nino). I fewest no be no=tft~ of a ~ltc hearing, ~d ~hat the other s~r~ding residents ~ notified as well. Di~e William, City Co~cil Ja~s ~ratalo, City Co~cil Bob ~tton, City C~cil ~e .~///'~~' ~ To: Brad Buller City Planner JAN 2 6 ~5~ 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Bullet, L-------~ I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area Of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by ,,neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of .neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, cc: The planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Willjams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council RECEIVED November 23, 1998 Mr. Brad Buller NOV 2 5 City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Division De~r ,Mr. Buller: I own proper~ north of the proposed development oftrac~s #13316 and 15914. When purchased the propc~y ~rce years ~o, I w~s told there is a bufldin~ ~n such a w~ ~o o~sn-uct the ~icw, w~ch is a ma~or p~n of life ~n AI,~ Lon~. I m not ~inst d~'elo~ii~, but 1~ hor~es on the e~st ~de of the end of Archibald A~enuc is not conduc~ ~o this cornmunitys ~dcm/ty. It is ~rccd. R ~ffcc~s ~hc qu,~l, bob cats, deer, rafflesnakes, coyotes, ow~ mice, posseurns, raccoons ~nd an en~rc myr~d of insects t~t n~ke ~ ~rca home. A~so, the nonce of proposed dc~c|opment was not posted. Quite conveniently, the siSn s~fll l~cs in the ficlc~ out of si~h~ while the notice of ~cs~tc sffes~ s~nds v~th banners w~n~. I l~e ridden m.v horse throu~ the middle of the fic|d for three years and I ~c friends ~t h~ ridden thcr~ well o~er s~,cn years. ~ ~liders J,~nd in the fic|d~ cbikkc'n scout prize treasures, and ~t pro~ddcs -~ I~ndsc~pe of~ peaceful l~b~,~ for ~I residents. There is so much more ~at would ~ J~nefic~ instead of 1~ houses (unbelievable). S~m posted for hors~ fide~' s~cty, slower speeds on Archibald A~nue, and horse or wallcin~ patlu to namc a f~t. c I an1 requestir~ noli:Scatlon of dates and tlrncs of public hcarin~ as wcll as a copy of the studies and plaardn~ for th~ dcvclopmcnt of this area to incJudc 123 new homes. I would also like proof thai the view will not be obstructed as a result of the devclopmcnt, and the facts upon which the dccision to build 123 structures would be conducivc to this coauutmity and thc fifestyle. 123 tract homes s~u~ arc not Thank you for your ;,..~¢diatc atlcndon. Sin ly, 4849 Archibald Avcnuc Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 481-7161 Homc (909) 468-4203 Work To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Bullet, I am Sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am.concerned that this development threatens the quality of lif~ we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the co~,~uunity identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. Mowever, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality pf our.peighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area a~ "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, RECEIVED cc: The Planning Coenission NOV ~ Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council . - ' Cily of Ra~o Cucam0nga James ,Curatalo, City Council ;.:. · ~' ,. Planning O~0n BOb DuEton, ~City Council , ~ ':r ' Paul Biane, City Counci~ . ~ RECEIVED November 23, 1998 Mr. Brad Buller NOV ~ 5 1998 City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga P, ancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning DiviSion Dear Mr. Buller: I own property north of the proposed development of tracts #13316 and 15914. When I purchased the property. three years ago. I was told there is a city ordinance which prohim building in such a way. to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I am not against development. but 123 homes on the east side of the end of Archibald Avenue is not conducive to this commuhity's identity. It is greed. It affects the quail bob cats. deer, rafflesnakes, coyotes, owl, mice, posseurns, raccoons and an entire myriad of insects that make this area home. Also, the notice of proposed development was not posted. Quite convenientb,. the sign still lies in the field, out of sight, while the notice of "estate sites" stands with barnets waving. I have z'idd~m m~- horse through the middle of the field for three years and I have friends that have ridden there well over seven years. Hang gliders land in the field, children scout prize treasures, and it provides a landscape of a peaceful habitat for all residents. There is so much more that would be beneficial instead of 123 houses (unbelievable~. Signs posted for horse riders' safety, slower speeds on Archibald Avenue, and horse trails or walking paths to name a few. I am requesting notification of dates and tunes of public hearings as well as a copy of the studies and planning for the development of this area to include 123 new homes. [ would also like proof that the view will not be obstructed as a result of the development, and the facts upon which the decision to build 123 slructures would be conducive to this ,;ommuni~' and the lifestyle. 123 tract homes simply are not. Thank you for your immediate attention. Sincer ly, / 4849 Archibald Avenue Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 481-7161 Home (909) 468-4203 Work RECEIVED To: Brent Le Count Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 C~yotR~nc~ Cucam°~pril 17, 1999 Dear Mr. Le Count, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I have talked to you several times on the phone, and I thank you for you courtesy and time to research questions myself and my neighbors have had. The last time I spoke to you, I found out that in the plan Hidden Farm Road is to be extended across Archibald into the new housing development. I must ex- press my deed concern over this part of the plan. My understand- ing is the original plan was made in the early 1980's. At this time it made sense to connect the two tracts of homes, since our home was only built a couple of years before that. However, it is now 19 years later! I cannot believe this has not been reas- sessed for its feasibility. The situation is very different now. Allow me to point out just a few concerns I have. First, since these homes are being built 19 years apart, these are two very different tracts of homes. Second, it is likely to result in a danger to the children who live in these two areas. Kids love to ride their bikes, roller skate, etc. Having Hidden Farm continue across Archibald makes it more likely children will be trying to cross this busy street which currently has a 50 mph speed limit. Third, having three exits onto Archibald from the new tract will definitely effect the traffic on this busy road. I don't understand why new traffic studies are not required 19 years later. Quite a bit can change in 19 years. Aren't there new tracts built since then that are not included in the traffic study from the 1980's? Fourth, the quality of life for those used to this area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is quiet, friendly and peaceful. As a resident, I am concerned that this development threatens this quality of life we have all come to appreciate. I am concerned for more traffic coming down our street (Hidden Farm). This a street that is a culdesac, it doesn't go anywhere! It is obviously not necessary for emergency evacuation. What is the reasoning behind joining these streets together? In order to try to compromise, I have a few suggestions. Why couldn't the new Hidden Farm Road be offset from the old Hidden Farm Road, as the other new streets are from the existing ones. Or could the new Hidden Farm Road be made into a cul de sac also? Either one of these would make it much less likely for people to continue across. I also request current studies on traffic be done to access impacts and that the new homes be single story. Lastly, I request that Barratt be asked to educate the new home buyers on the wildlife in the area. As a Biology and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San Antonio College, I have a great appreciation for the wildlife in this area, as do many of my non-science oriented neighbors. We know to keep our trash covered and not to leave dog and cat food out at night, so as not to attract the wildlife into the neighborhood. There are many tips that could help avoid future conflicts between the new residents and the wonderful Rancho Cucamonga wildlife. In summary, I feel that in order to establish the safest environment for children, maintain the quality of life and pursue the most logical living situation, Hidden Farm Road should not continue across Archibald from the new tract into our old one. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission and I assume the planning divi- sion include; protecting the natural environment and the communi- ty identity. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it. Therefore, I hope you will consider some of these points. I also again, thank you for your help in the past and look forward to talking to you in the fu- ture. Thank you for your time. Cynthia J. 'Zinon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager TO: Brad Buller ~ ~ f~o NOV ~ 6 ~3~ city Planner 10500 civic center Drive November 8C~ Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. As a resident, I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. As a Biology and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San Antonio College, I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. I have witnessed numerous native Cali- fornia species utilizing this area in a variety of ways. The larger predators, such as coyotes (which are so important for balancing an ecosystem) use this area as a corridor and a resi- dence. I have seen such species as red-tailed hawks, Cooper's hawks, red-shouldered hawks, American kestrels and great horned owl hunting and nesting in this habitat. These are just a fraction of the wildlife using this area. So much of our South- ern California wildlife is already gone, since this area was abandoned for development in the early 1980's, it has developed a diverse and balanced ecosystem worth saving. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the 'goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. In my opinion, the development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of .neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their project. I have been informed by the planning department that since this area was approved for development in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Cynthia J/Shannon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council o To:Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am Sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood ~eeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early t980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow i~ to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. ., Sincerely."""' .... ," RECEIVED cc: The 91az~ing Commission NOV Bill Alexander, Hayor Diane Williams, City Council Cily0fRancho Cucamonga James Curatalo, City Council Planning Division Bob Dutton, City Council 9aul Blanc, City Council TO: Brad Bullet Kalhy Hunter 9575 Hidden Fa~Rd City Planner AltaLomaCA91737-1619 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting. for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space.- This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. we also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's B1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely. cc: The Planning Coelnission Bill Alexander, Mayor R E C E I V E D Diane Wllliams, City Council James CuraCalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council NOV ~ 4 ~ Paul Biane, City Council City of Ranci~o Cucamonga Planning Division To: Brad Buller City Planner R E C E ~ V E 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 NOV ~ S Dear Mr. Bullet, Oityo~RanCho Cuoemonga I am sending this letter over concern for the pro~~~ opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Cor~nission include; protecting the natural environment and the co.u~x~nity identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In Order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sinc~re~~/~.____ Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Willjams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council To: Brad Buller B [ C M| V M D City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive NOV B ~8 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Bullet, Ci~ otR~c~o Cucam0nga planning DMsion I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area Of Rancho Qucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council RECEIVED Brad Buller NOV ~ 4 ]998 City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Dear Mr. Butler, I am sending this letter in regards to the proposed development for the area at the north end of Archibald Avenue, (File No. DR-98-10, Tentative Tracts 13316, 15914). This development will result in the removal of a sipificant amount of sage scrub habitat, a threatened natural community. As a resident of San Bernarclino County it concerns me that little attention is being given to the San Bernardino County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. If the biological integrity of threatened habitats is to be maintained in San Bernardino County Politicians and planners are going to have do more to provide for open space, wildlife corridors, and wildlife "habitat. Residential developments necessitate the removal of large areas of natural vegetation and are incompatible with the goals of the San Bemardino County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The proponents of this development project need to come up with a creative way to initiate of study of sage scrub habitat. The components of this study should include: A. The ecological status of sage scrub habitat in San Bcrnardino County 1. Its current ecological health. 2. What management practices can be done to improve its ecological health. 3. The cumulative impacts of existing development. 4. All proposed development and its cumulative impacts. B Studies should include the effects of development on the: 1. Ripariaa Systems 2. Water Quality 3. Raptor Nesting Sites 4. Botanical Community. Habitat maps need to be developed using G.I.S. methodology. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to publish on its web site that the goals of the planning commission include protecting the natural environment and the community identity, the city needs to show the public that they stand behind their statements. ~chmid~ Instructor, Biological Sciences Mount San Antonio College MR. & MRS.STEPHEN M. ALEXANDER 4939 ARCHIBALD AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 909/466-0086 FAX:909/484-0447 RECEIVED April6, 1999 API~ O x8 1999 Mr, Brad Buller City of Rancho Cucarnc ~ a City Planner Ptanning Division" 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: File No. DR-98-10 ternalive tracts 13316,15914 Our property is immetliately adjacent to ~ above tract and we have mnny concerns about this development. We have never been included in any discussion, though we have lived here since 1994. At the time of purchase, we were told single story homes were at:,t:-uved and would not interfere with our line of sight. We only learned of t~e intentions to build after seeing a sign posted, at the sit~. We looked at drawings, but details that have an impact on our home were mi,e-~in,,~ Breut Le Count, of your office rcfeffed us to ]~tl'. Roan l .qlng~ the arc. hitler for the pfojecL Mr. Lalng was coml~ous, but unable to give us further details. The major problems are: 1 ) losing our view and lowering the value of out property 2) eliminating our privacy with second stop/windows looking into our pool 3) proximity ofueise 4) horse Iraj~s e!ldiilg at our [awl3, invitjllg 5) $40,000 wotlh of new fencing ffint will now be inadequat~ (installed during the lasl months) We would a~p~-'ia~ some re-,~-m.~,le modifications: 1) flip flop lots 60 & 61mdrin~ a lot line adjustmeut to allow a single story 2) requil'elhede~gnbehindllstomoveupstai~willdowstotheEastin~e.-3dofWestsid~ 3) have the builder raise our f~nce a minimm~ of 24" and indtde [lldscaping to absorb noise. 4) Extend ~ wall 20' to the curb m redirect horse trail 5) l~move red;.u. and inc~ase south wall beight. Many of our neighbors aa~ a~in,~ the e~e development We, too, ~re concerned the inc~ased population will alfect the~li~yoflifc. Flowever, it is not om'in~nlionto opposc pregn.'ss. We live and wotk inthis city and believed this was a city that valued public opinion fithis is uue, ple-,~ lake outs into smc=e , RECEIVED HERMAN AND GUNVOR VALENTIJN 5237 LONDON AVENUE ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 JUt ~ 5 ~99 CityoiRanchoCucamonga planningDivision PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA P.O.BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729 Alta Loma, July 8,1999. In response to the letter of June 24, 1999,issued by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, we like to express our concerns regarding the impact of the proposed solution to the runoff from the 84 acres Of new buildings and streets. We have already reviewed the proposed drainage project at the City Planning Division and found that water and debris clearly are channeled through the easement located on the east side of our house. Aware as the city of Cucamonga is about the erosive potential of the proposed runoff, the city relies on an engineering report to make sure that erosion practically is eliminated. With this in mind, the undersigned wish to be informed in detail what kind and how much construction is going to take place on the easement of their property. The information we need to receive from you should address itself to several aspects of the expected impact on above mentioned easement, such as proposed reinforcement of the present natural gnlley on the easement. More in particular we want to know what form your construction activities foresee with respect to the shape and lining of the runoff channel (U-shaped or large tubing) without impeding our access to our property to the east of the easement and without endangering playing children. In short,please submit in writing a detailed plan concerning the impact of the project on the specific easement of our property before August 11,1999. Yours truly, /J4 7 RECEIVED To: Brent Le Count Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive JU[ 1 Z~39 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 CityofRanc~ Cucarno~a 1 1999 Planning Divisio~u y 1, Dear Mr. Le Count, ! am sending this letter over concern for the change in the public hearing date concerning the proposed development for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). Myself and many of my neighbors were at the planning commission meeting on June 9th. I presented the planning commission with a petition signed by 23 residents of the area. Most of us marked our calendar, and rearranged our schedules for the July 14th hearing date. Now, there are signs posted which change the date from the original July 14th date to August llth. If the date must be changed, why not change it to one in September after school has started and everyone is more likely to be in town? Many residents would like to be present for this hearing and ask for your consideration in this matter. Thank you for your time. Si ce~,l~, 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning Cor~nission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City CQuncil Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-10 2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 13316, Development Review for Tract 13316 (expired) 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATI' AMERICAN - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded Tract Map (Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041 - 08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-801-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barratt American David Jacinto 2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160 Cadsbad, CA 92009 (760) 431-0800 5. General Plan Designation: Very-Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and single family homes 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 '10. Other agencies whose approval is required: United States Army Corps of Engineers (Streambed Alteration) and California Department of Fish and Game (also Streambed Alteration) ,, .. ,, ,4 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (~') Transportation/Circulation (t/) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (V') Biological Resources (~,/) Utilities and Service Systems (t/) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (f) Aesthetics (~) Water (V') Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (V') Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: '( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant· A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eadier EIR, including revisions or · ' ' that are ' pon the proposed project. Signed:m~ ~ ~~ rent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner May 18, 1999 -/7o Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposak a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Be inc, ompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 2. POPU~TION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed o~cial regional or local population proje~ions? ( ) (~) b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either directly or indim~ly (e.g., through proje~s in an undeveloped area or e~ension of major infrastm~ure)? ( ) (~) c) Displa~ existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) (~) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) (~) ( ) ( b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (v') ( ) ( Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 4 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (V') ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a,b,c) The northern portion of the site falls within the AIquist-Priolo Special Study Zone of the Cucamonga Fault. A geologic investigation was conducted during the processing of Tentative Tract 13316 to determine if geologic hazards were present that may affect development of the site. The investigation revealed that no evidence of previous fault or subsurface rupture within the property was present. However, as an added precautionary measure, the report recommended a 100-foot building setback from the north property line. The geologic study was reviewed by the City's geologist and was determined to be complete and adequate. A condition of approval was placed on Tentative Tract 13316 requiring the 100- foot building setback and same shall be included for the subject Development Review. The project design is in conformance with this requirement. W~th mitigation the impact is not considered significant. f) The project will cause changes in topography because the site is currently vacant. A soils report will be required pdor to issuance of a grading permit and grading will be supervised by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. The impact is not considered significant. h) A portion of the site is indicated to have "Tujunga-Delhi" soil type per the General Plan which states that this soil type "may have soil beadng capacities that could limit some development." A soils report will be required pdor to issuance of a grading permit to ensure soil beadng capacities are adequate to accommodate the project. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) , Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 5 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ) (V') ( ) ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ) ( ) ( ) (V') e) Changes in currants, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) (v') g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (~/) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) (V') i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) (v') Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the pawng and hard scape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. b) There are two special flood hazard areas (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract boundary and the other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. These improvements will require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Homes along the east tract boundary are more than 50 feet from the stream bed and therefore outside the flood hazard area. e) Both the stream which bisects Tract 13316 and the one along the east tract boundary are also USGS Blue Line Streams. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 133'16, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. United States Army Corps of Engineers and California Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 6 Department of Fish and Game permits are required to alter a blue line stream, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. 5. AIR QUALI~. Would the proposak a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quali~ violation? ( ) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptom to pcllutants? ( ) ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) (~) d) Create obje~ionable odors? ( ) ( ) (~) Commen~: a) The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development Review proposes construction of 123 single family homes consistent with the existing land use designation for the prope~y, Ve~-Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre. ) Also, according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, dated November 1993, the threshold of single family homes that could cause a potential air quality impa~ is 166 homes. Therefore, no increase in air quality impacts is expe~ed from the proje~. 6. T~NSPORTATION/CIRCU~TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (~) ( ) b) H=ards to safe~ from design features (e.g., sha~ cu~es or dangerous inteme~ions) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Inadequate emergency ac~ss or ac~ss to nearby uses? ( ) (f) ( ) ( ) d) Insufficient pa~ing capaci~ on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Hazards or bardera for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) ~ Confli~s with adopted policies supposing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) g) Rail or air traffic impa~s? ~- / 7 ~ ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 7 Comments: a) The project will not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion in excess of projections for the adopted land use, for which the street widths were evaluated at a build out condition. The project will be required to install frontage street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development Fees. The impact is not considered significant. c) The project will be required to install one through street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. The impact is not considered significant. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) (V') ( ) ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a and d) The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Also, staff received a letter from Gerald Braden, a biologist with the San Bernardino County Museum, indicating habitat value of the subject site. Habitat assessment and biological surveys were required to determine potential habitat value and any potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened California Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The surveys also indicate that the site is not suitable habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 8 The site contains Blue Line Streams which are devoid of wetland vegetation. The site also contains Sage Scrub vegetation along the stream banks. A mitigation agreement has been established with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to 1603,401, and 404 permits. Mitigation is accomplished via design of the project which includes establishing 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes and acquisition of land in an Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in the Cajon Wash. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. b and c) The project will cause the removal of several Eucalyptus trees. A condition of approval for Tentative Tract 13316 required the developer to obtain a Tree Removal Permit prior to removal of the trees. The current applicant has filed a Tree Removal Permit for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires replacement of on site Eucalyptus trees on a 1:1 ratio. There is also an Oak tree on the site (lot 44) and a condition of approval required the tree to be preserved in place. The same requirement shall be placed on the subject Development Review. The impact is not considered significant. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ( ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. ( ( ) ( ) (v') c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ( ) ( ) (~/) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 9 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Increased tim hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) (~) ( ) ( ) Comments: b) The project will be required to ins~ll a through street connection from A rchi bald Avenue to Almond Street with the flint development phase ffi assure adequate emergency access. ~th mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. e) The site ills within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to tim hazard mitigation requiremen~ such as vege~tion management, Specialized home construction methods, and other requirement. A condition of approval requires complian~ with Fire District requirements. W~th such mitigation, the impa~ is not considered significant 10. NOISE. WIll the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (~) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severn noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Commen~: a) The proje~ will increase existing noise levels sin~ the site is currently vacant. The project is not expe~ed to increase noise levels beyond anticipated limits. The impa~ is not considered significant. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government seaices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) (f) ( ) ( ) -/77 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 10 b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to fire hazard mitigation requirements such as vegetation management, specialized home construction methods, and other requirements. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire District requirements. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) (v') b) Communication systems? ( ) (V') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (~') d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (~) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) (v') ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (~') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: e) There are two special flood hazard areas (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract boundary and the other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. These improvements will require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than signi cant leve . A "/ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 11 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effe~? ( ) (~) ( ) ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f) Comments: b) The project includes a large retention basin along the no~hern tra~ bounda~. The basin will have a spillway leading down to the no~hern end of the Huntswood Place cul-de-sac and will be quite visible, Provision of landscaping and river rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway. ~th mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. 14. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Distu~ paleontological resour~s? (~) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (f) c) Affect historical or cultural msour~s? (~) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affe~ unique ethnic cultural values? (~) e) Restd~ existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impa~ area? (~) t5. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ) ( ) ( (t/) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ) ( ) ( (v') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 12 , 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impotent examples of the major periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) (~) b) Shoff te~; Does the proje~ have the potential to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-term impact on the environment is one which occuB in a relatively brief, definitive pedod of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effe~s of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effe~s of past projects, the effe~s of other current proje~s, and the effects of probable future proje~s.) ( ) (~) d) Subs~ntial adve~e: Does the proje~ have environmental effe~s which will ~use substantial adveme effe~s on human beings. either dire~ly or indirectly? ( ) (~) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES Geological Problems: 1. No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property line of lots 44, 57, 58, and 59. 2. The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective home buyer of lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, written notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the written notice shall be submitted and filed with the City. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-10 Page 13 3. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Water: 1. Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to issuance of grading permits. 2. Streambed alteration of USGS identified Blue Line Streams shall be subject to review and approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. Transportation: 1. The d, eveloper shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development Fees. 2. A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. Biological Resources: 1. All non-fruit beadng trees in excess of 15 feet in height and 15 inches in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same species as those removed as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.100. 2. The existing Oak tree on lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The tree shall be enclosed by an appropriate construction barrier, such as chain link fencing, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits and prior to commencement of work. 3. The developer shall ensure the establishment of 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes as required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 4. The developer shall mitigate removal of on-site sage scrub through acquisition of equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. Hazards: 1. A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. qECEIVED; 5 18-99; 15:37; 760 9296433 => R CUCAIdONGA CQM OEV; #2 tnttlai ,~tudy for :it,/of Rancho Cucamonga C~',-~iopment Raytea 98-10 ,Pa~e 14 2. A~ provtmortl of the 8an Bem~'clJrlo County Fini ,~..' Ovl'llly District shall IPI~y. A Fuel Modifioati~/ldlrlglmlnt Pll'q 01~ll be ~ll3~rittld foe' Fire Chief end City Planner review lad approvll p'iot to the illlane of ;arlcllrtl limaits. Aesthe'jc~: 1. Provisio~ of !andeclping and dyer reck cot}t~e shall be u~d to visually enhance the spillway at the northern and of Hgnt~wood Plat, e to the Ilttlfl~ton of the City EARLIER ANALYIEI Earlier analyeN may I~ use~l where, purmui~ to the tlerf ng, program El R, or other CEQA proc~t,. c-he or more eliIce, have been adequately arl In In elnllr EIR Or NagliNe electstalin Section 15063(o)(3)(01, The ITem idenflflld ltl~ve for this Ill ~ within the acelie d and edequately anetyaced in the foilowl ng eatlet datumearls) purSuant to a :lieable legal standre, a-'td such effects were idclm4Wd by mltigml~q measures baee~ On the e;arller analysis, The following earl jr ~nalyset were utiliawe tn ~mptetlng INs InEel Study and am IVtlIll for review in me City' of Ran~o Cuctmonga. Planning Oivlok)n 4:aWlolt, 10500 C[vio Canter Drive {choc~ 0/I that (v'} Genera; Plan EIR (Camflee Almll e, 1~81) (v'}Msmor Envlronrnontsl Ass0ssment for ~e 1980 Gemrat Plan Update (SCH ta8020115, o0 rllfisd January 4. 1 (v') Negativ~ DoGlara{/on for TontINe Trsct 13315, AdolXed by the plan~ing Commission on Mar~ :25. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I ~erfy that I am the uggtc~. for th8 prgjl~t dabbed in thiS inlti8; 5lady. I 8ckP, ow(edge that I have resd this Inttlll 8lady and the propoled ~ maasuret Further. I hav~ revised the project pfanl or inrofx3sl/e argl/gr hlretly ag.'le ~ ~ pl'oposed Ill~1~ort rnell~jrel to ~ the effects or mitigats the elflms to a point whers cte~rly no significant ~vtronmental efTacts woulcl occur. F~CUSKD HABFfAT ~ O1~ TENTATIVE ~ !~16 & 1~1~ ~0 ~ON~ ~ ~~0 ~ ~0~ S~Y A ~ ~ ~ for ~ ~g ~ of~ ~ ~ ~H~, u l 1.2~ T~ T~ 15914 ~ ~ C~ ~ C~ ~ ~ v~ W~. N~e~~F~P~(~~),~~ ~u~ a ~ ~ for ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ pro) ~ ~ Ci~ o~o ~ ~ ~ ~ wu ~ u m ~ ~u on J~ 16, 1~(62~13)~U~ S2F~~ ~(~), ~ form ~ ~m ~~. ~ge 7 Weg o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ USG$ 7.5' ~ P~ C~ 2000feet. DL'twoads~ossh~projm-~-~avsfiousiocs~imsmsds~msisopmfxommos~ s/d~s. SURVEY The habitat usessme~ survey comismt of walking slowly ~archia~ identify~ re, oiling nnd rapping if pre~mt, habitat ~nnlmmm~(aS. ]m'v~ food donein conjunction withthe aite~fofothef mmsitlveplanttua, Lapbmmm-,s Mariposa ( Ca/ochortu~ pho~merae). The mtvey wu gcacndly performed in accordance with araicipated protocol _m. ethodolog~ On 6 May 1998~ Pacific Southwest's senior bioloaist, It !v~ Beaudmmp, condin:ted the foct~botanical field review ofthe project site~ IVb. Beauchamp is fam~with tl~Quim Checkexspot Butterfly, its habitat requirements and fx~xl plantt The 1998 ymar was one of °Ptlmalrairaeajlandlnodugrarcasofthere~ionho~Plants~rewtoopfimalsizm, lugthat ' LI~ATIONS AND D~JrlNiilONS Smrvey Limitations Itmustbeamtedtlmlduetothesmtsomtl,lmt~ofthemu~notallspecie~ would be ob~r~ed on the sitt Quinolarva~tmveth~abilitytomk~diapmmformeml ycars or r~*catcr aliapause if food plants are not laaffi~imU to complete Growth dm'in8 · ~iven year. Diapausc is a state of raspended animation. DrouSht or tow wlnt~f rainfall may ~ the Srowth oFt~c larval Food pim~P/anm~,.~aa. This, however, wunot the~ue for the lmseuon. Ve~et. utiou Communitlel VeSet~on habit~ or communities on the site Mve been subjected to pm a by prior use oftl~ ~ei as orclmrds. Sueemiond SaSe Scrub Successional SaSe Scrub communities amounl to ~.04 acres ~the larger tim. T!~ i~bil~ lacks c~ptoSa~.L~ ~ ~e to the p~ ~---~e. C~,,aract~?,~. Shc~Safie(Sa/~am//&r~Ta)ndWl~S~e(,Ya/~a~ana). Annud Grm~d -Annug anaualgra.uesorsknplybareareuduetovabiclea~tivityorpaltba~atmtlentpracticea. Thll habitat, totallln8 8896 acr~ ofbottt parcala, is a d~a._,,ce-?A~.,~. -"~,-L,y ~_.~ often .~ in old lieklt, or openin~ in native mcutb habitat No Qu~no latval food m~mm mob~in EO ~gV,-m ~ V~EgI.L L~BL60B ~ :0I BBBI/BI/L~ r~ffo Mode· Cor~lffint~ Ir~,. Environmental Anatysls ancl Resource Banning Endangered Spedes Surveys · Mitigofion Design, Ecological Services 1159 Iowa Ave.. Suite D, I~ersldeo CA 92507 · (<;~9) 6~-7081 · (FAX) 784-5647 ernaM: tie~romdreOad.corn · WWW: membes aol.com/~erramdre lS ~ 1999 Mr. BremLeCoum PIs2nin8 l~visio~ 10500CivicCmllrDtive PoatOffa:eBoxBO7 l~"~ho O~camongs, C.~ 91727 P~e.* San B~K, snBaroo Rat Survey, Tentative Trot 13316 T{ctu Medrc Conradtuna, h~. (11V[C) couckn~d a I{~e trapping sun,~ for the ~edendly- TFa~t 13316, nc~ the north eaJ ofArchxl~dd Ava~e, The U.S. ~ish and W'ddli~e Servic~ accepted survey protocol for tl~ ,~ndaA~.-~l subspc~es involvesaliveu'sppingm~bTcouductedf~rfive~onseoitivcniBhts. T~Cbelpint~sl31dyon lvfm hy, 12 hty. No SmSeturdino r, p oo Rm(SBS ,)we e caFured du nS thd v - TrappinS was directed b7 S~"1~en 3. ~Ter~ who holds Fedend F~sh and W*ddl~'e Pem2it No. 804203-2. HewssssistedbyotherTMCeuploya~ Trappingv~_q__con~emducordinSto du~ sf,d dawn. A totsl of lS0 12' Shern~n ~ve traps were set ~ baited with a combination of' rolled-oats and bird seed. The traps were set at dusk, cl~clr~d at midniaht and chec3ced and close 1. North ~ th~ two drainag~ co~islini oC60 t~ total. 2. Dim~t~twodaim~u~x~.~iniof 50t~ap~ 3. Noffi~rnedSeoftheelterndraiaageconsisl~gof20trap& 4. · S~thefit offfie e~st dt~ conslstlnS of20 t~. The remltm ofthe tr~ping sutvey ffe iMm'n in Table~ 1 m/ 2 below. Table 1, Tentative Trm 13316 (Rancho CucamonRa): Small maremid trs ping sur~ r variables. 12-13luly R/M, MW, WB 160 74 13-14 ~ruly SJ'M, W~ 180 67 Z 14-15/uly SIM, MA, W~ 1S} 15-16.hdy ~ll~DF, W~ 1~0 TotdU'ap-niihts=880 K~_ m Biolo~i_'rd/Field A..qt~ma.m..~: S,nd - Stcph~ J. ~ MA - MiSu~ Alc, aw~r MW=~CI~D. W'dca~ DF=DavidFteitner WS = We~ S!~ TO = Tyler Goodro Table 2. Tentative Tract t3316 (Rancho Cucamon2~): Small mammal trappin~ remits. Audubm** ~ ! I ~~D~P~,Jml~m~ I 3 2 4 2 12 ~ ~ bVok 2 2 I I 6 T~crAL~ 2 7 RECE~¥ED: 7-~9 99; 7:51; 9097845647 => R CUCAMONGA C01d DEV; ~4 07/19/1999 08:56 90978~5647 TIERRA HADRE P~r_iS: 84 N~San~emardin~kan8~m~ra~swsee~pmmd~notws~there~p~uns~fsnyspe~ies~kangar~rst~ Bssed ontheseresu~theenda~mdentsmsjudgsdtobsabssnXfromffiislocstion. If you hztve any questic,~, p160~ cc,'~ast me or R. Mitchd Beauchamp at 619 477-5333. Sincerdy, 't-u:~JtA IVfADRE ~TANT~, INC. Lnwnnee F. Ld~re, X~D 3 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.: Development Review 98-10 Public Review Period Closes: September 8. 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Barratt American Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21. 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Project Description: The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). 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 cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted. the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. September 8, 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 FOR TRACT 13316 CONSISTING OF 123 LOTS ON 84 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY-LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, NORTH OF CARRARI COURT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-061-15 THROUGH 27, 1074-041-08 THROUGH 21, 1074-591-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-461-04 THROUGH 21, 1074-601-01 THROUGH 14, 1074~611-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-021-02 THROUGH 26, AND 1074-051-09 THROUGH 16. A. Recitals. 1, Barratt Homes has filed an application for the Development Review 98-10 for Tract No. 13316, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 9, 1999, and continued to July 28, and September 9, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined. and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on September 8, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad Street with a street frontage of 1,800 feet on Archibald Avenue and 700 feet on Carrad Street and is presently vacant. The site sits at the base of the foothills and slopes from the northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site includes three communities, successional sage scrub, annual grassland/ruderal areas, and Eucalyptus woodland. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant or developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east is vacant and developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is developed with single family homes; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 2 c. The application involves design review of detailed site plan, building elevations, grading, and landscaping for a recorded tract; and d. The project will not increase traffic in the vicinity beyond that anticipated by the General Plan and the streets have been designed to accommodate the traffic demand; and e. The project is designed to minimize view obstruction to the degree possible; and f. The project site is potential habitat for threatened or endangered species (i.e., California Gnatcatcher and San Bemardino Merdam Kangaroo Rat, respectively) and biological surveys were conducted by a permitted biologist in accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. The protocol surveys concluded that the project site was not suitable habitat and the species were not found; and g. The project site is potential habitat for an endangered species, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and a habitat assessment was conducted and determined that, because of a lack of host plants and past disturbances from agricultural use, the site does not support adequate habitat and the species is not present; and h. The project has a valid Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in corn pliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the applicant has obtained Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the California Department of Fish and Game; and i. The project site contains 5.04 acres of undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub, the removal of which will be mitigated both on site and in an off-site mitigation land bank in the Cajon Wash; and j. The project site is located within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and San Bemardino County Fire Safety Oveday District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 3 project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared; therefore, reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paregraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division: 1 ) Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to the north. 2) All final home plotting shall be per the conceptually approved plans. 3) All drainage channels on individual lots shall be "v" gutter type rather than trepezoidal channels unless expected flows necessitate otherwise. 4) Provide bridge over equestrian trail drainage swales at trail intersections between, but not limited to, Lots 69 and 70. 5)Gates between homes fronting the street shall be wrought iron instead of wood. 6) Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope except along Archibald Avenue. ,fi-/f> PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 4 7) Provide wrought iron fencing for side and rear yard fences at top of slopes instead of solid masonry walls. 8) All between-home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be split- face block with pilasters. Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. 9) Provide terraced retaining walls in comer side yard slope areas to maximize useable yard area. 10) Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within terraces between retaining walls to create a more natural appearance and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes. 11 ) Use low maintenance and native plant materials for slope landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 12) All splash walls shall be split-faced block and incorporated with walls as much as possible. 13) Equestrian trail splash wall footings and reinforcing steel shall be designed to accommodate 6-foot high walls. 14) Install the perimeter slump stone block walls for the tract with the installation of public improvements. 15) Provide architectural details, such as corbels, shutters, and belly bands on side and rear elevations to match that shown on front elevations. 16) Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks. This may require re-plotting of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas given slopes. 17) Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be continued around side and rear elevations as well. 18) Provide at least a 5-foot landscape stdp between the back of sidewalk and any wall. 19) Provide 15-foot deep useable rear yard areas either through grading or decks and patios. 20) The spillway at the south end of the tract shall be designed to have a more natural appearance. 21) The retaining walls along the sides of the basin spillway at Lot A and screen walls for the drainage channel between Lots 9 and 10 shall be split faced block subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 5 22) Provide dver rock treatment for the concrete basin spillway at Lot A for native aesthetics and to prevent the spillway from being used as a skateboard ramp, subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval. 23) Provide low maintenance landscaping such as, but not limited to, drought/heat tolerant trees, shrubs, ground cover, and dp-rap on the inside and outside slopes of the debds basin, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. Debris basin fencing shall be decorative rather than chain link. 24) Provide a standard handicapped ramp at curb at end of local trail at the northeast comer of Lot 31 and a step-through rather than a vehicle gate. 25) Stepped footpaths shall be provided for all slopes in excess of 3:1. 26) The front, visible edge of terrace drains shall be naturalized cobble. 27) Incorporate boulders found on site during grading into design. 28) Notify the property owners for Lots 13 and 14 of Tract 9590 prior to commencement of any work for the drainage channel and spillway. Submit a copy of the notice to the City Planner prior to commencement of work. 29) The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. 30) The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. 31) The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Dudng smog season, (May through October), the overall length of the construction pedod should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 32) TheConstructionContractorshallsupportandencourageridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 33) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. A -/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 6 a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b) Dudng construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 34) The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel. spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. 35) The developer shall make a good faith effort to notify and obtain permission from adjacent property owners for all off-site cleadng of vegetation for fire protection/wildland interface requirements pdor to issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of the City Planner. En.qineerin.q Division: 1 ) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electdcal) on the project side of Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the south side of CarTad Street to the first pole south of the north tract boundary, pdor to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded at the same time. Reimbursement of one-half the adopted cost of undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street is not feasible because the property is currently developed. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 7 2) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electhcal) on the opposite side of Almond Street shall be paid to the City pdor to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. 3) All lot line adjustments shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. At a minimum, process a lot line adjustment between Lots 37 and 40 so the property line will follow the perimeter wall. 4) All public improvement plans for streets, trails, and the storm drainage system shall be completed and signed by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. a) A complete plan check resubmittal shall be made, including plan check fees. b) ' Street grades greater than 12 percent are subject to approval of the City Engineer. c) Provide curb adjacent sidewalk along Almond Street, transitioning to property line adjacent across the drive approach for Lot 40. All access ramps shall be per Standard Drawing 102 (no modifications). d) Public maintenance of Lot A (debds basin) shall not extend into Lots 57, 58, and 59. Landscape Maintenance Distdct plans previously submitted shall be revised. e) Show the property line between Lot C (City owned) and the landscape easement (City maintenance across multiple pdvate lots) on the north side of Carrad Street on the Landscape Maintenance Distdct plans. 5) Improvement Phasing: a) The debris basin and all related storm drainage improvements, including Huntswood Place street improvements. shall be installed prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I development. b) One through-street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street shall be installed full width, including street lights and related storm drains, with Phase I development. c) Erosion protection measures for rough graded phases shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for proper channelization to the storm drain system. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATr AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 8 6) Community Trail Design: a) Install drive approaches and provide vehicle gates with side access, per Standard Drawing 1006-A, for Lot C at Carrad Street and Birdsong Place and for Lot B at Almond Street and Birdsong Place. At the CarTad Street trail entrance, the ddve approach shall be located far enough south that a 12-foot DG path can be maintained. b) The equestrian bridge within Lot C, which crosses the channel south of Huntswood Place between Lots 9 and 10, shall be designed to accommodate City maintenance vehicles, including a concrete slab. c) Provide gated access to the Community Trail on Lot C from Lot 14 of Tract 9590 to the south on both sides of the channel which crosses that parcel. City maintenance vehicle access to the channel facility shall be secured. d) Gates from lots onto Community Trails shall accommodate horses and pedestrians, but not vehicular traffic. Gates shall be shown on the Community Trail improvement plans, including Lots 60 through 64 which back onto Archibald Avenue (Standard Drawing 1008) and Lots 9 through 30 which back onto Lots B and C (Standard Drawing 1009-B). Provide step-through barriers (Standard Drawing 1007) at intersections with local feeder trails. e) Trail fencing for the Archibald Community Trail shall not block the lines-of-sight for the four Archibald Avenue intersections. f) Where trail gradients exceed 4 percent, drainage diversion devices shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. g) Concentrated drainage shall cross the trail in underground facilities. h) Manhole covers shall be designed to accommodate equestrian traffic. Manholes located in Community Trails shall have non- skid Polymer covers (only 30-inch diameter available). i) Eliminate the PVC rail fencing on the north side of the Community Trail on the north side of Carrad Street and replace with concrete curb/mow stdp. 7) Dedicate additional easement rights-of-way to accommodate vehicular access where the Community Trail crosses Lot 14. 8) Ddve approaches on Lots 1, 65, and 88 shall be located as far from the intersection BCR for Archibald Avenue as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 9 9) The grade break between a standard residential drive approach ramp and the on-site ddveway shall not exceed 14 percent on any lot. 10) Aesthetic treatment of storm drain spillways shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. 11) AIIoff-siteeasementsnecessaryfortheinstallationofstormdrainage facilities and slopes adjacent to street or public trail improvements shall be recorded pdor to the issuance of grading permits: a) A drainage acceptance agreement shall be obtained from the property owner downstream of the Birdsong Place terminus and interim measures installed to accommodate concentrated runoff which may bypass the catch basins, so as to not damage private property or the Community Trail, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) ' The project proposes to discharge rear lot and Community Trail drainage at the south comer of Lot 18 across up to three adjacent properties before it reaches the San Bernardino County Flood Control Distdct basin. This will require drainage acceptance from the affected property owners or a storm drain easement and SBCFCD permit. Drainage acceptance and measures to accommodate runoff downstream shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. The preferred option is installation of a local storm drain from the south comer of Lot 18 to Alta Loma Basin No. 3. 12) The expanded Community Trail easement off site south of Lot 15 shall be recorded pdor to grading permit issuance. 13) If the improvement agreement and bonds for Tract 13316 do not reflect the current owner/developer, bond substitutions shall be completed pdor to the issuance of building permits. 14) Developer shall obtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers pdor to altedng the blue line stream(s) for storm drainage improvements. 15) All improvements within public rights-of-way, including public trails and the basin, shall be constructed per the public improvement plans. A note to this effect shall be placed on related private plans for walls/fences, grading, etc. 16) To accommodate City maintenance, the basin access road shall extend to the proposed slope bench on the north side of the basin. Road surface to be to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 17) Provide a minimum 3-foot clearance for flow line bet~veen building/chimneys and property line walls. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 10 Environmental Mitiqation Measures: 1 ) No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property line of Lots 44.57, 58, and 59. 2) The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective home buyer of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, written notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the written notice shall be submitted and filed with the City. 3) Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 4) Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pdor to issuance of grading permits. 5) The developer shall comply with the terms and conditions of their Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the California Department of Fish and Game. 6) The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development Fees. 7) A through-street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. 8) Tree Removal Permit 98-26 is appreved subject to replacement of trees at a 1:1 ratio. All non-fruit beadng trees in excess of 15 feet in height and 15 inches in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1: 1 with the same species as those removed, as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.100. 9) The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The tree shall be enclosed by an appropriate construction barder, such as chain link fencing, pdor to the issuance of any grading or building permits and pdor to commencement of work. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 11 10) The developer shall ensure the establishment of 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes as required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 11) The developer shall mitigate removal of the on-site, undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (5.04 acres) at a ratio of 1:1 by establishing 2.5 acres of native shrub land on the detention basin slopes and through the purchase and preservation in perpetuity of a minimum of 2.54 acres off-site lands in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. 12) All provisions of the San Bemardino County Fire Safety Oveday District shall apply. A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire Chief and City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 13) Provision of landscaping and river rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway at the northern end of Huntswood Place to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of September 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Development Review 98-10 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of c~mpliance 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 covedng 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. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authohty 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 Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program Development Review 98-10 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 verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures, The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued, The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required pedod 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 pdor to the issuance of building permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review 98-10 SUBJECT: New Single Family Homes APPLICANT: Barraft American LOCATION: E/S Archibald Avenue1 N/O Cartad Street 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. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits am not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. sc-,~ 1 Project No, DR 98-10 Completion Date 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. 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. 6. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 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&R's. 7. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners'association, orothermeansacceptabletotheCity. Proofofthislandscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved pdor to the issuance of building permits. 8. 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. 9. 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 propert,/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. 10. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences. with a minimum of two ',/=-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 11. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 12. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 13. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 14. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Building Design 1. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Project No. DR98-10 Completion Oate 2. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of buiiding 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 amhitect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arbodst's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 30% of trees in front yards shall be - 24- inch box or larger. 4. 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. 5. 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. ofslope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of siope 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 plantad 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. 6. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Pdor to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shaft be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactoW condition. 7. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 8. 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. 9. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required within and around the basin slopes and spillway. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shaJl be coordinated with the Engineerin9 Division. Proiect No. DR 9S-t0 Completion Date 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 12. 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 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. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project, The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of 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 required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. G. Other Agencies 1, The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved pdor to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., DR 98-10). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Project No. DR98-I0 Completion Date 3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. '4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. I. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covenng at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A final geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be.completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 5. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. 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. Corner propert,/line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. L. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interiorstreets, drainagefacilities, 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. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for Almond Street and Almond Court. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Project NO. DR 98- I 0 Cu~o & A.C. Side- Ddve Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Archibald Ave. Carrari Court Almond Street ,/ ,/ / e / ./ Almond Court ,/ Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays 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) Maintenance vehicle access to Community Trail. 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 the issuance of grading permits. 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 Engineers 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 conduitwith 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 widng. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours dudng 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. Project No DR98-t0 Completion Date g. Concentrated drainage flows shall noi 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 trees, a minimum of 15-cjallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 6. 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. M, 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: Basin, Archibald Avenue, Carrari Street. Almond Street except Lot 30 and the interior Community Trail. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3.All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beauti~cation Master Plan: Archibald Avenue. N. Drainage and Flood Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall preepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydralogic/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. 3. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. O. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility sen/ices 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. Project No DR 98- I 0 Completion Date 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 DepartmentoftheCountyofSan Bernard/no. Aletterofcompliancefrom the CCVVD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such Jetter 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. P. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Commu nit',/Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the Distdct and the developer by the time recordat/on of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1250 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and pdor to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch dser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. ProlectNo. DR98-10 Completion Date 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9.$132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. ** A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. **Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 10. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. A SEPARATE SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITrED DIRECTLY TO THE FIRE PREVENTION NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT AT TIME OF PLAN SUBMITTAL TO BUILDING AND SAFETY. Contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Division. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doom. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. Ifwindows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doom shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. S. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. T. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of centrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. g /" CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDTENTATIVEPARCELMAP15320 - MWH REALTY, LTD -A subdivision of 7.06 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Industrial Park Development District and Haven Avenue Overlay District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northeast comer of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN: 209-401-01 The applicant, letter attached, has requested a continuance until October 13, 1999. Staff supports the applicant~s 'request. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:dlw Attachment: Applieant's Request RECE;VEO: 9. 1-99; 12:43; 626 441 5454 => R :UCAMONGA COM DEV; 09/01/99 13:48 '~626 441 ~454 WIIITrlER 'IREST ~]0002/0002 2VttiW Redty, Ltd. 1600 Htm~nk~on Drive South Pasadeu, CA 91030 S~t~,atbcr 1, 1999 Via FAX 909-477-2847 Mr. Dan lames - Senior Civil Engine~ City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Tentadve Parccl Map Application # 15320 Dear Mr. Jmnes: Per our telephone conversation this ~ I~fl4W Realty LtcL ("MH~;') hereby rcqueste a cominuance of the ori~ffinally scheduled Sept~nbor 8, 1999 hearing of ~c above n~attcr by th~ City of Rancho Cucnw'nra*,~..va plannln_.p Comm~io~ Pe~ your suggestion, ~ agrees to reschedxiling 'dais hearing for October 13, 199~. Thank you for your aUenlion to this matfez. Please call me at 626-441-5111, extension 253 if you have any Sincerely, 0~g~I-LN~,~'~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR THREE PARCELS IN CONNECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-05A - A request to change the land use and zoning designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling uni{s per acre) for land totaling 18.5 acres in size located between 4th and 6th Streets on the west side of Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-062-31. DISCUSSION: The Planning Division has received a General Plan Amendment application (GPA 99-05A), from Griffin Industries, to change the land use and zoning designation for an approximately 18.7 acre parcel (as shown on exhibit "A") from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential. City staff, however, recommends that the two smaller parcels on the north side and one parcel on the south side of this GPA request be reviewed concurrently. On Monday, August 30, 1999, staff met with representatives from Griffin Industries and the attorney representing the owner of the property located on the south side of Griffin's parcel. City staff informed the attorney that City staff would be asking the Planning Commission to authorize staff to file a GPA application for his client's property and for two parcels located on the north side of Griffin's parcel. The two parcels on the north side of the property are very small (10,890 and 15,600 square feet in size, respectively). The Industrial Park zoning designation requires a 45-foot setback along Archibald Avenue and from residentially zoned property. Therefore, to develop these two parcels under the current zoning designation, approval of many variances would be required. The property to the south is adequate in size to be developed; however, one of the structures on the property, the Lucas Ranch House, has a potential National and potential State Register designation as well as a potential Local Landmark designation. For the above-mentioned reasons, staff recommends the Planning Commission authorize the filing of two additional GPA applications: GPA 99-05B for the two parcels to the north side and GPA 99-05C for the single parcel on the south side. ITEH "C" PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA REQUEST September 8, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that in connection with GPA 99-05A, the Planning Commission authorize staff to file two additional GPA applications for the three above-described properties. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SS\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Amendment Request Map