Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/10/01 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. October 1, 1997 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Jack Lain, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 477-2700 City Council Agenda October 1, 1997 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. Roll Call: A. CALL TO ORDER Alexander Biane , Curatalo Gutierrez , and Williams B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. Approval of Minutes: August 20, 1997 September 3, 1997 September 6, 1997 (adjourned meeting) Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 9/10/97 and 9/17/97 and Payroll ending 8/31/97 for the total amount of $1,397,275.79. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of August 31, 1997. Approval to advertise for "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Rochester Avenue, Street, storm drain and railroad crossing improvements, located 450' south to 250' north of Eighth Street to be funded from Transportation Systems Development Funds, Account No. 22- 4637-9210. t4 City Council Agenda October 1, 1997 o ° ~ RESOLUTION NO. 97-146 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ROCHESTER AVENUE, STREET, STORM DRAIN AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS Approval to re-appoint Robert Howdyshell to the Library Board of Trustees. Approval of County of San Bernardino's Schedule "A" for Law Enforcement services for City of Rancho Cucamonga in the amount of $9,489,480 to be paid from Account 01-4451-6028. {Continued from September 17, 1997) Approval of Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Minor Development Review 96-23, located at 10037 8th Street, submitted by Nakana Foods, Incorporated. RESOLUTION NO. 97-147 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-23, APN: 209-201-18. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance Districts 1 and 6 and Vacation of Vehicular Access Restriction along Arrow Route from Red Oak Street to 723 feet easterly, for Development Review 97-09, located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Avenue, submitted by Kaiser Permanente. RESOLUTION NO. 97-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-09 16 21 22 23 25 28 31 City Council Agenda October 1, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97-149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-09 RESOLUTION NO. 97-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS ON ARROW ROUTE FROM RED OAK STREET TO 723 FEET EASTERLY Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tracts 15727-1 and 15727-2, located at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, bordered by Sixth Street on the north, submitted by Cornerpointe 257, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 97-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAPS NUMBER 15727-1 AND 15727-2, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 97-152 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT FOR TRACT NO. 15727-1 AND SECURITY THEREFOR RESOLUTION NO. 97-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727-2. 32 36 39 41 42 City Council Agenda October 1, 1997 4 10. 11. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance Districts 1 and 3 for Tract ;No. 14534, located at the southeast comer of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue, submitted by William Lyon Homes, Inc., a California Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 97-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR TRACT NO. 14534 RESOLUTION NO. 97-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT NO. 14534. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13753, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue, submitted by Lewis Homes of California RESOLUTION NO. 97-156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13753 46 47 48 51 52 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. City Council Agenda October 1, 1997 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No. Items Submitted. I. COUNC!L BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUBCOMMI'I-I'EE TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF MASSIE HAZEGH (6-30-98) - Oral Report J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. City Council Agenda October 1, 1997 L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE LARRYTEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 25, 1997, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 6 August 20, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting oflhe Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, August 20, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; Susan Stark, Finance Officer; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Ralph Crane, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal; Sunni Hamilton, Administrative Secretary; Linda McMillen, Office Specialist I; Captain Rodney Hoops, Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation commending Pomona First Federal Savings Bank for its support of National Night Out. Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Jody Krieger. B2. Presentation of U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Awards to the City for Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, made the presentation to the City Council. Councilmember Biane thanked everyone involved with this program and recognized the amount of work that goes in to something like this. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there was an addendum to the agenda under Council Business, which would be item 5. City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 2 C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. At this time Mayor Alexander brought up that there had been a request to continue item G1. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to move item G1 to be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. PLEASE REFER TO THE TRANSCRIPT ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND ALSO ATTACHED TO THE APPROVED SET OF MINUTES, FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM. Mayor Alexander inquired if there was anyone who would have a hardship in coming back on September 3. Councilmember Williams suggested because of the holiday it might be difficult for some folks and suggested it come back on September 17. Councilmember Gutierrez suggested it come back on September 17. Bill Angel stated he knew that Melissa McKeith on behalf of CURE, who is opposed to the project, was requesting the continuance. James Markman, City Attorney, stated he had spoken with the attorney for the applicant who advised him' he would not reject a continuance. He added the Council should also digest the amount of materials they have been presented with regarding this matter. Mayor Alexander asked if there was anyone who would be inconvenienced if this matter was continued to September 3. Tom Bradford stated Melissa McKeith is presently over at this office preparing material for this hearing. He stated she is now willing to go forward if this is acceptable to the Council. Councilmember Gutierrez stated it is unfair to the Council to expect them to read all of the last minute matedal they have received on this subject. He stated he is ready to go forward with it tonight. Andrew Hartzell, Hewlit & McGuire o Counsel for proponent, Lauren Development, stated they had been informed of the request for continuance. He stated they are concerned about continuing this until the September 17 meeting. He stated they are ready to move forward tonight or at the September 3 meeting. Leona Klipstein, Conservation Director of Spirit of the Sage Counsel and also on the Board of Directors for CURE, stated she was just with Ms. McKeith and that they would like to move forward with this matter tonight, but could wait until the September 3 meeting. MOTION: Moved by Biane to continue the matter to September 17. There was no second - motion failed. MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Williams to go back to the regular order of the agenda. Motion carded unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 3 D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: July 8, 1997 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 7/23/97, 7/30/97, and 8/6/97 and Payroll ending 7/10/97 for the total amount of $2,544,675.00. D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of July 31, 1997. D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale Beer and Wine for Foothill Market Fresh Meat & Deli, Jamili Fawzia, 8161 W. Foothill Blvd. D5. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Felipe's Parrilia, Ala V. & Felipe De La Piedra, 7344 Carnelian St. D6. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale General for Castle Liquor, Alberre Abdo, 8655 19th St. ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ. D7. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Amethyst Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, from Base Line Road to 19th Street, to be funded from Engineering Prop 111 Funds, Account No. 10-4637-9605. RESOLUTION 97-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE AMETHYST AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO 19TH STREET, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D8. Approval to declare surplus miscellaneous city-owned equipment. D9. Approval to transfer two 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity vehicles to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Phelan Substation Citizen's Patrol. D10. Approval to adopt Annual Statement of Investment Policy. Dll. Approval of Agreement (CO 97-040) with Mr. High Entertainment for Concert Entertainment and Production Services. ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. D12. Approval of an application to designate the Nesbit -McCorkle House (built in approximately 1924) a Historic Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related file: Mills Act Agreement 97- 01. RESOLUTION NO. 97-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-01, DESIGNATING THE NESBIT-MCCORKLE HOUSE (BUILT IN APPROXIMATELY 1924) A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 7608 HELLMAN AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-073-43 City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 4 Approval of a request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax (CO 97-041) on the Nesbit-McCorkle House (built in approximately 1924) a Histodc Landmark, located at 7608 Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-073-43. Related file: Landmark Designation 97-01. D13. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Minor Development Review 97-11, located at 12550 Arrow Route, submitted by Air Liquide. RESOLUTION NO. 97-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 D14. Approval of an Agreement (CO 97-042) to annex property to Community Facilities District No. 85-1 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, Cornerpointe 257 LLC and Cornerpointe 85 LLC. D15. Approval to award contract (CO 97-043) to Pageantry Productions for services for the 1997 Founder's Day Parade in the amount of $7,558.11. D16, Approval to accept Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13717, located north of Church Street, between Spruce and Elm Avenues, submitted by Lewis Development, a California General Partnership. RESOLUTION NO. 97-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT13717 D17. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for DR 89-09, located on Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route and east of Utica. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $29,810.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 89-09, LOCATED ON PULLMAN COURT, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF UTICA, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D18. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for DR 95-30, located on the east side of Beryl, south of Hillside Road. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $72,110.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond $ 7,211.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 95-30, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 5 D19. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Parcel Map 14647, bounded on the south by Fourth Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A.T. & S.F. (Metrolink) Railroad and on the west by Cleveland and Utica Avenues. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $1,145,900.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-113 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 14647, BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY FOURTH STREET, ON THE EAST BY MILLIKEN AVENUE, ON THE NORTH BY THE A.T. & S.F. (METROLINK) RAILROAD AND ON THE WEST BY CLEVELAND AND UTICA AVENUES, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D20. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for DR 94-30, located on the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $29,351.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 94-30, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND CARNELIAN STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D21. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Tract Map 14407, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Mountain View Drive. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $205,000.00 RESOLUTION NO. 97-115 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 14407, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D22. Approval of release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount of $26,200.00 for Tract 14365, located on the south side of Mountain View Drive, west of Milliken Avenue. D23. Approval of release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount of $16,500.00 for Tract 13303, located on the southwest corner of Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista Parkway. D24. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Tract Map 14786, located on the east side of Elm Avenue, north of Church Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $88,800.00 City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 97-116 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 14786, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ELM AVENUE, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D25. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file Notice of Completion for CUP 95-39, located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of I-15. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $123,245.00 Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 12,324.50 RESOLUTION NO. 97-117 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 95-39, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, EAST OF THE I-15, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D26. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 969990S in the amount of $48,200.00, for Tract 13273, located on the southeast corner of Mountain View Drive and Milliken Avenue. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond #969990S $48,200.00 D27. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Tract 13566-3, located south of Twenty-Fourth Street, west of Cherry Avenue. Release: Faithful Performance Bond Accept: Maintenance Bond $166,146.00 $ 16,615.50 RESOLUTION NO. 97-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13566-3, LOCATED SOUTH OF TWENTY-FOURTH STREET, WEST OF CHERRY AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Curatalo to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of items 6 and 11. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. DISCUSSION OF ITEM D6: Alberre Abdo, 8655 19th St. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale General for Castle Liquor, Councilmember Gutierrez brought up businesses that have liquor licenses near residential areas. He wondered how many were in this same area. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City does not have a policy regulating the number of liquor license uses in the City. He stated the City does hear from ABC on the liquor license applications that are within the City. City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 7 Councilmember Gutierrez wondered if the City is able to find out how many places of business have alcoholic beverage licenses for a certain area. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated this information could be obtained. Mayor Alexander asked if the staff has any concerns with this. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated no and that they are not aware of any evidence that there is a problem with the sale of alcoholic beverages for this vicinity. MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Curatalo to approve item 6. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. DISCUSSION OF ITEM Dl1: Approval of Agreement (CO 97-040) with Mr. High Entertainment for Concert Entertainment and Production Services. Councilmember Williams stated she has not seen all of the numbers for this and that since the agreement is not in their agenda packets, she would like this to come back at the next meeting for consideration. Suzanne Ota, Community Sen/ices Manager, stated she did not see a problem to continue this matter to September 3. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Curatalo to continue the item to September 3, 1997. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PFRTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 558-A. ORDINANCE NO.558-A (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 558-A. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Curatalo absent). F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDFRATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPLACING PART IV OF CHAPTER 1.08 PROVIDING FOR ClTY'S ADOPTION, BY REFERENCE, OF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586. RELATING TO REFUSE ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CFRTAIN AMENDMENTS. DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO. AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 8 Staff report presented by Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, who stated the City is operating under the old County Ordinance, and that the new Ordinance has revisions that the City is presently following. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Leona Klipstein, Spirit of the Sage, stated she does not support this because of what is being abated may be natural habitat and should not be done. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Gutierrez clarified that this is vacant land or undeveloped parcels that this applies to. Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supen~isor, confirmed it does pertain to undeveloped and vacant property. Councilmember Gutierrez stated this is for an area that might create a fire hazard. Councilmember Williams felt the County should be notified through a letter asking them to consider areas that have natural habitat before clearing vacant or undeveloped land. Councilmember Curatalo felt the County should be asked to clarify what they mean by parcels and open range. ORDINANCE NO. 20-A (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586, RELATING TO REFUSE ABATEMENT AND WEED ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of ordinance No. 20-A for the September 3, 1997 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS G 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a review of the detailed site plan & building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. RESOLUTION NO. 97-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAMFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21 City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 9 ITEM 12 WAS HEARD AT THIS TIME, BUT THE MINUTES WILL REMAIN IN AGENDA ORDER. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. CONSIDFRATION OF AN ORDINANCE REFERENCING NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS Items I1 was continued to the next meeting due to the late hour. 12. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE 5-YEAR ACCORD EXTENSION FOR THE PINES MOBILE HOME PARK MOTION: Moved by VVilliams, seconded by Biane to approve item 12. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 13. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BOARD Items 13 was continued to the next meeting due to the late hour. 14. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1) Lions East 2) Lions West 3) RC Family Sports Center 4) Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center 5) Spruce Avenue Skate Park 6) Cornerpointe Development TT 15727/Future Neighborhood Park Site 7) Annual Soccer Field Renovations 8) East Beryl Park and Lions Park Tennis Courts 9) Spruce Park 10) Milliken Park 11) CMc Center B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1) Vietnam Memorial 2) I Love RC 3) Senior Transportation 4) 1997 Founders Day Parade and Celebration Item 14 was continued to the next meeting due to the late hour. City Council Minutes August 20, 1997 Page 10 15. ADDENDUM - DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN LIMITATIONS RELATING TO PROPOSITION 208 Item 15 was continued to the next meeting due to the late hour. J, IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K, COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 2:00 a.m. The executive session was canceled. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: September 3, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Re(~ular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, September 3, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Agencymembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager; Jan Reynolds, RDA Analyst; Cathy Wahlstrom, RDA Analyst; Brad Buller, City Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer; Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Susan Stark, Finance Officer; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Jennifer Haruyama, Management Analyst I; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Captain Rodney Hoops, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to members of Rancho Cucamonga Citrus Little League Junior Division, Vineyard Little League Major Division, and Rancho Little League Senior Division commending their Championship victory. Proclamations presented to Rancho Cucamonga Citrus Little League Junior Division and the Rancho Little League Senior D'n~ision. Vineyard Little League Major Division was not present. Doug Morris, District 21 Area Administrator was also present to accept the Proclamations. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints commending them for their volunteer efforts in improving the quality of life in our community. Proclamation presented to Mike Smith, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Frank Williams, 10356 Mahogany Court, stated he has never been a fan of the City Attorney, but referred to an arlicle in the newspaper stating it was a ~bum wrap" against Mr. Markman, City Attorney. He stated he did take offense to this and felt the City Attorney has done a wonderful job in the City. City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 2 C2. Joe Frandse, with the Rancho Cucamonga Visitor's Bureau, distributed material to the Council about Rancho Cucamonga. C3. Gail Curtis of YWCA West End, advised the Council about "Week Without Violence" scheduled for October 19 - 25. She asked if they could be allowed to put some banners on light poles throughout the City to advertise for this. Mayor Alexander referred herto Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager, or Brad Buller, City Planner, and stated this would be looked at. C4. Leona Klipstein, Spirit of the Sage, talked about conservation planning. She read a 60-day notice of intent to sue pursuant to the endangered species act into the record which is on file in the City Clerk's office. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: July 16, 1997 July 31, 1997 (special meeting) August 6, 1997 August 7, 1997 (special meeting) D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 8/13/97 and 8/20/97 and Payroll ending 7/24/97 for the total amount of $3,611,061.68. D3. Alcoholic Beverage ApplicalJon for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Rubios Baja Grill, 10798 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 120. D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Brandon's Diner, Armando & Mada Maffide Benitez, 8609 Base Line Rd. D5. Approval for advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the FY 1997/1998 Pavement Rehabilitation Program, various locations, to be funded from Engineering Prop 111 Funds, Account No. 10-4637-9113. RESOLUTION NO. 97-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FY 1997/1998 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D6. Approval for adverlising of Ifie "Notice Inviting Bids' for the Tapia Via Drive Street Improvements, from Grove Avenue to Rancheria Drive, to be funded from CDBG Funds, Account No. 28-4333-9500. RESOLUTION NO. 97-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TAPIA VIA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM GROVE AVENUE TO RANCHERIA DRIVE, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 3 D7. Approval to appropriate $39,290.00 for Fund 23-4637-9120 for General City Master Plan Drainage Reimbursement Agreements for FY 1997/98. D8. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Development Review 96-18, located on the south side of Sixth Street west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Meeder Equipment Company. RESOLUTION NO. 97-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-18 RESOLUTION NO. 97-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 96-18 D9. Approval of Map and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 4 for Parcel Map No. 14001, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road, submitted by Lewis Development Co. RESOLUTION NO. 97-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 RESOLUTION NO. 97-125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 D10. Approval of Map and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Parcel Map No. 15016, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, submitted by Lewis Development Co. RESOLUTION NO. 97-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 15016 RESOLUTION NO. 97-127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 15016 City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 4 D11. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 & 7 for Tract Map No. 12659-3, located at the southwest corner of Eftwanda and Wilson Avenues, submitted by Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership. RESOLUTION NO. 97-128 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RANCHO 12659-3 RESOLUTION NO. 97-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR TRACT 12659-3 D12. Approval of Agreement (CO 97-044) for a plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. D13. Approval of a Resolution enacting an Agreement (CO 97-045) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Distdct for funding fire protection services during Fiscal Year 1997/98. RESOLUTION NO. 97-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA D14. Approval of Agreement (CO 97-040) with Mt. High Entertainment for Concert Entertainment and Production Services and approval of Budget Appropriation for the October 10, 1997 ~Guess Who" Community Concert. ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. D15. Approval to open escrow for the sale of the surplus property at the Grove Avenue Yard Facilities. ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY MIKE PORTEOUS, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar, with the exception of items 14 and 15. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. DISCUSSION OF ITEM D14: Approval of Agreement (CO 97-040) with Mt. High Entertainment for Concert Entertainment and Production Services and approval of Budget Appropriation for the October 10, 1997 "Guess Who" Community Concert. Councilmember Williams stated she was not in agreement with what was in the contract, and felt the City was headed for another fiasco. She stated she did not think the money would be brought in for this and felt possibly they should go out and ask the community if this is what they want. She added she would be voting no for this. Councilmember Biane stated he felt there was a definite need for this type of activity at the Epicenter and did not feel it would be a complete failure. He did agree there was some risk to this, but did feel there was a need. City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 5 Councilmember Curatalo slated he agreed with fiscal responsibility as mentioned by Councilmember Williams, but felt the Council owed the community service to the public. Councilmember Gutierrez felt if this was being compared to the Founder's Day, this would be worth the risk. He hoped this would be a successful event and felt it was right to offer variety at the stadium. Mayor Alexander stated he felt this would be successful and felt the City should do something this year. He stated he also realizes the risk. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve item 14. Motion carried 4-1 (VVilliams voted no). DISCUSSION OF ITEM D15: Approval to open escrow for the sale of the surplus property at the Grove Avenue Yard Facilities. Mike Porteous stated he has been looking at the old City Yard property for over two years and has been wanting to buy it. He stated he has tried to negotiate with the City in order to accomplish this. He added he learned today that another offer came in, but that his was still the highest offer. He reported the other offer was going to be accepted instead of his, and that he heard it was because he did not live in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated he did not understand this and asked for someone to explain this to him. Mayor Alexander suggested this not be acted upon tonight until more information comes to the Council. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated both of the offers are in the $80,000's and that they want the most viable person to buy it. Councilmember Biane asked if this can't be put to a bid and make a final date to submit those bids. James Markman, City Attorney, stated today is the first he has heard about this and that he would like to see a chronology on this before the Council takes action on it. He stated they could go with the highest sealed bid also. Mayor Alexander stated he would like to see a chronology on this. Councilmember Curatalo stated he agreed. MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to continue the item to the September 17, 1997 meeting for more information. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDFRATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REP! ACING PART IV OF CHAPTER 1.08 PROVIDING FOR ClTY'S ADOPTION. BY REFERENCE. OF COUNTY OF SAN BI=RNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586. RELATING TO RFFUSE ABATEMENT. INCLUDING CFRTAIN AMENDMENTS. DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PFNALTIES Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 20-A. City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 6 ORDINANCE NO. 20-A (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586, RELATING TO REFUSE ABATEMENT AND WEED ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 20-A. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. No items submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS No items submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATING A VOTING REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL MEETING Staff report presented by Jack Lam, City Manager. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to designate Williams (if able to attend) as the voting member, and Alexander as the alternate. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW g7-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a review of the detailed site plan & building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Ver~ Low Residential Distr~ (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. Staff report presented by Brad Buller, City Planner. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he has concerns with the design of the project and felt the design needs to be consistent with what is already existing for this area. He did not think this needed to be a custom builder and felt Lauren could do this acceptably. He felt the design of the homes was too "boxy". Councilmember Williams stated she agreed with Councilmember Gutierrez and felt the design of the whole tract needed to be looked at. She felt the lay of the land needed to be used better. City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 7 Councilmember Curatalo felt the integrity of the neighborhood should be considered if this should go back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Biane felt they should come up with some ideas of their own how the project should look. Mayor Alexander felt the options offered should become standards. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they will take the verbal action the Council has stated regarding how they feel the design should be, and that they will get information from the neighbors how they feel the project should look like. He pointed out they have an approved tentative and an approved grading plan. He pointed out through the Hillside Ordinance they can work the project to fit in with the hillside. James Markman, City Attorney, stated if the design review is denied on the merit, a new application must be filed and all of this starts again, including subsequent environmental. He stated you have a tract map sitting there which has raised the issue of it sitiJng there for seven years and how does this interface with subsequent CEQUA requirements when all the Council has before them is design review. He pointed out if the Council adopts the first Resolution, it is back to square one for a design review process. Mayor Alexander stated he does not want to kill this project. Councilmember Gutierrez stated some major changes need to be made. He felt the first Resolution was a design issue and could not support it as it is written because it needed more information in it, although he supported the main idea of what it was saying. Councilmember Biane asked if this could be sent back to the Planning Commission without denying the project. James Markman, City Attorney, stated when this is appealed to the Council, it can be reversed in whole or in part, that there is nothing that talks about sending it back to the Planning Commission and keeping the application alive. He felt his best advice was to go with what the code says. RESOLUTION NO. 97-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez to approve Resolution No. 97-131. He stated he does not have a list of conditions to add to it at this time. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the only other option would be to place specific conditions on the project for further design development review, by direcling staff to bring back a Resolution denying or upholding the appeal in part subject to these other issues being addressed. Mayor Alexander stated he would like to salvage the project with modifications. Councilmembers Biane and Curatalo agreed with Mayor Alexander. City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 8 Coundlmember Gutierrez stated he would like to see something designed so that it is consistent with what is already existing for that area. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Williams. Motion failed, 2-3 (Alexander, Curatalo, Biane voted no). Councilmember Biane stated what he would like to see accomplished is for this to come back and discuss design issues. He felt before the Council tries to tell the Planning Commission what they would like to accomplish, he would like the resident's input on design alone and would like to discuss this so he has defined direction for the Council and staff to take at that time. He stated all he has heard was about CEQUA issues and not design. Mayor Alexander stated he agreed with Councilmember Biane. James Markman, City Altomey, pointed out the Council is restricted to consider what is before them and if they want to change the design the staff needs a motion to instruct staff to notice a hearing at the Council level on this project restricted to design only. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated if the Council was to refer the matter back to staff in an effort to come up with a different design based on Council discussion tonight, and if after that review with neighborhood input, they feel the project has changed with respect to the design aspect, they would re-advertise and bring it back to the Council. He felt the Council might want to table the matter, not refer it back to the Commission, but refer it back to staff to work with the applicant and the property owners. Councilmember Biane stated he would go along with the process that Brad Buller suggested. James Markman, City Attorney, stated he felt this process was not fair to the opponents. He stated when this converts itself to a new application with new design and substantially different materials than what was originally presented, they are dght back to what he previously said which was it is now a separate project and that they would not have acted on the appeal. He stated he did notthink this put them in the best position for validity and did not think it was fair to the opponents. He stated a substantive different application through conversion will not get anywhere, but in court. Councilmember Biane stated he felt a lot of work needed to be done with there being more than six floor plans to choose from and the options being made standard. He stated this would open the door to start the process all over again with a different project. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to reconsider Resolution No. 97-131. Motion carried 3-2 (Alexander and Curatalo voted no). MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to adopt Resolution No. 97-131. Motion carried 3-2 (Alexander and Curatalo voted no). Councilmember Williams felt there needed to be an affirmation of the EIR that is seven years old. She stated if there are differences she would like to know this. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he agreed with Councilmember Williams, but did not necessarily think every map that has been extended should have an EIR done or if the process is very routine. He stated he did feel this particular project on the hill is unique and should have a new EIR done. City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 97-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DETERMINATION THAT NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution No. 97-132. Motion carried 3-2 (Williams and Gutierrez voted no). A recess was taken at 9:28 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. 12. CONSIDERATION OF PROCESS FOR FILLING CURRENT TERMS EXPIRING ON PLANNING COMMISSION Staff report presented by Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II. Councilmember Biane stated the current Planning Commission has been sent letters inviting them to reapply. Councilmember Williams felt the people that have previously expressed an interest before should also be invited to reapply. Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II, stated they will send a letter to the previous applicants letting them know about this process to begin. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Alexander to approve the subcommittee's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 13. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REFERENCING NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS (Continued from August 2(I, 1997) Staff report presented by Rod Hoops, Police Chief. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he did not think this was a serious problem im the City, but felt this would be a tool if it is needed. Councilmember Curatalo thanked Councilmember Gutierrez for bringing this to the Council's attention. MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Curatalo to direct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 14. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THF BOARD (Continued from August 20, 1997) Councilmember Williams stated she had sat in for Mayor Alexander, and that she and Councilmember Gutierrez were recommending Donna Bradshaw and Doris Dredd-Lee. City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 10 MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to approve the subcommittee's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 15. CONSIDERATION TO RATIFY LIBRARY FOUNDATION AD HOC COMMITTEE'S SELECTIONS Councilmember Biane stated he and Councilmember Gutierrez were recommending Rebecca Davies, Marcia Newman, and Dr. James Brown. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to approve the subcommittee's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 16. DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN LIMITATIONS RELATING TO PROPOSITION 208 (Continued from August 20, 1997) Councilmember Curatalo stated he would like the Council to consider increasing the maximum campaign expenditure to $1.00 per registered voter and to a $500 maximum contribution. Councilmember Biane stated this would make the maximum allowable contribution by any one person $500 instead of $250. James Markman, City Attorney, stated the Council, in a City of this size, is limited to taking $250 in a campaign contribution from any one person. He stated they can double this per person, if the Council by Ordinance establishes an expenditure limit which a candidate can volunteer to comply with up to $500 per person. He stated the maximum is $1.00 per resident, but the Council can set a lower limit if they want to. Councilmember Curatalo stated he is asking for $1.00 for every registered voter, not every resident. Councilmember Biane stated the Proposition is going to be revisited soon and that if there is an Ordinance to be drafted it should be open ended to see what the court may decide. James Markman, City Attorney, stated if the legislation goes down, the Council would not be saddled with the limit anyway. He added the Ordinance could then be repealed. Mayor Alexander asked if that could wait 60 days to see what might happen with future legislation. He suggested this come back in at the 2nd meeting in October. The Council concurred. 17. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE (Continued from August 20, 1997) a. PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1) Lions East 2) Lions West 3) RC Family Sports Center 4) Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center 5) Spruce Avenue Skate Park 6) Cornerpointe Development TT 15727/Future Neighborhood Park Site 7) Annual Soccer Field Renovations 8) East Beryl Park and Lions Park Tennis Courts 9) Spruce Park 10) Milliken Park 11) Civic Center City Council Minutes September 3, 1997 Page 11 COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1) Vietnam Memorial 2) I Love RC 3) Senior Transportation 4) 1997 Founders Day Parade and Celebration Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, and Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager. ACTION: Report received and filed. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like to give an update on the "Group Home" issue. He stated he has been researching,with Brad Buller's assistance, any legislation on this and if there are any measures being taken to give cities any type of notice or input on where and how "Group Homes' are placed. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to recess to executive session to discuss Labor Negotiations per Government Code Section 54957.6 to give Larry Temple Administrative Services Director, direction in regards to the Meet and Confer process. Executive session to adjourn to a goals workshop on Saturday, Sepl~mber 6, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. in the Tri Communities Room located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting recessed at 10:35 p.m. No action was taken in executive session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * September 6, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Saturday, September 6, 1997, in the Tri Communities Room located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 8:15 a.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager, and James C. Frost, City Treasurer. B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL GOALS The following goals were outlined and discussed by the City Council: Curatalo Library master plan Gutierrez More updates on Fire Explorer Program Look into transportation needs of Police Explorers Analysis of Police Department rs. Sheriff,s contract Consideration of utility tax transfer to Central Park Implications of E1 Nino for community School impaction and need for new facilities Future of Edwards Cinema Future of Mall Phone system at City Hall Biane Foothill Boulevard improvements Aggressive pursuit of economic development deals Leggio project Update on all proposal outcomes Complete General Plan update Cultural identify and preservation of heritage parcels City Council Minutes September 6, 1997 Page 2 Williams "Blighted" areas and potential for improvement Revenue potential for Stadium rental and need for more aggressive marketing and promotions Tapia Park conservation project potential Alexander Expansion of youth activities should be continued Feasibility of future RDA project like RAMROD program Continued good customer service K-Mart and its future potential Job assignments of all administrative staff Frost Historic preservation and the City's role and priorities C. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting recessed at 11:25 a.m. for an executive session to discuss labor negotiations per Government Code Section 55957.6 to give Jack Lam, City Manager, direction in regards to the meet and confer process. No action was taken in executive session. Respectfully submitted, Approved: * Jack Lain, AICP City Manager I I I · ee eeeme eeeeeleeleeeeeeeeew.eeee - j~j J 2 · · · · I · I I I Z h, )-4 --I ,_) ~ 0 · u v) ~AJ · : "i if: o',' .: Z 0 U,I &LE Z e, I · · · · · · · I · ! · · · · ! I(~1 Iml · · · '- · · · II · I"1 !~1 i~1 I~1 I11 · · · · · · II · · · · · · · · · · I · ml ! · I I i~.) I 1,-41 · · · I · · · $ II · · II · · · · ! !~ I I ~ I I z I · Will, 4.) A A A A ~0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~000000000000000000000000000000000000000000~000000 Z 7 ZILO 0 C~ ~00000000000000000000000000~000 ~mmmm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~mm ~ ~ m ~mmm ~mm m mm mmmm mm mm mm mm mm m m ~ o9/26/1~7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PORTFOLIO MASTER SU~4~%RY AUGUST 31, 1997 CITY CASH AVEI~AGE ---YIELD TO MATURITY--- PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAYS TO 360 365 INVESTMENTS BOOK VALUE PORTFOLIO TERM MATURITY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT Certificates of Deemsit - B~nk ............... $ 8,825,532.20 12.72 390 209 5.924 6.006 I~)cm]A~e~cy~nves~_t ~d ................ $ 9,973,017.45 14.37 1 i 5.601 5.679 Federal Ag~ Ie~ - Cou~o~ ............... $ 50,397,187.50 72.62 1,618 1,203 6.448 6.538 Mortgage Backed sec-u~ities ................... $ 201,349.32 0.29 6,517 2,639 8.902 9.026 TOTAL INVE~TM~NT~ a~dAV~RAGq~ ............. $ 69,397,086.47 100.00% 1,244 908 6.267% 6.354% ============================================================================== CASH Passbook/Check/rig A~co%umt8 ................... $ 1, 229,707.46 1. 973 2. 000 (not included in yield cm/culatic~s) Accrtle~ Interest at Purchase ................ ~$ 18,497.90 TOTAL CASH and PURChASE Iiv£~a~EST ............. $ 1,248,205.36 ============================================================================== TOTA~ CASH ~ ~ ................. $ 70,645,291.83 ============================================================================== ~0NTH ENDING FISCAL TOTAL EARNINGS AUGUST 31 lq~AR TO DATE ~t Year $ 373,659.63 $ 751,340.36 AVERAGE DAILY ~ ~CTIVE RATE OF DATE $ 71,287,401.71 $ 72,411,278.74 6.17% 6.11% I certify that t~/s report accurately reflects all Citypooled investments au~ is in comfozm/t¥ with the investment policy adopted August 20, 1997. A co~y of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department. The Investment Program herein shownprovldes sufficient cash flo~ lic/u/clity to meet the next six mc~t~s esti~ated~d~tures. The mc~xth-ex~m~rket values were obtained from (IDC)-Interactive Data Corporatic~ pricing service. 09/16/:997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INVESTMENT PORTPOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMENTS AUGUST 31, 1997 CITY CJ~H AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- FTM --- MATURITY DAYS ISSUER BALANCE DAT~ BOOK VAI~UE FACE VALU~ MARK]~T VAL~TE RATE 360 365 DAT~ TO MAT ~CATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK 009."5 SANWA 05/22/96 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 6.000 6.000 6.083 05/26/98 267 00986 SANWA 03/05/97 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.830 5.830 5.911 03/05/98 185 00987 SANWA 03/18/97 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 5.700 5.700 5.779 09/16/97 15 0099C SANWA 04/29/97 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 6.240 6.155 6.240 04/29/98 240 0099~ SANWA 08/06/97 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.800 5.721 5.800 08/06/98 339 ~.-~r~LS and AVERAGES 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 8,825,532.20 5.924 6.006 209 LOCAL ~ INVESTMENT FUNDS 000C5 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 008C4 ~ AG'~NCY INVST FUND S~B'i'~'aT.q ~ AV~RAG~S 10,602,049.71 9,973,017.45 9,973,017.45 9,973,017.45 5.679 5.601 5.679 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.667 5.589 5.667 1 9,973,017.45 9, 973,017.45 9,973,017.45 5.601 5.679 1 _i.-~:~...u,~.?. ~ ISSUES - COUPON 00964 00969 FEDERAL FArM C~EDIT BANK 009,-3 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 009,-~ FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 00983 FI~.L FARM CREDIT BANK 009~J FEDERA~ FARM CREDIT BANK 00993 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 0099~ FED~J, FARM CREDIT BANK 009~/ FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 0094= FEDERAL HOM~ LOAN BANK 0096~' F~DERAL HOME LOAN ~ANK 0097-- FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 009?4 I;~)ERAL HO~ LOAN BANK 0098= FEDERAL HOMB LOAN BANK 0098~ FEDERAL HO%~ LOAN BA~K 00991 FEDEPJtT~ HO~E LOAN BANK 009~T FEDERAL HOME LOA/~ BANK 00938 0095~, 00967 0096~ 00994 00995 0094? 00959 0096= ~muu,~u~c~umrT~ 01/16/96 03/05/96 05/20/96 lO/O3/96 12/23/96 03/27/97 04/29/97 o7/17/97 12/19/94 04/06/95 12/18/95 o3/19/96 os/21/96 12/3o/96 04/02/97 04/29/97 07/30/97 ~mUU, HO~ LOAN ~. ~ o~/o~/95 ~H~ ~~. ~ 11/20/95 ~H~ ~ ~. ~ 03/06/96 ~H~ ~ ~. ~ 02/22/96 ~H~~. ~ 06/25/97 ~ H~ ~ ~. ~ 06/30/97 ~~ ~ 05/08/95 ~ ~ ~ ~ 11/29/95 ~~ ~SN 11/24/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,975,625.00 6.030 6.030 6.114 01/16/01 1,233 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,979,375.00 6.165 6.165 6.251 03/05/01 1,281 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,001,875.00 6.500 6.500 6.590 05/20/99 626 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,501,406.25 6.610 6.6~0 6.702 10/06/99 765 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 996,250.00 6.700 6.700 6.793 12/24/01 1,575 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,003,750.00 6.620 6.620 6.712 03/27/02 1,668 1,993,125.00 2,000,000.00 2,001,250.00 6.310 6.499 6.590 04/01/99 577 1,999,375.00 2,000,000.00 1,988,125.00 6.240 6.247 6.334 07/17/02 1,780 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,006,562.50 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 109 942,968.75 1,000,000.00 991,562.50 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 455 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,965,000.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 12/18/00 1,204 995,312.50 1,000,000.00 998,125.00 5.880 6.053 6.137 03/19/99 564 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,005,937.50 7.025 7.025 7.123 05/21/01 1,358 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 995,000.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 06/30/00 1,033 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,003,750.00 6.540 6.540 6.631 04/02/01 1,309 1,000,312.50 1,000,000.00 1,004,062.50 6.518 6.500 6.590 04/21/99 597 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 996,875.00 6.544 6.544 6.635 07/30/02 1,793 1,002,031.25 1,000,000.00 1,000,625.00 7.420 7.226 7.326 09/23/99 752 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,483,593.75 6.290 6.290 6.377 11/17/00 1,173 1,998,750.00 2,000,000.00 1,972,500.00 5.990 6.005 6.088 03/06/01 1,282 1,985,312.50 2,000,000.00 1,958,750.00 5.695 5.867 5.948 02/16/01 1,264 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,007,500.00 6.630 6.628 6.720 01/24/02 1,606 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 999,375.00 6.450 6.450 6.540 06/30/00 1,033 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,515,000.00 T.2T0 7.270 7.371 05/08/00 980 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,971,250.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/28/00 1,184 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 999,062.50 5.970 5.970 6.053 11/25/98 450 o9/16/1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INVESTMENT PORTPO~.TO D~TAI~ - INVESTMENTS AUGUST 31, 1997 CITY CASH INVESTM~4T AVERAGE PURCHASE STAT~ --- FTM--- MATURITY DAYS N0~4B~ ISSUER BALANC~ DA/'E BOOK VALU~ FAC~ VALUE MAI~K~T VAb~ P. AT~ 360 365 DAT~ TO MAT F~DEI~.AL AG]~qCY ISSUES - COUPON 00981 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 11/29/96 00984 la~DE~%LNATL MTGASSN 12/12/96 00992 FEDERAL NATLMTGASSN 05/05/97 SUBTOTALS a/~dAVERAG~5 50,397,187.50 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1~974,375.00 1,980,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,973~125.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,031,250.00 50,397,187.50 50,300,937.50 50,500,000.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/29/01 1,550 6.160 6.378 6.467 12/14/01 1,565 7.070 7.070 7,168 05/08/02 1,710 6.448 6.538 1,203 TRF~S~Y SEC~TRITIES - COUPON AVerAGeS 264,043.55 HOI~T~AGE ~u~u~u S~CURITIES 00071 00203 00002 00069 S~BTOTALS ac~ AVeRAGeS F~D~ALHOMELOAN~ORT~. CO 02/23/87 FEDERAL NATLMTGASSN 09/21/87 GOVERNMENT NATION~L~40RTGA 06/23/86 GOVERNMENT NATIOl~L MORTG A 05/23/86 201,919.35 37,490.72 38,489.74 29,229.25 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 1,583 74,138.37 80,258.05 70,063.39 8.500 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 4,748 66,846.34 67,778.29 54~572.68 8.500 8.621 8.740 05/15/01 1,352 22,873.89 22,425.38 2,670.02 9.000 8.534 8.652 03/15/01 1,291 201,349.32 164,535.34 208,951.46 8.902 9.026 2,639 TOTAL IITU'~STMENTS and AVG. $ 69,397,086.47 69,264,022.49 70,290,732.31 69,507,501.11 6.267% 6.354% 908 // o9/1~/~997 CITY OF EANCHO CUCAMONGA INVESTMIDIT PORTPOlIO DETAI~S - CASH AUGUST 31~ 1997 CITY CASH INVBSTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATBD --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS NUMBIgR ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALA/B MARKIT VAIA/I; RATE 360 365 DATE TO M~ CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 00180 BANK OFAMERICA 1,196~368.85 2.000 1.973 2.000 00979 BANK OFAME~ICA 0.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 0098S BANK OF AMERICA 33,338.61 2.000 1.973 2.000 S~'~)TALS a~dAVEEAG~S 996,669.40 1~229,707.46 1.973 2.000 Accrued Intereet at Purchase 18,497.90 TOTAL CASH $ 1,248,205.36 TOTAlCASH a~d INVESTMENTS $ 71,287,401.71 70,645,291.83 09/16/1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE AUQUST 1, 1997 - AUGUST 31, 1997 CITY CASH STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SAL~S/MATDR~ ri~S TYPE INVeSTMEnT # ISSUER RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS BALANC~ CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK ~I3/NI~GBA/~]I~: 00976 SAN~A 5.650 08/06/1997 1,515,0~C.~0 00998 SANWA 5.800 08/06/1997 1,515,000.00 SUBTOTALS and];~DING BALANCE 1,515,000.00 8,825,532.20 1,515, 00~ .S0 8,825,532.20 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS (M(mthly Summary) 00005 I~OCALAG~CY INVSTFOND 5.679 00804 LOCAL AGeNCY INVST FUND 5.667 SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE 2,000,000.00 4,000,0~C.~0 11,973,017.45 2,000,000.00 4,000,0CC-:0 9,973,017.45 CH~/SAVlNGS ACCOUNTS ( M~nthly 00180 BANK OFAMI~a./CA 2.000 3,307,662.00 00979 BANK OFAMEP./CA 2.000 00985 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 2,493.98 ~UBTOTALS aLll~]~qDINGBAI.%NC~ 3,310,155.98 2,755,00~.00 2,755,0C~-:0 674,551.48 1,229,707.46 FEDERAL AGenCY ISSUES - COUPON S0,397,187. S0 S0,397,187.50 TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON 00903 TI~BASURY NOT~ 5.625 08/31/1997 272,845.:0 272,845.00 0.00 MORTGAGE BA~t~J SECURITIES 00071 F]~)ERALHOME LOAN MORTG. COR~. 8.000 00002 GOVERIiMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500 00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORT(; ASSN 9.000 TOTALS BEGINNING BALANC~: $ 08/15/97 08/14/97 1,15C.25 08/05/97 203,019.87 0.00 2,075.i0 200,944.87 72,346,153.50 6,825,155.98 8,544,92:.:0 70,626,389.48 ================================================================== /3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 1, 1997 TO: City Council and City Manager Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE ROCHESTER AVENUE, STREET, STORM DRAIN AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED 450' SOUTH TO 250' NORTH OF EIGHTH STREET TO BE FUNDED FROM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 22-4637-9210 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the Rochester Avenue, Street, Storm Drain and Railroad Crossing Improvements, located 450' South to 250' North of Eighth Street, and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGRO UND/ANALYSIS: The scope of work to be performed in general consists of, but is not limited to, A.C. paving, construction of storm drain lines and related structures, median island, retaining walls, chain link fences, sidewalks, curb, gutter, street lights, warning signals, concrete pads and crossing gates (by SCRRA, Metrolink). The subject project plans and specifications have been completed by staff and approved by the City Engineer. The Engineer's estimate for construction is $222,185.00. Legal advertising is scheduled for October 7 and October 14, 1997, with the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4, 1997. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:LRB:ls Attachments ROCHESTER STREET , STORNI R/R DRAIN AND AVENUE CROSSING, IMPROVEMENTS BASELINE RD 4TH ST PARK I_ N ~ i i i ARROW '-'IWY~i I I i I I PROJECT LOCATION !I/R C!10~ING NO. 101'I:G-42.BO RANCHO CUCAMONGA VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE /,5' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ROCHESTER AVENUE, STREET, STORM DRAIN AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "ROCHESTER AVENUE, STREET, STORM DRAIN AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the Ibllowing words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4, 1997, sealed bids or proposals for the "ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET, STORM DRAIN AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET, STORM DRAIN AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS." PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not RESOLUTION NO. October 1, 1997 Page 2 less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or Do When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of /7 RESOLUTION NO. October 1, 1997 Page 3 apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor tunder him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter I, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga a~vards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a RESOLUTION NO. October 1, 1997 Page 4 certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 1 st day of October, 1997. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 1, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II CONSIDERATION TO RE-APPOINT ROBERT I-IOWDYSItELL TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES RECOMMENDATION Re-appoint Robert Howdyshell to the Library Board of Trustees. Background At the City Council's September 3, 1997 meeting, the Council appointed Donna Bradshaw and Doris Dredd-Lee to the Library Board of Trustees. Staff should have also asked that the minute action also include re-appointing Robert Howdyshell to the Library Board of Trustees. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. ( .....Re~ p ¢ ct ~11q~ ~S_ubmittad' Diane O'Neal x,_ Management Analyst II CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT October 1, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II Approval of the County of San Bernardino's Schedule "A" for Law Enforcement Services for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the Amount of $9,489,480 and the Approved Salary Negotiations in the Amount of $168,015 for Fiscal Year 1997-98 to be Paid From Account #01-4451-6028 Recommendation Schedule "A" from the County of San Bemardino for Law Enforcement Services in the amount of $9,489,480 and the approved County of San Bernardino salary negotiations in the amount of $168,015 for Fiscal Year 1997/98 be approved. Background The City of Rancho Cucamonga has received Schedule "A" and the approved salary negotiations for Law Enforcement Services from the County of San Bernardino. Schedule ".A" is the financial portion of the City's Law Enforcement Contract with the County of San Bernardino. R&pectfully Submitted, 0 Deputy City Manager 2Z County of San Bernardino FAS STANDARD CONTRACT FOR COUNTY USE ONLY E New Vendor Code Dept. Contract Number M X Change County Department Dept. Orgn. Contractor's License No. County Department Contract Representative Ph. Ext. Amount of Contract ROBERT I4. TRE2'!AIIqE (909) 387-3746 $42,895,879.00 Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source Activity [ GRC/PROJ/JOB Number Commodity Code Estimated Payment Total by Fiscal Year FY Amount I/D FY Amount I/D Project Name 98 $9,/'89,480 CON't~,AC~ ~ ]QqFORC~ THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California by and between the County of San Bernardino, hereinafter called the County, and Name CI~J' OF EANC~O CUCA~ONGA hereinafter called CIT~ Address 10510 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RAINCliO CUCAI40NGA, CA 91730 Phone Bi~h Date (909) 989-1851 Federal ID No. or Social Security No. IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (Use space held w and reverse side of form if needed. Set forth service to be rendered, amount to be paid, manner of payment, time for performance or completion, determination of satisfactory performance and cause for termination, other terms and conditions, and attach plans, specifications, and addends, if any.) SIXTH AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT 94-524 Contract Number 94-524 providing law enforcement service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is hereby amended, effective July 1, 1997, by replacing Schedule "A," referred to in Paragraph IV, with a new Schedule "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Except for this amendment, all other provisions of said contract remain as stated therein. Any provisions on the reverse side and referenced attachments hereof constitute a part of this contract and are incorporated herein in full. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Chairman, Board of Supervisors CIT~ OF RA~CItO CUCAMONGA (State if corporation, company, etc.) Dated By ~' SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS Dated DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. Title Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino. Address (Authorized Signature) 10510 CIVIC C!Qt'['Ii~ I)RlVg RAlqC~O CUCAI~ONGA, CA By Deputy A pprove~,/~ I~ Reviewed as to Affirmative Action Reviewed for Processing Agency Administrator/CAD Date "~,---~'$O ~ Date Date 02-12295-000 Rev. 11/90 (ahort form) 91130 Z2-1 Page 1 of SCHEDULE A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FY 97/98 2 10 11 60 2 2 6 1 3 I 1 12 1 1 1 27 14 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 SERVICE (PERSONNEL COSTS INCLUDE SALARY AND BENEFITS) I Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Deputy III Deputy II Deputy II (D.A.R.E) Forensic II Sheriff's Service Specialist Research Analyst - Community Services Officer - Secretary II - Secretary I - Station Clerk - Motor Pool Services Assistant - Public Information Clerk - Supervising Station Clerk - Marked Units - Unmarked Units Mini Van (Code 3) Mid-Size Pickup Motorcycle Marked 4X4 K-9 Unit Bicycle Van (Equipment and Insurance Only) D.A.R.E. Van (Equipment and Insurance Only) Dispatch Services Radar Gun Administrative Support Office Automation Vehicle Insurance Personnel Liability and Bonding Telephone Report Unit/Digital Dictation County Administrative Cost TOTAL COST FY 97/98 COST* $ 117,035 214,198 939,440 894,476 4,463,280 148,776 93,976 235,644 56,648 107,763 39,511 36,965 424,308 38,346 29,798 38,933 323,474** 95,340** 8,128'* 7,931'* 34,573** 14,012'* 9,412'* 1,403'* 2,806** 464,269 2,924 55,571 10,269 133,415 117,549 75,086 254,221 $9,489,480* MONTHLY PAYMENT SCHEDULE: 1st Payment Due July 15, 1997: 2"a through 12th Payment Due 5th of each month: $790,790 $790,790 * Subject to change due to salary and benefit changes or Board of Supervisors action. Less Fuel and Maintenance. City is responsible for fuel and maintenance of all contract vehicles. Maintenance is defined as all routine maintenance, all necessary repairs (mechanical or body repair), and replacement of any destroyed vehicle. If vehicle damage is eligible for coverage under County insurance policies, a claim will be filed with County Risk Management. Any money reimbursed by Risk Management will be credited to the City's account to offset City costs. (07/01/97) PAGE 1 of 3 2 2 -- 2 SCHEDULE A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FY 97/98 ADDITIONAL COST BILLED QUARTERLY: OVERTIME: Overtime and court appearances estimate for FY 97/98 is $329,740. Actual overtime will be billed quarterly. City will be billed on a quarterly basis for: · Actual Overtime Cost. · Professional Services from Private Vendors (i.e., towing, etc.). · Services and Supplies above Contract Formula. · Fuel and Maintenance (if applicable). · K-9 Charges: Cost for food, medical expenses, etc. (if applicable). PUBLIC GATHERING: The following Public Gathering rates shall apply to the City of Rancho Cucamonga when deputies and reserve deputies assigned to the City are used to provide security at City-sponsored public events and at City-sponsored public events held at City-owned facilities. Deputies will be provided and claims processed by use of the standard County Public Gathering Agreement. RATES Reserve Deputy $21.66 Per Hour Deputy II 40.42 Per Hour Deputy IYl 46.03 Per Hour Sergeant 51.78 Per Hour (07/01/97) PAGE 2 of 3 22-- SCHEDULE A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT LEVEL OF STAFFING GUIDE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FY 97/98 SAFETY: Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Deputy Ill Deputy II D.A.R.E. Officer 1 2 10 11 6O 86 GENERAL: Research Analyst 1.00 Forensic Specialist II 2.00 Dispatcher II - 10.81 Secretary II 1.00 Supervising Station Clerk 1.00 Sheriff's Services Specialist 6.00 Secretary I 1.00 Motor Pool Services Assistant - 1.00 Community Services Officer - 3.00 Public Information Clerk 1.00 Station Clerk - 12.00 39.81 VEHICLES: Marked Units Unmarked Units Mini Van Mid-Size Pickup Motorcycle Marked 4X4 Bicycle Van D.A.R.E. Van K-9 Unit - 27 - 14 1 1 7 1 1 2 -I 55 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT: Radar Gun - 1 DONATED VEHICLES: Chevrolet Tahoe - 1 Ford Explorer - 1 BMW 1 Included for insurance cost only. (07/01/97) PAGE 3 of 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 24, 1997 TO: FROM: JACK LAM, A.L C.P., CITY MANAGER('~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RODNEY HOOPS, CHIEF OF POLICE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMEN~ SUBJECT: SHERIFF'S LA W ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT-SCHEDULE 5t" The following data shows the increases in Schedule '54 "for the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department contract for fiscal year 1997/1998. These increases are the result of recently concluded salary negotiations. The increases for safety management (Captain, Lieutenant, and SergeanO for fiscal year 1997/98 was three percent (3%) effective July 1, 1997. The increase for safety (Deputy III's and H's) for fiscal year 1997/98 was two percent (2%) effective ,4ugust 16, 199 7. City Council has already approved the law enforcement contract that had an original across-the-board increase of five percent (5%) for all safety positions. The following increases will be billed on a quarterly basis:: POSITION 96/97 97/98 DIFFERENCE TOTAL ADJUSTMENT Captain (1) $117,035 $121,049 $4,014 $4,014 Lieutenant (2) $107,099 $109,315 $2,216 $4,432 Sergeant (10) $93,944 $97,097 $3,153 $31,530 Deputy III (11) $81,316 $83,472 $2,156 $20,980 Deputy II (62) $74,388 $76,340 $1,952 $107.060 TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS: $ 6s, (Deputy III and Deputy Il figures are calculated for only twenty-three (23) pay periods. Captain, Lieutenants, and Sergeants are calculated for twenty-six (26) pay periods. The following example shows why the figures for Deputy III and II may appear to be incorrect.) 11 (Deputy H's) x $2,156 = $23,712 divided by 26 (number of pay periods in one year) = $912.15384 x 23 pay periods (length of safety contracO = $20,980 (as indicated on above chart) RRH: lrg 22-5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 1, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-23, LOCATED AT 10037 8TH STREET, SUBMITTED BY NAKANO FOODS, INCORPORATED RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Minor Development Review 96-23 was approved by the City Planner, by approval letter dated November 25, 1996, for the construction of a 6,000 square foot building and four outside food storage tanks, located at 10037 8th Street, just west of Hermosa Avenue. The Developer, Nakano Foods, Inc., is submitting a Consent and Waiver to Annexation as required by the project conditions of approval. Copy of said Consent and Waiver to Annexation are available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, Wllh ' ~J · Oam .~O,Nelil City Engineer WJO:JAD:dlw Attachments VICINITY MAP C/L 8TH STREET LEGEND · NEW STREET LIGHTS PROJECT: MDR 96-23 APN 209-201-18 > < < © CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROJECT: MDR 96-23 2¢ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-23, APN: 209-201-18 WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. 025; EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 C/L 8TH STREET LEGEND · NEW STREET LIGHTS PROJECT: MDR 96-23 APN 209-201-18 > < < O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFOl~NIA PROJECT: MDR 96-23 File: h:\exhibits',ast96-23 J EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: MDR 96-23 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 1 S6 1 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L3B Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S2 L3B N/A 4.34 8.68 4.34 4.34 Annexation Date: Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 1, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1 AND 6 AND VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RESTRICTION ALONG ARROW ROUTE FROM RED OAK STREET TO 723 FEET EASTERLY, FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-09, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND RED OAK AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY KAISER PERMANENTE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions accepting the improvement agreement and security and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and 6, vacating the non-vehicular access and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreements; and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and to cause the resolution for vacation to record.. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Development Review Number 97-09, generally located on the northeast comer of Red Oak Street and Arrow Route, was approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1997, for a 50,103 square foot medical office building on 5.72 acres of land. The vehicular access restriction on Arrow Route is being vacated as a part of this application. The developer, Kaiser Permanente, has submitted an Improvement Agreement and improvement securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: Labor and Materialmen Bond: $ 165,400.00 $82,700.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT D.R. 97-09 - KAISER PERMANENTE October 1, 1997 Page 2 Copies of the Improvement Agreement and security and the Consent and Waiver form for annexation signed by the Developer are available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer Attachments WJO:MEP:dlw DR 97-09 VICINITY MAP FOOTHiLl RQULEVA :~D N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY o F' SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR D.R. 97-09 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the northeast comer of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as D.R. 97-09; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. RESOLUTION NO. ~ 7"/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR D.R. 97-09 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. J EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1 AND 6 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 3B ~THI LLE~C~ ~,D i l N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY c) F SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DR 97-09 EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: D.R. 97-09 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. S1 S6 5800L NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16,000L 22.000L 2Z500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L3B Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. ...... 34 * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Parcel Assessment Units By District DU or Acres S 1 S6 L3B 5.72 2 1 1 Annexation Date: October 1, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENT AND WAIVER TO ANNEXATION FOR D.R. 97-09 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WILLIAM J. O'NEIL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows: That I am the duly CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. That on the 24th day of September, 1997, I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexation pertaining to the annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District. That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22608.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. EXECUTED this 24th day of September, 1997, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY EyOJ~ER CITY OF RANC~UCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 35' RESOLUTION NO. ¢7"/,~'D A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RESTRICTION ALONG ARROW ROUTE FROM RED OAK STREET TO 723 FEET EASTERLY WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that the vehicular access restriction is unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby makes its order vacating the vehicular access restriction, as described in a legal description which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part thereof. SECTION 2: That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, said vehicular restriction no longer constitutes a public easement. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO ARROW ROUTE NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS DEDICATED ON PARCEL MAP NO. 6206, PARCEL MAP BOOK 59, PAGES 91 THRU 95 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7494, PARCEL MAP BOOK 74, PAGES 92 AND 93 ARE HEREBY VACATED OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS: PARCELS 2, 3, AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 9955, RECORDED IN BOOK 112, PAGES 26 AND 27 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. LAWRENCE R. WLEZIEN RCE 19355 JUNE 4, 1997 r~ '4 E~Z. oo' 5~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 1, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT AND SECURITY, AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727-2, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF FOURTH STREET AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, BORDERED BY SIXTH STREET ON THE NORTH, SUBMITTED BY CORNERPOINTE 257, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Tracts 15727-1 and 15727-2, accepting the subject agreements and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreements and to cause said maps to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract 15727, located at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, bordered by Sixth Street on the north, in the Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) District, was approved by City Council on November 20, 1996, for the division of 82 acres into 342 single family lots and a neighborhood park. The Developer, Cornerpointe 257, LLC, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements for the first two of eight final maps in the following amounts: Tract 15727-1 Tract 15727-2 Faithful Performance $3,280,000 $ 272,000 Labor and Material $1,640,000 $ 136,000 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727-2 October 1, 1997 Page 2 The Developer is also submitting a drainage acceptance agreement and security to guarantee the maintenance of temporary private drainage facilities accepting public drainage water discharged from two stub streets in Tract 15727-1, which will be extended upon development of a future phase of this development, in the following amount: Faithful Performance $20,000 Copies of the agreements and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts and Cucamonga County Water District. C.C. & R.'s have also 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. Respectively submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:BAM:sd Attachments RESOLUTION NO. ~7-/,~q/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAPS NUMBER 15727-1 AND 15727-2, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 15727, submitted by Cucamonga Comerpointe, LLC, and consisting of 342 single family lots and a neighborhood park, located at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, bordered by Sixth Street on the north, was approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on November 20, 1996, and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Tract Maps No. 15727-1 and 15727-2 are the first two of eight final maps of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of these final maps by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Cornerpointe 257, LLC, as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Maps offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final maps delineating the same for said Tract Maps No. 15727-1 and 15727-2 are hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. ~] 2~/,ff,~'Y A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT FOR TRACT NO. 15727-1 AND SECURITY THEREFOR WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 15727-1 is the first of eight final maps of the division of land approved as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 15727, submitted by Cucamonga Cornerpointe, LLC, and consisting of 342 single family lots and a neighborhood park, located at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, bordered by Sixth Street on the north, which was approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on November 20, 1996; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 15727-1 will temporarily drain to a portion of Tentative Tract Map No. 15727-1 which has not yet recorded; and WHEREAS, Cornerpointe 257, LLC, as developer, submits for approval a Drainage Acceptance Agreement guaranteed by acceptable security by said Developer. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Drainage Acceptance Agreement and said security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Drainage Acceptance Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. 9 7-1.5'3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1' STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 ,;. 1,¢,114 · .,.,-~..CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I ~= '-/~:~' COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO --..i T~ 157Z7--- I -~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 'r~ 1~'7z?--2. EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: TRACTS 15727-1 AND 15727-2 STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF LAMPS Dist. 5800L 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L S1 --- 6 ......... S2 59 ............ LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Turf Dist. D.G.S.F. S.F. L1 ...... * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Tract DU 15727-1 51 15727-2 52 Assessment Units Bv District S1 S2 L1 51 51 51 52 52 52 Non-Turf S.F. 144.000 Trees Ea. 420 Annexation Date: October 1, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 2/.5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 1, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACTS 14534, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VICTORIA PARK LANE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions for Tract No. 14534 accepting the subject agreement and securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 14534, located at the southeast comer of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue, in the Low Medium Residential District, was approved by the Planning Commission of October 9, 1996, for the division of 9.50 acres into 54 lots. The Developer, William Lyon Homes, Inc., a California Corporation, is submitting an agreement and securities guarantee the construction of public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: Labor and Material Bond: Monumentation Cash Deposit: $234,300.00 $117,150.00 $5,100.00 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectively submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WV:dlw Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 9,7"',/5 ~/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROViNG IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR TRACT 14534 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on October 1, 1997 by William Lyon Homes, Inc., as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the southeast comer of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred as Tract No. 14534; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Securities be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. '-/7 RESOLUTION NO. q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT NO. 14534 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 2, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maimenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE-MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. AND 3 STREET LIGHTS 10 EA. STREET TREES 96 EA. TURF 4310 SF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERHARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 --- S3 10 EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: TRACT NO. 14534 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L2 Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. 4310 --- 96 ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel D.U. S 1 S3 L2 N/A 53 53 53 53 Annexation Date: October 1, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 1, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer? SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT 13753, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject Improvement Agreement Extension and security and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Tract 13753 were approved by the City Council on August 6, 1992, in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: Labor and Material Bond: $483,089.00 $241,545.00 The developer, Lewis Homes of California, is requesting approval of a 12-month extension on said hnprovement Agreement. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City Clerk's office. William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB :Is RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13753 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on December 20, 1995, by Lewis Homes of California as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said Tract 13753; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and City Clerk to attest thereto. 5-2 Transcript of Proceedings oool ! $ 4 ? . 10 14 lfi 4 6 ? 10 16 17 ~4 00O6 6 · ? 10 11 14 17 18 19 ~4 In the Matter of: a- {~pe~l for Develolxmmt BeYicY 97-11 for ~ ~er In the Matter of: ) ) · u ~4~eal for OevelolaMmt I lieview 97-11 for ) t~ken mm behalf of the City of Oacmmm~a, City Mall, 10~00 Civic Center Drive, Rancho C~es~a, California, at ?:{0 p.m. and ea~ at 1:60 a.m. wedgeeden, Au~ 60, 1997, before 08/20/97 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Page I Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 Pa~e 4 (1) Pancho Cueamonga, California, (2) Wedn~, August 20, 1997 7:20 p.tm - 1:50 am. (s) MAYOR AL~OdN'DER: Before we move on, I would (6) like to discuss Item 97-11. There's been a request 03 for a continuance_ I want to ~nd out exactly what we're going to do. We have had a request by a {~) repre~ntattve of th~ f~(~nt$ in thnt ar{~ for mr (10) least one meeting to continue on that particular it~"m~ (11) I don't want to continue to So through (12) the agenda K in fact, we do wind up continning The (15) request, as I say, e~me from the folks that were (14) interested in primary oppo~on to the development. O~) And in order to honor that and not to (16) take a lot of time, Mr. M~'lemnn~ ~ it ~}pfopl'~lte to 07) be able to find out exactly where the (~) MR. MARKMAN: Ye~ I think it's also courteous (19) to all the people here rhn_r if you're goifig to (2o) continue this, tberc are people ticre on aH sides of (21) this issue, as wcH as the fact that I want to point (22) out to tbe council that the lady on my left is a court (as) reporter who's here to transcribe this matter, (M) ash,ming it goes (~) It's a lot of expenditure O) waiting on ~ And ff council is inclined to (2) continue, it would probably be appropriate to consider (s) that now so we could move the item up to now. (4) MAYOR PRO-TEM WIIXIAMS: Do you need council (~) to do (6) MAYOR AI.W'/tANDER: We do. O9 MAYOR PRO-TEM WIIJ. IAMS: Then I would move - (8) COUNCILMEMBER BIAN-E: I'll (9) MAYOR M.I~d~IDER: Thank you. Everybody in O0) favor of moving this item, please make your O1) CITY CLERK ADAMS: Unanimously five to zero. 02) MAYOR ALI:~/,~IDER: Is there anyone here this O~) would have a great harckhi? in coming (14) back at the ttrst meeting (15) MR. MARKMAN: Which is September (16) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: I'm going to have a O~) hardship only be_e~use of the holiday. Maybe I'm O$) wrong. (19) COUNC~-MEMBER GUTIERREZ: If we were to set (ao) another date -- which rm not convinced that that's (a~) what we are going to do tonight -- ff we were, it (22) would need to be the sc~ond meeting in Setxembe~. It (as) would be kind of soon for me. I might be gone tbnt (~4) week nbo. That's a bollday week. (~) MAYOR PRO-TEM WIIJ. IAMS: It's a bolMay week, l~e 6 (1) and thafs the first day of school. That's a pretty (2) intense day for some folks. If you're going to O) cofirtnue it, I would say the second week~ You ask the (4) O) MAYOR M-gXANDER: If there is anyone in the (6) audience either in hvor of or o~i,~t please 03 come fol'w~cL (s) MR. ANGEL: Bill Angel. I Imppen to know who (9) requested McKiettk on (10) behalf of the CURE Organization, thaVs opposed to the O1) project. She's not here right now. O2) MAYOR M-~OtNDER: I rhinlr thaes part of the (~) reason why. 06) MIL MARKMAN: In aH due deference, Mr. S~r, (m maybe a little guidance. We could have a two-hour 06) hearing to continue ~ This is at the counci!'s (17) wz'-u~n request 06) to continue this matter beIm~ you. There's no (19) written opposi~on to that. the (zD attorney for the applk2nt who did not - he's here, (22) and he - o~rre~t me if I'm wrong but be indic~tcd (as) rhnr be would not r_,~d_~t a ~onfimmnce. He didn~ say (~4) whether it would be for one or two meetinl~. He s~td (as) one continuance m~ght be in order. ~ ? O) Furthermore, the council should consider (~) whether youN, e had time to ~ the mountatns of (5) material, due to the fact - I rnlke~l to the Mayor (6) about the request for a eontinunncc in front of him~ (5) and perhaps he didn't spend all ofthe hours he would (6) have liked to spend dige~ng tb~ It's a question 03 of the council responding to rh~__r written request for (8) a continuance. (~) Sure you could take input on that, if you O0) want to have a hearing on the continuance, but you're O1) certainly not require~ 02) MAYOR M-~IANDER~ I understand. It's (z~) appropriate. We don~ need to belabor it, but is 04) there anyone here that's going to be, on either side, (lS) ff we continue it - and we may be short a quorum on (16) the 3rd. I don~ (17) MR. BRADFORD: My name is Tom Bradford. I'm a (m) workers' ol~ce here O9) within the city, probably in dose wnlking distance. With all (21) the prep~u'ation that go f~ward and, in fact, would prefer to go forward (as) today, if that would be acceptable to the eoundl. (z~) MIL BRADFORD: No. cliscrilxited yet. (6) MAYOR ALwILANDER: Ri~hr. With all ~e ~ ~) I ~ld ~ ~ (16) ~ ~ ~s ~om ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ (11) ~, ~ (~) ~ ~ we ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~) m~ ~rc ~ (16) m~ ~ we're ~ m ~ ~ ~ (1~ ~ ~d ~ ~. ~nnO (~) ~ M ~ 09) C~u~ ~d ~ ~ ~t it ~ ~ ~d (~) ~ ~d b~ b~ b~ ~ I ~ ~ mu~ ~rk ~ (~) ~ ~ I (~) I t~lt~c it's ~ ~ ~!~ ~C, (~) pr~ ~ mu~ m pr~ m ~ ~[w~d ~ ~ ~d I'm ~~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ow ~w ~ ~! Page 9 (1) issue. (2) MAYOR ~I.!~,ANDER: Okay. (s) MR. HAR'I"Z.~-LI_: Mr. Chairman, I'm with Hewitt & (4) McGuire, M & M Certified Court Reporters ~-~s~s, Page 2 Transcript of Proceedings (5) proponents on the Development. (6) Just to clarify for the ¢oun~ilmeml'~rs, CO We had a~ opinion and provided a copy of the letter (s) sent in by M~ McKieth reque~ln~ a continuance. We (9) suspected -- she was indicating it was going to be (10) extremely hard for her to be down here. (11) We thought it was possible that the Oa) council would continue. It's obviously the cotmcil's 03) prerogative. We were concerned about a continuance (14) that would (15) That's quite a bit a ways. 06) We will be prepared to go forward tontgh~ O~) if the council would !ikc to pursue tbc item ton~ht. (m) If ~ council would vexy much prefer that it be 09) September 3rd, and not a whole month away - I just (~0) wanted to clarify tbe position_ (~) We are amenable to taking councU's (~) directio~ We wfil present our side of thtn~ tonig~ (~) if that's what the councU would rcqucst an e. xt~.~on be only to June 3rd (~) (Sic.) Pn~e 10 (1) bLAYOR _AI_Wruk_NDE{~: Very e~Rlng. My nnmc is (3) Leeooa ~ ~d I'm ~~ ~ (4) ~r of ~ ~e ~. I'm ~ ~d (5) of ~ ~r (6) ~d I ~ ~ ~ M~ ~re ~ ~ ~e cv~ ~d it's ~ (s) ~ we ~ld ~d ~d prat ~~ ~c How~, ~ it ~ aim~it O0) ~! of ~c ~~ ~ -- we ~ ~e ~~ 3rd m~ ffwe ~ve it Os) ~ ~ ~r~ O4) We ~ -- ~r ~ S~e ~fiel~o 05) N~ we i~ r~r~on ~e (16) ~e w t~t to ~ ~ ~ ~d I'm (t~ ~e ~, ~d ~ (lS) i~ ~ve ~d ~ c~c~ 09) ~YOR A!.~~: I br~ ~ up p~mm~ (~) ~t of a r~u~ ~r a c~ce; now ~ ~e (m~) ~e ~ a r~ ~d a ~e to c~uc. thin? (23) could be indicatexL (~6) Okay. Thank yo~ (23) Anyone else? (1) &11 right. It's up to you up here. (~) COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I don't see whafs 63) wrong with listening to main aq~uncnq ~ way we can (4) at least be prelxtred to or be closer to a decision at (5) the second meeting of September wheu that comes around (6) so we don't have to spend four or five hours that CO ai~. as well, taidng (~) So that's just my preference. But it's 63) up to you all. O0) COUNCIl-MEMBER BIANE: I disagree with you. I O~) apologize for that, but at tbc same time I don't want O~) to do this twice. 03) COUNCH. MEMBER ~: That's what I just 04) said. We could take testimony. 05) M~ MARKMAN: Could I ask the council, ff 06) anyone else speaks tonight on thi.~ matt~ - I don't OY) want to quell anybody's emotional delivery - but if (m) two people speak at once, the court reporter cannot O~) record it. And also gestures are not recorded for (~0) those who want to make ~ (m) COUNt~llMEMBER CURATALO: Bill, I'm prepared to (z~) go either way. (23) MAYOR AI_gXANDEI~ If we do not have a motion to (~4) go ahead and continue It, we'll be hearing it (aS) If we are going to hear It tonight, I'm prepared to O) make a decision tonight ~ than carry this, bounce Ca) it armrod from time to time, (3) I feel more comfortable in allowing - if (4) there's more coming (5) in, I think it is unfair to expect anyone to absorb (6) and digest new information if it comes (s) But ff Ws going to be testimony and the C*) council wants to go forward, then we'll finish it (10) (11) MR. MARKMAN: Is there a motion to continue 02) this hearing, which is Item GI at 7.~0 p.m. in this (~) room on September 17th, 040 MAYOR A!.h-7~LANDER: Yes, there is. (13) COUNCH.MEMBER BIANE: I would ILke to make that (16) motion as ~ar_ed by the city attorney for a 08/20/97 O) go, it's even more con~,-~ng (a) And I would like to read things sepm-ate, 63) away. I'm perfectly willing to make a decision (4) tonight And I'm ~illing to continue it. But I guess O) I needed to hear from -- ifs hard, like I said, with (6) a third party. It's very aimcult to, you knew, for CO someone to come up and say she didn't mean thor_ (s) And I'm just confused because I just got (9) rh~r tonight. That's the kind of thing that I think O0) is causing so much conf~on, bore waiting for (11) me tonight was a letteF. This is tbe first I%~e sccn (]2) of this lctter. And it is signed by M~ McKicth (13) asking for a COnrln~.2nCC (]4) SO I JU~ SCC -- I come in ~nd Ws in an (]5) envelope w~rt~g for mc tonight (16) COUNC]LM]~gBER ~: With all due respcct, (]?) (]~) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAM& T~c ~ it was O~) received by Augus[ (~0) 11~L I haVC JUS~ sccn (u) COUNCRMEMBER G~: I don't know why we (22) would be ~o. (23) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAM& ~i~J] it is a memo from (~l) P!~ Commi.q~ion su~c~in~u fl]erc are some (23) inaccuracies in chc !etr~ and r~g fl]c SGLff has no (1) conflict with rcscheclultn~ the mccti~ (2) So like I hid, it's more than 63) And I'm not so sure that I want to be the one to (4) decide (3) COUN~.H.MEMBER GLT!'[ERRF~: I don't think we (6) shouid continue it_ CO COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: How long will it take (s) to get M & M Certified Court Reporters o,~,~s~ Page 3 Trnnqcript of Proceedings down here? (9) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Why dofi't wc work the (lo) agenda (11) MAYOR A[-k'XANDER: We have brought it up. We 02) had a motion to bring it up at this point. (13) COUNCH2dEMBER CURATALO: I know ifs incumbent (14) upon her Os) MR. ANGEL: I believe ifs ~ (16) circ-mq~nces over the last week and a ~ I can't (17) address them_ = But I can tell you from -- I had a (18) phone conversatiom She requested that - actually, I 09) can back up a litfie bit. I believe she was sc. hexJuled (20) to be up in San Francisco. And it was going to be (21) inconvenient for her to attend. (22) She changed her calendar so she could be (as) here. It's under (24) to go forward. I'll be happy to go call her ff you (as) can go in sequence. page 15 (1) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Would it have been (2) appropriate for you to have submittal a foOow~p (3) saying please rt-,z~nd my first request? I mean, it (4) just seeing to me that if you made one written request, O) and now you've changed your mind, it would have been (6) e~ier for aH of u~ ]~"~__~ in my min~ -- CO M1L ANGEL: The request was (~) And there had been no response. There was no to be continued. (10) MIL MARKMAN: Sir, the City Council has to act O1) on a continuance this eventn~ There was no way to 02) honestly tell anyone whether the council would or 03) would not grant a continuance. 04) I'm sure that she's a practitioner 06) CITY MANAGER LAM: Mr. Mayor, I think (17) procedurally Mr. Markrotan has indi_~_t_ed there's a (18) motion on the floor. If there is no second chat (19) motion is denied for a contimmnce- Thaz means chat (21) MAYOR ALWr~,NDER: We have a motion to bring (21) this to this point. (2~) Does anybody want to go ahead and put it (24) back to -. (2s) COUNCn,MEMBER GWI3ERREZ: I make a motion to Page 16 (1) assume the regular agenda item for a later time. (2) MAYOR M-k'XANDER: Is there a second? O) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: (4) CITY C!.k'RK ADAMS: Motion carried unanimously, (s) five, zero. (6) MAYOR AI.i~L~ENI)ER: Okay. proceed~g~ ) (s) MAYOR AI-~E)ER: Item G. public O0) bearinKs following have no legal publication or (11) will open the meedrig O2) to (13) Item 1, Consideration of an Appeal for 04) Development Review 97-11, Lauren Development. O5) Tom Grahn will give the staff report. 06) MI~ MARKMAN: Before you commence this hearing, (!7) and before we walk into a procedural probl~ I think (18) the Mayor should inquire wheth~ the applicant -- or O9) excu~ me - the appd~t who admd for the (~) corotnuance, and we're informed no longer wants a (21) conrlmmnce, is here and wants to go forward. And (22) then we imow we wo~ have to do rht~ over. (aS) MS. McKIETH: I'm Malism McKlet~ (24) First, I'd like to apologize for We were toward the O) bottom of the agenda. (2) You may have noticed from my request for (9) the continuance on Sep~?mhe~, that it was filed with O) the city by f:zx on August the 7th; that I had a (5) commitment for the governor's office this evening. (6) which I tried to satisfy before getting ber~ C7) I was contacted by one of the indivi~hm~ ($) who spoke this wanted a (9) continuance. And as I told several council people (10) last weeig if I did not get the staff to pull the O1) agenda item and get a continuance, all the work that I (12) and my experts and all the rescheduling that we ~ to (1~) do was pointles~ We would be prepared to go forward 04) this about that4 I (15) spoke to Mr. Gutierrez about that. It should be no 06) surprise. O~) I would also Like to clarify on the (18) mornin~o of August 7th, which is the day after I got a 09) 08/20/97 fax from the Richards, Watson firm finally confirming O0) when this hearing would be, we had been told that this (21) hearing would be in September. (22) I called Steve Kn.fm~n, the attorney who (as) represents the dry in the federal actio~ And I (24) said, ~teve as a personal favor to me, I have a (as) commit~letJt ~oF the governor's office. I need you to (1) be. ip me get this bearing continued.' (2) That was 7:30 in the mornlnE on August O) the 7rh I had faxed the request for a continuance to (4) you. I spoke to several council people last week O) about the need for a continuance because of the fact (6) that two of our principal. exper~ on earthquakes and CO on debris basin damages, one of whom is the director (o) of the provided O0) us a declaration saying this project is dangerous, is O1) out of the country. (12) Our second expert on debris bsstn (~) failures is in Portland. He has also submitted a (10 declaratimt be a (16) dimcult hearing this evenin~ Nobody contacted me (17) about a continuance_ I received a fax !ate last (Is) ntgh~ acknowledgin~ a request for a comtmmnce and telling me that it would be (~0) At that point I had spent - and my (21) ~ had spent - I had experts living in my house (21) the last week working on this project. We're fully (as) prepared to good forward. I apologize for this (24) inconveniefice to people. (as) But I have been in good faitk Imade Page 19 O) every single effort early on to contact thc couuscl (2) for the other side, to contact some of you, individually, and to request that I also had suggested that it was appropriate, because I knew yOt!F minutes had not even CO been printed until Augur the 13ttt And I know this (8) is a big israe. l know there are a lot of material~ (9) And I have been workin~o 19 and 20 hours a day to get O0) rhin~og to yon in a timely fasbiota (~1) I know people were critical this evenin~ (12) the fact that all of a M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.~.,~ Page 4 Transcript of Proceedings sudden we're submjrrinoo all (15) this important tnformn_Oon. I can aspire each and (14) every one of you I have moved every personal and (1~ profe,~ional obligation I had since I had notice of (16) this hearing in order to prepare for this evening O~) And that came as a great sacrifice to me (1~) and exper~ and people in our t~e%ohhorhood. And that 05) was because we were told that there was no way the (~0) City Council could possibly hear this on the 20tK (~1) We are prepared to go forwarcL We would (aa) like to present the evidence to you this cve~ia~o We, (z~) too, have only received documents from Lauren Development in the last couple days, including (15) documents rh~_~ came only to us for the first ~me this (a) But we're prepared to respond to those (5) issue~ We would like to go forwar& I was fully in (4) accord with a request that a continuance be pulled (5) this things. if(6) not. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have before you, before you proceed with the staff (~) report on the continuance tmue- (9) MAYOR ~IJ~tNDER: Any questions? (10) Thank you. (11) MR. GRAHN: This ,-~hihtt will give you an idea Oa) of the location of the appro~imnte .~te- The tFact, (15) itsel~ Tract 14771, was initially approved by the (10 Planning Commission ~ in 1990. 05) We received an application for the (16) development of 40 lots within that tract mnp. O~) Development on the application was approved by the (m) Planning Commitzion on Jti[y 9th of this yea~. 09) Following the Planning Commi.~zion's (~0) approval, we received two appeals on the project. The (Zl) first appeal focuses primarily on environmental concerns and safety concerns regarding the removal of (~) the levee. The second appeal focuses on access to the (~4) project site. Os) As I said before, the design of your pa~e 21 (1) appUcation was submitted on the development of 40 (2) single family homes within the limits of the (3) previously approved tract. The design, here, was (4) prepared floor levels C~) between the garage. {8) There are six different elevations that (9) are provided. I have posted several of them behind (10) you. Plans I and 2 are size elevatiot~ Plan 3 and 4 O1) are I is a 02) .ingle story floor plan; Plans 2, 3, 4 are two-story (~) plan~ ~ne floor plans range in size from 3100 square (14) feet up to 4300 square ~eet, and are provided in a 05) variety of conditlon~ meet~ there was one primary (la) issue relating to O~) this project, and that dcals with that condition of (~0) approval carried over from the original tract, which (~) addresses a re,tuber of problems in this project. (~) The spe~fic ~onclition llmit~ front (15) garages within 33 percent of the lots within the (24) subdivision. That would equate to approximately a (~) m~wtmum of 13 O) ff you look at the floor plans closer, (2) over to your rtghg Floor Platl Nnmher 1, which is to O) the N,,mber 2, is (4) directly to the (5) you look at the garage orientation and the orientation (6) ofthe home to the !e~, that is comtdered a size C~ plan or the plan where the garage door froms dh'c~'*d~ Cs) on to the s~reec Thc~c are I mw~imum of 13 lots ~rhh~ the tract that has that (10) Plan 2, the lot below the floor plan, (11) below r~t~ the garage is $n~_r__od apl~o'ztm.~tely up to (12) 50 front elevation of 05) the garage. There's an option element on that that (14) has the ability to enhance that elevation somewhat elevation that was (16) provided behind you. (1~) It was a determination of the Commitzion that boi~R o[ the (19) orientation on the garage, the condition in front of (a0) the house, in addition to the front of the lot to the (a~) garage door, that that would not be conaidered a therefore, the tract (~) complies 08/20/97 with the requirement that a maximum of 33 (24) percent of those lots could have a frontal garage (25) condition. O) elevation that projects out, and in their position is (2) a violation or in conflict with the objcctives and the O) requirements of the massitq~ of the hill~de (4) (5) It was a determinatinn of the design!ting (6) committee and, uifim2r~']y, th~ Plal~lg C.,ommi-~ion the reqlAirements of (8) the l~Lmide Development Ordinance in terms of I~C (9) ma.*~zin~o and s4.-a]e and proix)trion. And thc application was sui~-quently approved by the ~ C_,om mi~on. (11) As I stated earlier, there were two 02) appeals that were Eded in the project Engineering (~) is here. They're prepared to cornmerit on those ff you 04) have any M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.~M..s. Page 5 Tr~n~_ript of Proceedings (15) Othe~ rhaq tMt, that would conclude my (16) presentation. If you have any questions, I'H try to (18) MAYOR AI-I~a~IDER: (19) Thank you. (ao) Okay. We're going to go ahead and open (~) it up for public (22) Before we do, I would like to ask if w~ (2.$) mi~oh~ a~k th~ city attorney, please, to try to set up (24) some ground ruic~ There are certain things that are (2~) appropriate and certain things that are noL (1) MIL MARKMAN: Before we do, let me, again, (2) reiterate for those who are going to speak, there is a (3) certified ~orthand court reporter raking thi.~ down, (4) so that you need to, maybe, speak a little more (5) clearly titan you normally would, a little Mower, (6) and two people can~ be reported at CO And, again, gestures or sound~ other than words~ are (s) not recordable_ (9) What you have is kind of an intere~ing (10) proceeding. I know it's a poUcy of this council to (11) available to the Oa) council that the · public wants to put in I am rare 03) you're going to hear a lot of rhin~o~ (14) Our view of this, as we have said at ~ (15) ~ Commtmdon level, we'll reiterate it here, is (16) this is a design review proces~ The tentative map (1~) process occurred a very long time ago in 1990, I (18) beUeve. (19) And forornately or unfortunately, this (~0) tentative map, which was approved, has been extended (zt) for an abnormally long period of time, in any of our (--) experience~ But that's what the state law did with (25) respect to a lot of deveiopmem~ due to the recesMom (24) What is coming before you concerns the -- (25) I almost want to say the aesthetic nature of what you Pa~e 26 (1) see. All the conditions that have been imposed and (a) all the considerations through design review concern (3) what these houses look like in comparison with the O) neighborhood, compatibility or lack of compatibility (5) with the neighborhood, where they sit on the lots, how (6) the lots are graded to replace them on the Iot~ CO And, of course, we have seen honclred~ if (8) not tbousand~ of design review processes in Rancho (9) Cucamong~ And to my recollection, this was the first one where I have seen go to the council level (11) In bet, the development code doesn~ (12) even providc foF noticed hearing on design review. Of course it does on tentative tract maps as a state law. (14) Because the issue has been obvioualy a matter of grave public concern, we (16) advised the staff to go ahead, in fact, notice a public hearin~ That is notice beyond what the (m) development code would require for a tentative map, (19) and that has beetl dot~ So you are here, and you have a public hearing on design review. (zO Now, I just looked at the record, and (22) formnan-ly or (25) all the bearing~ And I noticed in the record a great (24) n-mher of issues that don~ have reiation.~hi? to (as) design review. (1) And it's claimed by colmsel and some of (2) thc appeilants that those issues are nonetheless reicv2m: For e~mple, there are ciro~m~nces which (4) require a regeneration of an environment proce~, (5) which staff and the PJ~3~ Commi.qqiofi ~ dis;18:Fecd (6) and their oiI~ce has disagreed. respect to (8~ earthquake and drainage issues, which were (10) which our ~n~-eering department, the planning (11) (12) We had, as late as this afternoon, (~) diso~_~_ ons with some members of the public about (14) compatibility with the general plan And some issues (15) have been project (]6) is compatible with the general plato (]7) We reviewed documents going back to 1981 (m)and 198~. Some people may tell you tonight they clon~ (19) think it does. The staff and my office respectfully (2~) So all of these issues are going to be (22) presented to you. They may have somethinoo~ but may (25) these houses look or (24) design 08/20/97 review. I think your jurisdiction this evening (25) under the development code of why th£q is in front of (1) you, concerns design review. And, of course, you need (2) to decide amongst yourselves whether or not there is O) compatible design here with the n~horhood and (4) whether the City Council C, ommi~n in ~ Fgl~iF(L deals CO with what I have just salcL If you concur after all (8) adopt the resolutiom If you don't (10) concur that this is a proper de~f~n~; or you think some (11) of you have (12) jurisdiction, or so-and-so advises you, after we get (13) through thi.~ process, we can cro~s that bridge. (10 But for now I think you ought to be (15) concerned about design front of you. The fullest, !onge~ most in-depth (1~) design review at (m) iea~, since 1985. (1~) COUNCILMEMBER MANE: I think I need further (~) clarification, here. I think what we should EIR, I gues~ And I want to (22) know whether we clearly can hear that and rule on (25) that. (24) MR. MARKMAN: Well, let me tell ~ how I see (:i5) ~ I think you're going to hear presemations. (1) You're going to hear counsel and other pcople argue (~) you had to recirculate and do supplemental and O) environmental work. Staff and -- these issues arise (4) and new ones on a weekly basi& And every one of them (3) has been looked at by the ~a~ objectively by (6) engin~ by promrag. And we don't agree. CO And what is before you is a resolution (8) that literally makes a finding that you didn't have to (9) do further environmental work or rex~ulate the EIR (10) since the time the tentative map was approved. It's O1) over with. It has been approved for seven year~ (12) l'm telling you that is our view. But I (13) know you're going to hear people who disagree with (14) that. I'll be the first to advise you, if I hear (15) something that's going to rtmnge my view or the staff (16) M & M Certified Court Reporters t~M~ Page 6 Transcript of Proceedings does, we will tell the council. (1~) It's our interest in seeing the councirs Oa) decision, whatever it is, validated, because it (19~ appears whatever (20) dex~ion you m~ke. (21) So you do not see in the FIR in front of (--) you, Paul - you don't see a supplemental EIR. You (23) don't see a su!~equent ~ We don~ think design (24) review, which is looking at the ae~herlc nature of (a~ these houses, under the present circumstances on this (1) prol~rty, requires fut~l~r environmental work. (2) And rll say it again: The people will O) disagree with me. But we have to give you our best (4) o~inio~ That's what it i~ So that's why you don~ (~) see that. And you're also going to he~r about didn't adhere to, the tract CO was not adeq~r_ely conditioned as to c2nhqu~ as (6) to flooding, as to ~ know5 G cisc wctl this (9) (10) M! of those public im12rovement ~ (11) issues wcrc dc~lt ~ ~ the tc~ txact hearing (12) seven brought up and (13) reviewed and rcrevicwed by the staff and presented to 04) the commt.qqJOtL They didn't think these were (15) pertinent issuex (16) You're to going hear these issues, unless (1~ the Mayor does something different thatl he's ever (m) done, which is not to take the input, whether I think 09) it's relevant or not, beco__-~ the input is going to (20) come itr The staff is going to -. and the developer, (21) undoulxedly, are going to rebut it (22) So what I think what you're going to have (23) is a record that is about rivetercent pertinent, ff I (24) could m2ke an C~rim2te. base~ on what I have read on (2~ the Plan_fling Commin~ion proces~ Page 31 (1) But nevcrthele~ I'm nevex going to (2) advise the council not to cake information that you O) want to hear. In other words, I'm not sitzing here (4) like a judge sitting here sayin~ "objector' O) "irrelevant,' 'strike it," "don't go on with that line (6) of CO Whazevex choy want to present, I'm sure (8) the Mayor is going to take in, and I advise you to. (9) That does not necessarily mean rh2t we think it's (10) pertinent to design review. (11) MAYOR AI-I~4~fDER: Before we go ahead and open (12) this up, I wo~d -- one thing the city awomcy did (13) say is prohably also vcxy true. We do not try to hold (14) people necea~u'y to that five-minute rule. Sometimes (15) you run over; sometimes you're a little bit less in (16) volume as far as the amount of m~r~rlal presentext (1~) But we would ask one thin~ If you would (z~) work very hard not to he repetitive. If one person (19) has said one thing, please do not repeat that lteam (20) bill MARKMAN: Bill, in about haft an hour, I'H (m) ask you to take a recess for the reporter's sake_ (22) MAYOR ,~LWXANDEPc I (23) At this time we'H open the (~5) Is there anyone that would like (1) addre~ this ism() (2) MR. MI.nAY: Mr. Mayor, members of the O) City ~, my r~~ ~m~ 110~ ~ R~ (~ I'm (8) ~ it~ ~, ~~ ~ (1~) b~ ~ ~ ~. ~1~ (14) I w~d ~ ~ m ~ ~!d (1~ pm~ ~ of ~ ~. 06) n m~ of (1~ I p~ ~d I'm a pl~ (19) Hve ~t now. (~) H~I~, ~r~ pro _~, ~d q~ (~) ~~ pi~ pro~, c!~, I~, (~) ~ceH~ ~d I ~ ~t's n~ 08/20/97 (1) interpreted as being conspiratorlal to commend them (2) for how they stuck with this project. O) When we first came in they hid m~n~ (4) probl,?m~ wir. h wh~ we ~ We had a lot of O) meetings and showed them a lot of platm And, believe (6) me, the plans on the wall are not the firat version CO that's ever come up (8) before the City Council. (9) I would like to ~!k about ju~ a couple (m) of design review issuc~ First, compliance with the (11) }Iillntc~ Deve~ent Ordinance. A~tn. our plans (1a) cvolvecL They went through many chang~ The first (13) plan we submitted, if I could say, ataff was - they (14) ltk_e<l the contour grading that we wcrc p~ but (m they felt that our homes did not have enough (1~) We went back, lit(rally back, to the (m) drawing board. We have plans, here, that are now (19) conslatent with the tcmative map that was approved in (20) 1990, condstent with the conceptual grading plan that (21) was approved in 1990. (22) We ~ minimi~! r~c (23) We have homes that are in-stcp with the Mope, ranging (24) from (23) Three to six and a half feet. (1) Our houses, dcapitc what you may hear, (2) arc, as atatf has (9) ~ ~ Hil~ ~i~t Ot~nn~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (4) ~ ~d ~ ~h t~t Tom G~ pr~ m y~ (~ (6) ~ of ~ ~ m~ ~ ~ c~ ~ (8) ~ ~c~~ ~m ~ p~ ~m~ ~ ~ D~ Re~ ~mmi~ (10) ~d by ~ ~ ~mmi~ (1~) ~ nm ~e I w~M ~ m ~ (12) r~ m ~ r~ ~mm~. ~d C~l~ ~ ~ d~ m ~ (14) ~ ~ ~ of ~~ ~ ~d ~o~e ~ O~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~, by ~, ~ ~ proj~ 06) ~re we ~ ~ we ~ ~t O~ ~! ~ or~c~ M & M Certified Court Reporters o~ Page 7 Transcript of Proceedings We photographed them. We went to the (a0) building department, looked at the Imildin~ permit dates and sizes of every house in Harem View Estate~ (z~) And we reviewed all the design review applications (as) that have ever been approved in Haven View (a4) We wanted to have plans that were (as) co~!e aRd conMstealt with Haven View Estates, and O) that's what we have here~ (a) I have distributed to the PlaHHing (5) Commi.~zion a ~ - two eh~rt~ which, I believe, O) are in your package. I'm not going to redistribme f~ thetin I believe they are in your Ixtckage. And what (6) these charts show is the square footage of every house CO in Haven View Estates, compared to the square footage (8) in the homes we are building (9) in deference to respecting Councilmember (20) Gutierrez's comment about getting more material, we (1~) have these if you would like them. I'm pretty sure (1:) they have been in your package before. What they show 03) is of the 243 lots - I see a lot of people saying- (14) COUNCILMIiMBER 06) MR. M.I.I~AY: They were distributed at both O~) June 12th and July 9th - pardon me if my dates are (28) wrong - the two previous Planning C~mmi.qsion (19) meetin{~ compare all (Zl) the eri.~ring homes in Haven View Estates with the homes that we are proposing to construct in Haven View (z~) Kstste~ (z4) information of your city record~ I would just (as) fia~mm~riz~ ~. (1) As you can see on the wri~_en chart, (2) there's five homes smaller than 3,000 square feet in (3) Haven View Estates; one home over 6,000 square feet (4) The biggest grouping of e~rine homes is from 3- to (5) 4,000 square feet. The medium home size of those (6) homes is 4,086 square CD I bring this lip because people have said (8) that our houses are incompatible by size with the (9) homes that are already ~zi.~ing in Haven View E.state~ Oo) On the graph in the ~ you will also (11) see our homes plotted and brac. kexe~ This shows our homes in both the exp~ded and unexpanded state_ I (15) will get to (14) Our Homes range from 3,143 square feet - (15) and I only have four of tho~ to 4,942 square (26) feet. The average size of our homes is 4,152 square (t:,) feet. 60 percent of the existing homes in Haven View Estates - 60 percent of the existing homes in Haven O9) View Estates are equal to or smaller than the homes (a~) which we are propo~n$ (:z) Fm sorry. I'm being so careful and ¢aa) deliberate with my words, but this has been a very (as) important Jamie to u~ becau~ people have said that (a~) weYe not compatible. (as) We have ~ 19 de~lgn review (2) applications that have been approved by this city in (2) Haven View Estate~ Tbey range from 3900 - or excuse O) me - 3400 square leer to 4200 square _feet__ In the (6) last year - in tbe last year there have been design O) review applicnttons approved for 3900 to 4200 square (6) feet. 09 And I understand one of the appellants, (8) in fact, has an applic~ton before the city for a 3800 (9) square foot house to be (20) Another aspect that I woukl like to get (22) into dealing with commslnity comp~Jbility is ~ (12) i?acc of these (1s) homes which we're p~ I bring this up because (24) some of tbe handouts indicate that our homes are going to ruin the Yalue of (26) the e. ti.~ne homes in Haven View Estates. (27) One of the handouts thafs distributed (18) says chat our houses are going to sell for 1270,000. (1~) This is our second proleer in Rancho Cucamon? Our (m0) lowest priced home in our ocher project, I believe, (m) was around {270,000. So, therefore, our new project (z~) will start at that. I say that tacetious{y because (as) that's the logic that's been state& (a4) Our previous project was at 270,000. We (~) appreciate greatly the concerns that many people have (1) about the cost of their homes, the price of their (z) home~ But all over Southern California they have O) fallen in the last ten year~ 0~20D7 That's not the fault of (4) Lauren Development or having anyrhtne to do with the (5) homes being built. (6) ~ other aspect of community ne~ehhorhood awareness of (8) this project. Many people have testified, I knew what was going (20) In' - 'if I knew that site w-as going to be develol~d, (1~) R would be inc~npatible with my desires to live here, (~) and I never knew about e~_~tve (24) rese~trch nbout all of thaes gone on with this project, way hick in 19~3, (26) ~enen all of di~o~"~l, (1~') this site was rccogn~ i-ed as future dcvelupment. (18) When tbe umtathrc tract ran? in 1990 was (15) approve~l, the Homeowners Azsodafion endorsed it. (~0) Some people who are appealing attended various design review and P[a~ Commission p~lblic (as) hearin~ b~ck in 1990, and endorsed the projec~ wrote (~4) ieuers (~3 I would like -- it's very i?ott~t - I O) wouldn~ distribute this at this thne because of the (2) fact of its late notice. If we had known that rhi~ O) item would be considered ton{eh~ rather than in two (6) weeks, I would have distributed this early om And I (5) apologize, but the issue of prior knowledge is (6) soInethine that I do want to place in the recor{L 03 We do not - I'm not going to 8o through Cs) each and every one of these items havtn8 to do with (9) draw your aff~ntion (2o) to items on past 5 of this handout; lm~m.~ H, I, andJ. (12) Ms~ MeKieth testified at the P~Pnlne (12) ~_~mmi.~ion m~-~ine that there were only ten homes (23) existin8 in Have~ View Estates in 1990 when this (24) project was approvecL Totally onerue. There were 51 05) homes in Haven View Essres at the time this project (16) was approved; plus there were an additional nine homes (1~) under eons~u~cion, which is more titan half of the (18) number o~ homes chat are currently in Haven View O9) ~tstes today. More ~ h~lf of tl~ homes today were (~0) there M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~ Page 8 Transcript of Proceedings (21) And of the 31 non]rat] homes existing tn (a~) 1990, 15 of them are still owned -- still owned by the (as) same people who owned them at that time, (a4) Since 1990 over 60 percent of the - I'm (~ on item I now - 60 percent of the Iota in Haven View (1) Estates are in 1997 owned by the same people who owned (2) them in 1990. 60 percent. And on item J, over 60 (3) percent of ~ (4) Commimzion and design review meetings still own homes (5) or lots in Haven View Estate~ (6) The point of this is there is no people to say they didn't (s) know. There are legally recorded are aware ot~ public reports, ~ all O0) refer to development on this site. Some refer to 42 (1]) additional lots; some refer to 45 ' 02) The CC&R has maps of rht.~ property b~ing developed. 03) It's -. no one should be surprise~ No (]4) one should be surprised at the pending grading of this O~) property or the construction of the 40 homes on the (]6) ~ 07) The grading that we're proposing tonight (m) is merely precise line grading, based on the overall 09) grading plan that was approved in 1990, the grading of (a0) this entire site. (21) We wrote a letter to increase awareness (a2) of this project. We wrote a letter individually to (a$) every property owner in Haven View Estates after the (a4) first Planning Commi.~on meeting inviting them to (as) come and testify -- or excuse me -- to come and meet O) with u~ We would show them the plans, answer any (2) cluestion~ Three people -- three people responded to (3) our invitation. (4) COUNCILMEMBE~ CURATALO: (5) MR. AIJ.13AY: The letter was -- the June 11th (6) meeting -- I'm sorry. I can't answer exactly. June co 11th was the day of ]be meeting. I believe the letter (8) went out about - the meeting was continued for four (9) weeks. About two weeks later we wrote a letter. (]0) Two people came the day before the second (at) Planning Commieeion meetin& One person came the 02) weekend - the Saturday after tlmc SO it would be 03) !ate July is wt~n ~ people (]4) COLTNCILMEMBER CURATALO: ju~ '96.* (15) MR. AI_I_f)Ay: Of this year. 06) COUNTER CURATALO: I was at the July 9th (17) meeting. There was more than two people. (xa) ~ ,ALLDAY: I am sorry. We wrote a letter to 09) every property owner in Haven View inviting O0) them to come to our office or to call us and we would (21) go over all the plans with them. There was more than (z~) that. I didn't mean to imply that. (~) Traffic is related to desiga review only (~t) in that some people (~) going to ~-~,,~ undne impacts (1) trallic. AH I would ~ to say in that regard is in (2) 1990, when this temattve tract map was approved, (3) traffic studies were mbmlttect These traffic studies (4) analyzed the 203 ,-~t~ttng Iota in lots on rl~.~ prop~ty, plus the potential (6) of 53 lots to the east of this property. theright(s) corner, a street stub8 ,-wt~ng Haven View E~__tes. there's another street O0) that stubs to that. O~) So the traffic analysis that was prepared (~) ~ the ~?acts of all the~ cars. Tbey came up (13) With approx4m~t~4~ 3,110 ~ indicated O~) that over 10,000 cars' (]6) And the ~eets here were ov~ three times the O~) capacity of what (xa) We have - during the course of our (]9) elfofi~ with the staff and with t!~ ~ (20) Con~mis~iofi, we have ~ a llnmher Of chaises to the (21) project, improved upon them, made it_,~n~ that we had once thought would be optional, (23) We have rh~ngt~l our mi~ to increase a number of larger sized homes. (25) We have clone a nnmher of i~_,-m~ where we O) are very, vexy proud of these homes. l'm sorry. We (2) have been so caught up in all of these 0~20~7 ir,=m.~ that have (3) nothing to with design review. We're eonlident (4) that ~ they are btdR, and our oet~hhors in Haven O) View proud of them (6) as we are. We are confident. 1'hey are consiatent (T) with thie commlxtelty, compatible With the community, (B) and be approved by your honorable (9) That's all I have at this point O0) COLINCH-MEMBER GUTIERREZ: Where is the levee O~) that you're going to remove? Where is it on th~ map? Oa) Is it right here? O$) MR. MJ-f}AY: It runs north of the border. (]4) Appro~mnt~.!y where you put it, however, is north of O~ those two property, O6) it parallels tha~ 07) The reason why is it]at when balance of Haven View E~__~__~ was 09) approved, there was a easement over that property (a0) there, because of the existence of the levee. The (21) Flood Control - County Flood Control District had an (aa) easement which prohibited development of it because it (as) (a4) However, alker the overall Corps of Engineers constructed Deer O) C, reek Channel and Deer Creck Debris B~in_ And the (2) Hood Control District determined that the eaaement O) prohibiting development was no longer require~ And (4) so the site bex:mne developable, And that's why you have th~ The levee is basically (6) Are there any questions? I would like CO the opportunity to rebut any issues that are brought (8) up later om (9) MAYOR AI.bT~CANDER: Any questions frotn (10) Ol) COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I have one questim~ just 02) for clarificatiot~ I want to talk about the prices a O~) little bit of the home~ I wasn't clear as you 04) it. O~) Will there be homes at $270,000 or not.~ 06) M~ AI.LI~AY: No, sir. 07) MAYOR AI.bT~LANDER: Jim, let me ask you, is the (a~) reporter ready for a break time? (]9) MI~ MARKMAN: Maybe for the counsel and the (a0) reporter. I ~ coun~! for the appellant comin~ up. M & M Certified Court Reporters v.~,~.~ Page 9 Tr~n~:ript of Proceedings (z~) COUNCIl.MEMBER GWrlERREZ: One really quick (z~) questiota How nanny models do you have in this pht~ (25) MR. ALl.DAy: We Izave floor platm (24) MAYOR ALi~tNDER: Is 10 minutes enough of a (25) brealO MR. MARKMAN: Oh, yeaIt (Hec ~_,~__) MAYOR AI-WKANDEPc Okay. We'H go nhea~ 10 (4) minute8 went into about 17. Go aberid and continue. I O) expect weql be here for a while this evenin~ But (6) we're ready for our next CO MIL ESTUPINIAN: Hello. My name is Mark is) Estupintnn, and l'm a resident of Haven View (9) I currently live at 11045 Ranch Drive. l~,e been a (10) resident for eight yesr~ And I'm n bo~trd member for O1) CURE, Cucamon~n.~ United for Reasonable 02) I'm a custom home builder and designer (~) and build laboratories for pharmaceutical 04) environment.~ And l~e not built any other custom other than my owm But I (16) have btdlt many custom homes in Claremont, Arcad~ O~) and ira) We decided to build our custom home in 09) Rancho Cue-monga because we like the rural feel and (ao) the history of the wine vineyard~ And in keeping with the theme, our home is constructed with wine and vinei~tr b~Tels prc~dding in (25) Mr. Gutierrez actually ~nmc to my home (24) and looked at my home~ I wanted to point out that (25) we're not talking about apples for apples when we're (1) talking about homes here. (2) When Lauren Development tries to (3) associate the, quote, "_semicustom homes" with our (4) community, a term used by builders to d~scribe (5) somethinE that isn't, they ~ to compare their homes (6) with the majority of the homes in our community, ~ (7) my owt~ (8) This was my primnry issue until I was (9) informed that they were going to remove the levee, the levee that protects our community from disasters, from (11) the '69 flood, a proven resource, unlike debris (12) basin that has never been through a flood at this (~) magnitude. 04) Prior to living in Rancho Cucamonga, I Os) lived in a small cabin in Mount Baldy by a strenm bed, (26) and wttn=_e~ed_ a llashflood lost a truck in our ne~gh~orhood's (m) I'm also director for ski patrol for (19) Mount Baldy, and have seen firsthnnd the e~cts of a (~) lar{~ local mountains (ram) and d~m~uc~ion that hundred-yes~-oid ~rees from rocks (~,) the size of buses loosened by landsUde~ a sc~-,to (25) not to be talmn lightly in a ~nyon as la~ge as De~ (24) Creek Canyo~ (~) I went to the ~ to vi~ot~pe--- (1) for those that have not seen the size and the amount (2) of earth that they will have to remove for this levee. O) and to get a feel for the natural beauty of the are~ (4) May I show it toyou? O) MAYOR ~I.!~h~NDER: How (6) MR. ESTUPINIAN: I never timed It. I imagine Ct) it's within eight to ~ minMte~. (8) MAYOR M-~,ANDEP~ Yoo'H certainly get a view. (9) MR. ESTUPINIAN: It's ~ So it's not - (10) MAYOR b!-I~L4cNDER: I'm sure it's very good (11) MIL MARKMAN: I want to remind anybody that ~bit like this (1~) i$ ~i~tl~ it to the ctty derl~ O4) MR. BSTUPINIAN: That's fine, if I c~n m~ke a (1~) ~ Of our vacation at the end of it. O&) MI~ MARKMAN: I have to tell you what - O~) seriously, rht~ could present problem. I don~ know (~) what the relevancy of the video is, but you obviously O~) thin~ it's relevant Wc want to keep the record clear. (~) MS. McKIEI~: We would be happy to tape a copy (z~) and have it to the city clerk before ten o'clock (25) tomorrow mornmoo If you must have the original, (24) we'!! just copy it from you, just a practical (~) nmt~r. O) MI~ MARKMAN: let's do this: We'll keep what (~) the gent{~m-n uses toniooh~, and if the dty clerk can (3) copy it, so that there is a specUic -- an exact tnpc, (O he can get his vacation ~-k I don't think 08/20/97 we have O) an objection to tha~ (6) But for tonight we get to keep your CO vacatiom (s) (A videotape was shown.) (9) MR. F3TUPINIAN: Sorry it took O~) MI~ MARKMAN: Do you have a way to mark that, (11) plense, so you don't Io~e track of IO (12) CATY cJ.~K ADAMS: Okay. O~) MR. MARKMAN: And then we'H se~ ff we can 04) trainer it. Ore) MR. ESTUPINIAN: Well, in dosln& I would 06) also like to stat~ that we never did - when we O~) re~:etved our notice, we coming b~ck from vacation (m) on Memorial Weekend. That's the notice that we O~) ever knew of (a0) proiecc (~) In ac~-nty, we only had less than two (~) month~ to prepare. And this is the first l~e heard (25) of it since that tim~ (24) So I hope flint your deals/on will be to (~) protect my tmzily and our commMnit~ and ~ out (1) open, !~t nn_mral ~ t{~tt we have. (~) ~ ~ ~ ~ mu~ y~ (4) ~. ~.!.l~: I'm ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~d ~mt ~. We ~ Fm ~ ~ ofpr~ ~e b ~d ~) of m ~ m ~ (w) ~ n~cc ~ ~ ~m~ of~ ~ O~) ~ ~ ({m) ~ J~ of 1~7 I ~~ ~ O~) ~o, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d m my ~~e, 04) ~1 ~ ~ o~ of ~ ~cel ~ ~'re r~ (lS) W. I C~ him ~ ~ ~e ~ ~e w~e 06) ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~cel ~ g~ m ~ (m ~~ ~e ~ no ~ c~ ~m ~y. ~, ~ (~) ~ ~ he kit ~ ~ ~~~ce ~om ~ (~) ~~t co~y ~ pr~e, md ~ ~ ~ ~d (~) ~el~mc (~) ~ ~ co~~ce ~ we r~Ov~ (~) ~om ~ ~el~m~t r~ ~ proj~ ~ (~) ~ ~& 26, 1~7. ~ i~ ~ I'm r~ M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~s. Page 10 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 At (5) that time L~uren Development h~ stipul~ed, I (6) rep~__tedly, th~_t_ there was notification m ~ ~ C~ association regarding the project's (~) At that time when I spoke with the April 4th board meettn~ said that it would be a board meeting of the Rancho Cue~monga Board Homeowners O~) I notified John Allday on April 3rd rh~_r_ O3) the meetmoo was going to be cancelled due to a lack of OO quorum. On May 16th we had a Rancho Cucamonga Board Meetit~ at which time Lauren Development wa~ again, 06) invited to attend the 07) At the advice of the assuciation's (rs) counsel, the interaction with Lauren Development at O9) the mee*ing was strictly to ,n~t~ informatiom It (a~) was not, nor ever meant to be, the neighborhood C2:) meeti~ Homeowners were not nofi~__ed of · the meetin~ (22) At artre-hey - our counsel's recommendatioo, we were (23) just as a fact-findin~ mimziolL (a4) We weren't there to establish the board's (2~ position, nor to (]) on. At that point it was o~r first official contact (z) with Lauren Development. (3) During this meeting. Lauren Development (4) hnnded out what they called a sign-in sheet that (5) stated tlmt it was a joint meeting of the homeowners (6) asso~_'~fiom I recommended to the board that as that's not what it was, ($) nor (9) I wanted to make sure that it was (10) stipulated right from the very beginning that I did (11) try to nlake contact to (letermine what ~ going on Oz) within that project January of this year. And I 03) didn't get any notification from Lauren Development (14) until the end of March. (15) There was a letter that was submitted to (16) the city _,~_r__ed May 16th. It was submitted to Tom (1Y) Grahn from Lauren Development outlining all the (xs) different ways (19) As I see it, l~e been with the (~0) as~x~htion for more than live years, and much of what (zO was in as being (n) contrary to what I recollect. (23) Fillally, the last ._qr2_tment that Lauren (~t) Developmere stated was that in this meeting, 49 (~ percent of all the lot owners were present, as well O) as - I'm sorry -- in addition to representing 100 of (1) the lot owners and bonrd m_~m,_t,~s. I think there was O) fuur board m~nbers there. One of my bonrd m,-mbers O) owns 46 Iot~ Ther~e, you have your 39 percent of O) all lot owners that were repre~nted. (6) So I did want to clarify that at no time (7) were we ever asked to notify the homeowners, were we (~) ever asked to or requested to have a homeowner (9) association meeting or a neighborhood meeting to (10) discuss this project (11) Thank you. (12) MAYOR M.bTYANDER: Thank you. (~) MIL BRADFORD: My name is Tom Bradford with 04) the firm of Bradford and Barthel. 05) As I indicated earlier, I'm a workers' (16) compensation attorney. Some of this stuff that I O~) found so hr ts legal -is a liability of legal fees Os) that would be significant. And ff a lawsuit goes 09) forward, the city could be obligated to pay the victor (ao) ff CURE prevails. (n) Also, in terms of what we can listen to (--) today -- I do have in front of me a transcript from (z~) the Oty of Orange City Council Public Hearing on ¢~) August t~th, 1996, where Mr. Markman's firm was (a~) present. Pane 53 (1) At that time what would be discussed- (~) one of the in-ms thaz was going to be discussed was O) ~nether the environment could be protectet (4) M]L MARKMAN: Excuse me. Was that the City of O) Orange? (6) MR. BRADFORD: ~-x.~Xly; City of Orange City CY) Counsel Public Hearing, August 13th, ~996, regarding (s) the Wai.Mart hearing. (9) M1L MARKMAN: So it's no~ regarding this (10) project? (zl) MIL BRADFORD: No, it's not. tt wa~ (1~) indioted that ~ t~ very narrow. All you can (14) ilsten approved. From a (15) ~tmi12r meeting one of the things to be considered was (16) whether or not the environment would be protectexL I O~) have a few (18) The other isue to be discussed is (19) whether there was any environmental impact. We're (~0) asking for the same thing. same (21) I don~ know, ng2t~, ff there's been any (a2) conflict of interest in this file of Mr. Markman's (a~) firn~ represent the (24) C~ty. If Htigation goes forwar~ potentially there could be significant fees for the firm. O) k would seem as ff it would be (2) worthwhile to get a second opinion regarding what O) could be discussed at these meetings and what could (4) transpire. The general plan, suffice it to say, at the present time, I think~ i8 de~ed for open (6) space from here is C~) not zoned for dcvelopmenL But, 2?in. that would bc (o) chT~-xmed by people who are more imowlcdgcable. C~) The environmental impact - I already (10) discussed - that was something that had bccfi bFought (11) up carrier. (12) Another casc that was brought up to my (13) ~_n__efifion was Heights by thciF city council a (14) while back in~_,_-~ring that there's an obtigatton by 05) the city council to have substantial evidence and (16) bc rcviewecL O~) The Supreme Court has indicatcd it has to (m) be mentioned to ~ ~ ~mmi~zion Asain, O9) that concerns me. (~0) And also as a homeowner, I did want to (zi) state I did not receive notice of this project until (a~) after. All fIRs had been prepared on short notice. (a~) It was clone in little less fh~n three months, because (~) that's all the time that we had. There was no more (a~) lime to prepare. O) Thank you. (2) MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. O) MS. McKIEq~: Good evenin~ l'm Malissa (4) McKicth with Loci) M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~ Page 11 Transcript of Proceedings & Loeb. I'm a resident of Raacho (5) Cucamooga, 4993 Ginger Court My home is, (6) fortufiately, just west of where the levee end~ So (7) that when -. and ff the levee were ever to go down, I (0) always told everybody that I won't be ira?acted by (9) flooding arid debris, unlike my neighbor, Mark. (]0) I guess I would like to my that one of (11) the very positive side effeCtS from this m2rfq coming (1~) up is that prior to the time that I got notice on May (15) 23rd about the project, which like many of my (10 neighbors tonight for the firat time re!~rding Lauren Development - we don~ read the CC&R$ as closely as (16) we should -- I really didn't know people in my (1~) neighborhood. I work in Los (~) I think I w~ a little em~ about (19) living in Rancho Cucamonga because everybody I work (~0) with lives in the IMlisadcs, and I mostly bung out on (21) the west side of L~. or San Francisco, or somme (22) else. I didn't know my commllJ3ity. I didn't know very (2~) many of my (24) One of the very, very pon~ivc side (2s) effects has been that I have really gotten to know my O) nelghbor~ And now everyone in the State of (a) California knows that I live in l~neho CucamonlW. And (5) now I tell then that there's these great deer that (O live in my bac. kyarcL (5) I have gotten to know people on the CAty (6) Council. I want to tMfik the co~metlmenlbers who have C~ taken the time to visit the levee, to meet with us. I (0) always thought I was going to get up here and complain C~) about Mark's Cable V'~ion and the fact that there's (10) not antore.red trash. But as you will see this (11) evening, I'm going to be talking about a much, much (u) more significant isstle- ¢]5) And that's the obligation of the CAty (14) Council to, in fact, look at changed ciro,m~ance$, (15) new information, that was not av=i12ble in 1990 at the (]6) time that you o 'nginally approved the tentative map (1~) and you originally approved the Negative Declaration. (~) That Negative Declaration, by some of the (]9) same Planning Commi.~sioners who l;v~re here on July 9th ¢z0) and June 11th, said there was no Ml~iflc2nt (21) (aa) Now, you saw that video. And it's very (aS) aimcult ~or me to underatand how anyone could have (24) decided there was no Mg~tfic~nt environmental impact (as) to biological or habitat reaource$, O) If you look at the Ne{lative Declaration, (a) which is in the record - I dldn~ rexerox it again (5) tonight - all of these boxes (4) There weren~ any mitigation measore~ It was a O) pathetic (6) Now, I'm not challenging that Negat~e CO Dedarmo~ want to get that m--{g~- right (0) told me - be said my C9) time has (10) My focus for you this evening is going to (11) be what has changed since 1990. What substantial evidence of changed circumstances is there that (zs) requires you, as the City Council, to mire a look at (14) whether or not we need to go back and reconsider this particular project, the Blx)C][ Prolog-t2 all the O?) m(mey ~ in 1909 or q~O. AAd it is true ~ (1o) Lmlren 11mt's · (19) dimcult p(Mdtion for Lauren to be tm (a~) But the reality is we're all going to (21) apend a whole lot Of this evenin~ as I have mbm~ted ~__fore, ~}b~nti~l (aS) evidelice of aerinm ~ ciro,m.~ce$ that go to (24) the heath and ml:ty of these resident~ that rehte (~ to the Hillside Ordimu~ee;, th~ fall w~rhin O) pathetic lime narrow exception that everybo~ wunt$ (a) to review. You e2n~ look at anything else- It (5) doesn't matter how dan~erom it ~. We have to clo~e (4) our eyes, because we approved it sevefi years ago. (5) Neither the law or !oKic requires that you do that. (6) Now, I'm ~ to go through some C~ overheads, and I wo~ld like to get some help from (s) I would like to cake C9) some time. I really feel it is an im?ortant decision (10) for the city. As you know, this case has gotten a !or (]1) of publicity. I can tell you that the Hewitt Law Firm (12) and my firm 08/20/97 Sacramento all Os) this week. We're all writing to our legislature~ (14) we're all writing to the governor's office- 05) Ifs a big important decision. There's a (16) !or of media who are w~_rehing the Case. It deserves more than a short time. I would have had materials to 08) you sooner if It were physically pomibi~ I was on (19) the phone with ~ at three o'clock in the mornin& (ao) If you take all the cvid~¢e in rh~ (21) evefling and you decide it is i .mpomdble for you to (22) make a deciskm because of all the evidence record. Take the case ufider (24) subrot _~dofi, and come back and make a decision, ff (2m) thafs O) But if you don~ close record, we're (m) all goin8 to be going Imek and s,~mt,,ing more stu~ O) and mbmi, fing more stuff~ and both sides are in a (4) position to continue supplementing and (m) I would have loved to have had ~ (6) individnals that are ~g written testimony to you rhi. evening here to amwer (0) 'r~cy'rc Ic~db~ cxpert~ O) We have not spared a nickel in (10) Either my law firm or the other law firms involved or O1) the becelline we think it's a sa/ety (15) issue. And I can assure you that whatever happens (14) here this evenin~ we will file for an inlunctio~ We (15) will go to the conrt Of app~. (16) And what Tom was saying about the amount (m of attorney's fees involved, it's .~gntfi~anc I told 08) my firm we could end up spending a million dollars on (19) rhLc case. And I'm serious about that. I have had to (a0) put aside a lot of other m~xer~ I represent the eRA (21) in Los Angele~ I reprcsem a lot Of other clie2u~ (~a) And I told people, 'I'm working on CURE.~ Because (u) CURE is about Mark ESt~lpin~n's t-hild~en. It is about (24) the people who live beneath the levee. It's about the that levee and (1) system (m) These people who buy chose homes, are O) going to be the M & M Certified Court Reporters D~,-M,,-~ Page 12 Transcript of Proceedings people who are in the mo~t danger. (4) They're going to he the first line ol~ you (5) know, auack if there is, in fact, a problem with the (6) Deer Creek Debris Basira SO I want everybody to CO reaUze this is not a joke. This is not about, oh, (8) well, we just don't want little hous~ (9) I have to tell you somethinoo: I (10) We're a beautiful m~ohhorhood. We would like to stay (11) a custom home neighborhood. We would like to keep the (12) property value up in our nelghl~rhood. Those homes (13) are not compatible with what we have, no matter how 04) much Mr. Allclay wants to dress it up. (15) And I don't like a lot of acklltional (16) traffic in my neighborhoo~ That's what motivated me (1~9 in the first place. But I'll tell you what keeps me (1s) up and m-I~es me spend money and work hard is taking 09) out that levee. (2o) So I - Bffi, can you help, or do you (21) want to help with the slides? In addition to not (22) seeing, I didn't remember my (ZS) ~ is pretty easy. I was at a CRA (24) meeting in L_A., and they let people talk two minute8, (2~5) O) That's us, CURE. (~-) I want to start with the Laurel Heights (3) decisiom The Laurel Heights decision is the Supreme (4) Court decisiom It deals with the issue of changed (5) ciro]mqances after you have had a fin21 El~ (6) Let'5 imn~oine this Negative What the court said in this particular decision is that the CEQA process is not (9) designed to free the ultimate proposal in the precise (10) mold of the additional project. Indeed, new and (11) unforseen investigation in (12) revision of the o 'rq0n~ propo~. (13) There is - and I can't believe your (14) city attorney hasn't told you -- statutes that we have (15) under both CEQA and under -. under the CEQA guidelines (16) that talk about the fact that when you have new (17) information and changed ciro~mqances, it must be (15) considered. (]9) Section 21166, "A supplemental or (2o) subsequent EIR must be conducted ff one of the following events occur: New information, which was (22) not known and could not have been known at the time (as) the environmental impact report was certified as (24) ctm~lete.' (as) The CEQA guidelines provide (1) guidance to agencies when considering to hear or (2) prepare a mq~plemental environmental doc-ume~t O) Section 15162 of the CEQA I~ddennes (4) provide the supplemental ~ ~It is required where (5) the lead agencies determine on the basis of (6) whole record, CO one or more of the following: New inform~on of (8) stdMtantlal t?omce, which was not known or could (9) not of reasonable (10) diligence at the (11) and eotnplete or the negative declaration that was (xz) adopted.' OS) The project will have one or more (14) Mgnificant effects not ~ in the previous ~ 05) or Negative Declaration. S~g~ine-~nr effects 06) previously damaged will he ~ll~rnnti2lly know~l OF (17) shown (m) 'If changes to a project or ciro~mq~nces (19) OCCllt or flew information becomes available alker (2o) adoptton of a negative declaration, that lead agency (21) shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required, under (z~) Subsection A.' (z~) Now, what are we talking about here? I'm (24) going to go into what ktnds of evidence or changed there is a great deal (1) of changed eiro,m,~ances that we need to focus cm. (1) I'm going to start out - you have in (3) your white folders three declarations, You have the (4) declarations of Tom Henyey. Tom Henyey is the (5) Director of the Center. (6) He is Jim Dolan's supervisor. trenched the (8) Cucamonga fault in 1996; couldn't have known in 1990 (9) what we were going to find in 1996. Contrary to all (10) the materials that Lauren has put in -- and we have (11) wri_-__en respons~ to all of their factual allegations -- about how we !ted about what Jim Dolan O~) did amd that Jim Dolan really didn't go out and (14) trench. 0~20~7 (15) The declaration that you have from Tom (16) Henyey discusses not only Mr. Dolafi's trenching. but (17) the conclusions that were reached in that treoehinff (18) Let me pull out what he has to (19) The slides are all screwed up. (2o) The first study that he talks about- (n) this is sort of a key. This is the linchpin in our (22) case. In 1980 when the Army Corps of Engtnee~ built (2~) the debris basin, they tinlit it to a 5.0 m%on~ude (24) quake. We have a lot of evidence in the record. We (25) had the Army Corps' original desert (1) 1980. (2) In 1990 when you approved the Negative 0,) Declaration, and when the Army Corps of ~n~nee~s (4) certified FEMA, the debris b~- that was going to (5) hold Control District, (6) who really there, CO decided that they were going to teH FEMA that (8) everything was saf~ and wonderful, everybody thought (9) that we were not dealing with a really M~ifi~r (10) carth~ faulL (11) What we have flow is the Southern (12) Cal~ornh Earthquake ~cnter, as of 1996, testifyin~ (13) to FUrlS dirc~Lly (14) undcrnestth the magn~ude of a 7.5 Fang~ (16) Atto. hod to !~-YhJl~tt A s~ that the map (17) fauk may pass through or very ¢1osc to the debris (18) b~n in the s~filway. An earthquake of a nmsnttude (19) of the 4 or 5 ranse would not be expected to break the (2o) earth's stile and _c'~_~._qc fi2m2~e to the dam; whcrcns (21) earthquakes grcatc~ in magn~ude of 6, 6.5, wfil (22) almost always brcnk SUFf~e, and likely break force (2~) its way to the a (24) !arge~ cvem will he (25) a lot of m%r~ ~d that I didfi~ have for our O) overhead~ (2) He talked about the fact if an offset (3) takes place currently on more rhnn one strand during {4) an earthquake. And the total offset could be (~) considerably larger than cSrlm2rcd from the June 1996 (6) trench alone, and, thus, the M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.w~.~ Page 13 Transcript of Proceedings magnitude could be 03 greater that 7.0. (8) I understand the Army Corps of Engineers (9) sent a letter on the 11th tellinoo you that the debris (10) basin is all line and dandy. They talk about a 6.4 (11) quake magnitude. (12) Henyey is r~llrin~o abo~t .~h7. 05) It's been a long time since we have had a big quake un O6) the Cucamonga fault. And, therefore, if ytm take a (15) look at what these s,~-~moiogists talk about together (16) and figure out probability, he thinks we're ready for O~) another quake. 08) I got to tell you, I Uve in Cucamonga, 09) and I have not (a0) people have been tellin~ me from FEMA and from (at) Southern C]lifomia Earthquake Center about what a (z~) wonderfully safe area don't Uve in (Z;) I bought my house thinking it was on (a4) bedrock because I had all that ruble, all those big rocks in our backyarcL I don't know how tmm2ny people O) Uve up in the hillside. Where do you think thorne (2) rocks came from? I used to think it must have been O) from Jura~c Park. Now I re~li,e it's debris flow. (4) if I were to sell my house, I got some (5) real serious disclosure me particularly excited about where I live. And l'm 03 complaining about Marit's Cable. (s) Does anybody like Mark's Cable? We don't (9) like Mark's, It went blank during Shindler's List O0) That was the encL O1) This is the most im?ortatlt conclusion in (u) Henyey's exl~a-ts (15) thor I~j~ren relies on, too. It's going to be the 04) battle of the exper~ It's like OJ.; they had (15) theirs; we had ours; they had that DNA that the jury 06) didn't care about either. These are the folks that O~) Lauren thought they're Os) saying. O9) I understand that the City of Rancho (a0) Cucamonga tentatively approved the Lauren Development (21) Project in 1990. It is important that the city (zz) consider the new determining (zs) the safety of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the (z4) safety of the homes Iotared in such proximity to a (aS) known fault, particularly in light of the new O) magnitude e.~mptes discussed (a) Now, if that isn't substantial evidence O) of a chan~oed ciro,mw~nce, I don~ know what b. (4) Mr. Markxnan, I would love to rebuttal. But I have got to tell (6) you something: This was 1996. It's new information 03 that was not available in 1990. The integrity of the(s) debris hasm is the key issue here. reason (10) fails - and l'm going to go next to the ~Hlli2m~' O1) David ~ who is Oa) a {eading debris O~) basin and about FF~ 04) You're going to see that we have got an Os) issue about whether or not our secondary levee, that 06) we have come to know and {ove, is somerhin~ that (lu3 Mmouid be removexL (~) And then, of course, you have to go to 09) the next analysis about whether or not they're (~) replacing the channel. It's really an equivalent (~) replacement to the levee. You have heard a lot about (~) how it's adequate. I rmnk these are the reasons why Ca5) peup{e do big EIRs ai~er there are changed (m4) circm~m~afices. (as) David ~Wdliams - your (1) there - works for the Army Cor~ of ~-%o,,eers and Ca) worked on the hydrologic models for the debris basi~ O) Originally, he worked on the Harrow Debris i~in_ (4) He's out teaching courses on remappin{~ And in his (5) declaration, are some (6) very key documents for you to consider this 03 One is CURE's request to FEMA to r~rn~? (8) ~ arC1, at minim!lm, the mapping de~a,~on that (9) was removed in 1991, FF2kiA's letter back to the city (10) ~_c_U~owledgtng receipt of our application for (ll) remappi~ And we wfil be moving to remap. 02) This project is not getting built any O~) time soon, no matter what happens here. It's going to O4) be a long time bef~e anybody does anything on rh~r (]5) property. And before that ~ we will have done (16) the hydrologic studies to 08/20/97 go through the issues of rom~pin~ based upon the fact FEMA didn~ look at time (~) earthquake issues; FEMA did not consider the 09) hnddide issue~ (20) What they looked at was the Al'my CoFpS of (21) P-n~oinc:e~' certifi~o~ And that certification, we (aa) believe, is no longer valid, (~) I will be hones( if this hearing had (as) been in September, I would have had time to beat up o) the ~ny Corp~ of ~.n~neer~ too, on these issue~ I (m) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m mo~ ~ off~ O) mm~ I ~ ~ (4) ~ of F~ ~d ~e, ~ ~k of ~ ~d (~ ~ ~d ~ ~~ I ~ ~k~ (~ w ~"O~ ~ ~'t ~ a I~ ~ ~ ~'s ~ no way ~ ~ ~ a l~ ~t ~ a (S) W~, I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~) ~ mo~ ~ ~ n~ Or) ~c~ ~~p~ ~aa~ We~ n~ ~ ~ ~c (~) (14) ~ e~ reH~ ~ ~ O~ We ~ m ~ ~ of~ ~~'s 06) ~t r~ O~ ~ ~e ~ ~d price ~ ~~. (z8) W~, I ~ m ~ ~i~s 09) c~l~ ~d I ~ "~ we ~ ~ ~~ (~) p~ (n) ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~a~ ~ (~) ~ ~ ~ m (~) W~, we ~ ~ ~ r~. ~ ~ (~) ~ a 1~ ofb~, ~ (~) ~ I ~ ~ ~ O) on Thursday morning~ and I got this expert to give me (2) declarations over the weekencL And I have a letter O) from FEMA saying these people at CURE are going m be (4) se,~_king remappin~ Thafs important for you. (5) But here is Dr. Wllliams, a leading (6) expert in the area: 'Removal of the swale and levee 03 would weaken the protective nature of the basin (a) project I also understand that the developer claim.~ M & M Certified Court R _eporters ~,~M~ Page 14 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 (9) that the levee is no longer effective at approximately O0) the 200 feet breach on the top of Haddoc Road. (1]) 'This is a ~mall fraction of the overall O2) levee, and can easily be prepared and has minimal (lS) bearing upon the overall structural integrity of the (14) levee and the 0~) protection to the downslope resid~ntr~ ~ 06) A~ the front of the materials I have OY) l~ssed on~ in the blue book you have, are aerial (~) photographs of 1969 that shows how the levee protected 0~) people from the 1969 - our largest floo,~noo event. (~) I have heard some static about how the (z~) little eastern side of the levee failed a little bit (aa) in terms of water. Yon can see in that document - (~) blue and white document, the very front of the your (a4) folders - you can see how chat levee and little pathetic levee kept back (1) all of the debris and the water in 1969. (a) Williams goes on to state, "In my O) proregional opinion, I have concluded that removal of (4) the levee and swale system and the construction of a O) residential development, will place both the new (6) residents and the existing residents downslope of the CO levee at a substantially greater risk of nooding at Cs) the debris Mopes notwithstan,4ing the existence of the Deer Creek Basin O0) upslope.' (11) MAYOR AI.~L~N-DER: How much longer do you think (]2) you're going to go? Os) MS. McKIETH: l'm going to go, I would hope, (14) as long as I need to get to the end of my argument. O~) MAYOR M.!~,~tNDER: Can you kind of-- 06) MS. McKIETH: I will speed it some of the other changed ciro~m~tances in Os) the W"dliams' Declaration post 1990. 09) The Army Corps has changed its methods (a0) for calculating debris flow. After 1990 -- so this is (a~) a · -!~n~ed ciro~m.~ance -- ~ who is ~ (~z) with the old method and the new method, because he's (~) worked on the Harrow Debris B~n since 1990, has (~41 concluded that under the new method, the debris basin (~) is undersod, which means that it could overtop. It (1) also could overtop because of the landslide~ (2) Tom Sheahan is going to be able to talk C~) about the landslide issues in more detail. (4) The other important issue that you need Cs) to understand is that the Army Corps - there's plenty ¢6) of evidence in the FEMA documem~ anti~lp~cd ~ ~ levee was to remain (s) intact. And there are recommendations that the debris (9) eh~r'S removed from the debris basin be used to O0) fortify the levee. That cleans it all the time. In project You (12) have plenty of testimony on the record on those OS) issue~ o6) ~ would like to speak just shortly on O~) open Sl~ce and general plan conside~ation~ Bill (]6) Angel who, as you know, has been here 13 years OY) developing - I (~) ~mows more than any lawyer - is going to talk about O9) the and it is (~) also zoned for recharge- (2]) In your l~cket this ev~n~g under (z~) recharge" there's a letter from the Regional Water (~) Quality them that ¢~4) the board is of the opinion that this is reducing a yahrobie recharge area, and that they're asking that O) you take those issues into cousiderattom (2) We have a lot less recharge now than we O) did in 1990. We have a lot less alluvial sage scrub (4) th~n we had in 1990. These are changed ctro~m.~nces (s) that have to be considered. (6) I also note that tl~ city has not CO contacted the water agencies in terms of their obligations, under SB-901, nor has (9) The general plan - I respectfully O0) disagree with Mr. O]) menn~ng of the general plan. Your own resolution here (]2) this ev~ing - which by the way, Page 3 was for some Os) totally different development. So I have never seen ¢]4) the actual resolution you're VOrinoo on this eve~inoo- O~) You have to find consistency with the general plato (]6) My understanding of the general plan is Or) that it requires an EI~. They require public a Os) notice_ somebody O~) passes some zoning in 1983. ~nat would be easy. We (~0) could do that without any di~culty. You could (m) change your general plan ~ that. You got a serious (z~) defect on your general plan ~,~ (~) I would urge the City Council, ff you (~) thm~ we're ~st all out a second opinion on the~ thin~ These are ~ 74 (1) im?ortallt isstle~ that you are (2) I would like live more plc.se- O) M1L MARKMAN: Why don~t we take a breaic (4) MAYOR ~I.I~KANDEI~ Ten-minute rece~. (6) MAYOR AI.!~O, NDER: Do you want to go ahead and CO continue? (8) DeblMe" is the~e a way of turning tllat O) dowIL~ 0o) MS. McKIEq'H: We tried to put the materi~ (1]) together in a way where you have tabs for the (]2) inclivlch,al topics so you could find them castly. If Os) you turn under the first tab in the blue book under (]4) CEQA authority, this goes through many of the O~) overheads third (]6) page. there is a list of substantial evidence of changed circ~,m~ances in the Os) record that contrary (]9) su!~tantiai evidence on (~) The first thing I would like to point to (~) is the traffic impact A lot has changed in seven years in Haven View Estates. And notwithstanding (~) Mr. Allda~s presentation about how many homes were (a4) there at the time, there are substantially more ¢~) residents O) Beea__~se the economy chnnged, a !or of us (2) were able to afford homes when they were going into O) foreclosure. You have many more people with young (4) ehil~r~l who oth~rwt~ have not been able to buy (~) home~ (6) We have a trnflic engineer, Crane and CO Associates (phonetic), who was one of the largest (s) traltic en~neers in California, submit information (9) before the Planning Commi~ion aboMt how th~e is no M & M Certified Court :Re_porters D~,~ Page 15 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 (10) traltic study _fie~ nng with particular impacts on (11) childrc~ chlring the grading, how there is no traffic (12) study as to mitigating environmental impacts, both air (13) .and traffic, during constructio~ (1,) Mr. Allday at the last hearing said, 'We 05) signed some easement agreement, which means that we (16) across the (1T) property." (1s) I don't beUeve that the pet~on who (19) signed those easement so, and that there will be a legal basis for (21) challenging the (~) But more im?orta~tly, the easement agreement does not (25) permit Lauren to get out of doing air quality or (24) traffic studies, They have not done so. I keep (253 hearing about this mysterious craflic study in 1983. O) I was grao~,~rln~o from law school in 1983. (2) Times have changeeL There are substantial evidence of (3) traffic im?~ts that have not becel addressed by the (4) developer. (9) Then we have the earthquake (6) We have the U,S. -- not the - the UJ. Fish and CY) Game Wildlife Serviee~ I'm not going to · spend a lot (8) of time on that You have information in your record, (9) whereby the developer has not completed the (10) gn~tc~tcher smqrey. He claims be doesn't have to. (11) The LIJ. Fish and Wildlife (12) It's your choice as to who you want to choose on that (~) side of the battle. (14) Another ch~nooed ciro~mq~mce, the (15) California Department of Fish and Game -- two (16) important letteas that you have before you under the (17) and Fish and Game tab. First, on June 23rd of this year, they requested that City Council recirculate the (19) Negative Declaration based upon changed (2o) circumqance~ They have not rescinded that letter. (21) And I was told by the general counsel (z2) this afternoon of the Fish and Game that they are not (Z3) intending to rescind the June 23rd letter; although, (24) they are going to mnke some clarifications about the (25) memorandum of understafidin~a (1) When and how they have not m~de a (2) determination. In fact. one of the issues they raised (9) with us was just the timing of having to make a (4) decision. What they are absolutely not rescinding, (5) though, is the August 5, 1996, letter requiting (6) blue took the (8) Department of Fish and Game to the site in November of (9) tast year, the entire site was not shown to the (10) department When the depa~,,ent went back and saw the O1~ entire site, they (12) were required. The developer is not in compliance (~) with their regu~otm ~aat is not a letter chat the OO department is going to be rescindi~ (15) With respect to easement and grading and (16) dirt, there has been a lot of rumors flo~rlnoo around that Lauren has to place grading debris on the (z~) Department of the (19) easement that is to the north of their parcel under (2o) the (21) Department of Water and Power - there is (2a) a letter dated yesterday or the day bek~e rescinding (23) or terminnrt~lg ally agreements with or any negotiations (a6) with Lauren Development. They did not have a (25) permanent place. And m~ny of the areas that Mark O) showed you on the video are actually the D WP easement. (2) If the DWP is going to allow gra~noo or fill on their O) people like (4) everybody else. (5) And notl~mg haPl~ed in 1990, DWP ouc of being a lead agency for purposes of allowing any sort of (8) disturbance of habitat from their parcel~ We have (9) told the DWP that. It is our interpretation of law, O0) and they upon the (11) city attorney of Los (12) Like I mentioned previously, the Regional OS) Water Quality Board has sent correspondence. Today (14) Mr. Hartzell had plenty of opportunities to speak to (15) the attorneys and staff of the regional board prior to 06) today on his arguments as to why the rcehnrge issue O~) was not something that should be raisecL And they have sent a letter aclvi.~ing the city that they believe (1~) recharging needs to be considerexL (2o) I would like to say a word about (21) Mr. Cristtano. In your packet in the staff reports, correspondence from me to Mr. Crisfiano was very early (25) on in thi{ proce88. ~ I b~d full understanding of (24) this property, I decided that rh~ is not a parcel (aS) (1) rare and beautiful parcel in acklmon to the safety (z) issoe~ (9) I approached Mr. Cristiano, be,~__o_~e as a (4) propt, ty owner, value of his investment. I represent (6) That ia what my clahn to hme of cases; although, I have had a big (8) education in the last couple of months about issues (9) that I used to think were not particularly (10) O1) Mr. Crisciano was offered a sum of money (12) chat be will never see (15) Because for every dollar that we spend on legal fees (14) is to purchase ~ (15) property and put it in the State WUdUfe Conservation (16) fufic~ (1~) I have been very fr2n~ and open about (1s) trying to reach a settlement with Mr. CrL~o~o carly (19) on, trying to make Lauren - trying to avoid the (2o) litigation the (21) city attorney who represents I said, ~ this is some~hin~o where if (25) people sat down and worked togetber, we could (24) theoretically work it out,' because I kid you not, I (25) will not stop O) We have one iawauit flied in ftderal (~) court; we will file another start actlot and this (5) case will go on and on and o~ We will all spend a (4) lot of money, when we could sit down and try to work (5) things out. When I m~lre these overtures, everybody (6) rhink~ this is a sign of we~_ ime~. It is not a sign C/) of weolmess. I am operarinoa in rhi.~ ~o2me from a sign (8) of strength. (9) I have a lot of substantial evidence in (lO) the recorcL I have a major law firm behind me. And O~) we aren't going anyplace. And maybe the lawyers will (12) make a lot of money on the fact that ¢Uents M & M CertiFied Court Reporters o~M,~ Page 16 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 don~ sit (1)) down and figure how to work things out. You have that (]4) choice- (15) The correspondence of Mr. Cristlano is (]6) very, very clear in the record, and I would urge you (1~) to read that, because his impression was created that (~) we were somehow trying to rip his property off for 100 (]9) thousand (:e) His tentative m~p is stuck, thoogK He's (z~) going to have a lot of trouble selling that property, (~) because I'll tell you, there is nobody that is going (zs) to come along and ck-velop that property that doesn't (~4) know they have to deal (z5) This time we will know what's going om O) We didn~ know. If I had known before May 23rd, I would have been out there batrlinoo a lot sooner. O) There's no reason in the world I would have sat on my (4) hands for a development like ~ So this notion (5) that we had notice a long time ago is not correct. (6) There is a lot of evidence over the last Ct) several month~ My fear, because it's late in the evening, is that once, ,~in~ it's continue thi.~ hearit~ I would urge you to (10) do the following: Take (1~) Close the recorc~ If you do not ciose the record, we (u) will be out there tomorrow and the next day and the Os) next day and the next day hiring new gerrinoo (14) the Arnty Corps of (]5) other thing. (16) You were the ones that wanted the hearing (1~9 on August the 20tlx We prepared for this hearit~ We O$) would lute to close the recorcL If you need to take 09) it under 5ubmimdoH, if you need to get a second (a0) opinion - I would urge you to get a second opinion. (:]) This is an important decision for the city, not only (zz) in terms of the legal fee~ which your city attorney (as) will tell you, work my way, not his way, in the event I prevail on the civil rights action on the (zs) environmental case, but ifs a liability issue. (1) You're going to be the one -- if we're (2) right and you're not and the levee goes down and these O) houses come up -- which rye got to reft you k's O) alm~t hypoth~cal at rhi~ time - ff it were to (5) happen, you're the ones that get suec~ We, the (6) taxpayers, are the ones who end up having to pay these CO co$~ It's worth spending some money to get a second (8) opinion. It is a big me. impact of CEQA (10) on these temattve maps -- you're not ~ only city in (10 the state that's with It Redlands has old tentative m%r~ They don't have sewer bookups any (1)) longer. Cities in Northern California, a big (1~) Just like when you get cancer, you have (15) to go to a second doctor to m~ke sure you're making 06) the right decision before you go O~ You can cio~e the record this evening and (1~) you can decide and call another bearing where you 09) discuss the issues and make your ruling, but you can (~) get more input before you m~ke your decisiom It's (~1) tl~ beat thing for (az) These are the people who vote in your (as) city. ~ have atood up and said this is a project (~) that has trouble. They have atood up and said we wU! (a5) atand b~hind the people who are this project O) Our citizems ~ that And it's not asking a lot. (2) And I'm sorry, with all due respect to O) your lawyer, I would say it ff it were anybody else (4) sitting up there, take a look at the (5) Mr. Markman knows that the design review hearing that (6) was before the City of Orange on Wal-Mart was couched (7) "lmost identically to ~ In that instance the city (a) council sort of wanted to bear a lot of additional (9) stofl~ They didu~t limit it to cle~ign review. (10) I got to tell you, I have the transcript, (11) and, you know, it's O2) what you think people want to hear. I do it a lot (15) rayseli Get a second opiniom (14) So in clozlng I want to say the law 05) requires you to look at the sob~antial evidence. (16) There's all the statutes in case law out there for you (1~) to look at the changed ciro~m-~tatlce$. Nobody can get (z$) around that 7.5 e~an~x! ci~o~m~tlce- The expea't~ (19) the people Lauren thought were good, you just can't do (a0) it. It's a real issue. It's not something we're (aa) making up because we're worried about the $270,000 can get for this (as) today or tomorrow. It is the key issue that ttm (2~) debris b~in and (25) I know Leeotto I~lpp~ from O) of the Sage will testify about a lot of the (a) environmental issues, They are the key issues for O) her. For most of the people on the CURE- and Leeona (4) is on mtr board - the issue is the levee- (5) Somebody told me to say - I have tO say (6) it in the immortal words of Laurence Olivia in CO (~) And'ff you want to live beneath the levee (9) and you want your ~h.dren to live beneath that levee (10) when it's gone, then you make the decisiom If you O1) think about it and think about the risk, what it would (~) mean to your would (1)) mean to you living on ghat de~opm~ Jf theft (14) that les so (15) ciose to the cartlzluake fault - and let me tell allowed a lot of developmen~ on have now discovered Oa) because we have had to spend so much time - I that (19) the city needs to really ~ thinktn~o about its (~0) planning issue~ (.-]) All that land up there is very, very (aa) dangerous land to be buUcnnoo om If you don~ start (as) taking a rcally close look - we have opcned up a big (:4) can of worms here. The next development that comes (a5) Into thc city, you're going to have people who are a (1) lot wiser about the hydrology and the earthquake (2) is~ue~ and you really have to start taking a look at O) thing~ (4) I would be happy to answer question~ (5) It's too bad it can't be like federal court, where I (6) make an lawyer and CO you say what does he rhink about it? I would love to (s) hear w~at Mr. l~uren think~ about the changed (~) ciro]m.~;allce$, because l~e been hearing, 'You can't (10) listen to M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.~. Page 17 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 that. This is design review.' (11) The eYetopic I gave - and I'H use it in (12.~ closing, ff you had approved Che~obyl in 1990, and it (13) didn't get built in 1995 or '96 -- rl~r big earthquake (14) fault underneath Chernobyl -- and you say, well I 05) could only decide whether it was going to be pink or (16) blue or how tall it's going to (1~) Your own general Health and Safety (m) Ordinance, which requires that you protect your 09) citizens, CEQA requires of you, the changed (so) circum.~nce~ You have aH of the authority in the (n) world to step back and say, wait a seconcK There's (22) something new here. We cannot approve a substantially (~) dangerous project without taking a clo~er look. (a4) We're not asktng you to ,~pprove the (~) project. We're ~k-tnE you to review an O) impact report. It should have been done in 1990. The (2) planning staff shtmld be ,~mharrassed about that (3) Negative Declaration. There is no way in the world (4) this project deserves the Negative Declaratiom I O) can~ ehnfienge that now, but I can ask you to look at (6) gJlose chafiged CtFOmXSrnnCes and consider ~ and 03 consider (s) Thank you very much. (9) MAYOR ~I.EXANDER: I would ask -- since she has (10) covered a lot of information, I will say it ~ao~nin; C~fi (11) we ~_~_t,~r~ to ~ from repetition on what his been (12) stated already? (13) MI~ SHEAHAN: Good evesing. My name is Tom 04) Sheaham I'm the principal hydrogeologist for Dames (15) and Moore in Ontario, California. Some things I'm (16) not. l'm not a resident in this arete l'm not a (1~) party to this action in any way, and I have no (~) interest in ~ I have been asked on betmir of CURE (19) to evaluate some data and to provide some professional (~0) opinions~ (=) The I~is for my being able to do that, (22) I'm a licensed professional in California. I'm a (~) registered geologist, a registered geophysicist, among (~t) other ~ This is the kind of work I do in (3) evaluating these lfinds of projects. I reviewed (1) documents~ I~e talked with Dcoplc. I hove (2) hmilinr~.cd myself with the stte~ I have walked the O) levee, and I have walked the arex I have formed sume (4) optnion~ O) And I'm going to make this as brief as I (6) can, but I think it'S importafit to state my opimom 03 You'll lind my declaration, I believe, attached to one (8) of the Imck of the documents that you have. I'mgoing(9) todothisas quickly as I can, but there are some O0~ importam points I would like to bring out. I would (11) like to have you hear it from mc in persore (12) First, removal of this levee provides a (13) significant reduction and the residents that have been (15~ That's an i .reportant point Inc levee and the swale (16) are an device, (1~) for controlling flood and (19) I don't know ff you can see (20) It is - here's the levee. This is the area of (21~ proposed on here (22) where the 1969 flood came down. And you can see that (2~) they stop at the levee. All the bouiders, and we're talking about stopped by tim levcc~ Page 88 (1) This sinnil trace of W~_t__er that came through here is a (2) little part that came through the breaclx (3) And on that point, I think, this (4) demonstrates, as well anything. the fact that the (~) argument that there's a 200-loot breach in a several (6) thousand foot-long levee is of little or no 03 consequence. (s) Now, I think the removal is particularly (9) not warranted because of ctm~ed condition~ You have (lo) heard many of them already. I'm going to talk about a (1~) few of them. I'm not going to reiterate them. I'm (12) going to try to elaborate a little on some of these. (13) During some mapping that my firm did in (14) 1987 - I believe this was 1987 _~ -- this is the (15) ares. Again, here's the levee, here's the debris (16) basin in this area. O~) I didn't go up and do ~ Other geologists wemt up (18) and (19) This is showing the red as granite; the (z0) blue is medisediments -- they're heavy, hard rocks, (2~) but are medisediments; the yellow shades are alluvium (22) up in the arco. I have tried to p~mm'~rtZe (2~3) the illformation on another sheet - this is black and (~) ~ It comes up in color up there -- to show, in (2s) my opinion, the potemtnl for landslide movement in (1) the area, ff landslides move. (2) Alter some elison-Sons I had this (3) al~ernoon with Mr. James at your office, I realize it (1) is im?ortant for yotl to riot think in terms of O) !nfi~dtdes as w-~_r__~_ flow~ Landslides are not w~t__er (6) flows; they are material flow~ You have seen the 09 volcano flows that have come down and wiped out (8) entire communitie~ It's that type of flow that (9) we're (10) Landslides are material~ They are (it) sitting up on steep Mopes right now and they're (12) loose. They are separated from the native rock and (13) they're hanging~ if you (14) Potential damage is tremendom from these. 05) The ~n~fier one of these, estimated being (16) at only ten feet one-f~th of its maximum deptl~ turns out to be cio~e (m) to a 100 thousand cubic yards of material. The (19) landslide will sit there until somethug shakes it (a0) loose, either an eagthql~ake or ~ tnin.~otln - not a (~) flood event - but a rnin~torm, a nice soaking rain (22) that builds up pressure tn.~de the landslide material (z~) that allows the landslide (~) We're not talktrig about a flood (~) We're talking about a material movement. What this (1) shows is my rough estimate, at rht.~ point, the (2) direction of mi~oeatiofi of a landslide. It would come O) directly down the slope p~e~ng up energy, and by the (4) time it hits the bottom, it wouldn~ care what was in (3) front of it. It would continue to move, generally, in (6) this direction. Whar it would encounter FLrst is the 03 spillway comin~ from th~ debris (n) ff we have 90,000 yards of material (9) coming from the hill, and if it hits the spillway, (10) even over this zone, which is about 1,000 feet, that ¢11) spillwhy will only take about 5,000 yardg That (12) leaves M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Page 18 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 about 85,000 cubic yards of material that's (~) going to come over that spinway. a (1~) rainstorm, water coming down the spillway, that (16) spillway is no longer going to be able to take that 07) rain water and carry it down through the channel. The Os) rain down through this (19) are~ (20) Tbe only protection that the residents (21) below this levee have is the levee. As I mentioned, (22) the levee is a viable, protective flood (~) control device ~ no~r. (u) Incidentally, I was pleased in rc~:iing (~) Dr. Dnvid wminms' ~ 91 (1) assessment of the landslide issue. You heard Malism (2) talk about ear, bquak~ O) Well, first of all, the landslide issue (4) is a changed conditiot~ Moore knew about them, they were not t~u+ng them into (6) project was originally C~) looked at. (8) A second changed condition is the (9) carthq~e magnitude. This line on this map shows the (10) 1o~nfion of the Cucamonsa fault. You can see that it O1) goes (12) More recent studies also confirmed in the declaration (1~) that you have from Dr. HenyeT indicates that the (14) potential earthquake on this fault is about 7.5 O~) magnitude. That's based on recent information (16) developed in 1996. New infortnatiot~ information that O~) was not available in 1990. (18) Another - I think you'H see better (19) in Dr. WHliams' for debris basins is different today than it was at (21) tttc tinle that thi.q debris basin was put in It came (22) about as a result of experience. In Glendora there (23) were debris basins that fafiecL I can~ recall (24) exactly the year, but I know in 1990 they ~-ged the (23) criter~ made the criteria more stringent. PoSe 92 (1) Based on that, if you were to build a (2) debris basin here today, you would not build that one. (3) You would build one that is more clpable ~ the one (4) we [gt~tn is thee (5) and that it provides adequate protection is incorrect. (6) And we know that now. We did not know that in 1990. C7) That's a changed cond~on. (8) On a separate issue, I reviewed some of (9) thc work by a grotq3 called the RMA Group, consultants (10) to Lauren Development, that did an evaluation, a (11) so-called evaluation of compatbon between the (~) proposed bttm and trapezoidal ~h~n.el that is to be (~) proposed to be put in at the north end of the (14) propoty, a substtmte for the existing levee and (1~) swale. I found many disctepancie~ It's an (16) apple4o-otanses cotnparlso~ I discussed some of (1T) these in my tnOW. (~) What that cotnparistm does is to make the (1~) safety hctot for ~ levee ~o down, and m2kf- the (20) structure go up. (21) What's more important, though, just in considering the (22) safety trapezoidal (23) channel and the best (24) safety factor, the most critical hllure safety factor (23) is 1.4. I believe 1.5 is the minirmzm I don't know (1) what the city uses for that, but 1.5 is what o~r (2) company, our geo~eclmi~l et~inee~ ~ as a (3) minimum safety factor. (4) Fm concerned that even at best te~hnt,~l problem~ and has not been trapezoidal (8) channel berg proposed at the north c~d of this (9) property being a replacement for the levee, I find (10) ludicrou~ I couldn't believe the dimrn~ons of the (11) trapezoidal ctmnfiel had been reportc~ I bad not sec~ (12) tbe disStahL I went by the city's office today to (13) look at tbem, and sure enough -- I Just sketched this (14) out -- you ~an sec on my dioxin-am what tcfi feet looks (1S) like in horizontal and ten fcct in vertical (16) This is my rendition of mysc~ rm a (1~) lot thinner in the ~ rtun I'm here. Imn (18) six-feet tall. 3'his trapezoidal ctmmci is not a (19) major StrUcture. It's a 3-footer--p, by (20) 6-foot-wide4t~J~c-bottom coucFctc ch2nnel. And to (21) cI2im th~ it is going to reptacc a 30 foot high (22) levco ** my ~ wasn't big enough to draw the c~oss (2~) section of the levee. It would go off this page. A (24) 30 foot high levee is what we have right now. To (23) replace it with a 3-foot deep elmreel, ! find l*qe 94 (1) ludiCFOt~ (2) I asked Mr. James today if be saw this to O) be equivalent to the existing levee, and be said no. (O It's not an equivalent thin& O) One other point. This area up in this (6) zone, above the levee, below the debris basin, is some ('0 of the mo~t permeable material known to moil: course (8) 8Fayel, sand, boulders, cobbles, watc~ in that at"ca (10) The water that normally comes down Deer Crock is the (11) best quality water in the world, mmmtatn strcmnwater, (12) cxccHcfit quality. You can buy it at S2.~0 in the (13) store. This is the kind of water that would normally 04) recharge rh£q (1s) My tmderstanmng is that if the levee is (16) removed and if this project goes in, theT will no (1~) longer be able to release w~_r__~ for rechL*~ in that (18) areal This is not an hsil~tnc~t rechrgc arco_ (19) This is a lilZle dlmcuit to see. Here's (20) approximately where the levee b. Here's (21) approximately shaded (22) areas are not just recharge areas, but according to (23) the legend, these are recharge areas with the capacity (24) greater than are (25) major recharge areas in this (1) Now, ff recharge doean~ occur here, wtth (2) the reduction in Colorado River water being made O) available in California, the water users in this aren (4) are going to end up having to pny more for water and O) will be gctting a poorer quality water as ~ result. (6) It's a probicn~ It is also a CO let me ~ say that because of the (8) ~h.nged conditions, in a nutsbell, landslides, (9) c~thquak~ b~dn~ (10) the lack of re~turge in the future, and what I would (11) call incomplete, if not erroneous cnstnccrin8 (12) analy~ the ones ttmt I have scc~ I would StrOngly (13) cftcoutage you to consi(k=r 1ookifi~ at a full (14) environmental impact report before goifig foFwnFd with (1~ rhi.q projc~. That is my M & M Certified Court Reporters ~s~ Page 19 Transcript of Proceedings professional opinion. (16) And if you have questions, I'H be happy Or} w answe~ them, (lS) MAYOR ,~I_bTr~NDER: (19) Is there anybody else that would like (~0) to - (~) MIL ANGEL: Good evexdn& Mr. Mayor and (aa) members of the council. My nnme is Bffi Angel. I (as) Hve in Rancho Cucamonoo~ I am also a custom home (~) builder. I pretty much make my living engaged in (as) this~ I have been building in the Oty of Rancho (1) Cucamonga since 1984. I build, basically, custom (2) home& And I have processed many plans through the O) Oty of Rancho Cucamon~ (4) in fact, I have processed more si~¢ (5) family custom homes through the city's design review (6) process and specifically the Htll.~ide Ordinance, since 09 it was adopted I'm (s) r~ to custom home~ O) ! came here, specifically, as Tom (10) mentioned, to talk about the problem~ ! have where the (11) cl~i~ong are incon~-~zent with the Hillnid~ Orditmnce, (12) which is the design review, the m~er you have before (13) you. However, Malissa has asked me to speak a little (14) bit about the general plan issue~ (15) Back in 1990 when the tract was approve~ 06) I went through the files, and I could not find any (1~) specific reference to the City's general plan. In the 06) back of the folders that you have, there are five (19) ~ And I'H show you the -. these are the O0) City's general plans. This is the City of Rancho (=) Cucamonga's open space plan. This is Haven Avenue right here. This ~ of the property, right here, (as) is Haven RC-5; the colored area is the proposed (z4) project (as) You can see, probably, a little bit on (1) your cio~e-up m~.r~ that this squiggly line, up here, (a) this hatched line, runs in rhi.~ whole area, is the (3) designated Flood Control Land and Utility (4) (9) in addition to this designation on that (6) property, this designation here is called the CD streamside woodland and reehnrge area. I bad a (8) local company, Rivex~Mde Blueprint, take this m27 (9) which is drawn at this scale down here, and correspond (10) that with the existing - this is that section of the (11) mnp. This is Haven Avenue. This is the city nmit Oa) boundary. This is the existing project. This is the (13) proposed project that's going to be going along the (14) project. (15) T~e SCales OI1 bo~ tlM~se ma~s have been (16) matcbecl. And you (iv) although it doesn't follow exactly - ~o~i~. thc (~) gencral plan is more of a general area. You can (19) cicafly sec d~at this northern section, be~_~t,~ ~ (~0) levee was thcrc, and r/ds is where the lcvec runs, was (~) denoted str~,r~m~ and woodland for that particular purposc. You can sec the flood control ~l~el cominco (as) can scc (a~) the intent. you (1) have, which inchide ~ wat~ recharge m~p, which (2) Mr. Sheahan just showed you a portion o~ th~ is tbe (5) CAty of Rancho ~~'s N~ R~c~ ~. (4) ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ of (9) ~ p~j~ ~ ~ of~ - y~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ cl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~j~ r~ ~ ~ ~. S~ (~) O~) Y~. ~ ~ of~ ~ ~ol ~, y~ m ~ Oa) ~ ~ 05) ~ro~ !~ of ~ ~mt m~ ~ OO ~e ~ m ~ now. ~ ~ ~e I~ ~re O~ ~n~ ~ r~O~. ~ U~ O~ ~, ~e 31. Y~ pro~ br ~ ~r~ 09) ~d ~ ~e, ~ ~e, ~e ~ 1~ w~ld ~. (~) ~ ~e ~ ~e ~! c~t Ifs v~ cid, ~ (t~) ~ ~M~ ~t ~ pr~ ~ ~e g~ p~ ~ (=) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e. (~) Now, ~ ~ of ~ Cu~o~ ~ce (~) ~ ~ of ~ g~ p~ ~ ~ ~ (as) g~ pl~ m~ ~ ~e g~ p~. ~ ~ 08/20/97 (1) from the city's log, copy 8902, I believe it is, flood (a) control to medium demity; 8902 flood control to CiViC (3) community. (4) 8704 was flood control to 1ow.meclimm of Banyon and MUlikem (6) These propcrees an have the same general plan CD dedgna~oo, removed by a (s) general plan amendment. The resolution num_t~rs are in (9) the record. And I think back in 1990 when this (10) project oversight, (11) I believe that the staff may have not turned to the oa) property was located (lS) in a (14) When I reviewed the file, I didn't see (15) any mention that the property would even be close to (16) it. But there's no mention, whatsoever, in the (17) general plan All the resolutions, as you know, my Os) that the plan is ccm.~qent with the general phm (19) And, again, I'm not an attorney. I had a short (20) meeting with Mr. (2~) And, again, I think Mr. Marirm~ is (22) entitled to his opinin~ And, %o~t~ I'm not an (as) attorney, but he was there when this project was (2~) approved in 1990. I can see why he wo~ld back ~ (25) Bllt I think that the City should maybe get a second Pa~e 100 (1) opinion on that, becau~ I think a general plan (2) amendment is required. O) In fact, one of the general plan (4) amendments that was done, 8902, was the Rancho (5) Cucamonga Fire Station on Banyon, right there near (6) Millikaro, on the north side of the street. That had (?) the same general plan d~ign-fion of this property. (s) And a general plan amendment was done. (9) One of the things Mr. Allday had O0) mentioned back in 1990 -- and, again, INre been (11) involved since the project was built in '84 and (1:) '85, and I remember when this tract came before the (1~) P!atm~ Commition to get approvecL The residents (14) opposed the project, and there was Uri~o~rion and (15) there was a (16) Howevex, we always assumed rha_r the O~) general plan for this property was for two homes to (lS) the ac~e. So we did our best to M & M Certified Court Reporters c~p~,~ Page 20 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 create a design that 09) would be compatible with our o~ohhorhood. At that (2o) time Brock Homes was processing the m~. (2~) We didn~ know that this .propexty had a (22) general plan designation of open space. And we would (25) not have given support to the project had we known (24) tha~ Thafs a very big changed circt.mqnn~e that the: (25) C. it~ Council should take into effect. Pa~e 101 (1) But what I mainly came here to r_n_lk (2) about, what my field of so-called experme ~, is the O) design issues, which I have a few of them, but rH (4) make them really brief (5) Since 1984 I have worked with the City of (6) Rancho Cucamonga and on many, ranely projects, and the C~ staff is excellent. And I (s) The design review issue, which is really (9) the issue tha_t_'s before you, is the hillside, nnm_her (10) one. This ties into what I was just talking about. (11) The first page of the Hillside Ordinance - I brought Os) this with me, the first stateanent, right here. I'll (13) read it to you quickly. (14) "Provide guidelines and standards for (15) developing hillside areas to mintmiTe the adverse (16) · impacts on grading and to promote the goal~ (17) objectives of the City of Rancho Cu_,~_monga's general (]8) plan of open space.* (19) That's very important. It's to promote (2o) the City of Rancho Cucamonga's goals and objectives to (z~) the general plan of open space conservation. It (22) continues on with the environment and bei_ fig con.qi~tent (25) with existing vegetation Existing vegetation, (24) slopes on the (25) levee are existing, And to preserve ttatural Page 102 (1) topography. (2) The action that's before you is design O) review, which relates spcdncally to thc Hillside (4) Ordinance, as Mr. Aftday said. The Hill~de Ordinance O) refers you back to the general planning that says ttmt (6) you must find exi.~tlc¢ betwee~ that and open space O) vegetatiom (s) In the open space plan in the second (9) paragraph -- it says flood control land, which is part (10) of in addition to the streamside woodland; unlike Oz) agriculture and private land, these will not be developecL So the general plan is definitely required (~) in this instance. (14) The other design review tt~hnictl i.~ue I 05) would like to bri~ up is Section 17.24030. Ifs a (16) section in the Hillside Ordinance that requires that (m the developer provide a natural features [nap, so that (]8) the staff can re. lily see the !o,~fion of federally (19) reco~n~ i,~cl blue line and (2o) The staff can make a decision (z~) When I reviewed the file, I did not see that. (22) Also Section 17.24050 of the Htll.~le (25) Ordinance, again, relating directly to design review (~) says that the developer must property that exceeds 30 percent. There are ~e 10~ (1) specific guidelines in the Hillside Ordinance that say (~) if the exmtng ~opes exceed 30 percent, you must do measuFcs~ O) The~ are things that I have to deal with {~) on every project that I process in the City of Pancho (6) Cuesmonks. In fact, I'm building a home right now on e0 Hillside Avenue that has this condition on it. I (8) think it came before you, ~ to ~ p12nnin~ (9) Comm£qqton, vJ~Jcrc there wcFc ,~_~fing slopes exceeding (10) 30 percent. According to the Hin~de Ordinance, (11) those slopes are not (12) In addition to the slopes that exceed 30 (1~) percent, there are also natural contours on the (14) property that exceed 30 percent. I was in Dan Jatnes's (15) office today, and we looked at the maps that were done (16) in 1987 and in 1989. And we did verify that thee ~ (17) ~ isOid~tcd espcdally mlon~ thosc (]8) bluc linc streams that we were rc~errin8 to bc~ore (19) that (2o) percent. Dcvelopers do mitigating (1~) measures in the detailed site plan to addrein these (22) imue~ (25) Existing water courses on the ~_e_. (24) Section 17.24060 on Nnmher 2. ~ t_his is (25) information that you may want to review I~_t__er. It ps~e 104 (1) says they must be m~gated again~ In fact, the (2) Hillside Ordinance shows this picture. It shows the (3) stream bed and n.meal walks and things like that. (4) According to the Hi11Mde Ordinance, all (5) lots shall have (6) Every one of my custom homes, each home, each !or, I CO show how it fits within that envelope. Thc I!tildin8 (6) c~Yelopc I'm referring to, Tom touched on it (9) This is the I-liliMde Ordinonce, the developer. As you (]8) clfi sec, this is supposed to be showing a line like O1) this. The house is supposed to Bt within this envelope_ And the intent of the 454egree ,n~c slope (x~) is to get some termeinko to the house to conform to 04) the hillside_ (15) The plans the developer has propo~ - (16) an~ again, Tom mentioned it over, there's vertical massln~ This is on (]8) Page 24. See, it's up here, it says, 'Do rht~: (19) Stagar the house with the hill tike thi~ not thi~* (2o) Two of the applicant's floor (a~) Vertical elements - Tom touched a little (22) bit on just want to elaborate a little more, (25) because this is a design review issue. (24) MAYOR M-I~LANDER: ~Wnile you're looking at it, (a~ may I ask P~e 105 commt~zioB - did R go MR. ANGEL: Yes, it did. I would lake to pOint OUt that there was (4) so much testimony. And like to. tght, I didn't bring up these issue~ But they were really bombarded with (6) everything, and I ckm'~ mink they were really -- CO becansc it really -- you know how ~ suru C8) about thingS. design wasn't even (9) The~ issues that I brought up, they didn't really ask (10) about O1) As you know there's so much controversy O~) on this issue. It was sort of overpowering, the whole 03) thing They said, well, you know, this is going to be (14) Of had their minds (15) nlade up. I'm not sure. l'm just guessing. (16) This is the elevation right there. It's (17) kind of i?ortant. This is a vertical line straight (ls) up to the cable end. Even though their floors are (19) in-step with the land, the M & M Certified Court Reporters ~M,~ Page 21 Tran~.ript of Proceedings 08/20/97 basic house, itsell~ (~0) doesn't. This area that you see back here is the (2~) garage. (22) You see on that floor plan right there? (23) It's in the lower right-hand corner. The garage sits (24) way in the back, like 60, 70 feet. It's depressed way (as) back The front of the house that you see, where I'm O) showing right here, you're (2) The intent of the Hill~de Ordinance was O) to get the (4) This is almost like a townhome. It's just straight CS) up, down, aero~ These were issues that I~ve dealt (6) with in the past This floor plan is the same way. O) I can see where this would sometime be a (a) necessary floor plato But they should maybe bring (9) this garage out further to hide that, get the house to O0) flow with the land a little more. That's what all my Or) cu~x}mers who have had to build homes up there have had to contend with and go through this long design O~) review protein in the past 04) The only other issue that I have (rs) that's the end of my presentation on the Hillside 06) Ordinance -- but the only other mue that I thought On n~ht be pertinent, when you're looking at this 08) general plan issue" the - I'm sorry. o9) My understanding is that the property is (z0) zoned VL, the overlay. But the state law requires (z~) I don't know if it's a statute or whatever - but it's (za) in the general plan, and I mark~ it. It's right here. ¢23) Section 66567. (~) I gum it's the Subdivision Map Act (zs) requires that a subdivision man may not be approved page 107 O) unless it is ~t with the open space plato (:) This is coming from the City of Rancho Cucamonga's (3) general plan. So I thinit a general plan mendment is (4) definitely warranted in this case, if nothing else. (S) And that can be related to the design review issue, (6) because in the HUIside Ordinance it specifically C~) refers to the general plan. ($) Thank you very much. (9) MAYOR AI-!~tNDER: How many more people wish to provide testimony toni~h~ One, two, three, f~tr, O~) five, 02) Out of courtesy to everybody here, can we (~) try to roll this along? We're going to be here until 04) one o'clock in the morning OS) MS. ~: My name is 06) I'm m v-atlon director of the Spirit of the Sage O~) Council and a board n~mher of CURE. And I'm also a O8) cofounder of the Natural En~mgered ~ Networic 09) And some of us know each other. There are some of (a0) the same city co~mr'tlmemhers sitIce began our C~) Council for Spirit of now. (23) And to begin with I'd like to this community. As I look back at (2~ 1990, I sure wish Malissa McKleth was around then in !qge 108 (1) this commtmity. Sbe could have come forward with many of the same concerns that we expr~__~xl_ back then and (3) brought up this research to bring forth tht~ new (4) information that is of (S) It's really - one of the benefits that I (6) found working as an protecting our state's ,~mral heritage is meeting so (8) many great citizens that come fotmard and become part (9) of the government proce~ And thaes really happened (10) here in this commlallity. Council O2) been able to review the documents from the earlier ~ Commimzlon meetings so I don~ have to OO reiterate? Os) MAYOR M.g'~M~DER: I think we probably reviewed 06) as much I won~ go Os) over things that have been submitte~ But I would 09) like to bring some attention to some other (20) informmtiom (z~) First of all, we beUeve th~_r the (a2) biological significance of the project site was (23) mim'eprese~ted in 1990, along with the cultural (24) significance. That mim'epresentatton project proponent, Brock Homes, O) looked into the California natural diversity (:) database, they would have seen rh~t this planned O) commutztty was the hi_oh prior/ty, and they wouldn~ (4) have marked that little box that said "no,' as far as (5) sig~ific~nt i?acts to biological resources. (6) The mine as if tbey had county museum and U.C. Riverside. (8) They would lmve found that there is cultural (9) signifiesnee in O0) village of the Gabrieliino Shoshone Natiota ¢1~) I have to say, too, that with Maltssa Oa) McKieth and at the other offices there was a list of to submit that got (]4) lost So during thc beaten?, I have bad to cry to OS) remember what we were going to mbmtc And toni~ohr 06) we're going to be submitting it in (m Please forgive u~ We usually like to be much more O~) We believe that the deign of the project (~0) and the design is not compm~ie with thc surfminding (a~) environment or the clty's general ~ We also (~) beUeve rh~ the city will be in violation of ~ (23) Natural Commutfity;s Conservation Plan Act and the (24) San Bexnardino Valleywide Habitat MemoranchJm of Understandin& P~ge 110 O) cbe Plan Protection Map and otber appUcahle pubUc resources code~ O) We believe that the city does not have to (4) comider whether the project and design are in compliance - does have to consider. I'm sorry. And (6) more significantly it's not in compliance ~ (7) Sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, and ~79. To go over that (8) more significantly, Section 24, PubUc Facilities, (9) says that project and design should be con~-~em with O0) the generd plat~ 0~) Quote, ~oet aside sufficient natural and (~) historic areas for puqaoses of t_e~vhing environmental 03) and historic value and provide equipment and 04) facilities to support these progrnrn~~ end of quote~ OS) I don~ know. I've never even heard of 06) the c~ty even having an environmental program or any O~) type of a cultural program. SO ! didn't think that (18) thi~ project of 09) program with the general M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~.~ Page 22 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 plan that the city is (20) supposed to have. (zi) But in Section 25, Community Desq~ (22) quote, ~ elements of form and landscape in a elements visually.' In (24) particular, ~Provide an open space network rhar (ZS) relates to the natural context' ~ 111 (1) Well, looking at the project desigo, it (2) does not fit into thc namral landscape. It cuts into O) the natural landscape. From the video that was shown, (4) it was quite obvious that removing the levee really (S) shows that this project or the project design is (6) incon.~.~ent with what it says here of the landscape, CO of the surrounding area and physical contact~ And (8) also the information that was brought forward about (9) the open sia~ce and the riparian woodland areas, (10) Section 2.5 then continues, quote, (11) ~Protect views of the mountains and valleys to enhance (12) their role as a reference point,' end of quote. O3) Again, if this project de~/gn goes through, it (14) wouldn~ be consistent with this goal and objective of (15) the general plan. (16) Continue, quote, "Protect and enhance the (1:0 cha~_cter of creeles and channels,' end of quote. I (18) don~ see how this project or the project plan (19) protects or enhances the character. It does quite the (20) opposite from what weN, e been shown here tonight. (z~) Another quote, ~Maintain and reestabl£~h; (22) where feasible, natural vegetation in the community in (as) the !andscal~' (24) Even looking at these dra~ the (25) drawings up here, the projects don't show any natural Page 112 O~ vegetation from the surrounding area that would blend (2) a~in, the project and the project design is (3) not con~en~ with the genorai pla~ (4) In Section 2.7, Natural Resources Open (5) Space. I dicln~ even bother to get the quotes of tbe (6) various goals and objectives because it doesn't meet CO any of them. (8) We believe that this project is deignareal open space. Because (10) the City Council asked for us not to be repetitive, (11) I'm going to skip this secciom The speaker before me (12) quite eloquently explained (ls) We also believe that the CRy is (14) deficient in oprxt space currently. The jurisdiction (15) may be utilized to ~hmn the city's needed open O~ space requirement. Furthermore, the city hiis to (17) undeveloped land may be (18) have right now in (19) your general plan. (20) Section 2.8 has - again, I believe chat (n) that has already (22) And Section 379, Creelcs and C.~nnel~ As (as) the previous identified (24) that this is a riparian and a woodland area; (as) obviously, right in the middle of Deer Creek O) channels around it too, that it's not con~tent with (2) the general plan either. (S) Quote, ~To provide vLmal conalatent with (4) the surrmmding spaces O) should be landscaped to represent the namral riparian (6) character of the ~mWhills and canyons where CO ModJfit~2riOflS fOF the elimm'e ~lfferences between city be nmde." (9) Asain, this project and the pro~t (10) design does not fulfill the general plan requirements (10 02) I was going to discuss in more detail (~) cultural resources and c~mcerns over the past seven (14) year~ whether in tha c~y or m the county, more in (1S) the local newspaper. I think it's well.known of the 06) ct!11xlral Mg~tfic~nee of Cucamonga, and also of tbe 07) sage comm!~ty, that it's a sac~ed and medirin2! (18) phnr~ that the state has reco~no tTed it as the (19) habitat (2o) Lisa, from the California Indian Legal In) Services, will be speaking more spedficaily on the (22) concerns of the Shoshone Gabriellino Natio~ (as) We ask that the city review the (24) conservation guidelines for the Natural Community (2S) Conservation Program, the NCCP Ac~ Sect~n ~ 114 (1) spcctal rules of the California gn-rcatehers, the (2) Emhngcred Species Act (3) MAYOR M.RY~ANDER: I'm sorry. I really need to (4) ask this: We have gotten so far off the dean review (s) right now. (6) How do~e are we to - the Mayor, I think (a) we should take the input. Actually, I agree with (9) counsel who has the (10) identifying whether there is the CEQA review. Because of the dlafiged (12) ciro~mngafice ISSLIC, I think yon need to hear all of the procea~ all of the matorial coming in. And yon (14) will hear rebuttals to it, and you will heat the OS) city's r__,whnlcal staffs pOS/tlO!l Off rh2r And ~ (16) yon qucation is design 07) review. (18) MAYOR ALi~L4dqDER: The reason I asked that is we (19) were informed early on - we were told that, (20) essenrally, we're Ioolrifioo at design review. (n) MIL MARKMAN: You are. They are presenting the (22) argument. I would not suggest yon cut off the input. (as) I think all the input should come in. (24) I'm not suggesting by saying that you (as) will end up judging it to be relevant and necessarily 11uge 115 (1) decide that you ought to send ~ out for CEQA (2) review. But ff you don~ hear it, you can~ make the O) initial decislo~ (4) MAYOR M.Io~LNDER: Okay. Thank you. (5) MS. KLIPPSTEIN: I think that'S a good point, (6) because I would like to clarify the reason why I'm because, although we have (8) made some comments here that are very relevant to the (9) project design, we feel that these others are also in O0) the process and the d~::J~Ofi makin~ thlt In~y go Oil (11) hexe toniL~,ht I think that the city should consider O2) it may be opening itself up to a legal eh~llon~m~ to (1S) the general plan, or to the MSHCPMOU that was signed (14) by the county. (15) And that's what I'm about to explain with (16) cbe Sage Council, ff the city goes forward and (17) approves this project, you may be opening yourselves (18) up for O9) MAYOR AI.I~ANDER: We're opening ourselves up (2o) for legal litigation no malxer which way we go. (2]) MR. MARKMAN: You don't need a second opinion (22) on tlzar_ M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,.~ Page 23 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 (2~) M~. KL!I)PSTEIN: What I'm putcifig up here is (24) Page 18 from the couservnfion guidelines from the (25) Natlfi'al Commtmity~s Page 116 (1) ~ saying, although the dry has not enrolled in the (2) NCCP, the city is party to the Multiple Species (5) Habitat Conservation Plan MOU. state as hi_oh (5) qt~ality in the NCCP, this up here in subregion 1~.0 in (6) San Bernardino all the way across the foothilln, hasica!!y. Here is the 10 Freeway up here, so (8) probably north of Baseline. This m%fiping was also (9) included for the MSHCP of the delifieation of the plan (10) arc~ (11) So although the city did not eftroll in (12) the NCCP progFam, (15) as being a high quality significance in the planning (14) process for the MSHCP and the MOU. (1~) MI~ MARKMAN: Is this a logical brea~ poinO (16) MAYOR AI.~XANDE]~: Wc have to give thc lady a (1~ brcal~ (18) M~. KL!l~STEIN: I don~ underland the (19) question. (20) MAYOR .4Li~.ANDER: Is this a ~ral break for (21) you to stop? (22) MS. KL!~PSTEIN: ff you want to, I can pause (2~) at this point. (24) (Recess.) (25) MAYOR M.w'Y~kNDER: We'H go ahead and continue. Page 117 (1) It's 20 minutes after 11.430. And another hour we'H (2) give our court reporter another break. (5) MR. ~: I think we're down to the (4) 40*minute break. to the m27 from (6) the conservation guidelines, from 13.0, it's also Ct) important for the City Council to recognize why (8) there's a point 0. you mi~oht notice in other areas (9) there is a point 1, or point 2, or point 4, Orange (10) County. TI~ deeimol point de.~ig.2tes whether that (11) area should be planned as a whole or as (12) For example, in Orange County where (15) they're doing their planning proeel, they had central (14) and coastal, they had a matrix, they had a subregional (15) area For San Bernardino, the scientists that were (16) hired by the state, identified that this whole area (1~) needs to be planned for conservation as one whole. (18) That's why you see the point z~fo. (19) So, of ctmrae, that's what leads us to (20) also see that when the county and the dty entered into MSHCPMOUs, that the state and federal agencies (22) also let the whole (25) area needed to be looi~l at as one, and all the dries (24) join. (~) Now, of course, this was contracted after ~ 118 O) the planning -. after the m'~,,ren project. And, ~ (2) the new O) evidence. And chat also the MOU, the MSHCPMOU, would (4) supersede the Lauren pro{ect. O) And I'H ,-zplnin why: When the state and (6) federal agencies Cr) Bernardino cities and counties and other Southern (8) rem2ining (9) habitat, whether previously approved developments (10) occurred within the area or not (11) The _$~t_e and federal agencies also (12) identified that there should be no more than a (~) five-percent 10~ ofhabita~ Inthe interim both 04) plans were being develope~ opposed to the (16) NCCP program (1~) implemented habitat conservation plans in Section 10. (18) We would like the city to recognize, also, why we're (19) opposed to rc This is - part of the reason is when (20) we went into this whole regional mapping of Southern (a~) Californ~ that there was no research and studies that were already (~) approved for (24) If the state and the federal agencies had (25) done that, they would have found that it added up ~ 1~9 (1) whole lot more than five-percent interim. However, we (2) believe that this was part of the scheme of the NCCP (5) program. Becau5~ if ~ c!iminnted all ~ approved (4) developed areas, there is no way the NCCP program O) would have been adopted as a special rule. The (6) ~m~2tcatc-h~r would not have been threa_r__e~ecL It would C/) have been listed as endangered and it would have been (8) a moratorium also; something th2r hasn't been brought (9) up or really !ooined at, but it's something that we're (10) aware of and we think yoll should look at. O1) The county is the ic~l agency, lead local (~) agency, in the MSHCPMOU, and they pasaed a resolution 05) November 1st, 1994. Although the cities didn't sign (14) on to the MOU until ~m~, we believe that ff you were 05) to add up all of the habi~t io~e5 thor have occurred 06) since November 1st, alone would add up to more than a fiTe-p~rcl~lt tak~ (18) ~lrithin this sobregion, Area 13. (19) Were also found we are the only (20) conseIN~:ion Ol~m~ ni~'arion ill Southern California that (21) has interim take in (-,) all five countie~ We keep track of how much habitat (:$) has .been cake~ a~o, how many g~$rc~rchers have been (24) takem (25) In the Special 40 Rule for O) g~teateh~r, where the federal government adopted the (1) state program, they a~o mid that there could only be O) a five~ercem iota of the remnini~g habitat areas (4) that were mapped, and it also said that no more than (~) five percent of tl~ l-~nnini~g population of the (6) California g~renrcher could be taken. O~ The evidence that we have - and that (8) evidence that comes from Fish and Wildlife Services (9) shows that over 800 (10) California right now (11) we, in the Ol'?niT~fiOfi, have bc-cu 2qse~ng how to go (12) in and stop and c111 for a moratoriun~ (13) I think jul recog~i~in~o ~ there was (14) thig failure to map all of the development areas that 05) had already been approved, would certainly show the (16) courts chat there's moFe than a five-percent ta~e, and (1~) ~ gn~rc~dtvher should be Ilszeal as endangereeL And (18) the NCCP program should be (19) Now, the implications of doing solneehtn~o (20) like that, however, if the Sage Courteft did ~at ~ (21) and you might be fnmili2r that we did lingate on the (22) No Surprise Policy on Eficlafigered Spe~es Act -- but if (2~) we did sue on the 40 Rule, or even on the MSHCPMOU, (24) tbe type of reaction that would go, not ofily from this (25) county and the scate, M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.~ Page 24 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 but into the halls of congress, Pu~e 121 O) would be used as evidence of why the bill should not (a) go ilarward, and why the NCCP program should not be O) used to inflict t~ Fc~Jcral Endaltered Species Act O) If we do that that would certainly bring In light to the City (6) would support the Lauren project and ignore the MOU that it has gone into. It would also, I think~ really ($) sl~oot the private property rights movement in the foot (9) and the state and county movement that we want Iocnl 00) control and voluntary pro~ It m~ould shoot it in 0~) th~ foot because it would show that when it got down 02) to the local cities and the local counties, that they Os) werm~ willing to abide by rbe agrccmcm that they (14) entered into. I think rh~r's somerhinE to consider. (1s) I think even the project proponent's (16) attorneys should con.~der chat since they rcprescm (1~) lot of ck-veloptnent in Southern California, that this 08) would dcfJ~tely be used as ammtxnitioll in congre~ O9) I want to bring to your ~_~_,_'~tiou the (20) MOU, 3.7, Conservation Strategie~ ril read this: (21) ~he plan shall m,~imt,e the use of appropriate (22) publicly owned !and, conspire with legally mandated (2~) conservation mea~res, and provide incentive for (24) conservation of private !and.' (2s) Those type of incentives are land Pa~e 122 (1) acquisition, Cramslrs, !and swap, mitigation bank, (:) ct cetera. o) Tbe City has an oppommity, because it (4) is party to this agreemorn, to go into (s) with Lauren and say, "~ook, we would like to do this.* (6) Either acquire it, either do a !and swap, some other CO city property somewhere wbere it's appropriate, where (8) it's not coastal sage scrub, where it won't upset the (9) species of concern, or to give tax incentive~ (10) I'm not real big on litigation because O1) there's still a loss, and I really don't find that conservation if you're chi?ping away piece by piece. O3) It's the Sage Council's position and (14) other grass roots conservation groups that such a reform is inadequate and that revolution is needext (16) The revolution chat we seeit in conservation does not (1~) provide incentives, or what is referred to as carrots (18) instead of the regulatory stip. We beUeve that when (19) cake, It is absurd (a0) to think that throwing some carrou is going to stop (21) them from eating the entire body. Asain, what's Ca2) happefiinoo here tonight is proof of (2z) The Lauren project and the ciufs (24) behavior so far confirms programs and the new reguhtfon Puee 12.$ O) advamage of and abused. PubUc crust, health and (a) safety, and general welfare are also concerns of the O) Sage Council Arid support resides in Rancho (4) in the State of (s) California. (6) The City is a public tru~ on the project site are city, state, (8) arid fexJeral agcficies in public tmsc This is where (9) the private land and (10) tbe bolder~ Tbc Sage Council uses the term (11) bccausc the !and is not (~) owned, trot thc bolder of thc deed and tMc bavc (~) privileges and entMemcm. Tbc city, in pubUc (IO trust, makes the dccision on the level of entitlement. Os) Presently, the project has been 06) tentatively approvc~ Howcver, the final projcct O~) design and vesrinoo is noc The City bas thc O~) obligatiou to protect thc pubUc trust, health, O9~ safcty, and general welfare. O0) Lauren project and the design is not in (21) compliance. And it is an obnoxious abusc of the land (~) that clearly threatens thc health and safety and (as) goneral welfare of thc local commuRity. (~) And in closing, thc Sagc Council (a~) encourages the city to do the right tbing, uphold ~ page (1) pubUc trust. We encourage you to uphold the pubUc (a) trust doctrines~ pubUc resources code and fecleral (3) rcgulatioms. We encourage you to deny the project (4) d~t{~n, recoi~,n~ i~in_.o c. bafiged circumstances, and to take (3) corrective action on the Negative Declaration that was (6) miwepresefited. CO Thank you. (8) MS. OSHIRO: My flame is l.t~a O~iro, (9) O-s-h-i-r-o. I'm aft attorney with CalEom]a Indian (10) Legal Service~ We're located at 120 West Grafid (11) Aveflue, Suite 204 In Escondido, California 92025. Oa) We represent Chief Ylatma Vira Rocha (13) (phonetic), the hereditary chief of the Shoshone (14) Gabriellino Nation. O~) Vira Rocha is unable to be here this (16) evenin& And I'm sure her doctors would also have O~) advised her to go home and get some re~t at this (1~) point. She has not been able to attefid past bearings, (19) but Offl~Fed testimony (30) concernin~ ~ concerns of Vlra Rocha and the Shoshone (21) Gabrieiiino Nation and the Native American (22) commufittie~. (2~) Cucamonsa is derived from Cucamongnow, a (24) name of the ancestral village and homeland and sacred (aft) !and of the Shoshone Gabrie!linc) Nation. (1) Chief Y'mm~ has opposed development (2) projects ttmt destroy thesc ancestral and saered land O) ~ their various resource~ mentioned, the (5) white sage is of (6) signilicance to the Shoshone Gabriel~o Nation. CO There are also evidences of archcologie21 sites rh~__r (8) have been found. There's an Army Corps of Engineers (9) Environmental Impact Statement from 1973 that O0) discloses ar,-h~eologicaJ sites when they were residing (11) in the (~) And when they discovered - five years (13) after that final (14) when they discovered additional cultural resources on O~) that property, they then submitted an updated EIR in (16) 1978, where adverse O~) impacts to cultural resources in the area that needed (18) to be mitigated. (19) There's also an environmental impact (~0) report from 1994 that was written for the Oak Summit (21) project that is in n,-i~oh~oring lands within the (z~) boundaries of the County of San Bernardino that also (~.~) disclosed cultural resources. (~4) And those t~ro environmental ira?act (as) reports place cultural resources to the northwest of M & M CertiFied Court ~Re_ .porters ~M,~ Page 25 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 (1) this current Lauren Development site and to the east (2) And is there is oral history to .support that all of O) these parcels are ~ ofth~ historic village oft6) (~ Chief Yianna joins in the request that a (6) full submitted for this C0 matter, because there is a risk of and (8) ~g~i~c~nt adverse on cultural resources, if (9) not (10) In addition, Chief Ylanna and the (1~) Shoshone C, abrie!lino Nation would like to know what 02) assurances you have, and what assurances the developer (13) has provided, that it is prepared to comply with (14) federal law undex Pl'otcc~on (15) and Repatriation Act, should they encounter during the (16) grading proces~ cultural fCSOUFCCS and human ff-m2ins. (17) We would like to know what assurances you have; that (18) they fedex~ law. (19) We ask that your plannb~ department and (2o) the developer open up a dialogue with Chief Ylanna (21) Vera Rocha and the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation and (22) · local Native American communlty's to address their (25) concerns and when (24) the cultural resources, the ancc~tl'al feq~nin~ of the (25) Shoslxm¢ Gabri¢llino Nation are tlnco¥cFc~ are Puse 127 (1) disturbed. (2) We ask that you show reverence for these O) ancestral rern=in_~ and these important and vital (4) resources to the Shoshone Gnbriellino Nation. (S) Thank you. (6) MAYOR AI-I~tNDER: Is there any m .npp~ of any ~ burial grounds that have substantially shown that (s) there is sacred (9) MS. OSHIRO: Any mapping of the area is very (10) general been_ -~ there cannot be public disclosure of (1~) the specific sites for fear of some past activities (12) o/~ I guess, grave robbing and pot hunter~ (1s) But there are general re?pings and (14) general information available at various archeological (1s) repositories, one being U.C. Riverside. That (16) information can be readily ~a~mmoned up. (1~) MAYOR AI.Wr, ANDER: Thnnk you. (18) MS. HAWN: My name is Rosanne Hawn. I Uve at (19) 5087 Gr2nndo Cx~wt. And I just don't (2o) MAYOR A[-Jo~tNDER: Well, that's pretty honest (21) MS. HAWIN: November 12th of 1990, I wrote you (22) a letter and I gave it to you. There was a letter (25) that was written to you, and it said that the (24) homeowners a,~lcl~ion ~ this pFOj~-'t- And (25) the letter was not included in any of your things. ~ 128 O) So we are rescinding that, becanse at the (2) time we didn~ realize the removal - we dicln~ know O) the .~t~oniacance of the removal of the levee or any of thnt SO We have Fcsctnded that, We have that letter (5) up there. I might add that the letter was signed by C6) someone -- my name was signed to it, but it is not my 09 ~i~n,re- And you clon~ have that letter. You do Ca) have the letter that I have just rescinded any (9) support (10) However, what it said was that we had (11) gotten together and we had concerns about front facing (12) neighborhou~ we have them O~) (14) We have long dtlvcway~ You never see them. We (1if) wanted it to be 25 percent. The developers said 40. (16) And we compromised on 33 percent front-facing garages, because we want the garage dement out of the front of (18) the house. We think they're ugly. (19) This project has 21moat every garage (2o) facing the street. And I clon~ care ff the garage is (21) 100 feet ~ a front-hrlnoo garage is a front-f=einoo (22) garagt And you see those cloor~ There is one plan (25) up there that has no(bingo but (25) visa-vcrsL All it is is front. You don't see a page 129 (1) beautiful front door or entry or any of that. (2) They tried to show you what it would look O) like going one way up the street, but then when you (4) get to the top and come down, all you ~ee are garages. (5) Another point I wanted to make in those (6) plans up there, there are a lot of optional feature~ C/) ff you look in the fine print, you'll see that the (8) porte~.here is an optional feature. If you take that (9) away -. and I think Mr. Angel showed what the houses (10) looked Ifim - it would look like a square boL (11) But in somc of them~ the fireplaces are (12) optional features, O~) feature~ I know from the design review and from the (14) Planfling Commi.ezion that the portal, 06) They are showing you these plan~ and you (iT) think (hals what you're getting, and they're optional (18) feamre~ (19) Another thing, the square footage - and (2o) Fm not going to belabor it. The square footage of (21) these houses is 3,127 square feet to 4,370 square (22) feet. And I don~ know what the mi~ i~ He gave you (25) the chart. You can figure out what the average i~ (24) He talked about expandable square (25) footage. He doesn~ talk about the expandable square o) footage of the exmmg homes in Haven View Estate~ (a) We all have cathedral ceilin? Maybe there would be (9) some homes in our area that are 10,000 square feet. (4) Don~ be decc~ved by the square footage. O) Those arc optional tr,..m~ If the buyer chooses not to (6) have optional i_re~.q put in there - and a Allday, is $15,000. I don~ know how (8) m2ny of those houses are going to have porte~.here~ (9) Another point I would llke to. mn_ke is (10) that ff at the end of aH this, you can only talk (11) about design issu~ then I am requesting as a (12) resident, right now, that you reagcnclize aH of the O~) other issues that you have heard to a future meeting (14) so they can be discussed, and so that you can vote Off (15) the(n, Bct~__u._qc I think there's a lot of really (16) important ones, and that would be a way that you could (1~) certainly discuss thi.~ (18) I think that's it, e"rccpt one of you made (19) a comment - you know - that whichever way it goes, (2o) you get the lawsuit. And I just want to say do you (21) want to be in a lawsuit with the residents or with an (22) out,f-town developer? (25) Thank you. (24) MS, SAMI~ON: Good ¢ve-~in~. M & M Certified Court Reporters z~a~s~ Page 26 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 (as) My name is Maureen Sampson. I reside in Pancho s~e 131 (1) Cucamongn; 1919 Boulder Canyon Road, Deer Creek. We (2) are business owners in Rancho Cucnmonga. We took our (5) building to P!annil~ It took us over a year. We are (4) building a home at 4965 Palato. We have an architect, (~) and it took us a year to design a house with hi~ (6) One of the thing~ I asked for bedrootn was part of the floor to (~) come out downstair~ He said. that's not allowable. (9) Another thing I wanted was a detached garage, and we (10) had a potxe~re up front We have had to go through (11) the same design reviews that we feel you're not (12) enforr/ng at this time. Be~_~,se as Rosanne had (15) pointed out, much of that is optional featurex (14) When this whole process came to life for O~) my husband and I, we had bought our !anc~ We were not (16) tnade aware of a fault line. We were made aware of the fault line up at sky line, and we elected not to buy (za) property up there because there was a fault line. We (19) bought where we did now thinIcing that it wa~ a safer (at}) project. (~) When we nrst began bearrag about all of (22) ~ we were looking at the design review. And (~) being a contractor, it wouldn~ be our hearts' desire (~) to have anybody building our home. That's (as) And we looked at the design review, and we thought, ~age 132 (1) excuse me, but it doesn't seem like they are having to (2) meet meet That was O) irritatin$ (4) But when I heard about the levee beinoo O) removed, that was it. We moved here in 1966 and we (6) landed in UplancL Through all of the flooding (~) through the wine barrels coating clown on Foothill ($) Boulevard, Red Hill herinE closed off to its residents, (9) and my sitting home between Euclid and San Antonio, I (10) heard on one of these severe rainstorms that the San (11) Antonio Dam may not holcK We should look at the (12) record and find out when that was made public. That O~) was scary. And so when I think that this _ckam may not 04) hold and the levee not being there, that's ~gbtentng Os) to me. 06) The other thing I would like to say a/ker (17) the Northridge em'thq~, aH of our freeway I would think that (19) if we know for a fact that there's a fault line onder (20) that dam, then it would be wisdom in having a levee to then ! (2~) would like to know who do we take our concerns to (a6) regar~Ung health and safety? If it isn~ the city, is (as) it lawyers? I don't know. But those are my concerns, O) and I would like you to conslder theam (2) Thank you. O) MAYOR AI.w3OtNDER: Any questions for Maureem~ (4) Who took the next mJmber? (9) M1L ORBONm-!.O: My name is Lee Orbone!lo (6) (phonetic). FI! try to make it brieL I have just a CO few points to make, We're looking at the design (8) review as one of the issue~ You look at the various (9) designs that you see there, they all pretty much look (10) View Eslxces all the 01) houses look cliffcreeL Ifs a custom home community. 02) I think thafs inconsistent with what we already have (13) there. Oi) The other point I'd liice to mak~ is all (x~ the ~ cil'o,m~ltanc{~ ~ hav~ come to Lif~ 06) I ave right in the flow of the water, here. If that O~) levee doesn't hold, I'm very, very concerned for my (m) family and (19) In light of the changed circumstances, if (z0) you approve this pro~ect and there's some damage, the (za) city could really be sued by any number of homeowners, (aa) And at the last Platming Comminslon (~) m~ting, it ~ brought up that this kind of thing (a~) happened before_ I think that it was meattoned at the (as) Pales Vexdes Estateg They approved development ~ 134 O) there. And when they had all kinds of problems, the (2) city was daryl /l~ar bal~tuptecL I think you need to be (3) very, very careful. (4) You need to take a good look at these (5) Who's going to wim~ Who's (6) going to io~e? Well, the reaiclents are going to be CO there. Yeah, we're going to sue if the project (s) We're going to get our money back. But it's a very (9) rlt~r=qefifi proce~ You're going to have attorneys (10) with their law firms that arc going to be defending (11) win? Who's going to (12) lost? (13) You're going to have a developer that (14) will make some (1.~ hot~__~s. If there's some damage, they change their (10 name. They;re a cUfferent corporation. Who's going O~) to fix then~ You (~) I thinit you need to take ~ points (19) under comi~ You need to look at it as a (~0) resident, as if yo~. Uved up there- (aa) Thank you. (22) M]L ,4LLDAy: John Allday, Lauron Development. (~) I sit here !j~_,-ning to all the frightJul O4) and totally false (~3 eloquent spoke~peuple, and, franidy, I sit over there o) being dcprcscd, gemrig ~ And I frankly (2) start fefling overmatched. O) Only when I catch myself md I force (4) myself back into where I about design review, do I regain my confidence (6) that the tact that Lauren Development has token, the CO tact of the t~gh road, is still the best course to (s) take in the City of Rancho Cucamon~ (9) If the process of design review was as (10) broad as the opponents have implied, and ff presenting (11) to your Council blatantly untruthful statements was (12) proper, and ff all the prior approvals, the prior (13) developing, the prior tract map, the prior letters (14) from associations that endorsed tbe project are to (13) jilt be igtlored as a part of thi.~ design review (16) process, then we were in the wrong hailpark (1~) We relied - since April, when we (m) submitted this project, since last August when we (19) first started this process, and the o~gh~ors when we O0) actually submitted the plans, wc relied on your highly (21) proregional stafl~ and we relied on the u!n~nimo~s (22) approval of the Design Review Committee and the (7~) unanimous approval of the planninoo Commi.~zion to limit (~4) the scope of dean M & M Certified Court .Reporters ~M,~ Page 27 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 review to what the city's codes (25) and ordinances say they should be. P~e 156 O) We didn't come here tont~oht with the (z) in_tenrion of reiterating the reams of ie~__ers and this process since (4) April and have gone through all these Planning (5) Commim~iofi hearifig~. If we had made a mi~__e in not (~) goifig o~ all rhis ~o~i~ ~nd aga~ and having all of t~ the in/oFm~iofi and all tile e~Yhihi~ we showed (8) the Planning Commi.~zion, UllMan ~ ~lrefC (9) Wc hope that your council adhere to (10) the codes and ordinances of the city and judge this (11) projcet on its own inCFitS as Four staff and as Four (12) city be swayed by (ls) thcsc cloqucm pcoplc who talked about cverything that (14) has to do with (m Ufifortonatcly, for legal purposes wc Imve (16) to submit various (2~) know, as Ms. McKicth tins threatened, that there will additional lawsuits pendin~ To get this (19) additional information on the Feeor(l, we have to (20) submit the materials and wc have to have our atxorncy (21) foUow mc up heft. (22) If would you plessc allow mc to have that (as) doric, to ~ him Fespofid to some of the (24) titat wcrc made, even though they have nothing to do (as) with design revicw, be will come up here. Pss~ (1) The one document that I am going to (2) distribute to yon is a li~ of facts ~21'2inin~ to ~ (3) levee. (4) Ms. McKieth ~r__~d that the (9) ill MARKMAN: Excuse me for one secooct (6) What is b~n~ passed ont~ (~) MIL AI.LI~AY: I am submitting a levee (8) fact slmet (9) MIL MARKMAN: Okay. I saw Jack halleled (10) somethifi~_. (11) MS. M~: It's actually in the materials (12) that we passed out to the other council people, the (14) I would also like to m2tr*- - (15) MIL MARKMAN: What concerns me is a speaker is 06) Mndin~ out a document Counsel, Ms, MeKieth, wall~ O~ up to Jack Lain and starts 'd~tribufin~ a document. (18) There is no way I could id~ltify it foF the record. (29) Could yon please send her 0o) And I'm sure the Mayor will allow her the oppornmtty (21) to be distrtlmted when these people are (22) MS. McK]ETH: Could I just I~lve him a COpy Of (as) the out to the other (24) council, please? (~) ~ MARKMAN: Let's back up and do rhis~. We O) all want a correct record, regardless of what else (2) CS) And I ~ the city clerk has the (4) complete and official reeordg So ff anylxxly wants to (9) submit something, it should go to the city clerk If (6) copies are dmr~:te~ tbey st~dd be It's up to Debbie, the city clerk, to (~) m=tr¢ sure that each inctuber of the coum:fl has copies (9) of the reeor& I (10) mean that's all we (11) I just w=nt to make sure that there (]a) aren~ distributions going on and nothing on the O~) record to reflect that distrtlmtiom That's rc~lly (10 not going to help us O~) So when you hand out so~erh~g. sir, ru o~) identify this (mr_ I don~ want to forrealize this (1~) proeeedin~ I have a document emitled levee Fact (18) Sheet. That is 7 page~ (19) And I take it the developer is su~ (~0) this, and the city clerk bas an original for the (21) reeor(L He bas handed this out to (22) As you go through that, if you have more (as) bandouts, would you identify them as you distribute (24) them. And Malissa McKieth can do (~) M]L AI.LI~A¥: T!~mk yon. I apologize for not (1) b~n~ more clear. (2) rm handing out the Levee Fact Sheet, O) dated August 13th of 1997. (4) ~ McKieth testified that for 90 O) percent -- for mo~t of the people the primary concern (~) is the levee. For most of r. tic people hcre, the issue 03 is the levee, is what she saicL For chat reason I'm Cs) submitting this. (9) We have evaluated the importance of the (lo) levee, tim si~tfic~nce of the levee, how it has (11) functioned and not functioned over the years, and wliat (12) its purpose today ~ I will not go into R OS) !inc-by-line, seetion-by*seetiom I believe staff has 04) received this and reviewed it O~) I would like to point out in clOSin& (16) bcfor~ o~r alxorl~y gL~s responded in the prior testimony at the ~ (18) Commimalon to ~ (19) geotcchntc~l consultant hired by CURE. And we (~0) responded to them before. And there is nothing he has (21) said tonight that is any ~ffer~t r~mn what be said (22) (as) Th~ ~ Commi.~ton docs not troy his (24) performnnce, and I hope you wfil not ember. Tbe (~) ~ 140 (1) Iocnfion of the hult is not ~ the debris bash~ (a) Thatisnot a fact. The trapezoi~ channel that O) we're propo~ng is not a replaccment of (4) Showing a picmrc of little compared O~ to a channel, con~aared to a levee, that's totally (6) erroneotm He knows that. The levee was there for a purpose. That porposc is no longer necessary. The (s) ~apezoidal f~m a (9) very ~m*ll arc~ up above it 125 acre~ compared to (10) over 2,000 acres that the levee meffeetively (11) protected before. Oa) The Deer Creek Chnnnel, the Deer Creek (~) Ba~n, are effective means of controHm~o flood (14) con~ol~ and d~ levee is not being replaced by our (1~) $300,000 trapezoidal channel. (16) Other rh~ that I would entertain (1~) question~ if you have any. I sincerely believe that (18) you will, in making your fmal detern~natio~ hope (29) that you ~ limit that ~cgcrlnittation to ~hat the (~0) city~s codes arid ordinnnCes say they should be limir~-d (21) to, desigo review. (22) If you have any question~ I'd be glad to (~$) answer them. (24) MAYOR M-~LANDER: (:~) Thnnt you, John Page (2) MR. AI.!.r}AY: Thnnk you. (a) MAYOR AI-la~LANDER: For the record, good morntn~ M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~ Page 28 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 O) It's after twelve o'clock. (4) MR. HARTZ~].L: Good morning, Mr. Mayor. My O) name is Andrew ~ Fm ~ the law firm of (6) Hewitt & McGuire, Irvine, California. We are ccam~_l CO for the Lauren Development, the project's proponent (8) I must say that I wasn't actually (9) expecting to talk with you on a 410) Well, it's ~lmo~t diflicallt tO know 411) exactly where tO begira I can see that M~ McKieth - (12) they really put on a show here tonight It so"m~ tO (15) now be falHn& I goess, upon us to attempt to provide (]4) as much clarification for the record as we can do, as Off} one person can do, in the face of a v,,mber of people (16) here to-ighr. (1~) I really rt~nk that what we got here (18) tonight in front of us is a no~ (m) It has taken on the air - !ass couple of weeks, as I (~) have w~_ched this process - more ch~eacterizcd, ~ (~) all due respect, as more of a circus ~ any~tfin8 (~) th~ Pve seca before in my years of prixice. 4~) I think l~c learned from ~ process ~ 14,1 O) that there had been an adage that atxorneys at least (2) used to always use: If you have the law on your side, O) but you don't have (4) have the facts on your side. you don't have the law, (if} you argue the fact~ (6) And what I have learned in this pro,e88 (7) in W~_~rhin~ ~ opposition group is if you don't have (s) the law on your side, you don't have r~c ~ on your (9) throw up · bunch (10) of scr~p metal in d~c air and see if it will (11) I think I nccd to bring some order and 02) some sense into ~ I will do my b-robie bes~ to Ixy (15) to do th~ I certainly would be happy to entertain (14) any questions at any time. I do apologize for being (15) the last person. I know everyone would like to get (16) home quickly. We will try to facilitate that as best (18) But we do need to put into the record (19) various pieces of information and m.k¢ sure that all (~0) the COI!tl~ilmt~mhefs have had the opportunity to be (~) aware of pertinent fact~ So thaes basically what my (z3) testimony is going to do. (as) There have been some ~L~atlO~ (24) submitted ~ b~ (25) I have never seen ~ declaratious before. I u-led tO ~ 143 (1) see what I could on the sereera M~ McKleth has not (2) provided our firm or my client with a copy of these (9) befor~ It is a little bit dimcult tO stay much in (4) the pal~cular (if} cleclaration~ I. will trF to do as best I can (6) I~o~ and (8) what I have Ic~trncd three months is when we were made aware of allegations (10) by the Spirit of the Sage Council or the CUR~ group, (1]) when we go to track it down to try to verify whether (12) it was factually correct or not, I always find out (~3) that ifs not a factual threat (14) One of my jobs is trying tO trace alleged (1if} new information and determine its actual nature, (]63 not. ru try (]~) tO speak tO some of those issues tonight tO try tO (~) (19) I do apologize. I'm not as eloquent or (ao) flashy as Ms, McKleth, and Fm very tirect I (n) apologize for that. This is not going tO be a real (za) ~mooth prcse.~uatiom I will try tO get through it 4as) quick. (a4) There is a design review issue in front (aft} of you. And I do believe that that is where the ~ 144 O) council needs tO focus. I believe those issues have (2) been flushed out very well in the record before you, O) before the Planning Commi.~iotL Arid I don't intend tO (4) get really into an~ of those. (if} What I understand CURE tO be alleging and (6) ~ of the S~e is that there is substantial new CO information of a nature which was not known in 1990 (8) when this and which (9) could not have been known in 1990. T'nat is the CEQA (10) standard they're trying to (11) So in order to provide you with that O2) informatto~ having done the investigation on each of (15) these point8 to the ~ float w~ can, I have not found (14) that there is subrant]ally new information of a Off} nature which was not known or could not have been 06) known in 1990 wben this project was O~) One of the subjects of supposed (18) 8~lbgtmnri21 new information - and youql see in a (19) letter that Ms. MclCieth provided - or I should was an allegation in one of (:a) the includes (as) the 23 acre Lauren (a4) of it is S-1 commumity, G-1 community, that this had occurred very rec~,~rly. You'll see ~ 145 O) the correspondence from M~ McKiettt (2} That was news tO me, doing a lot of ($) environmental work that I do. And I went bac~ And, (4) Dep~-,~mt of (if} Fish and Came same line (6) of their June 23rd believe r. bat there was a new deMgo~ton wit~ regard Cs) tO the (18) And whcn I asked thc Department of Fish (11) and Game., well when was this de, dg. Wion made, because Oa) surely they knew in 1990 that there was alhrvlai scrub (~) out on this site. When 04) And we will be submimng tontgh~ a memo (]5) from Mr. Leon Davis of the Departmen~ of Fish and (16) C,'~ne, noting ~ the ~~ has found ~ the~ 41'n ~ scrub, (18) 5.1, G-1 b~w.k in 1985. So the d,-~i~o~nrtofi was made (1if} five years prior to the approval of this project as a (a0) designation itse!~ (~) Now, the fact that it was a 8e_.rmitive 4~) commul~, tO ~ extent that it's considered (as) in 1990 to the (z~) extent that this (as) But I think it's also worth ~ 146 (1) mind that the natliFe of the habitat that seem~ to be (2) an issue is thc alluvial fafi scrvb. It's supposed to O) be a dymuni¢ M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Page 29 Tr~m.~ript of Proceedings 08/20/97 tom-,tomy, exposed to flood events of a O) periodic nature, which will mn down throngh that O) particular area and take out the sage scrub and (6) replace it, then move CO With the construction of the Deer Creek (8) Channel Debris Development property, was cut off in natural (10) hydrologic fiow~ So what will happen there and what Or) we have now -- we have scrub which is not the alluvial Oa) sage scrub. This will only become more mallwe. (15) There is a letter already in the record 06) from the biologist that did the g.~tcatch~g survey. (15) In that letter to the developer and a letter to the 06).department, the 07) site and adjacent areas appear to be in a mature (18) a mature state of development. The alluvial 09) sage scrub on site is in the intermediate stage. This (2o) is due to the fMrly recent construction in the Deer (21) Creek retention basin and flood control channel, which (22) had removed the area of its natur~ hydro~osic resto~ (23) The bottom line is in 1990 this was (26) known, or certainly could have been known, or should Page 147 o) sir~. Nothing has changed dr~m~rt,~ily to SuSgest (2) that it was not a mature alluvial scrub commJ~lxity at (5) the time. It was de,~gn-red this spccial drsign~fion (4) bac~ in 1985, well-known. Ifs not a significantly O) new piece of (6) Regarding the MOU that was comer and the Valley.Wide Multiple (8) Species Consct3,ation Program, we had respondocl to that (9) in some icngth to the Planning Commi.qqiofi in an (10) caFllcF Jllfie iccp, where we included a copy of the (11) ac~al MOU. And we explainexJ why there are various (12) provisions in the MOU which spccffica!ly provide that (15) the city is in no way obligated to go back and Felook (14) at efivironmefital issues, biological issues associat~ (15) with this, or any othcF approved pFojcc~ approved (16) prior to the signing of t~s MOU. (1~) I dFaw yOUF atzentJon to AtZ0chrncnt F in (18) our letzer to the PI2nnin~ CornmLqqioo of Jm3¢ 27th, (19) 1997. We quote cl~ various relevant pFOViSiOnS of (2O) ~ MOU, notinoo how it is not d,-qlgned, the purpose (21) of the MOU is not to have cities go b~c.k and look at (22) previously approved projcct~ (2~) That is to be used -- they are allowing (24) the city an option to do planning for new development, (2~) sit down with wildlife agencies that the city would pa~e 14~ (1) !i~ to elect, that the developer would Hire to elect, (2) talk about a new project and get any carly ~onccffis O) the agcficy mi~ohr have about the project. That is a (4) process that is not applicable to CS) Vcry spe~n___cally in three or four (6) sections about the CO this MOU simply does not compel the city in any way. c0) it was specifically designed not to require the city (9) to go back and rend any of thosc issuc~ O0) The city may and the county may over time (1~) put togcthcx a multiple spccies conscrv~on pizn. No (la) such plan f-ri~:s now. Tinere is no plan to - from C~QA's perspec~ive - to rn~ our project and look at 04) this plan. Thexe's no phn tlx~e to make that (lS) comparison. There's no project concept of a 06) multispccies plan. IC really doesn~ exist. (iv) COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: Could you spcak just a (18) little louder. (1~) ~ HARTi~-LL: I'm sorry. (2o) I would refer you also to the ~ (21) Greens Case (phonetic) that c~ne ouz in the last year (22) nnd a haft on this issue. I would also mnke mention, briefly, with rcl~trd to the descripelon of the MOU in (24) the Dopartment of Fish and G-~ne letmr of June 2~rd, (2s) Whcn I received a copy of that, I was rnthcr amazed of Pqe 1~9 O) the characterization thatR could ~nem.nt to make. I (2) assume it was made that somehow thc MOU required the city ~o go back and (4) revisit this project O) I hnve spoken with the chief cotmsel for (6) the Department of Fish and Game about that statemerit. (~) There's a lcttcr I'm submitting tonight -- I believe (s) it's already in your record. I want to make sure I (9) have raised some questions about rhtq letter inclufiifi~ (10) that issue, because I believe this was to the cattent (11) it was interpreted as the departmcmes statement that Oa) the MOU required the city to go b~¢k and revisit this (15) project That was ln~orrect- (14) Arid we are worldn~o to get aft actual (15) retraction of rho_r__ I Department of Fish and Game conours with that. We (1~) still will provide it, because we will continue to (18) work on that clari~eofiom (19) With regard to the issue that has been (2o) raised in the p~st abollt the California grmrOtehef, (21) in gcneral and (2a) pertinent infDr3natinfi abotit that grlotc2trher, which (3~) is, 2~2~ i~l. a nonissue. (~6) It is true that the g~tcatch~r was (a~ listed as a threatened 1~ 15o O) Fish and Wildlife Services since 1990, since the date (2) of this approval. What could possibly be qlg. if~e2nt O) new informatinmz The argumci~, I suppose, they're (6) trying m make is, we!!, the~e are a series of O) g~ntc'ateh~s around the site. Could that (6) C7) The fact is there is no evidence of any (o) g~orCaWh~rS OUt on the site. Lauren Development has (9) statc~l to g~e ~ Commitzion in the past, and (10) continues to state, that if there were any requirement 01) to get any permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service, 02) they would be happy to do so. (15) What Lauren did do early on is have a (14) g~arcawhers' survey done to make sure that there were (15) no g~0rc~tche~s OUt on the site. They have a report (16) That report said that there were four visitr~ There (1~) were no g~tc~rch~rs found. (18) We have been talking with the United (19) States Fish and Wildiife Service trying to clarify (2o) some issues raised by CURE as m whether -- what basis (21) they might that ~tcatchers could even be by (~a) the project site that could create an i~me. I'ii be (~) mbmtrfi.g in the packet tonight several itcrag that (~) relate to that (2~) Let me reiterate, briefly, a !etzer Page 151 O) here. It's rather pertinent. We have been unnbl¢ to (2) find ally evtckmcc of a sol~tanttal nature that thee (5) are ~ gpototel~'S lfi the general vj~ntty chat (4) could M & M Certified Court Reporters o,~a,~ Page 30 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 even start to cr~t¢ an issue for ~m. (~ really an issue separate and apart from the city. (~) However, in talking with the · earner June letter, this letter (s) is .- I'm reading from a letter I submitted to Fish (9) a~d Wildlife Service after a telephone call. My (10) question to the biologist was what would give the (11) service reason to believe that there could be (12) go~totehe~ in the genexal area of the site? (1~) in this Ictter I note that, 'Yon have (14) informed me that yon had the oppommity to discuss O$) the your biologist (16) and have learned the following: The service statememt (1~) is based on a single oral report related to the (1o) service, a telephone conversation from an unknown (19) indivich,21j' (20) The service has no written record of rht.q (21) observation o~ report Data on this alleged ob~rvation does not exi~ in service file~ The (as) service does not note the identity of the individual (24) two, grtarcatch,-es (as) in San Bernardino County. PoSe 152 (1) The service does not know if this (2) individual was a biologist 'or what his or her O) qualifications are, as the service does not know the (4) identity of this indivicluai (6) Number 5, this information, which the CO service received via telephone may not have been from (8) the actual observer. It may have been from the (9) individual once or twice removed from the alleged (10) observatiom (11) Number 6, the quote, unquote, observation (1~) of one g. arc~tcher or two was allegedly in or adjacent (1~) to the north Etiwanda preserved property, an area of (14) approximately 760 acres, continued potentially (1~ suitable habitat ~r 06) Number 7, yon're uncertain as made in 1997 and ~6, but believe (18) tbe observation was likely made this year. (19) TO ~mm2rize, the seFVIce canriot provide (20) yon with any documemtation to ennhlc the validity or (zl) understand the exact nature regarding the quote, (-,) unquote, of the (~) serious allegatiom (24) We have been 2~ktnoo for the service to (~) provide any additional (1) S~n Bernardino, supposedly, mi~ohlt have ~~ (2) O) T~, ~ I ~ ~ of ~ bRd ~ ~o o~ ~ (~ ~ - ~d I ~c ~ ~c ~ ~~ ~~le m ~ ~ ~ bioi~ ~. ~ (10) Ne~ ~ p~ ~t's ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ (~) ~ y~ O~) ~ ~~ ~ ~e 10 ~ 90~) ~ 2.4 ~ 11.25 ~e ~ ~ (1~ ~e y~ ~ ~e ~e ~ ~ r~ m ~ 09) ~ ~ m ~ ~e ~ ~ a 1~ ~i~ ~ (~) M~ ~~~5~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ (~ 1978, ~ ~ ~ Of~~ r~ ~ ~ (1) ,.~i~rln~o ~on. based its design speOm-artons (a) on 4.0, 5.0 O) Since 1980 the Cue~mon? fault has (4) numerous publtqhed studies placed on tbe probability O) of the earthquake at a 7.5 magnitude. And thenshe(b) has a footnote. She cannot md such an earmqua~. (~) So we wanted to take a look and try to (9) track clown rht~ (10) two pieces of information will be referred to later in (11) an Army Corps letter. That's also being 5ubmitl~'~[ (1a) toni~hl: for yolL The fitml piece of information came (~) (14) We wanted to try to find out what this (1~) report, this document or this reference wa~ Lauren (16) Development co~r_a_,~xl Mr. Dolan - I will submit this correapondence into the record tonight - and wanted (10) to know ff there was some sort of new infoFmation that (19) would suggest that now we could be subject to more (a0) than a 7.5 magnified took so (aa) long getting back to ymr This ie~_ee is in fezpome (as) to your request for a copy of the proporal I submined (24) to San pivotal (a~ emxhq,,~l~e excavations of Puge 155 (1) I am at a bit of a !o~ as to who is (2) distrllmr~o this proposal, since the connty mmed O) down my request Or at least I never heard back from (4) Ms, V'tvian gnoeU (phoneUc) with the county propenT, O) whom I submitted the proporal to two years ago. She (6) had promised to scnd Bemardino Board of County Supervisors, but I never (,) heard back whether it was clone or If yon doll~ (9) mind my asking to (10) you? (11) ~To clarify one point, the major much of our work in the greater (15) metropolitan area, was to determine whether or not the (14) moderate and (1~) large earthcp,~r~. magnitudes of 6.5 to 7, or whether magnimde~ 7.5 eartlxlu~~ closed prem (10) ~I must emphasize that this was the (19) question we were trying to addre~, and the idea of (~0) the occurrence of a magnitude of a 7.5 (z~) The next paragraph: ~The best avafiable (as) reference for the Cucamonga hult is an article by (24) Doug Mormm and John Mate~' that's M-a-t-e-i ~in a (~) U~$. geological survey. It was 1339 Pase (1) 1987. Most major universities, geology libraries, (2) UCLA, will have a copy of rhi~ I hope this article (~) helps you,~ et cete~ We'H be submitzlng this into (4) the recorcL O) We go back and we look to see what is (6) supposedly new information of the 7.5 magnitude. We Cr) find no evidence of new informatio~ We find (s) references M & M Certified Court Reporters o,~s~ Page 31 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 that are of the current state-of-the-art, (9) doounents done in 1987, three years prior to the 410) approval of the project. Again, information known or 411) should have been known to the city in 1990 when the 02) project was approved in 1990. (13) So we chase it dowm We find that 04) there's nothing there. We will go om There .has been Os) a diso_~._~i_ on that thi.~ projc~t, now, if it is (16) approved, would lead to the pomlbility of severe 4m liouding downstream. That is, if it were true, it (~) could understandably be a concern. (19) I don't bl~me them at all for I~ng (~0~ concerned. If somebody told me that they would be subject to floomn~ when ~ approved thi~ project, I (22) would be concerned. But the question is whether it's (~) just conjecture or hypothesis on the !~s here. (~) The levee that exits now - let's back (as) up. The apples to oranges comparison that's been made ffaWe 157 (1) before by the Dames and Moore folks I mink is (2) important to be ve~/ clear on. The tr4)ezoidal (9) structt~e that is to be pa~ of the project is not (4) replacing - /s not meant to replace in full the (~) e~i~tin~ ttttmn levee built pro 1938. (6) In pre 1938 the urban levee by the construction of the basin and the chnnnel, the debris b~in and Deer Creek (9) channel constructed in 1983. That construction and O0) the ,-zt~ence of that debris basin channel is what Or) mnkes that levee ol~olete- (12) Moreover, the levee has a 200-foot hole Os) breached in the middle. It's not going to hold back 04) water. There's a hole in there, that apparently, as I OS) understand, homeowners or somebody in the n~ghhorhood 06) requested be put in in the 1990s so they could have O~) secondary access out at the site. Os) So a levee with a 200-foot gap in it (19) isn't really going to do much with respect to flood (~0) protection from the hydrologic standpoint. But, (2t) again, this hypo~esis that CU~ is ta~ing about is (22) that somehow there is no debris basin or it's wiped (as) out or its stmctional integrity is ~m~ged, and for (24) some reason their logic would also mean that this (2s) magnitude would damage the pre 1938 dirt levee there. pa~e 158 O) And I have see~ nothing to indicate tlmt the pre 1938 (2) dirt levee would do any better in any of these major O) imues that they allege could happen, more so than (4) Deer Creek basin and el'runnel. (5) Having said that, there is testimony-. 463 we have reports, engineers report. I believe (s) Lauren subm~___~_ it to you previously from (9) Geoteehnical Consultants submitted a letter dated (to) August 14th, 1997. ! understand that the city staff Or) has been able to look 02) They believe that the issues raised by (~) CURE are not issues of fact that c~_~t_e danger to the OO community. (LV} MAYOR ALh'3iANDER: HOW much longer before you 06) (t~) MR= HARTS. m_!_: I'H try to keep it to as much On) a rainitalini as I cam I would try to wrap this up in 419) ten minutes, if Inlay. I apologize. I will cry to (a0) continue to be as quick as I can, here. (aa) With regard to the issue of the Re~onai 422) Water Quamy Control Board, there is a letter, I (as) by the Regional 4a4) Board to the titsappointed and I found it pa~e 159 O) the cb~nct~-lzmton of that letter by GURE, a c~ of ~ 1~. ~) I ~d ~ (4) ~t of oice- I ~ m~ng of this w~ (6) I'm n~ ~d ~ R~ ~ ~ ~e ~e-~ ~ ~~, pr~ ~ ~) ~ ~d's i~. O0) I ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ r~ re~ 04) c~l~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ m ~. ~ O~ (p~c), ~ld me -- o~c~ 06) ~ ~ r~ no O~ conc!~ Oa) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ apparently, (19) that CURE had come in this week and said they thought (a0) there could be some sort of issue with respect to (2~) recharge and other i~ues, but they hadn't seen any (22) conclu.~vc evidence by CURE yet that there were any (as) quality basin. 424) ~ are certainly not in any position to 4a5) made a judgement on that issue. They would be more O) r~n willing to rescxTc that judgment If some issue (2) were to be brought forward, they might have an opinion O) about it If the city wanted to ask questions of ¢4) them, they are more than happy to respond. O) I was shocked sitting here in the 463 audience and listening to the ~on of this letter, be~mse it is not what it purports to be CS) accorcling to CURF. I ask that you piessc look at that (9) !ctt~ and judge for yourselL (10) With respect to the issues of traffic Or) noise, I gocss ~ simplest why to look at it is that (~) 1990 when this project was approved, I beUcvc ~ O~) it was onderstood that tt~rc would be -- thee w~c, 00 in hct, existing homes that would conttnue to be an O~) ext~tn~ development in the Haven View Estates 06) community. There would be peoplc living in r/mee 07) homes. Ttmsc people would havc EamJUes. (m) Tl~rc would be an additional inercase of 09) pco~lc, some addttinnal ~ some nddittonnl noise O0) from lawnmowers going and forth. And those were (~) nble to be considered in 1990. There's no subsrantS! (22) information of chnnged ciro~ms~nnces with rclptrd to (as) im~ on tE'J~Jc nois~ quaUty, tbat are ra~ed (24) now, post 1990, on this project. reference to O) the Department of Fish and Game lelxer of Jnne 23rd. (2) We lind it interesting that the depatiment has written (S) a letter. They're ehnracterized as quoting their (4) posilion. To date the dc!~ar~ment has no~ rel~xi ~ As of ~night I have not seen ~ rc~mc~on (6) icier. I'll h~ndi~ out ~o you copies of the (?) correspondence that we sent out August 12th to the 4s) chief legal counsel of the Department of Fish M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~M~S- Page 32 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 and Game (9) asking among other thin~ clarification for O0) retraction, ff retraction is appropriate of the June o1) 23rd letter. We (la) with the department. its) Given that -. that department (14) letter purports to say that they m~ne that we already (15~ imow by virme of the hct that the alluvial sage O0 scrub clesig~on was done would suggest (18) otherwise. 09) We Imow that the department has made (a~) mt~ake~ in that letter. I believe they have made a (~) retraction, yet - legal counsel has told me, (~) for what this is worth would be appropriate (a~ to ~ the departmenVs ~ 16~ (1) entering into the MOU on the multig~es plan in any (2) way c~eates a ~b~nrt~l ~ ~ is information O) requiring the CEQA proce~ (4) I guess that CURE also stated that O) Department of Fish and Game is not going to withdraw (6) the letter. The Department has not told me thar~ CO That would be a surpr~ to me since this a~ernoon (~) the chief legaJ coumel told me chat that was still O) under clisos~1on. We wfil continue to pursue that to (10) get retractions on it and get correct information and O1) poMtiot~ (12) Very quicidy on the relazed issue of a (rs) new letter mbmRted by DeparUnent of Fish and Came on (10 August 5 re°~o--raln°~ the potential need for a stream bed (iS) alteraOon agreement. A letter was ol~ained November 06) 15, 1996, from the Department of Fish and Game (1~) verifying that there was no need for (18) That letter was writzen al~er the depa~...ent personnel (19) had a chance to come out and ~ the site and examine (~0) the site. (21) I !mow that CURE has alleged thaz the (22) clevelopets are now trying to prevent the department (2s) from !ookin~ at areas or tryin~ Co purposely mislead (2~) thet~ I find cbo~e outrageous allegations, But you (2s) can judge for yourself. ~ 165 (1) We did receive a letter on Augusz 5th (2) saying - from the departmff,t nying that they. mou~ Cs) they were going to rever~ their~ Wewrote(6) back there is no (s) hams to do tha~ I that be done in ten years or so. I believe that not Cr) only legally can they m~ do ~ b~ I believe ~c (8) (~) Th~s not the kind of Ctl*CU:m~r~s r]~i~s (10) rclcvun~ to (11) But Fm jul lX~fing out you, once (12) ~ ~ wc been no~lficd o~ m !c~c~ disasrcc~ wt~ ~c hcar~ Wc are in disctmMtom (14) with Wc hope to rcsoivc th~ rm sure wc (15) will. As hr as we're cooccl~xl thc November 18th (16) (1~) On( laf rmng on ~ 1~03 Icier. (18) 1~. McKJcth fiot~l - she sur~d on the Fccord ~ (19) l)cpal~n~t rescind (a0) their August 5th letter on rht8 Illstie. I believe that not tru~ I talked with legal emmael tonight from (za) the Dep~-~ of Fish and Gam~ They have not nmde (a$) any firm provided to them (24) on thaz issue~ (2~) There's been mention of an L~ O) ~ent of W~_~' and Power issue. rm not going to (2) We ~ r~ ~~ ~ D~ ~d r~ ~t ~ ~ D~ ~ ~ We mi~ ~ (~) ~ Ifs ~ ~re y~ ~ r~~vc ~r ~ (12) N~ ~d ~t ~ ~. ~ I 06) ~d ~e me 06) ~e ~ ~e r~ce ~ y~ (m) ~ ~ me now- I th~k I h~ ~ ~ (19) ~ ~ (zt) information, which m~ arguably allow you to come in (22) ancl reopen rht~ proces~ I believe that a ~ review (2S) of the record will show that there is no na~bstnnfi~l (M) evidence on any of the points ra~ed by any of the (a~3 O) I will ~mp. ly note for the record tlmt (~) we're adding some O) M~ I-lawn wants to retract the November 1990 lett~. I (4) doa~ know a lot alxmt that, but we're saO~mitring the C~ letter tonight for the record. We'll be ~Tl~ttfing - (6) I don't know, since wehre never I have noidea (8) what maybe alleged in there for the first time O0) K for instance, they are going to now O1) allege something about electromagnetic forces, we are (12) providing the most recent article in the New England (z$~ Journal of (1~) electromagnetic forc~ was largely overstated m the (ls) past And I believe yon have had a chance to look at 06) that for ocher £easons. (iv) L~ mc quiddy sumnmizc mid Ic~ you Sc~ (18) on with wh~ you nccd to do. Wc will provide to the (19) cicFk all of ~is inform2fion referenced tonight for (a0) tim record. I just wafit to - unformtmtely, I riced (21) to point (22) There is a letter of clarification from (2s) United States Fish and Wildlife Services dated July (24) ~ referring to an earlie~ letter of June loth (as) regarding some of their issues relating w the O) property. We're still in disot~tons with the Fish (a) and WHdlife Services, asking for a full retraction of (5) that letter. But they have clarified some .~allem (4) points in there as well. C~) They had put in their letter of June 10th (6) that approval of the project would be a violation of CO I pointed out tO (8) them ~ that was an amazing allegation, there is no (9) basis for chat, they did change their sentence to say O0) 'approval (11) As an attorney, that's a sul~r~tial (12) eh~n~oe. But we're M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.~,.~ Page 33 Tran.,~ript of Proceedings 08/20/97 looking for a full retraction of (13) ~ We'll be dtsot~tng that with then~ ~ it 00 does not really concern you tonlghc O~) Finally, I need to point ymtr attention (16) to one last item in this packeL It is a letter from (17) the design branch of the Army Corps of Engineetx · (m) It's dated August 11th, 1997. Ifs written by the (19) chief of the pertains (m) to some of the by ¢n) the groups tontg~ (~) Since it is aft tm?orts~t issue and it is (z~) an important letter, I don~ know if you have been able to take as much I~ne as you normally would have (as) on that. (1) Reference to a telephone call -- thin is (~) referenced to Mr. Joe O'Neil, city engineer, dated (9) August 11th, referenced a telephone call from Dan (4) James to Bob HaH on my staff August 5th, reques~ng O) information on the (6) had questions about the size and deslgn of the bast~ James and (n) prior ¢onvernnfious John A!!day, and private citizen named Mallsin (10) Mc. Kiet~ the que-ntion aro~e regarding size and design (11) of the has~ The issue concerns whether he (zz) considered we (13) designed the basin in the early 1980s and whether (14) recent information on faults and potential sei.nmicity (1~) in this area would _c-a,~ a problem for the enlbankme~t (16) Mr. HaWs initial response in I~ns are now subjected to the they don't (19) peTn~nnen~ ~l~ore w~_t_¢r. ~ prohabfiity of a ~ (~0) full of water in a (~) He also pointed out that thin type of (aa) embankment has historically performed vexy well during ¢as) earthquake~ Mr. James asked ff the Corps could provide some specific information on the original (3) se~.~nic considerations for the embnnk'ment_ (1) The chief of the softs design section (a) provided the following information originally (~) presented in the Corps' report, quote, 'Deer Creek (4) hillside debris ~ ~ 169 (1) of planning commi"aorm and the city councll~ and for (z) the first time hear of new tnfotmation, new Cs) declarations that are supposedly ~ething ~t~ (4) are factually Cs) correct. What is very ~g for us is when, for (6) instance, CURE has three months to provide informmion 09 on earthq-~_~e or flood lssue~ and then they wait (s) until tonight to with the developers of the project, the proponent. (10) myselK O1) It puts us at a bit of a disadvantage to (1a) be able to point-by-point walk through and note the (13) prohie"ran with SUch testimony. I think that it is (14) relevant that the pattern by CURE has been on each (ls) case work by amb.nh~ never providing us with a copy on (16) these pieces of information in advance. (1~) I believe that the only reason for (18) conclusion for this b,-havior is that CURE is afraid of (19) allowing these mere allegations to flexrex be examined (20) or believe (aa) that is very relevant, the way they provide (za) information with regard to the veracity of information (as) provided. She's askzxl for a continuance - MS. McKIETH: We - pswe 1~ O) MR. MARKMAN: F. xcuse me. This court reporter (2) needs one person at a time. I don~ know why you're O) standing there unle~ yoo need to stretcl~ Ifs (4) probaMy a good lde~ C~ MS. McKIETH: I'm but lhope Iwill (6) get a comme~t~ C~ M~. MARKMAN: That's up to the Mayor. It (8) would be more polite to sit while counsel ~ I (9) didn't see anyone stret,-hing while you were talkit~ (10) MIL HART'Z~RH_: I do believe that thin type of (11) ~ofion at the last second is indicative of probU~s w~h verac~ of these subm£~tot~ We're (13) concerned ~o~t th~ I try to listen to pertinent (14) points raised by the appcHant from Dames and Moore. (1S) ! want to ~ briefly touch on a few i~emS there. (16) He has mentioned - he said something to (17) the effect that removal of the levee would be a (m) reduction in safety. He did not compare the removal (19) of the levee to the oreatiou of the retention basin (~) and chatreel in 1983. He appeared to be comparing that (a~) to the levee versus the trapezoidal channel. And as I (aa) said before, the debris ba~n and ~1 in Deer Creek were meant to replace the leve~ (~4) He did not quantify any of these (~) reductions in safety. He doesn~ account or consider ~ 171 (1) the flood protection b,-ing addressed by the Lauren (2) proje~, I~e trapezoidal ~ He has been talking (s) about the 1987 data on I-mrS!ides. That would be 1~0. Cs) He !~s pre~d n !or of coniectu~. (6) Hypotheti~ally it affects a Y or a Z to occur, or X, (7) Y, or Z combination something could happen. Anyone (8) could go up and raise a lot of hypotheti~ But I (9) haven't seen substantial data that ~ the (10) likelihood of any of these event~ (11) Moving on to one final point he raised on (la) the water re~harge and perhaps water quality, any 03) reduction in recharge ham't bcen established at all, (14) to my M & M Certified Court Reporters ~M~S. Page 34 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 knowledge. Any reduction would logically have ('~ basically occurred through the establishment of the 06) 1983. That is what {1. ~ our project condition substantially over a (ta) large l:mtx of the flood phil (19) The remaining atea that colfid collect (20) w'a_r__er above the levee is somethin~o along the ordet of (21) 125 acres as opposed to 2,000 acrc~ plus thaz was 02) there prior to the 1983 retention b~qh~: So I would (2~) rather question whether ~ development of 23 acres in (24) this 125 acre area could have any substantial impact ¢2~ at all on water recharge or water quality. Page 172 (1) To fully summarize, very briefly, there (2) have been some letters submitted by agende~ I O) believe that probably, generally, it is easy to get (4) letters from in O) them when any one side is talking co those agerides on (6) having a ~h~nce to make their case. CO We have found that a number of these it} I~ that hav~ tefet~ed to are mi.~t~temet~ and ftctual e~ror~ We have pointed a nnm_l~r of tho~ (10) ~ We will continue on our own for mxr own reasons 01) to retain retractions on those mi.~r~tements. 0') The CURE group wants the record closed (1~) now. I know continuance. 04) That's what we were operating under when it came up O~) tonight. (16) I assume th~ your council is a veFy (1~) curious council. And given that, the CURE group agreed to ~lY.~nd - thnt it would probably be able to (19) extend the hearing. I think I was Sm'pFiscd as any of (20) ~ou up there that tonight she came in az the eleventh (zl) hour and said, you know, I want to close it tonight (2~) I think there's a rc~tsofi why they would (2s) like to close it tonight. And probably that's what°s (24) going to happeru The reason is evident which is (2s) allowing them to put in, perhap~ new information P~e (1) we have never been able to take a look at~ respond to, (2) clo~c the record up and get ~ in. I supix)so that's (3) goin~ to hnppcn. And we'!! dcnl with thnt_ (4) But I do think th~ type of tactic should O) be considerec~ we (6) have come to understand in this process is that CURE's CO overall intention appears to be the preventing of the (s) recordation of the final map of this projec~ (9) We don~ want to see that happen or (10) preventeeL We think it would probably be in (11) toni5tw. (~) we really would ask (14) to drag tm_~ on in what we understand has been cry) I thank you very much ~or indulging me on ¢~) chis Thursday morning. I apologize for your 09) evening more ~nnoylng chaff ~ might be_ I am providing this information, and think we have (~) articulated (z~) Thank you very much. I would be happy to (~) entertain any questions. (a4) MAYOR AI.~ANDER: (a~) MS. McK1ETH: We call thaz a long and ~ Ps~e 174 (1) alxack, shorto~evJdencc. I wa~t to nLIkC 90111_f~eht~ (a) clea~. It's very i?o~ ~rnat I s~ and ~nnt O) ~. ~ ~ ~ n~ ~. ~e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ of (~ ~~~~t ~ I ~ ~d think ~ (s) ~t of ~ ~ ~e ~ ~d A~ 5~ ~ ~cc ~ffi ~d ~ ~re r~ I~ ~ ~ O~) ~c ~c J~c 23r~ It's no ~ m ~ 04) I m~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ m g~ I~ ~t of 06) ~ ~d ~ R~ W~ of F~ ~ ~c, ~d ~ U~. ~ ~d (m) ~ ~c~ ~d g~ ~1~ ~t of J~ 09) ~'s ~, ~ I ~ m him (~) ~ ~k~, ~ ~ of ~c~ (~) But y~ ~ve ~ ~~ ~ ~ont of (~) y~ ~ ~ of ~e ~ ~ (~) with Jim Do[an (25) since 1~6 that (1) full cnviromncnu] t?act report. building tho~e homes (2) and not taking into ~on the carthqu~ o) change is dangcro~ (4) ~n me Army Corps of which I have never seen because I have never (6) gotten a piece of that we're jmt cs) d~rowing things up in from of them at the Last Ce) raised in the O0) Planning CommimmioG bg/e~ and evidefice. NoGe of this (n) is new. If they 02) testify, they could have done (1~) I talked to Co~m~ilm~n Guticrrc2 and I (1~) talked to Coundiman WftUams last weel~ said if 0~) the conrtn,~nce could not be granted, I would not want (16) a confimsnnee. Please, that clcar. I did not (1~) come in here rh[c ev~tng to lead anybody astray. I (~) rh~nk thaz's a cheap sho( m~der the cirosmqances, siren ~ ~ dZy bad certm~ us to believe (~) th~ this ~ (m) So look az tl~ c-vlde~ce~ All of an environmc:n~ i .m/~ct (~) report, whaz mn ~ would have done. WI~ ~ were (~) obli~sr~ed ro do, carrJ~pmkes, to do the biolo~ical ~e 176 O) studie~ (2) All these studies that they nev~ did- (s) they didn't spend five cents on doing the work that we (4) have beem forced to come in and put (~ And that is not what the law require~ (6) If we had a full EIR process, thexc would C7) be a me~nlng~fi public dialogue. Their consul(ants (8) would come in There would be a circulation of their (9) comment~ We would have had time to respond and vice (10) versL Infe~ we have this last m~ute O1) It's exactly what is wrong and what is (12) going on hexe, that we have to come up with evidence (13) at the last minute. It is not easy evidence to come 04) up with (1s) I do think we need to close M & M Certified Court Reporters on,.u~s~ Page 35 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 the record. (16) You give me anoth~ month to cause more agencies to (1~) come out, I will get the Army Corps of Engineers to (m) rescind that letter. .They did not base that letter on 09) a 7.0 or greater earthquake. It's a 6.4. I have got (a0) the original design memoranda, the actual room. I Imow what they say. (22) Norhin~ of what big. Hartzell or come up with an iota of evidence about overtopping of the (25) Norhinoo of what the Army Corps has said about the ~ 177 (1) safety of the debris basin spoke to the isaues of a (2) landslide and the overtoppinS (3) In terms of recharge In the Army Corps' (4) own environmental impact report from 1980, they (~) designated this area a recharge tnJ~nfion area, to (6) make up for the fact that they were building the ~ ~ and reducing the amount of water that would be (s) recharged. (9) They're not even complying with their own Oo) mitigation measures which, In ~ was a c. ha~ed (11) C~tl'o,msrgncg. I know' these are a lot of technical Oa) legal underscore the (~) fact that we evidence (14) of changed clrc~m~ances, th~_r_ you ~ to step back (1~) and let the process work the way the process is meant 06) to from a policy consideratio~ (17) It allow~ you to take the time to re~lly (18) do the ~ to m~ke SLIFe that if the~'e are (19) s~nifi~ant environmental impacts, they are mJfi~zcd. They'Fe all by t!~mqelve~ They don't have (22) anybody here to testify this cvcninf~ That is just (23) I~,nk It's insulting~ considering the fact most of (~) us did not know about this until May 23rd. We had to (25) work exeruciatingly hard. (1) All we did was level the playing field. (2) When people know they're !osifig, they start whinnin~ (3) about what the other a~omeys did. I think that's a (4) lot of what's goi~ on here this evenin~ (5) Look at the evidence. Look at the (6) declarations. All of that information was put before C') the ~ Commi-~iOlL I firmly believe the (8) Planning Commi.~ton was reluctant to clzange their O) people who voted (10) on that Negative Declaration in 1990. And that's a (11) hard poMtion for people to be in. I urge you to 02) elope the record. (13) A?in. I think there is value to take the (14) matter unck=r submi-~don. But In ~ So, I would O~3 like to not have it be that I have to go out and get 06) more information to yo~ We will (~) Thank you. 09) MS. KLIPFSTEIN: Leeona Klip~. Spirit of (~) the Sage (~) In regards to this Dolan issue and the (22) earthquake fault, we do have inform~_fion that we (23) haven~ shared with Malissa, or the city, the (~) projecfs proponent. As a maner of fact, when Dolan (233 first proposed to do this tre~chin~o and O) propmed to do that In the north Ettwanda reserve, (2) which, of course" the Sage Council and the Shoshone (3) Gabrie!lino objected to. (4) One. was bccansc it was an eonsetarafion, and we didn't want big (6) holes of sage scrub blown away is f~ coltut'al commif~f~e ~ ~ the(s) earthquake fatfit- (9) What we found out I~_r_er, to our dismay, (10) even though we wrote ieJxers of objection to the O1) county, was that they did approve Dolan to do ~ (12) study to the east of the north Etiwanda reserve. (13) So I do know, as a matter of ~ that there was a (14) follow-up Dolan study that was done. It waso~ just a (1s) proposal (16) And also while he was doing the work the (1~ Daily Bulletin did a story about it and, I believe, (18) took a picture of Mm standing in the trench So that (19) should he in public records Somewhere that that study (ao) has occurred. (a z) The other poInt I want to make that the (22) word average was used for rain.l, rather than a (23) worse case scenario. (~4) MR. BROWN: During Ms. Mc_Kieth's -- (23) MR. MARKMAN: Why don't you identify yourself (1) MR. BROWN: Tom Brown associate planner for (a) the city. o) During M~ McKieth's testimony, (4) ~taremefir.~ were made trying to olxaln copies of (s) docmnents in chronology my (6) contacts with her from May 27th to June 9th of thisCD year. I would like the city to have it as part of the record. (9) M1L MARKMAN: That's part of the record. (10) That's a chronology of every contact and respome Tom (11) had There's Some - Oa) MAYOR ALbT/ukNDER: Is there any other new (13) information or teatimony on this item? How much time (1~) do you really wanO (1~) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 30 seconds. I just (16) want to be very clear. I know it's already been in (1~) the record. Several fact sheets that the developer (~) did prepare issues with respect (a0) to the levee, one set of sheets, landslide and earthquake fact sheet, and a prior knowledge fact (aa) sheet, and also tramc i ,rapacts and acce~ fact sheet, (23) I would just nk¢ to reiterate that that is in the (a~) record. And it has been available for the sta~ (25) MAYOR M-~VDEP,: Thank you. (1) At this time the public hearing is (2) closed. (3) MIL MARKMAN: We have some ataff responaes; not (4) a lot, not long, And I'm going to start out with the O) framework and response to one issoe; then I'm going to (6) let the technical people do whatever they have to do. C~ Here I am, again, going to agree with, (8) actually, both arsmnent- You have to look for mbscantial evidence In the record they refer to. (ll) SO you have to look at the documents and the d~_~ and (la) the technical reports and the opinions of teclmical (1~) people who are referred m when it comes to the (10 technical issues. So we agree on float (15) We also agree -. I think all three of (16) us -- everybody agrees on what the legal process before you ix There's two ' : Each one is Os) supportable by substantial evidence, If you decide M & M Certified Court Reporters ~U~ Page 36 Tratmcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 09) either isle, yes or no, your derision needs to be (~0) ~ by substantial evidence, or when the (21) !awefit - the inevitable law~it will be flied, you (22) will not be able to validate your opinion in a court (2s~ proceedin~ which is my job. (24) My job, I rhinlr~ is a little bit (ZS) m£qL!ndel'~ood ~ eN~'ntng by O) to advocaze a position. It's to put you in a position (2) where you understand what you have to do to make a Cs) valid cledsiom So you have to look at the (s) Two issues, as I see it: One, is chere (~) something new or different, a changed Ci!'O~m~2~Ce, (7) new information, which couldn't have been generated in (~) 1990, all of which has been alleged and argued here ~ tonight, and all of this evidence has been identified (10) on both Mdes as to whether Ws there or whether ifs 0~) not che~e~ Oa) Based on what you heard on the 0~) sul~tan~iai evidence, both sides of that issue, do you 04) feel that this ought to be sent out for CEQA review, O~) based on somc~htn~o that has happened or been Iraown dnce 19907 Everyone (m) And the second Issue, which is sui~tantlal evidence to (~) support a design revtew approval or disapproval, based (a~) on the criteria on design review? lawyers are (a~) in disagreement about the path you have to go (24) TIx-'y disagree about what the state of the record is. evidence. There could be (1) very well, by the way, mbs~n~ml crickrace (~ suppomn~ either position on tho~ ismcs. That's O) what you have to do. (4) And I would urge the council, as (5) always - and I have heard everyone r211rino~ about (6) second opiniot~. I don't rhinl~ Ms. McKieth is here C~ talfing a position on behalf of her clients in order to (8) generate litigation for which she would be paid or (9) recovered fees from the city. I don't think the (10) attorney for Lauren is here to get his cUent into Oz) that posltiom I'm certainly not here to try to (u) advise you to take a that's going to generate (~) co~s to the taxptyers or legal fee~ 04) And ~t in response to some of tho~e Os) allegations, I have to say look at what has happened (16) since were been here since 1985, and please try to (1~) identify for me any case that is challenged in (1~) approval or dlsapptov-,d of the land~se entitlement 09) issue before this Council. I can~ remember one that (~0) was lifi?t,-d. (2~) If there have been a few in the last 14 (z2) years, I don't recall reversed by the court on a land-use decistoo. It (~4) ham~ happened. So I don~ want the cmmcil to approach thi.~ by way of being O) fact there tre- I have never heard in one proceeding (2) so many different forms of lawsuits or causes of (s) action which could be applied to whatever you decide, (4) as I've heard here ton/ght. (~) If it's going to happen, ifs going to (O happeru That'~ ~fommate~, part of the process. CD I don~ know how you could make a decision to avoid (a) that exposure. I'm not going to tell you to just make C~) a decision guessing on which Mde won~ sue you if you 00) decide al~nst thet~ (n) ~ think that Councfi ought to make a (u) decision based on your good faith and understanding of 03) the state of the record of tho~e issue~ Is there 04) evidence to support it? What you start of 0~) this hearing is that the staff and the Planning (~) Commition had made a finding to the effect that there 09) was substam/al evidence mpporfing their (~0) determination that dicln~ require further CEQA review Gn) because of ~-hmn~oed ctrolm~afices or new (za) And, secondly, that it's conformed with design review (~) Obviously, you're not bound by wllat the (25) ~ Commimfion O) we would like to say. I don~ know if the staffs (a) rt.~hnical people have ~'h'~ng~d ~ mintiS based on is) what they have heard here toni~oht. (4) And after I'm done in two more minute~ (5) Brad and Joe O'Neil, the teelmtcai people, carl co~ent (~) on tha~ My only technical response, and this is a CO legal tOrhnical response, is I ~t the al~emoon (~) with Brad and R -c,.~e Hawn and nm Angel gong over C~) this general plan open space brae, and they can addre~ it more thoroughly. (1~) 'Inc bo4zotn line is this, in 1981 ~be City Oz) Co-neff adopted zbe general plan wicb ~everal maps, including a !and uae nmp, open space map, all kinds of 04) general huhhle-Uk~ cl~,~tons r. bat clearly were not O~) intended to be spedtic, weren~ even speciac as to OO roads which may or may not (1~) TI~ zonifig ordinance wJrhtfi the o:mmy (18) zofiing ordinance in 198~, this specific prop~ty, one 419) of the larger arcas~ was zoned spcdficany by action (:a0~ of the City Crameft, 'not ifi respofisc to an appUcazion (21) for development (22) zoned for the intent of the entire area conform (2s) to Bill Angel showed (24) you. That was a specific purpose of the proce~, and (2s) the ordinance was O) area. 24 or 23 acres we're talking about here (2) toolboX. is very low rc&'d~nrt91, O) The whole purpose of the Icstslative (4) process back in '8~ was m nmke the zonl~ ~ to that were shown to you (6) tofii~ohr You can look at it arid there was 48) a legislative act chat set that issue co rest, as far C~) as l'm conccmexl, in perpctuizy. O0) Brad agFCCS with me. He brought this (11) issue to me. My (12) general plan issue is that their position, ~ os) position stated by nfit Angel, is not correct, and O4) that this procc~ does confirm to the general plan, ¢1S) has been conM.~.ently founded by the pl~nntn~o (16) Comm'L~On SitICe 1990. all I would have to 07) say. (z~) I would throw it to Brad and Joe O'Neil 09) co see what their reaction is to what they beard (z~) M]L BLn_I_I~R: I'll comment oR the issue that (22) Bill Angel incU_-~_t__~l that there bad been a previous (2s) action on the part of the city to r~te a (2~) general M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.,~.~ Page 37 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 plan designa~on to the flood control to some (~) other plan designatiom In those cas~ In reviewing (1) the file, the implementation of the geaerai plan back (z) In 1983 where there was a zoning ma? approved by O) this city. There are properties that were zoned flood (4) control (s~ When those properties became available to (6) the market and available for purposes for private development, when chose lands came In for development, (s) they were required to change the zone in order to C~) build flood control, open space, to some other (10) designation. As a result we required r~t they O1) process zoning. This has a very low zoning over (la) it. It has no flood control over it. (13) The issue of the Hillside Ordinance, the (14) Planning Commi.~lion design £c.~iew alld ~ have bec21 (15) 0e~ling with this since its inception. This (16) comrni~zioG did look at ~ I-]il[~ide Ordinance very 07) clearly. And it was presented with the same argument 08) tonight that was pre~emed to them. (19) S~aff and the comrni~zion have said rht.c (~0) meets the requirement of the Hillsride Orclinam~¢. I (~) would be glad to go over it, specifically, bow and (~a) why. But, again, we stand here saying, yes, the (;K~) commi.(~ion Con~ and took that Into consideration. Or) MAYOR M-~/.~IDER: Questions for Brad bcsides (as) me? ~ 1~8 (1) There was one point brought Lip this (2) evening that dealt with asking about optional O) features. Is it true that under what I pc=rceived as (4) looking at the we (5) could wind up with what could appear to be a box, if (6) all of the optional features were not, In fact, (7) requested? (a) MI~ BULIJ~: The i~ue of what was optional, (9) what wasn't optional, was also considered by the (10) Planning Commi.~iall and the design review. And they (11) believe whether or not the optional element happened (za) or not, they still found the project and its design (13) consistent with the Hillside Ordinance and subject to 04) their criteria that they applied to all project~ (15) Even though they believe maybe some of (16) these additions might be accented and a betterment to understood ~ were (~) optional and at the discretion of the bornebuyer. (19) MS. KLIPPSTEIN: I'm sorry. (z0) MAYOR AI.!~LANDER: No. Sorry. This hearing is (xa) ciosect (za) MS. ICLIPPSTEIN: The~e two attorneys were (as) consoling at my five-minute break. I overheard 04) evidence of the (z~ depoMtions that were given, that they dldn~ see. you ~ 159 (1) were telling them what to say and what to do about (~) that And that's unethical for you, the dry (s) attorney, to be giving advice to the project proponent (4) (~) MAYOR M.WOaNDER: Excuse me. This is (6) definitely - you're know that thafs (s) happ,,ntng (9) MAYOR M-!~iANDEP< Take it up with me, please, (10) Joe, would you address the engineering (11) O2) MIL O'NEIL: Well, there are a !or of (13) en~neering issues. I won~ go through the FEMA 04) cleM~arion, because I think that the council is all 05) pretty well-aware of bow that happened and what the 06) meaning of that designation t~ (17) Only to review quleidy the core (~) constructs of those facilities In 1983. In 1991 the O9) city didn~ receive a FEIMA cle~g~t~n taking that (at)) property, subject property and existing tract, (zt) clearing the sage. My review of that documentation (aa) shows -. I can't find any indication of a reference to (as) the levee. (a4) So I have to conclude the levee was not (as) an integral part of chat calculation. Therefore, the (1) levee really has no bearing on the FEMA designation- (a) And I haven't seen any documentation to show that was (3) (4) Referring to the levee, itseL~ no one (5) really knows -- there is no documentation or (6) indication - we don't know how the levee was (7) constructed. We have no idea the cap~city of the (s) levee, the strength of the levee. It appears to have (9) no foMlldation. But, nobody know~ O0) It appears to be made f~om mterial (11) mounded up, but for what purpose it was not (ca'rain (12) We don't know ff it was for flood protectiota There Os) wam~ roything there at the ~lme. It might have been 04) poor water percotnttom We simply don~ know. 05) COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: It may have been some O~) kind of (17) MR. O'NEIL: I don~ think it (18) In 1986 the county, who had been (19) rn~inl,nlnirlg the [L-~ee, In essence abandoned it. It is (a0) on private propeaxy. As far as I'm aware, there is no (ax) public agc:ncy that mainralrls that !e~l~e. So t~c~¢ is (a~) no m~inre"narlce done on that levee by any public (as) agency. It's not a public facility. It's not owned (a4) by a public agency. It sits on someone's private (as) property. Pa~e 191 (1) Also, we have three drainage repor~ (~) COUNC~.MBER GUTIERREZ: I wa~t to ask (3) someehing about ~ levee before you get into thac (0 Are you sayin~ then, that there is no O) significance to the levee, ff tbere is any type of (~) water runoff or - (7) MI~ O'NEIL: What I'm ~ is there is no (s) documentation or that L~) levee provided any function. That levee wa.% in (10) e~ence, replaced by the debris channel. That's why O1) the county in 1986 walked away from it, and determined Oz) it private property (lS) COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: So you're convinced (14) that there would be no difference ff it did have Os) flooding, whether the levee was there or not, or 06) whether it would be necessary, or it wouldn't matter? (17) MR. O'NEIL: What I'm saying is I have no (la) calculatiot~ I don't know. There is no evidence. (19) As far as FEMA is concerned, the levee does not (z0) exist In their calculations, it does not e_xist. (~1) They're as~a~minoo that ~ event will be a channel (Za) debris based function, as it is supposed to. (as) We also have three drainage reports that (a4) also show the levee to be removed, and that the (as) drainage flow from the acres would ~ 192 (1) channels or reconstructed by (~) Moving alon~ the information I thought (3) was kind of interesting M & M Certified Court Reporters t~,~u~s~ Page 38 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 - I do have a report prepared (4) by RMA, and it was signed by a registered geologist (5) and a (6) It is their pro_femt__otml opinion measures to protect the structures within (s) are directly to the south of ttds trac~ The (9) tands~de~ the motretains, are not needed; only the (10) distance to the mountain that fronts the location of (11) the property near the center of the Deer Canyon O~) alluvial fat~ 4z~) In essence, what they're saying is they O4) don't believe, and they are .w~ng their professional reputation on the fact that a !andsfide is not your 416) problenL (1~ MS. Mc!OETH: Can you identify O8) MR. MARKMAN: What are you r~clinoo from? 09) MR. O'NEIL: It's from the RMA group. It's 4~0) dated August 19, 1997. (z~) MS. Mc. KIETH: It was not in the staff report, (aa) correet_~ It was not in public record before today? (~) MR. O'NEIL: That's correct. (~t) Mr. Sheahan has presented no Ps~e 1~ O) I cannot make a condusion as to what he is (2) SUl~:ating. I don't imow if his position is valid or O) not 44) MS. McKIETH: Why was this report? (6) MAYOR A!.bIXANDEP~ We have argued back and CO fortIx We can take chacomeres and argue them until the (s) world is level. (9) MS. McKIETH: There are a lot of thinBs in the (to) staff report that they are relying on to make (11) recommcndafiofiS to the City Council that's been in his (12) posse-_~____ on since August 14t h, and none of us had it. (13) MAYOR /,Lk'7/~NDEI~ Let me ask you one question: (14) Were you aware that he bring up that docoment.~ 05) MS. MclOETH: I had no It doesn't e-xi~ (16) in your recorcL It's not in your staff report (1~) MAYOR AI.WVOtNDER: We have had argument from the development side, from your own side, about (19) information not shared. I think it's a pretty common (~) thread that through tonight's hearin~ (21) MR. MARKMAN: There be some furthe~ (zz) questions on ~ I agree with cmmseL For example, who was that report (al) MR. O'NEIL: This report was pa~e (1) MR. MAR!OAAN: ~ did you get your hands on (a) this O) MIL O'NI!!L: I don~ recall when I got my hands (4) on tht{ It's been very reomtly that I have $eell (5) rht~ Lauren put it in your CO (s) MIL OqN'EIL: That's correct. The staff did not (9) request it. (10) MAYOR M-gXANDER: M~. they have not been dmring inform~om That's what I was (14) MR. MARKMAN: WeAl, I was concerned that the O~) city did a (16) report O8) information that you revtemed, just as you~e listened (19) to and names and Moore (~) said this 4n) MS. McKIETH: He's basing his opinion on a (as) report chat he's period (~) of time that he can~ remember how long it tx And ifs different when you're the city. You have a (~) fiduciary P~e O) on throughont the two-and-a-half-month period. We~ve 4~) never seen the tralBc study; never seen the Oh engineering ropov~ And now you have another (4) document. (5) MAYOR M-wg~tNDER: Is there any questions of 46) Mr. O'Neil? CO M!~ O~EIL: If I could just continue on to (8) finish~ I lmve one or two more points that I can make. (9) We did talk about the channel. And I (10) think there was disot_~ion as to the channel replacing O1) the levee, and that is not the case. The ehnnnel was Oa) not built to replace the levee. The levee is replaced (x~) by the debris basin and the channel. (14) And lastly, there was talk about O~) declarations regarding s,-i_~mic activity. There was (16) declarations and a letter from FEMA, which I have not O~) see~ Apparently the council has. I do not have the letter in my ~on (19) Again, I have no information r~rmn~o (~) those dcdarations. I to support ~ dedarafions. Sol am (~*) completely in the dark as to the meaning or the (~) ~gnmcance of those ctoo*men~ since I have not seen (~6) them or had a chance to look at thom (1) through the property, from thc blue line when they (2) were active somewhere in the past, but ncve:Fth~e:ss (3) there is rolltrico hills through the property, it seems (4) to mc that's what the Ordinance was O) addressing. (6) If you can elaborate further on CO MR. BUI.I.!~R: I'll go back to the basis of the (s) fact that in M & M Certified Court Reporters v,f,oa,.~ Page 39 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 1990 when the natural contours - what O) was out there today was determined and revieweeL It (10) was not a requirement on that This ClLerent (11) commt.mziofi WaS himply acting on what was an approved (12) conccpm~ gr,~tng plan con-~.~ent with that original approval, tentative map grade. (]4) MAYOR FRO.TEM WII.LIAMS: (lS) with all these little cul~ie~acs - I was up thetc, (16) too. I have been up there over ~ years doing more (17) girl scout activities than I care to tell you in that (18) are~ They are probably aH resenting it still. But (]9) anyway, there's a lot of land change. It's not flat and slmple. (21) And I'm real curiou~ Ate you going to (za) grade it o1~ flatten it out? I ~d modern (23) compaction is supposed to be wonderful, but were all (24) seen the results of compaction that didn~ (23) We're just going to level this off and say it's okay? PaCe (1) MIL BULLm~: I will respond by the answer ye~ (2) The aradin8 plan back in ~990, as well as the more (:1) refined one from this project applicati(m, was (4) So it did go O) through the technical reviews and was found to be (6) acceptable. CO It will still have to comply with all the (8) technic21 aspcets of soft (9) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Of course. Nobody (10) wants to sit in a house on badly compacted eaFt~ But (11) we all know that it's caw to not get compacted just (12) right. (1~) MAYOR AI.W'gANDEI~ Any other questions? (14) MR. MARKMAN: MF. Mayor, there's a resolutiom (1~) You know what it doc~ It mak,-~ a finding no furthcF (16) require& If you (1~) want to do anything diffea'ent, you need to direct it (18) to a different resolution tlmt reaches a diffeFent (19) result. I don't even know ff you want to tackle that (20) tonight. Resolutiou on Page 202 and 203 -- 204 does (21) not apply. That is a resolution that is prepared (22) showing the Planotno~ Commi~eion results. If you want (23) to do something diffeFent, you need to do a motion. (24) COUNCIlMEMBER CURATALO: This is a second (2s) hearing t]mt I ~ 199 (1) 9th comminMon then I have heard a lot (2) of testimony. I have read layers of documents~ I O) visited the site (4) by helicopter. O) I have beard nothing, I have rc~d (6) nothtn~ and I have sccn nothing that would conq~l me CO to overrule the committom So therefore, I have to (8) find in favor of the commi.~adOIL (9) COMMISSIONER BIANE: Compelling argument on O0) both would have (]]) to say that the developer did a lot better job in (12) defe~rnng their posttio~ (]~) However, where I have a problem with the really upon ~ I feel there should be (1~) twtce as many floor plan~ The add~us should not be (16) opttonaL Tbey shotdd be requirecL And as well as (]?) the garage placement, it really seems to me if you're (18) driving up in that commLtl~ty, th~ J]3tent of wtlat (19) everybody else bas clone is really to (~) These are the areas that I have major (22) problemn with with the project. And with that FH (23) listen to what the rest of tny (24) COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: It's been a long (a~) n~hr And the investment everyone bas in tht~ room, (1) most of the people in the room on this project, is (2) enormou~ It's a huge inveztment to those people that O) live there. To us, this is our city. We manage the (4) city basically for the people. We all have to get up (~) tomorrow, some of us carly, or today, and work. (6) So I ~prcci~c ~ commitment from these CO people that are all very hardworking; including (8) oursclve~ But it's a really important issue. I (9) don't care much for the g~orcawhcrs or Chief Benny (10) Harem, whatever his name is, rm not into that (11) I would like to bc - I invested a !or of (12) money with my family to go to yosemlr~, just to cLrive (]~) to find some deer. Arid heft they (]4) But the issue comes down to what's O~) compatible to these people. It's their netghhorhoocL (]6) They live r~ht there. They arc, to me, 65 l~-"tcent of (1~) the argllmeat. Nnmhcf one, ff it was a clcs~ issue (18) only, I would say thin is a bad plan. I think ifs ugly. And it belongs maybe down where I live in the (2o) tracts. But it doesn~ belong in the custom home (21) commsmiry. (22) So I would put 14 or 15 desi&n~ ! would ¢23) make them all (24) my way, I would leave the levee there with ~ but (2s) that money. So I Pu~e 201 (1) understand your position rhcrc. (2) But there is enough dou!~ not by all O) these other arguments - most of these arguments I (4) Th~e's a couple I (93 do. I'm not convinced that removing that extra tayer (6) of protection is a good idea. It's doubtful enough CO to me to require more study on that. (8) And I am deflnit~Ay in favor of (9) forcing - or requirin~ for our own go(xl, an (10) environmental impact report that's updated, that takes O1) into account all these complex issues that wc have not (12) had time to understand and to (]~) But we need to leave it up to the (14) ~ It cannot hurt the city. I'm not talking (]5) about in 8encral, 06) in our best interest, which is safety and welfare. of (]7) the people. Tha~s our respottqihfiity. It's not (18) going to hurt them for us to require an cnlrJFonnlental (19) im?~ct report. And that's my position. (2o) Again, on the design sidc, if you want to (21) speak just to ck:sigo, I think it needs to go back. I (22) really do. Make those homes look just like the ones (23) that arc up there already. But I think thexe's a (24) question about the safety. (2s) I read in the L.~. Times that there isan PaSe 202 (1) E! Nino possibility, more water thin year than many, (2) many years past It would be a very eventful year, O) weatherwise, in the motmrainn and elsewhere. And I (4) don't want to CVCF be blamed for contributing to a O) disastcF. I don't want to be blamed for having any (6) part that weakens our M & M Certified Court Reporters o~,~s~ Page 40 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 (s) So for a city that talks about pubUc (9) safety and how much ifs important to us, Pm 06) surprised that we wouldn~ take the time to require (11) some further reviews there on the cnvironmoncal ismc '(12) or the l?act rcporc So both on ticsign and Os) environmental impact, I rhifik we need to take a second (14) look (15) MAYOR PRO-TEM ~glIJ.IAM~: I'll try to bc within (16) my two minute~ Off a personal basis to abuse a site (m like ~ just gr~,fin~ it o~ is saorllegion~ The (18) design -- these look illin Terra Vista or Victorian (19) homes tnadc bigger. Yon can ukc a brown wood shac~ (2o) and make it bigger, but ifs still a brown wood shack. (21) I think the O,~? has a lot of potential (n) to maim it ~proprhte. I don't know why in the (n) world - just as a thought as rm drrh~ here (24) iistenin~o - ~ in ti)c world Lauren Development (as) didn't decide to do a custom (1) know. It's quite possible, and I think it would fit (2) in. (9) You should have a big book of (4) It's been in a lot of cities and ifs still done in (5) mass. They .the whole (6) layont is - they are clown where we live. (8) Some~hin~o pcak~ my interest. And we're (9) not supposed to pursue this thing. But the mention of (10) a purchase offer, I rh~k that re~!ly onght to be (11) explored. I would urge people to rhifik about (12) If this were pur~ for consortium or as ~ of (13) the private open (14) sp~ce, that would be one less part of our mo~mtlim (15) We who five clown on the (16) Ifs already been clone. (17) It really bothers me that ! look up there (18) now and see the white veil. But there's rio reason to (19) make more. I guess I like the desigm And I do (20) think (21) In fact, not at this moment, but I will (22) mention it here anyway, in the future ! plan to (2~) certainly pursue looking at all the tract that we (24) have that have been sitting.. on the shelf through all (as) O) happeninE (z) And there has been · new of looking O) at things with the (6) I think everyone of them has an old FIR report. And (~) Fm sorry if that co~ ~omebody some money, but ifs (6) foolish to go forth with a seven-year old EIR. C~ And I could not go akmg with ~ (8) commimtofi's recommendatio!l. (9) MAYOR ALKXANDEPc I agree with part of what was (10) sakL I'll be as brief as I have asked evcrylxxJy to (11) be (1a) In Iooldng at ~nat cx~ and what is (1~) ~ I do thb~k that there is quaUfi~ons that (10 Which I felt we were (l~j IooL~n~o at this evening I also fecl as the~e 06) could be more models chat are offcrecL (1~) But I think I find it very unique thaz we (18) seem to send a mixed mcsmge to thc Planning (19) Commimdon of ~ to be and favorable as (2o) we can about se~in~ people through the system rather (21) easily, and then at the same time we wind up saying (22) lees delay thac saying this years ago. We need to, howevcr-! do (1) agree that people up there have a stdxwJnfi~l (2) invemtmct~. They wtth (9) cb,~n I u'usc staff is concerned with the safety (4) issues, as they should be, and I'm not nccusing (9) anybody, and Fm certainly not being oriented toward (6) safety. Or) But I must my, I think Paul's stntement (s) pretty well covc~s the drawing board, to square one (10) MIL MARKMAN: We're trying to ftf~tre ont -- O~) there needs to be a motion to direct a preparation of (12) the resolutio~ I can certainly count four votes for (1~) a ctm3ge of design review approval I count two that (14) also would like to m2~e a finding that further (1~) environmental work needs to be done. (16) So if the staff took what we just henrd O~) as direction, we would brin~ back the resolution t!~2t (18) denied the projec~ denied approval of the clcsign (19) review. And, I gocss, there's three people that would (2o) rapport the Planning C,~ommi~,udon's ck~crmbm~ion on (21) (22) GOI~fiSSIONI~ GU'I'[ERRF~: I would like to maim (2S) a motion Pm not (24) sure we could mnkc a motion on both of those issue~ (as) But I would like to malce a motion requiring further (1) CEQA review, if that could be done_ (2) ~ ~: Yon would direct us to prepare a O) resolution that requtres- that finds there's (4) substantial evidence of ~ circumstance or new O) forthcr (6) environmental study? ('0 GOMMISSIONER GT. rI'IERRF~: (8) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Purther meeting to (9) readdress - (1o) MR. MARKMAN: The appropriate subsequent EIR or (11) supplemental EIR or even a whole new EIR staff would (lz) determine. (~) COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: I would iiim to take a 04) vote on (1s) MR. MARKMAN: We're going to have to dell with (16) th~c people support (1~ it It would be in a numl~2' of arcass ufiless the (18) council wishes to give us more specific directiota We (19) will have to call that on a resolution motion to do (2o) that. (21) MAYOR ~-Wr, ANDER: What's your motion? (22) COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: To require CEQA (23) review, t?act (24) report. (as) MAYOR AL~,=ANDER: On all projects? (1) MR. MARKMAN: On all thc subjcct mom-r (2) mentioned (9) COMMLSSIONER Yes, on ~ project. (4) MAYOR PRO-TEM rll second th~ (9) motion. MAYOR AL{~VDER: Motion (8) Any further discussion? (9) Plcasc indicate your vote. (10) CITY CI.PRK ADAMS: Motion Cur~_~lo, Btane. (12) MAYOR AI.HYLANI)ER: I think it would be (1~) appropriate to vote M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~M~, Page 41 Tr~fi,~ript of Proceedin$~s 08/20/97 (14) thi.~ partioilar -- (1S) MIL MARKMAN: Well, this particular- (16) MAYOR M.~7/,ANDER: Well, that motion right (17) there, CEQA end of (~) it. (19) MAYOR PRO.TEM WILLIAMS: On the EIR on this (20) project, we would like to have it revisited. My (21) understanding of that motion and what I seconded to, (22) the EIR on this project needs to be revisitec~ because (as) what I was reading some of the little check-off (24) points were awfully vague. (25) MR. MARKMAN: Understand (1) that the status of state law is you have to maim these (1) determinations specific to the project. This one is O) changed ciro,mqtances or new data, which could have (4) been genermed at the original approval time. (s) So I understood that motion to mean thi.~ (6) project on nil of the That's whm I meant (s) IVIAYOR A!.!~ER: I'm Iooki~ m, though, (9) is - I guess I did have faith in the that they (10) were doing the job with the tools thcy bad to do (11) If it means wc arc going to ~ and (12) revisit the wbolc (lS) COUNt. n-MEMBER ~: I think every seven (14) years it's (lS) GOUNGILMEMBER GURATALO: Paul made a suggestion (16) that some of these options are made as a conditiom (17) Cotlid we m2_ke a resolution on that, (18) approving the Commi.~ion's point with these (19) conditions, (20) MIL MARKMAN: No. I think you have to have the (21) design, icself~ in from of the people so they collid (22) comment. YOIIF only option on design review is to (23) comments, diFcct tlS tO (24) pFeparc a resolution rh2t denies - reverses the (25) Planlfifig CommLqqion on design review approval. (1) I was iookin~ for guidance on the CEQA (2) issue. I guess we got it. (3) COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: Is it still three, (4) two, them~ (3) MAYOR M_Wrdd~DER: Before we get into the second (6) vote, I'm not even saying that there may not be a need (7) to show that guidelines need to be reviewed a~r five(n) or seven or nine or three_ I don2 think we discuszd (9) that this evenm~o We cook a lot of itlfog/nation ~ (10) evf~ing that was unsub~*ted (it) MR. MARKMAN: The general rule, Bill, is it 02) doesn't matt~ if ifs three, five, or seven. Alack (1s) in change in six month, - someeht%o mtoh, not change (14) for 06) So if somebody comes in and says there's O~) an old crack. It's all approved. It's coming in for (~) design on an ad hoc ~ you're going to hce this (19) decision every to (20) claim CEQA is not required, and opponent~ may feel (21) (22) I guess I c~m~ 8ire you any more (2S) guidance on r~ This projec~ is spe~Sc under (24) sure law. The deveiopur has a risht to press forward (ms) with this proJec~ o) MAYOR ~_w~D~ Does dm hody not have the (2) right to be able to my - formulate smnc form of the O) state-of-zhcq~, my, after three years, or can they (4) O) M1L MARKMAN: I think you can give the staff (6) dircction to (s) COMMItlONER GLrHERREZ: (1o) ~ IV~KKMAN: We're iooi~n8 for a motion in (11) reference to reversing zbe Planning Cc~mi~on's (12) design review approval, dirccfin~ us to prepare a (13) resoimton. (14) MAYOR ~L!~qDER: l'H make the motion as Os) stated by Mr. Markman that we do not agree with the (16) pI.2nnJn~o Commimiofi on the . issue of desigu review. (17) COUNCILMEMBER GURATALO: Otdy. (18) MAYOR ALJ~CANDER: Only. (19) COUNCILMEMBER BLANE: I'll second ic (20) MAYOR AI-JcY, ANDER~ Do you (21) MR. MARKMAN: Yes, ! do. (22) If this motion passes, we will come back (23) with a resolution chat finds there is no substantial (24) evidence - for further CEQA review, chat denies (2s) deign review on this project. So that you Page 311 (1) undefiufid, that's ~ we're (2) COUNTER GUTIERR]~: Why should we mention O) GEQA? (4) MR. MARKMAN: The issue bas the (6) issue lot whatever comes af~zrward~ And I think the to tbat (s) _ _.at?oslOon that was imuecK I'm sure the develop~ (9) (10) COUNCnMEMBER GUTIERRF~ I can~ support that (11) motion with CEQA mentioned that way. O2) ~ MARKMAN: This motion is only on design (1S) review denial. We have a motion on both ends of this (14) equnfion. We'H take it as staff direction to bring (1s) back a resolution. Then you'H have a resolution in (16) front of you. You can chan~ - nothing is final (17) until we have a resolution of (18) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Restate the motion. (19) COUNCILMEMBER MANE: I There is a problem with it. I would like (22) to go back and - I guess there's four of us that feel (22) there is a problem with this deign. Fd Hke to go (23) back - I would jul like to fazc thc dedgncr - (24) MAYOR ALKY~ll)E~ Do you warn to modify it? (23) COUNC. nMEMBER BIANE: I would !ikc to modify it o) that it only ackiresses desigu review. (2) MR. MARKMAN: Well, here's the problen~ You O) have already have a (4) resolution dispoztn~o of that issue, too. It's part of (S) the appeal. Its a ground for disposition of this (6) whole process that's been raised by CURE. I think (7) they're entitled to disposition on it and on both (8) issue~ I think t]Je (9) I don~ know how we can let that hang out (10) here_ (11) COUNGILMEMBER BIANE: There should be motions (12) in front of that. Os) MIL MARKMAN: We can do this: I suppose we can (14) come up with two rcsolution~ I suppose we could come (ls) up with two resolutions that dispose of diffcremt (16) parts of this appeal. That will be novel, but it (17) certainly isn't impossible_ If we do that we could (18) have one lawsuit by one side in M & M Certified Court Reporters ~u~, Page 42 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 ref~ence to one (19) resolution, and the othc~ side in reference to the (2o) oth~. (23) MR. BU~_I.m~: Ii~ in fnct, the council does take (z~) action on the pro~ct, what would bc helphal for both (~) ghe commi~io~ and the staff is to mention what (24) elements of the design ~ you would like them to (~J) look at, evexythin8. from the grading of blue line O) stream issues. (z) MR. MARKMAN: I think we%-e got about four 03 different points from the council discussion, that I (4) ~n recnil, that you and I work out a resolutio~ (5) Now he's going to have to do the same with respect to (6) your CO MAYOR PRO-TEM WII~XAMS: It's his job (8) (9) MR. MARKMAN: We'll bring the resolution ba~k (10) to Fou. Let mc tell Fou, here's what we're going to (11) take as a smlf directiota Right flow, I think wc (1Z) would bring back resoh~ons dispo~n~ of each issue, (13) but sq~rately, because tl~re's different (14) (15) The way to get reflection of the (16) counefl's deaf. on on cn~h issue is to bring a issue, because one will 08) have the another (19) vote. Somebody will (2o) on one of those is~ue~ (23) We v~tll bring ba~k two resolution~ one (~) which revc~ th~ plmnnin~ Commi.~zion'S design review (z~) approval and one which concurs w~th th~ ~lannin~ (24) Commix~ion's position that no further matter was required. We will bring ~ 234 03 those b~k for the September 3rd meeting (2) MAYOR ~I.i~C~DER: I suppose I'm just tired. No (3) action is beqng tnkc~ toni~t? (4) MI~ MARKMAN: No. It's a (5) COUNC. H.MEMBER CURATALO: Didn't Otlr litst vote (6) cove~ that? (7) MR. MARKMAN: Not renlly. I think thc~e's ~t (s) Ic2st one mcml~r of the council that c~m't be (9) s~.cfied with the resolution- So I think maybe, for (lO) th~ first time I can remember, we'll come back with Ol) two rcsolution~ (1~) MAYOR PRO-TE~ WHJJXJd~: You said yo~ needed (~) ~y~ 04) ~ ~: n~ ~ o!~ (~ ~YOR ~O-~ ~e ~ ~ a ~ m r~ ~ ~ a r~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~re (~) (~) ~ ~: We ~ a ~~ (~) ~ a m~ ~c ~ a O) second. But the Ix2~K)n that gnve the second to the (2) motion has second though~ C~) COUNCIIJ(EMBER BIANE: Fm having second (4) ~too, m 03 come back here and we go through this whole entire (6) not be a furth~ (8) hearing ou We do have a ~ (10) to go home, reread the nmterial, and we do have a (11) right, as C~oncil, ~nen we vo~ on this %o.~. to ~ (l~) wtmtev~ decision we (~) MI~ ~: Absolutely. The decision can~ (14) be found until we present yo~r resolution to act on (15) the pla~ (16) COUN(XL~EMBER BIANE: I ~n~ rem,-ml~r very (17) many (m) MR. MARKMAN: I will tell you ~ That the (19) public can won~ be (2o) a public hearing. It will ~ be resolutions that (23) are in the council Im~tness, because it reflects what (~*) you want them to do. (~) But, yes, the public c~n come in at the (24) start of the meeting and comment beiore you take the (25) action. It won~ be a public hearin~ But you may Fsge 236 get a lot of comments .L2-tn Ms, McKle~ swears ~ ~'s -- ~YOR ~0-~ ~: It ~ ~ m me (4) ~ ~ ~c of~ by ~ ~c~ng ~ ~ of the 03 city and saying we want to be on the City Co-ncil, (6) each one of us has a respo~ _~_~ility. CO C_~)UN(~!IMEMBER CURATAI~: We hnve already done (s) it. We have got a resolutio~ We have a (9) We should be allowed to vot~ on it. That's my (10) positio~ (11) MAYOR M-~.NDEi~ We!!, in rhi~ particular (la) ~ we ck~ have a rcsolution yet. (~) COUNC]L,ME~M~E~ CURATALO: We have a motio~ We (14) have a 05) ~ ~: We hnd one motion pass to a~rec (16) with the P!nnnin~ C~nmi~don on the CEQA pln~ The (17) second motion Os) Corem" '~n on the design review approval. (19) And Fm telling yo. that ff you adopt (~) that second motion, a~r hearing all of ~ we will (23) bring that does one (z~) and one that both (~) reflect the mine (24) MAYOR M-!~CANDEI~ So you're not saying don~ (~) take a vote on ~ 237 O) MI~ MARKMAN: No, I'm not. (z) MAYOR _~t_~J~INDER: Paul hid second thought~ O) COUN(~ll. MI~!BER BIANE: We're just voting on the (6) design review inme. It should have been here 03 tonight. It's pretty -~tmple. Ws a design review (6) issue that is recommendation to focus -- what our focus of 03 convermfion should have been tonig~ (9) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: We have two issues (10) before us, a pro and a con. Usually we choose oneor O1) the other. 02) MIL MARKMAN: Well, actually no. When the (~) Planning Commi.~ion ac~s, the staff automatically (14) prepares - if the staff is recommending concurrence (15) ~ ~ Plannin~ Comrnimdon, at least since I985, (16) they only present such a resolution. (17) I have to tell you, you're going to do 08) something different, you (19) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: How many have we (2o) overturned? (23) MR. MARKMAN: Quite a few. (2a) Do you want the staff to prepare-- (a~) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: No. That's just (24) excess woric (25) COUNCH. MEMBER BIANE: We'll M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~x~ Page 43 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 leave it at staffs O) recommendation. (2) MAYOR ~I.~Tr.~dN'DER: Do you want to vote on it.~ O) MR. MARKMAN: Does Council want to vote to give (4) us direction to reverse the design review approval? (5) COUNC. IIMEMBER BIANE: I'H second that motiota (6) MAYOR AI-!~/~N~DER: Thafs fine. ('/) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: So we're vo~noo to (s) ovex~urn the Plnrmin~o Commimzion's reeomm¢lldatioll? (9) M1L MARKMAN: To direct us to prepare a O0) resolutiom Ol) MAYOR A!_!~/~NDER: Ye~ Do you understand the Oa) motiota} O~) MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: I think I understand 04) the motiota 05) MAYOR AI.wIc.~IDER: AH right 06) Please indicate your vote. Unanimously five, zero. M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.~M~ Page 44 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA In the Matter of: An Appeal for Development Review 97-11 for LAUREN DEVELOPMENT. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Rancho Cucamonga, California Wednesday, August 20, 1997 ORIGINAL Reported by: CONNIE MARDON Hearing Reporter JOB No. 480240 ! I'l&l'l ] C,~fi.d Co.. Reporters 2100 N. Broadway, Suite 205 Santa Ana, CA 92706 714.558.9400 800.729.6263 Los Angeles 213.487.9939 San Bernardino 909.888.1645 San Diego 619.238.3500 Oxnard 800.729.6263 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA In the Matter of: ) ) An Appeal for Development ) Review 97-11 for ) LAUREN DEVELOPMENT. ) ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS taken on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, beginning at 7:20 p.m. and ending at 1:50 a.m. on Wednesday, August 20, 1997, before CONNIE MARDON, Hearing Reporter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: WILLIAM J. ALEXANDER, Mayor DIANE WILLIAMS, Mayor Pro-Tem PAUL BIANE, Councilmember JAMES V. CURATALO, Councilmember REX GUTIERREZ, Councilmember For The City of Rancho Cucamonga: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON BY: JAMES L. MARKMAN Attorney at Law Number One Civic Center Circle Brea, California 92822-1059 (714) 990-0901 Also Present: JACK LAM, City Manager DEBRA J. ADAMS, City Clerk 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rancho Cucamonga, California, Wednesday, August 20, 1997 7:20 p.m. - 1:50 a.m. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Before we move on, I would like to discuss Item 97-11. There's been a request for a continuance. we're going to do. I want to find out exactly what We have had a request by a representative of the residents in that area for at least one meeting to continue on that particular item. I don't want to continue to go through the agenda if, in fact, we do wind up continuing. The request, as I say, came from the folks that were interested in primary opposition to the development. And in order to honor that and not to take a lot of time, Mr. Markman, is it appropriate to be able to find out exactly where the council stands? MR. MARKMAN: Yes. I think it's also courteous to all the people here that if you're going to continue this, there are people here on all sides of this issue, as well as the fact that I want to point out to the council that the lady on my left is a court reporter who's here to transcribe this matter, assuming it goes forward, transcribing this part. It's a lot of expenditure involved in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 waiting on this. And if the council is inclined to continue, it would probably be appropriate to consider that now so we could move the item up to now. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Do you need council to do that? MAYOR ALEXANDER: We do. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Then I would move -- COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I'll second. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. Everybody in favor of moving this item, please make your vote. CITY CLERK ADAMS: Unanimously five to zero. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Is there anyone here this evening that would have a great hardship in coming back at the first meeting in September? MR. MARKMAN: Which is September 3rd. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: I'm going to have a hardship only because of the holiday. Maybe I'm wrong. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: If we were to set another date -- which I'm not convinced that that's what we are going to do tonight -- if we were, it would need to be the second meeting in September. would be kind of soon for me. I might be gone that week also. That's a holiday week. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: It It's a holiday week, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that's the first day of school. That's a pretty intense day for some folks. If you're going to continue it, I would say the second week. You ask the audience. MAYOR ALEXANDER: If there is anyone in the audience either in favor of or against this, please come forward. MR. ANGEL: Bill Angel. I happen to know who requested the continuance. It was Malissa McKieth, on behalf of the CURE Organization, that's opposed to the project. She's not here right now. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I think that's part of the reason why. MR. MARKMAN: In all due deference, Mr. Mayor, maybe a little ~uidance. We could have a two-hour hearing to continue this. This is at the council's prerogative. There is an outstanding written request to continue this matter before you. There's no written opposition to that. I, personally, was contacted by the attorney for the applicant who did not -- he's here, and he -- correct me if I'm wrong, but he indicated that he would not resist a continuance. He didn't say whether it would be for one or two meetings. one continuance might be in order. He said 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Furthermore, the council should consider whether you've had time to digest the mountains of material, due to the fact -- I talked to the Mayor about the request for a continuance in front of him, and perhaps he didn't spend all of the hours he would have liked to spend digesting this. It's a question of the council responding to that written request for a continuance. Sure you could take input on that, if you want to have a hearing on the continuance, but you're certainly not required. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I understand. It's appropriate. We don't need to belabor it, but is there anyone here that's going to be, on either side, if we continue it -- and we may be short a quorum on the 3rd. I don't know that. MR. BRADFORD: My name is Tom Bradford. I'm a workers' compensation attorney. I have an office here within the city, probably in close walking distance. Malissa McKieth is over there. With all the preparation that had been made, she's willing t~ go forward and, in fact, would prefer to go forward today, if that would be acceptable to the council. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: Is she on her way? MR. BRADFORD: No. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: She's the one that made the request for the continuance. MR. MARKMAN: She's over somewhere preparing written material to present this evening to council, which hasn't been distributed yet. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Right. difficult. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I would like to say one thing: That makes it rather With all due respect, The material that we get, whether it's from staff or whether it's from attorneys or whoever it is on either side, the material that we get in front of us, sitting up here, when we walk in this room five minutes before the meeting that we're supposed to also digest, is inappropriate, as well. So I'm a little bit confused because I got letters from the attorneys and from Mr. Cristiano and others complaining that this was going to be continued and that they thought it was unjust and unfair and blah, blah, blah. So I did as much work on this as I could to be ready tonight. I realize it's a very complex issue, probably too much to digest in one night. But I was prepared to go forward with it. And I'm disappointed that we may not. So you know how I feel on this 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 issue. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Okay. MR. HARTZELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm with Hewitt & McGuire, Counsel for Lauren Development, the proponents on the Development. Just to clarify for the councilmembers, we had an opinion and provided a copy of the letter sent in by MS. McKieth requesting a continuance. We suspected -- she was indicating it was going to be extremely hard for her to be down here. We thought it was possible that the council would continue. It's obviously the council's prerogative. We were concerned about a continuance that would go into the second hearing in September. That's quite a bit a ways. We will be prepared to go forward tonight if the council would like to pursue the item tonight. If the council would very much prefer that it be September 3rd, and not a whole month away -- I just wanted to clarify the position. We are amenable to taking council's direction. We will present our side of things tonight if that's what the council would like. If they do extend, we request an extension be only to June 3rd (Sic.) 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR ALEXANDER: Very good. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: Good evening. My name is Leeona Klippstein. And I'm the conservation director .for Spirit of the Sage Council. I'm also on the board of directors for CURE. And I was with Malissa McKieth before coming here this evening. And it's our understanding that we would like to go forward and present the information tonight. However, because it is difficult to digest all of the information, perhaps -- we suggest taking the information tonight and making the decision at the September 3rd meeting, if we have it on September 3rd. We also -- for the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation, we have legal representation tonight that came here to tonight to speak on their behalf. And I'm sure that they would like to go forward, too, and at least give their perspective and their concern. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I brought this up primarily out of a request for a continuance; now it seems like there is a reversal and a desire to continue. It sure would be nice if those things could be indicated. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All right. It's up to you up here. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I don't see what's wrong with listening to main argument; that way we can at least be prepared to or be closer to a decision at the second meeting of September when that comes around so we don't have to spend four or five hours that night, as well, taking information. So that's just my preference. But it's up to you all. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I disagree with you. I apologize for that, but at the same time I don't want to do this twice. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: That's what I just said. We could take testimony. MR. MARKMAN: Could I ask the council, if anyone else speaks tonight on this matter -- I don't want to quell anybody's emotional delivery -- but if two people speak at once, the court reporter cannot record it. And also gestures are not recorded for those who want to make those. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: Bill, I'm prepared to go either way. MAYOR ALEXANDER: If we do not have a motion to go ahead and continue it, we'll be hearing it tonight. If we are going to hear it tonight, I'm prepared to 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make a decision tonight rather than carry this, bounce it around from time to time. I feel more comfortable in allowing -- if there's more information and documentation coming in, I think it is unfair to expect anyone to absorb and digest new information if it comes in, particularly in this form. But if it's going to be testimony and the council wants to go forward, then we'll finish it tonight. MR. MARKMAN: Is there a motion to continue this hearing, which is Item G1 at 7:00 p.m. in this room on September 17th, 19977 MAYOR ALEXANDER: Yes, there is. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I would like to make that motion as stated by the city attorney for a continuance to September 17th. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: MAYOR ALEXANDER: motion? MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: I'll go either way. I'm really confused. When I get a letter from someone asking for a continuance and then I'm told by the third party that that person really didn't want it in the first place, and if that's how the whole evening is going to 12 Is there a second to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go, it's even more confusing. And I would like to read things separate, away. I'm perfectly willing to make a decision tonight. And I'm willing to continue it. But I ~uess I needed to hear from -- it's hard, like I said, with a third party. It's very difficult to, you know, for someone to come up and say ske didn't mean that. And I'm just confused because I just got that tonight. That's the kind of thing that I think is causing so much confusion, because here waiting for me tonight was a letter. This is the first I've seen of this letter. And it is signed by Ms. McKieth asking for a continuance. So I just see -- I come in and it's in an envelope waiting for me tonight. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: With all due respect, Diane, what's the date? MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: The date it was received by the City Planning Commission was August 11th. I have just seen it tonight.. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I don't know why we would be given this tonight. That's nine days ago. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: With it is a memo from the Planning Commission suggesting that there are some inaccuracies in the letter and that the staff has no 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conflict with rescheduling the meeting. So like I said, it's more than confusing. And I'm not so sure that I want to be the one to decide whether to continue. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I don't think we should continue it. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: How long will it take to get down here? MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Why don't we work the agenda as it is. MAYOR ALEXANDER: We have brought it up. We had a motion to bring it up at this point. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: I know it's incumbent upon her to be here tonight. MR. ANGEL: I believe it's changed circumstances over the last week and a half. I can't address them. But I can tell you from -- I had a phone conversation. She requested that -- actually, I can back up a little bit. I believe she was scheduled to be up in San Francisco. And it was going to be here. inconvenient for her to attend. She changed her calendar so she could be It's under those circumstances that she wanted to go forward. I'll be happy to go call her if you can go in sequence. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Would it have been appropriate for you to have submitted a follow-up saying please rescind my first request? I mean, it ~just seems to me that if you made one written request, and now you've changed your mind, it would have been easier for all of us. Because in my mind -- MR. ANGEL: The request was made on the 11th. And there had been no response. There was no indication that the matter was going to be continued. MR. MARKMAN: Sir, the City Council has to act on a continuance this evening. There was no way to honestly tell anyone whether the council would or would not grant a continuance. I'm sure that she's a practitioner who understood that. CITY MANAGER LAM: Mr. Mayor, I think procedurally Mr. Markman has indicated there's a motion on the floor. If there is no second that motion is denied for a continuance. That means that the agenda proceeds then. MAYOR ALEXANDER: We have a motion to bring this to this point. Does anybody want to go ahead and put it back to -- COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I make a motion to 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assume the regular agenda item for a later time. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Is there a second? MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Second. CITY CLERK ADAMS: five, zero. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Motion carried unanimously, Okay. (Interruption in the proceedings.) MAYOR ALEXANDER: Item G. The following items -- this public hearing's following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. Item 1, Consideration of an Appeal for Development Review 97-11, Lauren Development. Tom Grahn will give the staff report. MR. MARKMAN: Before you commence this hearing, and before we walk into a procedural problem, I think the Mayor should inquire whether the applicant -- or excuse me -- the appellant who asked for the continuance, and we're informed no longer wants a continuance, is here and wants to go forward. And then we know we won't have to do this over. MS. McKIETH: I'm Malissa McKieth. First, I'd like to apologize for not being here at seven o'clock. We were toward the 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bottom of the agenda. You may have noticed from my request for the continuance on September, that it was filed with the city by fax on August the 7th; that I had a commitment for the governor's office this evening, which I tried to satisfy before getting here. I was contacted by one of the individuals who spoke this evening, and asked whether I wanted a continuance. And as I told several council people last week, if I did not get the staff to pull the agenda item and get a continuance, all the work that I and my experts and all the rescheduling that we had to do was pointless. We would be prepared to go forward this evening. I spoke to Ms. Williams about that; I spoke to Mr. Gutierrez about that. surprise. It should be no I would also like to clarify on the morning of August 7th, which is the day after I got a fax from the Richards, Watson firm finally confirming when this hearing would be, we had been told that this hearing would be in September. I called Steve Kaufman, the attorney who represents the city in the federal action. And I said, "Steve as a personal favor to me, I have a commitment for the governor's office. I need you to 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 help me get this hearing continued." That was 7:30 in the morning on August the 7th. I had faxed the request for a continuance to you. I spoke to several council people last week about the need for a continuance because of the fact that two of our principal experts on earthquakes and on debris basin damages, one of whom is the director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, who is the same expert that Lauren Development has, provided us a declaration saying this project is dangerous, is out of the country. Our second expert on debris basin failures is in Portland. He has also submitted a declaration. I knew that this was going to be a difficult hearing this evening. Nobody contacted me about a continuance. I received a fax late last night acknowledging a request for a continuance and telling me that it would be considered this evening. At that point I had spent -- and my experts had spent -- I had experts living in my house the last week working on this project. We're fully prepared to good forward. I apologize for this inconvenience to people. But I have been in good faith. I made 18 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 every sin91e effort early on to contact the counsel for the other side, to contact some of you, individually, and to request that staff pull the agenda item. I also had su99ested that it was appropriate, because I knew your minutes had not even been printed until August the 13th. And I know this is a bi9 issue. I know there are a lot of materials. And I have been workin9 19 and 20 hours a day to 9et things to you in a timely fashion. I know people were critical this evening, the fact that all of a sudden we're submittin9 all this important information. I can assure each and every one of you that I have moved every personal and professional obligation I had since I had notice of this hearin9 in order to prepare for this evenin9. And that came as a 9rear sacrifice to me and experts and people in our neighborhood. And that was because we were told that there was no way the City Council could possibly hear this on the 20th. We are prepared to 9o forward. We would like to present the evidence to you this evenin9. We, too, have only received documents from Lauren Development in the last couple days, includin9 documents that came only to us for the first time this 19 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 afternoon. issues. But we're prepared to respond to those We would like to go forward. I was fully in · accord with a request that a continuance be pulled this evening. And I hope that clarifies things. If not, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have before you, before you proceed with the staff report on the continuance issue. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. Any questions? MR. GRAHN: This exhibit will give you an idea of the location of the approximate site. The tract, itself, Tract 14771, was initially approved by the Planning Commission back in 1990. We received an application for the development of 40 lots within that tract map. Development on the application was approved by the Planning Commission on July 9th of this year. Following the Planning Commission's approval, we received two appeals on the project. The first appeal focuses primarily on environmental concerns and safety concerns regarding the removal of the levee. The second appeal focuses on access to the project site. As I said before, the design of your 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application was submitted on the development of 40 single family homes within the limits of the previously approved tract. The design, here, was prepared to address the requirements of the hillside development. The design includes split-level pads, with multilevel breaks and interior floor levels between the garage. There are six different elevations that are provided. I have posted several of them behind you. Plans 1 and 2 are size elevation; Plan 3 and 4 are sideslope and uphill elevations. Plan 1 is a single story floor plan; Plans 2, 3, 4 are two-story plans. The floor plans range in size from 3100 square feet up to 4300 square feet, and are provided in a variety of conditions. During the design and review process and the design review meeting, there was one primary concern focusing on the site-plan issue relating to this project, and that deals with that condition of approval carried over from the original tract, which addresses a number of problems in this project. The specific condition limits front garages within 33 percent of the lots within the subdivision. That would equate to approximately a maximum of 13 lots within the tract. 21 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 If you look at the floor plans closer, over to your right, Floor Plan Number 1, which is to the right of the site plan, and Plan Number 2, is directly to the south, directly below it. Plan 1, if you look at the garage orientation and the orientation of the house to the left, that is considered a site plan or the plan where the garage door fronts directly on to the street. There are a maximum of 13 lots within the tract that has that indication. Plan 2, the lot below the floor plan, below that, the garage is situated approximately up to 50 feet or even further behind the front elevation of the garage. There's an option element on that that has the ability to enhance that elevation somewhat. You can see that through the elevation that was provided behind you. It was a determination of the designer and the Planning Commission that because of the orientation on the garage, the condition in front of the house, in addition to the front of the lot to the garage door, that that would not be considered a frontal garage condition. And, therefore, the tract complies with the requirement that a maximum of 33 percent of those lots could have a frontal garage condition. 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 During the design review process, we received a number of letters of opposition to the project. Only one of them really focused on any design issues associated with the project. The letter was provided by Bill Angel on June 10th. It does not include the staff report that is before you. But I will go over the issue that i~ provides or addresses regarding the architecture. The primary issue that it focuses on has to do with the massing and bulk provided with the elevations. A couple of exhibits that we have from the Hillside Development Organization addresses the massing and bulking orientation of the house. Depending on the condition and the view of the house from the upslope, downslope, or adjacent to the house, you could get a different appearance. They focused on one exhibit in the ordinance that addresses effective bulking, that says if you have pad elevations on the slope, or at the rear of the lot, grading of the slope minimizes an overhang that, essentially, increases the effective bulking of the elevation. There are a couple of elevations within the project that Plan 2 and Plan 4 of the elevation -- there's a side elevation that has a portion of the 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elevation that projects out, and in their position is a violation or in conflict with the objectives and the requirements of the massing of the hillside development. It was a determination of the designing committee and, ultimately, the Planning Commission that the elevation complies with the requirements of the Hillside~Development Ordinance in terms of the massing and scale and proportion. And the application was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. As I stated earlier, there were two appeals that were filed in the project. Engineering is here. They're prepared to comment on those if you have any questions for this. Other than that, that would conclude my If you have any questions, I'll try to presentation. answer them. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Questions? Thank you. Okay. We're going to go ahead and open it up for public speaking. Before we do, I would like to ask if we might ask the city attorney, please, to try to set up some ground rules. There are certain things that are appropriate and certain things that are not. 24 1 MR. MARKMAN: Before we do, let me, again, 2 reiterate for those who are going to speak, there is a 3 certified shorthand court reporter taking this down, 4 .so that you need to, maybe, speak a little more 5 clearly than you normally would, a little slower, 6 and two people can't be reported at once accurately. 7 And, again, gestures or sounds, other than words, are 8 not recordable. 9 What you have is kind of an interesting 10 proceeding. I know it's a policy of this council to 11 take in all the information that is available to the 12 council that the public wants to put in. I am sure 13 you're going to hear a lot of things. 14 Our view of this, as we have said at the 15 Planning Commission level, we'll reiterate it here, is 16 this is a design review process. The tentative map 17 process occurred a very long time ago in 1990, I 18 believe. 19 And fortunately or unfortunately, this 20 tentative map, which was approved, has been extended 21 for an abnormally long period of time, in any of our 22 experiences. But that's what the state law did with 23 respect to a lot of developments due to the recession. 24 What is coming before you concerns the -- 25 I almost want to say the aesthetic nature of what you 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 see. All the conditions that have been imposed and all the considerations through design review concern what these houses look like in comparison with the neighborhood, compatibility or lack of compatibility with the neighborhood, where they sit on the lots, how the lots are graded to replace them on the lots. And, of course, we have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of design review processes in Rancho Cucamonga. And to my recollection, this was the first one where I have seen go to the council level. In fact, the development code doesn't even provide for noticed hearing on design review. Of course it does on tentative tract maps as a state law. Because the issue has been raised along the way, this is obviously a matter of grave public concern, we advised the staff to go ahead, in fact, notice a public hearing. That is notice beyond what the development code would require for a tentative map, and that has been done. So you are here, and you have a public hearing on design review. Now, I just looked at the record, and fortunately or unfortunately, I haven't sat through all the hearings. And I noticed in the record a great number of issues that don't have relationship to design review. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and 1983. think it does. disagree. And it's claimed by counsel and some of the appellants that those issues are nonetheless relevant. For example, there are circumstances which require a regeneration of an environment process, which staff and the Planning Commission has disagreed and their office has disagreed. The fact that there may not have been adequate care taken, with respect to earthquake and drainage issues, which were obviously issues which concerned the tentative map.process, which our engineering department, the Planning Commission, and my office disagreed. We had, as late as this afternoon, discussions with some members of the public about compatibility with the general plan. And some issues have been raised as to whether the underlying project is compatible with the general plan. We reviewed documents going back to 1981 Some people may tell you tonight they don't The staff and my office respectfully So all of these issues are going to be presented to you. They may have something, but may not have anything to do with how these houses look or design review. I think your jurisdiction this evening under the development code of why this is in front of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you, concerns design review. And, of course, you need to decide amongst yourselves whether or not there is compatible design here with the neighborhood and whether the City Council can agree with the Planning Commission in that regard. The resolution presented to you deals with what I have just said. If you concur after all you hear with what we have said, what the staff has said, you can adopt the resolution. If you don't concur that this is a proper design, or you think some of these other issues are pertinent, or you have jurisdiction, or so-and-so advises you, after we get through this process, we can cross that bridge. But for now I think you ought to be concerned about design review because that's what is in front of you. The fullest, longest, most in-depth design review discussion I can say, authoritatively at least, since 1985. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I think I need further clarification, here. I think what we should discuss tonight is what is in the EIR, I guess. And I want to know whether we clearly can hear that and rule on that. MR. MARKMIEN: Well, let me tell you how I see this: I think you're going to hear presentations. 28 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You're going to hear counsel and other people argue you had to recirculate and do supplemental and environmental work. Staff and -- these issues arise and new ones on a weekly basis. And every one of them has been looked at by the staff, objectively by engineering, by planning. And we don't agree. And what is before you is a resolution that literally makes a finding that you didn't have to do further environmental work or recirculate the EIR since the time the tentative map was approved. It's over with. It has been approved for seven years. I'm telling you that is our view. But I know you're going to hear people who disagree with that. I'll be the first to advise you, if I hear something that's going to change my view or the staff does, we will tell the council. It's our interest in seeing the council's decision, whatever it is, validated, because it appears there may be litigation concerning whatever decision you make. So you do not see in the EIR in front of you, Paul -- you don't see a supplemental EIR. You don't see a subsequent EIR. We don't think design review, which is looking at the aesthetic nature of these houses, under the present circumstances on this 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -opinion. see that. property, requires further environmental work. And I'll say it again: The people will disagree with me. But we have to give you our best That's what it is. So that's why you don't And you're also going to hear about safety issues, which engineering didn't adhere to, the tract was not adequately conditioned as to earthquakes, as to flooding, as to who knows what else we'll hear this evening. All of those public improvement safety issues were dealt with at the tentative tract hearing seven years ago. This has all been brought up and reviewed and rereviewed by the staff and presented to the commission. They didn't think these were pertinent issues. You're to going hear these issues, unless the Mayor does something different than he's ever done, which is not to take the input, whether I think it's relevant or not, because the input is going to come in. The staff is going to -- and the developer, undoubtedly, are going to rebut it. So what I think what you're going to have is a record that is about five-percent pertinent, if I could make an estimate, based on what I have read on the Planning Commission process. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But nevertheless, I'm never going to advise the council not to take information that you want to hear. In other words, I'm not sitting here like a judge sitting here saying, "objection," "irrelevant," "strike it," "don't go on with that line of presentation." Whatever they want to present, I'm sure the Mayor is going to take in, and I advise you to. That does not necessarily mean that we think it's pertinent to design review. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Before we go ahead and open this up, I would -- one thing the city attorney did say is probably also very true. We do not try to hold people necessary to that five-minute rule. Sometimes you run over; sometimes you're a little bit less in volume as far as the amount of material presented. But we would ask one thing: If you would work very hard not to be repetitive. If one person has said one thing, please do not repeat that item. MR. MARKMAN: Bill, in about half an hour, I'll ask you to take a recess for the reporter's sake. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I understand. Okay. At this time we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 address this issue? MR. ALLDAY: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is a John Allday, representing Lauren Development, 11030 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga. I'm going to try to be the five-percent pertinent that Mr. Markman discussed. I will do my best to limit my discussion to the items which I know are design-review related. Even I, however, because I've been approached -- we've been approached by so many issues that are nondesign review, I might be bringing them up also. I apologize for that. But my focus will be on the design review issues. I would first like to thank -- I would like to commend the professional staff of this city. And I'm not just saying this for a matter of courtesy. I have been in this business on both sides of the counter with planning. And I'm a planning commissioner in the city where I live right now. Hopefully, this won't get back to those staff. But, believe me, I have never worked with a more dedicated, professional, and quality staff than the city staff in Rancho Cucamonga. I'm talking engineering, planning, professional, clerical, legal, everybody, excellent. And I hope that's not 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpreted as being conspiratorial to commend them for how they stuck with this project. When we first came in they had many problems with what we proposed. We had a lot of meetings and showed them a lot of plans. And, believe me, the plans on the wall are not the first version that's ever come up before th~ Planning Commission or before the City Council. I would like to talk about just a couple of design review issues: First, compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. Again, our plans evolved. They went through many changes. The first plan we submitted, if I could say, staff was -- they liked the contour grading that we were proposing, but they felt that our homes did not have enough adequate splits in the houses. We went back, literally back, to the drawing board. We have plans, here, that are now consistent with the tentative map that was approved in 1990, consistent with the conceptual grading plan that was approved in 1990. We have minimized the two-to-one slopes. We have homes that are in-step with the slope, ranging from three to six and a half feet within the houses. Three to six and a half feet. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Our houses, despite what you may hear, are, as staff has indicated, in complete compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance as far as the windows and the graph that Tom Grahn presented to you today. All of the above measures that are required, the sloping, the stepping, contour grading, have been incorporated into our plans, which were unanimously approved by the Design Review Committee and by the Planning Commission. The next issue I would like to address relating to design review is the compatibility with the community. And coupled with that, tied to that, is the amount of community input and knowledge that has been shared with them, by them, on this project. Before we even started, we checked out all the ordinances imposed and regulations, deed restrictions. We inventoried every house in Haven View Estates. We photographed them. We went to the building department, looked at the building permit dates and sizes of every house in Haven View Estates. And we reviewed all the design review applications that have ever been approved in Haven View Estates. We wanted to have plans that were compatible and consistent with Haven View Estates, and 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's what we have here. I have distributed to the Planning Commission a chart -- two charts, which, I believe, · are in your package. I'm not going to redistribute them. I believe they are in your package. And what these charts show is the square footage of every house in Haven View Estates, compared to the square footage in the homes we are building. In deference to respecting Councilmember Gutierrez's comment about getting more material, we have these if you would like them. I'm pretty sure they have been in your package before. What they show is of the 243 lots -- I see a lot of people saying -- COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: Could you pass them around? MR. ALLDAY: They were distributed at both June 12th and July 9th -o pardon me if my dates are wrong -- the two previous Planning Commission meetings. What those charts do is they compare all the existing homes in Haven View Estates with the homes that we are proposing to construct in Haven View Estates. This is based on the building permit information of your city records. I would just summarize them. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As you can see on the written chart, there's five homes smaller than 3,000 square feet in Haven View Estates; one home over 6,000 square feet. The biggest grouping of existing homes is from 3- to 4,000 square feet. The medium home size of those homes is 4,086 square feet. I bring this up because people have said that our houses are incompatible by size with the homes that are already existing in Haven View Estates. On the graph in the chart you will also see our homes plotted and bracketed. This shows our homes in both the expanded and unexpanded state. I will get to that in a second. Our Homes range from 3,143 square feet -- and I only have four of those -- to 4,942 square feet. The average size of our homes is 4,152 square feet. 60 percent of the existing homes in Haven View Estates -- 60 percent of the existing homes in Haven View Estates are equal to or smaller than the homes which we are proposing. I'm sorry. I'm being so careful and deliberate with my words, but this has been a very important issue to us because people have said that we're not compatible. We have checked 19 design review 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 applications that have been approved by this city in Haven View Estates. They range from 3900 -- or excuse me -- 3400 square feet to 4200 square feet. In the last year -- in the last year there have been design review applications approved for 3900 to 4200 square feet. And I understand one of the appellants, in fact, has an application before the city for a 3800 square foot house to be built in Haven View Estates. Another aspect that I would like to get into dealing with community compatibility is the impact on the market, the economic impact of these homes which we're proposing. I bring this up because some of the handouts which have been distributed indicate that our homes are going to ruin the value of the existing homes in Haven View Estates. One of the handouts that's distributed says that our houses are going to sell for $270,000. This is our second project in Rancho Cucamonga. Our lowest priced home in our other project, I believe, was around $270,000. So, therefore, our new project will start at that. I say that facetiously because that's the logic that's been stated. Our previous project was at 270,000. We appreciate greatly the concerns that many people have 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about the cost of their homes, the price of their homes. But all over Southern California they have fallen in the last ten years. That's not the fault of Lauren Development or having anything to do with the homes being built. The other aspect of community compatibility deals with neig~%borhood awareness of this project. Many people have testified, and may testify tonight, that, "If I knew what was going in" -- "If I knew that site was going to be developed, it would be incompatible with my desires to live here, and I never knew about it." What we have found in our extensive research about all of the discussions and everything that's gone on with this project, way back in 1983, when all of Haven View Estates was first discussed, this site was recognized as future development. When the tentative tract map in 1990 was approved, the Homeowners Association endorsed it. Some people who are appealing tonight wrote letters to the city, attended various design review and neighborhood meetings, the Planning Commission public hearing back in 1990, and endorsed the project, wrote letters endorsing it. I would like -- it's very important -- 1 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wouldn't distribute this at this time because of the fact of its late notice. If we had known that this item would be considered tonight rather than in two weeks, I would have distributed this early on. And I apologize, but the issue of prior knowledge is something that I do want to place in the record. We do not -- I'm not going to go through each and every one of these items having to do with prior knowledge. I would like to draw your attention to items on page 3 of this handout; items H, I, and J. Ms. McKieth testified at the Planning Commission meeting that there were only ten homes existing in Haven View Estates in 1990 when this project was approved. Totally untrue. There were 31 homes in Haven View Estates at the time this project was approved; plus there were an additional nine homes under construction, which is more than half of the number of homes that are currently in Haven View More than half of the homes today were Estates today. there then. And of the 31 nontract homes existing in 1990, 15 of them are still owned -- still owned by the same people who owned them at that time. Since 1990 over 60 percent of the -- I'm on item I now -- 60 percent of the lots in Haven View 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Estates are in 1997 owned by the same people who owned them in 1990. 60 percent. And on item J, over 60 percent of those who attended the 1990 City Planning · Commission and design review meetings still own homes or lots in Haven View Estates. The point of this is there is no opportunity, I believe, for people to say they didn't know. There are legally recorded documents that the homeowners are aware of, public reports, CC&Rs, all refer to development on this site. Some refer to 42 additional lots; some refer to 45 additional lots. The CC&R has maps of this property being developed. It's -- no one should be surprised. No one should be surprised at the pending grading of this property or the construction of the 40 homes on the lots. The grading that we're proposing tonight is merely precise fine grading, based on the overall grading plan that was approved in 1990, the grading of this entire site. We wrote a letter to increase awareness of this project. We wrote a letter individually to every property owner in Haven View Estates after the first Planning Commission meeting, inviting them to come and testify -- or excuse me -- to come and meet 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with us. We would show them the plans, answer any questions. Three people -- three people responded to our invitation. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: What date was that? MR. ALLDAY: The letter was -- the June 11th meeting -- I'm sorry. I can't answer exactly. June 11th was the day of the meeting. I believe the letter went out about -- the meeting was continued for four weeks. About two weeks later we wrote a letter. Two people came the day before the second Planning Co~ission meeting. One person came the weekend -- the Saturday after that. So it would be late July is when the people showed up. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: July '96? MR. ALLDAY: Of this year. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: I was at the July 9th meeting. There was more than two people. MR. ALLDAY: I am sorry. We wrote a letter to every property owner in Haven View Estates inviting them to come to our office or to call us and we would go over all the plans with them. There was more than that. I didn't mean to imply that. Traffic is related to design review only in that some people have alleged that these homes were going to cause undue impacts on them, due to the 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 traffic. All I would like to say in that regard is in 1990, when this tentative tract map was approved, traffic studies were submitted. These traffic studies analyzed the 203 existing lots in Haven View Estates, plus the 40 lots on this property, plus the potential of 53 lots to the east of this property. As you can see on our map on the right corner, a street stubs the property to the east. In existing Haven View Estates, there's another street that stubs to that. So the traffic analysis that was prepared analyzed the impacts of all these cars. They came up with approximately 3,110 daily tri~s on the rim's stem. The traffic engineering individuals indicated that over 10,000 cars' daily trips could be handled. And the streets here were over three times the capacity of what they needed to be. We have -- during the course of our efforts with the staff and with the Planning Commission, we have made a number of changes to the project, improved upon them, made items that we had' once thought would be optional, made them mandatory. We have changed our mix to increase a number of larger sized homes. We have done a number of items where we 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are very, very proud of these homes. I'm sorry. We have been so caught up in all of these items that have nothing to do with design review. We're confident that when they are built, and our neighbors in Haven View Estates see them, they will be as proud of them as we are. We are confident. They are consistent with this community, compatible with the community, and should be approved by your honorable council. That's all I have at this point. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: Where is the levee that you're going to remove? Where is it on this map? Is it right here? MR. ALLDAY: It runs north of the border. Approximately where you put it, however, is north of those two streets. On the inside, on our property, it parallels that. The reason why is that when Haven View Estates o- the balance of Haven View Estates was approved, there was a easement over that property there, because of the existence of the levee. The Flood Control -- County Flood Control District had an easement which prohibited development of it because it was serving a purpose at the time. However, after the overall tentative was approved, the Corps of Engineers constructed Deer 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Creek Channel and Deer Creek Debris Basin. And the Flood Control District determined that the easement prohibiting development was no longer required. And so the site became developable. And that's why you have this. The levee is basically along that corner. Are there any questions? I would like the opportunity to rebut any issues that are brought up later on. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Any questions from councilmembers? COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I have one question, just for clarification. I want to talk about the prices a little bit of the homes. I wasn't clear as you stated it. Will there be homes at $270,000 or not? MR. ALLDAY: No, sir. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Jim, let me ask you, is the reporter ready for a break time? MR. MARKMAN: Maybe for the counsel and the reporter. I see counsel for the appellant coming up. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: One really quick question. How many models do you have in this plan? MR. ALLDAY: We have six floor plans. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Is 10 minutes enough of a break? 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MARKMAN: Oh, yeah. (Recess.) MAYOR ALEXANDER: Okay. We'll go ahead. 10 .minutes went into about 17. Go ahead and continue. expect we'll be here for a while this evening. But we're ready for our next speaker on the item. MR. ESTUPINIAN: Hello. My name is Mark Estupinian, and I'm a resident of Haven View Estates. I currently live at 11045 Ranch Drive. I've been a resident for eight years. And I'm a board member for CURE, Cucamongins United for Reasonable Expansion. I'm a custom home builder and designer and build laboratories for pharmaceutical environments. And I've not built any other custom homes in Rancho Cucamonga, other than my own. But I have built many custom homes in Claremont, Arcadia, and Glendora areas. We decided to build our custom home in Rancho Cucamonga because we like the rural feel and the history of the wine vineyards. And in keeping with the theme, our home is constructed with wine and vinegar barrels presiding in indigenous stone. Mr. Gutierrez actually came to my home and looked at my home. I wanted to point out that we're not talking about apples for apples when we're 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talking about homes here. When Lauren Development tries to associate the, quote, "semicustom homes" with our community, a term used by tract builders to describe something that isn't, they fail to compare their homes with the majority of the homes in our community, like my own. This was my primary issue until I was informed that they were going to remove the levee, the levee that protects our community from disasters, from the '69 flood, a proven resource, unlike the debris basin that has never been through a flood at this magnitude. Prior to living in Rancho Cucamonga, I lived in a small cabin in Mount Baldy by a stream bed, and witnessed a flashflood first-handed. In our canyon we lost a truck in our neighborhood's port. I'm also director for ski patrol-for Mount Baldy, and have seen firsthand the effects of a large snow pack and a warm rain in our local mountains and destruction that hundred-year-old trees from rocks the size of buses loosened by landslides; a scenario not to be taken lightly in a canyon as large as Deer Creek Canyon. I went to the site to videotape the levee 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for those that have not seen the size and the amount of earth that they will have to remove for this levee, and to get a feel for the natural beauty of the area. May I show it to you? MAYOR ALEXANDER: How long is it? MR. ESTUPINIAN: I never timed it. it's within eight to ten minutes. MAYOR ALEXANDER: MR. ESTUPINIAN: MAYOR ALEXANDER: I imagine You'll certainly get a view. It's taped. So it's not -- I'm sure it's very good We want to keep the record We would be happy to tape a copy and have it to the city clerk before ten o'clock tomorrow morning. If you must have the original, we'll just copy it from you, just as a practical matter. 47 think it's relevant. clear. MS. McKIETH: MR. MARKMAN: I want to remind anybody that puts in -- somebody who puts in an exhibit like this is giving it up to the city clerk. MR. ESTUPINIAN: That's fine, if I can make a copy of our vacation at the end of it. MR. MARKMAN: I have to tell you what -- seriously, this could present a problem. I don't know what the relevancy of the video is, but you obviously 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MR. MARKMAN: Let's do this: We'll keep what the gentleman uses tonight, and if the city clerk can copy it, so that there is a specific -- an exact tape, I don't think we have he can get his vacation back. an objection to that. vacation. But for tonight we get to keep your (A videotape was shown.) MR. ESTUPINIAN: Sorry it took so long. MR. MARKMAN: Do you have a way to mark that, please, so you don't lose track of it? CITY CLERK ADAMS: Okay. MR. MARKMAN: transfer it. MR. ESTUPINIAN: And then we'll see if we can Well, in closing, I would also like to state that we never did -- when we received our notice, we were coming back from vacation on Memorial Weekend. That's the first notice that we ever knew of anything that was going on with the project. In actuality, we only had less than two months to prepare. And this is the first I've heard of it since that time. So I hope that your decision will be to protect my family and our community and lastly our 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 open, last natural area that we have. So thank you very much. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: I'm Liz Williams with the Euclid Management Company. We manage the homeowners association. I'm the director of property management at Euclid. The purpose for my being up here is kind of to go in with what Mr. Estupinian just stated about the notice for the development of the association above Rancho Cucamonga. In January of 1997 I contacted Bob Cristiano, who at that time, and to my knowledge, still is the owner of the parcel that we're referring to. I contacted him at that time because there were industry rumors that the parcel was going to be developed. There was no initial contact from Cristiano to our management company. During that conversation with Bob, he stated that he felt that any correspondence from our management company was premature, and that he was kind of in a negotiating stage with Lauren Development. The first correspondence that we received from Lauren Development regarding this project was dated March 26, 1997. The letter that I'm reading 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from was submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on June 26th of this year. Lauren Development was then invited to attend the Rancho Cucamonga meeting on April 4th. At that time Lauren Development had stipulated, I guess, repeatedly, that there was notification to both the association regarding the project's development. At that time when I spoke with them, inviting them to attend the April 4th board meeting, I said that it would be a board meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Board Homeowners Association. I notified John Allday on April 3rd that the meeting was going to be cancelled due to a lack of quorum. On May 16th we had a Rancho Cucamonga Board Meeting, at which time Lauren Development was, again, invited to attend the meeting. At the advice of the association's counsel, the interaction with Lauren Development at the meeting was strictly to attain information. It was not, nor ever meant to be, the neighborhood meeting. Homeowners were not notified of the meeting. At attorney -- our counsel's recommendation, we were just as a fact-finding mission. We weren't there to establish the board's position, nor to inform the homeowners what was goin§ 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on. At that point it was our first official contact with Lauren Development. During this meeting, Lauren Development handed out what they called a sign-in sheet that stated that it was a joint meeting of the homeowners association. I recommended to the board that they not sign that sign-up sheet, as that's not what it was, nor what it ever intended to be. I wanted to make sure that it was stipulated right from the very beginning that I did try to make contact to determine what was going on within that project January of this year. And I didn't get any notification from Lauren Development until the end of March. There was a letter that was submitted to the city dated May 16th. It was submitted to Tom Grahn from Lauren Development outlining all the different ways that they notified the homeowners. As I see it, I've been with the association for more than five years, and much of what was in this letter I did address to the city as being contrary to what I recollect. Finally, the last statement that Lauren Development stated was that in this meeting, 49 percent of all the lot owners were present, as well 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as -- I'm sorry -- in addition to representing 100 of the lot owners and board members. I think there was four board members there. One of my board members owns 46 lots. Therefore, you have your 39 percent of all lot owners that were represented. So I did want to clarify that at no time were we ever asked to notify the homeowners, were we ever asked to or requested to have a homeowner association meeting or a neighborhood meeting to discuss this project. Thank you. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. MR. BRADFORD: My name is Tom Bradford with the firm of Bradford and Barthel. As I indicated earlier, I'm a workers' compensation attorney. Some of this stuff that I found so far is legal -- is a liability of legal fees that would be significant. And if a lawsuit goes forward, the city could be obligated to pay the victor if CURE prevails. Also, in terms of what we can listen to today -- I do have in front of me a transcript from the City of Orange City Council Public Hearing on August 13th, 1996, where Mr. Markman's firm was present. 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 At that time what would be discussed -- one of the items that was going to be discussed was whether the environment could be protected. MR. MARKMAN: Orange? MR. BRADFORD: Excuse me. Was that the City of Exactly; City of Orange City Counsel Public Hearing, August 13th, 1996, regarding the Wal-Mart hearing. MR. MARKMAN: So it's not regarding this project? MR. BRADFORD: No, it's not. My point, though, was whoever it was, indicated that this is very narrow. All you can listen to is whether this could be approved. From a similar meeting one of the things to be considered was whether or not the environment would be protected. I have a few problems with that. The other issue to be discussed is whether there was any environmental impact. We're asking for the same thing, same rights. I don't know, again, if there's been any conflict of interest in this file of Mr. Markman's firm. My understanding is that they represent the city. If litigation goes forward, potentially there could be significant fees for the firm. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It would seem as if it would be worthwhile to get a second opinion regarding what could be discussed at these meetings and what could transpire. The general plan, suffice it to say, at the present time, I think, is designated for open space from the rim stem up. So what we see here is not zoned for development. But, again, that would be discussed by'people who are more knowledgeable. The environmental impact -- I already discussed -- that was something that had been brought up earlier. Another case that was brought up to my attention was Laurel Heights by their city council a while back indicating that there's an obligation by the city council to have substantial evidence and changed circumstances that has to be reviewed. The Supreme Court has indicated it has to be mentioned to the Planning Commission Board. Again, that concerns me. And also as a homeowner, I did want to state I did not receive notice of this project until after. All this had been prepared on short notice. It was done in little less than three months, because that's all the time that we had. There was no more time to prepare. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. MS. McKIETH: Good evening. I'm Malissa 'McKieth with Loeb & Loeb. I'm a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, 4993 Ginger Court. My home is, fortunately, just west of where the levee ends. So that when -- and if the levee were ever to go down, I always told everybody that I won't be impacted by flooding and debris, unlike my neighbor, Mark. I guess I would like to say that one of the very positive side effects from this matter coming up is that prior to the time that I got notice on May 23rd about the project, which like many of my neighbors tonight for the first time regarding Lauren Development -- we don't read the CC&Rs as closely as we should -- I really didn't know people in my neighborhood. I work in Los Angeles. I think I was a little embarrassed about living in Rancho Cucamonga because everybody I work with lives in the Palisades, and I mostly hung out on the west side of L.A. or San Francisco, or somewhere else. I didn't know my community. I didn't know very many of my neighbors. One of the very, very positive side effects has been that I have really gotten to know my 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 neighbors. And now everyone in the State of California knows that I live in Rancho Cucamonga. And now I tell them that there's these great deer that live in my backyard. I have gotten to know people on the City Council. I want to thank the councilmembers who have taken the time to visit the levee, to meet with us. I always thought I was going to get up here and complain about Mark's Cable Vision and the fact that there's not automated trash. But as you will see this evening, I'm going to be talking about a much, much more significant issue. And that's the obligation of the City Council to, in fact, look at changed circumstances, new information, that was not available in 1990 at the time that you originally approved the tentative map and you originally approved the Negative Declaration. That Negative Declaration, by some of the same Planning Commissioners who were here on July 9th and June 11th, said there was no significant environmental impact. Now, you saw that video. And it's very difficult for me to understand how anyone could have decided there was no significant environmental impact to biological or habitat resources, safety, geology. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If you look at the Negative Declaration, which is in the record -- I didn't rexerox it again tonight -- all of these boxes were checked "no." There weren't any mitigation measures. It was a pathetic showing. Now, I'm not challenging that Negative I just want to get that straight right 57 Declaration. now. I know -- Mr. Markman has told me -- he said my time has long passed. My focus for you this evening is going to be what has changed since 1990. What substantial evidence of changed circumstances is there that requires you, as the City Council, to take a look at whether or not we need to go back and reconsider this particular project, the Brock Project? Lauren wasn't the folks spending all the money back in 1989 or '90. And it is true that Lauren has had to expend monies now. That's a difficult position for Lauren to be in. But the reality is we're all going to spend a whole lot of money, because I am submitting' this evening, as I have submitted before, substantial evidence of serious changed circumstances that go to the health and safety of these residents that relate to the Hillside Ordinance; that fall within the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pathetic little narrow exception that everybody wants to review. You can't look at anything else. It doesn't matter how dangerous it is. We have to close our eyes, because we approved it seven years ago. Neither the law or logic requires that you do that. Now, I'm going to go through some overheads, and I would like to get some help from somebody on doing the overheads. I would like to take some time. I really feel it is an important decision for the city. As you know, this case has gotten a lot of publicity. I can tell you that the Hewitt Law Firm and my firm have been neck-in-neck in Sacramento all this week. We're all writing to our legislatures; we're all writing to the governor's office. It's a big important decision. There's a lot of media who are watching the case. It deserves more than a short time. I would have had materials to you sooner if it were physically possible. I was on the phone with FEMA at three o'clock in the morning. If you take all the evidence in this evening and you decide it is impossible for you to make a decision because of all the evidence we're presenting, close the record. Take the case under submission, and come back and make a decision, if that's necessary. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But if you don't close the record, we're all going to be going back and submitting more stuff, and submitting more stuff, and both sides are in a position to continue supplementing and supplementing. I would have loved to have had the individuals that are providing written testimony to you this evening here to answer your questions. They're leading experts. We have not spared a nickel in this case. Either my law firm or the other law firms involved or the people that we have hired -- we have hired the very best people, because we think it's a safety issue. And I can assure you that whatever happens here this evening, we will file for an injunction. We will go to the court of appeal. And what Tom was saying about the amount of attorney's fees involved, it's significant. I told my firm we could end up spending a million dollars on this case. And I'm serious about that. I have had to put aside a lot of other matters. I represent the CRA in Los Angeles. I represent a lot of other clients. And I told people, "I'm working on CURE." Because CURE is about Mark Estupinian's children. It is about the people who live beneath the levee. It's about the homes that Lauren builds on that levee and swale 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 system. These people who buy those homes, are going to be the people who are in the most danger. They're going to be the first line of, you know, attack if there is, in fact, a problem with the Deer Creek Debris Basin. So I want everybody to realize this is not a joke. This is not about, oh, well, we just don't want little houses. I have to tell you something: I agree. We're a beautiful neighborhood. We would like to stay a custom home neighborhood. We would like to keep the property value up in our neighborhood. Those homes are not compatible with what we have, no matter how much Mr. Allday wants to dress it up. And I don't like a lot of additional traffic in my neighborhood. That's what motivated me in the first place. But I'll tell you what keeps me up and makes me spend money and work hard is taking out that levee. So I -- Bill, can youhelp, or do you want to help with the slides? In addition to not seeing, I didn't remember my glasses. This is pretty easy. I was at a CRA meeting in L.A., and they let people talk two minutes, which is very bad. 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's us, CURE. I want to start with the Laurel Heights decision. The Laurel Heights decision is the Supreme Court decision. It deals with the issue of changed circumstances after you have had a final EIR. Let's imagine this Negative Declaration is our final EIR. What the court said in this particular decision is that the CEQA process is not designed to free the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the additional project. Indeed, new and unforseen insights may emerge during investigation in revision of the original proposal. There is -- and I can't believe your city attorney hasn't told you -- statutes that we have under both CEQA and under -- under the CEQA guidelines that talk about the fact that when you have new information and changed circumstances, it must be considered. Section 21166, "A supplemental or subsequent EIR must be conducted if one of the following events occur: New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete." The CEQA guidelines provide additional 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guidance to agencies when considering to hear or prepare a supplemental environmental document. Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines provide the supplemental EIR. "It is required where the lead agencies determine on the basis of substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: New information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known with the exercise of. reasonable diligence at the time the previously EIR was certified and complete or the negative declaration that was adopted." The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration. Significant effects previously damaged will be substantially known or shown in the previous EIR. "If changes to a project or circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, that lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required, under Subsection A." Now, what are we talking about here? I'm going to go into what kinds of evidence or changed circumstances we have, because there is a great deal 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of changed circumstances that we need to focus on. I'm going to start out -- you have in your white folders three declarations. You have the declarations of Tom Henyey. Tom Henyey is the Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center. He is Jim Dolan's supervisor. Jim Dolan is the person who trenched the Cucamonga fault in 1996; couldn't have known in 1990 what we were going to find in 1996. Contrary to all the materials that Lauren has put in -- and we have written responses to all of their factual allegations -- about how we lied about what Jim Dolan did and that Jim Dolan really didn't go out and trench. The declaration that you have from Tom Henyey discusses not only Mr. Dolan's trenching, but the conclusions that were reached in that trenching. Let me pull out what he has to say in the Declaration. The slides are all screwed up. The first study that he talks about -- this is sort of a key. This is the linchpin in our case. In 1980 when the Army Corps of Engineers built the debris basin, they built it to a 5.0 magnitude quake. We have a lot of evidence in the record. We had the Army Corps' original design specifications in 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1980. In 1990 when you approved the Negative Declaration, and when the Army Corps of Engineers certified FEMA, the debris basin that was going to hold everything, and when the Flood Control District, who really desperately wanted its golf course there, decided that they were going to tell FEMA that everything was safe and wonderful, everybody thought that we were not dealing with a really significant earthquake fault. What we have now is the Southern California Earthquake Center, as of 1996, testifying to the fact that the Cucamonga fault runs directly underneath the spillway debris basin, estimated magnitude of a 7.5 range. Attached to Exhibit A shows that the map fault may pass through or very close to the debris basin in the spillway. An earthquake of a magnitude of the 4 or 5 range would not be expected to break the earth's surface and cause damage to the dam; whereas earthquakes greater in magnitude of 6, 6.5, will almost always break surface, and likely break force its way to the dam. Also the ground shaking with a larger event will be considerably greater. And he has a lot of maps attached that I didn't have for our 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 overheads. He talked about the fact if an offset takes place currently on more than one strand during ~an earthquake. And the total offset could be considerably larger than estimated from the June 1996 trench alone, and, thus, the magnitude could be greater that 7.0. I understand the Army Corps of Engineers sent a letter on the 11th telling you that the debris basin is all fine and dandy. They talk about a 6.4 quake magnitude. Henyey is talking about paragraph 7. It's been a long time since we have had a big quake on the Cucamonga fault. And, therefore, if you take a look at what these seismologists talk about together and figure out probability, he thinks we're ready for another quake. I got to tell you, I live in Cucamonga, and I have not been particularly happy about what people have been telling me from FEMA and from Southern California Earthquake Center about what a wonderfully safe area I don't live in. I bought my house thinking it was on bedrock because I had all that ruble, all those big rocks in our backyard. I don't know how many people 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 live up in the hillside. Where do you think those rocks came from? I used to think it must have been from Jurassic Park. Now I realize it's debris flow. If I were to sell my house, I got some real serious disclosure obligations that aren't making me particularly excited about where I live. And I'm complaining about Mark's Cable. Does anybody like Mark's Cable? We don't like Mark's. It went blank during Shindler's List. That was the end. This is the most important conclusion in Henyey's Declaration. Again, these are the experts that Lauren relies on, too. It's 9oing to be the battle of the experts. It's like O.J.; they had theirs; we had ours; they had that DNA that the jury didn't care about either. These are the folks that Lauren thought were the experts. saying. This is what they're I understand that the City of Rancho Cucamonga tentatively approved the Lauren Development Project in 1990. It is important that the city consider the new earthquake information in determining the safety of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the safety of the homes located in such proximity to a known fault, particularly in light of the new 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 magnitude estimates discussed above. Now, if that isn't substantial evidence of a changed circumstance, I don't know what is. Mr. Markman, I would love to hear what you have to say in rebuttal. you something: This was 1996. that was not available in 1990. But I have got to tell It's new information The integrity of the debris basin is the key issue here. If the debris basin for any. reason fails -- and I'm going to go next to the Williams' Declaration and talk about what David Williams, who is a leading debris basin expert, says about that debris basin and about FEMA remapping. You're going to see that we have got an issue about whether or not our secondary levee, that we have come to know and love, is something that should be removed. And then, of course, you have to go to the next analysis about whether or not they're replacing the channel. It's really an equivalent replacement to the levee. You have heard a lot about how it's adequate. I think these are the reasons why people do big EIRs after there are changed circumstances. David Williams -- your declaration is 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there -- works for the Army Corps of Engineers and worked on the hydrologic models for the debris basin. Originally, he worked on the Harrow Debris Basin. He's out teaching courses on remapping. And in his declaration, and attached to his declaration, are some very key documents for you to consider this evening. One is CURE's request to FEMA to remap this area, at minimum, the mapping designation that was removed in 1991, FEMA's letter back to the city acknowledging receipt of our application for remapping. And we will be moving to remap. This project is not getting built any time soon, no matter what happens here. It's going to be a long time before anybody does anything on that property. And before that happens, we will have done the hydrologic studies to go through the issues of remapping, based upon the fact FEMA didn't look at the earthquake issues; FEMA did not consider the landslide issues. What they looked at was the Army Corps of Engineers' certification. And that certification, we believe, is no longer valid, based upon the earthquake. I will be honest. If this hearing had been in September, I would have had time to beat up 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Army Corps of Engineers, too, on these issues. I had to fight with every agency to move them off the dime. I can tell you how to reorganize. FEMA, the Department of Fish and Game, the Park of Fish and Wildlife Services, and every bureaucrat I have spoken to says, "Oh, we can't write a letter fast enough. There's just no way we can get a letter out in a day." 'Well, I got the documents from FEMA on Thursday morning, because I'll tell you, the engineering staff over here at the city has never produced engineering plans. This is a big major criticism that CURE has. We've never seen the traffic study that was read earlier. It's not in the file. So everybody relies on this stuff. We had to subpoena all of the developer's consultant records, subpoena them in a federal court action, before anybody would produce them voluntarily. Well, I wrote to the developer's consultants and I said, "Can we get the engineering plans?" They wrote back and they said, "Have the city give them to you." Well, we had been that route. This has been a lot of b.s., the situation over documents. So I finally got the documents from FEMA 69 1 on Thursday morning, and I got this expert to give me 2 declarations over the weekend. And I have a letter 3 from FEMA saying these people at CURE are going to be 4 ~ seeking remapping. That's important for you. 5 But here is Dr. Williams, a leading 6 expert in the area: "Removal of the swale and levee 7 would weaken the protective nature of the basin 8 project. I also understand that the developer claims 9 that the levee is no longer effective at approximately 10 the 200 feet breach on the top of Haddoc Road. 11 "This is a small fraction of the overall 12 levee, and can easily be prepared and has minimal 13 bearing upon the overall structural integrity of the 14 levee and the swale system to provide secondary 15 protection to the downslope residents." 16 At the front of the materials I have 17 passed out in the blue book you have, are aerial 18 photographs of 1969 that shows how the levee protected 19 people from the 1969 -- our largest flooding event. 20 I have heard some static about how the 21 little eastern side of the levee failed a little bit 22 in terms of water. You can see in that document -- 23 blue and white document, the very front of the your 24 folders -- you can see how that levee and that swale 25 system -- that tired, little pathetic levee kept back 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all of the debris and the water in 1969. Williams goes on to state, "In my professional opinion, I have concluded that removal of the levee and swale system and the construction of a residential development, will place both the new residents and the existing residents downslope of the levee at a substantially greater risk of flooding at the debris slopes that currently exists; notwithstanding the existence of the Deer Creek Basin upslope." MAYOR ALEXANDER: How much longer do you think you're going to go? MS. McKIETH: I'm going to go, I would hope, as long as I need to get to the end of my argument. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Can you kind of -- MS. McKIETH: I will speed it up. Let me just talk about some of the other changed circumstances in the Williams' Declaration post 1990. The Army Corps has changed its methods for calculating debris flow. After 1990 -- so this is a changed circumstance -- Williams, who is familiar with the old method and the new method, because he's worked on the Harrow Debris Basin since 1990, has concluded that under the new method, the debris basin is undersod, which means that it could overtop. It 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also could overtop because of the landslides. Tom Sheahan is going to be able to talk about the landslide issues in more detail. The other important issue that you need to understand is that the Army Corps -- there's plenty of evidence in the FEMA documents -- the Army Corps of Engineers anticipated that the levee was to remain intact. And there are recommendations that the debris that's removed from the debris basin be used to fortify the levee. That cleans it all the time. In fact, it was integral to the overall project. You have plenty of testimony on the record on those issues. I would like to speak just shortly on open space and general plan considerations. Bill Angel who, as you know, has been here 13 years developing -- I keep trying to convince him that he knows more than any lawyer -- is going to talk about the fact that this is zoned for open space, and it is also zoned for recharge. In your packet this evening under recharge, there's a letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the city, advising them that the board is of the opinion that this is reducing a valuable recharge area, and that they're asking that 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you take those issues into consideration. We have a lot less recharge now than we did in 1990. We have a lot less alluvial sage scrub than we had in 1990. These are changed circumstances that have to be considered. I also note that the city has not contacted the water agencies in terms of their obligations, under SB-901, nor has the developer. The general plan -- I respectfully disagree with Mr. Markman on his interpretation of the meaning of the general plan. Your own resolution here this evening -- which by the way, Page 3 was for some totally different development. So I have never seen the actual resolution you're voting on this evening. You have to find consistency with the general plan. My understanding of the general plan is that it requires an EIR. They require public a notice. And they don't just happen because somebody passes some zoning in 1983. That would be easy. We could do that without any difficulty. You could change your general plan like that. You got a serious defect on your general plan again. I would urge the City Council, if you think we're just all out to lunch on these issues, to get a second opinion on these things. These are 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 important issues that you are looking at. I would like five more minutes, please. MR. MARKMAN: Why don't we take a break. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Ten-minute recess. (Recess.) MAYOR ALEXANDER: Do you want to go ahead and continue? .Debbie, is there a way of turning that down? MS. McKIETH: We tried to put the materials together in a way where you have tabs for the individual topics so you could find them easily. If you turn under the first tab in the blue book under CEQA authority, this goes through many of the overheads that we have. If you turned to the third page, there is a list of what we consider to be substantial evidence of changed circumstances in the record that the developer has not provided contrary substantial evidence on it. The first thing I would like to point to is the traffic impact. A lot has changed in seven years in Haven View Estates. And notwithstanding Mr. Allday's presentation about how many homes were there at the time, there are substantially more residents and children living in the area. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Because the economy changed, a lot of us were able to afford homes when they were going into foreclosure. You have many more people with young ~children who otherwise have not been able to buy homes. We have a traffic engineer, Crane and Associates (phonetic), who was one of the largest traffic engineers in California, submit information before the Planning Commission about how there is no traffic study dealing with particular impacts on children during the grading, how there is no traffic study as to mitigating environmental impacts, both air and traffic, during construction. Mr. Allday at the last hearing said, "We signed some easement agreement, which means that we gave them permission to have access across the property." I don't believe that the person who signed those easement agreements had authority to do so, and that there will be a legal basis for challenging the easement on several different points. But more importantly, the easement agreement does not permit Lauren to get out of doing air quality or traffic studies. They have not done so. I keep hearing about this mysterious traffic study in 1983. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I was graduating from law school in 1983. Times have changed. There are substantial evidence of traffic impacts that have not been addressed by the developer. Then we have the earthquake situation. We have the U.S. -- not the U.S. -- the U.S. Fish and Game Wildlife Services. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. You have information in your record, whereby the developer has not completed the gnatcatcher survey. He claims he doesn't have to. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services says he does. It's your choice as to who you want to choose on that side of the battle. Another changed circumstance, the California Department of Fish and Game -- two important letters that you have before you under the and Fish and Game tab. First, on June 23rd of this year, they requested that City Council recirculate the Negative Declaration based upon changed circumstances. They have not rescinded that letter. And I was told by the general counsel this afternoon of the Fish and Game that they are not intending to rescind the June 23rd letter; although, they are going to make some clarifications about the memorandum of understanding. 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 When and how they have not made a determination. In fact, one of the issues they raised with us was just the timing of having to make a decision. What they are absolutely not rescinding, though, is the August 5, 1996, letter requiring blue line stream alteration agreements. When the developer, apparently, took the Department of Fish and Game to the site in November of last year, the entire site was not shown.to the department. When the department went back and saw the entire site, they concluded that alteration agreements were required. The developer is not in compliance with their regulations. That is not a letter that the department is going to be rescinding. With respect to easement and grading and dirt, there has been a lot of rumors floating around that Lauren has to place grading debris on the Department of Water and Power easement. That is the easement that is to the north of their parcel under the power lines. Department of Water and Power -- there is a letter dated yesterday or the day before rescinding or terminating any agreements with or any negotiations with Lauren Development. They did not have a permanent place. And many of the areas that Mark 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 showed you on the video are actually the DWP easement. If the DWP is going to allow grading or fill on their easements, they have to comply with people like everybody else. And nothing happened in 1990, Mr. Markman, that gets the DWP out of being a lead agency for purposes of allowing any sort of disturbance of habitat from their parcels. We have told the DWP that. It is our interpretation of law, and they make their legal decision based upon the city attorney of Los Angeles, accordingly. Like I mentioned previously, the Regional Water Quality Board has sent correspondence. Today Mr. Hartzell had plenty of opportunities to speak to the attorneys and staff of the regional board prior to today on his arguments as to why the recharge issue was not something that should be raised. And they have sent a letter advising the city that they believe recharging needs to be considered. I would like to say a word about Mr. Cristiano. In your packet in the staff reports, correspondence from me to Mr. Cristiano was very early on in this process. When I had full understanding of this property, I decided that this is not a parcel that is ever going to be constructed safely. It is a 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rare and beautiful parcel in addition to the safety issues. I approached Mr. Cristiano, because as a property owner, he is entitled to the fair market value of his investment. I represent developers. That is what my claim to fame is; not being on the other side of cases; although~ I have had a big education in the last couple of months about issues that I used to think were not particularly significant. Mr. Cristiano was offered a sum of money that he will never see again at this point in time. Because for every dollar that we spend on legal fees is another dollar that we do not have to purchase that property and put it in the State Wildlife Conservation fund. I have been very frank and open about trying to reach a settlement with Mr. Cristiano early on, trying to make Lauren -- trying to avoid the litigation with the city. I recently spoke to the city attorney who represents the city on the federal action. I said, "Listen this is something where if people sat down and worked together, we could theoretically work it out," because I kid you not, I will not stop litigating in this case. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We have one lawsuit filed in federal court; we will file another state action, and this case will go on and on and on. We will all spend a lot of money, when we could sit down and try to work things out. When I make these overtures, everybody thinks this is a sign of weakness. It is not a sign of weakness. I am operating in this game from a sign of strength.' I have a lot of substantial evidence in the record. I have a major law firm behind me. And we aren't going anyplace. And maybe the lawyers will make a lot of money on the fact that clients don't sit down and figure how to work things out. You have that choice. The correspondence of Mr. Cristiano is very, very clear in the record, and I would urge you to read that, because his impression was created that we were somehow trying to rip his property off for 100 thousand dollars. That was not the case. His tentative map is stuck, though. He's going to have a lot of trouble selling that property, because I'll tell you, there is nobody that is going to come along and develop that property that doesn't know they have to deal with us. This time we will know what's going on. 80 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We didn't know. If I had known before May 23rd, I would have been out there battling a lot sooner. There's no reason in the world I would have sat on my · hands for a development like this. So this notion that we had notice a long time ago is not correct. There is a lot of evidence over the last several months. My fear, because it's late in the evening, is that once, again, it's going to be easy to decide to continue this hearing. I would urge you to do the following: Close the record. Take the evidence this evening. If you do not close the record, we will be out there tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day hiring new experts, getting the Army Corps of Engineers to do this, that, and the other thing. You were the ones that wanted the hearing on August the 20th. We prepared for this hearing. We would like to close the record. If you need to take it under submission, if you need to get a second opinion -- I would urge you to get a second opinion. This is an important decision for the city, not only in terms of the legal fees, which your city attorney will tell you, work my way, not his way, in the event I prevail on the civil rights action on the environmental case, but it's a liability issue. 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You're going to be the one -- if we're right and you're not and the levee goes down and these houses come up -- which I've got to tell you it's almost hypothetical at this time -- if it were to happen, you're the ones that get sued. We, the taxpayers, are the ones who end up having to pay these costs. It's worth spending some money to get a second opinion. It is a big issue. These tentative maps, the impact of CEQA on these tentative maps -- you're not the only city in the state that's dealing with it. Redlands has old tentative maps. They don't have sewer hookups any longer. Cities in Northern California, a big issue. Just like when you get cancer, you have to go to a second doctor to make sure you're making the right decision before you go into surgery. You can close the record this evening and you can decide and call another hearing where you discuss the issues and make your ruling, but you can get more input before you make your decision. It's the best thing for you politically. These are the people who vote in your city. They have stood up and said this is a project that has trouble. They have stood up and said we will stand behind the people who are opposing this project. 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Our citizens deserve that. And it's not asking a lot. And I'm sorry, with all due respect to your lawyer, I would say it if it were anybody else sitting up there, take a look at the issues. Mr. Markman knows that the design review hearing that was before the City of Orange on Wal-Mart was couched almost identically to this. In that instance the city council sort of wanted to hear a lot of additional stuff. They didn't limit it to design review. I got to tell you, I have the transcript, and, you know, it's easy to give advice, depending on what you think people want to hear. I do it a lot myself. Get a second opinion. So in closing I want to say the law requires you to look at the substantial evidence. There's all the statutes in case law out there for you to look at the changed circumstances. Nobody can get around that 7.5 changed circumstance. The experts, the people Lauren thought were good, you just can't do it. It's a real issue. It's not something we're making up because we're worried about the $270,000 homes, or however much Mr. Allday can get for this today or tomorrow. It is the key issue that the debris basin and whether that debris basin is safe. I know Leeona Klippstein from the Spirit 83 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the Sage will testify about a lot of the environmental issues. They are the key issues for her. For most of the people on the CURE -- and Leeona is on our board -- the issue is the levee. Somebody told me to say -- I have to say it in the immortal words of Laurence Olivia in "Marathon Man," "You have to ask yourself is it safe?" And if you want to live beneath the levee and you want your children to live beneath that levee when it's gone, then you make the decision. If you think about it and think about the risk, what it would mean to your family in an earthquake, what it would mean to you living on that development, if that development is built, given the fact that it's so close to the earthquake fault -- and let me tell you, Rancho Cucamonga has allowed a lot of developments on the earthquake fault, which we have now discovered because we have had to spend so much time -- I think the city needs to really start thinking about its planning issues. All that land up there is very, very dangerous land to be building on. If you don't start taking a really close look -- we have opened up a big can of worms here. The next development that comes into the city, you're going to have people who are a 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot wiser about the hydrolofty and the earthquake issues, and you really have to start taking a look at things. I would be happy to answer questions. It's too bad it can't be like federal court, where I make an argument, and you turn to the other lawyer and you say what does he think about it? I would love to hear what Mr2 Lauren thinks about the changed circumstances, because I've been hearing, "You can't listen to that. This is design review." The example I gave -- and I'll use it in closing, if you had approved Chernobyl in 1990, and it didn't get built in 1995 or '96 -- that big earthquake fault underneath Chernobyl -- and you say, well I could only decide whether it was going to be pink or blue or how tall it's going to be, that is ridiculous. Your own general Health and Safety Ordinance, which requires that you protect your citizens, CEQA requires of you, the changed circumstances. You have all of the authority in the world to step back and say, wait a second. There's something new here. We cannot approve a substantially dangerous project without taking a closer look. We're not asking you to disapprove the project. We're asking you to review an environmental 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impact report. It should have been done in 1990. The planning staff should be embarrassed about that Negative Declaration. There is no way in the world 'this project deserves the Negative Declaration. I can't challenge that now, but I can ask you to look at those changed circumstances and consider them and consider them carefully. Thank you very much. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I would ask -- since she has covered a lot of information, I will say it again, can we attempt to refrain from repetition on what has been stated already? MR. SHEAHAN: Good evening. My name is Tom Sheahan. I'm the principal hydrogeologist for Dames and Moore in Ontario, California. Some things I'm not. I'm not a resident in this area. I'm not a party to this action in any way, and I have no interest in this. I have been asked on behalf of CURE to evaluate some data and to provide some professional opinions. The basis for my being able to do that, I'm a licensed professional in California. I'm a registered geologist, a registered geophysicist, among other things. This is the kind of work I do in evaluating these kinds of projects. I reviewed 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 documents. I've talked with people. familiarized myself with the site. levee, and I have walked the area. opinions. I have I have walked the I have formed some And I'm going to make this as brief as I can, but I think it's important to state my opinion. You'll find my declaration, I believe, attached to one of the back of the documents that you have. I'm going to do this as quickly as I can, but there are some important points I would like to bring out. I would like to have you hear it from me in person. First, removal of this levee provides a significant reduction in the safety of the property and the residents that have been below that levee. That's an important point. The levee and the swale are an effective device, an existing effective device, for controlling flood and debris in the area. They have withstood floods in the past. I don't know if you can see this easily. It is -- here's the levee. This is the area of proposed development. You can see traces on here where the 1969 flood came down. And you can see that they stop at the levee. All the water, all the debris, all the boulders, and we're talking about large amounts of debris, were stopped by this levee. 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This small trace of water that came through here is a little part that came through the breach. And on that point, I think, this demonstrates, as well anything, the fact that the argument that there's a 200-foot breach in a several thousand foot-long levee is of little or no consequence. Now, I think the removal is particularly not warranted because of changed conditions. You have heard many of them already. I'm going to talk about a few of them. I'm not going to reiterate them. I'm going to try to elaborate a little on some of these. During some mapping that my firm did in 1987 -- I believe this was 1987 data -- this is the area. Again, here's the levee, here's the debris basin in this area. They identified two landslides. I didn't go up and do this. Other geologists went up and found these landslides. This is showing the red as granite; the blue is medisediments -- they're heavy, hard rocks, but are medisediments; the yellow shades are alluvium up in the area. I have tried to summarize the information on another sheet -- this is black and white. It comes up in color up there -- to show, in my opinion, the potential for landslide movement in 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the area, if landslides move. After some discussions I had this afternoon with Mr. James at your office, I realize it is important for you to not think in terms of landslides as water flows. Landslides are not water flows; they are material flows. You have seen the volcano flows that have come down and wiped out entire communities. It's that type of flow that we're talking about from landslides. Landslides are materials. They are sitting up on steep slopes right now and they're loose. They are separated from the native rock and they're hanging, if you will, on the side of the hill. Potential damage is tremendous from these. The smaller one of these, estimated being at only ten feet deep, which is probably about one-fifth of its maximum depth, turns out to be close to a 100 thousand cubic yards of material. The landslide will sit there until something shakes it loose, either an earthquake or a rainstorm -- not a flood event -- but a rainstorm, a nice soaking rain that builds up pressure inside the landslide material that allows the landslide to slide down. We're not talking about a flood event. We're talking about a material movement. What this 89 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shows is my rough estimate, at this point, the direction of migration of a landslide. It would come directly down the slope picking up energy, and by the time it hits the bottom, it wouldn't care what was in front of it. It would continue to move, generally, in this direction. What it would encounter first is the spillway coming from the debris basin. If we have 90,000 yards of material coming from the hill, and if it hits the spillway, even over this zone, which is about 1,000 feet, that spillway will only take about 5,000 yards. That leaves about 85,000 cubic yards of material that's going to come over that spillway. Secondly, if this happens during a rainstorm, water coming down the spillway, that spillway is no longer going to be able to take that rain water and carry it down through the channel. The rain water is going to come directly down through this area. The only protection that the residents below this levee have is the levee. As I mentioned, the levee is a viable, working, protective flood control device right now. Incidentally, I was pleased in reading Dr. David Williams' declaration that he concurs in my 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assessment of the landslide issue. You heard Malissa talk about earthquakes. Well, first of all, the landslide issue · is a changed condition. These -- although Dames and Moore knew about them, they were not taking them into consideration in 1990 when this project was originally looked at. A second changed condition is the earthquake magnitude. This line on this map shows the location of the Cucamonga fault. You can see that it goes almost directly under the existing debris basin. More recent studies also confirmed in the declaration that you have from Dr. Henyey indicates that the potential earthquake on this fault is about 7.5 magnitude. That's based on recent information developed in 1996. New information; information that was not available in 1990. Another -- I think you'll see this better in Dr. Williams' declaration -- the design criteria for debris basins is different today than it was at the time that this debris basin was put in. It came about as a result of experience. In Glendora there were debris basins that failed. I can't recall exactly the year, but I know in 1990 they changed the criteria, made the criteria more stringent. 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Based on that, if you were to build a debris basin here today, you would not build that one. You would build one that is more capable than the one we have. So to assume that the debris basin is there and that it provides adequate protection is incorrect. And we know that now. We did not know that in 1990. That's a changed condition. On a separate issue, I reviewed some of the work by a group called the RMA Group, consultants to Lauren Development, that did an evaluation, a so-called evaluation of comparison between the proposed birm and trapezoidal channel that is to be proposed to be put in at the north end of the property, a substitute for the existing levee and swale. I found many discrepancies. It's an apple-to-oranges comparison. I discussed some of these in my declaration. I won't dwell on them now. What that comparison does is to make the safety factor for the levee go down, and make the safety factor for the proposed structure go up. What's more important, though, just in considering the safety factor proposed for this proposed trapezoidal channel and the small birm that goes with it, the best safety factor, the most critical failure safety factor is 1.4. I believe 1.5 is the minimum. I don't know 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 six-feet tall. major structure. what the city uses for that, but 1.5 is what our company, our geotechnical engineers, considers as a minimum safety factor. I'm concerned that even at best what is being proposed has technical problems and has not been reviewed or considered. Secondly, the idea of this trapezoidal channel being proposed at the north end of this property being a replacement for the levee, I find ludicrous. I couldn't believe the dimensions of the trapezoidal channel had been reported. I had not seen the diagram. I went by the city's office today to look at them, and sure enough -- I just sketched this out -- you can see on my diagram what ten feet looks like in horizontal and ten feet in vertical view. This is my rendition of myself. I'm a lot thinner in the diagram than I'm here. I am This trapezoidal channel is not a It's a 3-foot-deep, by 6-foot-wide-at-the-bottom concrete channel. And to claim that it is going to replace a 30 foot high levee -- my paper wasn't big enough to draw the cross section of the levee. It would go off this page. A 30 foot high levee is what we have right now. To replace it with a 3-foot deep channel, I find 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ludicrous. I asked Mr. James today if he saw this to be equivalent to the existing levee, and he said no. It's no~ an equivalent thing. One other point. This area up in this zone, above the levee, below the debris basin, is some of the most permeable materia~ known to man; course gravel, sand, boulders, cobbles, water in that area percolates immediately into the groundwater basin. The water that normally comes down Deer Creek is the best quality water in the world, mountain streamwater, excellent quality. You can buy it at $2.50 in the store. This is the kind of water that would normally recharge this area. My understanding is that if the levee is removed and if this project goes in, they will no longer be able to release water for recharge in that area. This is not an insignificant recharge area. This is a little difficult to see. Here's approximately where the levee is. Here's approximately where the debris basin is. These shaded areas are not just recharge areas, but according to the legend, these are recharge areas with the capacity greater than 50 cubic feet per second. These are major recharge areas in this land. 94 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, the reduction in Colorado River water being made available in California, the water users in this area are going to end up having to pay more for water and will be getting a poorer quality water as a result. It's a problem. It is also a changed condition. Let me just say that because of the changed conditions, in a nutshell, landslides, earthquakes, the design criteria for the debris basin, the lack of recharge in the future, and what I would call incomplete, if not erroneous engineering analysis, the ones that I have seen, I would strongly encourage you to consider looking at a full environmental impact report before going forward with this project. That is my professional opinion. And if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Questions? Is there anybody else that would like if recharge doesn't occur here, with MR. ANGEL: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Bill Angel. I live in Rancho Cucamonga. I am also a custom home builder. I pretty much make my living engaged in this. I have been building in the City of Rancho 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cucamonga since 1984. I build, basically, custom homes. And I have processed many plans through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In fact, I have processed more single family custom homes through the city's design review process and specifically the Hillside Ordinance, since it was adopted in 1990, than any other builder. I'm referring to custom homes. I came here, specifically, as Tom mentioned, to talk about the problems I have where the designs are inconsistent with the Hillside Ordinance, which is the design review, the matter you have before you. However, Malissa has asked me to speak a little bit about the general plan issues. Back in 1990 when the tract was approved, I went through the files, and I could not find any specific reference to the city's general plan. In the back of the folders that you have, there are five maps. And I'll show you the -- these are the city's general plans. This is the City of Rancho Cucamonga's open space plan. This is Haven Avenue right here. This shape of the property, right here, is Haven RC-5; the colored area is the proposed project. You can see, probably, a little bit on 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your close-up maps that this squiggly line, up here, this hatched line, runs in this whole area, is the designated Flood Control Land and Utility Transportation Manual. In addition to this designation on that property, this designation here is called the streamside woodland and water recharge area. I had a local company, Riverside Blueprint, take this map which is drawn at this scale down here, and correspond that with the existing -- this is that section of the map. This is Haven Avenue. This is the city limit boundary. This is the existing project. This is the proposed project that's going to be going along the project. The scales on both these maps have been matched. And you can see that the squiggly lines -- although it doesn't follow exactly -- again, the general plan is more of a general area. You can clearly see that this northern section, because the levee was there, and this is where. the levee runs, was denoted streams and woodland for that particular purpose. You can see the flood control channel coming here. This isn't exactly to scale, but you can see the intent. In addition, the other maps that you 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have, which include the water recharge map, which Mr. Sheahan just showed you a portion of, this is the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Natural Resources Map. This is the lower portion of that page. The project on top of that -- you can see that it was clear by these dotted lines that this was intended to be a major recharge area, as Mr. Sheahan pointed out. In addition, the city's general plan also has had a Flood Control Map, which is provided for you. On top of the Flood Control Map, you can see that this is the existing levee. This is the approximate locations of the different channels that are serving us right now. This is the levee they're proposing to remove. This is the city's General Plan Land Use Map, figure 31. You can see that back when this plan was adopted, they showed the provision for this border and the curve, right here, where the levee would be. So the maps are all consistent. It's very clear, in my opinion, that this property in the general plan was supposed to be open space. Now, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, since the adoption of the general plan, has made four general plan amendments to the general plan. This is 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from the city's log, copy 8902, I believe it is, flood control to medium density; 8902 flood control to civic community. 8704 was flood control to low-medium. This was the southwest corner of Banyon and Milliken. These properties all have the same general plan designation, and those designations were removed by a general plan amendment. The resolution numbers are in the record. And I think back in 1990 when this project was originally approved, due to an oversight, I believe that the staff may have not turned to the general plan and seen that this property was located in a sensitive area. When I reviewed the file, I didn't see any mention that the property would even be close to it. But there's no mention, whatsoever, in the general plan. All the resolutions, as you know, say that the plan is consistent with the general plan. And, again, I'm not an attorney. I had a short meeting with Mr. Markman today. And, again, I think Mr. Markman is entitled to his opinion. And, again, I'm not an attorney, but he was there when this project was approved in 1990. I can see why he would back it. But I think that the city should maybe get a second 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opinion on that, because I think a general plan amendment is required. In fact, one of the general plan amendments that was done, 8902, was the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station on Banyon, right there near Milliken, on the north side of the street. That had the same general plan designation of this property. And a general plan amendment was done. One of the things Mr. Allday had mentioned back in 1990 -- and, again, I've been involved since the project was built in '84 and '85, and I remember when this tract came before the Planning Commission to get approved. The residents opposed the project, and there was litigation and there was a settlement. However, we always assumed that the general plan for this property was for two homes to the acre. So we did our best to create a design that would be compatible with our neighborhood. At that time Brock Homes was processing the map. We didn't know that this property had a general plan designation of open space. And we would not have given support to the project had we known that. That's a very big changed circumstance that the City Council should take into effect. 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But what I mainly came here to talk about, what my field of so-called expertise is, is the design issues, which I have a few of them, but I'll ~make them really brief. Since 1984 I have worked with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and on many, many projects, and the staff is excellent. And I concur as far as that goes. The design review issue, which is really the issue that's before you, is the hillside, number one. This ties into what I was just talking about. The first page of the Hillside Ordinance -- I brought this with me, the first statement, right here. I'll read it to you quickly. "Provide guidelines and standards for developing hillside areas to minimize the adverse impacts on grading and to promote the goals, objectives of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's general plan of open space." That's very important. It's to promote the City of Rancho Cucamonga's goals and objectives to the general plan of open space conservation. It continues on with the environment and being consistent with existing vegetation. Existing vegetation, wildlife, swales and slopes. Those slopes on the levee are existing. And to preserve natural 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 topography. The action that's before you is design review, which relates specifically to the Hillside Ordinance, as Mr. Allday said. The Hillside Ordinance refers you back to the general planning that says that you must find existence between that and open space vegetation. In the open space plan in the second paragraph -- it says flood control land, which is part of in addition to the streamside woodland; unlike agriculture and private land, these will not be developed. So the general plan is definitely required in this instance. The other design review technical issue I would like to bring up is Section 17.24030. It's a section in the Hillside Ordinance that requires that the developer provide a natural features map, so that the staff can readily see the location of federally recognized blue line and streams, existing vegetation. The staff can make a decision based on those things. When I reviewed the file, I did not see that. Also Section 17.24050 of the Hillside Ordinance, again, relating directly to design review says that the developer must show existing slopes on the property that exceeds 30 percent. There are 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specific guidelines in the Hillside Ordinance that say if the existing slopes exceed 30 percent, you must do mitigating measures. These are things that I have to deal with on every project that I process in the C~.ty of Rancho Cucamonga. In fact, I'm building a home right now on Hillside Avenue that has this condition on it. I think it came before you, maybe to the Planning Commission, where there were existing slopes exceeding 30 percent. According to the Hillside Ordinance, those slopes are not allowed to be developed. In addition to the slopes that exceed 30 percent, there are also natural contours on the property that exceed 30 percent. I was in Dan James's office today, and we looked at the maps that were done in 1987 and in 1989. And we did verify that there are existing isolated sections, especially along those blue line streams that we were referring to before that exceeded 30 percent. Developers do mitigating measures in the detailed site plan to address these issues. Existing water courses on the site, Section 17.24060 on Number 2. Again, this is information that you may want to review later. It 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 says they must be mitigated against. In fact, the Hillside Ordinance shows this picture. It shows the stream bed and natural walks and things like that. According to the Hillside Ordinance, all lots shall have the building individually processed. Every one of my custom homes, each home, each lot, I show how it fits within that envelope. The building envelope I'm referring to, Tom touched on it slightly. This is the Hillside Ordinance, the developer. As you can see, this is supposed to be showing a line like this. The house is supposed to fit within this envelope. And the intent of the 45-degree angle slope is to get some terracing to the house to conform to the hillside. The plans the developer has proposed -- and, again, Tom mentioned it earlier -- the top floors hang over, there's vertical massing. This is on Page 24. See, it's up here, it says, "Do this: Stagar the house with the hill like this, not this." Two of the applicant's floor plans. do that. Vertical elements -- Tom touched a little bit on it. I just want to elaborate a little more, because this is a design review issue. MAYOR ALEXANDER: While you're looking at it, may I ask if the design review that when through the 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commission -- did it go through? MR. ANGEL: Yes, it did. I would like to point out that there was so much testimony. And like tonight, I didn't bring up these issues. But they were really bombarded with everything, and I don't think they were really -- because it really -- you know how everybody starts talking about things, design wasn't even brought up. These issues that I brought up, they didn't really ask about it. As you know there's so much controversy on this issue. It was sort of overpowering, the whole thing. They said, well, you know, this is going to be approved anyway. I think they sort of had their minds made up. I'm not sure. I'm just guessing. This is the elevation right there. It's kind of important. This is a vertical line straight up to the cable end. Even though their floors are in-step with the land, the basic house, itself, doesn't. garage. This area that you see back here is the You see on that floor plan right there? It's in the lower right-hand corner. way in the back, like 60, 70 feet. back. The garage sits It's depressed way The front of the house that you see, where I'm 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 showing right here, you're seeing basically the box. The intent of the Hillside Ordinance was to get the houses squared out, not to create boxes. 'This is almost like a townhome. It's just straight up, down, across. with in the past. These were issues that I've dealt This floor plan is the same way. I can see where this would sometime be a necessary floor plan. But they should maybe bring this garage out further to hide that, get the house to flow with the land a little more. That's what all my customers who have had to build homes up there have had to contend with and go through this long design review process in the past. The only other issue that I have -- that's the end of my presentation on the Hillside Ordinance -- but the only other issue that I thought might be pertinent, when you're looking at this general plan issue, the -- I'm sorry. My understanding is that the property is zoned VL, the overlay. But the state law requires -- I don't know if it's a statute or whatever -- but it's in the general plan, and I marked it. It's right here, Section 66567. I ~uess it's the Subdivision Map Act requires that a subdivision map may not be approved 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unless it is consistent with the open space plan. This is coming from the City of Rancho Cucamonga's general plan. So I think a general plan amendment is definitely warranted in this case, if nothing else. And that can be related to the design review issue, because in the Hillside Ordinance it specifically refers to the general plan. Thank you very much. MAYOR ALEXANDER: How many more people wish to provide testimony tonight? five, six. One, two, three, four, Out of courtesy to everybody here, can we try to roll this along? We're going to be here until one o'clock in the morning. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: My name is Leeona Klippstein. I'm conservation director of the Spirit of the Sage Council and a board member of CURE. And I'm also a cofounder of the Natural Endangered Species Network. And some of us know each other. There are some of the same city councilmembers since we began our Council for Spirit of the Sage in 1990, seven years' now. And to begin with I'd like to say what is to acknowledge in this community. As I look back at 1990, I sure wish Malissa McKieth was around then in 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this community. She could have come forward with many of the same concerns that we expressed back then and brought up this research to bring forth this new information that is of significance. It's really -- one of the benefits that I found working as an organizer and an activist in protecting our state's natural heritage is meeting so many great citizens that come forward and become part of the government process. here in this community. And that's really happened The Sage Council -- has the City Council been able to review the documents from the earlier Planning Commission meetings so I don't have to reiterate? MAYOR ALEXANDER: I think we probably reviewed as much as we got early on. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: All right. So I won't go over things that have been submitted. But I would like to bring some attention to some other information. First of all, we believe that the biological significance of the project site was misrepresented in 1990, along with the cultural significance. That misrepresentation is fraudulent, because if the project proponent, Brock Homes, had 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looked into the California natural diversity database, they would have seen that this planned community was the high priority, and they wouldn't have marked that little box that said "no," as far as significant impacts to biological resources. The same as if they had checked the archives at the county museum. and U.C. Riverside. They would have found that there is cultural significance in the area of Cucamonga as being the village of the Gabriellino Shoshone Nation. I have to say, too, that with Malissa McKieth and at the other offices there was a list of our comments that we were going to submit that got lost. So during the hearings, I have had to try to remember what we were going to submit. And tonight we're going to be submitting it in handwriting. Please forgive us. We usually like to be much more professional than this. We believe that the design of the project and the design is not compatible with the surrounding environment or the city's general plan. We also believe that the city will be in violation of the Natural Community's Conservation Plan Act and the San Bernardino Valleywide Habitat Conservation Planning Memorandum of Understanding, CEQA, CESA, and 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Plan Protection Map and other applicable public resources code. We believe that the city does not have to consider whether the project and design are in compliance -- does have to consider. I'm sorry. And more significantly it's not in compliance with Sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, and 379. To go over that more significantly, Section 24, Public Facilities, says that project and design should be consistent with the general plan. Quote, "Set aside sufficient natural and historic areas for purposes of teaching environmental and historic value and provide equipment and facilities to support these programs," end of quote. I don't know. I've never even heard of the city even having an environmental program or any type of a cultural program. So I didn't think that this project design even fits in with such a type of program with the general plan that the city is supposed to have. But in Section 25, Community Design, quote, "Develop elements of form and landscape in a manner that is harmonious with elements visually." In particular, "Provide an open space network that relates to the natural context." 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, looking at the project design, it does not fit into the natural landscape. It cuts into the natural landscape. From the video that was shown, · it was quite obvious that removing the levee really shows that this project or the project design is inconsistent with what it says here of the landscape, of the surrounding area and physical contacts. And also the information that was brought forward about the open space and the riparian woodland areas. Section 2.5 then continues, quote, "Protect views of the mountains and valleys to enhance their role as a reference point," end of quote. Again, if this project design goes through, it wouldn't be consistent with this goal and objective of the general plan. Continue, quote, "Protect and enhance the character of creeks and channels," end of quote. I don't see how this project or the project plan protects or enhances the character. It does quite the opposite from what we've been shown here tonight. Another quote, "Maintain and reestablish, where feasible, natural vegetation in the community in the landscape." Even looking at these drawings, the drawings up here, the projects don't show any natural 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vegetation from the surrounding area that would blend in. So, again, the project and the project design is not consistent with the general plan. In Section 2.7, Natural Resources Open Space. I didn't even bother to get the quotes of the various goals and objectives because it doesn't meet any of them. We believe that this project is actually within an area that is designated open space. Because the City Council asked for us not to be repetitive, I'm going to skip this section. The speaker before me quite eloquently explained this. We also believe that the City is deficient in open space currently. The jurisdiction may be utilized to fulfill the city's needed open space requirement. Furthermore, the city fails to recognize that the currently undeveloped land may be developed in the future, which you have right now in your general plan. Section 2.8 has -- again, I believe that that has already been outlined very well. And Section 379, Creeks and Channels. As the previous speaker did show, the city has identified that this is a riparian and a woodland area; obviously, right in the middle of Deer Creek with the 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 channels around it too, that it's not consistent with the general plan either. Quote, "To provide visual consistent with the surrounding environment. Creeks and open spaces should be landscaped to represent the natural riparian character of the foothills and canyons where feasible. Modifications for the climate differences between city channels and foothill canyons should be made." Again, this project and the.project design does not fulfill the general plan requirements here. I was going to discuss in more detail cultural resources and concerns over the past seven years, whether in this city or in the county, more in the local newspaper. I think it's well-known of the cultural significance of Cucamonga, and also of the sage community, that it's a sacred and medicinal plant; that the state has recognized it as the habitat of the indigenous people in the area. Lisa, from the California Indian Legal Services, will be speaking more specifically on the concerns of the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation. We ask that the city review the conservation guidelines for the Natural Community Conservation Program, the NCCP Act, Section 4-D, 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 special rules of the California gnatcatchers, the Endangered Species Act. MAYOR ALEXANDER: ask this: right now. I'm sorry. I really need to We have gotten so far off the design review How close are we to -- MR. MARKMAN: As I informed the Mayor, I think we should take the input. Actually, I agree with counsel who has the two-step process here. And one is identifying whether there is substantial evidence to support the CEQA review. Because of the changed circumstance issue, I think you need to hear all of the process, all of the material coming in. And you will hear rebuttals to it, and you will hear the city's technical staff's position on that. And after you get past that point, the next question is design review. MAYOR ALEXANDER: The reason I asked that is we were informed early on -- we were told that, essentially, we're looking at design review. MR. MARKMAN: You are. They are presenting the argument. I would not suggest you cut off the input. I think all the input should come in. I'm not suggesting by saying that you will end up judging it to be relevant and necessarily 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decide that you ought to send this out for CEQA review. But if you don't hear it, you can't make the initial decision. MAYOR ALEXANDER: MS. KLIPPSTEIN: Okay. Thank you. I think that's a good point, because I would like to clarify the reason why I'm bringing up these issues is because, although we have made some comments here that are very relevant to the project design, we feel that these others are also in the process and the decision making that may go on here tonight. I think that the city should consider it may be opening itself up to a legal challenge to the general plan, or to the MSHCPMOU that was signed by the county. And that's what I'm about to explain with the Sage Council, if the city goes forward and approves this project, you may be opening yourselves up for further litigation. MAYOR ALEXANDER: We're opening ourselves up for legal litigation no matter which way we go. MR. MARKMAN: on that. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: You don't need a second opinion What I'm putting up here is Page 18 from the conservation guidelines from the Natural Community's Conservation Plan Program. As I 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was saying, although the city has not enrolled in the NCCP, the city is party to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MOU. The area is mapped by the state as high quality in the NCCP, this up here in subregion 13.0 in San Bernardino all the way across the foothills, basically. Here is the 10 Freeway up here, so probably north of Baseline. This mapping was also included for the MSHCP of the delineation of the plan area. So although the city did not enroll in the NCCP program, the county did recognize this area as being a high quality significance in the planning process for the MSHCP and the MOU. MR. MARKMAN: Is this a logical break point? MAYOR ALEXANDER: We have to give the lady a break. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: question. MAYOR ALEXANDER: you to stop? MS. KLIPPSTEIN: at this point. (Recess.) MAYOR ALEXANDER: I don't understand the Is this a natural break for If you want to, I can pause We'll go ahead and continue. 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's 20 minutes after 11:00. And another hour we'll give our court reporter another break. MR. MARKMAN: 40-minute break. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: I think we're down to the Going back to the map from the conservation 9uidelines, from 13.0, it's also important for the City Council to recognize why there's a point 0. You might notice in other areas there is a point 1, or point 2, or point 4, Orange County. The decimal point designates whether that area should be planned as a whole or as separately. For example, in Orange County where they're doing their planning process, they had central and coastal, they had a matrix, they had a subregional area. For San Bernardino, the scientists that were hired by the state, identified that this whole area needs to be planned for conservation as one whole. That's why you see the point zero. So, of course, that's what leads us to also see that when the county and the city entered into MSHCPMOUs, that the state and federal agencies' also let the county and the city know that this whole area needed to be looked at as one, join. and all the cities Now, of course, this was contracted after 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the planning -- after the Lauren project. And, again, the Sage Council would believe that this is new evidence. And that also the MOU, the MSHCPMOU, would supersede the Lauren project. And I'll explain why: When the state and federal agencies map remaining habitat areas in San Bernardino cities and counties and other Southern California jurisdictions, they mapped all remaining habitat, whether previously approved developments occurred within the area or not. The state and federal agencies also identified that there should be no more than a five-percent loss of habitat. In the interim both plans were being developed. The Sage Council has been opposed to the NCCP program and, overall, how the official services implemented habitat conservation plans in Section 10. We would like the city to recognize, also, why we're opposed to it. This is -- part of the reason is when we went into this whole regional mapping of Southern California, that there was no research and studies into what were the habitat areas that were already approved for development. If the state and the federal agencies had done that, they would have found that it added up to a 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whole lot more than five-percent interim. However, we believe that this was part of the scheme of the NCCP program. Because if they eliminated all the approved developed areas, there is no way the NCCP program would have been adopted as a special rule. The gnatcatcher would not have been threatened. It would have been listed as endangered and it would have been a moratorium also; something that hasn't been brought up or really looked at, but it's something that we're aware of and we think you should look at. The county is the lead agency, lead local agency, in the MSHCPMOU, and they passed a resolution November 1st, 1994. Although the cities didn't sign on to the MOU until later, we believe that if you were to add up all of the habitat losses that have occurred since November 1st, 1994, or even since 1996, that alone would add up to more than a five-percent take within this subregion, Area 13. We've also found we are the only conservation organization in Southern California that has been keeping a database on all the interim take in all five counties. We keep track of how much habitat has been taken, also, how many gnatcatchers have been taken. In the Special 40 Rule for California 119 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gnatcatcher, where the federal government adopted the state program, they also said that there could only be a five-percent loss of the remaining habitat areas that were mapped, and it also said that no more than five percent of the remaining population of the California gnatcatcher could be taken. The evidence that we have -- and that evidence that comes from Fish and Wildlife Services through the FEMA Information Act shows that over 800 California gnatcatchers have been taken. So right now we, in the organization, have been assessing how to go in and stop and call for a moratorium. I think just recognizing that there was this failure to map all of the development areas that had already been approved, would certainly show the courts that there's more than a five-percent take, and the gnatcatcher should be listed as endangered. And the NCCP program should be stopped. Now, the implications of doing something like that, however, if the Sage Council did that -- and you might be familiar that we did litigate on the No Surprise Policy on Endangered Species Act -- but if we did sue on the 40 Rule, or even on the MSHCPMOU, the type of reaction that would go, not only from this county and the state, but into the halls of congress, 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be used as evidence of why the bill should not go forward, and why the NCCP program should not be used to inflict the Federal Endangered Species Act. If we do that that would certainly bring light to the City of Rancho Cucamonga why the city would support the Lauren project and ignore the MOU that it has gone into. It would also, I think, really shoot the private property rights movement in the foot and the state and county movement that we want local control and voluntary programs. It would shoot it in the foot because it would show that when it got down to the local cities and the local counties, that they weren't willing to abide by the agreement that they entered into. I think that's something to consider. I think even the project proponent's attorneys should consider that since they represent a lot of development in Southern California, that this would definitely be used as ammunition in congress. I want to bring to your attention the MOU, 3.7, Conservation Strategies. I'll read this: "The plan shall maximize the use of appropriate publicly owned land, conspire with legally mandated conservation measures, and provide incentive for conservation of private land." Those type of incentives are land 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 acquisition, transfers, land swap, mitigation bank, et cetera. The City has an opportunity, because it is party to this agreement, to go into negotiations with Lauren and say, "Look, we would like to do this." Either acquire it, either do a land swap, some other city property somewhere where it's appropriate, where it's not coastal sage scrub, where it won't upset the species of concern, or to give tax incentives. I'm not real big on litigation because there's still a loss, and I really don't find that conservation if you're chipping away piece by piece. It's the Sage Council's position and other grass roots conservation groups that such a reform is inadequate and that revolution is needed. The revolution that we seek in conservation does not provide incentives, or what is referred to as carrots instead of the regulatory stip. We believe that when industry sharks go entirely for the take, it is absurd to think that throwing some carrots is going to stop them from eating the entire body. Again, what's happening here tonight is proof of that. The Lauren project and the city's behavior so far confirms our point that voluntary programs and the new regulation will be taken 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 advantage of and abused. Public trust, health and safety, and general welfare are also concerns of the Sage Council. And support resides in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, in the State of California. The City is a public trust agency. The natural resources on the project site are city, state, and federal agencies in public trust. This is where the arguments usually arise between private land and the holders. The Sage Council uses the term landholder, rather than owner, because the land is not owned, but the holder of the deed and title have privileges and entitlement. The city, in public trust, makes the decision on the level of entitlement. Presently, tentatively approved. the project has been However, the final project design and vesting is not. The City has the obligation to protect the public trust, health, safety, and general welfare. Lauren project and the design is not in compliance. And it is an obnoxious abuse of the land that clearly threatens the health and safety and general welfare of the local community. And in closing, the Sage Council encourages the city to do the right thing, uphold the 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 public trust. We encourage you to uphold the public trust doctrines, public resources code and federal regulations. We encourage you to deny the project design, recognizing changed circumstances, and to take corrective action on the Negative Declaration that was misrepresented. Thank you. MS. OSHIRO: My name is Lisa Oshiro, O-s-h-i-r-o. I'm an attorney with California Indian Legal Services. We're located at 120 West Grand Avenue, Suite 204 in Escondido, California 92025. We represent Chief Yianna Vira Rocha (phonetic), the hereditary chief of the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation. Vira Rocha is unable to be here this evening. And I'm sure her doctors would also have advised her to go home and get some rest at this point. She has not been able to attend past hearings, but Leeona Klippstein has graciously offered testimony concerning the concerns of Vira Rocha and the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation and the Native American communities. Cucamonga is derived from Cucamongnow, a name of the ancestral village and homeland and sacred land of the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation. 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Chief Yianna has opposed development projects that destroy these ancestral and sacred land and their various resources. As Leeona Klippstein has mentioned, the white sage is of spiritual, ceremonial, and medicinal significance to the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation. There are also evidences of archeological sites that have been found. There's an Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement from 1973 that discloses archaeological sites when they were residing in the Deer Creek Debris Basin. And when they discovered -- five years after that final environmental impact statement -- when they discovered additional cultural resources on that property, they then submitted an updated EIR in 1978, where they addressed these significant adverse impacts to cultural resources in the area that needed to be mitigated. There's also an environmental impact report from 1994 that was written for the Oak Summit project that is in neighboring lands within the boundaries of the County of San Bernardino that also disclosed cultural resources. And those two environmental impact reports place cultural resources to the northwest of 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this current Lauren Development site and to the east. And is there is oral history to support that all of these parcels are part of the historic village of Cucamongnow. Chief Yianna joins in the request that a full environmental impact report be submitted for this matter, because there is a risk of substantial and significant adverse impacts on cultural resources, if not mitigated. In addition, Chief Yianna and the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation would like to know what assurances you have, and what assurances the developer has provided, that it is prepared to comply with federal law under the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, should they encounter during the grading process cultural resources and human remains. We would like to know what assurances you have; that they will be prepared to comply with federal law. We ask that your planning department and the developer open up a dialogue with Chief Yianna Vera Rocha and the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation and local Native American community's to address their concerns and also to address what will be done when the cultural resources, the ancestral remains of the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation are uncovered, are 126 1 disturbed. 2 We ask that you show reverence for these 3 ancestral remains and these important and vital 4 ~resources to the Shoshone Gabriellino Nation. 5 Thank you. 6 MAYOR ALEXANDER: Is there any mapping of any 7 burial grounds that have substantially shown that 8 there is sacred ground? 9 MS. OSHIRO: Any mapping of the area is very 10 general because there cannot be public disclosure of 11 the specific sites for fear of some past activities 12 of, I guess, grave robbing and pot hunters. 13 But there are general mappings and 14 general information available at various archeological 15 repositories, one being U.C. Riverside. That 16 information can be readily summoned up. 17 MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. 18 MS. HAWN: My name is Rosanne Hawn. I live at 19 5087 Granada Court. And I just don't like the houses. 20 MAYOR ALEXANDER: Well, that's pretty honest. 21 MS. HAWN: November 12th of 1990, I wrote yo~ 22 a letter and I gave it to you. There was a letter 23 that was written to you, and it said that the 24 homeowners association supported this project. And 25 the letter was not included in any of your things. 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SO we are rescinding that, because at the time we didn't realize the removal -- we didn't know the significance of the removal of the levee or any of that. So we have rescinded that. We have that letter up there. I might add that the letter was signed by someone -- my name was signed to it, but it is not my signature. And you don't have that letter. You do have the letter that I have just rescinded any support. However, what it said was that we had gotten together and we had concerns about front facing garages. Because up in our neighborhood, we have them tucked in back so you don't see them from the street. We have long driveways. You never see them. We wanted it to be 25 percent. The developers said 40. And we compromised on 33 percent front-facing garages, because we want the garage element out of the front of the house. We think they're ugly. This project has almost every garage facing the street. And I don't care if the garage is 100 feet back; a front-facing garage is a front-facing garage. And you see those doors. There is one plan up there that has nothing but garages in front; one going this way and two are going this way, or visa-versa. All it is is front. You don't see a 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beautiful front door or entry or any of that. They tried to show you what it would look like going one way up the street, but then when you get to the top and come down, all you see are garages. Another point I wanted to make in those plans up there, there are a lot of optional features. If you look in the fine print, you'll see that the porte-chere is an optional feature. If you take that away -- and I think Mr. Angel showed what the houses looked like -- it would look like a square box. But in some of them, the fireplaces are optional features, the walls and planters are optional features. I know from the design review and from the Planning Commission that the portal, the walk-under, is an optional feature. They are showing you these plans, and you think that's what you're getting, and they're optional features. Another thing, the square footage -- and I'm not going to belabor it. The square footage of these houses is 3,127 square feet to 4,370 square feet. And I don't know what the mix is. He gave you the chart. You can figure out what the averaHe is. He talked about expandable square footage. He doesn't talk about the expandable square 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 footage of the existing homes in Haven View Estates. We all have cathedral ceilings. Maybe there would be some homes in our area that are 10,000 square feet. Don't be deceived by the square footage. Those are optional items. If the buyer chooses not to have optional items put in there -- and a porte-chere, according to Mr. Allday, is $~15,000. I don't know how many of those houses are going to have porte-cheres. Another point I would like to make is that if at the end of all this, you can only talk about design issues, then I am requesting as a resident, right now, that you reagendize all of the other issues that you have heard to a future meeting so they can be discussed, and so that you can vote on them. Because I think there's a lot of really important ones, and that would be a way that you could certainly discuss this. I think that's it, except one of you made a comment -- you know -- that whichever way it goes, you get the lawsuit. And I just want to say do you want to be in a lawsuit with the residents or with an out-of-town developer? Thank you. MS. SAMPSON: Good evening, Councilmembers. My name is Maureen Sampson. I reside in Rancho 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cucamonga, 1919 Boulder Canyon Road, Deer Creek. We are business owners in Rancho Cucamonga. We took our building to Planning. It took us over a year. We are building a home at 4965 Palato. We have an architect, and it took us a year to design a house with him. One of the things I asked for in our split-level upper bedroom was part of the floor to come out downstairs. He said that's not allowable. Another thing I wanted was a detached garage, and we had a porte-chere up front. We have had to go through the same design reviews that we feel you're not enforcing at this time. Because as Rosanne had pointed out, much of that is optional features. When this whole process came to life for my husband and I, we had bought our land. We were not made aware of a fault line. We were made aware of the fault line up at sky line, and we elected not to buy property up there because there was a fault line. We bought where we did now thinking that it was a safer project. When we first began hearing about all of this, we were looking at the design review. And being a contractor, it wouldn't be our hearts' desire to have anybody building our home. That's our income. And we looked at the design review, and we thought, 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 excuse me, but it doesn't seem like they are having to meet the same standards that we had to meet. That was irritating. But when I heard about the levee being removed, that was it. We moved here in 1966 and we landed in Upland. Through all of the flooding, through the wine barrels coming down on Foothill Boulevard, Red Hill being closed off to its residents, and my sitting home between Euclid and San Antonio, I heard on one of these severe rainstorms that the San Antonio Dam may not hold. We should look at the record and find out when that was made public. That was scary. And so when I think that this dam may not hold and the levee not being there, that's frightening to me. The other thing I would like to say after the Northridge earthquake, all of our freeway overpasses have been made sound. I would think that if we know for a fact that there's a fault line under that dam, then it would be wisdom in having a levee to stop any damage to the homes. If this is only for design review, then I would like to know who do we take our concerns to regarding health and safety? If it isn't the city, is it lawyers? I don't know. But those are my concerns, 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I would like you to consider them. Thank you. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Any questions for Maureen? Who took the next number? MR. ORBONELLO: My name is Lee 0rbonello (phonetic). I'll try to make it brief. I have just a few points to make. We're looking at the design review as one of the issues. You look at the various designs that you see there, they all pretty much look alike. If you go through Haven View Estates all the houses look different. It's a custom home community. I think that's inconsistent with what we already have there. The other point I'd like to make is all the changed circumstances that have come to life here. I live right in the flow of the water, here. If that levee doesn't hold, I'm very, very concerned for my family and also for the city. In light of the changed circumstances, if you approve this project and there's some damage, the city could really be sued by any number of homeowners. And at the last Planning Commission meeting, it was brought up that this kind of thing happened before. I think that it was mentioned at the Pales Verdes Estates. They approved development 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there. city was darn near bankrupted. very, very careful. You need to take a good look at these' And when they had all kinds of problems, the I think you need to be Who's going to win? Who's the residents are going to be there. Yeah, we're going to sue if the project wins. We're going to get our money back. But it's a very distasteful process. You're going to have attorneys with their law firms that are going to be defending the city. Again, who's going to win? Who's going to lose? You're going to have a developer that will make some money real quick. They'll sell those houses. If there's some damage, they change their name. They're a different corporation. Who's going to fix them? You have seen it before in the city. I think you need to take these points under consideration. You need to look at it as a resident, as if you lived up there. Thank you. MR. ALLDAY: John Allday, Lauren Development. I sit here listening to all the frightful and totally false allegations being made by some very eloquent spokespeople, and, frankly, I sit over there 134 changed circumstances. going to lose? Well, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 being depressed, getting depressed. And I frankly start feeling overmatched. Only when I catch myself and I force myself back into where I think I am, and that is talking about design review, do I regain my confidence that the tact that Lauren Development has taken, the tact of the high road, is sti~l the best course to take in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the process of design review was as broad as the opponents have implied, and if presenting to your Council blatantly untruthful statements was proper, and if all the prior approvals, the prior developing, the prior tract map, the prior letters from associations that endorsed the project are to just be ignored as a part of this design review process, then we were in the wrong ballpark. We relied -- since April, when we submitted this project, since last August when we first started this process, and the neighbors when we actually submitted the plans, we relied on your highly professional staff, and we relied on the unanimous approval of the Design Review Committee and the unanimous approval of the Planning Commission to limit the scope of design review to what the city's codes and ordinances say they should be. 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We didn't come here tonight with the intention of reiterating the reams of letters and testimony that have gone through this process since April and have gone through all these Planning Commission hearings. If we had made a mistake in not going over all this again and again, and having all of the information and all the exhibits that we showed the PlanningsCommission, then we were mistaken. We hope that your council will adhere to the codes and ordinances of the city and judge this project on its own merits as your staff and as your city attorney has advised you, and not be swayed by these eloquent people who talked about everything that has to do with nothing associated with design review. Unfortunately, for legal purposes we have to submit various materials for the record, because we know, as Ms. McKieth has threatened, that there will be additional lawsuits pending. To get this additional information on the record, we have to submit the materials and we have to have our attorney follow me up here. If would you please allow me to have that done, to have him respond to some of the allegations that were made, even though they have nothing to do with design review, he will come up here. 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The one document that I am going to distribute to you is a list of facts pertaining to the levee. Ms. McKieth stated that the levee is -- MR. MARKMAN: Excuse me for one second. What is being passed out? MR. ALLDAY: I am submitting a levee fact sheet. MR. MARKMAN: something. MS. McKIETH: Okay. I saw Jack handed It's actually in the materials that we passed out to the other council people, the response to their fact sheet. I would also like to make -- MR. MARKMAN: What concerns me is a speaker is handing out a document. Counsel, Ms. McKieth, walks up to Jack Lam and starts distributing a document. There is no way I could identify it for the record. Could you please send her documents back. And I'm sure the Mayor will allow her the opportunity to be distributed when these people are through. MS. McKIETH: Could I just give him a copy of the document that we already handed out to the other council, please? MR. MARKMAN: Let's back up and do this: We 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all want a correct record, regardless of what else everybody else wants. And I suggest the city clerk has the complete and official records. So if anybody wants to submit something, it should go to the city clerk. If copies are distributed, they should be distributed at the same time. It's up to Debbie, the city clerk, to make sure that each member of the council has copies of the full record, or access to the full record. I mean that's all we can do. I just want to make sure that there aren't distributions going on and nothing on the record to reflect that distribution. That's really not going to help us unravel. So when you hand out something, sir, I'll identify this one. I don't want to formalize this proceeding. I have a document entitled Levee Fact Sheet. That is 7 pages. And I take it the developer is submitting this, and the city clerk has an original for the record. He has handed this out to the council. As you go through that, if you have more handouts, would you identify them as you distribute them. And Malissa McKieth can do the same thing. MR. ALLDAY: Thank you. I apologize for not 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 being more clear. I'm handing out the Levee Fact Sheet, dated August 13th of 1997. Ms. McKieth testified that for 90 percent -- for most of the people the primary concern is the levee. For most of the people here, the issue is the levee, is what she said. For that reason I'm submitting this. We have evaluated the importance of the levee, the significance of the levee, how it has functioned and not functioned over the years, and what its purpose today is. I will not go into it line-by-line, section-by-section. I believe staff has received this and reviewed it. I would like to point out in closing, before our attorney gets up here, that we have responded in the prior testimony at the Planning Commission to the statements made by Mr. Sheahan, the geotechnical consultant hired by CURE. And we responded to them before. And there is nothing he has said tonight that is any different than what he said before. The Planning Commission does not buy his performance, and I hope you will not either. The statements he made are just totally -- he knows the 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 location of the fault is not under the debris basin. That is not a fact. The trapezoidal channel that we're proposing is not a replacement of the levee. Showing a picture of little man compared to a channel, compared to a levee, that's totally erroneous. He knows that. The levee was there for a purpose. That purpose is no ~onger necessary. The trapezoidal channel is only protecting the site from a very small area, up above it 125 acres, compared to over 2,000 acres that the levee ineffectively protected before. The Deer Creek Channel, the Deer Creek Basin, are effective means of controlling flood controls, and the levee is not being replaced by our $300,000 trapezoidal channel. Other than that I would entertain questions, if you have any. I sincerely believe that you will, in making your final determination, hope that you will limit that determination to what the city's codes and ordinances say they should be limited to, and that is, in fact, pertaining to design review. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Questions? Thank you, John. 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALLDAY: Thank you. MAYOR ALEXANDER: For the record, good morning. It's after twelve o'clock. MR. HARTZELL: Good morning, Mr. Mayor. My name is Andrew Hartzell. I'm with the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire, Irvine, California. We are counsel for the Lauren Development, the project's proponent. .I must say that I wasn't actually expecting to talk with you on a Thursday. Well, it's almost difficult to know exactly where to begin. I can see that Ms. McKieth -- they really put on a show here tonight. It seems to now be falling, I guess, upon us to attempt to provide as much clarification for the record as we can do, as one person can do, here tonight. in the face of a number of people I really think that what we got here tonight in front of us is a simple matter, in that the CURE group has been attempting to make out that this process, these issues, to be things that they are not. It has taken on the air -- last couple of weeks, as'I have watched this process -- more characterized, with all due respect, as more of a circus than anything that I've seen before in my years of practice. I think I've learned from this process 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that there had been an adage that attorneys at least used to always use: If you have the law on your side, but you don't have defense, you argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, you don't have the law, you ~rgue the facts. And what I have learned in this process in watching the opposition group is if you don't have the law on your side, you don't have the facts on your side, apparently, what you do is you throw up a bunch of scrap metal in the air and see if it will stick. I think I need to bring some order and some sense into this. I will do my humble best to try to do that. I certainly would be happy to entertain any questions at any time. I do apologize for being the last person. I know everyone would like to get We will try to facilitate that as best home quickly. as possible. But we do need to put into the record various pieces of information and make sure that all the councilmembers have had the opportunity to be aware of pertinent facts. So that's basically what my testimony is going to do. There have been some declarations submitted tonight by the CURE group. I must tell you, I have never seen the declarations before. I tried to 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 see what I could on the screen. Ms. McKieth has not provided our firm or my client with a copy of these before. It is a little bit difficult to say much in the way -- with respect to those particular declarations. I will try to do as best I can regarding that. I do think that -- what I do know and what I have learned through this process in the last three months is when we were made aware of allegations by the Spirit of the Sage Council or the CURE group, when we go to track it down to try to verify whether it was factually correct or not, I always find out that it's not a factual threat. One of my jobs is trying to trace alleged new information and determine its actual nature, whether it really exists, in fact, or not. I'll try to speak to some of those issues tonight to try to clarify things. I do apologize. I'm not as eloquent or flashy as Ms. McKieth, and I'm very tired. I apologize for that. This is not going to be a real smooth presentation. I will try to get through it quickly. of you. There is a design review issue in front And I do believe that that is where the 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 council needs to focus. I believe those issues have been flushed out very well in the record before you, before the Planning Commission. And I don't intend to get really into any of those. What I understand CURE to be alleging and Spirit of the Sage is that there is substantial new information of a nature which was not known in 1990 when this Negative Declaration was prepared, and which could not have been known in 1990. That. is the CEQA standard they're trying to articulate. So in order to provide you with that information, having done the investigation on each of these points to the best that we can, I have not found that there is substantially new information of a nature which was not known or could not have been known in 1990 when this project was approved. One of the subjects of supposed substantial new information -- and you'll see in a letter that Ms. McKieth provided -- or I should say the CURE group provided -- was an allegation in one of the letters submitted by the CURE organization to the city, that the designation of the area which includes the 23 acre Lauren Development site, the designation of it is S-1 community, G-1 community, that this had occurred very recently. You'll see that term used in 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the correspondence from Ms. McKieth. That was news to me, doing a lot of environmental work that I do. And I went back. And, in fact, someone was able to get the Department of Fish and Game to mention something along the same line of their June 23rd letter to the city that they believe that there was a new designation with regard to the alluvial scrub, a designation very sensitive by the state. And when I asked the Department of Fish and Game, well when was this designation made, because surely they knew in 1990 that there was alluvial scrub out on this site. When was this designation made? And we will be submitting tonight a memo from Mr. Leon Davis of the Department of Fish and Game, noting that the department has found that they designated this area as the sensitive alluvial scrub, S-i, G-1 back in 1985. So the designation was made five years prior to the approval of this project as a designation itself. Now, the fact that it was a sensitive community, to the extent that it's considered sensitive today, was also known back in 1990 to the extent that this would be considered sensitive. But I think it's also worth bearing in 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mind that the nature of the habitat that seems to be an issue is the alluvial fan scrub. It's supposed to be a dynamic community, exposed to flood events of a periodic nature, which will run down through that particular area and take out the sage scrub and replace it, then move to an intermediate stage. With the construction of the Deer Creek Channel Debris Basin, the area, including Lauren Development property, was cut off in natural hydrologic flows. So what will happen there and what we have now -- we have scrub which is not the alluvial sage scrub. This will only become more mature. There is a letter already in the record from the biologist that did the gnatcatching survey. In that letter to the developer and a letter to the department, he also notes that the vegetation on the site and adjacent areas appear to be in a mature state, a mature state of development. The alluvial sage scrub on site is in the intermediate stage. This is due to the fairly recent construction in the Deer Creek retention basin and flood control channel, which had removed the area of its natural hydrologic region. The bottom line is in 1990 this was known, or certainly could have been known, or should have been known, that there was alluvial scrub on the 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 site. Nothing has changed dramatically to suggest that it was not a mature alluvial scrub community at the time. It was designated this special designation back in 1985, well-known. It's not a significantly new piece of information. Regarding the MOU that was entered into on the valley-wide center and the Valley-Wide Multiple Species Conservation Program, we had responded to that in some length to the Planning Commission in an earlier June letter, where we included a copy of the actual MOU. And we explained why there are various provisions in the MOU which specifically provide that the city is in no way obligated to go back and relook at environmental issues, biological issues associated with this, or any other approved project, approved prior to the signing of this MOU. I draw your attention to Attachment F in our letter to the Planning Commission of June 27th, 1997. We quote the various relevant provisions of that MOU, noting how it is not designed, the purpose of the MOU is not to have cities go back and look at previously approved projects. That is to be used -- they are allowing the city an option to do planning for new development, sit down with wildlife agencies that the city would 147 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like to elect, that the developer would like to elect, talk about a new project and get any early concerns the agency might have about the project. That is a process that is not applicable to this. Very specifically in three or four sections about the employee hired by an employer -- this MOU simply does not compel the city in any way. It was specifically designed not to require the city to go back and read any of those issues. The city may and the county may over time put together a multiple species conservation plan. No such plan exists now. There is no plan to -- from CEQA's perspective -- to take our project and look at this plan. There's no plan there to make that comparison. There's no project concept of a multispecies plan. It really doesn't exist. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: Could you speak just a little louder. MR. HARTZELL: I'm sorry. I would refer you also to the Chaparral Greens Case (phonetic) that came out in the last year and a half on this issue. I would also make mention, briefly, with regard to the description of the MOU in the Department of Fish and Game letter of June 23rd. When I received a copy of that, I was rather amazed of 148 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the characterization that it could attempt to make. I assume it was made that somehow the department believed that the MOU required the city to go back and revisit this project. I have spoken with the chief counsel for the Department of Fish and Game about that statement. There's a letter I'm submitting tonight -- I believe it's already in your record. I want to make sure I have raised some questions about this letter including that issue, because I believe this was to the extent it was interpreted as the department's statement that the MOU required the city to go back and revisit this project. That was incorrect. And we are working to get an actual retraction of that. I believe that counsel for the Department of Fish and Game concurs with that. We still will provide it, because we will continue to work on that clarification. With regard to the issue that has been raised in the past about the California gnatcatcher, we'll be providing documents here in general and pertinent information about that gnatcatcher, which is, again, a nonissue. It is true that the gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened species by the United States 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fish and Wildlife Services since 1990, of this approval. new information? since the date What could possibly be significant The argument, I suppose, they're trying to make is, well, there are a series of gnatcatchers running around the site. trigger it? Could that The fact is there is no evidence of any gnatcatchers out on the site. Lauren Development has stated to the Planning Commission in the past, and continues to state, that if there were any requirement to get any permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service, they would be happy to do so. What Lauren did do early on is have a gnatcatchers' survey done to make sure that there were no gnatcatchers out on the site. They have a report. That report said that there were four visits. There were no gnatcatchers found. We have been talking with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service trying to clarify some issues raised by CURE as to whether -- what basis they might think that gnatcatchers could even be by the project site that could create an issue. I'll be submitting in the packet tonight several items that relate to that. Let me reiterate, briefly, a letter in 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here. It's rather pertinent. We have been unable to find any evidence of a substantial nature that there are even gnatcatchers in the general vicinity that could even start to create an issue for us. Again, really an issue separate and apart from the city. However, in talking with the service, asking about their earlier June letter, this letter is -- I'm reading from a letter I submitted to Fish and Wildlife Service after a telephone call. My question to the biologist was what would give the service reason to believe that there could be gnatcatchers in the general area of the site? In this letter I note that, "You have informed me that you had the opportunity to discuss the facts surrounding this issue with your biologist and have learned the following: The service statement is based on a single oral report related to the service, a telephone conversation from an unknown individual." The service has no written record of this observation or report. Data on this alleged observation does not exist in service files. The service does not note the identity of the individual who reportedly saw one, or possibly two, gnatcatchers in San Bernardino County. 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The service does not know if this individual was a biologist or what his or her qualifications are, as the service does not know the identity of this individual who made the alleged sighting. Number 5, this information, which the service received via telephone may not have been from the actual observer. It may have been from the individual once or twice removed from the alleged observation. Number 6, the quote, unquote, observation of one gnatcatcher or two was allegedly in or adjacent to the north Etiwanda preserved property, an area of approximately 760 acres, continued potentially suitable habitat for the species. Number 7, you're uncertain as to whether this observation was made in 1997 and '96, but believe the observation was likely made this year. To summarize, the service cannot provide you with any documentation to enable the validity or understand the exact nature regarding the quote, unquote, observation, which warrants the basis of the serious allegation. We have been asking for the service to provide any additional clarification. The County of 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 San Bernardino, supposedly, might have additional information of gnatcatcher sightings. Today, what I have been supplied as historical sightings of one bird or two over posted time has been very sparse. But what data we could obtain from anybody -- and I assume the service would want to get us all the data as rapidly as possible to help us with a truly significant issue -- the data that we have, we asked our biologist, Mr. Steve Nelson, the planning consultant's researcher, to simply tell us what the distance is from our site to this historical site, which goes back in some cases several years. The observation points are 10 miles, 9 miles, 2.4 miles, 11.25 miles from the site. So I don't believe that there is credible evidence at all before you that there are any issues related to the gnatcatcher on the site. With respect to the issue regarding the earthquake information, as I understand from CURE's July 9th letter -- and there was a letter submitted on Loeb & Loeb letterhead, I believe on behalf of CURE by Ms. McKieth. She notes on page 5 that at the time the Deer Creek basin and spillway channel were designed in 1978, the Army Corps of Engineers, relying on then 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 existing information, based its design specifications on 4.0, 5.0 magnitude earthquake. Since 1980 the Cucamonga fault has numerous published studies placed on the probability of the earthquake at a 7.5 magnitude. And then she has a footnote. She notes that also the spillway cannot withstand such an earthquake. So we wanted to take a look and try to track down this alleged new information. The first two pieces of information will be referred to later in an Army Corps letter. That's also being submitted tonight for you. The final piece of infozmation came from Mr. Dolan. We wanted to try to find out what this report, this document or this reference was. Lauren Development contacted Mr. Dolan -- I will submit this correspondence into the record tonight -- and wanted to know if there was some sort of new information that would suggest that now we could be subject to more than a 7.5 magnified earthquake. Mr. Dolan wrote back, "Sorry it took so long getting back to you. This letter is in response to your request for a copy of the proposal I submitted to San Bernardino County to construct pivotal earthquake excavations of the Cucamonga fault." 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I am at a bit of a loss as to who is distributing this proposal, since the county turned down my request. Or at least I never heard back from Ms. Vivian Knoell (phonetic) with the county property, whom I submitted the proposal to two years ago. She had promised to send the proposal to the San Bernardino Board of County Supervisors, but I never heard back whether it was done or not. If you don't mind my asking who forwarded the proposal, I ~uess, to you? "To clarify one point, the major focus of the proposal, as with much of our work in the greater metropolitan area, was to determine whether or not the Cucamonga fault rates itself through moderate and large earthquakes, magnitudes of 6.5 to 7, or whether it ruptures together with other faults in much larger magnitudes, 7.5 earthquakes," closed pren. "I must emphasize that this was the question we were trying to address, and the idea of the occurrence of a magnitude of a 7.5 earthquake was a hypothesis not a conclusion." The next paragraph: "The best available reference for the Cucamonga fault is an article by Doug Morston and John Matei," that's M-a-t-e-i "in a U.S. geological survey. It was 1339 published in 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1987. Most major universities, geology libraries, UCLA, will have a copy of this. I hope this article helps you," et cetera. the record. We'll be submitting this into We go back and we look to see what is supposedly new information of the 7.5 magnitude. We find no evidence of new information. We find references that are of the current state-of-the-art, documents done in 1987, three years prior to the approval of the project. Again, information known or should have been known to the city in 1990 when the project was approved in 1990. So we chase it down. We find that there's nothing there. We will go on. There has been a discussion that this project, now, if it is approved, would lead to the possibility of severe flooding downstream. That is, if it were true, it could understandably be a concern. I don't blame them at all for being concerned. If somebody told me that they would be subject to flooding when they approved this project,' I would be concerned. But the question is whether it's just conjecture or hypothesis on the basis here. The levee that exists now -- let's back up. The apples to oranges comparison that's been made 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 before by the Dames and Moore folks I think is important to be very clear on. The trapezoidal structure that is to be part of the project is not replacing -- is not meant to replace in full the existing urban levee built pre 1938. In pre 1938 the urban levee that exists today was replaced by the construction of the basin and the channel, the debris basin and Deer Creek channel constructed in 1983. That construction and the existence of that debris basin channel is what makes that levee obsolete. Moreover, the levee has a 200-foot hole breached in the middle. It's not going to hold back water. There's a hole in there, that apparently, as I understand, homeowners or somebody in the neighborhood requested be put in in the 1990s so they could have secondary access out at the site. So a levee with a 200-foot gap in it isn't really going to do much with respect to flood protection from the hydrologic standpoint. But, again, this hypothesis that CURE is talking about is that somehow there is no debris basin or it's wiped out or its structional integrity is damaged, and for some reason their logic would also mean that this magnitude would damage the pre 1938 dirt levee there. 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And I have seen nothing to indicate that the pre 1938 dirt levee would do any better in any of these major issues that they allege could happen, more so than Deer Creek basin and channel. Having said that, there is testimony -- we have reports, engineers looking at the structural integrity. The RMA has submitted a report. I believe Lauren submitted it to you previously from RMA. Geotechnical Consultants submitted a letter dated August 14th, 1997. I understand that the city staff has been able to look at that report as well. They believe that the issues raised by CURE are not issues of fact that create danger to the community. MAYOR ALEXANDER: How much longer before you summarize? MR. HARTZELL: I'll try to keep it to as much a minimum as I can. I would try to wrap this up in ten minutes, if I may. I apologize. I will try to continue to be as quick as I can, here. With regard to the issue of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, there is a letter, I understand, that was written today by the Regional Board to the city. Again, I was shocked and disappointed and I found it indicative to listen to 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the characterization of that letter by CURE, because I have a copy of the letter. I did have a chance to talk to the ~assistant of the executive office. I wasn't able to be at the meeting on Monday or Tuesday of this week. I'm not sure when that occurred between Ms. McKieth and the Regional Board. They were getting information that was one-sided, but, apparently, prevailed upon the board's letter. I believe Ms. McKieth says that the Regional Board has written and has concluded that we have substantial issues here with regards to water quality or water recharge. The letter makes no such conclusion. The board, when I talked to Mr. Curt (phonetic), told me -- the assistant executive officer specifically told me that they had reached no conclusion. In fact, they had been told, apparently, that CURE had come in this week and said they thought there could be some sort of issue with respect to recharge and other issues, but they hadn't seen any conclusive evidence by CURE yet that there were any issues on recharge and the water quality basin. They are certainly not in any position to made a judgement on that issue. They would be more 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 than willing to reserve that judgment. If some issue were to be brought forward, they might have an opinion about it. If the city wanted to ask questions of them, they are more than happy to respond. I was shocked sitting here in the audience and listening to the characterization of this letter, because it is not what it purports to be according to CURE. I ask that you please look at that letter and judge for yourself. With respect to the issues of traffic noise, I ~uess the simplest way to look at it is that in 1990 when this project was approved, I believe that it was understood that there would be -- there were, in fact, existing homes that would continue to be an existing development in the Haven View Estates community. There would be people living in those homes. Those people would have families. There would be an additional increase of people, some additional cars, some additional noise from lawnmowers going back and forth. And those were able to be considered in 1990. There's no substantial information of changed circumstances with regard to impacts on traffic noise, air quality, that are raised now, post 1990, on this project. The CURE group has made a reference to 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Department of Fish and Game letter of June 23rd. We find it interesting that the department has written a letter. They're characterized as quoting their position. To date the department has not retracted that. As of tonight I have not seen a retraction letter. I'll be handing out to you copies of the correspondence that we sent out August 12th to the chief legal counsel of the Department of Fish and Game asking, among other things, clarification for retraction, if retraction is appropriate of the June 23rd letter. We are continuing to discuss that matter with the department. Given that -- that department letter purports to say that they think that we already know by virtue of the fact that the alluvial sage scrub designation was done in 1985. The Department confirmed that in their letter they would suggest otherwise. We know that the department has made mistakes in that letter. I believe they have made a variety of mistakes in this letter. Why we don't have a full retraction, yet -- legal counsel has told me, for what this is worth to you, over the last few days that he does not believe that it would be appropriate to characterize the department's position that 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entering into the MOU on the multispecies plan in any way creates a substantial need. This is information requiring the CEQA process. I ~uess that CURE also stated that Department of Fish and Game is not going to withdraw the letter. The Department has not told me that. That would be a surprise to me since this afternoon the chief legal counsel told me that that was still under discussion. We will continue to pursue that to get retractions on it and get correct information and positions. Very quickly on the related issue of a new letter submitted by Department of Fish and Game on August 5 regarding the potential need for a stream bed alteration agreement. A letter was obtained November 18, 1996, from the Department of Fish and Game verifying that there was no need for an agreement. That letter was written after the department personnel had a chance to come out and walk the site and examine the site. I know that CURE has alleged that the developers are now trying to prevent the department from looking at areas or trying to purposely mislead them. I find those outrageous allegations. But you can judge for yourself. 162 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We did receive a letter on August 5th saying -- from the department saying that they thought they were going to reverse their position. We wrote back that we think they cannot. Legally there is no basis to do that. I have never seen anything like that be done in ten years or so. I believe that not only legally can they not do it, but I believe the facts of changed circumstances don't warrant that. That's not the kind of changed circumstances that's relevant to your analysis tonight. But I'm just pointing out to you, once again, that we have been notified of a letter disagreeing with the hearing. We are in discussions with them. We hope to resolve that. I'm sure we will. As far as we're concerned the November 18th letter stands. One last thing on the 1603 letter. Ms. McKieth noted -- she stated on the record that Department of Fish and Game is now going to rescind their August 5th letter on this issue. I believe that is not true. I talked with legal counsel tonight from the Department of Fish and Game. They have not made any firm decision on any information provided to them on that issue. There's been mention of an L.A. 163 1 Department of Water and Power issue. I'm not going to 2 get into that in any substantive way. We had received 3 a letter from them. Apparently, CURE contacted them 4 .and alleged that our project was violating CEQA and, 5 therefore, the DWP should rethink their understanding 6 of the development. We got the letter without having 7 a chance to talk with DWP about that. We might write 8 that letter. We'll resolve that. It's not related to 9 issues before you tonight. 10 With respect to the cultural resource 11 issues raised tonight by the representative for the 12 Native Americans, there is new information tonight in 13 the sense I have not heard about that before. But I 14 did not hear anything tonight that would assure me 15 that we have substantial new information; that is 16 there is some sort of cultural resource on the site. 17 Unfortunately -- and I appreciate you 18 bearing with me now -- I think I have walked through 19 and tried to hit on the issues that have been put 20 before you as potentially raising substantial new 21 information, which might arguably allow you to come in 22 and reopen this process. I believe that a fair review 23 of the record will show that there is no substantial 24 evidence on any of the points raised by any of the 25 folks proposing this project. 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I will simply note for the record that we're adding some additional items. I understand that Ms. Hawn wants to retract the November 1990 letter. I don't know a lot about that, but we're submitting the letter tonight for the record. We'll be submitting -- I don't know, since we've never been shown the CURE information provided to you tonight. I have no idea what may be alleged in there for the first time tonight. If, for instance, they are going to now allege something about electromagnetic forces, we are providing the most recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine noting the concern that electromagnetic forces was largely overstated in the past. And I believe you have had a chance to look at that for other reasons. Let me quickly summarize and let you get on with what you need to do. We will provide to the clerk all of this information referenced tonight for the record. I just want to -- unfortunately, I need to point out just a few very quick things here. There is a letter of clarification from United States Fish and Wildlife Services dated July 9th, referring to an earlier letter of June 10th regarding some of their issues relating to the 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property. We're still in discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Services, asking for a full retraction of that letter. But they have clarified some salient points in there as well. They had put in their letter of June 10th that approval of the project would be a violation of the Endangered Species Act. When I pointed out to them that that was an amazing allegation, there is no basis for that, they did change their sentence to say "approval could." As an attorney, that's a substantial change. But we're looking for a full retraction of this. We'll be discussing that with them. Again, it does not really concern you tonight. Finally, I need to point your attention to one last item in this packet. It is a letter from the design branch of the Army Corps of Engineers. It's dated August 11th, 1997. It's written by the chief of the engineering division. And this pertains to some of the earthquake and flood issues raised by the groups tonight. Since it is an important issue and it is an important letter, I don't know if you have been able to take as much time as you normally would have on that. 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Reference to a telephone call -- this is referenced to Mr. Joe O'Neil, city engineer, dated August 11th, referenced a telephone call from Dan James to Bob Hall on my staff August 5th, requesting information on the Deer Creek basin. Specifically, he had questions about the size and design of the basin. In the conversation with Mr. James and prior conversations Mr. Hall had with the developer, John Allday, and private citizen named Malissa McKieth, the question arose regarding size and design of the basin. The issue concerns whether he considered seismic conditions originally when we designed the basin in the early 1980s and whether recent information on faults and potential seismicity in this area would cause a problem for the embankment. Mr. Hall's initial response in each case was that the debris basins are now subjected to the same criteria as reservoirs because they don't permanently store water. The probability of a basin full of water in a major earthquake is very remote. He also pointed out that this type of embankment has historically performed very well during earthquakes. Mr. James asked if the Corps could provide some specific information on the original seismic considerations for the embankment. 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The chief of the soil's design section provided the following information originally presented in the Corps' report, quote, "Deer Creek hillside debris basin embankment and foundation seismic evaluation, supplement to feature design memorandum Number 6, dated June 1979 and revised in October of 1980." Number 1 -- and there's just two here -- "the debris basin was statistically evaluated for two seismic events, a magnitude of 8 on the San Andreas fault, a magnitude of 6.4 on the Cucamonga fault. The analysis indicated the embankment performed adequately under earthquake conditions, maintaining its integrity and function at the debris basin." Number 2, "The joint probability of a 100-year flood return in either earthquake is very rare. Approximately 3.4 and 2.8 chances in 100,000, respectively. Based on a review of this information, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers affirms the Deer Creek basin to be safe from failure during a major earthquake on either the San Andreas or Cucamonga faults. Sincerely, Robert Coplin," (phonetic), chief engineer division. A major frustration of the developer in this whole process has been that we come to millions 168 1 of planning commissions and the city councils, and for 2 the first time hear of new information, new 3 declarations that are supposedly something that 4 ~presents information and allegedly are factually 5 correct. What is very frustrating for us is when, for 6 instance, CURE has three months to provide information 7 on earthquake or flood issues, and then they wait 8 until tonight to provide declarations never shared 9 with the developers of the project, the proponent, 10 myself. 11 It puts us at a bit of a disadvantage to 12 be able to point-by-point walk through and note the 13 problems with such testimony. I think that it is 14 relevant that the pattern by CURE has been on each 15 case work by ambush, never providing us with a copy on 16 these pieces of information in advance. 17 I believe that the only reason for 18 conclusion for this behavior is that CURE is afraid of 19 allowing these mere allegations to never be examined 20 or scrutinized for the truthfulness. So I believe 21 that is very relevant, the way they provide 22 information with regard to the veracity of information 23 provided. 24 She's asked for a continuance -- 25 MS. McKIETH: We -- 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MARK/~AN: Excuse me. This court reporter needs one person at a time. I don't know why you're standing there unless you need to stretch. It's probably a good idea. MS. McKIETH: I'm stretching, but I hope I will get a two-minute response to all these comments. MR. MARKMAN: That's up to the Mayor. It would be more polite to sit while counsel talks. I didn't see anyone stretching while you were talking. MR. HARTZELL: I do believe that this type of information at the last second is indicative of problems with veracity of these submissions. We're concerned about that. I try to listen to pertinent points raised by the appellant from Dames and Moore. I want to very briefly touch on a few items there. He has mentioned -- he said something to the effect that removal of the levee would be a reduction in safety. He did not compare the removal of the levee to the creation of the retention basin and channel in 1983. He appeared to be comparing that to the levee versus the trapezoidal channel. And as I said before, the debris basin and channel in Deer Creek were meant to replace the levee. He did not quantify any of these reductions in safety. He doesn't account or consider 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the flood protection being addressed by the Lauren project, the trapezoidal basin. He has been talking about the 1987 data on landslides. That would be information that was known in 1990. He has presented a lot of conjecture. Hypothetically it affects a Y or a Z to occur, or X, Y, or Z combination something could happen. Anyone could go up and raise a lot of hypotheticals. But I haven't seen substantial data that supports the likelihood of any of these events. Moving on to one final point he raised on the water recharge and perhaps water quality, any reduction in recharge hasn't been established at all, to my knowledge. Any reduction would logically have basically occurred through the establishment of the Deer Creek basin and channel in 1983. That is what changed our project condition substantially over a large part of the flood plan. The remaining area that could collect water above the levee is somethin9 along the order of 125 acres as opposed to 2,000 acres, plus that was there prior to the 1983 retention basin. So I would rather question whether the development of 23 acres in this 125 acre area could have any substantial impact at all on water recharge or water quality. 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TO fully summarize, very briefly, there have been some letters submitted by agencies. I believe that probably, generally, it is easy to get letters from agencies with incorrect information in them when any one side is talking to those agencies on having a chance to make their case. We have found that a number of these letters that have been referred to are misstatements and factual errors. We have pointed a number of those out. We will continue on our own for our own reasons to retain retractions on those misstatements. The CURE group wants the record closed now. I know that they had asked for a continuance. That's what we were operating under when it came up tonight. I assume that your council is a very curious council. And given that, the CURE group agreed to extend -- that it would probably be able to extend the hearing. I think I was surprised as any of you up there that tonight she came in at the eleventh hour and said, you know, I want to close it tonight. I think there's a reason why they would like to close it tonight. And probably that's what's going to happen. The reason is evident which is allowing them to put in, perhaps, new information that 172 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we have never been able to take a look at, respond to, close the record up and get that in. I suppose that's going to happen. And we'll deal with that. But I do think that type of tactic should be considered. And the one thing we have seen or we have come to understand in this process is that CURE's overall intention appears to be the preventing of the recordation of the final map of this project. We don't want to see that happen or prevented. We think it would probably be in everyone's best interest to close this up tonight. If you have to make a decision on this matter by tonight, we really would ask you not to allow her to continue to drag this on in what we understand has been communicated to by Mr. Cristiano, the owner, as an attempt to simply prevent final recordation. I thank you very much for indulging me on this Thursday morning. I apologize for making your evening more annoying than otherwise might be. I am providing this information, and I think we have articulated some points in this. Thank you very much. entertain any questions. MAYOR ALEXANDER: MS. McKIETH: I would be happy to Questions? Thank you, sir. We call that a long and personal 173 1 attack, short on evidence. I want to make something 2 clear. It's very important. What I say and what 3 Mr. Hartzell says is not evidence. Evidence is the 4 .declaration and the statements of technical 5 consultants. 6 What he says or thinks about Dames and 7 Moore is irrelevant. What I say and think the 8 Department of Fish and Game may or may not do is not 9 evidence. 10 The correspondence you have from the 11 agencies on June 23rd and August 5th is evidence until 12 and unless they're rescinded. That letter has been 13 there since June 23rd. It's no surprise to them. 14 I must be the most adept, cunning, person 15 in the world to have managed to get letters out of 16 FEMA and the Regional Water Quality Board, the 17 Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and 18 Wildlife Service, and get declarations out of Jim 19 Dolan's boss, the person who supposedly wrote that 20 letter while he sat in Turkey, because I spoke to him 21 in Turkey, another lack of evidence. 22 But you have the declaration in front of 23 you from the director of the Southern California 24 Earthquake Center, which discusses with Jim Dolan 25 since 1996 that he concludes that without your doing a 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 full environmental impact report, building those homes and not taking into consideration the earthquake change is dangerous. In the Army Corps of Engineers' letter of August, which I have never seen because I have never gotten a piece of information out of the Hartzell firm either. I love it that they think that we're just throwing things up in front of them at the last minute. All of these issues were raised in the Planning Commission briefs and evidence. None of this is new. If they wanted to get experts in here to testify, they could have done it. I talked to Councilman Gutierrez and I talked to Councilman Williams last week. I said if the continuance could not be granted, I would not want a continuance. Please, make that clear. I did not come in here this evening to lead anybody astray. I think that's a cheap shot under the circumstances, given that the city had certainly led us to believe that this was going to be set in September. So look at the evidence. All of this demonstrates the need for an environmental impact report, what an EIR would have done. What they were obligated to do, not CURE, was to go out and get the information on the earthquakes, to do the biological 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 studies. All these studies that they never did -- they didn't spend five cents on doing the work that we have been forced to come in and put into the record. And that is not what the law requires. If we had a full EIR process, there would be a meaningful public dialogue. Their consultants would come in. There would be a circulation of their comments. We would have had time to respond and vice versa. Instead, we have this last minute exchange. It's exactly what is wrong and what is going on here, that we have to come up with evidence at the last minute. It is not easy evidence to come up with. I do think we need to close the record. You give me another month to cause more agencies to come out, I will get the Army Corps of Engineers to rescind that letter. They did not base that letter on a 7.0 or greater earthquake. It's a 6.4. I have got the original design memoranda, the actual original, sitting in my living room. I know what they say. Nothing of what Mr. Hartzell or the developer -- they have not come up with an iota of evidence about overtopping of the debris basin. Nothing of what the Army Corps has said about the 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 safety of the debris basin spoke to the issues of a landslide and the overtopping. In terms of recharge in the Army Corps' own environmental impact report from 1980, they designated this area a recharge mitigation area, to make up for the fact that they were building the basin and reducing the amount of water that would be recharged. They're not even complying with their own mitigation measures which, in itself, was a changed circumstance. I know these are a lot of technical legal issues, but all that they do is underscore the fact that we have put on enough substantial evidence of changed circumstances, that you got to step back and let the process work the way the process is meant to from a policy consideration. It allows you to take the time to really do the analysis, to make sure that if there are significant environmental impacts, they are mitigated. And as everybody who testified on our side -- poor Lauren. They're all by themselves. anybody here to testify this evening. bunk. They don't have That is just It's insulting, considering the fact most of us did not know about this until May 23rd. work excruciatingly hard. We had to 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All we did was level the playing field. When people know they're losing, they start whinning about what the other attorneys did. I think that's a lot of what's going on here this evening. Look at the evidence. Look at the declarations. All of that information was put before the Planning Commission. I firmly believe the Planning Commission was reluctant to change their position because they were the very people who voted on that Negative Declaration in 1990. And that's a hard position for people to be in. close the record. Again, I urge you to I think there is value to take the matter under submission. But in doing so, I would like to not have it be that I have to go out and get more information to you. We will just be doing that forevermore. Thank you. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council. In regards to this Dolan issue and the earthquake fault, we do have information that we haven't shared with Malissa, or the city, the project's proponent. As a matter of fact, when Dolan first proposed to do this trenching and the study, he 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposed to do that in the north Etiwanda reserve, which, of course, the Sage Council and the Shoshone Gabriellino objected to. One, was because it was an area that had been acquired for conservation, and we didn't want big holes of sage scrub blown away from the study. The other one is the cultural committee going into the earthquake fault. What we found out later, to our dismay, even though we wrote letters of objection to the county, was that they did approve Dolan to do the study to the east of the north Etiwanda reserve. So I do know, as a matter of fact, that there was a follow-up Dolan study that was done. It wasn't just a proposal. And also while he was doing the work, the Daily Bulletin did a story about it and, I believe, took a picture of him standing in the trench. So that should be in public records somewhere that that study has occurred. The other point I want to make that the word average was used for rainfall, rather than a worse case scenario. MR. BROWN: During Ms. McKieth's -- MR. MARKMAN: Why don't you identify yourself. 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROWN: the city. Tom Brown associate planner for During Ms. McKieth's testimony, statements were made trying to obtain copies of documents in the file. I've prepared in chronology my contacts with her from May 27th to June 9th of this year. I would like the city to have it as part of the record. MR. MARKMAN: That's part of the record. That's a chronology of every contact and response Tom had with counsel for the CURE group. There's some -- MAYOR ALEXANDER: Is there any other new information or testimony on this item? How much time do you really want? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 30 seconds. I just want to be very clear. I know it's already been in the record. Several fact sheets that the developer did prepare to go into detail rebutting various allegations, explaining the true issues with respect to the levee, one set of sheets, landslide and earthquake fact sheet, and a prior knowledge fact sheet, and also traffic impacts and access fact sheet, I would just like to reiterate that that is in the record. And it has been available for the staff. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Thank you. 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 At this time the public hearing is closed. MR. MARKMAN: We have some staff responses; not a lot, not long. And I'm going to start out with the framework and response to one issue; then I'm going to let the technical people do whatever they have to do. Here I am, again, going to agree with, actually, both counsel. Number one, lawyers do not testify. What they say is argument. Yo~ have to look for substantial evidence in the record they refer to. So you have to look at the documents and the data and the technical reports and the opinions of technical people who are referred to when it comes to the technical issues. So we agree on that. We also agree -- I think all three of us -- everybody agrees on what the legal process before you is. There's two issues: Each one is supportable by substantial evidence. If you decide either issue, yes or no, your decision needs to be supported by substantial evidence, or when the lawsuit -- the inevitable lawsuit will be filed, you will not be able to validate your opinion in a court proceeding, which is my job. My job, I think, is a little bit misunderstood this evening by some people. It is not 181 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to advocate a position. It's to put you in a position where you understand what you have to do to make a valid decision. So you have to look at the substantial evidence. Two issues, as I see it: One, is there something new or different, a changed circumstance, new information, which couldn.'t have been generated in 1990, all of which has been alleged and argued here tonight, and all of this evidence has been identified on both sides as to whether it's there or whether it's not there. Based on what you heard on the substantial evidence, both sides of that issue, do you feel that this ought to be sent out for CEQA review, based on something that has happened or discovered or couldn't have been known since 19907 Everyone agrees that's one issue. And the second issue, which is always there, ultimately, is there substantial evidence to support a design review approval or disapproval, based on the criteria on design review? So I really don't think the lawyers are in disagreement about the path you have to go down. They disagree about what the state of the record is. You have to have substantial evidence. There could be 182 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very well, by the way, substantial evidence supporting either position on those issues. That's what you have to do. And I would urge the council, as always -- and I have heard everyone talking about second opinions. I don't think Ms. McKieth is here taking a position on behalf of her clients in order to generate litigation for which she would be paid or recovered fees from the city. I don't think the attorney for Lauren is here to get his client into that position. I'm certainly not here to try to advise you to take a path that's going to generate costs to the taxpayers or legal fees. And just in response to some of those allegations, I have to say look at what has happened since we've been here since 1985, and please try to identify for me any case that is challenged in approval or disapproval of the land-use entitlement issue before this Council. I can't remember one that was litigated. If there have been a few in the last 14 years, I don't recall whether the council has been reversed by the court on a land-use decision. It hasn't happened. So I don't want the council to approach this by way of being intimidated by the 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fact there are -- I have never heard in one proceeding so many different forms of lawsuits or causes of action which could be applied to whatever you decide, as I've heard here tonight. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. That's, unfortunately, part of the process. I don't know how you could make a decision to avoid that exposure. I'm not going to tell you to just make a decision guessing on which side won't sue you if you decide against them. I think that Council ought to make a decision based on your good faith and understanding of the state of the record of those issues. Is there substantial evidence to support it? What you think of those two issues. What I started out saying at the start of this hearing is that the staff and the Planning Commission had made a finding to the effect that there was substantial evidence supporting their determination that didn't require further CEQA review because of changed circumstances or new information. And, secondly, standards. that it's conformed with design review Planning Commission decided. Obviously, you're not bound by what the This is here de novo, as 184 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we would like to say. I don't know if the staff's technical people have changed their minds based on what they have heard here tonight. And after I'm done in two more minutes, Brad and Joe 0'Neil, the technical people, can comment on that. My only technical response, and this is a legal technical response, is I spent the afternoon with Brad and Rosanne Hawn and Bill Angel going over this general plan open space issue, and they can address it more thoroughly. The bottom line is this, in 1981 the City Council adopted the general plan with several maps, including a land use map, open space map, all kinds of general bubble-like designations that clearly were not intended to be specific, weren't even specific as to roads which may or may not exist. The zoning ordinance within the county zoning ordinance in 1983, this specific property, one of the larger areas, was zoned specifically by action of the City Council, not in response to an application for development approval. The area was specifically zoned for the intent of making the entire area conform to those general plan documents that Bill Angel showed you. That was a specific purpose of the process, and the ordinance was adopted, which zoned this specific 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 area. 24 or 23 acres we're talking about here tonight, is very low residential. The whole purpose of the legislative process back in '83 was to make the zoning conform to those general plan schematics that were shown to you tonight. You can look at it and say, well, maybe they didn't match up. But, basically, a legislative act that set that issue to rest, as far as I'm concerned, in perpetuity. issue to me. in my view there was general plan issue is that their position, the position stated by Bill Angel, is not correct, and that this process does confirm to the general plan, has been consistently founded by the Planning Commission since 1990. say. That's all I would have to I would throw it to Brad and Joe O'Neil to see what their reaction is to what they heard tonight. MR. BULLER: I'll comment on the issue that Bill Angel indicated that there had been a previous action on the part of the city to redesignate a general plan designation to the flood control to some other plan designation. In those cases, in reviewing 186 Brad agrees with me. He brought this My view in giving you advice on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the file, the implementation of the general plan back in 1983 where there was a zoning map was approved by this city. There are properties that were zoned flood control. When those properties became available to the market and available for purposes for private development, when those lands.came in for development, they were required to change the zone in order to build flood control, open space, to some other designation. As a result we required that they process zoning. This has a very low zoning over it. It has no flood control over it. The issue of the Hillside Ordinance, the Planning Commission design review and staff have been dealing with this since its inception. This commission did look at the Hillside Ordinance very clearly. And it was presented with the same argument tonight that was presented to them. Staff and the commission have said this meets the requirement of the Hillside Ordinance. I would be glad to go over it, specifically, how and why. But, again, we stand here saying, yes, the commission concurred and took that into consideration. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Questions for Brad besides me? 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There was one point brought up this evening that dealt with asking about optional features. Is it true that under what I perceived as looking at the design review appeal that, in fact, we could wind up with what could appear to be a box, if all of the optional features were not, in fact, requested? MR. BULLER: The issue of what was optional, what wasn't optional, was also considered by the Planning Commission and the design review. And they believe whether or not the optional element happened or not, they still found the project and its design consistent with the Hillside Ordinance and subject to their criteria that they applied to all projects. Even though they believe maybe some of these additions might be accented and a betterment to the buildings themselves, they understood they were optional and at the discretion of the homebuyer. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: MAYOR ALEXANDER: closed. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: I'm sorry. No. Sorry. This hearing is These two attorneys were consulting at my five-minute break. I overheard that -- you were discussing that the evidence of the depositions that were given, that they didn't see, you 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were telling them what to say and what to do about that. And that's unethical for you, the city attorney, to be giving advice to the project proponent ~attorney on what to do. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Excuse me. This is definitely -- you're hurting your own cause. MS. KLIPPSTEIN: happening. MAYOR ALEXANDER: issue. You should know that that's Take it up with me, please, Joe, would you address the engineering MR. O'NEIL: Well, there are a lot of an integral part of that calculation. engineering issues. I won't go through the FEMA designation, because I think that the council is all pretty well-aware of how that happened and what the meaning of that designation is. Only to review quickly the core constructs of those facilities in 1983. In 1991 the city didn't receive a FEMA designation taking that property, subject property and existing tract, clearing the sage. My review of that documentation shows -- I can't find any indication of a reference to the levee. So I have to conclude the levee was not Therefore, the 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 levee really has no bearing on the FEMA designation. And I haven't seen any documentation to show that was the case. Referring to the levee, itself, no one really knows -- there is no documentation or indication -- we don't know how the levee was constructed. We have no idea the capacity of the levee, the strength of the levee. It appears to have no foundation. But, again, nobody knows. It appears to be made from material mounded up, but for what purpose it was not certain. We don't know if it was for flood protection. There wasn't anything there at the time. It might have been poor water percolation. We simply don't know. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: It may have been some kind of an Indian -- MR. O'NEIL: I don't think it was that at all. In 1986 the county, who had been maintaining the levee, in essence abandoned it. It is on private property. As far as I'm aware, there is no public agency that maintains that levee. So there is no maintenance done on that levee by any public agency. It's not a public facility. It's not owned by a public agency. It sits on someone's private property. ~ 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Also, we have three drainage reports. C0UNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I want to ask something about the levee before you get into that. Are you saying, then, that there is no significance to the levee, if there is any type of water runoff or -- MR. O'NEIL: What I'm saying is there is no documentation or calculations anywhere that shows that levee provided any function. That levee-was, in essence, replaced by the debris channel. That's why the county in 1986 walked away from it, and determined it private property along the easement. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: So you're convinced that there would be no difference if it did have flooding, whether the levee was there or not, or whether it would be necessary, or it wouldn't matter? MR. O'NEIL: What I'm saying is I have no calculations. I don't know. There is no evidence. As far as FEMA is concerned, the levee does not exist. In their calculations, it does not exist. They're assuming that the event will be a channel debris based function, as it is supposed to. we also have three drainage reports that also show the levee to be removed, and that the drainage flow from the acres would be taken into 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 channels or reconstructed by developers in the area. Moving along, the information I thought was kind of interesting -- I do have a report prepared by RMA, and it was signed by a registered geologist and a registered professional engineer geotechnical. It is their professional opinion that the special mitigation measures to protect the structures within are directly to the south of this tract. The landslides, the mountains, are not needed; only the distance to the mountain that fronts the location of the property near the center of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan. In essence, what they're saying is they don't believe, and they are staking their professional reputation on the fact that a landslide is not your problem. MS. McKIETH: MR. MARKMAN: MR. O'NEIL: Can you identify that document? What are you reading from? It's from the RMA group. It's dated August 19, 1997. MS. McKIETH: It was not in the staff report, correct? It was not in public record before today? MR. O'NEIL: That's correct. Mr. Sheahan has presented no data, no engineering calculations to support his supposition. 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I cannot make a conclusion as to what he is suggesting. I don't know if his position is valid or not. ~S. McKIETH: Why was this staff report not in the staff report? MAYOR ALEXANDER: We have argued back and forth. We can take documents and argue them until the world is level. MS. McKIETH: There are a lot of things in the staff report that they are relying on to make recommendations to the City Council that's been in his possession since August 14th, and none of us had it. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Let me ask you one question: Were you aware that he might bring up that document? MS. McKIETH: I had no idea. It doesn't exist in your record. It's not in your staff report. MAYOR ALEXANDER: We have had argument from the development side, from your own side, about information not shared. I think it's a pretty common thread that runs through tonight'shearing. MR. MARKMAN: There should be some further questions on this. I agree with counsel. For example, who was that report prepared for? MR. O'NEIL: Mr. Tom Grahn. This report was prepared for 193 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MR. MARKMAN: this thin9? MR. 0'NEIL: · on this. this. When did you get your hands on I don't recall when I got my hands It's been very recently that I have seen Basically, Lauren put it in your possession? MR. O'NEIL: request it. MAYOR ALEXANDER: That's correct. The staff did not Mr. Markman, the only thing I 194 was bringing up was the fact that both sides indicated this evening that they have not been sharing information. That's what I was indicating. MR. MARKMAN: Well, I was concerned that the city did a study and didn't put it in the staff report. But, basically, that's developer information that you reviewed, just as you've listened to and reviewed what the experts from Dames and Moore said this evening. MS. McKIETH: He's basing his opinion on a report that he's had in his possession for some period of time that he can't remember how long it is. And it's different when you're the city. You have a fiduciary responsibility to us. This has been going 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on throughout the two-and-a-half-month period. never seen the traffic study; never seen the engineering reports. And now you have another document. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Mr. 0'Neil? finish, We've Is there any questions of MR. O'NEIL: If I could just continue on to I have one or two more points that I can make. We did talk about the channel. And I 195 think there was discussion as to the channel replacing the levee, and that is not the case. The channel was not built to replace the levee. The levee is replaced by the debris basin and the channel. And lastly, there was talk about declarations regarding seismic activity. There was declarations and a letter from FEMA, which I have not seen. Apparently the council has. I do not have the letter in my possession. Again, I have no information regarding those declarations. I have no engineering calculations to support those declarations. So I am completely in the dark as to the meaning or the significance of those documents, since I have not seen them or had a chance to look at them. That concludes my portion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: Earlier when Bill Angel was speaking, he had mentioned that as far as the hillside plan requires that there are slopes graded to 30 percent, he showed one of the illustrations from our general plan. It kind of shows that you should maintain those slopes. And I looked up on top of these dykes. Looking up to the north, it looked to me like on these blue lines there is some sloping. Why is the developer able to level those and develop, I ~uess, is my question? MR. BULLER: When the matter was considered by the design review, the hillside slopes, the precise grading, and the contoured elevations of the project, itself, they looked at the original tract map approval, the conceptual grading plan back in 1990, which was found to be acceptable back then. And as far as they felt, because of the manmade levee, it was not a natural levee. The intent of the Hillside Ordinance was to protect what they considered to be natural, not made by man or created by man features, and try to protect those. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I can understand. This is not really a question of taking down the levee. If there wasn't even a levee there, there were several undulations, or whatever you want to call it, that run 196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through the property, from the blue line when they were active somewhere in the past, but nevertheless there is rolling hills through the property, it seems to me that's what the Hillside Ordinance was addressing. If you can elaborate further on that. anyway, there's a lot of land change. and simple. And I'm real curious. It's not flat Are you going to grade it off, flatten it out? I understand modern compaction is supposed to be wonderful, but we've all seen the results of compaction that didn't go right. We're just going to level this off and say it's okay? 197 MR. BULLER: I'll go back to the basis of the fact that in 1990 when the natural contours -- what was out there today was determined and reviewed. It was not a requirement on that. This current commission was simply acting on what was an approved conceptual grading plan consistent with that original approval, tentative map grade. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Grading looks like -- with all these little cul-de-sacs -- I was up there, too. I have been up there over the years doing more girl scout activities than I care to tell you in that area. They are probably all resenting it still. But 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BULLER: I will respond by the answer yes. The grading plan back in 1990, as well as the more refined one from this project application, was reviewed by the grading committee. So it did go through the technical reviews and was found to be acceptable. It will still have to comply with all the technical aspects of soil compaction. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Of course. Nobody wants to sit in a house on badly compacted earth. But we all know that it's easy to not get compacted just right. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Any other questions? MR. MARKMAN: Mr. Mayor, there's a resolution. You know what it does. It makes a finding no further environmental impact studies are required. If you want to do anything different, you need to direct it to a different resolution that reaches a different result. I don't even know if you want to tackle that tonight. Resolution on Page 202 and 203 -- 204 does not apply. That is a resolution that is prepared showing the Planning Commission results. If you want to do something different, you need to do a motion. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: hearing that I have sat through. This is a second I attended the July 198 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9th commission hearing. Since then I have heard a lot of testimony. I have read layers of documents. I visited the site on foot. I have inspected the site .by helicopter. I have heard nothing, I have read nothing, and I have seen nothing that would compel me to overrule the commission. So therefore, I have to find in favor of the commission. COMMISSIONER BIANE: Compelling argument on both sides. As far as the EIR portion, I would have to say that the developer did a lot better job in defending their position. However, where I have a problem with the project is really upon design. I feel there should be twice as many floor plans. The add-ohs should not be optional. They should be required. And as well as the garage placement, it really seems to me if you're driving up in that community, the intent of what everybody else has done is really to have them in the back or up to the side. These are the areas that I have major problems with with the project. And with that I'll listen to what the rest of my colleagues have to say. COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: It's been a long night. And the investment everyone has in this room, 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 most of the people in the room on this project, is enormous. It's a huge investment to those people that live there. To us, this is our city. We manage the city basically for the people. We all have to get up tomorrow, some of us early, or today, and work. So I appreciate the commitment from these people that are all very hardworking, including ourselves. But it's a really important issue. I don't care much for the gnatcatchers or Chief Benny Hanna, whatever his name is. I'm not into that. I would like to be -- I invested a lot of money with my family to go to Yosemite, just to drive to find some deer. And here they are up the street. But the issue comes down to what's compatible to these people. It's their neighborhood. They live right there. They are, to me, 65 percent of the argument. Number one, if it was a design issue only, I would say this is a bad plan. I think it's ugly. And it belongs maybe down where I live in the tracts. But it doesn't belong in the custom home community. So I would put 14 or 15 designs. I would make them all very distinct and different. If I had my way, I would leave the levee there with it, but that won't sell the homes to make any money. So I 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand your position there. But there is enough doubt, not by all these other arguments -- most of these arguments I doesn't necessarily agree with. There's a couple I do. I'm not convinced that removing that extra layer of protection is a good idea. It's doubtful enough to me to require more study on that. And I am definitely in favor of forcing -- or requiring, for our own good, an environmental impact report that's updated, that takes into account all these complex issues that we have not had time to understand and to fully digest. But we need to leave it up to the experts. It cannot hurt the city. I'm not talking about Lauren or anyone else, but the city, in general, in our best interest, which is safety and welfare of the people. That's our responsibility. It's not going to hurt them for us to require an environmental impact report. And that's my position. Again, on the design side, if you want to speak just to design, I think it needs to go back. T really do. Make those homes look just like the ones that are up there already. But I think there's a question about the safety. I read in the L.A. Times that there is an 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E1 Nino possibility, more water this year than many, many years past. It would be a very eventful year, weatherwise, in the mountains and elsewhere. And I don't want to ever be blamed for contributing to a disaster. I don't want to be blamed for having any part that weakens our responsibility to maintain that safety. So for a city that talks about public safety and how much it's important to us, I'm surprised that we wouldn't take the time to require some further reviews there on the environmental issue or the impact report. So both on design and environmental impact, I think we need to take a second look. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: I'll try to be within my two minutes. On a personal basis to abuse a site like this, just grading it off, is sacrilegious. The design -- these look like Terra Vista or Victorian homes made bigger. You can take a brown wood shack and make it bigger, but it's still a brown wood shack. I think the design has a lot of potential to make it appropriate. I don't know why in the world -- just as a thought as I'm sitting here listening -- why in the world Lauren Development didn't decide to do a custom development. I don't 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know. in. It's quite possible, and I think it would fit You should have a big book of designs. It's been in a lot of cities and it's still done in mass. They end up being custom homes. But the whole layout is -- they are Victorian, just like Rex said, down where we live. 'Something peaks my interest. And we're not supposed to pursue this thing. But the mention of a purchase offer, I think that really ought to be explored. I would urge people to think about that. If this were purchased for a consortium or as part of the homeowners association for their private open space, that would be one less part of our mountain. We who live down on the lowland have to look at it. It's already been done. It really bothers me that I look up there now and see the white veil. But there's no reason to make more. I guess I don't like the design. And I do think the EIR ought to be readdressed. In fact, not at this moment, but I will mention it here anyway, in the future I plan to certainly pursue looking at all the tract maps that we have that have been sitting on the shelf through all the extensions, because there have been things 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 happening. And there has been a new way of looking at things with the earthquakes and different issues. ~I think everyone of them has an old EIR report. And I'm sorry if that cost somebody some money, but it's foolish to go forth with a seven-year old EIR. And I could not go along with the commission's recommendation. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I agree with part of what was said. I'll be as brief as I have asked everybody to be tonight. In looking at what exists and what is proposed, I do think that there is qualifications that could be looked at on the design, which I felt we were looking at this evening. I also feel as though there could be more models that are offered. But I think I find it very unique that we seem to send a mixed message to the Planning Commission of trying to be flexible and favorable as we can about seeing people through the system rather easily, and then at the same time we wind up saying let's delay that. Although, I may agree, also, under the EIR issue, we have to take full responsibility for not saying this years ago. We need to, however -- I do 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agree that people up there have a substantial investment. They deserve to have a good product with them. I trust staff is concerned with the safety issues, as they should be, and I'm not accusing anybody, and I'm certainly not being oriented toward safety. But I must say, I think Paul's statement pretty well covers what I feel, too, just go back to the drawing board, to square one on this issue. MR. MARKMAN: We're trying to figure out -- there needs to be a motion to direct a preparation of the resolution. I can certainly count four votes for a change of design review approval. I count two that also would like to make a finding that further environmental work needs to be done. So if the staff took what we just heard as direction, we would bring back the resolution that denied the project, denied approval of the design review. And, I guess, there's three people that would support the Planning Commission's determination on CEQA. COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: I would like to make a motion that we deny the project on -- well, I'm not sure we could make a motion on both of those issues. But I would like to make a motion requiring further 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CEQA review, if that could be done. MR. MARKMAN: You would direct us to prepare a resolution that requires -- that finds there's substantial evidence of changed circumstance or new facts, and, therefore, send it out for further environmental study? COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: readdress -- Yeah. Further meeting to The appropriate subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR or even a whole new EIR staff would determine. COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: vote on that. MR. MARKMAN: We're going to have to deal with that. What I've heard is three council people support it. It would be in a number of areas, unless the council wishes to give us more specific direction. We will have to call that on a resolution motion to do that. MAYOR ALEXANDER: What's your motion? COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: To require CEQA review, meaning an updated environmental impact report. MAYOR ALEXANDER: On all projects? 206 I would like to take a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MARKMAN: mentioned tonight. COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: MAYOR PRO- TEM WILL IAMS: motion. MAYOR ALEXANDER: seconded. On all the subject matter Yes, on this project. I'll second that Motion has been made and Any further discussion? Please indicate your vote. CITY CLERK ADAMS: Motion denied three, tWO, Alexander, Curatalo, Biane. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I think it would be appropriate to vote on this particular one as well, on this particular -- MR. MARKMAN: Well, this particular -- MAYOR ALEXANDER: Well, that motion right there, essentially, was dealing with the CEQA end of it. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: On the EIR on this project, we would like to have it revisited. My understanding of that motion and what I seconded to, the EIR on this project needs to be revisited, because what I was reading, some of the little check-off points were awfully vague. MR. MARKMAN: Understand that everybody agrees 207 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the status of state law is you have to make these determinations specific to the project. This one is changed circumstances or new data, which could have been generated at the original approval time. So I understood that motion to mean this project on all of the grounds stated. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: That's what I meant. MAYOR~ALEXANDER: What I'm looking at, though, is -- I guess I did have faith in the staff that they were doing the job with the tools they had to do it. If it means we are going to go back and revisit the whole budget -- COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I think every seven years it's warranted. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: Paul made a suggestion that some of these options are made as a condition. Could we make a resolution on that, approving the commission's point with these conditions, making these options? MR. MARKMAN: No. I think you have to have the design, itself, in front of the people so they could comment. Your only option on design review is to direct us, as I understood the comments, direct us to prepare a resolution that denies -- reverses the Planning Commission on design review approval. 208 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 issue. I was looking for ~uidance on the CEQA I guess we got it. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: Is it still three, .two, then? MAYOR ALEXANDER: Before we get into the second vote, I'm not even saying that there may not be a need to show that ~uidelines need to be reviewed after five or seven or nine or three. I don't think we discussed that this evening. We took a lot of information this evening that was unsubstantiated. MR. MARKMAN: The general rule, Bill, is it doesn't matter if it's three, five, or seven. A lack in change in six months -- something might not change for six years, and they all have to stand on their own merits as they go through the process. So if somebody comes in and says there's an old crack. It's all approved. It's coming in for design on an ad hoc basis, you're going to face this decision every time, because the developer is going to claim CEQA is not required, and opponents may feel differently. I ~uess I can't give you any more guidance on that. This project is specific under state law. The developer has a right to press forward with this project. 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR ALEXANDER: Does this body not have the right to be able to say -- formulate some form of the state-of-the-art, say, after three years, or can they not? MR. MARKMAN: I think you can give the staff direction to really microscopically review these issues. COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ: Why shouldn't that start with this issue, this project? MR. MARKMAN: We're looking for a motion in reference to reversing the Planning Commission's design review approval, directing us to prepare a resolution. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I'll make the motion as stated by Mr. Markman that we do not agree with the Planning Commission on the issue of design review. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: Only. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Only. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I'll second it. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Do you understand the motion? MR. MARKMAN: Yes, I do. If this motion passes, we will come back with a resolution that finds there is no substantial evidence -- for further CEQA review, that denies design review on this project. So that you 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand, that's what we're going to bring back. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: Why should we mention CEQA? MR. MARKMAN: The issue has been presented and appealed. And all counsel want disposition on the issue for whatever comes afterwards. And I think the appellants, Ms. McKieth, is entitled to that disposition that was issued. I'm sure the developer wants a disposition on that issue. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: I can't support that motion with CEQA mentioned that way. MR. MARKMAN: This motion is only on design review denial. We have a motion on both ends of this equation. We'll take it as staff direction to bring back a resolution. Then you'll have a resolution in front of you. You can change -- nothing is final until we have a resolution of findings. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Restate the motion. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I would like to add discussion. There is a problem with it. I would like to go back and -- I guess there's four of us that feel there is a problem with this design. I'd like to go back -- I would just like to state the designer -- MAYOR ALEXANDER: Do you want to modify it? COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I would like to modify it 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that it only addresses design review. MR. MARKMAN: Well, here's the problem. You have already voted on this issue. You have to have a resolution disposing of that issue, too. It's part of the appeal. It's a ground for disposition of this whole process that's been raised by CURE. I think they're entitled to disposition on it and on both issues. I think the developer is as well. I don't know how we can let that hang out here. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: There should be motions in front of that. MR. MARKMAN: We can do this: I suppose we can come up with two resolutions. I suppose we could come up with two resolutions that dispose of different parts of this appeal. That will be novel, but it certainly isn't impossible. If we do that we could have one lawsuit by one side in reference to one resolution, and the other side in reference to the other. MR. BULLER: If, in fact, the council does take action on the project, what would be helpful for both the commission and the staff is to mention what elements of the design that you would like them to look at, everything, from the grading of blue line 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stream issues. MR. MARKMAN: I think we've got about four different points from the council discussion, that I can recall, that you and I can work out a resolution. Now he's going to have to do the same with respect to your position. MAYOR PR0-TEM WILLIAMS: It's his job description.~ MR. MARKMAN: We'll bring the resolution back to you. Let me tell you, here's what we're going to take as a staff direction. Right now, I think, we would bring back resolutions disposing of each issue, but separately, because there's different contingencies that feel differently on two issues. The way to get the best reflection of the council's decision on each issue is to bring a separate resolution on each issue, because one will have the certain vote, the other will have another vote. Somebody will have to compromise their feeling on one of those issues. We will bring back two resolutions; one which reverses the Planning Commission's design review approval and one which concurs with the Planning Commission's position that no further environmental review on this matter was required. We will bring 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those back for the September 3rd meeting. MAYOR ALEXANDER: I suppose I'm just tired. No action is being taken tonight? MR. MARKMAN: No. It's a staff direction. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: Didn't our first vote cover that? MR. MARKMAN: Not really. I think there's at least one member of the council that can't be satisfied with the resolution. So I think maybe, for the first time I can remember, we'll come back with two resolutions. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: You said you needed something new in your life. MR. MARKMAN: Everything new is old. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: Maybe in that period of time someone will have a chance to read the material, all that new stuff, and maybe they'll learn something. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: The way we stand right now, we have a resolution, we have a second, and we're not going to vote on it? MR. MARKMAN: We have a staff direction that we'll bring back those two resolutions unless somebody doesn't concur. MAYOR ALEXANDER: We have a motion. We had a 214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 second. But the person that gave the second to the motion has second thoughts. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I'm having second thoughts, too, because what I don't want to do is to come back here and we go through this whole entire hearing again. MR. MARKMAN: There will not be a further hearing on this. COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: We do have a chance to go home, reread the material, and we do have a right, as Council, when we vote on this again, to make whatever decision we want. MR. MARKMAN: Absolutely. The decision can't be found until we present your resolution to act on the plan. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I can' t remember very many actions that we have written. MR. MARK/W3kN: I will tell you this: That the public can comment at the start of the -- it won't be a public hearing. It will just be. resolutions that are in the council business, because it reflects what you want them to do. But, yes, the public can come in at the start of the meeting and comment before you take the action. It won't be a public hearing. But you may 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get a lot of comments again. Ms. McKieth swears that she's -- MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: It still occurs to me that each one of us, by so accepting the votes of the city and saying we want to be on the City Council, each one of us has a responsibility. it. COUNCI LMEMBER CURATALO: We have got a resolution. We have already done We have a second now. We should be allowed to vote on it. That's my position. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Well, in this particular case, we don't have a resolution yet. COUNCILMEMBER CURATALO: We have a motion. We have a second. Let's vote on it. MR. MARKMAN: We had one motion pass to agree with the Planning Commission on the CEQA plan. The second motion pending is to reverse the Planning Commission on the design review approval. And I'm telling you that if you adopt that second motion, after hearing all of this, we will bring back two separate resolutions; one that does one and one that does the other, because they don't both reflect the same constituency. MAYOR ALEXANDER: So you're not saying don't take a vote on it? 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MARKMAN: NO, I'm not. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Paul had second thoughts. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: We're just voting on the design review issue. It should have been here tonight. It's pretty simple. It's a design review issue that is being -- that was actually your recommendation to focus -- what our focus of conversation should have been tonight. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: We have two issues before us, a pro and a con. the other. MR. MARKMAN: Usually we choose one or Well, actually no. When the Planning Commission acts, the staff automatically prepares -- if the staff is recommending concurrence with the Planning Commission, at least since 1985, they only present such a resolution. I have to tell you, you're going to do something different, you have to prepare for it. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: How many have we overturned? MR. MARKMAN: Quite a few. Do you want the staff to prepare -- MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: excess work. COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: No. That's just We'll leave it at staff's 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recommendation. MAYOR ALEXANDER: Do you want to vote on it? MR. MARKMAN: Does Council want to vote to give us direction to reverse the design review approval? COUNCILMEMBER BIANE: I'll second that motion. MAYOR ALEXANDER: That's fine. MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: So we're voting to overturn the,Planning Commission's recommendation? MR. MARKMAN: resolution. MAYOR ALEXANDER: motion? MAYOR PRO-TEM WILLIAMS: the motion. To direct us to prepare a II II Yes. Do you understand the I think I understand MAYOR ALEXANDER: All right. Please indicate your vote. CITY CLERK ADAMS: Unanimously five, zero. 218 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, ~,~v~,~ I/V~¢~_~ , a Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceeding was written by me in Stenotypy, and transcribed into typewriting and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of my shorthand notes thereof. Dated' SEP 0 5 1997 I Page/Line I From CHANGES/CORRECTIONS J To Witness signature Date ESQ. E~squire Communications Ltd. COURT REPORTING WORLDWIDE Transcript of Proceedings $15,000 130:7 $2.50 94:12 270,000 37:18,21; 44:15; 3:21 · $300,000 140:15 '69 46:11 '83 186:4 '84 100:11 '85 100:12 *90 57:17 '96 41:14; 85:13'; 152:17 // 218:18,19 0 0 117:8 1 I 16:13; 21:10,11; 22:2,4; 117.-9; 168:8 1,000 90:10 1.4 92:25 1.5 92:25; 93:1 10 44:24; 45:3; 116:7; 118:17; 153:14 10,000 42:15; 130:3 100 52:1; 80:18; 89:18; 128:21 100,000 168:17 · 100-year 168:16 10500 2:17 10th 23:5; 165:24; 166:5 11.25 153:15 11034) 32:4 11045 45:9 11.'00 117:1 11th 13:20; 15:7; 41:5,7; 56:20; 65:9; 166:18; 167:3 120 124:10 125 140.'9; 171:21,24 12th 35:17; 127:21; 161:7 13 21:25; 22:8; 72:16; 119:18 13.0 116:5; 117.6 1339 155:25 13th 19:7; 52:24; 53:7; 13'9:3 14 183:21; 200:22 14771 20:13 14th 158:10; 193:12 15 39:22; 200:22 15162 62:3 1603 163:17 16th 50:14; 51:16 17 45:4 17.24030 102:15 17.24050 102:22 17.24060 103,:24 17th 12:13,,17 18 115:24; 162:16 18th 163:15 19 19:9; 36:25; 192:20 1919 13,1:1 1938 157:5,6,25; 158:1 1966 132:5 1969 70:18,19;, 71:1; 87:22 1973 125.9 1978 125:16; 153:25 1979 168.6 1980 63,:22; 64:1; 154:3; 168:7; 177:4 1980~ 167:13 1981 27:17; 185:11 1983 27:18; 38:15; 73:19;, 75:25; 76:1; 157:9; 170:20; 171:16,22; 185:18; 187:2; 189:18 1984 96:1; 101:5 1985 28:18; 145:18; 147:4; 161:16; 183,:16; 217:15 19~6 190:18; 191:11 1987 88:14,14; 103:16; 156:1,9;, 171:3 1989 57:17; 103:16 1990 20:14; 25:17; 33:20,21; 3~:18,23; 39:!3,22,24; 40:2,3,19-, 42:2; 56:15; 57:11; 63,:8; 64:2; 66:21; 67:7; 71:18,20,23; 73':3,4; 78:5; 85:12; 86:1; 91.6,17,24; 92.6; 96:7,15; 99:9,24; 100:10;, 107:21,25; 108:23; 127:21; 144:7,9,16; 145:12,23; 146:213; 150:1; 156:11,12; 160:12,21,24; 165:3; 171:4; 178:10, 182:8,16; 186:16; 196:15; 197:8; 198:2 1990s 157:16 1991 68.9; 189:18 1994 119:13,16; 125:20 1995 85:13 h:9~12; 52:24; 53:7; 63:8,9; 65:5; 67.6; 77:5; 91:16; 119:16; 162:16; 174:25 1997 1:11; 2:20;, 4:2; 12:13; 40:i; 49:12,25; 13,9:3,; 147:1~, 152:17; 158:10;, 166:18; 192:20 1:50 2:19;, 4:3 1st 119:13,16 2 2 21:10,12; 22:3',10; 23:24; 103':24; 117.9; 168:15 2,000 140:10; 171:21 2.4 110:7; 153':15 2.5 110:7; 111:10 2.7 110:7; 112:4 2.8 110:7; 112:20; 168:17 20 1:11; 2:20; 4:2; 19:9; 117:1 200 70:10 200-foot 88:5; 157:12,18 202 198:20 203 42:4; 198:20 204 124:11; 198:20 20th 19:20;, 81:17 21166 61:19 23 144:23; 171:23,; 186:1 23rd 55:13,; 76:17,23; 81:1; 145.-6; 148:24; 161:1,11; 174:11,13,; 177:24 24 104:18; 110.'8; 186:1 243 35:13 25 110:21; 128:15 26 49:25 26th 50:2 270,000 37:24 27th 147:18; 180..6 3 21:10,12; 39:10; 73:12 3,000 36:2 3,110 42:13 3,127 129:21 3,145 56:14 3- 36:4 3-foot 93:25 3-foot-deep 93:19 3.4 168:17 3.7 121:20 34) 93:21,24; 102:25; 103:2,10,12, i4,20, 180:15; 196:4 31 39:14,21; 98:17 3100 21:13, 33 21:23; 22:23,; 128:16 ~ 37:3 379 110:7; 112:22 3800 37:8 39 52:4 3900 37:2,5 3rd 5:15; 7:16; 9:19,24; 10:12,13; 50:12; 214:1 4 21:10,12; 23:24; 64:19;, 117.9 4,000 56:5 4,es6 56.6 4,15:2 56:16 4,370 129:21 4,942 56:15 4-D 113:25 4.0 154:2 40 20:.16; 21:1; 40:.15; 42:5; 119:25; 120:2!3; 128:15 40-mit~tlte 117:4 42 40:10 42OO 37:3,5 4300 21:14 45 40:11 46 52..4 49 51:24 4965 131:4 4993 55:5 4th 50:4,9 5 64:19; 77:5; 152.6; 153:23; 162:14 5,000 90:11 5.0 63:23; 154:2 50 22:12; 94:24 50~7 127:19 53 42.-6 5th 163:1,20; 167:4; 0~2OD7 174:11 6 6 64:21; 152:11; 168.6 6,000 56:3' 6-foot-wide.at.the.botto 93'.2O 6.4 65:10, 168:11; 176:19 6.5 64:21; 155:15 60 56:17,18; 39'.24,25; 40:2,2; 105:24 65 200:16 66567 106:23 7 7 65:12; 138:18; 152:16; 155:15 7.0 65:7; 176:19 7.5 64:15; 83:18; 91:14; 154:5,20; 155:17,20;, 156.6 70 105:24 714 3.0 760 152:14 7.~0 12:12 ?'.20 2:1{~, 4:3 7:30 18:2 7th 17:4,18; 18:3 8 8 168:10 800 120.9 85,000 90:12 8902 99:1,2; 100:4 9 9 153:14 90 139:4 90,000 90:8 92025 124:11 92822-1059 3:10 97-11 1.6; 2:4; 16:14 990-0901 3.0 9th 20:18; 35:17; 41:16; 56:19; 153:21; 165:24; 180.6; 199:1 A a~l 2:19; 4:3 alm~dooed 190:19 ~ 121:13 ability 22:14 able 4:17; 72:21 75:2,4; 86:21; 90:16; 94:17; 108:12; 124:18; 145:4; 158:11; 159:4; 160:21; 166:24; 169:12; 172:18; 173:1; 181:22; 196:9; 21o:2 alm~ 25:21 above 34.6; 49:11; 67:1; 94.6; 140:9; 171:20 al~olutely 77:4; 215:13 ~ 12:5 al~sut-d 122:19 abuse 123:21; 202:16 M & M Certified Court Reporters D,,o-~S~ Index 1 Transcript of Proceedings abused 123:1 accented 188:16 198~ .~e 7:23; 196:16; accepting 216:4 access 20:23; 75:16; 138:9; 157:17; 180:22 accord 20:4 accordina 94:22; 103:10, 104:4; 130:7; 160:8 accordil~ 78:11 account 170:25; 201:11 accurately 25:6 ~],~i~g 205:4 admowiedge 107:24 ackn~vledging 18:18; 68:10 ~ 122~ a~ 179:5 ~~ 122:1 ~ 1~:18; 1~:23; 171:24 ~ 1~.0,10; 152:14; 171:21,21,23; 1~:1; 191:25 ~ 75:16; 1~:5; 116~ ~ 15:10; 1~:24; 1~:23; 11~:25; 114:2; 120:9,22; 121:~; 126:15; 1~:7; 1~:8; 215:14 ~ 197:11 ~ 17:23; ~:17; 79:22; ~:2; 81:24; ~:17; 102:2; 124:5; 1~:3; 185:19; 1~:2~; 212:22; 214:3; 215:25 ~ 215:17 ~ 197:2 ~fi~ 127:11; 197:17 ~ 195:15 ~ 217:13 ~ 7~:14; 14~:15; 147:11; 149:14; 152:8; 176:20 a~ ~:21 78:1~2 14:18; 45:2~; :8; 114:8; 1~5:2~ 1~7:11; 141:8; 181:8; 217~,12 ~ 2~:18 ~e 142:1 ~ ~:5; 16:4; ~:12; 207:1~ 218:17 ~ 119:15,17; 128:5; 211:19 ~ 1~:15 ~ 118:25 ~dt~g 165:2 ~amfi~ 22:20; 52:1; ~:21; 79:1; 97:5,25; 98~; 102:10; 103:12; 126:10 ~:11,11; ~:15; 61:10,25; 83:8; 125:14; 1~:18,19; 152:25; 15~:1; 1~:18,19,19; 165:2 ~fi~ 1~:16 ~ 14:17; 21:4; ~2:1; 34:11; 51:21; 103:21; 126:22,23; 155:19; 185:10; 189:10 ~d 76:3; 125:16; 1.71:1 addresses 21:21; 23:7,12,18; 212:1 addressing 197:5 adept 174:14 67:2ade~; 9~.. 27:7; 33:15; 5 ~ely ~0:7; 168:12 adhere 30.~; 136.0 ~5~..lC~t 23:15; 146:17; adopt 28:9, 216:19 98..a~1 ;e~!11 62:12; 96:7; 9:5; 120:1; 185:12,25 adoptioo 62:20, 98:24 advance 169:16 advantage 123:1 adverse 101:15; 125:16; 126:8 advice 50:17; 83:11; 186:11; 189:3 advise 29:14; 31:2,8; 183:12 advised 26:16; 124:17; 136:12 ~ 28:12 advisin~o 72:23; 78:18 advocate 182:1 aerial 70:17 aesthetic 25:25; 29:24 affects 171.~ ~ 168:19 afford 75:2 afraid 169:18 afterllootl 20:1; 27:12; 76:22; 89:3; 162:7; 185:7 ~ ..~td~ 211.'6 25:1,7; 30:2; 33:11; 53:21; 54:7,18; 57:2; 66:12; 73:22; 79:12; 81.'8; 86:10, 88:15; 97:17; 99:19,21,22; 100:10; 102:23; 103:24; 104:16; 111:13; 112:2,20;, 113:9, 118:1; 122:21; 134:11; 136.~,6; 149:23; 151:4; 156:10; 157:21; 158:24; 163:12; 166:13; 178:13; 181:7; 187:22; 190:9; 195:19, 201:20; 215.~,11; 216:1 algalllst 6.~; 104:1; 184:10 1~7..2cie8 62:1,5; 73:7; 1; 118.~,11,24; 123:8; 147:25; 172:2,4,5; 174:11; 176:16 1~9:1~c1~ 62:20; 69:2; 78:7; 1,12; 123.~; 148:3; 190:21,23,24 l~:20da 4:12; 14:10, ; 16:1; 17:1,11; 19:4 I~ 28:4; 29.~; 60:9; 181:7,14,15; 193:22; 201:4; 204:9,23; 205:1; 210:15; 216:15 agreed 172:18 l~e~t 75:15,22; 122:4; 162:15,17 ~~atS 75:19; 181:16; 182:16; 207:25 agriculture 102:11 ahead 11:24; 15:23; 24:20; 26:16; 31:11; 45:3,4; 74.~; 116:25 air 75:12,23; 141:21; 142:10, 160:23 9:2; 10:1,19; 11:23; 12:14,19; 14:11; 15:21; 16:2,6,8; 20:9; 24:18; 31:11,22; 44:9,17,24; 45:3; 47:5,8,10, 49:3; 52:12; 55:2; 71:11,15; 74:4,6; 86.0; 95:18; 104:24; 107:9; 108:15; 114:3,18; 115:4,19; 116:16,20,25; 127.~,17,20; 133:3; 140:24; 141:2; 158:15; 173:24; 180:12,25; 187:24; 188:20;, 189:5,9; 193.~,13,17; 194:10, 195:5; 198:13; 204:9, 206:21,25; 207.~,11,12,16; 208:8; 209:5; 210:1,14,18,20; 211:24; 214:2,25; 216:11,24; 217:2; 218:2,6,11,15 alike 133:10 50:12; 60:14; 75:14; 83:22; 100:9, 102:4; 130:7; 134:22,22; 137:7; 138:25; 141:1; 167:9 AIId~s 74:23 166~ 144:20, 152:23; ~!lel~Pao~ 63:12; 134:24; 136:23; 143.0; 162'~4; 169:19, 180:19, 183:15 aa~lle~11 58:3; 165:11 41:24; 143:14; 151:21; 152:4,9;, 154:9, 162:21; 164:4; 165:8; 182..8 allegedly 152:12; 169:4 ~ 144:5 · llow 78:2; 136:22; 137:20, 164:21; 173:13 · llowable 131:8 allowed 84:16; 103:11; 216.0 · llowtlMil 12:3; 78:7; 147:23; ~[69:19; 172:25 allo~$ 89:23; 177:17 ~ 73:3; 145:8,12,17; 146:2,11,18,25; 147:2; 161:15; 192:12 Iklkrrbm~ 88:21 almost 25:25; 64:22; 82:4; 83:7; 91:11; 106:4; 128:19; 141:10 alone 65.~; 119:17 al 26:14; 44:5; 80:23; 9~:1~; 103:17; 107:13; 108:23; 145:5; 171:20; 191:12; 192:2; 204:7 88:lah~o; 112~:~91;; 54.0; 86:12; 118:22; 120:15; 133:12; 137:23; 146:13; 149:8; 161:14; 180:16; 201:23; 203:16; 212:3; 216:7 alteratiotl 77.~,11; 162:15 ~ithough 76:23; 79:7; osrzoD7 91:4; 97:17; 115:7; 116:1,11; 119:13; 204:23 1~ 55:8; 56:8; 64:22; 142:2; 143:12; 182:18; 183:5 ~l 148:25 ~n~g 166:8 amlmsh 169:15 amenable 9:21 100:2,8; 107:3 ~- 'l.d~ents 98:25; 100:4 Amerlc~l 124:21; 126:14,22 Americans 164:12 ammutlitiom 121:18 aallO~g 86:23; 161:9 amongst 28:2 arnotrot 31:16; 34:14; 47:1; 59:16; 177:7 amounts 87:25 95:1a1~; 16 42:11; 67:19; 3:10, 168:12; 177:18 analyzed 42:4,12 amceatral 124:24; 125:2; 126:24; 127:3 Andreas 168:10,21 Andrew 141:5 ANGEL 6:8,8; 14:15; 15:7; 23:5; 72:16; 95:21,22; 105:2; 12~.9, 185:8,23; 186:13,22; 196:1 78..A~1 es 55:17; 59:21; angle 104:12 · mloying 173:19 ~ 20.~; 24:17; 41:1,6; 59:7; 85:4; 95:17; 140:23; 198:1 a~tictpated 72:7 Anto~lio 132:9,11 1..~..1 15:23; 47:11; 4; 69:17; 83:3; 95:19, 131:24; 138:4; 153.~; 175:17; 177:22; 205:5 amybody's 11:17 ~mytme 5:12; 6:5; 7:14; 10:25; 11:16; 12:5; 15:12; 31:25; 56:23; 170.0; 171:7; 201:15 a~l~ 80:11 :ly:27:23; 38:4; 2; 68:14; 88:4; 141:23; 163:5; 164:14; 190:13; 198:17 ~00 :~r 105:14; 197:19; anywhere 191:8 allart 151:5 1~..27o11~__e 11:11; 16:24; 18:23; 32:12; 39:5; 138:25; 142:14; 143:19,21; 158:19; 173:18 al~are~ltlv 77:7; 142.0; 1~?:14; 159:8,18; 164:3; 195:17 Appeal 1:5; 2:5; 16:13; 20:21,23; 59:15; 188:4; 212:5,16 appealed 211:5 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~M~S~ Index 2 Transcript of Proceedings appea!~ 38:20 tqapeais 20:20; 24:12 appear 146:17; 188:5 appe~aea~ee 23:16 APPF2kRANC~-~ 3:1 app e- r~d 170:20 1~ ~:19; 173:7; l~t 16:19; ~:20; 2~~ 27:2; 37:7; ~e-t~ 92:16 ~ 45:25,25; 1~:25 ~~e 110:1; 1~:4 ~~t 6:21; 16:18 ~~'S 1~:20 2~~ 20:15,17; 24:~ ~7:8; ~:10; 185:20; 198:3 ~~ ~:22; 37:1,5 ~ 1~:3; 1~:14 ~ 1~:21 2~ 37:25; 1~:17; ~ 183:25 ~ 32:10,10, ~e 4:16; 5:2; ~5:2; 19~; 24:25; 121:21; 122:7; 161:10,24; 202:22; 2~:10; 207:1~ ,2~; 145:1~ 1~:2; 1~:1~ 1~,10; 182:20; 183:18; 185:21; 1~:15; 197:13; ~5:1~,18; 2~:4,25; 210:12; 213:23; 216:18; 218:4 appro,~ 135:12 ~,~ 85:22; 1~:20; appr~ 20:1~,17; 21:~; 2~0; 25:20; ~:10,11; 3~:19,21; 34:9,23; 37:1,5; ~:19; 39:14,16; ~:19; 42:2; 43:8,19,25; 5~:14; ~:16,17; 58:4; ~:2; ~:20, 85:12; ~:15; ~:10,24; 1~:13; 105:14; 1~:25; 118:9,23; 119:3; 120:15; 123:16; 133:25; 1~:16; 147:15,15,22; 1~:12,16,21; 1~:12; 187:2; 197:11; 2~:17 appro,~ 115:17 ~e 20:12; ~:13 ~e~ 21:24; 22~1; 42:13; 43:14; 70:9; 94:20,21; 152:14; 1~:17 ~:~ ~:4,9,12; 1~5:17; ~t~ 45:16 ~h~~ ~25:~0 ~~ 125:7; 127:14 ~tm 1~ 1:4 ghil~ 25:8 ~ 4:9; 47:~; 49:1; 65:22; ~:8; 70~; 72:25; 74:25; ~:16; 87:3,17,20; 88:15,16,22; 89:1; 90:19;, 94:5,8,14,18,18; 95:3; 96:23; 97:2,7,18; 98:7; 99:13; 105:20;, 109.~, 111:7; 112:1,9,24; 113:19; 116:4,10,12; 117:11,15,16,23; 118:10;, 119:18; 125:17; 127:9; 130:3; 140:9; 144:22; 145:17; 146:5,8,22; 151:12; 152:13; 155:13; 167:15; 171:19,24; 177:5,5; 179:4; 185:21,22; 186:1; 192:1; 197:18 areas 45:17; 77:25; 94:22,22,23,25; 101:15; 110:12; 111:9; 117:8; 1183,22; 119:4; 120:3,14; 146:17; 162:23; 185:19;, 199:21; 206:17 aren't 66:5; 80:11; 138:12 ~ 164:21 argue 29:1; 142:3,5; 193:7 at~!od 182:8; 1933 __at~?mealt 11:3; 71:14; 857-6; 88:5; 114:22; 150:3; 181:9; 187:17; 193:17; 199:9, 200:17 20a~..~ealt~ 78:16; 123:9;, arlsg 29:3; 123.~ ~_rmy 63:22,25; 64:3; 65:8; 68:1,20; 69:1; 71:19;, 72:5,6; 81:14; 125:8; 153:25; 154:11; 166:17; 168:19; 175:4; 176:17,25; 177:3 arose 167:10 arolmd 11:5; 12:2; 35:15; 37:21; 77:16; 83:18; 107:25; 113:1; 15~.5 Arrow 32:4 article 155:23; 156:2; 165:12 articulate 144:10 articulated 173:21 aside 59:20;, 110:11 ask 6:3; 11:15; 24:22,23; 31:17,21; 44:17; 84:7; 86:5,9; 104:25; 105:9; 113:23; 114:4; 126:19; 127:2; 160:3,8; 173:13; 191:2; 193:13 asked 16:19; 17:8; 52:7,8; 86:18; 94:2; 96:13; 112:10; 114:18; 1313; 145:10; 153:9; 167:23; 169:24; 172:13; 204:10 __ _asdr~l~ng_ 12:22; 13:13; 53:20;, 72:25; 83:1; 85:24,25; 151:7; 152:24; 155:9, 161D; 166:2; 188:2 aspect 37:10; 383 aspects 198:8 a~e~st~g 120:11 asseasme~t 91:1 assistant 159:4,15 associate 46:3; 180:1 associated 23:4; 136:14; 147:14 Associates 75:7 ?~latton 38:19; 493,10; 50:7,11; 513,20; 52:9;,- 127:24; 203:13 assoclatio~'s 50:17 aasoclatiotm 135:14 aasume 16:1; 92:4; 149:2; 1533; 172:16 a~sm~ed 100:16 ~'~-~m~g 4:24; 191:21 aasurnnce~ 126:12,12,17 a~ure 19:13; 59:13; 164:14 ?lw_hed175:17 64:16,25; 68:5; 87:7 Ater'~hment 147:17 attack 60:5; 174:1 attain 50:19 _ .~attr~l.~ t 86:11; 141:13; 149:1; 173:16 ~ 141:19 attend 14:21; 50:4,9,16; 124:18 '~t~'_-' 38:21; 40:3; 198:25 attention 39.'9;, 54:13; 108:19;, 121:19;, 147:17; 166:15 ~e~ 3:9; 6:21; 7:18; 12:16; 17:22; 24:23; 31:12; 50:22; 52:16; 61:14; 78:11; 79:21; 81:22; 99:19,23; 124.~; 1~6:12,20, 139:16; 166:11; 183:10;, 189:3,4 attoene~s 59:17 121:1a~~6; 348:11,17; 78:15; ~ 142:1; 178:3; 188:22 audience 6:4,6; 1603 13..Au~9, I 1:11; 2:20, 4:2; 7:4,18; 18:2; 19:7; 52:24; 53:7; 77:5; 81:17; 135:18; 139:3; 138:10, 161:7; 162:14; 163:1,20, 166:18; 167:3,4; 174:11; 175:5; 192:20, 193:12 authofll~lv~y 28:17 authority 74:14; 75:19, 85:20 automated 56:10 aut¢ ~eleally 217:13 ~v~llable 25:11; 56:15; 62:19, 67:7; 91:17; 95:3; 127:14; 155:22; 180:24; 187:5,6 Ave~lue 96:21; 97:11; 103:7; 124:11 179:av~e2 36:16; 129:23; avoid 79:19; 184:7 aware 40:9, 119:10, 131:16,16; 142:21; 143:9, 190:20, 193:14 amarene~ 38:7; 40:21 l~a~..; 9:19; 13:3; 122:12; 1793; 191:11 ~w£~y 207:24 B b~. 69:24 I:mck 5:14; 14:19; 15:24; 20:14; 27:17; 32:20, 33:17,17; 38:15,23; 48:4,17; 54:14; 57:14,17; 58:24; 08/20~7 59:2; 68:9; 69:21; 70:25; 77:10, 85:21; 87:8; 96:15,18; 98:17; 99:9,24; 100:10, 102:5; 105:20,24,25; 107:24; 108:2; 117:5; 128:13,21; 134:8; 135:4; 137:19,25; 145:3,18,23; 147:4,13,21; 148.x);, 149:3,12; 153:12; 154:21,22; 155:3,8; 156:5,24; 157:13; 160:20, 163:4; 177:14; 186:4; 187:1; 1933; 196:15,16; 197:7; 198:2; 199:20, 201:21; 205:8,17; 208:11; 210:22; 211:1,15,21,23; 213.~,12,21; 214:1,10,23; 215:5; 216:21 Imckyard 56:4; 65:25 bad 60:25; 85:5; 200:18 balance 43:18 [~12246:15'19 135:16 :1 I~lkrupted 134:2 ~ 99:5; 100:5 barrels 45:22; 132:7 Bavfllel 52:14 Ilaae 176:18 Imsed 30:24; 35:23; 40:18; 68:17,22; 76:19, 78:10, 91:15; 92:1; 102:20, 151:17; 154:1; 168:18; 182:12,15,20, 184:12; 185:2; 191:22 Baseline 116:8 I~sic 105:19 basically 44:5; 96:1; 106:1; 116:7; 142:21; 171:15; 186:7; 1943'6,17; 200:4 ~ 18:7,12; 44:1; 46:12; 603'6; 63:23; 64:4,14,18; 65:10, 66:23; 67:8,9,12,13; 68:2,3; 70:7; 71.'9,23,24; 72.'9; 83:24,24; 88:16; 90:7; 91:11,21; 92:2,4; 943'6,9,21; 95:9; 125:11; 140:1,13; 146:8,21; 153:24; 157:7,8,10,22; 158:4; 159:23; 167:5,6,11,13,19, 168:4,9,14,20; 170:19,22; 171:2,16,22; 176:24; 177:1,6; 195:13 ~ 194:21 ~ 91:20,23; 167:17 baSiS 29:4; 62:5; 75:20, 86:21; 150:20; 152:22; 156:23; 163:5; 166.'9; 197:7; 202:16; 209:18 battle 66:14; 76:13 bpteli~g 81:2 _ ..bea~l__g 70:13; 145:25; 164:18; 190:1 beat 68:25 beamtiful 60:10; 79:1; 129:1 beauty 47:3 betatHe 44:4; 187:5 becotne 108:8; 146:12 beconles 62:19 bed 46:15; 104:3; 162:14 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~po-M~ Index 3 Transcript of Procccdings bedrock 65:24 bedroom 131:7 began 107:20; 131:21 begin 107:23; 141:11 nirllg 2:18; 51:10 2:16; 6:10: 10:16; 86:18; 153:22; 183:7 behavior 122:24; 169:18 b~_htnd 21:9; 22:12,16; 80:10; 82:25 belabor 7:13; 129:20 believe 14:15,19; 25:18; 32:21; 33:5; 35:3,5; 37:20; 40:7; 41:7; 61:13; 68:22; 75:18; 78:18; 87:7; 88:14; 92:25; 93:10; 99:1,11; 108:21; 109:19,22; 110:3; 112:8,13,20; 118:2; 119:2,14; 122:18; 139:13; 140:17; 143:25; 144:1; 145:7; 149:7,10,15; 151:11; 152:17; 153:16,22; 158:7,12; 159:10; 160:12; 161:20,24; 163.~,7,20; 164:22; 165:15; 169:17,20; 170:10; 172:3; 175:19; 178:7; 179:17; 188:11,15; 192:14 believed 149:3 belollg 200:20 belongs 200:19 below 22:4,10,11; 87:14; 90:21; 94.~ beneath 59:24; 84:8,9 beliefits 108:5 B~m~y 200:9 Berllardino 109:24; 116~; 117:15; 118:7; 123:4; 125:22; 151:25; 153:1; 154:24; 155:7 besides 187:24 best 30:3; 32:8; 59:12; 82:21; 92:23; 93:4; 94:11; 100:18; 135:7; 142:12,16; 143:5; 144:13; 155:22; 173:11; 201:16; 213:15 better 91:18; 158:2; 199:11 betterment 188:16 beyond 26:17 BIANE 3:4; 5:8; 11:10; 12:15; 28:19; 44:11; 196:1,22; 199:9; 207:11; 210:19; 211:19,25; 212:11; 215:3,16; 217:3,25; 218:5 6b~:2 19:8; 58:15; 65:13,24; 3; 69:11; 79:7; 82:8,13; 84:23; 85:13; 93:22; 100:24; 122:10; 179:5; 203:3 bigger 202:19,20 biggest 36:4 Bill 6:8; 11:21; 23:5; 31:20; 60:20; 72:15; 95:22; 121:1; 185:8,23; 186:13,22; 196:1; 209:11 biological 56:25; 108:22; 109:5; 147:14; 175:25 biologist 146:14; 151:10,15; 152:2; 153:9 bird 153:4 birm 92:12,23 bit 8:16; 9:15; 14:19; 31:15; 44:13; 70:21; 96:14,25; 104:22; 143:3; 155:1; 169:11; 181:24 black 88:23 blab. 8:20,20,20 blame 156:19 blamed 202:4,5 blank 66:9 blatantly 135:11 blond 112:1 blue 70:17,23; 74:13; 77.~; 85:16; 88:20;, 102:19; 103:18; 196:8; 197:1; 212:25 Blueprint 97:8 board 10:4; 33:18; 45:1~ ~0:9,10,11,14; 51.~; 52:2,3,3; 54:18; 72:23,24; 78:13,15; 8~:4; 107:17; 155:7; 158:22,24; 159:7,11,14; 174:16; 205:9 boards ~0:24; 159.~ Bob 49:12,19; 167:4 body 122:21; 210:1 bombarded 105:5 book 70:17; 74:13; 203:3 bo~ler 43:13; 98:18 boss 174:19 bother 112:5 bottom 17:1; 90:4; 146:23; 185:11 65:23; 131:15,19 131:1 boulders 87:24; 94:8 Bouimmrd 132:8 bounce 12:1 bound 11M:24 boundaries 125:22 bo~ 106:1; 109;4; 129;1~, 188:5 bc~es 57:3; 106:3 Brad 185:5,8; 186:10,18; 187:24 BRADFORD 7:17,17,25; 52:13,13,14; 53.~,11 br~mch 166:17 Brea 3:10 breach 70:10; 88:2,5 breached 157:13 break 44:18,25; 64:19,22,22; 74:3; 116:15,17,2~ 117:2,4; 188:23 breaks 21.~ b~_l~ge8 28:13 7:5; 101:4; 133.~; 204:10 bri 150:25; 1710:1~; 148:23; 172:1 betefts 175:10 37:~1; 14:12; 15:21; ~6:7; 87:10; 102:15; 105:4; 106:8; 108:3,19; 121:4,19; 142:11; 193:14; 205:17; 211:1,14; 213:9,12,16,21,25; 214:23; 216:21 194:t1~g 32:12; 15:7; broad 135:10 Brock 57:15; 100:20;, 108:25 __btx~ .t 10:19; 14:11; ~0:12; 44:7; 54:10,12; 101:11; 105:8,9; 108:3; 111:8; 119:8; 133:23; 160:2; 186:10;, 188:1 BROWN 179:24; 180:1,1; 202:19,20 bllbble-like 185:14 lindget 208:12 build 45:13,18; 92:1,2,3; 96:1; 106:11; 187:9 ~ 45:12; 95:24; 96:7 Imilders 46:4 I~,ibll~ 34:20,20;, 35:8,23; B4:22; 95:25; I03~; 104:5,7; 131:3,4,24; 175:1; 177..6 b~,lltll~ 188:17 builds 59:25; 89:22 built 37:9; 38:5; 43:4; 45:14,16; 63:22,23; 68:12; 84:14; 85:13; 100:11; 157:5; 195:12 bulk 23:10 BUI.I.!~R 186:21; 188:8; 196:11; 197:7; 198:1; 212:21 Bulletin 179:17 bunch 142:9 ~ 177:23 bureaucrat 69:5 butqal 127:7 buses 46:22 bu~itle~ 32:17; 131:2; 215:21 but 6:22; 7:10,13; 8:23; 11:8,11,17; 12:8; 13:4; 14:17; 18:25; 20:2; 23.~; 25:22; 27:22; 28:14; 29:12; ~0:3; 31:1,17; 32:12,21; 33:14; 36:22; 38:2; 39;5; 45:5,15; 47:18; 48.~; 54:7; 56:10; 57:20; 59:1; 60:17; 63:16; 67:5; 70:5; 75:22; 81:25; 82:19; 86:5; 87.~,9; 88:21; 89:21; 91:24; 93:1; 94:22; 97:23; 99:16,23,25; 101:1,3; 105:5; 106:8,16,20,21; 108:18; 110:21; 115:2; 119:9; 120:22,25; 123:12; 124:19; 127:13; 128:6,23; 129:3,11; 132:1,4,25; 134:8; 142:3,18; 145:25; 152:17; 153:5; 155:7; 156:22; 157:20; 159:8,21; 162:24; 163:7,11; 164:13; 165:4; 166:3,12; 170:5; 171:8; 173:4; 174:22; 177:12; 178:14; 186:7; 187:22; 190:9,11; 194:17; 197:2,18,23; 198:10; 200:8,14,20,24; 201:2,13,15,23; 202:20;, 203:5,9,18,21; 204:5,17; 205:7,25; 212:16; 213:13; 215:1,23,25 1~1~.. 60:2; 75:4; 94:12; 17; 139:23 buyer 150:5 by 1:12; 3:4; 6:20; 9:8; 08/20/~ 12:16,23; 13:12,19, 17:4,7; 20:13,17; 23:5; 24:10; 27:1; 29:5,5,6; ~0:13; 32:10; 34.'9,10,15; 36:8; 37:1; 39:22; 40:1; 43:8; 46:4,15,22; 54:8,13,14; 55:8; 56:18; 7~:12; 76:3,21; 87:25; 90:3; 92:9; 93:12,19;, 98.-6; 99:7; 114:24; 115:14; 116:4; 117:16; 121:13; 122:12; 128:5; 1~0:4; 133:21; 134:24; 1~:12; 139:18,19; 140:.14; 142:24; 143:10; 144:21; 145:8; 148.'6; 149:25; 150:20,21; 153:22; 155:23; 157:1,7; 158:12,23; 159:1,22; 161:15; 162:13; 164:11,24; 166:18,20; 169:14,15; 170:14; 171:1; 172:2; 173:12,15; 177:21; 181:18,20,25; 183:1,23,25,25; 184:24; 185:19; 186:13,15; 187:2; 188..9; 190:22,24; 191:10; 192:1,4,4; 195:13; 196:11,20,21; 198:1,4; 199:4; 201:2; 210:15; 212.~,18; 216:4 c cabin 46:15 Cable 56.~; 66:7,8; 105:18 calo,l~hlg 71:20 ealc!11~ttOI! 189:25 calculatiolls 191:8,18,20; 192:25; 195:21 calendar 14:22 Califol~nim 1:10; 2:18; 3:10; 4:1; 18:8; 38:2; 56:2; 63:5; 64:12; 65:21; 75:8; 76:15; 82:13; 86:15,22; 95:3; 109:1; 113:20; 114:1; 118:8,21; 119:20,25; 120.~,10;, 121:17; 123:5; 124.'9,11; 141.~; 149:2~ 174:23 call 14:24; 41:20; 82:18; 95:11; 120:12; 151:9; 167:1,3; 173:25; 196:25; 206:19 called 17:22; 51:4; 92:9; 97.~ can't 14:16; 25.~; 41.~; 58:2; 61:13; 69.~; 83:19; 85:5,9; 86:5; 91:23; 115:2; 183:19; 189:22; 194:23; 209:22; 211:10; 214:8; 215:13,16 cancelled 50:13 cancer 82:14 _ _c~n _yma 46:17,23,24; 131:1; 192:11 canyons 113.'6,8 capable 92:5 1c~:7 ty 42:17; 94:23; care 27:7; 66:16; 90:4; 128:20; 197:17; 200:9 careful 36:21; 134:3 carried 16:4; 21:20 carrots 122:17,20 M & M Certified Court Reporters cwo-u,~, Index 4 Transcript of Proceedings C~ 12:1; 90:17 cars 42:12; 160:19 e~s' 42:15 e~se 54:12; 58:10,16,23; 59.~,19; 63:22; 79:25; 80:3,19; 81:25; 83:16; 107:4; 148:21; 167:16; 169:15; 172:6; 179:23; 183:17; 190:3; 195:11; 216:12 caae$ 79:7; 153:12; 186:25 catch 135:3 cathedral 130:2 caught 43:2 cause 41:25; 64:20; 167:15; 176:16; 189.~ causes 184:2 ¢m=qi~ 13:10 CCacR 40:12 CC&R$ 40:9; 55:15 celli~lp 130:2 Cellte~ 2:17; 3:18; 63:5; 64:12; 65:21; 147:7; 174:24; 192:11 central 117:13 cents 176:3 .CE_A~_ .~ 61:8,15,15,25; 62:3; 74:1;{; 82:9; 85:19; 109:25; 114:11; 115:1; 144.x); 162:3; 164:4; 182:14; 184:20; 205:21; 206:1,22; 207:17; 209:1,20; 210:24; 211:3,11; 216:16 CEQA'$ 148:13 cegemolltal 125:5 cegtatll 24:24,25; 190:11; 213:18 120:1{~~5; 2 7:11; 47:8; 1:4; 130:17; 142:13; 146:24; 159:24; 175:19; 183:11; 203:23; 205:5,12; 212:17 cerfifi-~io~ 68:21,21 termed 25:3; 61:23; 62:10; 64:4 t~YOk 109:25 cetera 122:2; 156:3 chair 16:11 Ch~irm~r~ 9:3 ehallellge 86:5; 115:12 eh~llellged 183:17 challenging 57.~; 75:21 eh~t~ce 159:3; 162:19; 164:7; 165:15; 172:6; 195:24; 214:16; 215:9 chalices 168:17 134c~:1 ~ 29:15; 73:21; 166:9,12; 175:3; 178:8; 187:8; 197:19; 205:13; 209:13,13; 211:16 eh~ge~d 14:15,22; 15:5; 42:23; 54:16; 56:14; 57:11,12,23; 61:4,17; 62:24; 63:1; 67:3,23; 71:17,19,21; 73:4; 74:17,21; 75:1; 76:2,14,19; 83:17,18; 85:8,19; 86:6; 88:9; 91:4,8,24; 92:7; 95:6,8; 100:24; 114:11; 124:4; 133:15,19; 134:5; 147:1; 160:22; 163:8,9; 171:17; 177:10,14; 182:6; 184:21; 185:2; 206:4; 208:3 62:~ 33:12; 42:20; Chattel 44:1; 67:20; 90:17; 92:12,23; 93:1~ 11,18,20,25; 97:22; 140:2,5,8,12,15; 146:8,21; 153:24; 157:8,9,10; 158:4; 170:20,21,22; 171:16; 191:10,21; 195:9,10,11,13 ~h~n~el8 98:13; 112:22; 113:1,8; 192:1 cllatltle18, 111:17 t~haparral 148:20 ~ 111:17,19, 113.~ ~erizatioo 149:1; 159:1; 160.~ cllara~t~ 161:25 ~ 141:22; 161:3 cha~ 35:3; 36:1,10; 129:23 chsr~ 35:3,6,20 chase 156:13 cheap 175:18 check-off 207:23 checked 34:16; 36:25; 57:3; 109.~ Cherllobyl 85:12,14 Chief 124:12,13; 125:1; 126:5,10,20; 149:5; 161:8; 162:8; 166:19, 168:1,22; 200:9 children 59:23; 74:25; 75:4,11; 84:9 ch~ 122:12 76:12; 80:14 choose 76:12; 217:10 chooses 130:5 clll~oololgy 180:5,10 Circle 3.0 cil~ ,Iofio~ 176:8 clr~ unqtsnce 67:3; 71:21; 76:14; 83:18; 100:24; 114:12; 177:11; 182.~; 206:4 clro!msta~ee$ 14:16,23; 27:3; 29:25; 54:16; 56:14; 57:12,23; 61:5,17; 62:18,25; 63:1; 67:24; 71:17; 73:4; 74:17; 76:20; 83:17; 85:9,20; 86.~; 124:4; 133:15,19; 134:5; 160:22; 163:8,9; 175:18; 177:14; 184:21; 208:3 circus 141:23 CAries 82:13; 117:23; 118:7; 119:13; 121:12; 147:21; 203:4 clttzea% 167:9 eltizea~ 83:1; 85:19; 108:8 CITY 1:1; 2:1,16,17;. 3:7,13,5; 7:19; 12:16; 13:19; 15:10,16; 16:4; 17:4,23; 19:20; 24:23; 28:4; 31:12; 32:3,15,19,23; 33:8; 35:24; 37:1,8; 34~:21; 40:3; 47:13,22; 48:2,12; 50:1; 51:16,21; 52:19,23,23; 53:4,6,6,24; 54:13,15; 56:5,13; 57:13; 58:10; 61:14; 66:19,21; 68:9; 69:10,22; 72:23; 73:6,23; 76:18; 78:11,18; 79:20,21,21; 81:21,22; 82:10,23; 83.'6,7; 84:19,25; 93:1; 95:25; 96:3,20; 97:11; 98:3,23; 99:25; 100:25; 101:5,17,20; 103:5; 107:2,20; 108:11; 109:22; 110:3,16,19; 112:10,13,16,23; 113:7,14,23; 115:11,16; 116:1,2,11; 117:7,20,22; 118:18; 121:5,5; 122:3,7; 123.'6,7,13,17,25; 132:24; 133:18,21; 134:2,11,17; 135:8; 136:10,12; 138:3,5,7,20; 144:22; 145.'6; 147:13,24,25; 148:7,8,10; 149:3,12; 151:5; 156:11; 158:10,24; 160:3; 167:2; 169:1; 175:19, 178:23; 180:2,7; 183.'9;, 185:11,20; 186:23; 187:3; 189:2,19; 193:11; 194:15,24; 200:3,4; 201:14,15; 202:8; 207:10; 216:5,5; 218:17 98C~.. ,S 93:12; 96:5,17,20; 16; 99:i; 109:21; 112:15; 114:15; 122:23; 135:24; 140:20 Civic 2:17; 3.'~ Civil 81:24 claim 79.~; 93:21; 209:20 e!~l~ne~ 27:1 c!~ 70:8; 76:10 Claremomt 45:16 vl~qfiOtiOll 28:20; 44:12; 141:14; 149:18; 152:25; 161.~; 165:22 ~lm'ifiG~10~ 76:24 clarified 166:3 cl~ 2~.5 115C~.~; l~:,l~0;;, 17:17; 52.~; 150:19, 155:11 clem~ 72:10 clear 44:13; 47:20; 80:16; 98.~,20; 139:1; 157:2; 174:2; 175:16; 180:16 d~ala-~ 189:21 ~i23:~2; 25:5; 28:22; 97:19; 185:14; 187:17 clerical 32:24 Clerk 3:5; 16:4; 47:13,22; 48:2,12; 138:3,5,7,20; 165:19; 207:10; 218:17 clie~lt 143:2; 183:10 clients 59:21; 80i12; 183:7 ~e 113:7 clo~e 7:19; 58:3,23; 59:1; 64:17; 81:11,11,18; 82:17; 84:15,23; 89:17; 99:15; 114.~; 172:21,23; 173:2,11; 176:15; 178:12 do~e-up 97:1 do~'d 132:8; 155:17; 172:12; 181:2; 188:21 do~.ly 55:15 doser 11:4; 22:1; 85:23 dosing 48:15; 83:14; 85:12; 123:24; 139:15 coa81~ 117:14; 122:8 08/20D7 cobbles 94:8 co~ 26:11,18; 27:25; 110:2; 124:2 e~ 135:24; 136:10; 1 40:20 cofounder 107:18 coile~ 199:23 co~ 171:19 colo~ 88:24 Coloe~ 95:2 colored 96:23 co~' ~lom 171:7 cOtiles 11:5; 12.~; 84:24; 88:24; 94:10; 120:8; 181:13; 200:14; 209:16; 211.~ cot~fortable 12:3 25:~5:13; 10:7; 12:4; :20; 48:17; 55:11; 90:7,9,15; 97:22; 107:2; 114:13; 132:7; 209:17 eo~enc~ 16:16 co~mend 32:15; 33:1 comment 24:13; 35:10; 130:19; 185:5; 186:21; 208:22; 215:19,24 comments 109:13; 115:8; 170.~; 176:9; 208:23; 216:1 C_A~nmiMIola 13:19,24; 20:14,18; 22:18; 24.~,10; 25:15; 27:5,11; 28:5; 30:14,25; 33:7; 34:10; 35:3,18; 38:22; 39:12; 40:4,24; 41:11; 42:20; 54:18; 75:9; 100:13; 103:9, 105:1; 108:13; 129:14; 133:22; 135:23; 136:5,8; 139:18,23; 144:3; 147:9,18; 154~.9, 175:10; 178:7,8; 184:18,25; 186:16; 187:14,16,19,23; 188:10; 197:11; 198:22; 199:1,7,8; 204:19; 208:25; 210:16; 212:23; 216:16,18; 217:13,15 Corem i-~i.O~l'$ 20:19; 204:8; 205:20; 208:18; 210:11; 213:22,24; 218:8 commi~$1omer 32:19; 19~.9,24; 205:22; 206:7,13,22; 207:3; 210:8 Commi~io~ers 56:19 COmmi-~$io~$ 169:1 commitment 17:5,25; 200.~ committee 24.~; 34:9; 135:22; 179:7; 198:4 Cornmen 193:19 CO~m,~fit~ed 173:15 COmmnfiities 89:8; 124:22 __C _~_ __u~ty~ 34:13,14; 37:11; 38.~; 43:7,7; 46:4,6,10; 48:25; 55:22; 99:3; 107:24; 108:1,10; 109:3; 110:21; 111:22; 113:17,24; 123:23; 133:11; 144:24,24; 145:22; 146:3; 147:2; 158:14; 160:16; 199:18; 200:21 C_~lXll!lulli~ty~_ S 109:23; 115:25; 126:22 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~M~ Index 5 Transcript of Proceedings coml[u~2tea 198:10,11 198~0o 197:23,24; 93:2;C-,om~97..~ 49:5,18,21; corn 35:20; 46:5; 170: t 8~ire compared 35:7; 140:4,5,9 comparing 170:20 ct,~l~glsol~ 26:3; 92:1£,16,18; 148:15; 156:25 corn bilit~ 26:4,4. 27:1t ;~341:12; 37:11; ~8:7 27:16; 28:3; 43:7; 60:13; 100:19; 109:20; 200:15 compel 148:7; 199..6 Compe!llfi~o 199:9 5C~.. 1 ~O~ 7:18; complain 56:8 COI!11~t~inl~g 8:18; 66:7 ~complete 34:2; 61:24; 62:1 [; 138:4 completed 76:9 completely 195:22 com.~lex 8:22; 201:11 complia~ce 33:10; 34:2; 77:12; 110:5,6; 123:21 complies 22:23; 24:7 198..co~ 78:3; 126:13,18; coml~-..i-~e 213:19 comprc-*~i~d 128:16 coil 217:10 coocept 148:15 concerto 10:18; 21:18; 26:2,15; 122:9; 139:5; 156:18; 165:13; 166:14 coocet~ed 9:13; 27:9, 28:15; 93:4; 133:17; 156:20,22; 163:15; 170:13; 186:9; 191:19; 194:14; 205:3 coocet~i~g 29:19; 124:20 concertos 20:22,22; 25:24; 28:1; 37:25; 54:19; 108:2; 113:13,22; 123:2; 124:20; 126:23; 128:11; 132:23,25; 137:15; 148:2; 167:11 conclude 24:15; 189:24 coocluded 71:3,24; 77:11; 159:11 cotlcludes 174:25; 195:25 cotlclusioo 66:11; 155:21; 159:14,17; 169:18; 193:1 co~clusloos 63:17 coo~ 159:22 coocrete 93:20 cotlcur 28:7,10; 101:7; 214:24 cootufTed 187:23 coocurt-e~ce 217:14 coocurs 90:25; 149:16; 213:23 conditio~ 21:19,22; 22:19,22,25; 23:14; 91:4,8; 92:7; 95.~; 103:7; 171:17; 208:16 condttiooed 30:7 comtditiofis 21:15; 26:1; 88:9; 95:8; 167:12; 168:13; 208:19 conancted 61:20 confidence 135:5 coofideot 43:3,6 coofirm 186:14 coofirmed 91:12; 161:17 confiemin~o 17:19 co~fiems 122:24 ~co~lict 14:1; 24:2; 53:22 cotlfofm 104:13; 185:22; 186:4 cooformed 184:22 coofused 8:16; 12:21; 13:8 c0tzfu~l8 13:1; 14:2 collgu81oll 13:10 cotlgre~ 120:25; 121:18 cotl~-xlure 156:23; 171:5 CONlqlE 1:13; 2:20 coosequence 88:7 conservation 10:3; 79:15; 101:21; 107:16; 109:23,24; 113:24,25; 115:24,25; 116:3; 117.~,17; 118:17; 119:20; 121:20,23,24; 122:12,14,16; 147:8; 148:11; 179:5 ~x~t~der 5:2; 7:1; 66:22; 68.~,18; 74:16; 86.~,7; 95:13; 110:4,5; 115:11; 121:14,16; 133:1; 170:25 coosiderably 64:24; 65:5 73:1; 91:6; 134:19, 175:2; 177:16; 187:23 cotlsideratio~s 26:2; 72:15; 167:25 coo~l? ~red 18:19, 22.~,21; 39:3; 53:15; 61:18; 73:5; 78:19; 145:22,24; 160:21; 167:12; 173:5; 188:9, 196:11,20 cooeadertfig 62:1; 92:21; 177:23 co~d~ rs 93:2 consistency 73:15 consistent 33:19,20, 34:25; 43.~; 98:20; 99:18; 101:22; 107:1; 110:9; 111:14; 112:3; 113:1,3; 188:13; 197:12 consistently 186:15 cotlsof~m 203:12 coospire 121:22 cotlstituency 216:23 construct 35:22; 154:24 cot~structed 43:25; 45:21; 78:25; 157:9; 190:7 construction 39:17; 40:15; 71:4; 75:13; 146:7,20; 157:7,9 collstructs 189:18 cotlsultant 69:16; 139:19 co~sultant'$ 153:10 consultants 69:19; 92:9; 158:9; 174:5; 176:7 col~sultlllg 188:23 contact 19:1,2; 49:17; 51:1,11; 180:10 cootacted 6:20; 17:7; 18:16; 49:12,15; 73:7; 154:16; 164:3 colltacts 111:7; 180.~ c~mte~d 106:12 ~text 110:25 cootttlgeficies 213:14 CO~til~U~lce 4:7; 6:9,23,25; 7:4,8,10, 8:2; 9:8,13; 10:20;, 12:17,23; 13:13; 15:11,13,19; 16:20,21; 17:3,9,11; 18:3,5,17,18; 20:4,8; 169:24; 172:13; 175:15,16 cootinue 4:10,11,20; 5:2; 6:3,16,18; 7:15; 9:12; 10:21; 11:24; 12:11; 13:4; 14:4,6; 45:4; 59:4; 74:7; 81:9; 90:5; 111:16; 116:25; 149:17; 158:20; 160:14; 162:9; 172:10, 173:13; 195:7 co~tir~ued 8:19; 15:9, 18:1; 41:8; 152:14 continues 101:22; 111:10, 150:10 co~ti~i~o 4:12; 161:11 cotltour 33:14; 34:7 co,toured 196:13 cootours 103:13; 197:8 cootracted 117:25 cootractor 131:23 c0~traty 51:22; 63:9, 74:18 cotltrl!~o 202:4 Control 43:~1,21; 44:2; 64:5; 72:23; 90:23; 97:3,22; 98:10,11; 99:2,2,4; 102:9;, 121:10; 146:21; 158:22; 186:24; 187:4,9,12 cootry!limbo 87:17; 140:13 cootrols 140:14 oc_ '-o,,.-~y 105:11 c0~~ 14:18; 49:19; 151:18; 167:7; 217:8 co~o~s 167:8 cotl~ce 72:17 cotlv~ced 5:20; 191:13; 201:5 lCO8~:~ 138.~,8; 161.~; Coplin; 168:22 137:22; 143:2; 147:10; 148:25; 154:23; 156:2; 159:2; 169:15 core 189:17 cor~er 42:8; 44:5; 99:5; 105:23 corporation 134:16 65..Co.. ;~; 6843:25; 63:22; 64:3; :1,20; 69:1; 71:19; 72:5,6; 81:14; 125:8; 153:25; 154:11; 166:17; 167:23; 168:19, 175:4; 176:17,25 Corps' 63:25; 168:3; 177:3 correct 6:22; 81:5; 138:1; 143:12; 162:10; 169:5; 186:13; 192:22,23; 194:8 corrective 124:5 c~d 97:9 correspondence O8/20/97 49:20,23; 78:13,22; 80:15; 145:1; 154:17; 161:7; 174:10 ca~t 38:1; 204:5 COSTS 82:7; 183:13 couldn't 63:8; 93:10; 182:7,16 COUNCIL 1:1; 2:1; 4:17,22; 5:1,4; 7:1,7,23; 8:4; 9:12,17,18,23; 10:4; 11:15; 12:9; 15:10,12; 17.'9; 18:4; 19:20; 25:10,12; 26:10, 28:4; 29:16; 31:2; 32:3; 33:8; 43:8; 52:23; 54:13,15; 56.~,14; 57:13; 73:23; 76:18; 83:8; 95:22; 100:25; 107:17,21; 108:11,11; 112:10; 115:16; 117:7; 118:2,15; 120:20; 123:3,10,24; 135:11; 136..9, 137:12,24; 138:8,21; 143:10, 144:1; 172:16,17; 178:20; 179:2; 183:4,19,22,24; 184:11; 185:12,20; 189:14; 193:11; 195:17; 206:16,18; 212:21; 213:3; 214:8; 215:11,21; 216:5; 218:3 COtmCil's 6:16; 9:12,21; 29:17; 122:13; 213:16 Coullcllmat~ 175:13,14 Councfimember 3:4,3; 5:8,19, 7:24; 8:1,8; 11:2,10,13,21; 12:15,18; 13:16,21; 14:5,7,13; 15:25; 28:19; 35:9,14; 41:4,14,16; 43:10; 44:11,21; 148:17; 190:15; 191:2,13; 196:1,22; 198:24; 208:7,13,15; 209:3; 210:17,19; 211:2,10,19,25; 212:11; 214:5,19, 215:3,9,16; 216:7,13; 217:3,25; 218:5 coun,qlmembers 9..6; 44:10; 56..6; 107:20;, 130:24; 142:20 comicils 169:1 Cou~el 9:4; 19:1; 27:1; 29:1; 44:19,20, 50:18; 53:7; 76:21; 114:9; 137:16; 141.-6; 149:5,15; 161:8,22; 162:8; 163:21; 170:8; 180:11; 181:8; 193:22; 211:5 C~'S 50:22 count 205:12,13 counter 32:18 coullties 118:7; 119:22; 121:12 country 18:11 ~ __Co~n_ .ty 43-21- 109:7; 113:14; 115~1~; 116:12; 117:10,12,20,22; 119:11; 120:25; 121:9; 123:4; 125:22; 148:10; 151:25; 152:25; 154:24; 155:2,4,7; 179:11; 185:17; 190:18; 191:11 c_o~._p!e 19:24; 23:11,23;. 33:9; 79:8; 141:21; 201:4 coupled 34:13 course 26:7,13; 28:1; 42:18; 64..6; 67:18; 94:7; M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Index 6 Transcript of Proceedings 117:19,25; 135:7; 179:2; 198:9 course~ 68:4; 103:23 cozlrt 4:22; 11:18; 25:3; 54:17; 55:5; 59:15; 61:4,7; 69:16; 80:2; 85:5; 117:2; 127:19, 170:1; 181:22; 183:23 courteous 4:18 courtesy 32:16; 107:12 courts 120:16 cover 214.~ ~ 86:10 covers 205:8 CR& 59:20; 60:23 crack 209:17 Crane 75.~ create 100:18; 106:3; 150:22; 151:4; 158:13 cremted 80:17; 196:20 cre~es 162:2 creatiotl 170:19 credible 153:16 Creek 44:1,1; 46:24; 60.~; 66:23; 71:9; 94:10; 112:25; 125:11; 131:1; 140:12,12; 146:7,21; 153:24; 157:8; 158:4; 167:5; 168:3,19; 170:23; 171:16 creeks 111:17; 112:22; 113:4 Cristlaalo 8:17; 49:13,18; 78:21,22; 79:3,11,18; 80:15; 173:15 criteria 91:19,25,25; 95.~; 167:18; 182:21; 188:14 critical 19:11; 92:24 criticism 69:12 cro~ 28:13; 93:22 cubic 89:18; 90:12; 94:24 CUC,qd~ONG~ 1:2,10, 2:2,17,18; 3:7; 4:1; 26:9; 32:5,23; 37:19; 45:15,19; 46:14; 49:11; 50:1,4,11,14; 55:5,19; 56:2; 63:8; 64:13; 65:14,18; 66:20; 84:16; 91:10; 95:23; 96:1,3; 98:23; 100:5; 101:6; 103:6; 109:9; 113:16; 121:5; 123:4; 124:23; 131:1,2; 135:8; 154:3,25; 155:14,23; 168:11,21 Cucam__o~ga's 96:21; 98:3; 101:17,20; 107:2 Cucamollgtl!s 45:11 Cuc~motlgnOW 124:23; 126:4 cul-de.sacs 197:15 cultllt~ 108:23; 109:8; 110:17; 113:13,16; 125:14,17,23,25; 126:8,16,24; 164:10,16; 179:7 C~]finiqg 174:14 CURATfi~LO 3:8; 11:21; 12:18; 14:7,13; 41:4,14,16; 148:17; 198:24; 207:11; 208:15; 210:17; 214:5,19; 216:7,13 CURE 6:10; 10:5; 45:11; 52:20; 59:22,23; 61:1; 69:12; 70:3; 84:3; 86:18; 107:17; 139:19; 141:19; 142:24; 143:10; 144:5,20,21; 150:20, 153:22; 157:21; 158:13; 159:1,19,22; 160:8,25; 162:4,21; 164:3; 165.~; 169.~,14,18; 172:12,17; 175:24; 180:11; 212.~ CURE'$ 68:7; 153:20, 173.~ curions 172:17; 197:21 curreaat 126:1; 156:8; 197:10 65:3; 71:t~;; 39:18; 45.~; 112:14,17 Curt 159:14 ctirve 98:19 custo~ 45:12,14,16,18; 60:11; 95:23; 96:1,5,8; I04.~; 133:11; 200:20, 202:25; 203:5 customers 106:11 cut 114:22; 146:9 cul$ 111:2 D daily 42:13,15; 179:17 dam 64:20,23; 132:11,13,20 132..d21~2; 64:20; 89:14; 133:20, 134:15; 157:25 damal~ 62:16; 157:23 ~ 18:7 Dames 86:14; 91:4; 157:1; 170:14; 174.'6; 194:19 Dim 103:14; 167:3 d~mdy 65:10 ~ 60:3; 158:13 84:2~3 18:10; 58:3; ; 175:3 dark 195:22 darll 134:2 dlita 86:19; 88:14; 151:21; 153:5,7,8; 171:3,9; 181:11; 192:24; 208:3 ~a~.l;~e 109:2; 119:21 date 5:20;, 13:17,18; 41:4; 150:1; 161:4 dated 49:25; 51:16; 77:22; 139:3; 158:9; 165:23; 166:18; 167:2; 168:6; 192:20 dates 34:21; 35:17 David 67:11,25; 90:25 Davis 145:15 41~: 6:1,2; 17:18; 19:9; ,10; 69:7; 77:22; 81:12,13,13 days 13:22; 19:24; 161:23 de 184:25 deal 62:25; 80:24; 103:4; 173:3; 206:15 a~,.~1tng 37:11; 64:9; ~:10; 82:11; 187:15; 207:17 deals 21:19; 28.~; 38:7; 61:4 dealt 30:11; 106:5; 188:2 Debbie 74:8; 138:7 DEBRA. 3:0 debris 18:7,12; 44:1; 46:11; 55:9; 60:6; 63:23; 64:4,14,17; 65:9; 66:3,23; 67:8,9,12,12; 68:2,3; 71:1,8,20,23,24; 72:8,9; 77:17; 83:24,24; 87:17,24,25; 88:15; 90:7; 91:11,20,21,23; 92:2,4; 94.~,21; 95.~, 125:11; 140:1; 146..8; 157:8,10,22; 167:17; 168:4,9,14; 170:22; 176:24; 177:1; 191:10,22; 195:13 ~ 130:4 deeld~ 14:4; 28:2; 58:21; 81D; 82:18; 85:15; 115:1; 181:18; 184:3,10; 202:25 decided 45:18; 56:24; 64:7; 78:24; 184:25 decimal 117:10 decislom 10:12; 11:4; 12:1; 13:3; 29:18,20, 48:24; 58:9,15,22,24; 61:3,3,4,8; 77:4; 78:10; 81:21; 82:16,20, 84:10, 102:20, 115:3,10, 123:14; 163:23; 173:12; 181:19; 182:3; 183:23; 184:7,9,12; 209:19; 213:16; 215:12,13 deel~-atiom 18:10,14; 56:17,18; 57:1,7; 61.~; 62:11,15,20; 63:15,18; 64:3; 66:12; 67:11,25; 68:5,5; 71:18; 76:19; 86:3,4; 87:7; 90:25; 91:12,19; 92:17; 124:5; 144:8; 174:4,22; 178:10 deCl~el~io~8 63:3,4; 70:2; 142:23,25; 143:5; 169:3,8; 174:18; 178.~; 195:15,16,20,21 dedicated 32:22 {[eed 34:17; 123:12 deep 89:16; 93:25 Deer 43:25; 44:1; 46:23; 56:3; 60~; 66:23; 71:9, 94:10, 112:25; 125:11; 131:1; 140:12,12; 146:7,20, 153:24; 157:8; 158:4; 167:5; 168:3,19, 170:22; 171:16; 192:11; 200:13 d~gect 73:22 defetlditlg 134:10, 199:12 deffetlse 142:3 ~ferolce 6:14; 35D deriderot 112:14 d~nitely 102:12; 107:4; 121:18; 189.~; 201:8 e204:22 36:22 delitteatioa 116:9 delivery 11:17 demot~strates 88:4; 175:22 detilal 211:13 dellled 15:19; 205:18,18; 207:10 derlies 208:24; 210:24 detloted 97:21 density 99:2 detly 124:3; 205:23 69:4;deP~76..~5;t 27:10; 34:20; 77:8,10,10,14,18,21; 126:19; 145:4,10,15,16; 146:16; O8/20/97 148:24; 149:2,6,16; 161:1,2,4,8,12,13,16,19; 162:5,6,13,16,18,22; 163:2,19,22; 164:1; 174'~,17 (J f'~th hbe~t's 149:11; 16I:25 tfld~ 23:14; 83:11 ores 188:25 t.te.~z' 105:24; 135:1,1 depth 89:17 derived 124:23 de~qbe 46:4 de~-iptio~l 148:23; 213.'8 deserve 83:1; 205:2 ~e v~S 58:16; 86:4 21:3de~, ,1 20:25. 6,17; ~3:1,4; 25:16; 26:2,8,12,20,25; 27:24; 28:1,3,10,15,17; 29:23; 31:10; 32:13; 33:10;, 34.'9,12,22; 36:25; 37:4; 38:21; 40:4; 41:23; 43:3; 63:25; 83:5,9; 85:10, 91:19; 95:9; 96:5,12; 100:18; 101:3,8; 102:2,14,23; 104:23,25; 105:8; 106:12; 107:5; 109:19,20; 110:4,9,18,21; 111:1,5,13; 112:2; 113:10; 114:4,16,20, 115.~; 123:17,20; 124:4; 129:13; 130:11; 131:5,11,22,25; 132:22; 133:7; 135:5,9,15,22,24; 136:14,25; 140:21; 143:24; 154:1; 166:17; 167.~,10; 168:1,5; 176:20; 182:20,21; 184:22; 187:14; 188:4,10,12; 196:12; 199:14; 200:17; 201:20,21; 202:12,18,21; 203:19, 204:14; 205:13,18; 208:21,22,25; 209:18; 210:12,16,25; 211:12,22; 212:1,24; 213:22; 216:18; 217:4,5; 218:4 desll~-review 32:9 deC'ted 54:5; 97:3; 112:9;, 145:17; 147:3; 177:5 ~e~lres 117:10 de$_~_~iotl 68:8; 97:5,6; 99:7; 100:7,22; 144:22,23; 145:7,8,11,13,18,20; 147:3; 161:16; 186:24,25; 187:10; 189:14,16,19; 190:1 ~r,l~,,ttOl~ 99:7; 185:14 1~de~11:; ed 61:9, 147:20;, 153:24; 167:13 22:17; 45:12; de~ilg~t~g 24:5 200~: 2~; 209~511 1; 133:9; desire 10:21; 131:23 desires 38:11 despite 34:1 destroy 125:2 destructioo 46:21 detached 131:9 detail 72:3; 113:12; 180:18 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~M~ Index 7 Trnn~rlpt of Procceaing~ detailed 103:21 det~ma 22:17; 24:5; 77:2; 140:18,19; 184:20; 205:20 deiermill~io~s 208:2 determine 51:11; 62:5; · 143:15i 155:13; 206:12 detet~atned 44:2; 191:11; 197:9 {~tC~,nintn~ 66:22 develop 80:23; ! 10:22; 196:10 develoil~-'d 38:10; 40:12; 49:17; 91:16; 102:12; 103:11; 112:18; 118:14; 119:4 devel~ 30:,..27; 70:8; 73:8; 7a:18; 76: ,9; 77:7,12; 102:17,24; 104:9,15; 126:12,20; 130:22; 134:13; 138:19; 146:15; 148:1; 167:8; 168:24; 176:23; 180:17; 194:17; 196:9; 199:11; 209:19,24; 211:8; 212:8 developer's 69:15,18 devel~ 79:5; _ 103:20; 128:15; 162:22; 169:9; 192:1 13d~5..130~llg 72:17; 101:15; Develolmlent 1:5,7.; 2:5,6; 4:14; 9:~,5; 16:14,14; 18:9;, 19:24; 20:16,17; 21:1,5; 23:12; 24:4,8; 26:11,18; 27:25; 32:4; 33:11; 34:3; 38:4,17; 40:10; 43:22; 44:3; 46:2; 49:10,22,24; · 50:3,5,7,15,18; 51:2,3,13,17,24; 54:7; 55:15; 66:20; 71:5; 73:13; 77:24; 81:4; 84:13,14,24; 87:21; 92:10, 118:23; 120:14; 121:17; 125:1; 126:1; 133:25; 134:22; 135.~; 141:7; 144:23; 146:9,18; 147:24; 150:8; 154:16; 160:15; 164.~; 171:23; 185:21; 187:7,7; 193:18; 202:24,25 develoll~ents 25:23; 84:16; I18:9 device 87:16,16; 90:23 e93:12,14,17 126:20; 176:7 DIANE 3:13 didll't 6:23; 7:5; 12:24; 13:7; 29:8; 30.~,14; 40:7; 41:22; 51:13; 55:16,22,22; 57:2; 60:22; 63:13; 64:25; 66:16; 68:17; 81:1; 83:9; 85:13; 88:17; 99:14; 100:21; 105:4,9; 110:17; 112:5; 119:13; 128:2,2; 136:1; 170:9; 176:3; 179:5; 184:20; 186:7; 188:25; 189:19; 194:15; 197:24; 202:25; 214:5 dtff~r~llce 191:14 differences 113:7 different 21:8; 23:16; 1 30:17; 51:18; 73:13; 75:2 ; 91:20; 98:13; 133:11; 134:16; 139:21; 182.~; 184:2; 194:24; 198:17,18,18,23; 200:23; 204:3; 212:15; 213:3,13; 217:18 dlffe~ntly 209:21; 213:14 dl~cult 8:7; 10:9; 13.~; 18:16; 56:23; 57:19; 94:19; 141:1~, 143:3 dll~ 73:20 __dl~-~. 7:2; 8:14,23; 10:10, 12.~; 201:12 ~ 7.~ dill~ce 62:10 dime 69:3 dima~sJOllS 93:10 ~ 198:17; 205:11; 206:2; 208:23,23; 218:9 dlreettl~ 210:12 directi{m 9:22; 90:2,6; 205:17; 206:18; 210.~; 211:14; 213:11; 214:4,22; 218v4 ~ 22:4,4,7; 64:13; 90:3,18; 91:11; 102:23; 192:8 director 10:3; 18:7; ~4~4..~1!8; 49.~; 63:5; 107:16; 17 : 3 dlgector$ 10:5 dirt 77:16; 157:25; 158:2 disad~mtage 169:11 29:~ 11:10, 27:20; :3; 73:10; 182:24 dl- Weed 27:5,6,11 djsIKre~n~ 163:13 ~ellt 182:23 1 58:di~m~tlt~d 8:24; 183d1~: ro,ad 182:2~, diaapprove 85:24 dilmster 202:5 dLsm;ters 46:10 dlsd~ 125:23 disdoses 125:10 ~ 66:5; 127:10 dls~0vl~*d 84:17; 125:12,14; 182:15 dlaerelm~eie$ 92:15 discr~0~l 188:18 discuss 4.~; 28:20, 52:10; 82:19; 113:12; 130:17; 151:14; 161:11 disox~ed 32:7; 38:16; 4 53:1,2,18; 54:3,8,10; 62:1 ; 67:1; 92:16; 130:14; 209:8 distosses 63:16; 174:24 disol~ltlg 166:13; 188:24 discus~ 28:17; 32:8; 156:15; 162:9; 195:10; 207:8; 211:20; 213:3 disoxss10os 27:13; 38:14; 89:2; 163:13; 166:1 dislllay 179:9 disl:l~ 212:15 disp0~tl~ 212:4; 213:12 dispo~ltio~! 211:5,8,9; 212~5,7 ~ce 7:19; 153:11; 192:10 distasteful 134:9 distinct 200:23 distribute 39:1; 137:2; 138:23 dlatrlimted 8:5; 35:2,16; 37:14,17; 39:4; 137:21; 1 38.~,6 distrl~___g 137:17; 155:2 disllqll~tlo~ 138:13 distrill~tllotls 138:12 District 43:21; 44:2; 64:5 dll~x!lq~l~ce 78:8 dlatutbed 127:1 diverairy 109:1 ~ 166:19; 168:23 DNA 66:15 doctor 82:15 doetoes 124:16 doetlqne~ 124:2 doo_ ~ment 62:2; 70:22,23; 137:1,16,17,23; 138:17; 154:15; 192:17; 193:14; 195:4 doomaeni~iotl 12:4; 152:20, 189:21; 190:2,5; 191:8 doqt~ tenealts 19:23,25; 27:17; 40:8; 68.~; 69:8,24,25; 72.~; 87:1,8; 108:12; 137:19; 149:21; 156.x); 180:5; 181:11; 185:23; 193:7; 195:23; 199:2 Does ~..~, 23:5; 26:13; 27:19; : · 30:17; 31:9; 66:8; 68:14; 75:22; 76:11; 85:7; 92:18; 110:3,5; 111:2,19; 113:10;, 122:16; 139:23; 148:7; 151:22,23; 152:1,3; 161:24; 16(z14; 186:14; 191:19,20;, 198:15,20;, 210:1; 212:21; 216:21,22; 218:3 doesll't 26:11; 58:3; 1 76:10;, 80:23; 95:1; 97: 7; 105:20; 112.~; 129:25; 132:1; 133:17; 148:16; 170:25; 193:15; 200:20; 201:4; 209:12; 214:24 120do~..1,58:8; 75:23; 117:13; 145:2; 174:25; 176:3; 178:14,16; 179:16; 197:16; 208:10 Dolan 63:7,12,13; . 154:13,16,21; 174:24; 178:21,24; 179:11,14 Dolan's 63.~,16; 174:19 ~ 79:13,14 dollars 59:18; 80:19 done 26:19; 30:18; 42:25; 54:23; 68:15; 75:24; 86:1; 100:4,8; 103:15; 118:25; 126:23; 136:23; 144:12; 150:14; 155:8; 156:9; 161:16; 163.~; 175:12,23; 179:14; 185:4; 190:22; 199:19; 203:4,16; 205:15; 206:1; 216:7 door 22:7,21; 129:1 doors 128:22 dotted 98:6 doubt 201:2 doubtful 201:6 Doug 155:24 M & M Certified Court R ,~ O8/2O/97 down 9:10;, 14:8; 25:3; 55:7; 74:9;, 79:23; 80:4,13; 82:2; 87:22; 89:7,23; 90:3,15,17,18; 92:19; 94:10, 97.~; 106:5; 117:3; 121:11; 129:4; 132:7; 143:11; 146:4; 147:25; 154:9; 155:3; 156:13; 182:23; 196:23; 200:14,19; 203:7,15 dowIlslope 23:15; 70:15; 71.~ dowilStal~ 131:8 dO~gl$1gelll~ 156:17 Dr 70:5; 90:25; 91:13,19 ~ 173:14 a. ~tu~.c 27:8; 191:1,23,25 dramml~ 147:1 dra~ 39.~; 93:22; 147:17 draw~ 33:18; 205.~ ~ 111:24,25 drawn 97:9 ~ 60:14 Drive 2:18; 45.~; 200:12 da l~{. ~ my~ 128:14 ~ 199:18 dl~e 6:14; 7:3; 8:8; 13:~26..; 25:23; 41:25; 50:13; 83:; 99:10; 141:23; 146:20 42:11~8; 921:16; 23:1; :19; 51:3; 61:11; 65:3; 66:9; 75:11,13; 88:13; 90:14; 109:14; 126:15; 167:22; 168:20; 179:24; 180:3 dwell 92:17 D~ 78:1,2,6,9; 164:5,7 ~dy~c196:7 146:3 E ~ 24:11; 52:1.5; 54:11; 69:13; 104:16; 108:12; 147:10; 151:7; 165:24; 196:1 79..eag~l; 19:1; 39:4; 78:22; 108:16; 114:19; 148:2; 150:13; 167:13; 200:5 ~ 47:2; 198:10 ¢~at'th's 64:20 Em~!l~ 18:8; 2,:~;1 63:5; C:~4:10,12,18; 65:,2 ; 66:22; 68:18,23; 76:5; 84:12,15,17; 85:1,13; 89:2~, 91:9,14; 132:17; 153:20, 154:2,5,7,20,25; 155:20; 166:20; 167:20; 168:13,16,21; 169:7; 174:24; 175:2; 176:19; 178:22; 179:8; 180:21 e$~-th~e$ 18.'6; 30:7; 64:21; -91:2; 95:9; 155:15; 167:23; 175:25; 204:3 em-th~alt~, 155:17 e~sa~m~ e~t 43:19,22; 44:2; 75:15,19,21,22; 77:15,18,19; 78:1; 191:12 easements 78:3 easier 15.~ ~ 70:12; 74:12; 87:19; Index 8 Transcript of Proceedings 204:21 east 42.~,8; 126:1; 179:12 eastertl 70:21 8~e~.. 1 60:23; 73:19, 81:8; ; 172:3; 176:13; 198:11 e~in~o 122:21 ecooomic 37:12 e~o~ol~y 75:1 educatio~ 79:8 effect 100:25; 170:17; 184:18 effective 23:18,21; 70:9; 87:16,16; 140:13 effect~ 46:19, 55:11,25; 62:14,15 effort 19:1 elgot~ 42:19 eight 45:10, 47:7 EIR 28:21; 29.x),21,22,23; 61:5,7,20; 62:4,10,14,17,21; 73:17; 125:15; 175:23; 176.~; 199:10; 203:20, 204:4,6,24; 206:10,11,11; 207:19,22 EIRs 67:23 either 6.~; 7:14; 8:11; 11:22; 12:18; 59:10; 66:16; 89:20; 113:2; 122:6,6; 139:24; 168:16,21; 175:7; 181:19, 183:2 El 202:1 elaborate 88:12; 104:22; 197.~ elect 148:1,1 elected 131:17 165:11,14 element 22:13; 128:17; 188:11 elemenl~ 104:21; 110:22,23; 212:24 elevatiotl 21:10;, 22:12,14,15; 23:22,24,25; 24:1,7; 105:16 elevatioos 21:8,11; 23:11,19,23; 196:13 elcvzaith 172:20 eliminated 119:3 eloquent 134:25; 136:13; 143:19 eloquently 112:12 else 10:25; 11:16; 30:8; 55:22; 58:2; 78:4; 83:3; 95:19; 107:4; 138:1,2; 199:19; 201:15 elsewhere 202:3 emlm~ment 167:15,22,25; 168:4,12 emlmrr~l 55:18; 86:2 emerge 61:11 emolton~l 11:17 enlph~lze 155:18 employer 148:6 enable 152:20 encounter 90.~; 126:15 e~courage 95:13; 124:1,3 encourages 123:25 end 47:15; 51:14; 59:18; 66:10; 71:14; 82:6; 92:13; 93:8; 95:4; 105:18; 106:15; 110:14; 111:12,17; 114:25; 130:10; 203:5; 207:17 11~:2~ 107:18; 120:17,22; 121:3; 166:7 ending 2:19 endorsed 38:19,23; 135:14 endorsing 38:24 el!ds 55:6; 211:13 energy 90:3 eatf~ 131:12 engn~ed 95:24 ~~ 75~; 167:2; 1~:23; 192:5 27~~ 24:12; ~; ~; 32:24; 42:14; 69:10,11,19, 9~:1 1~:1~ 1~:10,13; 192:2~; 195:3,20 ~ 43:25; 63:22; 5:8; ~:1; 69:1; 72:7; 75:8; 81:14; 93:2~ 1~:17; 1~:1~ 176:17 ~~' ~:21; 175:4 22:14; 111:11,16 ~ 111:19 ~~ 2~:2 ~ 33:15; ~:24; 201:2,6 ~ 116:11 ~~ 116:1 ~ 117:2~ 121:14; 147~ ~t~ 162:1 173:23 ~ ~:20, ~:9,11; ~:8; 122:21; 18~:22; 21~:5 ~ 122:19 138:17; 211:7~ 212:7 ~~t 123:13,14; 183:18 ~ 1~:1 ~~ 13:15; 1~:7,8,22 ~m~t 27:4; 53:3,16; 101:22; 1~:21; 113:4 ~m~ 20:21; ~:3,9, ~:1; 53:19, 54:9, ~:21,24; 61:23; 62:2; 75:12~ 81:25; ~:2; 95:14; 110:12,16; 125:9,13,19,24; 126:6; 145:3; 147:14; 175:1,22; 1~:4,19, 198:16; 201:10,18; 202:11,13; 205:15; 2~:6,23; 213:24 ~m~ 45:14 ~ ~:~9 ~e 21:24 ~~ 211:14 ~~t 110:1~ ~~t 67:20; ~:~,4 ~~ 95:11; 1~ ~ 172:9 ~~ 124:11 ~~ 103:17 en~e~c~ 190:19; 191:10; 192:13 ease tlally 23:21; 114:20; 207:17 e~l~bli~h 50:24 ~ish~ 171:13 ~~t 171:15 ~ 34:19,21,23,25; 35:7,21,23; ~:3,9,18,1~ 37:2,9,16; 38:16; 39:13,15,1~ ~:1,5,23; 41:19; 42:4,~ 43:5,18,18; 45:8; 74:22; 1~1; 133:10,25; 1~:15 ~e ~:24; ~:1 ~~ ~:14; 65:5; ~:15 · _" ~ 67:1 ~ 45:7,8; 47~,9,14~ ~,15; 49:9 ~ 152:13; 1~:1,12 ~1~ 49:5,7; 132~ ~e ~:19 ~~ 139:9; 1~:9 ~~ 92:10,11; 1~:5 ~ 5:13; 8:4; 10:2,7; 12:25; ~:11; 17:5,8,14; 18:16,19, 19:11,16,22; 20:5; 27:24; ~; 45:5; 55:3; ~:11; 57:10,22; ~:21; 59:7,14; ~; 72:21; 73:12,14; 81:8,1~ 82:17; ~:13; 95:21; 124:16; 1~:24; 173:1~ 175:17; 1~:22; 1~:4; 181:25; 1~:2; 1~:12,2~ 2~:15; 2~,10 ~ ~:24; ~:1~ 81:23; ~:21,24; 191:21 ~ ~2:2 ~ 61:21; 1~:3; 1~:1~ 171:10 55:8~ 5:~ 32:25; l; ~; ~:8; 69:14; 78:4; ~:5; 105:7; 107:12; 1~:2; 1~:20; 181:16; 1~:19; 2~:1~ 207:25 cv~oae ~:1; 142:15; 182:g6; 183:5; 1~:25; 2~:4 ~e's 173:11 105.~ ~:14; ~:5,8; 3; 212:25; 214:14 ~~ 19:22; 54:15~ 57:12,23; ~:20,22; 62~,24; 63:24; 67:2; 72~; 74:17,19; 76:2; ~:9; 81~,1~ 83:15; 114:10; 118:3; 120:7,8; 121:1; 1~:7; 151:2; 153:16; 1~:7; 159:22; 1~:24; 174:1,3,3,9,11,21; 175:10,21; 176:12,13,24; 1~:13; 178:5; 181:10,18,20; 182:4,9,13,19,25; 183:1; 1~:14,19; 1~:24; 191:18; 2~:4; 210:24 ~~ 125:7 08/20/97 evident 172:24 evolved 33:12 ~ 48:3; 152:21 __ _enJ(~.- 4:7,17; 41.~; 53.~; 91:24; 97:17,23; 141:11; 176:11 emunlne 162:19 emended 169:19 117..ex~1; e 27:3; 85:11; 193:23 exo~ 'v-.~OtlS IM:25 ~ 10~:2,12,14 ~~ 10~:20 ~~g 103:9 ~ 102:25 m~mt 32:25; M:12; 101:7 ~ 130:18 ~ 217:24 ~eh~ 176:10 ~~~ 1~:25 ~ 16:19, 37:2; ~:25; 53:4; 132:1; 137:5; 170:1; 1~:5 ~~ 159:4,15 ~ 62:9 ~ 20:11; 2~:17; 47:12; ~:16 ~ 2~:11; 1~:7 ~t 1~:16; 151:22: 185:16; 191:20,~; 193:15 ~t~ 43:2~ 71:9, 102~; 157:10 ~=4~, ~:~: 16; 39:13,21; 42:4,~ 71~; 87:16; 91:11; 92:14; ~:3; 97:10,12; ~:12; 101:23,23,25; 102:19,24; 103:2,9,17,23; 1~:1; 154:1; 157:5; 1~:14,15; 1~:20 ~ 71:8; 143:16; 1~:12; 1~:24; 157~; 2~:12 ~~e 1~:24,25 ~t~ 45:11 ~ 12:5; 45:5 ~~ ~:19 ~ 141:9 ~d 57:18 ~~ 4:25 ~~ 91:22 ~~ 25:22 70~ 18:9,12; 67:12; ~ 101:2 19~ 17:12; 18~21,21; 9:8; ~:12,14,17; 81:13; 8~:18; 175:11; 194:1~ 201:14 ~ 115:15; 118:5 ~~ 112:12; 147:11  -' -i~g 1~:19 ~ 205:11 ~~ 1~:8 ~ 1~:2 ~ 9:24; 172:18,19 ~~ 25:20 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~M~S, Index 9 Transcript of Proceedings 08/2O/97 ext_~oiom 9:24 extensicms 203:25 extensive 38:13 extent 145:22,24; 149:10 extra 201:5 extremely 9:10 eyes 58:4 F face 141:15; 209:18 facetiozmly 37:22 facilitate 142:16 Fa~llele$ 110:8,14; 189:18 facing 128:11,20 fact 4:12,21; 7:3,22; 18:5; 19:12; 26:11,16; 27.~6; 37:8; 39:2; 56..9,14; 60:5; 61:16; 64:13; 65:2; 68:17; 72:11,19; 77:2; 80:12; 84:14; 88:4; 96:4; 100:3; IO3.~; 104:1; 132:19, 137:8,13; 138:17; 139:2; 140:2,21; 143:16; 145:4,21; 150:7; 158:13; 159:18; 160:14; 161:15; 177.~, 13,23; 178:24; 179:13; 180:17,21,21,22; 184:1; 188:4,6; 192:15; 194:11; 197:8; 203:21; 212:21 fact.finding 50:23 factor 92:19,20,22,24,24; 93:3 facts 137:2; 142:4,5,8,21; 151:15; 163:8; 206:5 factual 63:11; 143:13; 172:9 fac'tua!ly 143:12; 169:4 fall 46:5 f~lod 70:21; 91:23 fall8 67:10, 112:16 ~ 92:24; 120:14; 168:20 failure$ 18:13 flair 79:4; 164:22 fairly 146:20 faith 18:25; 184:12; 208:9 fall 57:25 fa!ietl 38:3 ~ 141:13 false 134:24 fame 79.~ f-.~ntlt~e 71:21; 120:21 f~mtli~eized 87:2 families 160:17 96..f~5; 21:2; 48:25; 84:12; 33:18; 200:12 M 146:2; 192:12 far 31:16; 34:3; 52:17; 101:7; 109:4; 114:4; 122:24; 163:15; 186:8; 190:20; 191:19; 196:2,17; 199:10 f~hion 19:10 fast 69.~ fault 38:3; ~..8i4; 64:10,13,17; 66:25; 84:15,17; 85:14; 91:10,14; 131:16,17,18; 132:19; 140:1; 154:3,25; 155:14,23; 168:11,11; 178:22; 179:8 faults 155:16; 167:14; 168:22 · %-v~r 5:10; 6.~; 17:24; 199:8; 201:8 favzwa~e 204:19 fat 17:4,19; 18:17 fa~ed 18:3 fear 81:7; 127:11 feaislllde 111:22; 113..6 featu~ 129:8,15; 168:5 f(.l~lares 102:17; 129..6,12,13,18; 131:13; 188:3,6; 196:21 fedei. al 17:23; 69:16; 79:21; 80:1; 85:5; 117:21; 118.-6,11,24; 120:1; 121:3; 123:8; 124:2; 126:14,18 fellerally 102:18 feel 8:25; 12:3; 45:19, 47:3; 58:9, 115.-9; 131:11; 182:14; 199:14; 204:15; 205:8; 209:20; 211:21; 213:14 feeling 135:2; 213:19 fees 52:17; 53:25; 59:17; 79:13; 81:22; 183:9,13 feet 21:14,14; 22:12; 33:24,25; 36:2,3,5,6,14,16,17; 37:3,3,6; 70:10; 8~16; 90:10; 93:14,15; 94:24; 105:24; 128:21; 129:21,22; 130:3 felt 3~:15; 49:20, 196:17; 204:14 IrEM~ 58:19; 64:4,7; 65:20, 67:13; 68:7,17,18; 69:3,8,25; 70:3; 72.~; 120.~; 174:16; 189:13,19;, 190:1; 191:19; 195:16 FEMA's 68.'9 few 53:17; 88:11; 101:3; 133:7; 161:23; 165:21; 170:15; 183:21; 217:21 fiduciary 194:25 Ileld 101:2; 178:1 fight 69:2 9 ..fl~17; 65:16; 80:13; 129:23; 205:10 ~le 53:22; 59:14; 69:13; 80:2; 99:14; 102:21; 180:5; 187:1 flied 17:3; 24:12; 80:1; 181:21 Illes 96:16; 151:22 fill 78:2 ~ 61:5,7; 123:16; 125:13; 140:18; 154:12; 171:11; 173:8,16; 211:16 ._ ~lltl~y_ 17:19, 51:23; 69:25; 166:15 l~nd 4:7,17; 63:9; 73:15; 74:12; 87:7; 93:9,25; 96:16; 102:6; 122:11; 132:12; 143:12; 151:2; 154:14; 156:7,7,13; 161:2; 162:24; 189:22; 199:8; 200:13; 204:17 till. ~d~lg_ 29:8; 184:18; 198:15; 205:14 t]11ding~ 211:17 fillds 206:3; 210:23 lille 40:18; 47:14; 65:10; 129:7; 218.-6 ~ni~h 12:9;, 195:8 Fire 100:5 llreplaee8 129:11 11rm 17:19, 52:14,24; 53:23,25; 58:11,12; 59:10,18; 80:10; 88:13; 141:5; 143:2; 163:23; 175.~ ~ 178:7 ~ 59:10;, 134:10 ~ 5:14; 6:11 12:24; 13:11; 15:3; 16:24; 19:25; 20:21; 26.x3; 29:14; 32:14; 33:3,6,10,12; 38:16; 40:24; 48:18,22; 49:23; 51:1; 55:14; 6(k.4,17; 63:20; 74:13,20;, 76:17; 87:12; 90.~; 91:3; 101:11,12; 108:21; 131:21; 135:19, 154:9, 165:8; 169:2; 178:25; 214:5,10 llrst.haalded 46:16 flr$ltzalld 46:19 Fiah 69:4,4; 76.-6,11,15,17,22; 77:8; 120:8; 145:5,10,15; 148:24; 149..6,16; 150:1,11,19, 151:8; 161:1,8; 162:5,13,16; 163:19,22; 165:23; 166:1; 174:8,17,17 lit 104:11; 111:2; 203:1 · -m 104:7; 110:18 ~ 5:11; 8:13; 11.~; 16:5; 36:2; 51:20, 74:2; 96:18; 107:11; 119:22; 120:5; 125:12; 145:19, 176:3; 209:7,12; 218:17 fl~e.mh~=~.~ 31:14; 188:23 five-~t 30:23; 32.~ 118:1-3; 119:1,17; 120:.3,16 1~: 134:17 flashflood 46:16 flashy 143:20 flat 197:19 flattell 197:22 flexible 204:19 floattllg 77:16 Flood 43:21,21; 44:2; 46:11,12; 64:5; 87:17,22; 89:21,24; 90:22; 97:3,22; 98:10,11; 99:1,2,4; 102:9, 140:13; 146:3,21; 157:19; 166:20; 168:16; 169:7; 171:1,18; 186:24; 187:3,9,12; 190:12. flooding 30:8; 55:9; 70:19; TI:7; 132.-6; 156:17,21; 191:15 flootl$ 87:18 flOOr 15:18; 21:6,12,13; 22:1,2,10; 44:23; 104:20, 105:22; 106.'6,8; 131:7; 199:15 flOOrS 104:16; 105:18 flOW 66:3; 71:20; 89:8; 106:10; 133:16; 191:25 flOWS 89:5,6,6,7; 146:10 flushed 144:2 focus 32:13; 57:10; 63:1; 144:1; 155:11; 217:7,7 focused 23:3,17 focuses 20:21,23; 23:9 f~g 21:18 folders 63:3; 70:24; 96:18 folks 4:13; 6:2; 57:16; 66:16; 157:1; 164:25 follow 97:17; 136:21 follow-up 15:2; 179:14 foilowllMi 16:9,10; 20:19, 61:21; 62.?7; 81:10; 151:16; 168:2 foolish 204.~ foot 37:9, 93:21,24; 121:8,11; 199:3 foot.long 88.~ f129..o ..iO~,1,2 35.~,7; 0,25; 130:1,4 fOOehlll 113:8; 132:7 fOOehill~ 113.~; 116.~ foolmote 154.~ force 64:22; 135:3 forced 176:4 force8 165:11,14 forcing 201:9 fofeelo81~e 75:3 for~,~r...ore 178:17 109:17 12:7; 11~22; 210:2 forrealize 138:16 formed 87:3 fOt!!~ 184:2 fo~m~lme 210:2 forth 108:3; 160:20, 193:7; 204.~ fortify 72:10 fortumately 25:19; 26:22; 55.~ ff~..~d 4:24; 6:7; 7:22,22; 8:24; 9:16; 10:8,17; 12:9, 14:24; 16:21; 17:13; 18:23; 1~.21; 20:3; 52:19, 53:24; 95:14; 108:1,8; 111:8; 115:16; 121:2; 160:2; 209:24 f6= .. ~.~ded 155:9 forrod 38:13; 52:17; 88:18; 92:15; 108.~; 109:8; 118:25; 119:19; 125:8; 144:13; 145:16; 150:17; 158:25; 172:7; 179:9, 188:12; 196:16; 198:5; 215:14 foundatica 168:4; 190:9 founded 186:15 four 11:6; 36:15; 41:8; 52:3; 98:24; 107:10; 148:5; 150:16; 205:12; 211:21; 213:2 fraction 70:11 framewoek 181:5 Fraulclsco 14:20; 55:21 frallk 79:17 frankly 134:25; 135:1 fraudulent IO8:24 faree 61:9 Freeway 116:7; 132:17 fright~tn~o 132:14 fright ful 134:23 frotll 4:13; 8:10,10,17,17; 12:2,22; 13:5,23; 14:17; 17:2,19; 19:23; 21:13,20; 23:11,15; 33:24; 36:4,14; 37:2; 44:9; 46:10,10,21; 47:24; 48:17; 49:17,20,24; M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Index 10 Transcript of Proceedings 50:1; 51:10,13,17; 52:22; 53:14; 54.~; 55:11; 58:7; 63:15; 65:5,20,20; 66:2,3; 69:8,25; 70:3,19; 72:9,22; 76:1; 78:8,22; 80:7; 83:25; 86:11; 87:11; 89:9,12,14; -90:7,9; 91:13; 99:1; 107:2; 108:12; 111:3,20; 112:1; 113:20; 115:24,24; 117:5,6; 120:8,24; 122:21; 124:23; 125:9,20, 128:13; 129:13,13; 135:14; 140:8; 141:25; 145:1,15; 146:14; 148:12; 150:11; 151:5,8,18; 152:7,8,9, 153.~,11,15,20; 154:13; 155:3; 157:20; 158:8; 160:20; 162:16,23; 163:2,21; 164:3; 165:22; 166:16; 167:3; 168:20, 170:14; 172:4; 174:10,23; 177:4,16; 179.~; 180:6; 183:9; 190:10, 191:11,25; 192:18,19, 193:17,18; 194:19, 195:16; 196:4; 197:1; 198:3; 200.~; 212:25; 213:3 f~Otlt 7:4; 8:12; 21:22; 22:12,19,20; 27:25; 28:16; 29:21; 52:22; 70:16,23; 90:5; 105:25; 128:11,17,23,25; 129:1; 131:10; 141:18; 143:24; 174:22; 175:8; 208:21; 211:16; 212:12 flxlOt-~:altqg 128:16,21,21 frontal 22:22,24 f:ro~tS 22:7; 192:10 frustrating 169:5 frustrafio~ 168:24 ~ 112:15; 113:10 full 78:23; 95:13; 126.~; 138:9,9; 157:4; 161:22; 166:2,12; 167:20; 175:1; 176.~; 200:24 fullest 28:16 20f~1: 18:22; 20:3; 172:1; 2 function 168:14; 191:9,22 functioned 139:11,11 fund 79:16 further 22:12i 28:19; 29:9; 30:1; 106:9, 115:18; 184:20; 193:21; 197.~; 198:15; 202:11; 205:14,25; 206:5,8; 207:8; 210:24; 213:24; 215:7 Furthermore 7:1; 112:16 future 38:17; 95:10; 112:18; 130:13; 203:22 G G-1 144:24; 145:18 G1 12:12 Gabrielltno 10:14; 109:10; 113:22; 124:14,21,25; 125.~; 126:11,21,25; 127:4; 179:3 Gatlie 69:4; 76:7,15,17,22; 77:8; 80:7; 145:5,11,16; 148:24; 149.~,16; 161:1,8; 162:5,13,16; 163:19,22; 174:8,17 liaP 157:18 2~,, 1 21:7; 1,13,19,21,22,24; 105:21,23; 106:9, 128:17,19,20,21,22; 131:9, 199:17 28~, 1 21:23; 6,23; 129:4 ..2 75:16; 85:11; 127:22; 2; 215:1 2~..leral 27:14,16; 54:4; 5; 73:9,11,15,16,21,22; 76:21; 85:17; 96:14,17,20, 97:18,18; 98:9,16,21,24,25,25; 99.~,8,12,17,18; 100:1,3,7,8,17,22; 101:17,21; 102:5,12; 106:18,22; 107:3,3,7; 109:21; 110:10,19, 111:15; 112:3,19, 113:2,10, 115:13; 123:2,19,23; 127:10,13,14; 149:21; 151:3,12; 185:9,12,14~23; 186:5,12,14,24; 187:1; 196:5; 201:15; 209:11 gellerally 90:5; 172:3 generate 183:8,12 gealerated 182:7; 208:4 gentleman 48:2 geologie~al 155:25 ~gt~Oio~86:23; 192:4 88:17 geology 56:25; 156:1 192:5 GEBSHON 3:8 gestures ll:19, 25:7 gets 78.~; 139:16 :~1~ 17.~; 35:10, 1:13; 95:5; 129:17; 135:1; 154:22; 159:7 Ginger 55:5 ~ 197:17 47:13; 186:11; glad 140:22; 187:21 gla~es 60:22 G!elldOra 45:17; 91:22 2~m~t0:lCatcher 76:10, 119.~; ,6,17; 149:20,22,24; 152:12; 153:2,18 I~l 9~¢~tehers 114:1; :23; 120:10; 1 50:5,8,15,17,21; 151:3,12,24; 200:9 gl]atcatc~ler$' 150:14 gDatcatching 146:14 goal 111:14 goals 101:16,20, 112.~ :~14~; 84:8,19; 5:16,21; 6:2; :18; 9:9; 11:25; 12:8,25; 14:20; 15:9; 18:15; 24:20; 25:2,13; 27:17,21; 28:25; 29:1,13,15; 30:5,16,19,20,21,22; 31:1,8; 32.~; 35:4; 37:15,18; 38:9,10; 39:7; 41:25; 43:11; 46:9; 48:19; 49:16; 50:13,25; 51:11; 53:2; 56:8,11; 57:10,20; 58.~; 59:2,2; 60:3,4; 62:24; 63:2,9; 64:4,7; 66:13; 67:10,14; 68:13; 70:3; 71:12,13; 72:2,18; 75:2; 76:7,24; 77:14; 78:2,25; 80:11,21,22,25; 81:8; 82:1; 84:25; 85:15,16; 87:5,8; 88:10,11,12; 90:13,16,18; 93:21; 95:4,14; 97:13,13; 105:13; 107:13; 109:13,15,16; 112:11; 113:12; 117:5; 122:20;, 128:24,24; 129:3,20, 130:8; 134: 5,6,6,7,8,9,10,11,11,13,1 136.~; 137:1; 138:12,14; 142:22; 143:21; 157:13,19, 160:20, 162:5; 163:3,19, 164:1; 165:10, 172:24; 173:3; 175:20, 176:12; 178:4; 179:7; 181:4,5,7; 183:12; 184:5,5,8; 185:8; 194:25; 197:21,25; 201:18; 206:15; 208:11; 209:18,19, 211:1; 213:5,10, 214:21; 217:17 2~1..7e; 5:23; 38:15; 84:10, 136:3,4 7..~10, 10:1,2; 18:23,25; 55:3; 83:19, 86:13; 95:21; 115:5; 130:24; 134:4; 141:2,4; 170:4; 184:12; 201.~,9, 205:2 128:11; 175.6 $G,~'~n~eait 108:9, 120:1 goVell]Oe'$ 17:5,25; 58:14 graciously 124:19 ~ 197:13,22 graded 26.~; 196:3 r'llqR 23:20;, 33:14,20; :7; 40:14,17,18,19,19, 75:11; 77:15,17; 78:2; 101:16; 126:16; 196:13,15; 197:12,14; 198:2,4; 202:17; 212:25 GrahD 16:15; 20:11; 34:4; 51:17; 193:25 ~ 127:19 Gral]d 124:10 $ratlite 88:19 grant 15:13 granted 175:15 graph 34:4; 36:10 grass 122:14 2~7..12 26:15; 126:14; I/rear 5:13; 19:17; 26:23; 56:3; 62:25; 108:8 1:7~7;; ~ 64:21,24; 65:7; :24; 155:12; 176:19 greatly 37:25 Gge~D$ 148:21 27~ 24:24; 64:23; 12:5 grounds 127:7; 208.~ grcamdmUer 94:9 4~ 92:9.9; 141:19; 4; 143:10, 144:20, 160:25; 172:12,17; 180:11; 192:19 grouping 36:4 0W20D7 groups 122:14; 166:21 ~5..le~, 13:4; 28:21; 50:5; 106:24; 127:12; 141:13; 155:9, 160:11; 162:4; 196:10, 203:19; 205:19, 208:9, 209:2,22; 211:21 ~=es~a~ig 105:15; 184D 62:1; 1~:1,23 6:15; 0ll~-m' ~ 61:15,25; 62:3; 1:14; 103:1; 113:24; 115:24; 117.~; 209:7 ~ 3:5; 5:19; 7:24; 8:8; 11:2,13; 13:16,21; 14:5; 15:25; 17:15; 35:14; 43:10; 44:21; 45:23; 175:13; 190:15; 191:2,13; 199:24; 205:22; 206:7,13,22; 207:3; 208:7,13; 209:3; 210:8; 211:2,10, 215.~ Gutierrez's 35:10 H habli~i 56:25; 78:83 109:24; 113:19, 116..3; 118.~,9,13,17,22; 119:15,22; 120:3; 146:1; 152:15 Iladdoc 70:10 ]2~dll't 159:21 ~ 14:16; 31:20, 33:24,25; 39:17,19, 148:22 flail 2:17; 167:4,8 Hall's 167:16 halls 120:25 lmnd 138:15 h~'e! 51:4; 137:9,23; 138:21 handing 137:16; 139:2; 161.~ Iztmdled 42:15 handout 39:10 handouts 37:14,17; 138:23 lzands 81:4; 194:1,3 han~o 109:16 hang 104:1~ 212:9 h~qgjq~ 89:13 ilanna 200:10 ~ 6:8; 73:18; 82:5; 146:10; 158:3; 171:7; 172:24; 173:3,9; 184:5,6 13~2 78:5; 108..9; :15; 183:15,24; 188:11; 189:15 2h~t~ing 122:22; 189:8; 90~ 59:13; 68:13,15; 65..h~; 14:24; 20.~; 47:21; 85:4; 95:16; 142:13; 150:12; 160:4; 173:22 hard 9:10; 13:5; 31:18; 60:18; 88:20; 177:25; 178:11 king5:13,17 200:7 llar~onious 110:23 Harrow 68:3; 71:23 H~LRT'~I~I-I- 9:3; 78:14; 141:4,5; 148:19; 158:17; M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Index 11 Transcript of Proceedings 170:10; 174:3; 175:6; 176:22 hasm't 8:5; 61:14; 119:8; 171:13; 183:24 hatched 97:2 Haven 34:18~21,23,25; 35:7,21,22; 36:3,9,17,18; 37:2,9,16; 38:16; 39:13,15,18,25; 40:5,23; 41:19; 42:4,9; 43:4,17,18; 45:8; 74:22; 96:21,23; 97:11; 130:1; 133:10; 160:15 haven't 26:22; 171D; 178:23; 190:2 [IAWN 127:18,18,21; 165:3; 185:8 health 57:24; 85:17; 123:1,18,22; 132:24 hear 11:25; 13:5; 19:20; 25:13; 28:8,22,25; 29:1,13,14; 30:5,8,16; 31:3; 34:1; 62:1; 67:4; 83:8,12; 85:8; 87:11; 114:12,14,14; 115:2; 164:14; 169:2 beaird 48:22; 67:21; 70:20; 88:10; 91:1; 110:15; 130:13; 132:4,10; 155:3,8; 164:13; 182:12; 183:5; 184:1,4; 185:3; 186:19, 199:1,5; 205:16; 206:16 itemrl~R 1:14; 2:21; 6:16; 7:10; 9:I4; 11:24; 12:12; 16:16; 17:20,21; 18:1,16; 19:16; 26:12,17,20, 30:11; 31:24; 38:23; 52:23; 53:7,8; 68:24; 75:14,25; 81:9,16,17; 82:18; 83:5; 85:9; 131:21; 163:13; 172:19; 181:1; 184:17; 188:20; 193:20, 198:25; 199:1; 215.~,8,20,25; 216:20 hearings 16:10 h_~ea~Ln__ g~. 26:23; 109:14; 124:18; 136:5 hearts' 131:23 heavy 88:20 Ileight~ 54:13; 61:2,3 helicopter 199:4 Hello 45:7 h__e~p 18:1; 58:7; 60:20,21; 138:14; 153:8 helpful 212:22 helps 156:3 Hen 63:4,4,16; 65:12; 91:1~'y Henyey's 66:12 here's 87:20; 88:15,15; 94:19,20; 212:2; 213:10 heredllary 124:13 heritage 108:7 Hewitt 9:3; 58:11; 141.~ hide 106:9 high 93:21.24; 109:3; 116:4,13; 135:7 highly 135:20 hill 89:13; 90:9; 104:19; 132:8 hill.~ 197:3 hillsid~ 21:4; 23:12; 24:3,8; 33:11; 34:3; 57:25; 66:1; 96:6,11; 101:9,11,15; 102:3,4,16,22; 103:1,7,10; 104:2,4,9,14; 106:2,15; 107.~; 168:4; 187:13,16,20; 188:13; 196:3,12,19, 197:4 hired 59:11,11; 117:16; 139:19; 148.6 ~ 81:13 histMe 110:12,13; 126:3 hlstorloal 153:4,12 historically 167:22 hlsto~ 45:20; 126:2 hit 164:19 hits 90:4,9 hoc 209:18 hold 31:13; 64:5; 132:11,14; 133:17; 157:13 holder 123:12 holders 123:10 hole 157:12,14 holiday 5:17,24,25 horne 36:3,5; 37:20, 45:12,18,21,23,24; 55:5; 60:11; 95:23; 103.~; 104:6; 124:17; 131:4,24; 132:9; 133:11; 142:16; 200:20; 215:10 hotnebllyer 188:18 homeland 124:24 homeowner 52:8; 54:20 Homeowners 38:19; 40:9, 49:5; 50:11,21,25; 51:5,18; 52:7; 127:24; 133:21; 157:15; 203:13 homes 21:2; 33:15,23; 35:8,21,22; 36:2,4,6,9,11,12,14,16,17,18, 37:13,15,16; 38:1,2,5; 39:12,15,16,18,19,21; 40:4,15; 41:24; 42:24; 43:1; 44:13,15; 45:15,16; 46:1,3,5,6; 59:25; 60:2,12; 66:24; 74:23; 75:2,5; 83:22; 96:2,5,8; 10(h17,20; 104.~; 106:11; 108:25; 130:1,3; 132:21; 160:14,17; 175:1; 200:25; 201:22; 202:19; 203:5 holiest 68:24; 127:20 henearly 15:12 hotlot 4:15 honorable 43:8 hookups 82:12 7hl:O~; 20:5; 32:25; 48:24; 136:9, 139:24; 140:18; 156:2; 163:14; 170:5 Hopefully 32:20 horizontal 93:15 hour 31:20; 117:1; 172:21 hollrs 7:5; 11.~; 19:9 house 18:21; 22.~,20, 23:13,14,15; 34:18,21; 35.~; 37:9; 65:23; 66:4; 104:11,13,19, 105:19,25; 106:9; 128:18; 131:5; 198:10 hozlses 26:3; 27:23; 29:25; 33:16,24; 34:1; 36:8; 37:18; 60:8; 82:3; 106:3; 127:19; 129:9,21; 130:8; 133:11; 134:15 HOWever 10:9; 32:9; 43:14,24; 83:22; 96:13; 100:16; 119:1; 120:20, 123:16; 128:10, 151.~; 199:13; 204:25 huge 200:2 humsn 126:16 humble 142:12 hundred-year.old 46:21 hundreds 26:7 hung 55:20 hunters 127:12 hurt 201:14,18 hhmur~d 180.~ 131:15 hhy _~OgiCColC~iSt 86:14 68:2,16; 146:10,22~ 157:20 hydrolo~y 85:1 hyl~th~ 155:21; 156:23; 157:21 hypothetical 82:4 hypotheticals 171:8 I'll 5:8; 12:18; 14:24; 24:16; 29:14; 30:2; 31:20; 60:17; 69:9; 80:22; 85:11; 95:16; 96:19; 101:3,12; 118:5; 121:20; 133.~; 138:15; 143:16; 150:22; 158:17; 161.~; 186:21; 197:7; 199:22; 202:15; 204:10; 207:4; 210:14,19, 218:5 I've 13:11; 32:10; 45.~,14; 48:22; 51:19, 82:3; 85.~; 87:1; 100:10, 106:5; 110:15; 141:24,25; 180:5; 184:4; 206:16 idea 20:11; 93:7; 155:19, 165:7; 170:4; 190:7; 193:15; 201.~ identically 83:7 identified 88:16; 112:23; 117:16; 118:12; 182:9 1 ~i~.. 16,ti~3 137:18; ; 179:25; 183:17; 192:17 ki~ltif~ 114:10 ld~l~ 151:23; 152:4 n~oos135:15 196:4 imagine 47.~; 61.~ linDact 37:12,12; 53:19; 54.'9; 56:21,24; 61:23; 74:21; 82:9; 86:1; 95:14; 125:9,13,19,24; 126.~; 171:24; 175:1,22; 177:4; 198:16, 201:10,19; 202:12,13; 206:23 t?~cted 55:8 i~l~C~ 41:25; 42:12; 75:10,12; 76:3; 101:16; 109:5; 125:17; 126:8; 160:23; 177:19; 180:22 lmple~en'. ~ilo~l 187:1 tmpleme~tod 118:17 implicatioms 120:19 implied 135:10 imply 41:22 ten,mawtanoe 62.~; 139:9 38:~~ 19:13; 36:23; ,15; 66:11,21; 70:4; 72:4; 74:1; 76:16; 81:21; 87.~,10,15; 89.-4; 92:21; 101:19; 105:17; 117:7; 127:3; 130:16; 157:2; 166:22,23; 174:2; 200:8; 202.~ importantly 75:22 i~=~8ed 26:1; 34:17 I....=~11101'Se 58:21; 212:17 i -- p6e. s~io~l 80:17 l~qa.-o,~d 42:21 '--i~o,~ment 30:10 m-depth 28:16 in-step 33:23; 105:19 inaeoaractes 13:25 inadequate 122:15 inapprcpelate 8:15 incentive 121:23 incentives 121:25; 122:%17 lnceptioo 187:15 Inei0- ~-]ly 90:24 licelicked 5:1 include 23.~; 98:1 iraeluded 116:9; 127:25; 147:10 includ~ 21:5; 144:22 imeludimz 19:24; 146:8; 149:9, 18~:13; 200:7 i~eome 131:24 ineoml0~'~hle 36:8; 38:11 lncc-- p~e te 95:11 inconsistent 96:11; 111.~; 133:12 inconvenience 18:24 incom~ent 14:21 inked 34:8 ineor~2et 92:5; 149:13; 172:4 iner~se 40:21; 42:23; 160:18 iner~se$ 23:21 ino~hea~t 14:13 ~ 61:10 I~tll~ 113:20, 124..9; 190:16 in&ie~te 37:15; 158:1; 207:9, 218:16 in&letted 6:22; 10:23; 15:17; 34:2; 42:14; 52:15; 53:13; 54:17; 168:12; 186:22; 194:11 indiesres 91:13 indlemtng 9:9; 54:14; 194:13 Indication 15:9; 22:9, 189:22; 190.~ in~iestl~ 158:25; 170:11 indlgemous 45:22; 113:19 indivi~!~! 74:12: 151:19,23; 152:2,4,9 indivi~,~lly 19:3; 40:22; 104:5 in~l~ith,~ls 17:7; 42:14; 59:6 ind~lS~l~g 173:17 lndlastry 49:16; 122:19 ineffectively 140:10 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Index 12 Transcript of Proceedtrills inevitable 181:21 inflict 121:3 inform 50:25 lnformatio~ 10:9,10,11; 11:7; 12:4,6; 19:13; 25:11; 31:2; 35:24; 50:19; 56:15; 61:17,21; 62:7,19; 66:22; 67.~; 75:8; 76:8; 86:10, 88:23; 91:15,16,16; 103:25; 108:4,20; 111:8; 120:9; 127:14,16; 136:7,19, 142:19; 143:15; 144:7,12,14,18; 147:5; 149:22; 150:3; 152.~; 153:2,20; 154:1,9,10,12,18; 156.~,7,10, 159:7; 160:22; 162:2,10; 163:23; 164:12,15,21; 165:7,19, 167:5,14,24; 168:2,18; 169:2,4,6,16,22,22; 170:11; 171:4; 172:4,25; 173:20, 175.~,25; 178:6,16,22; 180:13; 182:7; 184:21; 192:2; 193:19; 194:13,18; 195:19; 209:9 informed 16:20; 46:9; 114:7,19; 151:14 initial 49:17; 115:3; 167:16 initially 20:13 injunctto~159:14 8~:221~0; 7:9, 30:18,19, 34:14; 114:8,22,23 inquire 16:18 inalde 43:15; 89:22 tnsight~ 61:11 instgnifiC~lt 94:18 inspected 199:3 it~ta~ce 83:7; 102:13; 165:10, 169:6 Illstead 122:18; 176:10 Insulthag 177:23 intact 72:8 integral 72:11; 189:25 inteRrity 67:7; 70:13; 157:~r3; 158:7; 168:13 intend 144:3 intended 51:8; 98:7; 185:15 intending 76:23 int~._~e 6:2 intent 97:24; 104:12; 106:2; 185:22; 196:18; 199:18 intentloll 136:2; 173:7 interactlen 50:18 interest 29:17; 53:22; 86:18; 173:11; 201:16; 203:8 interested 4:14 interestting 25:9; 161:2; 192:3 intertin 118:13; 119:1,21 interinr 21:6 intermediate 146:6,19 intc/prctatlom 73:10; 78:9 interpreted 33:1; 149:11 Interruption 16:7 intimtdsted 183:25 inventorled 34:18 invested 200:11 investigation 61:11; 144:12 inve$1fa~ent 79:5; 199:25; 200:2; 205:2 invitation 41:3 invited 50:3,16 Inviting 40:24; 41:19, involved 4:25; 59:10,17; 100:11 iota 176:23 irrelevant 174:7 irrelevant, 31:5 Irritating 132:3 Irvine 141.~ t~'t 46:5; 67:2; 97:23; 132:24; 157:19; 212:17 i$olllted 103:17 i~ue 4:21; 8:22; 9:1; 19:8; 20:8; 21:18; 23:7,9, 26:14; 32:1; 34:11; 36:23; 39:5; 46..8; 53:18; 56:12; 59:13; 61:4; 67:8,15; 72:4; 78:16; 81:25; 82.J1,13; 83:20,23; 84:4; 91:1,3; 92:8; 101:8,9; 102:14; 104:23; 105:12; 106:14,16,18; 107:5; 114:12; 139.~; 143:24; 146:2; 148:22; 149:10,19, 150:22; 151:4,5,15; 153:8,19; 158:21; 159:20,25; 160:1; 162:12; 163:20,24; 164:1; 166:22; 167:11; 178:21; 181:5,19, 182:13,17,18; 183:19, 185:9; 186:8,11,12,21; 187:13; 188:8; 189:11; 200:8,14,17; 202:11; 204:24; 205:9; 209:2; 210:9,16; 211:4,6,9, 212:3,4; 213:12,16,17; 217:4,6 18sued 211:8 Issues 20:3; 23:4; 26:24; 27:2,8,9,14,21; 28:11; 29:3; 30~,11,15,16; 32:11,13; 33:10, 44:7; 68:16,18,19, 69:1; 72:3,13; 73:1,24; 74:1; 77:2; 79:2,8; 82:19, 83:4; 84:2,2,20, 85:2; 96:14; 101:3; 103:22; 105:5,9; 106:5; 115:7; 130:11,13; 133:8; 141:20, 143:17; 144:1; 147:14,14; 148:9, 150:20; 153:17; 158:3,12,13; 159:12,21,23; 160:10; 164:9,11,19, 165:25; 166:20; 169:7; 175:9; 177:1,12; 180:19; 181:14,17; 182:5; 183:2; 184:13,15; 189:13; 201:11; 204:3; 205:4,24; 210:7; 212:8; 213:1,14,20; 217:9 It, 31:5 Item 4.~,10, 5:3,10; 9:17; 12:12; 16:1,8,13; 17:11; 19:4; 31:19; 39:3,25; 40:2; 45:6; 166:16; 180:13 Items 16:9,10; 32:8; 39:8,10,10; 42:21,25; 43:2; 53:2; 130:5,6; 150:23; 165:2; 170:15 lt~ 39:2; 64.~,23; 71:19; 84:19; 89:17; 132:8; 136:11; 139:12; 143:15; 146:22; 154:1; 157:23; 168:13; 187:15; 188:12 itself 20:13; 105:19;, 115:12; 145:20, 155:14; 177:10; 190:4; 196:14; 208:21 . J J~C~ 3:13; 137:9,17 16~,23;3; 89:3; 94:2; Jame8,$ 103:14 January 49:12; 51:12 ~ ~:17; 638,7,12,13; 174:18,24 JOB 1:15; 181:23,24; 1~:11; 2~:10; 213:7 ~ 143:14 J~ 167:2; 185:5; 1~:18; 1~:10 J~ 32:3; ~:12;_ 134:22; 1~:25; 155:24; 167~ ~ 117:24 ~ 1~:5 ~ 51:5; 1~:15 J~ 165:13 1~ 31:4; 1~:1~ 1~; ~mt 159:25 ~ ~ 14:2~ ~~t 1~:1 4~320:18; 35:17; ,14,16; ~:19, 153:21; 165:23; 1~:25 ~e 9:24; 2~:5; ~5:17; ~1:5,6; ~:2; ~:2~ 65:5; 76:17,23; 145~; 147:10,18; 1~:24; 151:7; 161:1,1~ 165:24; 1~:5; 1~; 174:11,13; 1~ 11~~ 27:24; ~:12; ~~ 118:8 K !['1111flll'J~l 17:22 7k2:~1; 47:19; 48:1,6; 60:11; 75:24; 119:22; 158:17 keeping 45:20; 119:21 keeps 60:17 ~ 70:25 83~.. 63:21; 67:8; 68:6; 3; 84:2 kid 79:24 kind 5:23; 13:9; _25:9, 49:8,21; 71:15; 86:24; 94:13; 105:17; 133:23; 163:9; 190:16; 192:3; 196:5 kinds 62:24; 86:25; 134:1; 185:13 KIIPPSTEIlq 10:2,3; 83:25; 107:15,15; 108:17; 115:5,23; 116:18,22; 117:5; 124:19; 125:4; 178:19,19; 188:19,22; 189:7 O8/2O/97 I~noell 155:4 Irnowledl~ 34:14; 39:5,9, 49:13; 17I:14; 180:21 knowledgeable 54:8 known 39:2; 61:22,22; 62:8,9,16; 63:8; 66:25; 81:1; 94:7; 100:23; 144:7,9,15,16; 145:23; 146:24,24,25; 156:10,11; 171:4; 182:16 know~ 30:8; 56:2; 72:18; 83:5; 139:25; 140.-6; 190:5,9 L ~ 55:21; 163:25; 201:25 L.~ 60:24 labot~orie~ 45:13 lack 26:4; 50:13; 95:10; 174:21; 209:12 lady 4:22; 116:16 ~ 3:13; 15:16; 137:17 llmd 84:21,22; 94:25; 97:3; 98:16; 102:9,11; 105:19; 106:10; 112:17; 121:22,24,25; 122:1,6; 123:9,11,21; 124:25; 125:2; 131:15; 185:13; 197:19 !and-use 183:18,23 landed 132..6 !andhokle=r 123:11 !and8 125:21; 187:7 111:2,3d~, ,23 110:22; landscaped 113:5 landslide 68:19; 72:3; 88:25; 89:19,22,23; 90:2; 91:1,3; 177:2; 180:20; 192:15 !~nd~li&[. 46:22; 72:1; 88:16,18; 89:1,5,5,9,10; 95:8; 171:3; 192:9 151~: 1546:20,23; 87:25; ; 171:18 largely 165:14 151aff~:1642:23; 64:24; 65:5; ; 185:19 largeat 70:19; 75:7 last 14:16; 17:10; 18:4,17,22; 19:24; 37:4,4; 38:3; 49:1; 51:23; 75:14; 77:9; 79:8; 81:6; 133:22; 135:18; 141:21; 142:15; 143:8; 148:21; 161:23; 163:17; 166:16; 170:11; 175:8,14; 176:10,13; 183:21 !aatly 48:25; 195:14 late 18:17; 27:12; 39:2; 41:13; 81:7 later 16:1; 41:9, 44:8; 103:25; 119:14; 154:10; 179:9 laintel 54:13; 61:2,3 L&UIIEN 1:7; 2.~; 9:4; 16:14; 18:9; 19:23; 32:4; 38:4; 46:2; 49:22,24; 50:3,5,15,18; 51:2,3,13,17,23; 55:14; 57:16,18,19; 59:25; 63:10; 66:13,17,20; 75:23; 77:17,24; 79:19; 83:19; M & M Certified Court Reporters n~,,o-a~.,~ Index 13 Transcript of Proceedings 85:8; 92:10, 118:1,4; 121..6; 122:5,23; 123:20; 126:1; 134:22; 135.'6; 141:7; 144:23; 146:8; 150:8,13; 154:15; 158:8; 171:1; 177:21; 183:10, 194:6; 201:15; 202:24 I~w 3:9; 25:22; 26:13; 58:5,11; 59:10,10; 76:1; 78:9; 80:10; 83:14,16; 106:20; 126:14,18; 1~4:10; 141:5; 142:2,3,4,8; 176:5; 208:1; 209:24 !aw~mOwers 160:20 !l~r$ult 52:18; 80:1; 130:20,21; 181:21,21; 212:18 !l~ult~ 136:18; 184:2 ~ 72:18; 83:3; 85.'6 !m~y~rs 80:11; 132:25; 181:~; 182:22 ~ 201:5 layout 203:6 lemi 62:5,20; 78.~; 119:11,11; 156:16; 175:17 I~ling 59:8; 67:12; 70:5 lemls 117:19 learn 214:17 learned 141:25; 142.~; 143:8; 151:16 lea~t 4:10; 10:18; 11:4; 28:18; 142:1; 155:3; 214:8; 217:15 iem~ 200:24; 201:13; 217:25 le~v~ 90:12 led 175:19 Lee 133:5 Leeooa 10:3; 83:25; 84:3; 107:15; 124:19; 125:4; 178:19 left 4:22; 22..6 legal 10:15; 16:10; 32:24; 52.:17,17; 75:20; 78:10; 79:13; 81:22; 113:20; 115:12,20; 124:10; 136:15; 161:8,22; 162:8; 163:21; 177:12; 181:16; 183:13; 185:7 I~,~ 40:8; 121:22; legend 94:23 !egtsl~thre 186:3,8 legislatures 58:13 length 147:9 Leon 145:15 less 31:15; 48:21; 54:23; 73:2,3; 203:14 Let's 48:1; 61:6; 137:25; 156:24; 204:22; 216:14 letter 9:7; 12:22; 13:11,12,25; 23:4; 40:21,22; 41:5,7,9,18; 49:25; 51:15,21; 65:9; 68.0; 69:6,7; 70:2; 72:22; 76:20,23; 77:5,13,22; 78:18; 127:22,22,25; 128:4,5,7,8; 144:19; 145:6; 146:13,15,15; 147:10,18; 148:24; 149:7,9; 150:25; 151:7,7,8,13; 153:21,21; 154:11,22; 1 58:9,22; 159:1,2,9,13; 16~.7,9;, 161:1,3,6,11,14,17,20,21; 162.~,13,15,18; 163:1,12,16,17,20;, 164:3,6,8; 165:3,5,22,24; 166:3,5,16,23; 174:12,20, 175:4; 176:18,18; 195:16,18 letterhead 153:22 lett~ 8:17; 23:2; 38:20,24; 76:16; 135:13; 136:2; 144:21; 172:2,4,8; 174:15; 179:10 levee 20:23; 43:10,20, 44:5; 46.0,10,25; 47:2; 55.~,7; 56:7; 59:24,25; 60:19; 67:15,21; 70.~,9,12,14,18,21,24,25; 71:4,7; 72:7,10, 82:2; 84:4,8,9; 87:3,12,14,15,20,23,25; 88.~, 15; 90:21,21,22; 92:14,19, 93:9,22,23,24; 94:3,6,15,20; 97:20,20;, 98:12,14,19; 101:25; 111:4; 128:3; 132:4,14,20, 133:17; 137:3,4,7; 138:17; 139:2,6,7,10,10; 140:3,5,6,10,14; 156:24; 157:5,6,11,12,18,25; 158:2; 170:17,19,21,23; 171:20; 180:20; 189:23,24; 190:1,4,6,8,8,19,21,22; 191:3,5,9,9,15,19,24; 195:11,12,12; 196:18,18,23,24; 200:24 level 25:15; 26:10, 123:14; 178:1; 193:8; 196:~, 197:25 levels 21.~ 52:17; 81:25 156:1 lice~u~ 86:22 lied 63:12 life 131:14; 133:15; 214:13 1~3..I 62.~; 66:25; 121:5; 9 tl~ 46:23 likolihcN)d 171:10 ~ 64:22; 152:18 limit 32:8; 83:9;, 97:11; 135:23; 140:19 limited 140:20 limit~ 21:2,22 linchphi 63:21 line 31:5; 60:4; 77.~; 91:9; 97:1,2; 102:19, 103:18; 104:10; 105:17; 131:16,17,17,18; 132:19; 145:5; 146:23; 185:11; 197:1; 212:25 line.by-lime 139:13 lilies 77:20; 97:16; 98.~; 196:8 ~ 113:20; 124:8 List 66:9; 74:16; 109:12; 137:2 listed 119:7; 120:17; 149:25 listen 52:21; 53:14; 79:22; 85:10; 158:25; 170:13; 199:23 listened 194:18 listenimR 11:3; 134:23; 160.~; 2(~2:24 literally 29:8; 33:17 ~e 120:21 ll~8~te~ 183:20 l~i~ 79:25 ~o~ 29:19; 53:24; 79:20; 100:14; 115:18,20; 122:10, 183:8 little 6:15; 8:16; 14:19; 25:4,5; 31:15; 44:13; 54:23; 55:18; 58:1; 60:8; 70:21,21,25; 88:2,6,12; 94:19, 96:13,25; 104:21,22; 106:10, 109:4; 140:4; 143:3; 148:18; 181:24; 197:15; 207:23 ~ 32:19; 38:11; 45:9, 56:2,4; 59:24; 65:18,22; 66:1,6; 84:8,9; 95:23; 127:18; 133:16; 200:3,16,19, 203:7,15 ~ 46:15; 134:20 ~ 55:20 74.'~2; 18:21; 46:14; 55:19, 84:13; 95:24; 160:16; 176:21 Liz 49:4 1oc81 46:20;, 97:8; 113:15; 119:11; 121:9,12,12; 123:23; 126:22 Iol~l~ed 66:24; 99:12; 124:10 IocmlO~l 20:12; 91:10, 102:18; 140:1; 192:10 Iotatim 98:13 Loeb 55:4,4; 153:22,22 log 99,1 logic 37:23; 58:5; 157:24 logical 116:15 !osica!iy 171:14 1~ 14:7; 25:17,21; 47:5; 48.~, 57:9; 65:13; 68:14; 71:14; 81:5; 106:12; 128:14; 154:22; 173:25; 181:4; 194:23; 199:24 Iotaget 16:20; 44:3; 68:22; 70:9~, 71:11; 82:13; 90:16; 94:17; 140:7; 158:15 :1,5; 26:3; 27:23; 56:14; 57:1,13; 58:2; 65:15; 68:17; 83:4,15,17; 84:23; 85:2,23; 86:5; 93:13; 107:24; 119:10, 122:5; 129:2,7,10; 132:11; 133:8,9,11; 134:4,19; 147:21; 148:13; 154:8; 156:5; 158:11; 160:8,11; 165:15; 173:1; 175:21; 178:5,5; 181:9,11; 182:3; 183:15; 186:6; 187:16; 195:24; 201:22; 202:14,18; 203:15,17; 212:25 looked 26:21; 29:5; 34:20; 45:24; 68:20; 91:7; 103:15; 109:1; 117:23; 119:9; 129:10; 131:25; 196.~,7,14; 204:14 1oollahl~ 29:24; 74:1; 95:13; r04:24; 106:17; 111:1,24; 114:20; 131:22; 133:7; 158.~; 162:23; 166:12; 188:4; 196:7; 203:23; 204:2,12,15; 208:8; 209:1; 210:10 looks 93:14; 197:14 !ooze 89:12,20 Ioo~emed 46:22 M 55:17; 59:21; 78:11 Iffi 48:11; 134.~,12 !o~nq 178:2 1o~ 118:13; 120:3; 122:11; 155:1 Iffi 119:15 Io~t 46:17; 109:14 lot 4:16,25; 19:8; 22:10,20, 23:20; 25:13,23; 33:4,5; 35:13; 51:25; 52:2,5; 57:21; 58:10,16; 59:20,21; 60:15; 63:24; 64:25; 67:21; 69:24; 73:2,3; 74:21; 75:1; 76:7; 77:16; 80:4,9,12,21; 81:2,6; 83:1,8,12; 84:1,16; 85:1; 86:10; 93:17; 104.~; 119:1; 121:17; 129.~; 130:15; 145:2; 165..4; 171:5,8; 177:11; 178:4; 181:4; 189:12; 193.0; 197:19, 199:1,11; 200:11; 202:21; 203:4; 209:9; 216:1 lots 20:16; 21:23,25; 22:8,24; 26:5,6,6; 35:13; 39:25; 40:5,11,11,16; 42:4,5,6; 52:4; 104:5 louder 148:18 love 67:4,16; 85:7; 175:7 loved 59:5 !o~ 186:2; 187:11 iow. medi, m~ 99:4 lower 98:4; 105:23 lowest 37:20 lowland 203:15 ludlerou~ 93:10; 94:1 IUIICh 73:24 M M-a-t-e-I 155:24 m~ffnlJ~ed 154:20 64: 5~ 46:13; 63:23; 65.~,11; 67:1; 91:9,15; 154:2,5; 155:20, 156.~; 157:25; 168:10,11 ~ 155:15,17 ~ 11:3 ~ 101:1 M~ine$tn 111:21; 196.~; 202~ ~~ t~:13; 1~:19 ~tn~tnn 1~:21 ~t~ 1~:22 94~ 69:11; ~:10; 93:19; ~:7; 155:11; 1~:1; 158:2; 167:20; 1~:20,24; 1~:21 5:10, 11:2~ 12:1,15; 13:3; 15:25; ~:20; ~:24; 47:14; 51:9,11; ~:22,24; 76:24; ~:3; 78:10; ~:19; ~:5,12; 82:15,19,20; ~:10; 85~; 87:5; 92:18,19; 95:24; M & M Certified Court Reporters ~r~u~s, Index 14 Transcript of Proceedings 101:4; 102:20;, 115:2; 129:5; 130:9, 133.~,7,14; 134:14; 137:14; 138:8,11; 141:19; 142:19; 148:14,22; 149:1,8; 150:4,14; 172.~; 173:12; 174:1; 175:16; 177:6,18; 179:21; 182:2; 184:7,8,11; 186:4; 193:1,10; 195:8; 200:23,25; 201:22; 202:20,22; 203:19; 205:14,22,24,25; 208:1,17; 210:14; 215:11 Illlakes 8.'~; 29:8; 60:18; 123:14; 157:11; 159:13; 198:15 msS'lag 10:11; 6~:5; 82:15; 83:21; 115:10, 140:18; 173:18; 185:22; 208:19 ~ 6:9; 7:20; 10.~; 16:23; 55:3; 91:1; 96:13; 107:25; 109:11; 138:24; 167:9; 178:23 maal 94:7; 140:4; 196:20,21 Man, 84:7 m~Be 49:5; 200:3 mallaged 174:15 Management 49:5,6,18,21 ed 3:13; 15:16 121:22 mandatory 42:22 m~m~4c 196:18 manner 110:23 Man,lml 97:4 26m~.. 8 20:16; 25:16,20; ; 27:9; 29:10, 33:19; 38:18; 42:2,7; 43:11; 56~16; 64:16; 80:20; 91.~; 97:8,11; 98:1,3,10,11,17; 100:20; 102:17; 106:24,25; 110:1; 117:5; 118.~; 120:14; 135:13; 173:8; 185:13,13; 187:2; 196:14; 197:13 12m~ed 116:4; 118:8; 11~868:8; 88:13; :20; 127.~,9 mappitlgs 127:13 82..m~,1 26:13; 40:12; 64:25; 0,12; 96:19; 97:1,15,25; 98:20; 103:15; 185:12; 203:23 Marathon 84:7 March 49:25; 51:14 MARDON 1:13; 2:21 Mark 45:7; 48:10; 55:9; 59:23; 77:25 Marit's 56:9; 66:7,8,9 marked 106:22; 109:4 market 37:12; 79:4; 187.~ MARKMAN 3:4; 4:18; 5:15; 6:14; 8:3; 11:15; 12:11; 15:10,17; 16:16; 25:1; 28:24; 31:20; 32:7; 44:19; 45:1; 47:11,16; 48:1,10,13; 53:4,9; 57:8; 67:4; 73:10; 74:3; 78.~; 83:5; 99:20,21; 114:7,21; 115:21; 116:15; 117:3; 137:5,9,15,25; 170:1,7; 179:25; 180:9; 181:3; 192:18; 193:21; 194:1,6,10,14; 198:14; 205:10, 206:2,10,15; 207:1,15,25; 208:20; 209:11; 210:5,10,15,21; 211:4,12; 212:2,13; 213:2,9; 214:4,7,14,22; 215:7,13,18; 216:15; 217:1,12,21; 218:3,9 Markman's 52:24; 53:22 ~ 203:5 m .~981~1g 23:10,13; 24:3,9; 104:17 111~tCh 186:7 matched 97:16 Mateal, 155:24 material 7:3; 8:4,9,12; 31:16; 35:10; 89.~,18,22,25; 90:8,12; 94:7; 114:13; 190:10, 214:17; 215:10 materials 19:8; 58:17; 63:10; 70:16; 74:10; 8~:10; 136:16,20; 137:11 matrix 117:14 Matter 1:3; 2:4; 4:23; 6:18; 11:16; 15:9; 26:15; 32:16; 47:25; 55:11; 58:3; 60:13; 68:13; 96:12; 115:20; 126:7; 141:18; 161:11; 173:12; 178:14,24; 179:13; 191:16; 196:11; 207:1; 209:12; 213:25 matters 59:20 mature 146:12,17,18; 147:2 Maureen 130:25; 133:3 mwrimiTe 121:21 ma:mlmnm 21:25; 22:8,23; 89:17 27m~:, 7:15; 8:25; 17:2; 18,22,22; 29:19, 34:1; 38:8; 47:4; 50:14; 51:16; 55:12; 61:11; 64:17; 81:1; 99:11; 103:25; 104:25; 106:25; 112:15,17; 115:10,12,17; 132:11,13; 148:10,10; 152:7,8; 158:19, 165:8; 174:8,8; 177:24; 180.~; 185:16,16; 190:15; 204:23; 209.~,20, 215:25 ..Maybe 5:17; 6:15; 25:4; 44:19; 80:11; 99:25; 103:8; 106:8; 130:2; 186:7; 188:15; 200:19; 214:9,15,17 _~ 3:3,4; 5:4,~,7,9,12,16,25; 6:5,12,14; 7:3,12; 8.~; 9:2; 10:1,19; 11:23; 12:14,19,21; 13:18,23; 14:9,11; 15:1,16,21; 16:2,3,6,8,18; 20:9; 24:18; 30:17; 31:8,11,22; 32:2; 44:9,17,24; 45:3; 47:5,8,10; 49:3; 52:12; 55:2; 71:11,15; 74:4,6; 86:9; 95:18,21; 104:24; 107:9; 108:15; 114:3,7,18; 115:4,19, 116:16,20,25; 127.~,17,20; 133:3; 137:20; 140:24; 141:2,4; 158:15; 170:7; 173:24; 180:12,25; 187:24; 188:20; 189:5,9; 193.~,13,17; 194:10; 195:5; 197:14; 198:9,13,14; 202:15; 204:9; 206:8,21,25; 207:4,6,12,16,19; 208:8; 209:5; 210:1,14,18,20; 211:18,24; 213:7; 214:2,12,15,25; 216:3,11,24; 217:2,9,19,23; 218:2,6,7,11,13,15 McGuire 9:4; 141.~ M{-!i~ieth 6:9, 7:20; 9:8; 10.~; 13:12; 16:23,23; 39:11; 47:21; 55:3,4; 71:13,16; 74:10, 107:25; 109:12; 136:17; 137:4,11,16,22; 138:24; 139:4; 141:11; 143:1,20; 144:19, 145:1; 153:23; 159.~,10, 163:18; 167:10, 169:25; 170:5; 173:25; 183.~; 192:17,21; 193..4,9,15; 194:21; 211:7; 216:2 McKieth's 179:24; 180:3 meal 13:7; 15:3; 31.~, 41:22; 84:12,13; 138:10, 157:24; 208:5 tlleatlitl~ 73:11; 189:16; 195:22; 206:23 meaningful 176:7 roeams 15:19; 71:25; 75:15; 140:13; 208:11 meant 50:20, 157:4; 170:23; 177:15; 208:7 measures 34.~; 57:4; 103:3,21; 121:23; 177:10, 192:7 media 58:16 mediciliad 113:17; 125:5 Medicine 165:13 medisediments 88:20,21 _me~ ,m 36:5; 9~.2 meet 40:25; 56:7; 112.~; 132:2,2 meetit!11: 4:10, 5:14,22; 8:14; 1~..12; 11:5; 14:1; 16:11; 21:17; 39:12; 40:24; 41.~,7,8,11,17; 50:4,9,10,13,15,16,19,21,21; 51:3,5,24; 52:9,9; 53:15; 60:24; 99:20; 108:7; 130:13; 133:23; 159:5; 206:8; 214:1; 215:24 35:19me~; ..26:24; 33:5; 2; 40:4; 54:3; 108:13 meets 187:20 member 45:10; 107:17; 1 38'~; 214:8 m~q~_het~ 27:13; .32:2; 52:2,3,3; 95:22 memo 13:23; 145:14 me~lorallda 176:20 memorandum 76:25; 109:25; 168.~ Mel!lorlal 48:18 menfio~l 99:15,16; 145:5; 148:22; 163:25; 203:9,22; 211:2; 212:23 mentioned 54:18; 78:12; 90:21; 96:10; 100:10; 104:16; 125:4; 133:24; 170:16; 196:2; 207:2; 211:11 mere 169:19 merely 40:18 08t20/97 merits 136:11; 209:15 messaffe 204:18 meal 142:10 method 71:22,22,24 methods 71:19 ~ 155:13 n rom,picany 210. middle 112:25; 157:13 migration 90:2 miles 153:14,15,15,15 Millit~e~ 99:5; 100.~ mlllloo 59:18 mlllic e. 168:25 m~nd 15:5,6; 146:1; 155:9 millds 105:14; 185:2 minimal 70:12 minhlliT~e 101:15 m~l~ed 33:22 min~ni~es 23:20 mtn~,m~ 68:8; 92:25; 93:3; 158:18 minute 175:9; 176:10,13 m~utes 8:13; 19.~; 44:24; 45:4; 47:7; 60:24; 74:2; 117:1; 158:19, 185:4; 202:16 mislead 162:23 ~214.~epresented 108:23; mission 50:23 misstatements 172:8,11 mistake 136:5 mistaken 136:8 mistakes 161:20,21 mt~m? 2r~tood 181:25 m~lil~te~l 104:1; 125:18; 126:~ 177:19 mit~lg~l~g 75:12; 103:3,20 mitili~eion 57:4; 122:1; 177:5,10; 192:7 mix 42:23; 129:22 mixed 204:18 models 44:22; 68:2; 204:16 moderate 155:14 moderll 197:22 Modi~c~tloos 113:7 modi~ 211:24,25 mold 61:10 moment 203:21 blO~lday 159:5 _m~ _{~_e~_ 57:17,21; 60:18; 79:11; 80:4,12; 82:7; 134:8,14; 200:12,25; 204:5 I!lOOles 57:18 month 9:19; 176:16 mootIls 48:22; 54:23; 79:8; 81:7; 143:9; 169.~; 209:13 Moo~e 86:15; 91:5; 157:1; 170:14; 174:7; 194:19 moratorium 119:8; 120:12 Mogeov~r 157:12 7:23;o~: 17:18; 18:2; 19; 69:9; 70:1; 107:14; 141:2,4; 173:18 Mot~ton 155:24 mostly 55:20 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~-~ Index 15 Transcript of Proc¢¢~ings 08/20/97 motiota 11:23; 12:11,16,20; 14:12; 15:18,19,21,25; 16:4; 198:23; 205:11,23,24,25; 206:19,21; 207:5,6,10,16,21; 208:5; 210:10,14,20,22; 211:11,12,13,18; 214:25; 215:2; 216:13,15,17,20;, 218:5,12,14 motimzs 212:11 motivated 60:16 MOU 116:3,14; 118:3; 119:14; 121.~,20, 147.~, 11,12,16,20,21; 148:7,23; 149:3,12; 162:1 mounded 190:11 MOz~t 46:15,19 nlounlldn 94:11; 192:10, 203:14 mo~mlain$ 7:2; 46:20, 111:11; 192:9; 202:3 move 4:5; 15~.~ 69:2; 89:1; 90:5; . moved 19:14; 132:5 movement 88:25; 89:25; 121:8,9 m__ov~g_ 5:10; 68:11; 171:11; 192:2 MSIICP 116:9,14 MSHCPIdOU 115:13; 118:3; 119:12; 120:23 MSHCPMOU$ 117:21 multilevel 21.~ M e 1~8:1u~ 116:2; 147:7; muae~=m 109:7 mysterious 75:25 N namle 7:17; 10:2; 32:3; 45:7; 52:13; 86:13; 95:22; 107:15; 124:8,24; 127:18; 128.'6; 130:25; 133:5; 134:16; 141:5; 200:10 named 167:9 narrow 53:13; 58:1 Nation 10:15; 109:10; 113:22; 124:14,21,25; 125.'6; 126:11,21,25; 127:4 native 89:12; 124:21; 126:14,22; 164:12 natural 47:3; 49:1; 98:3; 101:25; 102:17; 103:13; 104:3; 107:18; 108:7; 109:1,23; 110:11,25; 111:2,3,22,25; 112:4; 113:5,24; 115:25; 116:20; 123:7; 146:9,22; 196:18,20; 197:8 nature 25:25; 29:24; 70:7; 143:15; 144:7,15; 146:1,4; 151:2; 152:21 NCC~ 113:25; 116:2,5,12; 118:16; 119:2,4; 120:18; 121:2 near 100:5; 134:2; 192:11 neceasarily 31:9; 114:25; 201:4 necessary 31:14; 58:25; 106:8; 140:7; 191:16 neck.in.neck 58:12 need 5:4,22; 7:13; 17:25; 18:5; 25:4; 28:1,19; 57:14; 63:1; 71:14; 72:4; 81:18,19, 114:3,12; 115:21; 134:2,4,18,19; 142:11,18; 162:2,14,17; 165:18,20; 166:15; 170:3; 175:22; 176:15; 198:17,23; 201:13; 202:13; 204:25; 209.~,7 n~led 13:5; 42:17; 112:15; 117:23; 122:15; 125:17; 192:9; 214:12 need$ 78:19; 84:19; 117:17; 144:1; 170:2; 181:19; 201:21; 205:11,15; 207:22 Negative 56:17,18; 57:1,6; 61.~; 62:11,15,~,, 64:2; 76:19, 86:3,4; 124:5; 144:8; 178:10 negotiating 49:22 n~_~otlatio~s 77:23; 122:4 neighbor 55:9 neighborhood 19:18; 26:4~,5; 28:3; 34~:7,22; 50:20, 52:9; 55:17; 60:10,11,12,16; 100:19; 128:12; 157:15; 200:15 nei~hboehood's 46:17 n~6..~; lboring 125:21 bor$ 43:4i 55:14,23; 35:19 Neither 58:5 Nelson 153:10 Network 107:18; 110:24 neverthelea$ 31:1; 197:2 new 12.~; 2~.4; 37:21; 56:15; 61:10,16,21; 62:7,19, 66:22,25; 67.~; 71:5,22,24; 81:13; 85:22; 91:16; 108:3; 118:2; 122:25; 143:15; 144.~,14,18; 145:7; 147:5,24; 148:2; 150:3; 154:9,18; 156.~,7; 162:13; 164:12,15,20, 165:12; 169:2,2; 172:25; 175:11; 180:12; 182:6,7; 184:21; 204:2; 206:4,11; 208:3; 214:13,14,17 news 145:2 newall~a~t' 113:15 ne~t 34:11; 45:6; 67:10,19; 81:12,13,13; 84:24; 114:16; 133:4; 155:22 nl~e 10:22; 89:21 nickel 59:9 ln~..2~ 8:23; 11:7; 18:18; nine 13:22; 39:16; 209:8 Nino 202:1 no, 109:4 EN3:17o1~; 9018:16; 80:22; :9; 198:9 noise 160:11,19,23 no~!deaign 32:11 No~e 175:10; 193:12 nonetheless 27:2 nonissue 149:23 nontract 39:21 normally 25:5; 94:10,13; 166:24 north 43:13,14; 77:191 92:13; 93:8; 100.'6; 116:8; 152:13; 179:1,12; 196:7 Northern 82:13; 97:19 Northridge 132:17 northwear 125:25 note 73.~; 151:13,23; 165:1; 169:12 noted 163:18 note~ 146:16; 153:23; 154.'6 _n__ _otl~ng_ 43:3178:5; 107:4; 128:23; 136:14,24; 138:12; 139:20, 147:1; 156:14; 158:1; 176:22,25; 199:5,6,6; 211:16 notk~ 19:15; 26:16,17; 39:2; 48:17,18; 49:10, 54:21,22; 55:12; 73:18; 81:5; 117:8 notloed 17:2; 26:12,23 n~o~150.-6; 51:13 nolalfled 50:12,21; 51:18; 163:12 notify 52:7 r65.'ot~l 145:16; 147:20, noti(m 81:4 notwifime~mng 71:9, 74:22 novel 212:16 November 77:8; 119:13,16; 127:21; 162:15; 163:15; 165:3 novo 184:25 Number 3:21; 22:2,3; 23:2; 26:24; 39:18; 42:20,23,25; 101.-9, 103:24; 133:4,21; 141:15; 152.~,11,16; 168.~,8,15; 172:7,9, 181.'8; 200:17; 206:17 m~nhers 99:8 nmn,q~us 154:4 nutshell 95:8 0 o'dock 16:25; 47:22; 58:19; 107:14; 141:3 O~Neil 167:2; 185:5; 186:18; 189:12; 190:17; 191:7,17; 192:19,23; 193:24; 194:3,8; 195.~,7 O-s-h-i-r-o 124..9 Od. 66:14 Ol~ 125:20 objected 179:3 objection 48:5; 179:10 objection, 31:4 objecttv~ 111:14 objectively 29:5 0 :~ 24:2. 1125 175ob5:!~4:4 ed 52:19;, 147:13; 56:1ob1~; 1; l~n 19:15; 54:14; 3:18 obligati~ 66:5; 73:8 obllomiozi$ 123:21 oL~e.~ vation 151:21,22; 152:10,11,17,18,22; 153:14 olde v~ 152:8 obsolete 157:11 obtain 153..6; 180:4 o1~-' e~ 162:15 obvlot~ 111:4 Obviotlsly 9:12; 26:15; 27:8; 47:f8; 112:25; 184:24 oeet~ 61:21; 62:19; 95:1; 171..6 ooeurr~! 25:17; 118:10; 119:15; 144:25; 159..6; 171:15; 179:20 oeeurr~iee 155:20 occurs 216:3 October 168:7 off 69:2; 80:18; 93:23; 114:4,22; 132:8; 146:9; 197:22,25; 202:17 offer 203:10 offered 79:11; 124:19; 204:16 office 7:18; 17:5,25; 27..6,11,19; 41:20, 58:14; 89:3; 93:12; 103:15; 159:4 offleer 159:15 offices 109:12 oflkia151:1; 118:16; 13~:4 offl~t 65:2,4 Oh 45:1; 60:7; 69..6 O 2~:21~; 9:2; 10:24; 16..6; 31:22; 45:3; 48:12; 115:4; 137..9;, 197:25 old 71:22; 82:11; 204:4,6; 209:17; 214:14 Olivia 84..6 oll~e 11:18; 25..6; 42:22; 81:8; 152:9, 163:11 One 3..4; 6:24,25; 8:1,9,23; 14:3; 15:4; 17:7; 18:7; 19:14; 21:17; 23:3,17; 26:10, 29:4; 31:12,17,18,19; 36:3; 37:7,17; 39:8; 40:13,14; 41:11; 44:11,21; 52:3; 53:2,15; 55:10,24; 61:20; 62:7,13; 65:3; 68:7; 75:7; 77:2; 80:1; 82:1; 87:7; 89:15; 92:2,3,3; 94:5; 100:3,9; 101:10, 104.-6; 107:10,14; 108:5; 114..9; 117:17,23; 127:15; 128:22,23; 129:3; 130:18; 131..6; 132:10; 133:8; 137:1,5; 138:16; 141:15; 143:14; 144:17,20; 151:24; 152:12; 153:4; 155:11; 163:17; 166:16; 170:2; 171:11; 172:5; 173:5; 179:4,7; 180:20; 181:5,8,17; 182:5,17; 183:19; 184:1; 185:18; 188:1; 190:4; 193:13; 195:8; 196:4; 198:3; 200:17; 203:14; 205:9; 207:13; 208:2; 212:18,18,18; 213:17,20,21,23; 214:8; 216:4,6,15,21,21,22; 217:10 o~e.fl.fth 89:17 one-sided 159:8 ones 29:4; 81:16; 82:5,6; 95:12; 130:16; 201:22 Ontario 86:15 open 16:11; 24:20; M & M Certified Court Reporters ~,~,~ Index 16 Transcript of Proceedings 31211,23; 4921; 54:5; 72215,19; 79217; 96221; 98:22; 100222; 101218,21; 102.~,8; 10721; 110224; 11129;, 11224,9,14,15; 11324; 126220;, 185D, 13; 18729; 203213 opened 84:23 ~ 115:12,17,19 opf. rati~g 80:7; 172214 7 ..O~3; Oil 9:7; 30:4; 54:2; 72:24; 73:25; 81220,20; 82:8; 83213; 87.~; 88:25; 95215; 98221; 99:22; 10021; 115221; 16022; 181222; 192.~; 194221 1~1..12~ 86:20; 87:4; ; 183.~ opponents 135210; 209:20 ~es 78214 _opl~etunlty 40:7; 44:7; 12223; 137220; 142220;, 151214 1~ 6210; 100214; 12521; 171221 opposing 82:25 opposite 111220 2 :~ 4214; 6219;, 2o~..~cc~ 22213; 147224; ,8,12,12,15,17; 13025,6; 131213; 18822,6,8,9,11,18; 199216 options 208216,19 oral 12622; 151217 Orange 52:23; 53:5,6; 83.~; ~11729,12 oranges 156225 ORBOI~m.!O 13325,5 order 4215; 6:25; 19216; 142211; 144211; 171220;, 18327; 18728 ordinance 23218; 24.~; 33211; 34:3; 57:25; 85218; 96.~, 11; 101211; 10224,4,16,23; 10321,10; 10422,4,9; 10622,16; 107.~; 185217,18,25; 187213,16,20; 188213; 196219; 19724 ordinances 34217; 135225; 136210; 140220 110~..20;t~eion 6210; 23212; 120211; 144221 orientatiotl 2225,5,19, 23213 oriented 205:5 61..or~2; 63 21220; 47:23; :25; 138220; 167224; 176220,20; 196214; 197212; 208:4 91.~ 56216,17; 68:3; ; 167212; 16822 OSHIRO 12428,8; 12729 others 8218; 11529 othetasrise 75:4; 161218; 173219 o t 184211; 203210,20 1~..11; 28214; 11521; ourselves 115219; 200:8 out, 79:24 out-of-town 130:22 outlined 112221 o~ltnl~lg 51217 outrageous 162224 oz~ding 6:17 overall 40218; 43:24; 70211,13; 72211; 118216; 17327 ~over/~23:21 58:7,8; 65:1; 74215 ovl~'heal~l 188223 overlily 106220 overmatched 13522 o,,~pa~es. 132218 Ov{-~l~O.. ertng 105212 overrule 19927 oversight 99210 o,,.~.Mated 165214 overtop 71225; 7221 1o~..2 opping 176224; overtures 80:5 ~ 21828 overturned 217:20 OWn 40:4; 45215; 4~27; 73211; 85217; 136211; 172210,10; 17724,9;, 18926; 193218; 20129; 209215 owned 39:22,22,23; 4021,1; 121222; 123212; 190223 owner 40:23; 41219;, 49214; 79:4; 123211; 173215 owners 51225; 52:2,5; 13122 owns 52:4 P p,m 2219;, 4:3; 12212 pack 46:20 ~..~23;3524'5'12 72221; 78221; 166216 ~ 23219 pads 2125 339210; 73212; 74216; ; 98:4; 101211; 104218; 115224; 153223; 198220  138218 18328 Palato 13124 Pales 133225 1~11~"~"~ ~-S 55:20 paper 93:22 ~~ 43216 8~ 49214,16; ~219, ~21 ~ 78:8; 12623 ~ 35217 ~ ~23; 69:4 4224; 6212; ~22; ; 1~28; 118219, 11922; 12623; 13127; 135215; 15723; 171218; 1~27,9, IMP; IM223; 189225; 202:6; 203212,14; 204.'9; 21224 1~.'8; 75210, 421~ 57215; 97221; 110224; 14324; 14625; 207213,14,15; 216211 parts 212216 12223; 13.~; 86217; 12224 ~ 35214; 64217; 216215 1~ 57.~;, 70217; 137.~,12 ffi 73219; 210222 1~3..187218; 106.~,13; 3; 114216; 12242i8; 127211; 149220, 15029, 165215; 19722; 202:2 path 182223; 183212 p~:hetle 57:5; 5821; 70:25 patrol 46218 ~ 169214 PAUL 3:4; 29:22; 208215; 21722 Paul's 205:7 praise 116222 pe~ks52219, 82.~; 95:4 203:8 40:14; 1 6:18; 4219,20, 11218; 8:4,24; 19211,18; 25.~; 27218; 2921,13; 30:2; 31214; 35213; 36:7,23; 37:25; 3828~0;, 39:23; 4021,7; 4122,2,10,13,17,24; 54:8; 55216; 56:5; 59211,12,22,24; 60:2,3,24; 65:20,25; 67:23; 7023,19, 75:3; 78:3; 79:23; 82:22,25; 83212,19; 84:3,25; 8721; 107.~; 113219; 136213; 137212,21; 13925,6; 141215; 160216,17,19, 17822,9,11; 181.~,13,25; 18522,5; 20021,2,4,7,15; 201217; 203211; 204:20, 20521,19, 206216; 208221 per 94:24 ~ed 18823 21~37,1~t; 21223; 22:24; 39:24,25; 40:2,3; 51225; 52:4; 102225; 10322,10,13,14,20; 12025; 128215,16; 13925; 19624; 200216 percolatioo 190214 perfectly 1323 pengo= ...~.~ce 139224 6821~ 167222; 71~g~; 17:5; 10210; 72:25 9~5..10d 25221; 194222; ; 214215 periodic 14624 permanent 77:25 peJumalently 167219 permeable 94:7 permi~sien 75216 5..~23;I~_ 34:20; 35:23; 150211 O8/20/97 perpetuity 18629 ~ 12224; 31218; ~1211; 63:7; 75218; 87211; 141215; 142215; 17022; 174214,19, 21521 peraona117224; 19214; 173225; 202216 6220 162218 pe..t$[.~N.t%~. 10218; 148213 p~la~im~ 13722; 140221 p¢~ tdns 166219 1..~ ..le~,10, ent 28211; 30215,23; 32:7; 106217; 142221; 149222; 15121; 170213 pha~maeeutic~ 45213 pho~le 14218; 58219 3?etic 148221; 15524 or!eric) 75:7; 124213; · ~; 159215; 168222 ph~ed 34219 1~ otograplls 70:18 l~ly~i~ll 111:7 ~c.~[Y~:~:18 cture l~17~:l8 10422; 14024; ll~5~ee 122212,12; 147:5; 212; 175.~ ]~1~9216142219, 154210; pink 85215 pivotal 154224 plaee 12225; 39.~; 6(~.17; 65:3; 7125; 77217,25; 125225 placed 15424 l:J~ceme~t 199217 Plan 21210,11,12; 2222,3,3,4,7,7,10,10;, 23:24,24; 27214,16; 33213,20;, 40219, 44:22; 54:4; 72215; 73:9,11,15,16~21,22; 96214,17,21; 97218; 98:9,16,17,21,24,25,25; 99.~,8,12,17,18,18; 10021,3,7,8,17,22; 101218,21; 10228,12; 103221; 105222; 106.~,8,18,22; 10721,3,3,7; 109221,23; 11021,10,19; 111215,18; 11223,19; 11322,10, 115213,25; 11623,9; 121221; 128222; 148211,12,12,14,14,16; 16221; 171218; 18529,12,23; 18625,12~ 14,24,25; 18721; 19623,5,15; 197212; 19822; 200218; 203:22; 215215; 216216 planned 10922; 117211,17 planner 180:1 P!~tell~ 13219,24; 20214,18,][9, 22218; 24.~,10; 25215; 2725,10; 28:4; 29.~; 30:25; 32218,18,24; 33:7; 34210; 3522,18; 38:22; 39211; 40:3,24; 41211; 42219; 54218; 56219;, 75:9; 84:20; 86:2; 100213; 10225; 10328; 108213; 109225; M & M Certified Court Reporters ~ Index 17 Transcript of Proceedings 116:15; 117:15; 118:1; 126:19; 129:14; 151:5; 153:22; 155:25; 136:4,8; 159:17,25; 144:5; 147:9,18,24; 150:9; 155:10; 169:1; 175:10; 178:7,8; '184:17,25; 186:15; 187:14; 188:10; 198:22; 204:18; 205:20; 208:25; 210:11,16; 215:22,25; 216:16,17; 217:15,15; 218:8 Plans 21:10,12,15.15; 22:1; 33:5,6,11,18; 34:8,24; 41:1,21; 44:23; 69:11; 96:2,20; 104:15,20; 118:14,17; 129.~,16; 135:20; 199:15 plaits? 69:20 pla~t 115:18 plaintera 129:12 playing 178:1 4ease 5:10; 6.~; 15:5; :25; 51:19; 48:11; 74:2; 109:17; 1~6:22; 157:19,24; 160:8; 175:16; 185:16; 189:9; 207:9; 218:16 pleased 90:24 plenty 72:5,12; 78:14 plus 59:16; 42:5,5; 171:21 40~; 45:9; 45:24; 51:l; 55:12; 74:20; 79:12; 87:15; 88:5; 90:1; 94:5; 105:5; 114:16; 115:5; 116:15,25; 117:8,9,9,9,10,18; 122:24; 124:18; 129:5; 130:~, 155:14; 159:15; 155:11; · 165:21; 166:15; 171:ll; 179:21; 188:1; 208:18 pollIt, 111:12 98:8; 151:15; ; 167:21; 172:9 pollltless 17:15 3~3:7ts 75:21; 87:10; ; 154:18; 144:15; 155:14; 164:24; 166:4; 170:14; 175:21; 195:8; 207:24; 215:5 polite 170:8 poor 177:20; 190:14 pooree 95:5 populatioa 120:5 port 46:17 po~tal 129:14 3~l..le-chere 129:8; 130~; 0 porte-cheres 150:8 9~5..2o~ 23:25; 98:2,4; 5; 199:10 Portland 18:15 :..2itio~ 9:20; 24:1; 5; 57:19; 59:4; 114:15; 122:13; 159:24; 161:4,25; 163:5; 178:9,11; 182:1,1; 183:2,7,1 l; 186:12,13; 193:2; 199:12; 201:1,19; 215.~,24; 216:10 l~ SaeiOOS 162:11 positive 55:11,24 e!91on 195:12; :7,22; 195:18 possibility 156:16; 202:1 e 9:11; ~:18; 42:17; 15~:7; 20~:1 ~ 71:18; 1~:24 ~ 21:~ 15~:4 ~ 16:11 ~ 127:12 ~ 42:5; ~:25; 91:14; 162:14; 167:14; 202:21 ~ ~:18,~,21; 1~:1 ~~ 47:24 ~ 141:24 ~~ 15:14 ~ ' 157:5,6,25; 1~:1 ~ ~:18; 61~ ~ 7:22; 9:18 prdo~ 11:8 pg~~ 49:21 ~ 155:17 prC~~ 7:21; ~5:11 19:16; ~:22; :~; 62:2,21; 1~:18; 2~:2; ~:24; 210:12; 217:18,22; 218:9 ~ 8:24; 9:16; :~21,25; 17:13; 18:23; 19:21; 20:2; 21:4; 24:13; 42:11; 54:22; 7~12; 81:17; 1~:13,18; 1~:8; 1~:5; 192:3; 193:23,24; 1~:21 ~t~ 217:14 ~e~ 8:~ p~~ 6:17; 9:13 ~t 3:12; 8:4; 9:22; 10:8; 19:22; ~:25; 31:7; 47:17; 51:25; 52:25; 54:5; 215:14; 217:16 1~:15; 143:22 1:16; ~4:4; 1~:3; 171:5; 187:17,18; 192:24; 211:4 ~~ 12~:~5 ~--m 169:4 ~ v~ 101:25 pr~e v~ 152:1~ ~i~ 45:22 ~ 2~:24 ~ ~:22 5~ 6:1; 35:11; ~:23; 127:2~ 133:9; 189:15; 193:19; 205:8; 217:5 ~ 81:24 ~~ 159:8 ~ 52:20 ~t 162:22; 17~:16 ~t~ 173:10 p/~v,.athg 175:7 2:~:11~u8 55:18; 57:24; 17; 112:25; 186:22 8:12~m~..9 21:5; 62:10,16; ; 147:22; 158:8 l~lC~ 38:1 ~ 37:20 ~ ~:12 ~ 10:1~ 20:21 ~ 4:14; 21:17; ~ 19:7 3~5,~ ~:li; 55:12; 135:12,12,13,13; 13~:17; liS:l~ 147:16; l~ 167:8; 171:22; 1~:21 ~ 1~:3 2~1 102:11; 121:8,24; 675; 187~; 1~:~,21; 1~1:12; 203:13 ~~ 123:13 ~ 217:10 ~Y~ 3:5; 5:7,16,2~; 12:21; 13:18,23; 115; 15:1; 16:3; 1~7:11; 1~:~ 202:1~; 2~; ~7:1,1~; 211:18; 213:7; 211:12,15; 216:3; 217:9,19,23; 218:7,13 67:~~5:16; 154~; 1:~ 5:2; 7:1~ 8:23; 16; ~:25; 108:15; 116:8; 170:4; 172:5,18,25; 175:10;, 197:18 ..~5; 9era 16:17; 47:17; 5.~; 167:15; 192:16; 19~..15; 211:20,22; 212:2 5..~'o1~17;e~ 21:21; 55:4~ 5:5; 96:1~, 1~4:1; 1~:13; 170:12; 1~:22 ~*~ 16:17 ~ 15:17 ~~~225:1~ ~; 1~:1 ~~~GS 1:~ 2:15; 16:7 ~ 15:20 5:~; 21:16; 2~:1; 27:4,9; ~:13; 30:25; 61:8; 78:2~; ~; 10~:5; 1~:13; 1~:9; I14:9,1~; 115:10; 116:14; 117:13; 126:16; 131:14; 1~:~ 135:9,16,19; 1~:3; 141:20,22,25; 142~; 143:8; 1~:4; 162:~; 1~:22; 1~:25; 173:6; 176~; 1~:15,15; 181:16; 1~; 185:24; 1~:4,14; 187:11; 2~:15; 212:6 ~ ~:2,4; 1~:5 ~ 26:8 ~~g 1~:20 ~ 69:17 ~~ 69:11 ~ 205:2 professiolzal 19:15; 52:15,22,24; 71:5; 86:19,22; 95:15; 109:18; 155:21; 192:5,6,14 go~a~ 110:16,17,19; 15.-~5; 115:25; 116:12; 118:16; 119:5,4; 120:2,18; 121:2; 147:8 l-rO~---~ 121:10;, 122:25 ~£08gaa~S, 110:14 pro' ibises! 45:22 l~il _"' ~ 44:5 0~0,24 6:11; 18:10,22; ; 21:19,21; 25:5,4,24; 24:12; 27:15; 33:2; 34:15; 37:19,20,21,24; 38:8,15,23; 39:14,15; 40:22; 42:21; 48:20;, 49:24; 51:12; 52:1~ 55:10; 54:21; 55:15; 57:15,15; 61:10;, 62:15,18; 66:21; 68:12; 70:8; 72:11; 82:25,25; 85:25,25; 86:4; 91.~; 94:16; 95:15; 96:24; 97:12,15,14; 98:5; 99:10,25; 100:11,14,25; 105:5; 108:22,25; 109:1~, 110:4,9,18; 111:1,5,5,15,18,18; 112:2,2,8; 115:9,9; 115:9,17; 118:1,4; 121.~,15; 122:25; 125:7,15,16,2(}, 124:5; 125:21; 127:24; 128:19; 151:20; 135:2(~, 154:7; 155:14,18; 136:11; 144:16; 145:19; 147:15; 148:2,5,15,15; 149:4,15; 150:22; 156:10,12,15,21; 157:5; 160:12,24; 164:4,25; 166.~; 169.~; 171:2,17; 175:8; 188:12; 189:5; 196:15; 198:5; 199:14,22; 200:1; 205:18,25; 207:5,20,22; 208:2,6; 20~.25,25; 210:9,25; 212:22 78..~24$ 50:7; 141:7; 0 .~; 11 24:1; 86:25; 1:25; 125:2; 147:22; 188:14; 206:25 promote 101:16,19 proof 122:22 proper 28:10; 155:12 properties 99:6; 187:5,5 ~O..~r~, 15~,,250:1; 5; 41:19; 42:5,6,8; 43:15,19; 49.~; 60:12; 68:15; 75:17; 78:24; 79:4,15; 80:18,21,25; 87:15; 92:14; 95:9; 96:22; 97.~; 98:21; 99:12,15; 100:7,17,21; 102:25; 103:14; 106:19; 121:8; 122:7; 125:15; 151:18; 146.x2; 152:15; 155:4; 166:1; 185:18; 189:20,20;, 190:20,25; 191:12; 192:11; 197:1,5 69~w0~; letIt 108:25; 141:7; 78:24; 189:5 propo~ellt's 121:15 proponents 9:5 proporttom 24:9 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~-p~M,,s, Index 18 Transcript of Proceedings 55~961:9,12; 154:23; ,12; 179:15 2~0 33:4; 87:21; ,22,22; 93:5,8; 96:23; 97:13; 104:15; 178:25; 179:1; 204:13 ~~; ~7~.. 333:14; 35:22; Q ; 40:17; 98:15; 140:3; 164:25 11..~11.148:25; 85:18; 11:11,16; 123:18; 192:7; 196:19,21 ~..~c:ted 53:3,16; 70:18; protecl~ 108:7; 140:8 ectloa 126:14; 2~:5; 110:1; 70:15; 90:20, 157:20; 171:1; 190:12; 201..6 protective 70:7; 90:22 protects 46:10, 111:19 proud 43:1,5 proveil 46:11 2.~ 26.12: 61:25; 14;'86:19; 101:14; 102:17; 107:10; 110:13,24; 113:3; 121:23; 122:17; 141:13; 144:11; 147:12; 149:17; 152:19,25; 165:18; 167:24; 169.~,8,21 23:5,10; 74:18; 98:10; 126:13; 143:2; 144:19,20; 163:23; 165:7; 168:2; 169:23; 191:9 provides 23:7; 87:12; 92:5 65:~959.-6; 149:21; :15; 173:20 provision 98:18 provisioms 147:12,19 prozimity 66:24 5..~12;C 16:9,12; 24:21; 26:15,17,20, 27:13; 30:10; 31:23; 38:22; 40~; 52:23; 53:7; 73:17; llO:l,8; R 123:1,6,8,13,18; 124:1,1,2; 127:10; 132:12; 176:7; 179:19; 181:l; 190:21,22,23,24; 192:22; 202:8; 215:19,20,23,25 publication 16:10 publicity 58:11 publicly 121:22 publi~zhed 154:4; 155:25 pull 17:10; 19:3; 63:18 pulled 20:4 purchase 79:14; 203:10 purchaaed 203:12 purports 160:7; 161:14 7~; 1343:23; 49:8; 9:12; 140:7,7; 147:20; 185:24; 186:3; 190:11 purposely 162:23 {}36..Ur~5; 18 78:7; 110:12; 7..6 O~ 9:17; 162:9; 9..15:23; 25:12; 43:14; O; 63:10; 74:10; 79:15; 91:21; 92:13; 130..6; 141:12; 142:18; 148:11; 157:16; 164:19; 166:5; 172:25; 176:4; 177:13; 178.~; 182:1; 194.~,15; 200:22 puts 47:12,12; 169:11 putting 115:23 quake 63:24; 65:11,13,17 :13 {~lom$ 152:3; ~ 32:22; 72:23; ..~23~ 78:13; 94:11,12; 95:5; 116:5,13; 158:22; 159:13,23; 160:23; 171:12,25; 174:16 qulmtify 170:24 quell 11:17 llltStlon 7.'6; 44:11,22; :16; 116:19; 151:10, 155:19; 156:22; 167:10, 171:23; 193:13; 196:10,23; 201:24 ...eatiooa 20.'6,9; 14,16,18; 41:2; 44.'6,9;, 59:7; 85:4; 95:16,18; 133:3; 140:17,22,24; 142:14; 149:9; 160:3; 167.'6; 173:23,24; 187:24; 193:22; 195:5; 198:13 ~8:2ck0; 44:21: 134:14; 165:21 ~ 87'9; 101:13; 4~2:1(y, 143~23; 162:12; 165:17; 189:17 ; 203:1; 217:21 quorum 7:15; 50:14 1ote 46:3; 110:11,14,22; :10,12,16,17,21; 113:3; 147:19; 152:11,21; 168:3 quotes 112:5 quoting 161:3 ~ 46:20; 89:21; 90:17,18 ~ 179:22 rainstorm 89:20,21; 90:15 r~in$toen~ 132:10 ~ 171:8 ~ 26:14; 27:15; 77:2; 78:17; 149:9,20, 150:20, 158:12; 160:23; 164:11,24; 166:20; 170:14; 171:11; 175:9; 212.~ raising 164:20 l~neh 45:9 R&NCIIO 1:2,10; 2:2,16,18; 3:7; 4:1; 26:8; 32:4,23; 37:19; 45:15,19; 46:14; 49:11; 50:1,4,10,14; 55:4,19; 56:2; 66:19; 84:16; 95:23,25; 96:3,20, 98:3,23; 100:4; 101.~,17,20; 103:5; 107:2; 121:5; 123:3; 130:25; 131:2; 135:8 64~..1~,el 21:13; 36:14; 37:2; 9 ranging 33:23 rapl~ 153:7 rate 79:1; 168:17 rate$ 155:14 rather 8.~; 12:1; 39:3; 123:11; 148:25; 151:1; 171:23; 179:22; 204:20 RC-5 96:23 re~ch 79:18 re~ched 63:17; 159:16 re~ches 198:18 re~'~ion 120:24; 186:19 ~ 13:2; ~:24; 55:15; 69:1~; ~:17; 101:1~; 121:20; 1~ 1~:2,5; 201:25; 214:16 ~ 203:20 ~ 102:18; 127:16 rear 49:25; ~:24; 151:8; I92:18; 207:23 65~ 8:21; ~:18; 45~; gel8- ~e 1~:12 M M:5; 83:~; 122:10; 134:14; 143:21; 197:21 ~ 57:2o ~ 8:22; ~:7; ~:3; ~:3; 1~:2 ~ 12:21,24; 23:3; 55:16,25; ~:9; 63:13; ~,9; 67:20; M:19,23; 85:2; 101:4,8; 105:5,6,7,~ 1~:5,~ 111:4; 114:3; 119:9; 121:7; 122:11; 130:15; 133:21; 1~:13; 141:12,17;' 143:16; 1~:4; 1~:16; 151:5; 157:19; 1~:14; 173:13; 1~:17; 1~:14; 182:22; 1~:1,5; 1~:23; 1~:14,17,1~ ~:8; 201:22; 203:10,17; 210~ 214:7 ~ I~:2 ~ 23:20 ~ 6:13; 43:17; 67~ 81:3; 114:18; 115~; 118:19; 139:7; 151:11; 157:24; 169:17; 172:22,24; 203:18 Rff~e 45:11; 62~ ~ 67:22; 165:16; 172:10 ~M ~:21; ~:7 ~ 67:5 ~~ 114:14 ~n~ 1~:18 ~ 91:23; 183:22; 194:3; 213:4 ~ ~:~o ~ 16:12; 54:21; 163:1; 1~:19 ~ 13:1~ 18:17; 19:23; 20:15,20; 23:2; ~:17; 49:23; 139:14; 1~:25; 152:7; 1~:2 ~t 91:12,15; 1~:20; 165:12; 167:14 ~~ ~:20; 1~:25; 1~:4 ~ 31:21; 45:2; 74:4,5; 116:24 ~l~ 25:23 73:2~ 72:20,22,25; 6; osrloD7 94:14,17,18,22,23,25; 95:1,10, 97:7; 98:1,7; 159:13,21,23; 171:12,13,25; 177:3,5 r har d 177:8 redlarg~ 78:19 recirculate 29:2,9;, 76:18 ~ 112:17; 116:12; 117:~ 118:18 1131'e~.. i~o'138:17; 102:19; 12re~..~i~-~g 120:13; recollect 51:22 recomm,~dation 50:22; 204:8; 217:7; 218:1,8 recommetKlatio~xs 72:8; 193:11 reeomme~de q 51.~ reco~ealdttlg 217:14 recon~ado' 57:14 recollstructed 192:1 record 11:19; 26:21,23; 30:23; 39.'6; 47:19; 57:2; 58:23; 59:1; 62..6; 63:24; 72:12; 74:18; 76:8; 80:10,16; 81:11,11,18; 82:17; 99:9; 132:12; 136:16,19; 137:18; 138:1,9,9,13,21; 141:2,14; 142:18; 144:2; 146:13; 149:8; 151:20, 154:17; 156:4; 163:18; 164:23; 165:1,5,20, 172:12; 173:2; 176:4,15; 178:12; 180:8,9,17,24; 181:10; 182:24; 184:13; 192:22; 193:16 reeordable 25:8 ~ 173:8,16 recorded 11:19;, 40:8 records 35:24; 69:16; 138:4; 179:19 recovered 183:9 red 88:19; 132:8 red~i~te 186:23 redlatribute 35:4 Redialiris 82:11 redtlcitlg 72:24; 177:7 redlaction 87:13; 95:2; 170:18; 171:13,14 reductioo$ 170:25 reestablish 111:21 refer 40:10,10,11; 148:20; 181:10 referetlce 96:17; 111:12; 154:15; 155:23; 160:25; 167:1; 189:22; 210:11; 212:18,19 referellced 165:19; 167:2,3 references 156:8 referred 122:17; 154:10; 172:8; 181:13 referrll~ 49:14; 96:8; 103:18; 12)4:8; 165:24; 190:4 refers 102:5; 107:7 t.~_fined 198:3 reflect 138:13; 216:23 reflection 213:15 reflect~ 215:21 M & M Cer~fied Court Reporters Dm,-~.~ Index 19 Transcript of Proceedings reform 122215 refrain 86211 regaill 13525 2825; 4221; 14527; 149219; 158221; 160222; 169222 492 4r~; ~..~ 20:22; 23:8; ; 53:7,9; 54:2; 55214; 132224; 143.~; 147.~; 152221; 153219; 162214; 165225; 167210; 195215,19 regardle~ 13821 regal-dS 159212; 178221 rege~on 27:4 re~1o~ 146222 111~..2o~lld 72:22; 78212,15; O; 158221,23; 15927,11; 174216 19r~..4,~ 86:23,23; regular 1621 regulariota 122225 12 ..re~3 offs 34217; 77213; regulatory 122218 reiterate 2522,15; 88211; 108214; 150225; 180223 reiterating 13622 re, re 57:24; 150224 related 32:9; 41223; 10725; 151217; 153217; 162212; 16428 relates 10223; 110225 __~_ _~_q 21218; 34212; 102223; 165225 relpeic~$hip 26:24 release 94217 relev~lCy 47218 relevant 27:3; 30219; 47219; 114225; 11528; 147219; 163210; 169214,21 relied 135217,20,21 relies 66213; 69214 relook 147213 reluctant 178:8 rely~ 153225; 193210 remaifi 72:7 remaining 118.~,8; 12023,5; 171219 remain{ 126216,24; 12723 remap 6827,11 ._ ._rema~a~l_ g 67213; 6824,1~17;' 70:4 remember 60:22; 100212; 109215; 183219; 194223; 214210; 215216 remind 47211 remote 167220 removal 20:22; 70:6; 7123; 87212; 88:8; 12822,3; 170217,18 remove 43211; 46:9; 47:2; 98215 removed 67217; 68:9; 72:9; 94216; 99:7; 13225; 146222; 15229; 191224 removttlg 11124; 20125 re~lditioo 93216 reope~l 164222 reorganize 69:3 Repatriatio~ 126215 repeat 31219 repetitiOal 86211 £{~pctll~h,~. 31218; 112210 replaoe 26.~; 93221,25; 14~.~; 15724; 170223; 195212 replaced 140214; 15727; 19]210; 195212 l~e~lt 67:21; 93:9, 19 :~ 67:20; 15724; Felloft 16215; 20:8; 23.~; 61."23; 8621; 95214; 125220, 126.~; 150215,16; 151217,21; 154215; 15827,11; 16823; 17521,23; 17724; 19223,21; 193:4, 5,10,16,23,24; 194216,22; 201210,19; 202212; 204:4; 206:24 932~1~ 1212; 25.~; reportedly 151224 11..Re~8; ~r 1214; 2221; 4:23; 5:3; 44218,20, 11722; 17021 reporte~'$ 31221 1 :re~25; 40:9- 78221; 1 58.~; 181212; 19121,23; 19523 repo~ltories 127215 79:5; 11325; 121216; 124212 rcpres- ;~-;-'on 10215 re~zc$- ted 52:5 rcpres- ting 32:3; 5221 rcpfe~- ts 17223; 79221 repu~ilom 192215 724~2 4.~,8,13; 6217; ; 9:24; 10220, 1523,4,7; 1722; 1823,18; 1923; 20:4; 68:7; 12625; 154223; 15523; 19429 52~: led8; 6.~;, 14218; 157216; 18827 16 ..4 9:8; 130211; require 26218; 27:4; 73217; 14828; 184220, 20127,18; 202210; 206:22 622~777211; 34:7; 44:3; 212; 10022; 102212; 14923,12; 18728,10; 198216; 199216; 209:20; 213225 ~t 22:23; 112216; 150210; 187220; 197210 212~ents 16211; 7; 113210 582~I 3021; 57213; 7; 83215; 85218,19; 102216; 106220,25; 17625; 19623; 206:3 __requiring 77:5; 16223; 2o1729; 205:25 reread 215210 rerevlewed 30213 resc. h~ 1421; 17212 rescilld 1523; 76:23; 163219; 176218 re~Iilided 76:20, 12824,8; 174212 r~seintltno° 7724,14,22; 12821 fe~e--cl~ 38214; 10823; 11822 1 fe~e- vcher 153210 r~- ~g 197218 ~ 1~21; 1~21,12 go~ ,~M 167218 ~ 1~225 ~t 4528,1~ 55:4; M:16; 1~212; 1~:~ ~a~ .... I 7125; IM:2 ~]~7 ~. 4~ 57:24; 70215; 71~,6; 74:25; 87214; ~22~ 1~213; 1~221; 13228; 134~ ~ 12323 ~ 125210 ~ 6:23 73211,14; ~28; 119212; 1~214,18,20,21; 205212,17; 2~23,1~ 2~217,24; 210213,23; 211215,15,17; 21224,1~ 21324,%17; 2142%20, 215214; 216~,12; 217216; 218210 ~~ ~217; 212214,15; 213212,21; 214211,23; 2152~ 216221 ~ 163214; 1~28 ~ ~211; 1~210,16 rem~zarc~ 56:25; 98:3; 10925; 11022; 11224; 113213; 12327; 12422; 12 5:3,14,17, 23,25; 12628,16,24; 12724 27..re~; ~ 8:8; 13216; 25:23; 215; 83:2; 141223; 14324; 153219; 157219; 159220, 160210; 164210, 18(~. 19; 21325 ~ 27219; 73:9 respect_ n~o 35:9 fe..sp~clively 168218 resoood 20:2; 1,36223; 160]..4; 17321; 17629, 19821 l~2ded 4122; 0; 14728 ~ding 7:7 real~a~se 1528; 137213; 15~..22; 167216; 170.~; 180210, 18125; 183214; 185.~,7,20 respotz~e$ 63211; 18123 _r~ _ _l~Ofusibll _try 194:25; 201:17; 202..6; 204:24; 216..6 rest 124:17; 186:8; 199:23 Restate 211:18 restricfioos 34:18 result 91:22; 95:5; 187:10; 198:19 results 197:24; 198:22 retain 172:11 retention 146:21; 170:19, 171:22 O8/2O/97 tethlllk 16425 retract 16523 fcl~ eted 16124 retraction 149215; 16125,10,10,22; 16622,12 t'etracflo~s 162210, 172211 rett!l~ 168216 r,.v,..re. Alce 12722 ~ 10221 revet-ae 16323; 216217; 21824 ~ 183223 reverses 208:24; 213222 reversing 210211 Review 1.~; 2216; 21216,17; 2321; 25216; 2622,8,12,20,25; 27:24; 2821,15,17; 29:24; 31210, 32211,13; 33210; 3429,12,22; 36:25; 37:5; 38221; 40:4; 41223; 43:3; 58:2; 83:5,9, 85210,25; 9625,12; 10128; 10223,14,23; 103225; 104223,25; 106213; 10725; 108212; 113223; 11424,11,17,20; 115:2; 129213; 131222,25; 132222; 13328; 13525,9,15,22,24; 136214,25; 140221; 143224; 164222; 168218; 182214,20,21; 184220,22; 187214; 18824,10; 189217,21; 196212; 205213,19; 20621,23; 208:22,25; 210.~,12,16,24,25; 211213; 21221; 213222,25; 216218; 217.'4,5; 21824 reviewed 27217; 30213; 34:22; 54216; 86:25; 92:8; 93.~; 99214; 102221; 108215; 139214; 194218,19; 197.~; 19824; 209:7 revieWlllg 186225 ~ 131211; 19825; 202211 revl~on 61212 revisit 14924,12; 208212 revisited 207:20,22 revolutioo 122215,16 REX 3:5; 203.~ l'emero~ 57:2 Rl~ 3:8; 17219 ridiculoz~ 85216 2~..2,~ 6211; 8.~. 1121; ; 32219; ~227; 43212; 51210; 57:7; 8222,16; 89211; 90:23; 93:24; 96:22,22; 98214,19; 10025; 101212; 103.~; 105216,22; 10621,22; 108217; 112218,25; 11425; 120210; 123225; 130212; 133216; 197224; 198212; 200216; 207216; 209:24; 21022; 213211; 214219; 215211; 218215 right.hand 105223 rights 53:20; 81224; 12128 rim 54:6 rl~'s 42213 rip 80218 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~.~, Index 20 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 1~ 111:9; 112:24; risk 71:7; 84:11; 126:7 River 95:2 Riverside 97:8; 109:7; 127:15 - RMA 92:9; 158:7,8; 192:4,19 Road 70:10; 131:1; 135:7 roads 185:16 robbir~o 127:12 Robert 168:22 Roclm 124:12,15,20; 126:21 rock 89:12 rocks 46:21; 65:25; 66:2; 88:20 role 111:12 roll 107:13 rolling 197:3 room 8:13; 12:13; 176:21; 199:25; 200:1 roogs 122:14 Rosinroe 127:18; 131:12; 185:8 rough 90:1 Route 32:4; 69:23 ruble 65:24 ~ 37:15 rule 28:22; 31:14; 119:5,25; 120:23; 209:11 rules 24:24; 114:1 ~ 82:19 r~rmo~s 49:16; 77:16 rail 31:15; 146.~; 196:25 tnmnin~o 150:5 runoff 191.~ fulls 43:13; 64:13; · 97:2,20, 193:20 ruptures 155:16 rural 45:19 S S-1 144:24; 145:18 SacramesltO 58:12 sacred 113:17; 124:24; 125:2; 127:8 sacrifice 19:17 sacrllelgious 202:17 safe 64:8; 65:22; 83:24; 168:20 safe~ 84:7 safely 78:25 safer 131:19 s~f~ _e~y 20:22; 30:5,10, 56:25; 57:24; 59:12; 66:23,24; 79:1; 85:17; 87:13; 92:19,20,22,24,24; 93:3; 123:2,19,22; 132:24; 170:18,25; 177:1; 201:16,24; 202:7,9; 205:3,6 10~..1 10:4; 73:3; 84:1; 6,21; 108:11; 113:17; 115:16; 118:2,15; 120:20, 122:8,13; 123:3,10,24; 125:5; 143:10; 144.~; 146:5,12,19; 161:15; 178:20; 179:2,6; 189:21 sake 31:21 salient 166:3 SAMPSON 130:24,25 San 14:20; 55:21; 109:24; 116.~; 117:15; 118.~; 123:4; 125:22; 132D, 10, 151:25; 153:1; 154:24; 155.~; 168:10,21 sand 94:8 sat 26:22; 79:23; 81:3; 174:20;, 198:25 satisfied 214.~ ~ 17.~ Saturday 41:12 ~ 56:22; 77:10, 94:2; 137:9, 151:24 32:a~; 15:3; 18:1~ 31:4; 35:13; 59:16; 66:18; 70:3; 114:24; 116:1; 163:2,2; 184:16; 187:22; 191:4,7,17; 192:13; 204:21,25; 209.~; 216:5,24 6~; 23:18; 37:18; 67:12; 76:11; 102:5,9,24; 104:1,18; 110:9, 111.~; 159:10, 174:3,6; 209:16 SB-901 73:8 scale 24.~;, 97:9,23 acllles 97:15 scary 132:13 !~ellm'10 46:22; 17~.23 scheduled 14:19 schematics 186:5 ~h~m¢ 119:2 school 6:1; 76:1 scientists 117:15 scope 135:24 scout 197:17 scrap 142:10 $eree~l 143:1 $canzwed 63:19 $eaxlb 73:3; 122:8; 145:8,12,17; 146:2,5,11,12,19,25; 147:2; 161:16; 179.~ ~r~i~i~,d 169:20 seoimd 5:8,22; 6:3; 9:14; 11:5; 12:19, 15:18; 16:2,3; 18:12; 20:23; 36:13; 37:19, 41:10, 54:2; 73:25; 81:19,20, 82:7,15; 83:13; 85:21; 91:8; 94:24; 9~.25; 102:8; 115:21; 137:5; 170:11; 182:18; 198:24; 202:13; 207:4; 209:5; 210:19, 214:20, 215:1,1,2,3; 216:8,14,17,20, 217:2; 218:5 aeeomdary 67:15; 70:14; 157:17 secoot'- ~ 207:7,21 Seoomlly 90:14; 93:7; 184:22 Sectioo 61:19;, 62:3; 93:23; 97:10,19, 102:15,16,22; 103:24; 106:23; 110:8,21; 111:10, 112:4,11,20,22; 113:25; 118:17; 168:1 139:13 sectiotas 103:17; 110:7; seek 122:16 seelb~g 70:.4 seem 54:1; 132:1; 204:18 seenas 10:20, 15:4; 141:12; 146:1; 197:3; 199:.17 ~ 13:11,20, 26:7,10, 46:19, 47:1; 69:12; 73:13; 89.'6; 93:11; 95:12; 99:12; 109:2; 154:17; 141:24; 142:25; 158:1; 159:21; 161:5; 163:5; 171.~, 173:5; 175:5; 190:.2; 194:4; 195:2,2,17,23; 197:24; seismic 167:12,25; 168:5,10, 195:15 s-'- It,~y 167:14 s-'- ~io~iat~ 65:15 d 37:18; 66:4; 134:14; 200:25 selling 80:21 S- io1'-=II 46:3 se$1d 115:1; 137:19, 155.~; 204:18; 206:5 142:12; 164:13 $e~laltive 99:131 145:8,17,21,23,24 seaat 9:8; 65:9, 78:13,18; 161:7; 182:14 $etlgealce 166:9 s~l~t~c 13:2; 92:8; 151:5; 213:17; 216:21 separated S9:12 $epagat_~ 117:11; 213:13 ~l~&t- I~w 5:14,15,22; 9:1'4,i9, 10:12,13; 11:5; 12:13,17; 17:3,21; 68:25; 175:2(~, 214:1 1. 1. 4 $ea~OZl$ 57:23; 59:19, 66:5; 73:21; 152:23 ~ 47:17 ~ 150:11,19, 151.~,9,11,16,18,20,22,23; 152:1,3,7,19,24; 153.~; 174:18 Se~vlee$ 69:5i 76:7,11; 113:21; 118:16; 120:8; 124:10; 150:1; 165:23; 166:2 $erv~ 43:23; 98:14 set 5:19, 24:23; 11{kll; 175:20;, 180:20, 186:8 settie,it 7~.18; 100:15 ~ 16:25; 29:11; 30:12; 58:4; 74:21; 107:21; 113:13; 208:13; 209.~,12 ~ 17.~;, 18:4; 21:9, 75:21; 81:7; 88:5; 150:23; 153:13; 180:17; 185:12; 196:24 severe 132:10; 156:16 sewe~ 82:12 slzack 202:19,20 shaded 94:21 shad~ 88:21 ~ 89:19 sht}!~ing 64:23 shall 62:21; 104:5; 121:21 ~ 9(5:22 ~ 34:15; 169:8; 178:23; 193:19 sharit~ 194:12 sirerim 122:19 Sk¢'s 6:11; 7:21; 8:1,3; 15:14; 169:24; 216:2 S~lte~Zall 72:2; 86:13t14; 98:2,7; 139:18; 192:24 ~ 51:4,7; 1~7:~1~; 1~:18; 1~9:2; 1~:21,22,22 ~ 1~:17,~ ~ ~3:24 ~ ~'s ~:9 ~~ 1~:24; 1~:5 ~ 121:8,10 ~ 7:1~; ~4:22; ~:17; ~1~ 174:1 ~~ 25:3 ~ 72:14 ~~e 10:14; 1~:1~ 113:22; 124:13,~,25; 125~; 126:11,21,25; 127:4; 1~:2 ~ 175:18 ~~ 210:8 ahow 35.~,12; 41:1: 47:4; 88:24; 96:19, 102:24; 104:7; 111:25; 112:23; 120:15; 121:11; 127:2; 129:2; 141:12; 164:23; 190:2; 191:24; 209~.7 showed 33:5; 41:13; 78:1; 98:2,18; 129.x); 136:7; 185:23; 196:4 shOWill~ 57:5; 8~:1~ 104:10, 706:1; 129:16; 140:4; 198:22 shO~m 48:8; 62:17; 77.~9; 111:3,20, 127:7; 165.~; 186:5 shOWS 36:11; 64:16; _ 70:18; 90:1; 91.~, 104:2,2; 111:5; 120.~; 189:22; 191:8; 196:5 Sic 9:25 ~ 7:14; 8:11; 9:22; 19:2; 23:25; 55:11,21,24; 70:21; 76:13; 79:7; 89:13; 100.'6; 142:2,4,8,9; 172:5; 177:20; 184:9, 193:18,18; 199:20; 201:20, 212:18,19 ~ 4:20; 32:17; 59:3; 182:10,13; 194:11; 199:10 side~ope 21:11 htit152:5 153:2,4 ~ 51:7; 80.~,6,7; 119:13 sign-lit 51:4 sign-up 51:7 ~ 128:7 1~.'~3~ 13:12; 75:15,19; 128:5,6; 192:4 1~..9; ~ce 108:4,22,24; 113:16; 116:13; 125.~; 128:3; 139:10, 191:5; 195:23 53:25; 0,24;52:18; 59:17; 62:14,15; 64:9; 79:10; 87:13; 109:5; 125:16; 126:8; 150:2; 153:8; 177:19 M & M Certified Court Reporters ~a~s- Index 21 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 lS~..4 cantly 110:6,8; signing 147:16 similar 53:15 si~mle 141:i8; 197:20, 217:~ SIC!= est 160:11 $ iy 148:7; 165i~.'; 173:16; 153:11; 190:14; 197:11 sincerely 140:17; 168:22 s.__ingl~e 19:1; 21:2,12; 96:4; 151:17 Sir 15:10; 44:16; 138:15; 173:24 sit 26:5; 80:4,12; 89:19; 134:23,25; 147:25; 170:8; 198:10 site 20:12,24; 22:3,6; 38:10,17; 40:10,20; 44:4; 46:25; 77:8,9,11; 87:2; 103:21,23; 108:22; 123:7; 126:1; 140:8; 144:23; 145:13; 146:17,19; 147:1; 150:5,8,15,22; 151:12; 153:11,12,15,18; 157:17; 162:19,20; 164:16; 199:3,3; 202:16 site.plan 21:18 sites 125:7,10; 127:11 SitS 105:23; 190:24 si~ ~tt~l~.l. Ig 8:12; 31:3,4; 83:4; 89:11; 132:9; 160:5; 176:21; 202:23; 203:24 situated 22:11 situatioo 69:24; 76:5 six 21:8; 33:24,25; 44:23; 107:11; 209:13,14 six.feet 93:18 size 21:10,13; 36:5,8,16; 46:22; 47:1; 167.~,10 sized 42:24 sizes 34:21 sketched 93:13 ski 46:18 sk~ 112:11 sky 131:17 slide 89:23 slides 60:21; 63:19 slightly 104:8 sioDe 23:19,20; 33:23; 90:3; 104:12 sloDe~ 33:22; 71:8; 89:11; 10 ~.'24,24; 102:24; 103:2,9,11,12; 196:3,6,12 sloping 34:7; 196:8 slower 25:5 small 46:15; 70:11; 88:1; 92:23; 140:9 smaller 36:2,19; 89:15 smooth 143:22 snow 46:20 so-and-so 28:12 so-called 92:11; 101:2 soaking 89:21 soil 198:8 so[!'s 168:1 some 156:20; 73:18; ~bo~..; 47:12; 58:8; 157:15; 204:5; 209:16; 213:19; 214:23 sotllehow 80:18; 149:2; 157:22 someone 12:22; 13:7; 128~; 145:4; 214:16 someo~e's 190:24 30:18; 3e~9.; 27:22; 29:15; 46:5; 54:10, 60:9; 67.~,16; 78:17; 79:22; 83:20; 85:22; 89:19; 119:8,9; 120:19; 121:14; 137:10; 138:5,15; 145:5; 165:11; 169:3; 170:16; 171:7,20; 174:1; 182.~,15; 191:3; 198:23; 203.'8; 209:13; 214:13,18; 217:18 sometime 106:7 Sometimes 31:14,15 somewhat 22:14 somewhere 8:3; 55:21; 122:7; 179:19, 197:2 soo~ 5:23; 68:13 SOOmer 58:18; 81:2 ._sg~y- 36:21; 41.~,18_; 43:1; 48:9; 52:1; 83:2; 106:18; 110:5; 114:3; 148:19, 154:21; 188:19,20; 204:5 sort 63:21; 78:7; 83:8; 105:12,14; 154:18; 159:20; 164:16 sound 132:18 sounds 25:7 south 22:4; 192:8 Southern 18:8; 38:2; 63:5; 64:11; 65:21; 118:7,20; 119:20, 121:17; 174:23 southwest 99:5 s :9~21; 54.~; 72:15,19; 98:22; 100:22; 101:18,21; 102.~,8; 107:1; 110:24; 111:9; 112:5,9,14,16; 185:9,13; 187:9; 203:14 spaces 113:4 spared 59:9 sparse 153:5 s ..~2,4~ 10:16; 11:18; 72:14; 78:14; 96:13; 143:17; 148:17; 201:21 112:11,23; 80:15 ~ :~dng 24:21; 113:21; speaks 11:16 ~ 7~..3;*1 114:1; 119:5,25; 192.~ Sl 6~eci..2;es 107:18; 114:2; 120:22; 121:3; 122:9, 147:8; 148:11; 149:25; 152:15; 166:7 :19~7; C 21:22; 48:3; 103:1; 127:11; 167:24; 185:15,15,18,24,25; 206:18; 208:2; 209:23 1 7S~.~; cailv 96:6,9; 102:3; 113:21; 147:12; 148:5,8; 159:16; 167:5; 185:19,21; 187:21 ~ 4..~fil cations 63:25; speed 71:16 De~:18d 7:5,6; 11:6; 57:21; ; 76:7; 79:13; 80:3; 84:18; 176:3 spending 57:16; 59:18; 82:7 spemt 18:20,21; 185:7 st~tllwav 64:14 18; ~:~,,~; ?f,13,15,16; 153:24; 154.~ SDlrlt 10:4; 83:25; 11)7:16,21; 143:10; 144.~; 178:19 spirll~ml 125:5 split-level 21:5; 131:7 splits 33:16 sDoke 17:8,14,15; 18:4; 51):8; 79:20; 174:20; 177:1 spoken 69:5; 149:5 spokespeople 134:25 :2~,3~5 21:13,14; 35.~,7; ,6,14,15,16; 37:3,3,5,9, 129:10,19,20,21,21,24,25; 130:3,4; 205:9 $quaged 106:3 squilg~ 97:1,16 staff 8:10, 13:25; 16:15; 17:10; 19:3; 20:7; 23.~; 26:16; 27:5,19, 28:8; 29:3,5,15; 30:13,20; 32:15,20,22,23; 33:13; 34:2; 42:19; 69:10; 78:15,21; 86:2; 99:11; 101:7; 102:18,20; 135:21; 136:11; 139:13; 158:10, 167:4; 180:24; 181:3; 184:17; 187:14,19, 192:21; 193:4,5,10,16; 194:8,15; 205:3,16; 206:11; 208:9; 210:5; 211:14; 212:23; 213:11; 214:4,22; 217:13,14,22 staffs 114:15; 185:1; 217:25 Stl~zr 104:19 9:22; 146.-6,19 192:14 stand 82:25; 187:22; 209:14; 214:19 standsI'd 144:10 sllmdagds 101:14; 132:2; 184:23 $~mdang 170:3; 179:18 :mmn~dl~int 157:20 4:17; 163:16 start 37:22; 61:2; 63:2; 84:19,22; 85:2; 135:2; 151:4; 178:2; 181:4; 184:16; 210:9; 215:19,24 started 34:16; 135:19; 184:16 starts 105:7; 137:17 state 25:22; 26:13; 36:12; 48:16; 54:2i; 56:1; 71:2; 79:15; 80:2; 82:11; 87.~; 106:20; 113:18; 116:4; 117:16,21; 118:5,11,24; 120:2,25; 121:9; 123:4,7; 145:9; 146:18,18; 150:10; 182:24; 184:13; 208:1; 209:24; 211:23 state's 108:7 state-of-the-art 156:8; 210:3 stated 12:16; 24:11; 37:23; 44:13; 49:9,20; 51:5,24; 86:12; 137:4; 150:9; 162:4; 163:18; 186:13; 208.~; 210:15 statement 51:23; 101:12~ 125:9,13; 149.~,1i; 151:16; 205:7 statmentS 135:11; 139:18,25; 174:4; 180:4 States 149:25; 150:19; 165:23 static 70:20 Stallore 100:5 si~fistienlly 168:9 Status 208:1 statute 106:21 6~ates 61:14; 83:16 stay 60:10 steep 89:11 stem 42:14; 54.~ step 85:21; 177:14 steppin__g 34:7 St~:v~ 17:22,24; 153:9 stick 142:10 Stip 122:18 stipulated 50:5; 51:10 st{me 45:22 stood 82:23,24 2; 122:20; 132:21 stopped 87:25; 120:18 sto~e 94:13; 167:19 story 21:12; 179:17 1~.. t 57:7; 105:17; strand 65:3 Strategies 121:20 stream 46:15; 77.~; 104:3; 162:14; 213:1 Streams 97:21; 102:19, 103:18 stre~nsicle 97:7; 102:10 street 22:8; 42:8,9; 100.~; 128:13,20; 129:3; 200:13 Streets 42:16; 43:15 stren~ 80:8; 190:8 strete!~ 170:3 stretching 170:5,9 strictly 50:19 strike 31:5 stringent 91:25 Strongly 95:12 Structional 157:23 structural 70:13; 158.~ structure 92:20; 93:19; 157:3 structur~ 192:7 stubs 42:8,10 stuck 33:2; 80:20 studies 42:3,3; 68:16; 75:24; 91:12; 118:21; 154:4; 176:1,2; 198:16 ~5: ~md~, 163:20; 69:13; 2,25; 178:25; 179:6,12,14,19; 194:15; 195:2; 201:7; 206:6 stuff 52:16; 59:2,3; 69:14; 83:9; 214:17 subdtv~ion 21:24; 106:24,25 su_bject 154:19; 156:21; 188:13; 189:20; 207:1 subjected 167:17 M & M Certified Court Reporters D. ro-Uo, S- Index 22 Transcript of Proceedings 08/20/97 $zzl i~8!o0 58:24; 81:19; 178:14 submbmloo$ 170:12 ~ 75:8; 109:13,15; 136:16,20; 1~:5; 1~:16 s~ ~ 15:2; 18:1~; 21:1; ~:1~; 42:~; ~:1; 51:15,16; 57:22; 1~:18; 125:15; 126~; 1~5:18,2~ 142:24; 1~:21; 151:8; 15~:21; 154:11,2~; '155:5; 1~:7,8,~ 162:1~; 172:2 s**~ ~g 19:12; 57:21; 59:2,~; 1~:16; 1~7:7; 1~:1~ 1~9:8; 145:14; 149:7; 1~:23; 1~:~; 165:4,5 s~ 6915,~6 ~~ 116:5; 119:18 ~~ 117:14 S~~ 62:22 s t ~2:21~~0 ~:2~; 61:20; ~~ 24:10 ~~ 54:15; 57:11,22; 62~,8; 67:2; 74:17,1~ 76:2; ~:9, 83:15; 114:10; 126:7; 1~,18; 151:2; 159:12; 1~:21; 162:2; 1~:15,20,23; 1~:11; 171~,24; 1~:13; 181:10,18,20; 182:4,13,19,25; 183:1; 1~:14,19, 205:1; 2~:4; 210:23 S~ fl~l~ 62:16; 71:7; 74:24; 85:22; 127:7; 1~:14; 171:17 ~~ I~:2 s~e 92:14 s~ 19:12 s~ 120:2~; 1~:7; s~ 82:5; 133:21 Sl1~ 54:4 S~=~t 110:11 S~ 10:11; 114:22; 13~; 147:1; 154:19; 161:17 s~t~ 19:5 ~9~~ 13:24; 114:24; S~flm 2~:15 sffi~e 152:15 Sffite 124:11 s=~ ~:11 s~~ 35:25; ~:22; 152:19; 158:16; 165:17; 172:1 $nmmit 125:20 S~ffi~ 127:16 S~ 118:4 s~ 63~ $u~ 155:7 s~lm~t S~m~ ~:2,22; 61~; 62:2,4; 2~:11 s~lm~g 59:4,4 Su~H~ 153:3 su~ 1ffi:23; 110:14; 11~:11; 121:6; 123:3; 126:2; 1~:9; 182:20; 1M:14; 192:25; 195:21; 205:20;, 206:16; 211:10 s~e 181:18 supported 127:24; 181:20 Sup~_ilag 183:2; 184:19 supports 171.O 150:- 173:2; 21~; 21~.'~ 1~ 8:14; 98:22; 110:20;, 144:17; 146:2; 191:22; 197:23; 2O3.O 16 : ;~9153:1; 156.~; supposttio~ 192:25 Supreme 54:17; 61:3 surely 145:12 surgery 82:16 _sm-prise 17:16; 120:22; 162..'7; 174:13 _su~_pt_Ir e -I 40:13,14; 172:19;, 202:10 111~2..{~1; 1109:20; 13:4; 151:15 l~S~..1; 76:10;, 146:14; 155:25 9.O 59:25; 70.,6,14,24; 71:4; 87:15; 92:15 aw/de$ 101:24 ~ 122:1,6 $lw~yed 136:12 $me~lt~ 216:2 :~4~20460:1; 70:14,25; :20 T tab 74:13; 76:17 ~ 74:11 tackle 198:19 met 135.~,7 lactic 173:4 take~ 2:16: 27:7; 46:23; 56:7; 11~.23,24; 12~6,10, 122:25; 135.~; 141:21; 191:25; 214:3 lakes 65:3; 201:10 takitlg 9:21; 10:11; 11:7; 25:3; 60:18; 84:23; 85:2,23; 91:5; 175:2; 183:7; 189:19, 196.~3 talk 33:9;, 44:12; 60:24; 61:16; 65:10,15; 67:11; 71:17; 72:2,18; 88:10; 91:2; 96:10; 101:1; 129:25; 1~):10; 141.~, 148~; 159:3; 164:7; 195:9,14 talked 7:3; 65:2; 87:1; 129:24; 136:13; 159:14; 163:21; 175:13,14 46: italy; 32:23; 45:25; :11; 62:23; 65:12; 87:24; 89:9,24,25; 101:10; 105:8; 135:5; 150:18; 151.~; 157:21; 170:9; 171:2; 172:5; 183:5; 186:1; 201:14 talks 63:20; 170:8; 202:8 tall 85:16; 93:18 tap~ 47:21; 48:3 ta~ed 47:9 tax 1-22.O tmimyC~S 82.~; 183:13 te=~hing 68:4; 110:12 t~-~lltd~l 93:5; 102:14; 114:15; 174:4; 177:11; 181.~,12,12,14; 185:2,5,6,7; 198:5,8 ' telel~otle 151:9,18; 152:?; 167:1,3 tell 14:17; 15:12; 27:18; 28:24; 29:16; 47:16; 56:3; 58:11; 60:9,17; 64:7; 65:18; 67:5; 69:3,9;, 80:22; 81:23; 82:3; 83:10;, 84:15; 142:24; 153:11; 184:8; 197:17; 213:10;, 215:18; 217:17 65.O~,2, 18:19; 29:12; 189:1; 216:19 tealS:3; 39:12; 47:7,22; 89:16; 93:14,15; 158:19, 163.~ Tell.mloute 74:4 tentative 25:16.2~. 26:13,18; 27:9, 29:10;, 30:11; 33:19, 38:18; 42:2; 43:24; 56:16; 80:20, 82.O, 10,12; 197:13 telltatively 66:20; 123:16 tewm 46:4; 123:10;, 144:25 tet~nlo~g 77:23 ~ 24'~; 52:21; 70:22; 73:7; 81:22; 89:4; 177:3 Terra 202:18 tezr, r ~g 104:13 te£"'t'l 38:8; 39:11; 139:4; 177:20 17~ 38.O; 40:25; 84:1; 177:22; 181.O te~" 11:14: 12:8; 16:12; ~9:[; 72:1:~; 105:4; 107:10, 124:19,;, 136:3; 139:17; 142:22; 158:5; 169:13; 180:3,13; 199:2 ~ 5.'9;, 10:24; 20:10, 24:19,;, 32:14; 49:2,3; 52:11,12; 55:1,2; 56.'6; 86:8; 107:8; 115:4; 124:7; 127:5,17; 130:23; 133:2; 134:21; 138:25; 140:25; 141:1; 173:17,22,24; 178:18; 180:25 that's 5:20,24; 6:1,1,10,12; 7:14; 9:15,23; 11:8,13; 12:25; 13.O,22; 25:22; 28:15; 29:15; 30:4,4; 32:25; 33:7; 35:1; 37:17,23,23; 38:3,15; 43:9; 44:4; 47:14; 48:18; 51:7; 54:24; 56:13; 57:18; 58:25; 60:16; 61:1; 70:4; 72:9,;, 82:11; 87:15; 90:12; 91:15; 92:7; 97:13; 100:24; 101:9,19,;, 102:2; 106:10,15; 108.-9;, 115:5,15; 117:18,19; 121:14; 127:20; 129:17; 130:18; 131:8,24; 132:14; 133:12; 138:10,13; 140:5; 142:21; 154:11; 155:24; 156:25; 163:9,9, 166:11; 170:7; 172:14,23; 173:2; 175:18; 178:3,10, 180:9,10; 182:17; 183:2,12; 184.~; 186:16; 189:2,7; 191:10; 192:23; 193:11; 194:8,13,17; 197:4; 201:10,17,19; 208:7; 211:1; 212.~; 216.~, 217:23; 218.~ their s 66:15 theme 45:21 th~ 177:21; 188:17 theoreti~ffiy 79:24 Th~'~'$ 4.-6; 6:18; 12:4; 15:17; 22:13; 23:25; ~:2; 42.O; 53:21; 54:14; 56:3,9, 58:15; 69:7; 72:5,22; 81:3; 83:16; 85:21; 88:5; 99:16; 104:17; 105:11; 117:8; 120:16; 122:11; 125:8,19; 130:15; 132:19, 133:2~, 134:15; 148:14,15; 149:7; 156:14; 157:14; 160:21; 163:25; 168:8; 172:22; 180:11; 181:17; 197:19, 198:14; 201:4,23; 203:18; 205:19, 206:3; 209:16; 211:21; 213:13; 214:7 th~-~f-or~ 22:22; 37:21; 52:4; 65:14; 164:5; 189:25; 199:7; 206:5 They~l 134:14; 214:17 They're 24:13; 59:8; 60:4; 66:19; 67:19; 72:25; 88:20, 89:11,13; 98:14; 117:13; 128:18; 129:17; 134:16; 144:10, 150:3; 161:3; 174:12; 177:9,21; 178:2; 191:21; 192:13; 212:7 31.-~1, 8:9, 13.O; 17,19; 53:20; 74:20, 81:15; 82:21; 94:4; 105:13; 123:25; 129:19, 131:9; 132:16; 133:23; 138:24; 163:17; 173:5; 194:2,10, 203.-9 19:thai, 9:22; 10:22; 13:2; 20:5; 24:24,25; 25:13; 53:15; 73:25; 80:5,13; 85:3; 86:15,24; 100.~, 102:20; 103:4; 104:3; 105:8; 108:18; 127:25; 131.~; 141:20, 143:18; 161.-9; 165:21; 175:8; 193:9; 203:25; 204:3 think 4:18; 6:12; 12:5; 13:9; 14:5; 15:16; 16:17; 27:19,24; 28:10,14,19,20,25; 29:23; 30:14,18,22; 31:9, 47:19, 48:4; 52:2; 54:5; 55:18; 59:12; 66:1,2; 67:22; 71:11; 73:24; 79:9; 83:12; 84:11,11,18; 85:7; 87.~; 88:3,8; 89:4; 91:18; 99:9,21,25; 100:1; 103:8; 105.~,14; 107:3; 108:15; 110:17; 113:15; 114:7,12,23; 115:5,11; 117:3; 119:10; 120:13; 121:7,14,15; 122:20; 128:18; 129.O, 17; 130:15,18; 132:13,18; 133:12,24; 134:2,18; 135:4; 141:17,25; 142:11; 143:7; 145:25; 150:21; 157:1; 161:14; 163:4; 164:18; 169:13; 172:19,22; M & M Certified Court Reporters o~s~ Index 23 Transcript of Proceedings 173:4,10,20; 174:7; 175:7,18; 176:15; 178:3,13; 181:15,24; 182:22; 183.'6,9; 184:11,14; 189:14; 190:17; 193:19; 195:10; 200:18; 201:21,23; 202:13,21; 203:1,10,11,20;, 204:4,13,17; 205:7; 207:12; 208:13,20; 209:8; 210:5; 211:6; 212.'6,8; 213,:2,11; 214:7,9; 218:13 ehlrd~h~g 65:23; 84:19; 131:19 think_~ 65:16; 80.~; 85:8; 174:6 thinner 93:17 third 12:23; 13.~; 74:15 thoroughly 185:10 thoullilt 8:19, 9:11; 42:22; 56:8; '~4:8; 66:17; 83:19; 106:16; 131:25; 159:19,;, 163:2; 192:2; 202:23 thoughts 215:2,4; 217:2 thousand 80:19; 88.~; 89:18 thousands 26:8 thread 193:20 threat 143:13 threate~led 119:6; 136:17; 149:25 ~-s~.~ 123:22 three 33:24,25; 41:2,2; 42:16; 54:23; 58:19; 63:3; 107:10; 143:9; 148:5; 156:9; 169:6; 181:15; 191:1,23; 205:19; 206:16; 207:10; 209:3,8,12; 210:3 throughout 195:1 throw 142:9; 186:18 throwlllg 122:20; 175:8 ~lursday 69:9; 70:1; 141:9; 1 ~r3:18 thus 65.~ tied 34:13 ties 101:10 time 4:16; 7:2; 11:11; 12:2,2; 16:1; 19:25; 25:17,21; 29:10, 31:23; 39:1,15,23; 43:23; 44:18; 48:23; 49:13,15; 50:5,8,15; 52:6; 53:1; 54:5,24,25; 55:12,14; 56:7,16; 57:9; 58:9,17; 61:22; 62:10; 65:13; 68:13,14,25; 72:10; 74:24; 76:8; 79:12; 80:25; 81:5; 82:4; 84:18; 90:4; 91:21; 100:20; 128:2; 131:12; 138:7; 142:14; 147:3; 148:10; 153:5,23; 165:8; 166:24; 169:2; 170:2; 176:9; 177:17; 180:13; 181:1; 190:13; 194:23; 201:12; 202:10; 204:21; 208:4; 209:19; 214:10,16 timed 47.~ timely 19:10 times 42:16; 76:2; 201:25 timing 77:3 tired 70:25; 143:20; 214:2 title 123:12 ~2.'~2; 7:23; 34:5; 39:19,19; 78:13,16; 83:23; 91:20, 92:2; 93:12; 94:2; 99:20; 103:15; 139:12; 145:23; 153:3; 157:7; 158:23; 192:22; 197.'9; 200:5 toRetiler 65:15; 74:11; '/9..-23; 128:11; 148:11; 155:16 told 12:23; 17:9,20, ~1::~; 55:8; 57:8; 59:17,22; 76:21; 78:9; 84:5; 114:19, 156:20, 159:15,16,18; 161:22; 162.~,8 Totll 7:17; 16:15;34:4; 51:16; 52:13; 59:16; 63:4,4,15; 72:2; 86:13; 96:9; 104:8,16,21; 180:1,10, 193:25 tomaorrow 47:23; 81:12; 83:23; 200:5 ~:16o~, 7,t 5:21; 8:21; 22; 10.~,11,15,16; 11:16,24,25; 12:1,10; 13:4,9,11,15,20,22; 14:14; 27:18; 28:21; 38:9,20, 39:3; 40:17; 48:2,6; 55:14; 57:3; 105:4; 107:10, 109:15; 111:20; 115:11; 122:22; 136:1; 139:21; 141:12,16,18; 142:24; 143:17; 145:14; 149:7; 150:23; 154:12,17; 161:5; 163:10,21; 164:9,11,12,14; 165:5,7,9,19, 166:14,21; 169:8; 172:15,20,21,23; 173:11,12; 182D; 184:4; 185:3; 186:2,6,20, 187:18; 198:20, 204:11; 207:2; 214:3; 217:5,8 tomlght's 193:20 took 48:9; 77:7; 131:2,3,5; 133:4; 154:21; 179:18; 187:23; 205:16; 209:9 too~ 208:10 I70:10;, 98:5,11; 104:16; :4; 196.~ topics 74:12 t t~ 102:1 ~1'34:~;2; 39:14; 73:13; 139:25; 140:5 touch 170:15 touched 104:8,21 toward 16:25; 205:5 townhome 106:4 ~ 88:1; 143:14 traces 87:21 track 48:11; 119:22; 143:11; 154:9 tract 20:12,13,16; 21:3,20,25; 22:9,22; 26:13; 30.~,11; 38:18; 42:2; 46:4; 96:15; 100:12; 135:13; 189:20; 192:8; 196:14; 203:23 tracts 200:20 Traffic 41:23; 42:1,3,3,11,14; 60:16; 69:12; 74:21; 75:6,8,10,11,13,24,25; 76:3; 160:10,23; 180:22; 195:2 trailscribe 4:23 ~ 4:24 ~ 1:9; 2:15; 52:22; 83:10 ttanafer 48:14 trailslets 122:1 tfmm$ 're 54:4 Tt~llsportatiou 97:4 93:,~1 92:12,22; ~:2,8,15; 157:2; 170:21; 171:2 ~ ~:10 ~ ~:21 ~~ ~: 14 ~ 63:14; 65~; 1~:18 ~~ 63:7 ~h~ 63:16,17; 1~:25 ~ 17~; 74:1~ ~:22; 1~2; 142:25; 1~:19 ~ ~:2 ~ 42:13,15 Me ~:21; 82:24 ~ ~:17 ~e 31:1~; 57:17; 149:24; 1~:17; 163:21; 1~:19, IM:3 ~ ~53:8 ~ 123:1,6,8,14,18; 124:1,2; 205:3 ~h~ln~ 169:20 ~ 24:16,23; 31:13; 32~; 5[:11; ~:4; ~:12; 107:13; 1~:14; 133~; 142:12,16; 143:5,11,16,17,22; IM:8,14; 1~:17,18,19, 170:13; 183:11,16; 1~:21; 202:15 ~:17; ~:18,19,19; 143:14; 1~:1~ 1~:4,19, 155:19; 162:22,23; 1~:4; 2~:1~ 205:10 ~ 1~:13 ~ ~59:5 ~ 174:20,21 ~ 74:13; 85~ ~ 74:15; ~:11; 155:2 ~g 74:8 ~ ~:17 ~ 141:3 M~ 11:12; 152:~ 1~:15 ~ 6:24; 11:18; 18~; 20:20; 24:11; 25~; 35:3,18; 39:3; 41D, 10,17; 43:15; ~:21; ~:24; 76:15; M:16; 1~:17; 1~:~ 107:10; 125:24; 1~:24; 151:24; 152:12; 153:4; IM:10; 155:5; IM:8,9, 181:17; 182:5; IM:15; 185:4; 1~:22; 195:8; 202:16; 205:13; 207:10; 2~:4; 212:14,15; 213:14,21; 214:11,23; 216:21; 217:9 ~d-a-~-m~ 195:1 ~h~ 6:15 ~minute 170~ ~~ 114:9 ~~ 21:12 ~t~e 33:22 ~ 89:8; 110:17,18; 08tZ0~Y7 120:24; 121:25; 167:21; 170:10; 173:4; 191:5 U U.C 109:7; 127:15 U~ 76.~,6,6,11; 155:25; 168:19; 174:17 UCI, A 156:2 __e :18; 200:19 61.~ m,!fim-tely 24.~; 182:19 unable 124:15; 151:1 nn~nimous 135:21,23 Utk~ulim~ 5:11; 16:4; 34:9; 218:17 ullcerta~ 152:16 unCOvea~ed 126:25 imderly~ 27:15 tmde~leath 64:14; 85:14 Ullderscoee 177:12 undersod 71:25 Utlderstatld 7:12; 31:22; 37:7; 56:23; 65:8; 66:19; 70:8; 72:5; 116:18; 144:5; 152:21; 153:20; 157:15; 158:10,23; 165:2; 173.~,14; 182:2; 196:22; 197:22; 201:1,12; 207:25; 210:20; 211:1; 218:11,13 tmd~tml~bly 156:18 mlderst~dinR 10:7; 53:23; 73:16; 7'6:25; 78:23; 94:15; 106:19; 109:25; 164:5; 184:12; 207:21 understood 15:15; 160:13; 188:17; 208:5,23 nildeveloped 112:17 undoubtedly 30:21 undue 41:25 undlllatioms 196:25 unethical 189:2 nilexpanded 36:12 utzfair 8:20; 12:5 ullforseetl 61:11 · ,n_f_ _ortu!~t_ ~ _e_~ 25:19, 26:22; 136:15; 164:17; 165:20; 184.~ UNIDENTIFI~ 180:15 nnlque 204:17 Ullited 45:11; 149:25; 150:18; 165:23 unjust 8:19 m~nimown 151:18 nailess 30:16; 107:1; 170:3; 174:12; 206:17; 214:23 · ~nltize 46:11; 55:9; 102:10 unquote 152:11,22 ~meavel 138:14 nnsubst~ltlated 209:10 ulltrtle 39:14 niltruthful 135:11 uphill 21:11 uphold 123:25; 124:1 Upland 132.~ u ..6~17, 14:14; 42:21; 22; 70:13; 76:19; M & M Certified Court Reporters ~-~M~ Index 24 Transcript of Proceedings 08d20D7 78:10; 141:13; 159:8; 199:14 upper 131:7 ulmet 122:8 upslope 23:15; 71:10 ~ 157:5,6 81u~. ,2 73:23; 80:16; 0, 178:11; 183:4; 203:11 use 85:11; 98:16; 121:21; 142:2; 185:13 used 464; 66:2; 72:9; 79:9; 121:1,3,18; 142:2; 144:25; 147:23; 179:22 users 95:5 use$ 48:2; 95:1; 123:10 ~17:1u~0 109:17; 125:9; Utility 97:5 utilized 112:15 V ~ac~tlotl 47:15; 48:4,7,17 e 207:24 68:22; 182:3; 193:2 validate 181:22 validated 29:18 validity 152:20 lralley. wide 147:7,7 valley~ 111:11 Valleywide 109:24 vahaal~e 72:25 value 37:15; 60:12; 79:5; 110:13; 178:13 variety 21:15; 161:21 ragtolls 38:21; 112.~; 125:3; 127:14; 133:8; 136:16; 142:19; 147:11,19; 180:18 w.R¢talloo 101:23,23; 102:7,19; 111:22; 112:1; 146:16 veil 203:18 Vera 126:21 veracity 169:22; 170:12 Vetdes 133:25 verl~lllg103:16; 143:11 162:17 veraa 176:10 version 33.~ versus 170:21 vertical 93:15; 104:17,21; 105:17 vestitlg 123:17 via 152:7 viable 90:22 vice 176:9 vielaity 151:3 victor 52:19 Vlctorlaal 202:18; 203.~ video 47:18; 56:22; 78:1; 111:3 videotape 46:25; 48:8 view 23:14; 25:14; 29:12,15; 34:19,21,23,25; 35:7,21,22; 36:3,9,17,19; 37:2,9,16; 38:16; 39:13,15,18,25; 40:5,23; 41:19; 42:4,9; 43:5,17,18; 45:8; 47:8; 74:22; 93:15; 130:1; 133:10; 160:15; 186:6,11 views 111:11 126vi1~: 109:10; 124:24; villeliar 45:22 vineyards 45:20 violatitqg 164:4 violatio~ 24:2; 109:22; Vlra 124:12,15,20 virtue 161:15 vi~a-~ 128:25 Visioo 56:9 ~ 56:7 visited 199:3 visits 150:16 Vista 202:18 visual 113:3 visually 110:23 vital 127:3 Vlvlall 155:4 VL 106:20 volcano 89:7 vob~ne 31:16 voluntarily 69:17 volulltary 121:10;, 122:24 vote 5:10; 82:22; 130:14; 206:14; 207:9,13; 209.~; 213:18,19; 214:5,21; 215:11; 216.0,14,25; 218:2,3,16 voted 178:9; 212:3 votes 205:12; 216:4 votit~ 73:14; 217:3; 218:7 W ~ 85:21; 169:7 ~ 5:1; 13:10,15 Wai.Mart 53.'8; 83.~ ~ 8:13; 16:17; 162:19;, 169:12 lwalk-ntlder 129:14 walked 87:2,3; 164:18; 191:11 ~ 7:19 walks 104:3; 137:16 wall 33.~ ~ 129:12 ~eat~t 4:7,11,21; 7:10; 11:11,17,20, 12:24; 14:3; 15:23; 25:25; 28:21; 31:3,7; 39.~; 44:12; 47:11,19; 52.~; 54:20, 56.~; 57:7; 60.~,8,21; 61:2; 74.~; 76:12; 83:12,14; 84:8,9; 103:25; 104:22; 116:22; 121:9,19; 128:17; 1~0:20,21; 138:1,11,16; 149:8; 153:7; 165:20; 170:15; 172:21; 173:9; 174:1; 175:15; 179:5,21; 180:14,16; 183:24; 191:2; 196:25; 198:17,19,22; 201:20; 202:4,5; 211:5,24; 215:4,12,22; 216:5; 217:22; 218:2,3 wanted 9:20; 14:23; 17:8; 34:24; 45:24; 51:9; 64.~; 81:16; 83:8; 128:15; 129:5; 131:9; 154:8,14,17; 160:3; 175:11 wants 12:9; 16:20,21; 25:12; 58:1; 60:14; 138:2,4; 165:3; 172:12; 198:10;, 211:9 warm 46:20 · varra~t 163:8 warr~mted 88.0; 107:4; 208:14 martatits 152:22 WaSll't 44:13; 57:16; 93:22; 105:8; 141:8; 159:4; 179:14; 188:9;, 190:13; 196:24 watched 141:22 watehlllg 58:16; 142:7 lvater 70:22; 71:1; 72:22; 73:7; 77:18,21; 78:13; 87:23; 88:1; 89:5,5; 90:15,17,18; 94:8,10,11,13,17; 95:2,3,4,5; 97:7; 98:1; 103:23; 133:16; 157:14; 158:22; 159:12,13,23; 164:1; 167:19,20; 171:12,12,20,25,25; 174:16; 177:7; 190:14; 191.~; 202:1 WATSON 3..8; 17:19 ~wa~ 9:15; 51:18 11:24; 12:9; 25:15; 30:8; 31:23; 45:3,5; 47:24; 48:1,13; 116:25; 117:1; 149:21; 156:3; 164:8; 165:5; 166:13; 173:3; 211:14; 213:9, 214:10,23; 217:25 we're 4:8; 8:14; 16:20; 18:22; 19:12; 20:2; 24:20, 36:24; 37:13; 40:17; 43:3; 45.~,25,25; 49:14; 53:19;, 57:20, 58:13,14,22; 59:1; 60:10, 65:16; 73:24; 82:1; 83:20,21; 85:24,25; 87:24; 89.0,24,25; 107:13; 109:16; 114:20; 115:19, 117:3; 118:18; 119.~, 124:10, 133:7; 134:7,8; 140:3; 163:15; 165:2,4; 166:1,12; 170:12; 175:7; 186:1; 197:25; 203:8; 205:10, 206:15; 210:10, 211:1; 213:10; 214:20, 217:3; 218:7 were 32:10; 69:12; 111:20; 119:19, 165.~; 183:16; 195:1; 197:23; 213:2 weaketa 70:7 weaket~ 202.~ weatherwise 202:3 Wed~e~lay 1:11; 2:20, 4:2 week 5:24,24,25; 6:3; 14:16; 17:10; 18:4,22; 58:13; 159:5,19, 175:14 weekend 41:12; 48:18; 70:2 weekly 29:4 weeks 39:4; 41:9,9; 141:21 welfare 123:2,19,23; 201:16 well.aware 189:15 well.kllowll 113:15; 147:4 we~t 33:12,17; 34:19; 41:8; 45:4; 46:25; 66:9, 77:10; 88:17; 93:12; 96:16; 118:20; 145:3 wefetl't 50:24; 57:4; 121:13; 185:15 west 55.~,21; 124:10 wh~te~-er 29:18,19, 31:7; 59:13; 106:21; 181.6; 184:3; 196:25; 200:10; 211.~; 215:12 whattsoe~g 99:16 wh~a'~l~r 76:9 wh~.h~' 6:24; 7:2; 8:10,10; 14:4; 15:12; 16:18; 17:8; 27:15; 28:2,4,22; 30:18; 53:3,14,16,19; 57:14; 67:15,19; 83:24; 85:15; 110:4; 113:14; 114:10, 117:10, 118.0; 143:11,16; 150:20, 152:16; 155:8,13,15; 156:22; 167:11,13; 171:23; 182:10,10; 183:22; 188:11; 191:15,16 wlalch~n'~' 150:19 whinnl~g 178:2 white 63:3; 70:23; 88:24; 125:5; 203:18 who's 4:23; 134:5,5,11,11,16 wlaoevex, 8:11; 53:12 whole 9:19; 12:25; 57:21; 62.~; 97:2; 105:12; 117:11,16,17,22; 118:20; 119:1; 131:14; 168:25; 186:3; 203:5; 206:11; 208:12; 212:6; 215:5 whom 18:7; 155:5 why 6:13; 13:21; 14.-9; 27:25; 30:4; 43:17; 44:4; 67:22; 74:3; 78:16; 99:24; 115.'6; 117:7,18; 118:5,18; 121:1,2,5; 147:11; 161:21; 170:2; 172:22; 179:25; 187:22; 191:10; 193:4; 196:9; 202:22,24; 210:8; 211:2 Wildlife 69:5; 76:7,11; 79:15; 101:24; 120:8; 147:25; 150:1,11,19; 151:9, 165:23; 166:2; 174:18 will 9:16,22; 14:7; 16:11,15; 20:11; 23:7; 29:16; 30:2; 32:7,13; 36:10,13; 37:22; 43:5; 44:15; 47:2; 48:24; 56:10, 59:14,15; 62:13,16; 64:21,24; 68:11,15,24; 71:5,16; 75:20;, 79:12,25; 80:2,3,3,11,25; 81:12,23; 82:24; 84:1; 86:10, 89:13,19; 90:11; 94:16; 95:5; 102:11; 109:22; 113:21; 114:14,14,25; 122:25; 126:18,23; 134:14; 136:9,17,25; 137:20; 139:12,24; 140:18,19; 142:10,12,16; 143:5,22; 145:14; 146:4,10,12; 149:17,17; 154:10,16; 156:2,14; 158:19; 162:9; M & M Certified Court Reporters D~ Index 25 Transcript of Proceedings 08/2O/97 163:15; 164:23; 165:1,18; 170:5; 172:10; 176:17; 178:16; 181:21,22; 191:21; 198:1,7; 203:21; 206:19; 210:22; 212:16; 213:17,18,19,21,25; 214:16; 215:7,18,20; 216:20 WrLl.IAM 3:3 WIII.IAMS 3:5; 5:7,16,25; 12:21; 13:18,23; 14:9; 15:1; 16:3; 17:14; 49:4,4; 67:11,25; 70:5; 71:2,21; 175:14; 197:14; 198:9; 202:15; 206:8; 207:4,19, 211:18; 213:7; 214:12,15; 216:3; 217:9,19,23; 218:7,13 ~1111m~S' 67:10; 71:18; 90:25; 91:19 12~ 7:21; 13:3,4; 160:1 ~ 134:5,11 wind 4:12; 188:5; 204:21 wlndow~ 34:4 y wine 45:20,21; 132:7 ~ 134:7 wiped 89:7; 157:22 wisdofil 132:20 wiser 85:1 wish 107:9,25 wt~hes 206:18 withdraw 162:5 witbiff 7:19; 20:16; 21:2,23,23,25; 22:9; 23:23; 33:24; 47:7; 51:12; 57:25; 104:7,11; 112:9; 118:10, 119:18; 125:21; 185:17; 192:7; 202:15 without 73:20; 85:23; 164.~; 174:25 withstand 154:7 withstood 87:18 witnessed 46:16 wotl't 16:22; 32:20; 55:8; 92:17; 108:17; 122:8; 184:9; 189:13; 200:25; 215:19,25 wonderful 64:8; 197:23 wonderfully 65:22 wood 202:19,20 woodied 97:7,21; 102:10; 111:9; 112:24 word 78:20; 179:22 words 25:7; 31:3; 36:22; work 8:20: 14:9, 17:11; 29:3,9; 30:1{; 31:18; 55:17,19; 60:18; 79:24; 80:4,13; 81:23; 86:24; 92:9; 145:3; 149:18; 155:12; 169:15; 176:3; 177:15,25; 179:16; 200:5; 205:15; 213:4; 217:24 worked 32:21; 68:2,3; 71:23; 79:23; 101:5 workel~' 7:18; 52:15 workinR 18:22; 19:9; Z 59:22; 9~:22; 108..6; 149:14 works 68:1 world 81:3; 85:21; 86:3; 94:11; 174:15; 193:8; 202:23,24 worms 84:24 worried 83:21 worse 179:23 worth 82:7; 145:25; 161:23 worthwhile 54:2 wouldn't 39:1; 90:4; 109:3; 111:14; 131:23; 191:16; 202:10 wrap 158:18 write 69.~; 164:7 writing 58:13,14 written 6:17,19; 7:7; 8:4; 15:4; 36:1; 59.-6; 63:11; 125:20; 127:23; 151:20;, 158:23; 159:11; 161:2; 162:18; 166:18; 215:17 _~wlf0~g__ 5:18; 6:22- 11:3; 35:18; 135:16; 17~:11 wrote 38:20,23; 40:21,22; 41:9,18; 69:18,21; 127:21; 154:21; 163:3; 174:19, 179:10 yards 89:18; 90:8,11,12 yeah 45:1; 134:7; 206:7 ..2;20:18; 37:4,4; 41:15; 51:12; 76:18; 77:9, 91:24; 131:3,5; 148:21; 152:18; 180:7; 202:1,2 45:Y~10; 29:11; 30:12; 38:3; 51:20; 58:4; 72:16; 74:22; 107:21; 113:14; 125:12; 139:11; 141:24; 145:19; 153:13; 155:5; 156:9; 163.~; 183:22; 197:16; 202:2; 204:25; 208:14; 209:14; 210:3 yellow 88:21 ~16:1~:~5; 159:22; 161:22; Yianna 124:12; 125:1; 126: 5,10,20 Yosemite 200:12 YOB~_I 47:8; 87:7; 91:18; 129:7; 144:18,25; 211:15 5~..l're 4:19; 6:2; 7:10; 3; 28:25; 29:1,13; 30:5,16,22; 31:15; 43:11; 67:14; 71:12; 73:14; 82:1,2,5,10,15; 84:25; 104:24; 106:1,17; 122:12; 129:17; 131:11; 134:9,13; 152:16; 170:2; 184:24; 189:6; 191:13; 194:24; 199:17; 209:18; 216:24; 217:17 you've 7:2; 15:5; 194:18 you, 156:3 youlag 75:3 4:7; 16o:9; :25; 179:25 yore-selves 28:2; 115:17 zero 5:11; 16:5; 117:18; 218:17 zone 90:10; 94:6; 187:8 zoned 54:7; 72:19,20; 106:20; 185:19,22,25; 187:3 M & M Certified Court Reporters Index 26