Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/10/15 - Agenda Packet - AttachmentsMnyor September 24, 1997 DWP File P-72489 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development, Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, S~ite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. Allday Grading Aqreement Luqo Junction-Firestone Junction Transmission Line Right of Way No. 25B Vicinity Haven Avenue and North of Tackst.em Street, Ranch0.CUcamonga This is in response to your request for a letter defining our position regarding the requirements to allow grading on the above-referenced Department of Water and Power (Department) property. The Department is not opposed to issuing a grading permit provided all environmental requiremen=s for such use of Department property are first met and all environmental documents are prepared at the sole expense of Lauren Development (Lauren). Lauren shall also provide a minimum security deposit of $50,000 or more to assure continued and adequate maintenance of the Depar%me~t's pro~9~ty. Lauren will be required to file CC&Rs' to be recoTded against the subdivided tract, stating that the future Homeowners Association of the subdivision will forever defend and indemnify the Department against any lawsuits and losses incurred due to resolution of any environmental issues or any damage caused to the Department's or private property by the proposed grading and/or drainage system. We are aware of the current controversy regarding the environmental issues expressed by attorney Ms. Malissa Hathaway McKeith, et al~ and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Department is also opposed to becoming involved in any disputes between a water and Power Conservation... a way ot:' 111NofibHo~S~,~.Lo~An~d~s,C-~forah IZ]Moili"goggm~$tBox$11II, L°°Anl{~l~'900~l'0100 T~k~; (213) ~7~211 C~ ~: D~ FAX: (213) ~7-3~7 ~~~. ~ Mr. John Allday -2- September 24, 1997 private developer and neighboring residents. These issues must be resolved by Lauren Development before any grading agreement is finalized or executed by the Department. Sincerely, R~:gr ANNE E. FISHER Chief Real Estate Officer Fro. i: John L. Allday To: Mark McGuire Date: 10115/97 Time: 2:49:20 PM Page 2 of 3 Date: To: From: October 9, 1997 Mark McGuire, and Andrew Hartzell Hewitt & McGuire John Allday LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Total pages incl. this page' Fax: Phone: Fax: Phone: (714) 798-0511 (818) 798-0500 (909) 484-1864 (909) 484-1863 2 RE: History of the Hole in the Levee Much is being made of the "liability of the city" with regard to the potential flooding of Haven View Estates. A brief history of the current hole in the levee: Overall Haven View Estates (Tentative Tract 12332 -- 204 lots) was approved in 1983t. After the first phase (12332-1 -- 53 lots) recorded in 19842, the balance of the map expired. In 1986 a new TT 12332 was approved for the remaining 151 lots3. In 1988 the Planning Commission approved an extension of time to record this new tentativen, however the extension was appealed to the City Council by the Tract 12332-1 homeowners association~, one of the reasons of the appeal being the supposed need for secondary emergency access out the back of the project. The council denied the appeal, however in doing so the city council added a condition requiring an additional access on the eastern side of the project for emergency vehicles subject to specific design approval being obtained by the city fire district, the county flood control district, and the city engineer. This city required road is what caused the current hole to be graded into the levee.6 ~ May 11, 1983, Resolution 83-66. 2 August 16, 1984. a February 12, 1986, Resolution 86-23. 4 lvlamh 9, 1988, Resolution 88-53. ~ Technically, the appeal was filed by a council member "on behalf of' the residents in 12332-1. 6 The breach in the levee 8faded for the emergency ac~eas road is approximately 210' wide at the top and 80' wide at the bottom. Prior to the breach. the levee ha this location ranged from 10' to 27' high. Fro! 3: John L. Nlday To: Mark McGuire Date: 10/15/97 ~me: 2:49:20 PM Page 3 of 3 The grading of this hole in the levee was approved by the Flood Control District.7 The hole in the levee was dug sometime in early 1989. Continued maintenance of this road through the levee is a requirement of the adjacent homeowners association CC&Rs..8 A 1991 letter to the fire district from the homeowners association supports the alignment of the road (through the levee).9 The letter also indicates they will "institute a program of periodic inspection and repair if necessary . . . to assure the ongoing condition of this road" and that all costs of maintaining the road will be borne by the HOA. Despite the city council imposed condition of approval requiring the road, and the CC&R requirement for its maintenance, it is my understanding that the homeowners failed to reimburse the fire district the annual permit fee (which the fire district had to pay to the flood control district to cross their property) and as a result in 1996 the requirement for the road was "repealed and the access road vacated" unilaterally by the fire district without consultation with the planning or engineering departments.x° (As an aside, the planning department informs me that the fire district has no authority to in effect repeal a city council condition.) The point of this is that the level of flood protection provided by the unbreached levee, albeit minor, is now nil due entirely to the demand by the homeowners association that a road be cut through it. The city council required this road be built in response to the request of the adjacent homeowners. These same homeowners are now saying that we and the city should be liable should the levee be removed and they flood. 7 San Bernardino County Flood Control District Permit No, P-188104 approved on December 6, 1988 an emergency access road through the levee.. s Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for Rancho Cucaraonga V - Haven View Estates recorded June 13, 1990 (dec # 90-231127). 9 Letter dated August 5, 1991 from Trent Pulliam, President, Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowners Association. ~0 letter to flood control district from fire protection district, dated June 25, 1997. Finn: John L. Uday To: Mark McGuire FROM : CRWQCB-REP~ I ON 8 Date: 10/15/97 l me: 11:59:24 AM PHONE NO. : 9~9 7816288 Oct. Page 2 of 2 1997 11:12P~1 P1 $'rAYE OF CAL4F _.ORNIA--.CAUFORNLA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY · '~ ~ WATER (~JAUTY CONTROL BOARD 373/' MAIN ~FP~T, ~UITE BOO FAX: (9o9) 7s~-e~ October 8, 1997 John Allday Lauren Development, Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonsa, CA 91730 REQ~ FOR APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF SEPTIC TA~NK-SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 11030 ARROW ROUTE, TENTATIVE TRACK NO. 14771, APN 1074-541-21 AND 1074.351-10, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, SAN BERNAROINO COUNTY Dear Mr. Allday: This is in response to your September 23, 1997, submi~ regaraln$ the above-referenced project. A report of Waste Discharge was also submitted. You are proposing to sulxlivide APN 1074-541-21 and 1074-351-10 (Tentative Tract No. 14771) into 40 lots. The total area of the subdivision is 25.35 acres and a single family residence will be conairacted on each lot (gross awragc density = 0.63 aca~/dwellin$ unit). The site is located at the northeast corner of Ringstem & Tackstem in the Ranabe Cucamonga area of San Bernardino County. There is no sanitary sewer line within 200 feet of the proposed development and on-sit~ septic tank-subsuffa~ disposal systems will be u 'tdized for disposal of sanitary wastes. A soils percolation report for the above-referenced project was prepared by RMA Group. The report was approved by San ~ County Department of Environmentai Health ~vices on September 22, 1997. Our review of tttc percol~on repoxt indicates that the softs arc suitable for subsurfiace disposal systems and are oonsistent with the Regional Board's "Cruidelines for Sewage Disposal from Land Developments." lh~uant to the C.~!tfomia Wat~ Code, Section 13269, the RAgional Board adopted Resolution No. 969, waiving waste diacharge requirements for various types of discharges. Your project complies with the waiver criteria. This letter const/tu~$ our conditional waiver for this project, Should any conditions change from tiaoso stated in your submittal, ,hl_~ waiver may be revoked, and you must notify this office immediately to determine a furth~ course of a~tiim. Ply/me be aware that this waiver does not relieve you of the responsibility to comply with the laws and guidelines of other regulatory agencies involved with this project. -2- .,/,~u have any questions, please contact Sawed Shami at (909) 752-3288. _ .~:.~. ~ Be~dino C~n~ De~ent of Environmental Heal~ ~i~s · Sco~ M~ S~ Bcrn~dino C~nW Building ~d ~ ~p~mt - L~ R~ S~ B~n~dino C~nW Pl~in~ M~Seme~ ~p~ent - Bill Adams CiW of R~cho Cuc~on~ Pinning De~ent - Brad Bullet J'lS/Lauren.clr October g, 1997 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT Document Index Document [ Tab No. Letter from Planning Consultants Research to USFWS, dated February 28, 1997 1 Letter from USFWS to Lauren Development, dated April 18, 1997 2 Letter from Planning Consultants Research to Lauren Development, dated February 28, 3 1997 Letter from Loeb & Loeb to Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curly & Slough, dated June 4 11, 1997 Fax transmittal from USFWS to Hewitt & McGuire (with Etiwanda Preserve and open 5 space maps), dated June 13, 1997 Letter from CDFG to City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated June 23, 1997 6 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to USFWS, dated June 25, 1997 7 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to USFWS, dated June 26, 1997 8 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, 9 dated June 27, 1997 Memorandum from CDFG to Hewitt & McGuire (with NDDB and CAGN records for 10 areas east and west of Lauren property along alluvial fan), dated July 2, 1997 Fax transmittal from Planning Consultants Research to Hewitt & McGuire, dated July 2, 11 1997 (indicating the distance of reported gnatcatcher sightings in San Bernardino County from Tract 14771 -- sightings contained in draft paper prepared by Davis et al., and located at Tab 13) Cucamongans United For Reasonable Expansion Complaint, etc. filed July 2, 1997 12 Fax transmittal from CDFG to Hewitt & McGuire, dated July 8, 1997 (with draft report 13 on Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher in San Bernardino County) Letter from Army Corps of Engineers to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning 14 Commission, dated July 9, 1997 Letter from USFWS to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Departmere, dated July 9, 15 1997 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to San Bernardino County Museum, dated August 5, 1997 16 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to CDFG, dated August 5, 1997 17 Letter from Loeb & Loeb to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, dated 18 August 7, 1997 (requesting a cominuance of the City Council Hearing) Letter from Army Corps of Engineers to City Engineer, dated August 11, 1997 19 Letter from RMA Group to Lauren Development, dated August 14, 1997 and additional 20 fact sheets regarding Tract 14771 Letter from US Department of Agriculture to Spirit of Sage Council, dated August 15, 21 1997 Memorandum from Loeb & Loeb to CDFG, dated August 18, 1997 22 Letter from James F. Dolan, Assistant Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, 23 University of Southern California to Bill Ford, dated July 21, 1997. Document [ Tab No. USFWS Recommended Gnatcatcher Guidelines for Surveying dated February 28, 1997 24 Letter from Hewitt & McGuire to Rebecca Jones, CDFG, dated August 5, 1997 25 Letter from Lauren Development to Rebecca Jones, CDFG dated September 12, 1996 26 Letter from CDFG to Lauren Development, dated November 18, 1996 27 Letter from MDS Consulting to Lauren Development, dated June 25, 1997 28 Letter report from RMA Group to Lauren Development, dated July 9, 1997 29 Letter from Robert J. Cristiano to Brad Buller, City of Rancho Cucamonga, dated June 30 26, 1997 Letter from Lauren Development to William J. O'Neil, City Engineer, City of Rancho 31 Cucamonga, dated August 14, 1997 and copy of RMA Group report dated August 14, 1997 regarding engineering geologic and geotechnical evaluations concerning Tract 14771 Planning Consuti mts February 28, 1997 Ms. M.a. ry Be~ Woulfe U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Carlsbad Field 0~Sce 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 93008 ~E: P~EFORT FOR FOCUSED C.~L~FOP~NIA GNATCATC~IER SDq~VEYS, R_A-NCHO CUCA-~ONGA D.~ar Ms. Woutfe: At ~he r.'quas~ of Lauren Developm:nt, Planning Consuimn~ Resear:h (PCR) has conducted four (4) surveys for ~: coral ~lifo~ gnamatchzr (PMiopziln rnlifomi~ cnfffor~cn) ~ ~eir ~ncho Cuc~monga proj:c[ site. No individuals of ~is s~ci:s w:re observed or o~c~ise d:~cc~cd on s{~: or wi~in ~djac=n[ h~bim~ ar~s during ~y of ~ survey :i~m. W: offer ~ followin~ r~on of our su~y a~i~dzs ~nd msulu. Loc~fion Ihe p:roj::~ size encompasses ap~ox'um,.ely 9_5 acr.~ n~r ~e noz-~h:m zzrminu.s of Haven Av.-mue ~rkhin Us City of Rannho Cucamonga (s~ Extxibi~ 1). As siao~rn on ~ U.S. Geological Su~ey z~o~phic ~p, ~e size lies ~ ~ ~i~ alluvial fan a~ ~e b~e of ~e San Gabriel Mounm~ and may ~ ~ferznced as ~g ~h~ ~e no~h~s~ :om~ of S~aion 24 T1N, R7W on ~ Cu~on~ P~k 7.5 mi~ q~d~gte (see E~ibi[ 2). The Drojea sire elz~fi~ ~g~ fr~ 2,145 f~I abov~ m~n s~ {:vei xo 2,299 feefabov~ mean s~ level. The ~re si~e ~d C~ ar~ ~ approx~a~e~ 5~ t~r f~t of ~ae ~ boariddles ~ no~ider~d m r~resen~ ~ study area. Piant Communiti~ Soils over ~e entire size appear Io consi3~ of alluvium comoosed of sands, gravel, .rocks and occasional boulders. Tia~se conditions suppo~ ~ som~wh~ heterogeneous no~unky of ~versid~ ~tu~al f~ sage scrub. Approxi~mly on~ ~lf of~ae ~m suppor~ a fairly u~fo~ s~d offs com~u~ do~md by ~HfomJ~ buc~h~t (Eriogonam f~cicalnzam), white sage (Salv~ ~pinnn) and California sage (.4r~eai~ia cMifornkn). Th{cld~f yerba san~ (ErJodJ~on T--I: [714} ~97-014: FAX: (7~4) -~97-Dq53 233 ~;ts.h;r-. ~d.. SUP."_ ~30 San:a ~,1oni..~a - ~ 90~01 FAX: [3~0) 45 t-5279 Plannins Consj_t nts Research Mary BethWouJfe Febmary25,1997 Page 3 Survey 3 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 21, 1997, commencing aT 0910 hours and ending at 1010 hour~; route used was a crisseros.s generally in a nonh-som.h direction; t:m~eramre was 50 degre~ Fahrenheit ~.roughout the survey; skies were cloudy w/th a light m/~[ and no wind. Survey 4 - ConOur'red by R2mirez on January 28. 1997, commencing zt 1000 hours and ending at 1110 hours; rome ~ similar to Survey 3; rcm.m:rzmre throughout the survey was 58 degre~ Fahrenheit; skies were c!~r w/th a slight breeze. Results No California gnamamhers were ohsre-veal or otherwise derec~ed on size or in the adjazznc Zrc~ during any of the four survey effort. La addition, no brown-headed cowbirds (Molozb. ru.s neet) were observed in zhe study area. Generally, bird ac'riv-/ry was fairly high dur/ng ~ch of the surveys with a number s.m:cies being observed or de~ez~ed on -,.ach ocazsion. If you have any questions, please feel fr:e m zont~ct us. Sincere ly, PL.:UffN-LN'G CONSULTgaN-IS RESEA_RCH ' P, ui~n S. Rm-nir:z Diremot of Biological Services S~.~ .Ezologist John Allday, Lauren Development No'~h S~Jc: 1" = 5,280' Viajn~'ty Map Nor~h £XS-II £ I T 2 Topographic Mag Scale: l" = 2,000' Fn :'rhoms S. Maran To: ANDREW HARTZELL '""~ENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DE-V; 23-97 2:56PM; Date: 04/23/97 me: 5:37:10 PM 3 i ! 909 477 2847 -> 1-909-484-18t~,.; #2/3 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ~colo$ical Set'vim 2730 ~ C~l~b~, ~ifomia 92~8 R.ECEIVED city of Rancho Cucamotlga Planning D'wieion April 18, 1997 Mr. John Allday Launm Development 11030 Arrow Route, suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Subject: Pepon for Focused Caiifomia Cnmtcatcher Surveys in Rancho Cucamonga. San Bernardino County, California (I-6-97-HC-146) Dear Mr. Allday: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is in rcccipt of the February 28, 1997, coastal California gnatcatcher (PolioptiIa californica callfornico) survey re.mits, conducted by Planning Consultant Research for Lauren Dcvclopmcnt. 'The propert7 survcycd is approximau:ly 25 ~wres and is located near the northern termin,rs of Haven Avenue within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site is within the Etivnmda alluvi~l tim at the b~.se of the San Gabr/el Mountains in relatively close proximity of known coastal California shatcatcher sightings, and boarded by extensive stands of quality sage scrub habitat. Although recent coastal California gnatcatcher survey guidelines, dated February 28, 1997, for detenniaing the presence/absence allow some deviation from the survey protocol for projects prior to adoption, the Service lms been rccomm,*nrllng seven and nine surveys, for the breedl-g and non-breeding seasons respectively, for over one year in areas outside of active Natural Communities Conservation Planning (IqCCP) jurisdictions. Only surveys conducted by permitted biologists who gave proper notice to the Service prior to conducting surveys and who were insm~ted on thc number of surveys to conduct in areas in and outside of a NCCP will be accepted for the 1996 breeding season At i~ue is the numb~ of surveys conducted for the ~oastal Cahfomia gnatcatcher at this site. l~ae Service met w/th you at an impromptu meeting at the Carlsbad Field Office in the later par[ of 1.996. At that time Jeff Newman and Mary Beth Woulfe of this ofiicc cxplained, in detail, the coastal California gnatcatcher guidelines for det~rrninir~ presence/absence of this species on your property. They recommended that you have a pennitted biologist conduct seven surveys during the breetling season or nine surveys during the non-breeding season. However, as stated in the survey report, you requested that your biological consultant conduct only four surveys. As discussed with you and your consultant, new biological studies indicate that more surveys arc necessary to determine the absence of coastal California gnatcalchcrs. Thomas S. Maran To: ANDREW HARTZELL ~ENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DE'V; 23-97 2:56PM; Date: 04/23/97 me: 5:37:10 PM 909 477 2847 => 1-909-484-1864; #313 The Service cannot accopt the survey resuRs as being corn.nitre for determ/ning the absence of the coastal California SmatcsW. her on the subject property. The known California gna~ sil~lafin~s irl the viciltttnJ axial ga¢ c:xtenaive ~ indicate ~ four ~s do not pt'ovide a lr~l.SOgl~{C btt.qis fol' co!~]ndin_~ shat ~ Cali'lComia. ~*,'~__~_chers axe absent f~om the PaOla ty. Therefore, three additional survcys are necdcd to adequately survey fitis site for the coa.stal California Ev~tc~,tchcr. These _s4fl'_~ional survey days should be started immediately upon giving notice to the Scrvicc, and spaced one week apart to adequately address our concerns. The Service appreciaf~s your cooperaI/on in this lnatter and is willing to work with you tO ~ulJy =,4dn~ss potential im~ to fcdcrally sensitive and listed species, especially with regards to the coastal California grm*t'~tchcr. Please contact Mary Beth Woulfc ofthi~ office at (760) 431-9440 ff you have any questions. 1-6.97-HC-I46 CDFG, San Diego, CA (Arm: Bill Tippets) CDFG, Long BcacJa, CA (Attn: Patty Wolf) Hcwitt & McGuire, LLP, Irvinc, CA (Attn: Andrew Hartzell) Plamlhlg Consultants Rescatc~ Irvine, CA (Arm: Steve Nelson) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept., CA (Aun: Brad Bullc0 Planning Consultants Research Environmental, Economic, and Development Research for Land Use and Real Estate Decisions February 28, 1997 Mr. John Allday LAUREN DEVELOPMENT 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: REPORT FOR FOCUSED CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Mr. Allday: At your request, Planning Consultants Reseamh (PCR) has conducted four (4) surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) at your Rancho Cucamonga project site. No individuals of this species were observed or otherwise detected on site or within adjacent habitat areas during any of the survey efforts. We offer the following report of our survey activities and results. Location The project site encompasses approximately 25 acres near the northern terminus of Haven Avenue within the City of Rancho Cucamonga (see Exhibit 1). As shown on a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, the site lies within the Etiwanda alluvial fan at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and may be referenced as being with/n the northeast corner of Section 24 , TIN, R7W on the Cucamonga Peak 7.5 minute quadrangle (see Exhibit 2). The project site elevation ranges from 2,145 feet above mean sea level to 2,299 feet above mean sea level. The entire site and the area within approximately 500 linear feet of the site boundaries was considered to represent the study area. Plant Communities Soils over the entire site appear to consist of alluvium composed of sands, gravel, rocks and occasional boulders. These conditions support a somewhat heterogeneous community of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Approximately one half of the site supports a fairly uniform stand of this community dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonumfasciculaturn), white sage (Salvia apiana) and California sage (Artemisia californica). Thickleaf yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium) and deerweed (Lotus scoparius) are also common in these areas. These shrubs grow 939 Glennerye, Suite B Laguna Beach · CA 92651 Tel: (714) 497-0144 FAX: (714) 497-0158 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 130 Santa Monica · CA 90401 Tel: 1310) 451-4488 FAX: {310) 451.5279 Planning Consultants Research John Allday February 28, 1997 Page 2 to three feet in height and form a canopy of 80 to 90 percent cover. The remaining one half of the site supports the same species with the addition of mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), golden current (Ribes aureum) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) which become dominant components of the shrub cover. These larger shrubs and small trees grow to heights of 10 to 12 feet and add an additional dimension to the physical habitat structure. Canopy cover in these areas is also generally 80 to 90 percent; however, areas of 100 percent cover may be found. The vegetation on site and in adjacent areas appears to be healthy and in a mature stage of development. Of note, it is doubtful that the alluvial sage scrub on site will ever revert to either a pioneer or intermediate stage. This is due to the fairly recent construction of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel which have removed the area from its natural hydrologic regime. Methodology Surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted by Messrs. Steve Nelson and Ruben Ramirez under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit numbers 782272 and 780566, respectively. Methods employed were in conformance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. This included: surveys no less than seven (7) days apart between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise and 1130; coverage of no more than 25 acres per investigator per hour; and, slowly walking over the entire site and stopping every 200 feet and playing a tape of recorded California gnatcatcher vocalizations. The tapes were played for several seconds only at each station followed by a brief period of listening for a response. A summary of the surveys follows. Survey 1 - Conducted by Nelson on January 4, 1997, commencing at 0830 hours and ending at 0945 hours; route was generally around the perimeter of the property and along an unimproved access road transversing the center of the property which enabled a survey of the entire property; temperature at the beginning and end of the survey was 44 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were overcast with a slight breeze. Survey 2 - Conducted by Nelson and Ramirez on January 13, 1997, commencing at 0817 hours and ending at 0930 hours; the route taken by Nelson was similar to Survey 1; in addition, Ramirez followed meandering transects generally zigzagging over the property; temperature held at 45 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were cloudy and it began to drizzle during the last five minutes of the survey; there was no wind. Survey 3 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 21, 1997, commencing at 0910 hours and Planning Research John Allday February28,1997 Page 3 ending at 1010 hours; route used was a crisscross generally in a north-south direction; temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the survey; skies were cloudy with a light mist and no wind. Survey 4 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 28, 1997, commencing at 1000 hours and ending at 1110 hours; route was similar to Survey 3; temperature throughout the survey was 58 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were clear with a slight breeze. Results No California gnatcatchers were observed or otherwise detected on site or in the adjacent areas during any of the four survey efforts. In addition, no brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) were observed in the study area. Generally, bird activity was fairly high during each of the surveys with a number of species being observed or detected on each occasion. A list of these is attached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, CONSULTANTS RESEARCH Director of Biological Services Ruben S. Ramirez Senior Ecologist North Scale: 1" = 5,280' I I EXttlBIT I Vicinity Map North EXHIB I T 2 Topographic Map Scale: 1" = 2,000' Planning Consultants Research LIST OF BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED ON SITE OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE Scientific Name/Common Name Jan. 4 Jan. 13 Jan. 21 Jan. 28 Cathartes aura turkey vulture Aquila chysaetos golden eagle Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Falco sparverius American kestrel Zenaida macroua mourning dove Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Sayornis saya Says phoebe Aphelocoma california western scrub jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow COrvUS corcl. r common raven Psaltriparus rainlinus bushtit X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Planning Consultants Research Scientific Name/Common Name Thyromanes bewickii Bewick's wren Chamaea fasciata wrentit Mimus polyglottus northern mockingbird Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Pipilo crissalis California towhee Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowne~ sparrow Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Aimophila rufice£s mfous-crowned sparrow Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet Jan. 4 X X X X X X Jan. X X X X X 13 Jan. 21 X X X X X X X X X X X X 101 00 ~00 00:00 156 P02 LOE!~.OEBLL~ TE3.EPfiO#~: 213..44,4.3.40Q F~CSIM;L~: 21~44~1-,34~ G Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: M;MCKEITH(~Ioeb.eom June 1 l, 1997 Via Tc|~ol)icr aad U.S. MaU Markman, Axez)~$ki, H~scn, Curly & Slough Post O/~cc Box 10.~9 Brca, California 92622- ! 059 Cucarnongax~s U~it~ £er Reasonable Expan.~ion ("C-U~E") Opposh;on to Lauren De~i~n Dcvclovmem Awrovzl Dear Mr. Markman: The l'ollowing correspondence and evidence (lhe "Opposition") is submitted on behalr of Cucva'noagans United for Reasonable Expansio.~ ("CLrR.E") in opposition lo LauTen Dc~lopm~t's proposed sonstruction of 40 tract hom~ or, 25.9 acres located a[R. ing~cm and 'T~ic~cm in Rancho Cucamonga (the "Project").' This challenge is based upon sevc~l grounds -.'nciuding, but not limited to: (1) the failure of the Cip/of Echo Cucamo[~ga ("City.") to Frovide not:ce to /rapacted parties of the June l 1, 1997 Design Kcvicw Hear/rig C'Hcaring") :.bus depriving impactell parties of 1heir due procc~ righ~ to noti~ and an opportunity :o bc h:~rd; and (2) the failure of the City or the Develope]- to conduc: any cnv.;,'-onmental review of the Project for over seven ye~e's despite documented changed circumstmxces and new information not previously av'aJlable at the :imc '.he 1990 Negative De=la--atio.q was approved.~ ~ The o.4~na] and 5 copies of t!kis Opposi£ioh will be filed x~4th the Pl~g Commission on June !1, 1997. ~ CLFR_E inco,-'porat:s by ref. e~encc its letter of June 10, 1997. to .lames Marlarian, City Attome>', raising objetions to the Pl~.%-Jng Dcpm u,,en:'s production ofdocumenns. (Exhibit l ) CUR.E'~ ability to pr~,:p~c £vr th~ .rune I 1, 1997 ~necting (con,-inu~L..) 101 00 '00 00:00 J~n~ ~ Esq. $tm¢ 11, 1997 ?ag~ 2 iSG P~ As evidrn~d by Ii~ mlmbcr of individuals who will be in the H~g md ~e ~h~ P~fioa ~ ~po~don ~ ~e ~=l~m~ ~ D~velo~mt ~oj~ i~ ~g but "~n~on~ov~" ~ ~fo~, ~cl~io~ on ~e Co~t Ag~ is ~ly ~mpd~e.~ ~ fo~ r~u~ ~a ~ man~ b~ r~ ~ ~ Co~t A~ on ~y 28, 1~7, ~d r~s that i~u~t now ~bit 3). ~ ~ r~uc~s ~al ~~i~ defer ~B ~Y ~ision ~ ~e ~velopm~t R~ew ~ ~e Ciw rec~utales lhe 1990 Neg~ D~lmfion ~d o~se ~4m CEQA. Most of the. homeowners living in me vicinity of the P~ject moved to the ~rea after 1990, and thwy h,vt n~ idea abouI the Project until approximalely weeks before today's Hearing. CURE's members genuinely are coucem~ thai the City has not adea~uately evaluated safely issues concemi_ug the reinrural ofaperiphcral ~,i,~ment levee tha: currently reddOeS the risk of flooding to dovengradic'nt property owners. Attached to this Opposition is a Declaration from Bruce Coilin.s, a civil c~gin~cring exFert from Dames & Moon:, testifying thai titis peripheral lcv~ provides imporlan! ~afety ~ residents, particularly in the ex'ent of am ~(...continue. d) was sign~fic~ntly hampered by the difficulties encountered in our at~c-mpts lo locate a.ud copy relevzn. t documents. For this reason alone, ~e Plan~ing C. mmni.~on shoul~ at z minimum. defer a decision until a more thorough pre..sentstioa can provided. ~ A P~idon of over 100 mamas in opposilio~ is ~rt~--hed. (Ex. hibit 2) ~ Both CURE and Spiril of the ga~ Ccuncil have requex'.ed Ibat t~ matter be removed ~rom the Con~nt Ag~md,a (Ex, hibia 3 and 15). The F,~ph tvl. Brown Government Coda §§ 54950-54962 details the requiremetrls to be followed by local bo~c,s, including city zou,'~cils mad planmug comrr, issio~. The inlent of the Brown Act is sIated in Government Code § $a950 i~ pertinent part, timt "[i]t is the intent of the law tim! their actions [city councils, plznning commissions, etc.~ b~, mktm opeazty and that their delibe:a~mns be conduclcd operfly." Exc:9. t u.oder specific circumsfance-~ not z~pplicabte here, the Brown Act requir~ thai met:tings of ciD' bodies shall be open and public and ~ pe~sar. s akall be pertained to artcud m~y such meetings. Gov't Cgde § 5-1953. "Evm-y ags-vala far rcguiar meezings xkalt an opportunity for mi.-tubers of the pubfie. to dir~ty address the legislative body any itcart of {niete. st to the public. befgre at during the teT, istzIiYe body's considcr~tian of the item." Go¥'t Cade§ 54954.3. 101 00 '00 00:00 156 James Markman, Esq. Ju~e 11, 1997 P,g: 3 d~-~ag~ng the Deer Creek Debris Basin ~el to ~h~ Nor. h (Exhibit 4). CURE members also bcliev~ that tictiber trifle, nois~ ~mcl air pollution studies are neee,~siutt~d by the timeling and al:tprova.1 of the Highw:~y 30 corridor. On lhe environmenlal front, it~c California ~ ~g~cd ~i~s on ~ 30, 1993 ~er ~c ~prov~ ~ r~e~ly ~ J~e 10, I~7, ~c ~dl~ S~ ~~ of ~t~, Fi~ ~d Wil~ife S~ice ("Wilde S~") h~ ~ ~e Ci~ ~a~ ~ ~clo~ ~ not romplied wi~ ~e ~g~ S~es Act ~d ~at ~o g~ may com~ce ~fil Wildlife S~i~ ~m}~ i~ ~t~ ~bit 5). Mo~v~, ~eloper h~ not eonguet~ ~y ~w ~QA mmpli~ce in C~fo~a D~ment of Fish ~. ~e'~ ~ish md Gme') ~mt d~on o~ · e ~ ~ w'~ ~e L~ ~el,~mt ~j~t is si~t~ ~ h~i~ ~t is me~n~ ~e r~t ~d most ~t~ ~ of h~m~ co~m~, r~klng is only ~i~ed wh~ i~ ~ 2,~0 a,wes ~n in ~e werld ~t 6). ~imt at i~uz on the ~uren Developm~t Pmj~t pxop~' is p~ of one of o~y ~ou~ Laden Deve~opm~t's d~fion o[25.9 ~r~ ~p~ ~i~fi~t, it actually ~omfimt~ a~ut 1.5 p~cent of ~bimt for Gnamtch~ on ~. D~ite ~e mpomce of Developer h~ not been r~uk~ to, nor is he t~ng, ~er, ~c entke pro~' is pro~ to be ~ed, ~ d~yed. Lauren Developmen~ has n,:-:er provided dire. z: notice to homeowner in the area., xad yet it has gone lo great lengths lo docum~mt the "sul~posexl" l~ck of inxercs~ by residents. .As rece,~ty ~ May 28, 1997, De'velopmem ~'irmoc~:lly" questioning. why "vo few p~p]e are causing so much concern and allcging so much c~,~_~ophc" (Ex-¥Jbit 8). The logical answ~ is u~a: the vast majority of reside'am fir~ learned of thc Development the weckcnd of May 25, 1997, when Euclid Mazl~4cment f~aily sent a noadeea:ript notic~ abou~ ttae proposed May 28, 1997 pres,mt~fion by l,a'~ren Development on the Pr~jcct's arcl:dtex:tstr~fi design (E:~.kibit 9). Although Lauren De~,etopmeot appears to halve slycaking with Bruce A.,"m Ha.h~ the ?resident of Haven V~ew Es',ates, and Eaelicl .y~_._w. Zt ! 76. L 12 101 00 ~00 00~00 156 P05 Jam~ Markman, E~q. Jma~ 11, 1997 ?age 4 Mztmgernent, neither Euclid Mamagemcnt nor Ms. H~hn lmvc any legal ~athoriay to repreraml or ~;t on behalf of property owners ~ connect/on w/lb the Development.'~ Any effort by ofa 1~ minute ~v~o~ml ~b~ ~uld bc i~or~. Until ~s ~ ~ ~c, ~ ~vetogm~ ~d ~d We o~d Dcvcl~m~t's f~l~c o~ous ~e~ to avoid ~e ~c~ ~ b~d ~y required by CEQA H~ pos~ by ~e PRO.~CT BACKGROUND The 25.9 acre Project origin~liy w~s pcopo~d by Brock Homc~ iv. 1989. A Negative Declaration ~ approv~ on Nov~ 14, 1~0 ~ ~lt m T~five T~ct MaF No 14771. ~ ~e Pl~g Co~i~io~ l~ely ~ a~, ~ch a Map ordin~ly would have ~ ~ Novemb~ 19~; ho~cr, ~c Pl~g Co~i~on fir~ ~n;ed a 12 mon~ ~t~si~ on ~tobcr 28, 1~2 ~ ~c lc~s]~ion ~ub~qu~tly w~ ~ ~at would have alto~ C~ to ~to~tically cx~nd ~: life of ~c Ten.live M~ ~o~cr 24 mo~.* In s Laurma D~vclopmcnt ~1~ is aware of conccm~ cxpr~cd by Bill ~ ~ ~elo~t h~ be~ c~c~l to d~t ~or Plug S~c f~t ~ '~. H~ . . . a 1o~ R~itor... h~ bmu~t ~t~fi~ 1~ de~s to ~ in ~e ~.." "~onolo~ of Evers ~g ~ to ~s M~ng" ~h~ to ~y ~, t~7 ,~ond~:~ 10 ~c Pl~g Co~mi~on." (E~bil 10) ~ a 1~ ~ PI~s S~ dated M*y t6, 19~, ~ ~m ~.cnt~ ~ f~t ~t ~. H~ ~ what phee ~ey {lh~ hom~] w~ gong m ~11 for. W~ ~d ~ wo~d ~11 for ~ much ~ the m~ket would be~. Ms. H~n, a broker, ~ked if we w~e gong to list ~e homes ~ brokers. At ~, Bill ~gel rm~ to h~ ~at ~t ~r~t a 'conflict of ~t~st.'" 6 CI.FR.E object= to and rc imms the fight to chalic'nge these ext~msiot~ ss the p!annlnE Dc'p~ncnt file was incomplete rind the extension document, were ~ot produced. From pap¢,'-work in the file, it appears thai Cristi~no, the cu.rr,:mt prm2crty (continued...) · 101 00 ~00 00:00 156 POG larac~ Marlo'nan, Esq. jtrh'~'l 1, 1997 Page 5 September 1996, Lamrcn Dc¥clopm~t resurrected the Tentative M~p and b~gan processing the Project tow--,,rd final attoroyal of the Dcvclopmcm Dcsilpa and ~ ttlfirnalc filing of the Final Map. On April 16, 1997, La'.n'cn Development submitted it~ "D,--_sign Review Application - Tract 14771" (E.xtxit:it 12). As disca.-_-'~d bctow, ~ document wa~ never circttl~:d for public ramroe.at, d~s not a.dd~cr~ ~c "changed d.mumstance~' of eot~ccm mic~l i~ lh/s OpptJsi~n, an~ conlains either false or mislcadin& commc-nts oonccr~-lg Lsoxcn D=¥clopmcnt's compliance with federal and state en,.-ironmcntal laws. M'ULTIPLE E.'~I'EN$IONS OF THE TENTATIVE MAP AND t;'AILUtl.E TO I~ROVIDE PUBLIC i~OTIC'E OR AN Ot't~ORTU~'II'y TO COlVl'i~Eh"r ON 'l[lCtE OF. SIGN RE~,.'IEW APPLICATION VIOLATE TIlE $UBSTA-~T1ArE AND PROCEDURAL RIGIt'PS OF 11VtPACTED PROPERTY OWNERS A- F=iltlre to Provld~ Notice o! th~ Errcaslon of Ire Tomfive Map Deprived Ai'fccictt Prop~r'ty O,e~crs of Du~ ¥roccs~ '- The urmoticcd and proccduxally d,-fec'dvc extcasior. s of Tcotativc Map 1477I have served to deprive affected propc,"py owners of da~ process of law. Speaking directly to the due procr.-~ rights of acljacmt propcrD' owners in the mzttcx: of tentative map approvals, the California Surprcmc Court cmphasixcd tha! "[a.~d u_sc decisions which 'substamialiy affect' the prop-.rty fights of o~.'acr. s o f adjacct~ ptrccls may con,irate 'del:riva:ion$' of property within the context of procctimal due process." Horn v, Count~ of Ventura. 24 Cal. 3d 605 0979). The City, morcov,'r, catmot claim that its po~ing oFth: ag,mda pm-aua,m to the C.~-~crnm--ni Code satisfied duc process.* According m the Court, prior rtoti:t mast. at a minimum. be reasonably calculated tc afford siTcoted person: th: realistic oppora~ty to protect t,(...continued) owner, did nol file for ertcrtsior: pc-r the rcquircracuts in Rancho Cucamonga's Subdivision Map Ordine~.cc. Section 16.20.1C,0 provides "The application stI~ be filed not less ;hah. 60 days prior to th~ cxpLTalion daI: .... " October 14, 1993 correspondence from Cristlano to Beverly Nisstm cle. a.-ly cst-~blish~ -.t~t ~c ap. pitcation was not r-_cci¥cd in a timely fmkion sat..t: that ,_he $ubscttt~cnt approx'al of an extension oft.he Tcmative Tract Map vlolatcd the otdina.acc. (Exiaibii 11) ~ It appca~s that ¢~'cn property owners witt-.in 300 feet of the Projoct did not receive notice. 101 00 '00 00:00 155 Pll .lunc 1 1, 1997 page 10 (2) Designation of Propm'ty as S.l.1 Habitat The boom developmint yuars from the mid- 19B0's to the e.~ly 1990's resulted in such rapid de.sllxmfion of allu'vial fan sa$c scrub habiU,.ts d~t Fish and Game h~ now designalud the arma as Sl.l and G.I. This designation by dcfiAitiou is "very threatcnexl." These u~' designations requite CEQA analysis and idemit:ic, itiou by Lauren Development of proj~t alternatives and rrritig~tion Traffic, air quality s.ud nei~c mum bc :e~valuated in light of increased devclo~t and ~pproval uf Highway 30 Although there arc trYre'races in the file a "traffic study", none was Iocalezl. Tha: =raffle study, however. could not have considzmd the approval and iznmincut consu-uction of Highway 30. Exhibit 13 is confirmation from the San Bernardino A.ssocialcd Govenuncnts datex] June 6, 1997 s'ratlnE that the: I-{jg]:rway 30 EIR was certified and that the t-lsvcu View e.'ci! has been apprm,'ed. Acce~ a Haven View will significanlly increase traffic in ~c area. Of obvious impact to fl~ La~n D~'eloprnent project is th-- new ~:ccss that the public will h-vc to the NaIional Forest Addi6onslly, numerous other dcw:lopme'acs in the immexiisic ~ have occurred sinc~ 1990 thai wer~ nm considered. Traffic ~1one from the Stmcl~y congregational services at two ~ .umJ_~s_ .o,~ .lta_ yen north o..['H!.~sicle hav. e si$~ific, amly incr~csext weekend t~afi:ic. Moreover, ~hc record ctrnlaims no ,,,-id=oce concorn/rag the impacts that the Dev¢lopmerrt will have during comairnotion on cxisl~g homcownm's. When the 1990 Negative Dex:laration '~ approved, less than 15 hom~ were b~lt in Haven Vim, and RC-5. Now over 50 homes arc lived in with the atmerid,,ni p=d~rian traffic. None of ihes~ changed cirt:umstauccs havc bccn considered aud require furth~ analysis under CEQA. ,o Contrary to the rc-prcscatation.s of Lauren Development i.u i'_s Apri] 16, 1997 correspondcrate that the .h~bitat cot~lifion of the prop=try was degraded. Michael Brcrman, lcadi~'.g ~xpert ~ alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, has concluded "In my opi.rdon ~hc property wi~hi~ Tc-atadvc Tracx No. 14771 is prime h,.bita~ arm tc support a wide range of wildlife, including the California Gnatcan:her, whieh is a federally-listed envimmental ape:its. Additionally, the subject prope'ay mm support the San Diego Horned Lizard s.nd Plummm"s MmSposz Lily." (B~crman D~I. m 9 3). 101 00 ' 00 P12 Jamcs Marba~n, Esq. June 31,-1997 Also direcfiy bem'ing on new tra~.c ~ not c0ttsidered previously cour,,emin~ acccss. In its April 16, 1997 Des~ Rc~cw Application (ExtgbR 12), Lsuren Dcvclopment iuco.'r~liy cla~ns ~ arecorded agreements siipulatc thai access · to thesc fatu.~c homes will nol cause si?ifica~t tra~c impacts upo~ the c*x~s~g th6re is absoltl~ no discus~ioll shout tl'a~c or other CI~QA irnpacl-WPe {urnlye. Mor~ im.v~rial~IJy, the Developer is aware ~ R,art~ho Cl~ugamollEe--q has que~ioned its ar.x:css rights over RC-5'$ camoreo-ate (Exhibit 12).~ Were iKC-5 tn prevail on any much claim, Lauren Deve[o~meut u-,ffiic would be cot~ccarffated over Clover and T.~_l,,~tern in l-{aven View. This issue musI be resolved ax,.d the changed coudifion addre.ss~ b.-fore final approval of the Project Safety Risks of the p_--dph.--ral Containment of l~mov-al of Levee Must Be Reavelusted Arguably the most serious impaat that the Lmzrcn Dc-vclopmcnt P:-ojcct could kave on surrounding dow~gradiemt rcsidcn~ (as well as f~mrc pu~hascrs of Lau.rca D~.ctopmcnt homes) is l.hc rcmowl of the existLog Dcriphcrai cogent levco. Laden Development has ju.stificd ia rcmm,'~l by Ci~;,'r,;--g the: the Deer Crc~k Chaxm:l, :note than one mile ~o ',he north, is sufficicn! to protee: Haven View and RC-5. Lau:~l D~-clepmcnt concludes (withou: any technical supporl cited) that thc' D~'r Creek Debris B~sin and Dccr Cruck Charnel obvia~ "lhc ucr. d for the bcrm and swale. maidrig tixc she de,,'clo~sble" (Exhibit Attached is the Doclar~o~ of Bruce Col'fins, a civil casit:eer with Dames & Moore, one of the larg,:sl gaot~nical and engineming £u'ms in the world (Exhibit 4) Mr. Collins, who hss l~'dcui.xr expertise in flood control projems, has concluded_fiat the removal of the tx:riphe~l containment levee reduces tkc safevy of do,~vigradicn. t zesidems and ~ possible flooding. (Collin~ Decl. at '~ 3) He further concludes thnt lY,~ mitlgalio= measurc~ proposed by Laurc~ Development arc nut m~ adequate substitute for the peripheral c.gntainrncllt levco. As it is, tvfr. Collins points out lhal the Deer Creek (22mrm~} does not provide absoiulc protection for dov,-ugradien! homes. (Collins Decl. al '{ 3) ~' The Recorded Easement Agrcc-mc-nt Nos. 056050 end 056051 arc in the Planning File. Other relevant ~d rctated ca~-rncnt ag3ccrnems rcfcrc:aced L'3 the file were not located. '00 00:00 256 P13 .~mes Marlonan, Esq. June 1 P~x: 12 Siucc th~ origi~ lqeg~ve~ Declaration was ~, f~ ~ ~o~ ~id~. The ~i~ug ~ ~ ~ is ~ cl~ p~ ~ ~ ~t ~d ~d ~us be imp~ in ~ c~. (CoU~ ~!, ~t ~ 5) D~~ ~ ~e ~t~t of ~c r~ r~ ~ ~ b~ ~t ~t bc ~ty ~~-~ When removal of the lcvue =.-as first .addressed in 1990, the Dcvclop~, Brock Homc~, w-as i.uvolvcd. Brock was a local d~'ciop:r with a proven tr-~k rr~ord in Cu~'nonga and appears to l-a~'c had substantially more ~ than Laur~ Der-lupincm.'~ Downgradient rcsidcals of I.aurcu Development must ruly on Laurcrt D~v~loprn~t's financial wh~vithal to complete the Proj~'l and fuUn'~ 40 home, owners to maiu~:,i~ ~ {ev~c. This latter point is of particular concern as various =mru~unts in Planning dncmnena appear tn usum~ that all Haven View and RC-S property owrt~r~ will dmre in :he cost of maintaining th~ flood -improvements" bulit by Laurcu Dcv~loptzlcl~l. If this is the Cimy's assumption, it is net lh¢ understanding of Haven View p~ o~m~rs and it is not supported by the existing, r. asemrn! or acc~s,s agr:g:mcnts on record. IV. CONCLUSION Approvul of D~wciopm~mt Review 97-11 viulaIcs tl,.~ ~c ~ ~iD' Act ~d lhe Fed~l ~g~ S~i~ Act Giv~ the I~1 of pubic cou~v~ s~ng t~s ~j~h ~ by ~e p~ing Co~mon or ~o. 94- l 1. c~lly ~ the ~l Ag~ ~ould not ~. ~ ~c Pl~g Co~i~ion must reci~ulai~ ~u N~ D~i~, ~u~ ~h~cc ~ n Thc .~,[cty issu~ ~ .-,,-moral of the levee are not liraitel to compliance with CEQA but also must be reviewed ,ruier ~hc safers' ~ng/n:x~ng dc~iim criteria s~t fo.-'th by Cu"'tnou6a Ordinance. A.ffecsed property owners have aol had sufiic!cnt time to evaluslc the cuginccring d,:sign ~ Developer bluc prints on these issues. '~ Public informa:ion concerning Dc'v¢lop~.'s resources is l/miu:cl; however. the aU. achcd Dun & Bradstrc~ shows m{,~imal ~¢r.s. Addresses provided by Lauren in public recurds do uot show a Cucamonga Ioc~.'ou mad the Agoura addresses are a juice bar and a rcsidcucc (Ex.~bit 14). The name of :&,c bus'tncss located at the address provid~ by Lauren on An:ow Rnutc is C. aliforuia Construction Corp. 101 00 '00 00:00 156 P14 .tsm~ Ms,kmart, Jmae 11, 1997 CEQA, ~ allow su:ffizient ~ for affee~__~'l property owners to oomm~t on ~ oth~ tetrlafiw map conditions ired compliance r.o~c~n'n$ that could not be ~htre~sod Malissa Hathaway M ' Atlomcy for C'ar. amonga~ Lt~ittxl For Rmt~ble Expamion ~' ~") The Honorable Cur, amonga City Council: The Honorable X~qlliam J. ~~'" ~ Ho~abtc Paul ~ H~o~le I~ V. ~*~1o ~ Ho~!c R~ Fish ~d WiMlife Li~ Da~fis, C~ifo~;~ ~~t of Fish ~d G~e F~C!iffor~ The ~ A~I~ t., CURE reserves all righ~ to challenge the Development once the complete rev..oral i~ obtained and reasonable time to respond is provided. O'.tr couccr~ include, but are no' limiI--.d Io, clev:uion ear, lope as it z.ppears ~.at: as of .:uue 4, 1997 review, L-'~'~,mr. Developmeat is still not in compliance with Resolution #90- 183. Addition',dly, CURE ree,~rv~ the rig.hi to challenge under the rcquircmcnts of Hillside Development Regul~a.dons Section 17.24 ef the Du--vctopmc:nt Code. 101 00 ~00 00:00 15G ~15 ~Iam~s .Marknan, Esq. Jun~ 11, 1997 Pago 14 Extn'bit Exhibit Ex~bit Exhibit Exhibit Extlibit Exhibit '7 - Exiaibit 8 - Exhibit 9 - Exhibit 10- Exhibit l 1 - Exhibit 12 - Exlfibit 13- Exhibit 1,¢- Exhibit 15 - T.L~T OF EXHIBITS .lime 10, 1993 Mr. Keith |eiter to James Msrkm~n Petition May 28, 199.'? Mr.K~ith le:tt~r to Tom Gt-ah~ Bruce Collins D~cts.,afion June 10, 1997 tctts:x from U.S. Department of Interior to Tom Grdm California D~,,-t~e:at of Fish and Game Elemcm Rsnkieg ~md Dive:Mty Databas: Notion Michael B~nna~ D~cim-afion May 28, i997 letter fi'om Laugh Dea,~topment to plsn,~ing Commission May 20, 199/Euclid Maa.gemen! Nloticc initial $rady Chec, idist ~ N,zgatiYe Declaration Ocxober 14, 199~5 letter from Cris~ano ~o Nissen April 16, 1997 Lmizen D,zveiopmenl letter re Design Review Application Jtme 6, !997 San Beraardino A~ociatr. zl Go-,r~-rnm~n. ta Correx~nd~ax:c re Highway 30 A;qn'oval Iun¢ 6, 1997 LnvesfigaXion Report of Larry Troxcl Jane 6, 1997 Ic~tc'r from $p;.ril of the Sage Coar~eil 101 00 '00 00:00 7 1O 11 12 13 Decl&=&=i~ o~ ~/c~l Br~-nan I, Michael Brerunan, declare and state as follows: 1. I huvc o B=~clor of Scicnccs Dc~rcc in Biolo~icol Sciences fr~ the Cmlifo~ scott Pol~c~ic uni~r~ity and I am presently ~l~t~g a ~aet~rs ~ree priam at California Pol~cnic Po~na in Fire Ecol~y of All=-i~l F~ Sage Scrub. I currently a., th= lea~ biol~ist co~ieeioned by the Califo~ia Depa~nt of Fi=h & Cam= to develop conme~anion ~d ~nage~ent ~idelinee for all remaining Alluvial Pan Sage Sc~ in the S==tc of ~li~o~ia. I have ext~ive e~erience evaluating wildlife ~d pl~t habitat ~d I have ~pectfi~ e~ertise in the ~luvial F~ Sage Sc~ ~bitat. 2. I have walked the boundmriee of Tentative ~act 14, No. 14771 which I understand is proposed for tract home 15 developehr. The statements ~de herein are in support of 16 Cuca~gane Unified for Reason~le Expansion'~ 17 opposition to that deve. lopment without an updated and appropriate 18 en¥1ronmcntal impact study. The etafeints made herein are of my 19 personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would and could 20 testify to the tl-~=h thereof. 21 3. In my opinion, the property within Tentative Tract 22' No. 14771 i~ prime t~aJ~itat area to eugport a wide range of 23 wildlife, includin~ the California Gnatcatcher which is a 24 federally list6d endangered species. Additior~al, the subjet[ 25 prot~erty can suppoz-t the San Di~3o Ho~ed LAzard and Plummer's ~6 Mariposa Lily. 27 4. Moreover, the subject pz~perty and surrounding 28 area is one of the eight re~ining and the second larges~ stand 101 00 '00 00:00 1SG PI? ! 2 3 5 6 9 10 1'1 3.:2 19 20 21 2.:2 :23 24 2'7 Of A~SS in t-he worl~ and :herefore i~9 Rre~'erva:ion is critical. In my opinion, the proposed development would cause substantial environmental damage and substantially and avoidably injure aud, in fact, destroy wildlife and their habitat. 5. I have not had the oppoz"a%l~i%¥ to review biolu9ical ,uz'vey, -~u~poeedly= collducsed by the d~lo~r ~ue~ they ~c not avail~l~ in the Ci%y of R~cho fil~= ~d neither %~e ~lifo~ia ~pa~ment of fish & ~e 0r U.S. Fish & Wildlife ha== ~ ~le to locate thc rcpo~ ~ha~ ~he developer claims to ~ve filed. Without aceass to those su~eys, valid scientific met~ nor can I dete~ine if ~he consultant conducting the ~ey was ~allfled to evaluate the ~luvlal Fan Sage Sc~. I have reviewed corree~ndence fr~ ~ur~ D=velo~ent ~t=d ~ril 16, 1997 concludin~ 't~t the area of the sit~ degraded by ~c be~, ~wale and excess ~r~ fr~ the swale coyera ou=r 75 ~rcent of the si~e. ~ a reeulL, the property i~ l=f~cly die~pted ~th little (if any) left its ~tural condition. Foyer water courses, ~h =hose draining into it, no l~g=r function due to the presence of =he n=~ ~eer creek c~n~l to =he eae~." 6. ! disagree with these conclusion ~eed u~n my ~reonal obae~a~ions. First, virtually 99 ~rcent of [he ~ite had regenerated to a ~tur~ Alluvial F~ Sage Sc~ c~unity. Tkis is indicated by the presence of mcc~g rcc~itmcnt of chaparral species such as C~mieu (Adenos~ome fasciculatum), Birchl~af Mountain Mah~y {C~rcoca~ be:u!oides, Ce~o:hue 101 00 ~00 00:00 2 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 ~5 17 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 0~0 cru=ifoliu~, mr,.x:l, most i~9~rtantly, the presence of matuza plante of scalebroom (Lepidospartum equamatum) . I also disagree that the par% of Deer Creek Wash ru~.9 through t. he proposed development "no longer functions". There is ~r~sh alluvial degosit of sand in addition ~o the presence of br~cmn bmccharis. both of which are cD~racterisTic o~ ft~lctioning intermJLtta,'~ water courses. 7. At the ~ime of the initial study :h~ckliet for the negative declaration in the late 1980s, the Dro~ert¥ ~ay noc have had mature alluvial growth as it appears chat the site was graded in th= mid-1980s. The character of the v--g~tation on the prope~y appears to have significantly chan~ed since that time and now supports a wide range of species aru~ plant life. The~e cha~ged circumstances nec~itat~ th~ develO~nen~ of an actual environmental impact study to a~=~s alternative ~rojecc~ ~d identify micigati~ meaeur~re to appropriat=ly r=ducc th~ i~act to plants and wildlifu ~ their habicac. S. I am pr~d to ~how slides ~d to teeti~y on th=e= ie~u=s a~ =he June 11, 1997 hearin~ if p~i~t~d by the Pla~ing Co--lesion. I declet= ~der ~nmlty of p~rju~ that the i~ t~e and correct and that this Declaration was ~ecu~ed at ~=ncho ~camon~a, Califo~ia, ~ June 8, 1997. 3 AM F~$ FAX NO. 6IS 431 5902 Call ?.o have p~ck:P..d up TO: Fax No.: (n t ~) 7 ~ f - os~ I t PhoncNo.: (-t~t) '7~g- tp~'oo Pax No.: (760) 431-9618 431-5902 Phon=~lo.: (760) 431-9440 [pl~¢ not~ that our area code has b;_~_ changed to (?~0)]. i I 9'50 .~ .......~ .....................FA~ ~0. 6[9 43[ 5902P. 3 j- Improvemen[ Zone '05-~. Formot i~n of 0~7[ 3-17-9~ County Scr~i~ Zrc~ 70 iDEPUIT t I'1 .-.'.-.-:1 .', ... ?. 4 I :. .4 4 '! 4 DRe~TMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 Golde~ Snore, 8ue~ .RO Long Beech. Calfi'ofrda e0602 Page 3 of 5 #2/4 P~GE 8] Mr. Brad Gutter, Planner City ot h:encho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Ci~c Center DHve RaaCo Cu~monga. Cal~omia g172g Dear June 23, 1997 Poe~-ft"' Fax fdof~ 7671 CO. Tract 14771 and/~uren Oevelopment~$ Proposed Project ~ ~i~ County The Dead--at of Fish a~ Ge~ (~P~cnt) h~ re~ay been adv~ of ~e P~en~l for ~umn Deveiopm~ ~ ~ ~lh ~~ OT TM~ 14~1 ~ any fu~ or a~dlt~n~l ~view ~u~ to ~ C~la E~~n~~ O~ A~ (CE~). ~i= area ~thin ~e ~y of Ra~o Cu~nga (C~), n~ to ~ ~e~1o~, is of s~c contra to the ~Panment. Tn~ area him ~n i~n~d ~ Ribmidian Afiuv~l Fan ~go ~b (RAFTS) habltm ~ t~e po~n~al ~ auppo~ ~ Ca,fom~ gn~tc~r (~1opEla ~ti~mice ~tifomi~, e f~eral ~reaf~ a~ ~te 'S~s of Spatial Con~m (CSC)'. ~g o~r plant and wildt~fe $Pe~s. ~ a~ ~= ~n de~gna~d as S~n~nt Nelural Area 88D~ 10. As cu~nfiy u~emt~ ~ tile ~ent, approval ~ ~ development ~1 fs based upon a teamfive au~i~a[~ map f~ ~ an iniaal St~ an~ N~aave ~ll~ ~re replete end approve~. H~r, um Cali~ gnet~t~er ~s ii~d ~ ~matened In Hab~at Consedation Plan [MSHCP), ~ ~ ~Js developeat area ~ ~ln, by i~ slgna~re to ~e Memorandum of Un~nding (MOU} on June 8. 1995. As such. t~ Depa~nt ~eves add/fiona~ environmen~t mvi~ ia ~ mqu~d to f~ry ~sdo~ (~ pm~s cu~nt ~tentlal ~g~nt ~ ~o sensll~e ~01~e resou~s. We ~iieve ~hat pumaant ~ (~ Carfare Environmental Qualt~ A~ (CEQA), r~mu~t~ of t~ Negate Deoa~tion ts ~nt~ Defuse: 1) =ube~nti=l ~nge bee ~ed ~h ~pem to ~e ~r~sten~= un~r ~ ~e ~je~ is ~ ~ untaken, as ~e area pm~ for ~evelopment i= ~ ~in an a~e Natu~l Comman~ Conse~t~ ~anning (NCCP) a~ - of ~ ~e ~ ~l a petit and 3) n~ inflation ~ ~ubaten~el impofrance to the ~r~e~ has b~ a~b~ and ~e projam ~11 n~ have one or mo~ s~gnifi~nl afros not previously divulged, ac ~e proposed ~evelopment ~1] ~suit ~n ~ slgn~i~n{ impa~ to ~e redu~on in t~ num~m of unique plants and animals ass~ated wkh RAFSS, a state signin.at natural are~hebi~t m~ed as "ve~ threatened* (CEQA Gu~dehnes, Se~n 151~2). , - F" :J L. day .- me:10:27 { SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; ~-26-97 10:18~; 90~772847 => Lauren Deveiopment; 06/2511597 15:32 31859~51~2 ~G R5 PAGE I ge 4 of 5 #3/4 02 Mr, Brad Bulmer June 23, linG7 Page Two Therefor, ~ l'espec4:futly request ~e City to advise ~ De~t ~ ~on as possible ~e~r~g ~e ~nt sa~s ~ ~ ~ and any ~ng ~. ~n, or O~er e~ions t~t will ~m ~pmval of ~e C~y, a~ ~e~ t~ app~ ~ ~ ~ be '~isc~etiona~ by ~e ~y. ~se ad~se ~ ~ ~ a~ima~ da~(=) ~en the~ ~s~etiona~ or o~se, am enticed ~d/or If the City believes no ~urltler cli~:refionary aO!3~ovafs ~ de~aions am mqu~d, p~ase advi~ the ~ment of any ~r kn~n ~l~ or appalls by offi~ a~n~s, =u~ as San Bernardino Coun~ Flood Co~l or ~onal Wmar Quali~ Co~ ~eq~4md before ~is pr~e~ may pm~ed. A~, ~ease e~r pm~ us as to how cop~ may ~e ~ta~ed for ~ trial a~ ~n~ p~oje~ ~ign an0 pmp~al, t~ Negative De~a~fion. N~ of De~inat~n ~d any document, used in completing the August 14, figg0 Initial Study and Negative ~e~on We are hopeful Lauren Development will be able to complete the additional gnatcatcher surveys required by tile U.S. Fish and W~idlife Service (USFVVS), and -~uppocted by the Department, to detefrr~ne preset3ce or absence in this area (m: USFW$ lette~' to Mr. Tom Grahn dated June 10, lg1~7). Understandably, due to the current presence o~ 'very threatened' habitat and the length of time which has transpired between file initial study of the tent~lve subdivision mop and its actual proposed development, there may be some confusion on our part as to how this project has already beer1 approved. In cooperatlort with tile measures identified in the San Bernardino Valley Mult~ecies Habitat Conservation Plan MOU. we respectfully request no grading permits be issued by the City for thL~ project until tlqls issue: is resolved, We look ~'orwarcl to meeting with the Ctty anc~ Lauren Development to discuss resolutior, of our COflc~ms as soo~q as possil3~e. Thank you for your time and additional cortsldera~on r~garding th~ proposed development, t1' you have any questions or concot'ns re<jarding this letter, p~ease feel free to contact Mr. Bill Tippets of our NC;CP program at (619) 467-42'12. You can mail the requestec~ informsZion directly to Mr. Tippets at the following address: California Department of F~h and Game, NCCP Proor~m, 4949 Viewrldge Avenue, San Diego, California 92123; fax (019) 4235. Copy; See Attached List '.SENT BY: R CUCA~ONGA C0M DEVj ~-26-~7 10:19AM; ~0~772847 => Lauren Development; 66/25/1957 i5:32 2185985152 Mr. Brad E~uiler June 23, 'i997 Page Thr~e Copy: Mr. John Allclay L~u~n Development Ranergo Cucamortge, Ca#fore Mr. Curt 'l'aucher Department of Fish am:l Game Long Beach, California Mr. Bill Tippets Departmen1 of Fish and Game San Diego, California Mr. Bruce Kinney Department of Fish and Game Bishop. California DEAN DLrNN-RAi~flON CH~.S S. Exo~ ANDR. EW K. HAR~_ LL HUGiq HEwrn' J'Oi-IN D. HUD50N HEwrrr & McGumE, LLP ATTO!II~'EY5 AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 7984)500 · (714) 798.0511 (fax) MAltK R. McGUiRE DF2~m$ D. O'NE~L JAY F. PALCI. ltKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLI~4 L. TWO~EY JO~N P. YEAGER June25, 1997 Via Fax and U.S. Mail Mr. Gail Koberich U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: USFWS Letter Dated June 10, 1997 to City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Koberich: Transmitted herewith is a copy of a letter from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga dated June 10, 1997. This letter concerns a proposed development project of our client, Lauren Development. This letter raises serious issues regarding Service actions and statements which need to be addressed immediately. I would appreciate receiving a call from you or Sherry Barrett today to discuss this letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, AKH/Icc Sherry Barren (via fax) Jeff Newman (via fax) 06-25-97 S:\DOC\161\CORR\9?060029. LTR United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE C~L~bad F~ ~30 ~r ~uc Jun~10,199~ Mr. Tom Orahn City of Rancho Cuca.monga planning D~r. rtmcnt 10500 Civic Cemtcr I.)rivc Rancho C'ucarnonga, California, 917'29 Subjec:: California Gnatzateh~ Surveys for Traz: 14771 Dear Mr. Grahn: This lcttr. a' follows a phon~ ~onv,:r~tion between yo~lf ~d S~: Eii~on ~d Wolfe offs offi~ on J~c 10, 1997, ~ ~'hich ~ U.S. Fish ~d Wildlife Se~i~ m~c cl~ ~ s~c~ for Califom~ Gna~a~he~ ~n~fl by ~mcn D~clopmcm appm~ by xhc S~ ~uld ~ ~midc~ x~ ~ · ~io~ion of~ T~c prohibition 9 oflhc En~gcr~ S~i~ Ae~. ~c~forc no g~ing pc~i~ ~d ~ ig~ ScoR ~iuon or M~ BcL~ Wo~lfc or,his officc. WILLIAM E. HALLE HUm ~ JO~N D. HU .I~O~ McGUIRE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boutevnrd, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 ('714) 798-0~00 - (714) 798-0511 (fax) June 26, 1997 MARK R. MCGUIR~ DENNIS D. O'N~L JAY F. PALCI-I!KOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. Two~Ey $ONN P. YEAGER VIA FACSIMH.E and U.S. MAIL Mr. Jeff Newman U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Lauren Development, Inc. Tract No. 14771 USFWS Letter to City of Rancho Cucamonea dated June 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Newman: Thank you for speaking with me earlier this week. This letter is to memorialize our conversation of Monday, June 23, 1997 concerning the above-referenced letter. A copy of that letter is attached. During the course of our conversation regarding the above-referenced letter I asked for the basis for the Service's assertion that: "The [project site] is adjacent to known occupied California gnatcatcher habitat." I noted that I had requested documentation regarding this statement from the Service earlier, on June 11, from Mr. Scott Eliason and Ms. Mary Beth Woulfe of your office. You informed me that you had had the opportunity to discuss this matter with Ms. Woulfe recemly and had learned the following: 1. The Service statement is based on a single, oral report relayed to the Service in the course of a telephone conversation from an unknown individual. 2. The Service has no written record of this observation or report; data on this alleged observation does not exist m Service files. 3. The Service does not know the identity of the individual who reportedly saw one or, at most, possibly two gnatcatchers in San Bernardino County, the alleged observation which forms the basis of the above statement. 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOK\161\CORR\97060031.LTR Mr. Jeff Newman June 26, 1997 Page 2 4. The Service does not know if this individual was a biologist or, if so, what h/s or her qualifications are, as the Service does not know the identity of this individual who made the alleged sighting. 5. This information, which the Service received orally via telephone, may not have been from the actual observer but may have been from an individual once or twice removed from the alleged observation. 6.' The "observation" of one gnatcatcher or two was allegedly in or adjacent to the North Eftwanda Preserve property (an area of approximately 760 acres containing potentially suitable habitat for this species). 7. You are uncertain as to whether this "observation" was made in 1997 or in 1996, but believe the observation was likely made last year. To summarize, the Service cannot provide me with any documentation to enable this finn to assess the validity, or understand the exact nature, of the "observation" which forms the basis of this serious Service allegation. I would like to point out, however, that this "observation" was not made on my client's property or immediately adjacent to it. The North Eftwanda Preserve property lies approximately 1 ~fi miles from my client's property. Gnatcatcher territories typically range from 3 to 20 acres. Thus, if a gnatcatcher was seen in the North Eftwanda Preserve it undoubtedly has more than sufficient habitat on the 760-acre preserve. Given the above information from the Service, I do not believe that it is in any way possible for the Service to support the statement contained in its June 10 letter to the City of Rancho Cucamonga that grading of the Lauren Development site at this time would constitute a prohibited take of the California gnatcatcher. To quote the Service directly, the Service has stated that "any site disturbance prior to a determination of absence... approved by the Service would be considered to be a violation of the Take prohibition of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act." I also note that on June 11, Scott Eliason of the Carlsbad field office informed me that he believed that there were possibly historical records of one, two or possibly three gnatcatcher pairs having been seen in the North Eftwanda Preserve area some time ago. Mr. Eliason did not have any dates for these observations, nor was he able to provide me data from Service files to support this claim. I did ask for the Service to provide me with copies of any data which would address the validity of these observations. To date, no such information has been provided to me from the Service. 06-26-97 3021-00~02 S:\DOC\161\CO~R\97~60~31.LTR Mr. Jeff Newman June 26, '1997 Page 3 I also inquired as to the reason for the Service asserting that the City should not issue a grading permit to Lauren Development - a statement contained in the June 10 USFWS letter. You responded that your understanding of the statements in the June 10 letter were simply meant to "initiate a dialogue" between the Service and the City. Should you believe me to be in error regarding any of the above statements from our phone call, please notify me by the end of this week. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, AKH/clt Enclosure Gail Koberich (w/encl. - via facsimile) Sherry Barrett (w/encl. - via facsimile) John Allday (w/encl. - via facsimile) Michael Spear (w/encl. - via facsimile) 06-26-97 ~021-0fl002 S:\D~g\161\~ORR\9706flO31.ElR United States Departmen! of the Interior F1SH AND WILD~ SERVICE 23,30 Lotmr A~.~u~ J~e 10, Mx. Tom araha City of Rancho Cucarnonga PJanning Eh~axtrncnt 10500 Civic Ceatcr I.)riva Rancho C'ut:amonga, California, 91729 Subje~,: California C. ma~a:~teh~ Sm'v~ys for Tr,= 14771 De.~r Mr. Grin'm: This lctm. r follow~ a phiinc convcr~tion ~n y~lf~d S~: Eti~ ~d M~ Bc~ Wolfe offs o~ on J~e 10, 1~7, ~ which ~ U~. F~h m~c cl~ ~ s~c~ for Ca!ifom~ Gnama~h~ ~n~d by ~cn ~clopmcnt appmv~ by lhc S~ ~uid ~ ~midc~ to ~ a violion of~ T~c pmhibi6on of ~6on Scoa Eliuon or M~ B~ Woulfc of this officc. ~ail Kobe~ DEaN DUNN-RANFJN CH,Ut~F.S S. F. XON WILLJ~I E. l.{6ft~ AWDP, Ew K. M,UtT7F! I HEwrrT & McGUmE, LLP ATTOR,N'EYS AT LAW 19900 Me, Arthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (7 I4) ?98-0500 - (714) 791/-0511 (fax) MARK R. MCGUIRE DF_"¢Nt$ D. O'N~L JAY F. PALOiN(OFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAm4 L. Two~I£y JOt,IN P. June 27, 1997 The Honorable David Barker Chairman, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91729 Re: Development Review 97-11/Lauren Devetol~ment (Tract 14771) Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: This firm represents Lauren Development, Inc. ("Lauren") in connection with the above-referenced project. We are writing to respond to certain specific issues and allegations raised in written submissions to the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") by certain homeowners near the project site, acting under the recently named group Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE"), and The Spirit of the Sage Council ("SSC") regarding compliance with certain naturat resource statutes, regulations and agreements and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Regrettably, both CUR.E and SSC have elected to rely on misrepresentations and misstatements as the foundation and basis on which to claim non- compliance with, or a "violation" of, the federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding the possible development of the San Bernardino Valley-Wide Multi-species Conservation Program. Both claims are wholly without merit. Moreover, both CURE and SSC demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of CEQA and its requirements as they pertain to the Planning Commission's role in the design review of this approved subdivision. Planning Commission ADDroval of Lauren's Desi~o~n Review Application and Implementation of the Proiect Will Not Result In Any Violation of the Federal Endangered S~)ecies Act. Independent of, and'irrespective of, its local entitlements to construct the residential project, Lauren remains subject - along with every other lot owner of an undeveloped lot in the City or within Haven View Estates - to the provisions of the ESA. However, ~ven the facts and circumstances of this project, the ESA imposes no restriction on Lauren or the City with respect to design review, issuance of grading permits or the grading of the property. 06-26-97 3D21-00002 $:\DD£\161\C~R\97060D30.LT2 The Honorable David Barker ~Iune 27, 1997 Page 2 Simply put, the ESA prohibits Lauren from killing or injuring any federally listed species - including the coastal California gnatcatcher ("Gnatcatcher") - in connection with grading its property. ~ If grading the property would result in such injury, Lauren would need to obtain an incidental take permit (Section 10(a) permit) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("Service") prior to grading its property. As well-counseled project developers typically do, Lauren has consulted with biological experts in advance of grading to determine whether any listed species exist on its property. Through such consultation Lauren learned that the only listed species which could conceivably be located on the site was the Gnatcatcher, although ~e probability of one or more Gnatcatchers occupying the site was quite low. Although Lauren had no legal obligation to conduct surveys or provide such information to any agency, it elected to survey its property for the Gnatcatcher in an abundance of caution. (A copy of this survey report is attached.) The biologists surveyed the 25-acre site and immediately adjacent habitats completely on four separate occasions in January of ttfis year. As the enclosed report notes, the surveys were conducted by qualified biologists in conformance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. Nc~ Gnatcatchers were observed or otherwise de~ected. Since Gnatcatchers do not occu~)v the site, Lauren does not need to obtain an incidental take permit (or anv other authorization~ from the Service and is under no particular obligations with respect to the ESA, the Service, the California Department of Fish & Game or others. In fact, it would have been rather surprising to find any Gnatcatchers at the site. Only a very few individuals of this species have ever been recorded to have been observed in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County is considered to 'lie at the very fringe of the range for this species. The Service letter of April 18 to Lauren Development and its June 10 letter to the City appear to be primarily based on various misunderstandings. The Service appears to believe that Lauren, by sending to the Service its survey results (as required under the biologists' federal permits), is requesting an "incidental take" permit from the Service. Lauren is not making such a request. Alternatively, the Service may believe that Lauren is requesting a written statement from the Service regarding its site; again, Lauren is making no such request. It is even possible that the Service is under the false impression that the Negative Declaration Ibr this project contains a condition requiring a letter of approval from the Service prior to issuance of a grading permit. Again, no such condition exists. I 16 U.S.C. {} 1538 (1996). 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 3 What we do know is that since at least 1993, the Service has accepted three surveys of a site as conclusive of the presence or absence of the Gnatcatcher for individuals requesting permits from the Service. The Service announced a change in this policy in March of this year (copy attached). Under its new policy, three surveys will suffice in some local jurisdictions, whereas the Service will request more in others. Ironically, most past surveys using the three visit methodology have been "grandfathered" in by the Service as "acceptable." As this is a new and changed survey policy, the Service has welcomed comments as to whether it is actually appropriate and justified, and the re,lured community is awaiting the release of the study allegedly supporting this change for comment. In any event, the decision regarding how many surveys to conduct in ttfis instance is a matter solely within Lauren's discretion. Lauren has also appropriately requested more specific information from the Service regarding the allusions in its two letters regarding Gnatcatcher sightings in the area. In a recent phone conversation with Mr. Jeff Newman of the Service, Mr. Newman informed the undersix-ned that the basis for the Service's June 10 claim that "the property is adjacent to known occupied California gnatcatcher habitat" consists of a verbal report from an unknown individual that last year one bird believed by that unknown person to be a Gnatcatcher was seen in or near the North Eftwanda Preserve - approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the project site.'- To date, the Service has not responded to our request for copies of all written reports, if any, of Gnatcatchers currently living anywhere near the project site, and .it is not clear that any such reports exist. Thus, this undocumented, anonymous, unconfirmed sighting appears to form the basis for the Service's concern. Even if the Service could establish credible documentation to support this rumor - which to date it has failed to do -- the existence of a single bird a mile or more away from the project site would not give the Service a basis to request anything from the City or Lauren Development. The San Bern,ardino Valley-wide Mutti-~ecies Habitat Conservation Plan MOU Does Not Reauire the City to Conduct Anv Further Biolo~dcal Review of the Proieet Site. The SSC's assertion that the San Bernardino Valley-wide MSHCP MOU somehow obligates the City or other governmental entities to conduct some sort of further environmental review of Lauren's project is simply incorrect. 2 In addition, Mr. Scott Eliason of the Service has suggested to the undersigned that there may be historical records of one, two or three pairs of birds formerly occupying the North Eftwanda Preserve at some earlier time. Of course, historic reports are of little relevance to ths Service's statement. 06-26-97 3021-00002 $:\00C\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 4 It is rather telling that the SSC does not cite any specific set of provisions in the MOU which requ/re such additional review. In fact, SSC could not do so, since the MOU is designed specifically to preclude any such mandatory obligations. The major purpose of the MOU is to establish some initial conceptual frameworks for a possible multiple-species conservation plan for a portion of San Bernardino County. The development of such a plan is expected to require a minimum of several years at best. (A copy of the MOU is attached.) SSC's first error lies in assuming that the MOU's Interim Project Review Guidelines ("Guidelines") apply to projects which have .already been approved and analyzed under CEQA, such as the project at hand. The Guidelines do ,not contain provisions for retroactive application. In fact, the Guidelines specifically indicate that they are meant to be applied - and applied at the local jurisdiction's and project applicant's sole election - to projects which are iust be~in.rfin~ the entitlement process. According to tile MOU, the Guidelines are meant to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and [Department of Fish and Game] so that projects which could preclude the successful development of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in the development review process .... MOU Attachment F, at F-1. This voluntary review process is offered to "[eliminate the historic problem in which] comments on proposed projects are not received from the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service until very late in the lead agency's decision- making process." MOU at F-1. Thus, the review nrocess rerluested by SSC does not even a~l¥ to a proiect such as Lauren's that was approved vears av.o and where the City has only limited additional discretion over narrow as~ects of the Droiect's imrfiementation. Nevertheless, even if the Guidelines could be construed to apply to an approved project such as Lauren's - which they cannot - the interim review is a totally voluntary process. Therefore, the City will be in compliance with the MOU even if it chooses not to subject any projects to the Guidelines' agency consultation process. The [Interim Project Review Guidelines] specifically do not create an additional layer of project review nor confer any additional authority on the Department [of Fish & Game], the Service or lead agency. The recommendations of the Service and Deparmaent are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or 06-26-97 3021-00002 $:\00C\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 5 deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency pursuant to existing laws. Each lead agency and/or project proponent shall determine whether a project should be reviewed pursuant to the [Guidelines] .... The lead agency retains the discretion to determine that a project within the plan area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. MOU Attachment F, at F-1. CURE's and SSC's Assertions Concerning CEOA Comnletetv Misstate the Facts and Law. The assertions of CURIE's environmental counsel, Malissa McKeith, concerning the City's compliance with CEQA are factually and legally wrong~ Ms. McKeith contends that because the Planning Commission exercises discretion in connection with design review applications, it must reexamine whether there are changed circumstances requiring additional environmental documentation under CEQA regardless of whether the circumstances have anything to do with the type of discretion the Planeting Commission exercises during design review. In addition, in complete contradiction to published appellate court decisions, Ms. McKeith arg-ues that she and other project opponents must only make a "fair arg-ument" that changed circumstances are present. First, the fact that the Planning Commission exercises Some discretion when considering design review applications does not mean that the Ptann/ng Commission must evaluate the current circumstances surrounding all aspects of a residential subdivision that already has complied with CEQA in connection with tentative map approval. As a leading CEQA treatise states: CEQA does not apply to an agency decision simply because the agency may exercise some discretion in approving the project or underlaking. Instead, to trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain .kind; it must nrovide the agency with the abiliw. to "shane the nroiect" in order to minimize environmental impacts. Remy and Thomas, Guide to CEOA, p. 42 (1996 Edition) (emphasis added). 06-26-97 $:\00C\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 6 The very case Ms. McKeith selectively quoted from in her letter to the City Attorney makes the same point: "The touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape the project in any way which would respond to any of the environmental comems which mitht be identified in an environmenial impact ret~ort." Friends of Westwood. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 267 (1987). Of course, Ms. McKeith failed to quote this sentence in her letter. Here, the Planning Commission's discretion in the context of desig-n review has absolutely no bearing on the alleged environmental concerns raised by CURE. To paraphrase the Assistant City Attorney, the decision whether the homes will be French Provincial or Spanish Colonial has no relevance to the alleged environmental concerns raised by project opponents. CURE's alleged environmental concerns revolve around four topics: (1) vegetation/habitat impacts; (2) flood control; (3) traffic; and (4) air quality. While we believe each and every one of these "concerns" is a complete red herring (and will explain why below), the Commission is certainly familiar enough with its role to know that none of these proposed concerns are addressed or addressable as part of design review. One easy way to illustrate th/s is to point out that the property owner could record his final map, obtain a grading permit, clear the development portion of the site of all vegetation, rough grade the 40 buildable lots, install all subdivision improvements, including roads, sell the lots to forty (40) different individuals, and then submit Ul~ to 40 separate design review a~plicafions. Completing such tasks would moot all of the concerns raised by CURE and SSC but would not preclude the Planning Commission from exercising the type of discretion it exercises in connection with desig'n review. To reiterate, the mere fact that the Planning Commission still has some discretion over a narrow aspect of the project does not mean that the City' can Or must reevaluate all impacts that will result from implementing existing project approvals. None of the alleged environmental concerns involve aspects of the project that can be modified in any retryant way as part of the design review process. Ms. McKeith knows this; if she does not know this, she is grossly unfamiliar with the applicable law. III. Even If Desi~on Review Tri¢¢ered Reevaluation of the Entire Project Under CEOA, the Alleeed Chaneed Circumstances Are All Red Hertines. Assuming solely for the sake of refuting CURE's other factual and legal misstatements that the City had the authority to reconsider all aspects of the project in connection with its desig'n review process -- which it does not - there are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. CURE's allegations that changed circumstances are present do not withstand scrutiny. 06-26-97 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 7 First, the listing of the coastal California g'natcatcher could only conceivably be a si~m~ifieant new circumstance if the site contained Gnatcatchers, which it does not. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's letter claiming that removal of "suitable habitat" would violate the ESA severely overstates the Service's authority. Th/s issue is addressed above. There have been numerous species placed on the endangered species list since 1990 in addition to the Gnatcatcher; this project will not impact any of them either, and their listing does not constitute changed circumstances either. Second, the vegetation type that will be impacted has not changed since the tract map was approved. It was known as a sensitive habitat type even in 1990, although completion of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel have removed the site from hydrological events that keep the vegetation dynamic and healthy over time (see p. 2 of the attached Gnatcatcher Survey Report). Presumably, the City determined that the small amount of acreage impacted and its location in a residential development area made the impact less than si~maificant. Rightly or wrongly, a determination of insi~m'fificant impacts was made at the time the Negative Declaration was adopted and even Ms. McKeith acknowledges that the time to challenge that determination has 1on~ since passed. Third, CURzE's allegations of change in circumstances with respect to air quality, traffic and noise do not relate to the project at all and do not create any potential for the project to have significant new impacts in those areas. The development consists of 40 homes, which will generate a relatively small amount of traffic. Finally, the claim that the always contemplated removal of the existing berm and swale on the site is a sigrfificant new issue because Lauren Development may not have as many assets as the prior developer Brock Homes takes the cake. The City will require bonding for subdivision improvements and will have the benefit of all mechanisms 'typically available to ensure proper performance of the project. Ms. McKeith's attempt to characterize her assertion that the Project might not be implemented properly as "sigrfificant n~w information" is novel and a distortion of what CEQA requires. CURE has attempted to create the appearance of real and serious new issues where none truly exist. CURE also contends that it does not need to show "substantial evidence" that these new alleged issues are sigrfificant; CURE insists that only a "fair argument" need be made. CURE cannot provide any substantiat evidence of significant changed circurnstances and CURE's counsel conveniently omitted from. her voluminous letter any references to the published cases that expressly state that the substantial evidence test applies even when a Negative Declaration was the initial form of CEQA compliance. See, .e.g., Benton v. Board of Sur>ervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991); Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission indians v. Rancho California Water District, 43 Cal. App. 4th 425 (1996). These failings 06-26-97 B021-00002 S:\DOC\161\gI:)I~R\970600BO.LT2 The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 8 compound the fundamental error that CURE has made, which is that design review does not trigger CEQA review of the entire project. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the very distorted representations made by CURE, SSC and others. Thank you for your consideration of the above. Should you have any questions, please contact Mark McGuire or the undersix-ned at (714) 798-0500. Enclosures William Bethel Peter Tolstoy Larry McNeil Sincerely, Andrew K. Hartzell R/chard Macias Ralph Hanson, F. sq. John Allday Gail Koberich Jeff Newman Bill Tippets 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\~OC\161\CORR\97060030.LT2 Planning Consultants Research February 28, 1997 Ms. Mary Beth Woulfe U.S. FISH AND WILDLIJ'E SERVICE Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 P.E: REPORT FOR FOCUSED CALPFOPJqlA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS, RANCHO CUC.~M[ONGA Dear Ms. Woulfe: At the request of Lauren Development, Plann/ng Consultants Research (PCR) has conducted four (4) surveys for the coastal Califorrfia guamamber (Polioptila cnlifornica californicn) at their Rancho Cucamonga project site. No individuals of this species were observed or otherwise detected on site or within adjacent habitat areas during any of the survey efforts. We offer the following report of our survey activities and results. Location '/he project site encompasses approxirmtely Z5 acres near uhe northern terminus of Haven Avenue w/thin the CiD' of Rancho Cucamonga (s~ Ex.bJbit 1). A.~ shown 'on a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, the site lies within the Eftwanda altuv/al fan aT the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and may be referenced as ~hag w/thin the northeast corner of Section 24 , TIN, RTW on the Cucamonga Peak 7.5 minute quadrangle (see Exhibit 2). The project siIe elewafion rang~ from 2,145 feet above mean s~ level ~o 2,299 feet'above mean sea level. The entire site and the arm w/thin approximm=ty 500 l/near f~t of the sire boundaries was considered Io represent the study area. Plant Communities Soils over the entire sire appear to consist of alluvium composed of sands, gravel, .rocks and occasional boulders. These conditions support a somewhat heterogeneous community of R./versid:an altuv/al fan sage scrub. Approximamly one half of the sire supports a fairly un/form stand of fffis commnn/D' dominated by California burkwheat (Eriogonzzmfaxcic~la~urn), white sage (Salvia ~pian~) and California sage (Arzernixm catifornica). Thick/ear yerba santa (Eriodicryon S39 Glennerye. $uile B Tel: (71~) :97-01~ lAX: (71~) ~97-Dn53 T~I: 13~0} ~5 FAX: [3~0) ~51-5279 l Planning ConsuJ z nts Research ~ary Beth Woulfe February 28, 1997 Page 2 c/~_rs~foliam) and deu'rw~d (Lores scoparius) are ~so ¢o~on in ~s¢ ar~. Th~ ~bs ~row ~o ~ f~t in height and fo~ a ~opy of 80 Io 90 percent cover. The rema~ng one ~lf of ~e sire suppore ~e s~e ~ecies wi~ ~e addition of mounmin mahogany (Cereoea~us Demiolden), golden eugene (Ri~es ~reum) ~d laurel sumac (Mmlosm~ lnarin~) which become dominant componen~ of ~e s~b cover. These larger s~bs ~nd small ~re:s grow ~o heights of 10 ~o 12 f~t ~ add ~ addition[ d~emion to ~e physical habim~ s~mcmre. Canopy cover in these area is aisc genenlly 80 to 90 percent; how=yet, areas of 100 perc=nt cover may be found. The vegetation on site and in adjacent areas appears zo be healthy and in a manare sage of development. Of note, it is doubthal that the alluvial sage scrub on sire will ever revert ~o either a pioneer or intermediate stage. This is due ~o ~e fairly rccsnt co~Imclion of ~c Deer Creek decemion b~in and flood conrac{ ch~el which have r:mov=fl ~e area from i~ ~m~l hydrologic reg~e. {V~elhodolog-y Surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted by Messrs. Steve Nelson and Ruben RamS. fez under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit numbers 782272 and 780566, r~ctively. Methods employed were in corff'ormance wi~ the Southern CalifomSa Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. This included: surveys no less than seven (7) days apart between the hours of one-?all hour before sun.rise and 1130; coverage of no more than 25 acres per inv~stigaor per hour; and, slowly walking over the entire sire and s~opping every 200 fee~ and playing a ape of recorded California gnamamher vocalizafions. The tapes were played for several serontis only ar ear. in station followed by a brief period of listening for a response. A summary of the surveys follows· Survey 1 - Conducted by Nelson on January 4, 1997, commencing a~ 0830 hours and ending at 0945 hours; route was generally around the perimeter of the property and along an unimproved azc~s road ~ransversing the center of 't.he property which enabled a survey of the entire property; temperature a'~ the beginning and end of the survey was 44 degrees Fahrenheit: skies were overcast with a slight breeze. Survey 2 - Conducted by Nelson and Ramirez on January !3, 1997, commencing at 0817 hours and ending a't 0930 hours; the route aken by Nelson was similar to Su~ey 1; in addition, o- - z/oz~ooino over the ~rooeny; ~empemrure held Ramirez folioweal meandering nansects =,.n~rally = o= o , . at 45 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were cloudy and it began to dri~_le during the last five rninu~es of the survey; there was no wind. Planning Consultants Research Mary Beth Woulfe February 28, 1997 Page 3 Strrvey 3 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 21, 1997, commencing at 0910 hours and ending at 1 O10 hour~; route used was a crisscross generally in a north-south di~cfion; temperature w-as 50 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the survey; skies were cloudy with a light mist and no wind. Survey 4 - Conducted by Ramirez on January 28, 1997, commencing at 1000 hours and ending at 1110 hours; route was similar to Survey 3: temperarare tt'a'oughout the survey was 58 degrees Fahrenheit; skies were clear with a slight breeze. Results No C.a.li:f'omia gnatratchets were observed or otherwise detected on site or in the ~djacent arms during any of the four survey efforts. tn addition, no brown-headed cowbirds (Molozhrtts ,'ter) were observed in the study area. Generally, bird activity was fairly high during each of the surveys with a number of speci~ being observed or detected on each occ.~sion. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, PLANNhN'G CONSULTANTS P,.ESE.~RCH Director of Biologir.~l Services Ruben S. P,~amirez Senior Ex:ologis~ ~, cc: John Allday, Lauren Development LOEB J.OEBc . T[LEe#O#E: 21~-~E-34110 DL~cct D~a[ No. 213.688.3622. c-mail: MJV[~~!oeb.com August 7, 1997 Via Facsimile Ms. C~c Sa~ch=z City of P-~cho Cucamonga pbtm~T~g Dc. pm-t~cm 10:500 Civic Cc~tcr Drive Rancho Cucamo~j~, California 91729 Pc: Cucamonguns United for Reasonable Expansion ('CUP.E") Aumist 20, 1997 City Council Hcarin.~ Date Dmr Ms. Saach::z: ' 1 lcarncrl yesterday cvcagng thai ~hc hcarmg before thc City Council on CIJRE's a~cal from the Inly 9, 1997 Planning Commission approval of Lauren Development Dcsigri 97-i 1 has bccn scheduled for August 20, 1997. Over the past sc~c~ wccks, Peggy Gtorius of my office has had s~vcc~d convcrsai/oas w/th )~u in an effort to coraCu'rn the hcatring date. In you~ most recent conversation of Juty 25, you stated that thc transcript would no! bc complete until August 13, and thcrcforc the hearing would not bc schcduiccl until after August 20, 1997. Based ulmn your statcmcnt, I calcndarcd judicial cv~lusiion hearings on behalf of the Crovcmor's Office the cvcrdng of AugusI 20, 1997. Ms. Gale Sanchez August 7, 1997 Pagc 2 Und~r.th~ c. iro,,~st,ao-,~. CURE r~l~.Sts a ~~cc of~e ~ng ~e. ~ ~c~Ee for a ~n~, ~ is ~liing to ~t ~ ~d Ci~ ~l m~g ~Ie ~ S~i~ ~ ~ ~o ~~tc v~o~ City ~bya may ~ ~ng ~ con~aoa ~i ~ M~r Day ho/i&y. Pi~ ~sc me of ~c pmc~ f~ ge~g a ~g on .~'s r~u~ for ~ exition. Very tmty yours, Malis.~ Hathaway MHM:mgc C su tn sf ' JERRY EAVES SU.~ERVISOR. FIFTH DISTRIET April 25, 1995 All HCP Steering Committee Members Re: VALLEY-WIDE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Dear Commi~ee Member: Enclosed is the final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). We have made the final changes that were discussed at the Steering Committee meeting on April 12, 1995. For those of you who will be signatories to this MOU, please process this document through the appropriate channels so that i( will be signed by the proper individual. tf possible, I request that this document be signed and returned by May 15, 1995. Should you have any questions, please contact Randy Sco~ of the County Planning Department at (909) 387-4146 or Coun~ Economic and Community Development Director Tom Laurin at (909) 387-4593. Sincerely, VES uper~isor FiSh Distr c~ Enclosure JE:js MEMORANDUM OF UNDERST**,~DfNG .... BY AND BEFWEEN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, THE FIFTEEN AFFECTED CITIES IN SOUTHWESTERN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND ADDITIONAL UNDERSIGNED PARTICIPATING AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE SAN BERNARDINO ALL:Y. V ~ This Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum) is made and entered into as of the date of signature by and among the Coun~ of San Bernardino and the undersigned cities, state and federal agencies and other participating local agencies. The signatories colie~ively are r~,_rr..d to as the "Participating Agencies." I ne Participating Agencies for the pu ,rposes of this Memorandum are those that have local land use author~, are self-governing local agencies or are state or federal agencies with land management authority and/or iurisdiction over plant and animal soecies and natural habitats which are the subject of Lh_ Habitat Conservation Plan. WH,._,,EAS the Partici~)ating Agencies are among , , ,n~ local governments, self-governing agencies, and state and 'federal agencies that have administrative responsibility or regulatory authori~ over lands within the planning area that are subiecl to Federal and State statutes including the Endangered Species Acl o~ 1973 (ESA), as amended, the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quali~ Ac~ (CEQA), the Federal Migratory Bird Trea~ AcL the Federal Fish and W~ldlife Coordination Act, the California Natural Communi~ Conservation Planning Acl, state planning and zoning laws, and local ordinances, and, WHEREAS these statutes direct the U.S. Fish and Wiidiife , b_rv~ ("Service") and the California Department of Fish and Game ("Depa~ment") ~o conserve, protect, and enhance p,an,, fish, and wildlife species and their habitats from adverse effe~s resulting from public and private development and actions, and, WHEREAS, 1he various statutes and sources of authority under which the Pa,dici~ating Agencies function do not empower any individual agency to implement a comprehensive, muttFagency program for long-term viabili~ of species of concern, and, WH~-,,~_AS, the Participating Agencies = '~= r~cogn~_~ the need for comprehensve and coordinated orotection ofsoecies of concern and"-' n~_~ ,o m,_grate their responsib' "'o and authorities inn coordinated manner [o ensure ~= ~,,~ ' = su~.._ss,.,, urn_ y, and mutually beneficial resolution of issues involving species of concern, and, ........ , ~n~ s~a~ and federal agencies participating in this Memorandum will ensure that their regulalory decisions and land use practices ~,~ill comply with state and federal environmental and endanoered sueties statutes and regulations and ~na~ ~n~r managemen~ actions will promote approoriate use and pro~ection o~ sensitive biological areas under their jurisdictions, ~nd. 2.1 Protecti0,, of Covered Specie~. To conserve and protect covered species and the ecosystem's on which they depend in perpetuity w~hin southwestern San Bernardino County pursuant to the ESA and CESA, and not preclude recovery of 'listed species. 2.2 Provide ~=qu'r~.' in Regulation. To provide a comprehensive means to coordinate and standardize mitigation and compensation requirements so that public and private actions. will be regulated equally and consistently, reducing delays, .expenses, and regulatory duplication.' it is intended that the pta~ will eliminate uncertainty in .deYeloping private proiects and will prescribe a system :~o ensure that the' costs of compensation and mitigation are applied equitably to all. 2.3 . Reduce Cumulative Fifeors. To prescribe mitigation measures for private development and agency actions to tessen or avoid cumulative impacts to the covered species and e{iminate, whenever possible, case-by-case review of impacts of proiects when consistent with the mitigation and com~)ensation requirements prescribed by the ptan. ' 2.4 incidental Take Permit. To obtain the necessary permits o~- take authorizations from the Service and the Department to authorize the incidental take of listed species covered in ;the ~tan in connection with otherwise lawful activities within the area subie~ to the ptan as provided by So,ion 10(a) of the ESA and Section' 2081 of the CESA ......... 2.5 Conservation fPre-fistino) Aoreements. The MSHCP is inte'nded to provide for the long term preservation of covered species not currently tisted as threatened or endangered pursuant to the ESA or CESA such that should they become listed, the DeDarIment and the Service shall, barring" ' ¢ oo , umor.s~_n or e~traordinary" conditions, authorize incidental take for the species. To accomplish this, all non-fisted species being considered under this ptan-will be treated as ff they are 'already fisted. 'Unforeseen or exlraordinary" conditions shall be defined in the MSHCP and its JmplementatiDn AgreemenL but such conditions, for the pu~ses of this MOU, are generafly understood to be: (1) environmental, demographic and/or genetic stochastic circumstances that were not and could not be anticipated dudn~ the breDoration of the PJan, o~ (2).info.orion 'deveJoped during. MSHCP impiementation'~onffofing that ' - identifies ~onsequences of MSHCP implementation 9roce~ures that may' the continued existence of Ihe species. · , ' -. '.':: '-'-.~ ' ' 2.6 Provide Oversight. Control Measures and Standards of SuccesS," T0 establish a means in which 1he MSHCP will provide appropriate and successful m~thods of: (1) repodin~; (2) accounting audits; (3) funding (shod.and tong te~); (4) period c and independent biological evaluation- and' (5) oppo~unities' for adequate public padis~pation.. - - CESA by incor~..4ing "Pre-listing" commitments it,... the Agreement. It is intended that the Agreement will be entered into by all Participating Agencies approving the conservation plan, and any private party having an obligation or role in implementing the conservation plan. The Agreement will provide specific m~igation'commitments for private parties and Public Agencies conducting otherwise lawful activities, and assurances by rifle Participating Agencies to prevent the imposition of inconsistent or overlapping mitigation/compensation requirements under any Federal State or local .3.4 .. CFQA AND NFPA Com~)tia'ncel Concurrent with preparation and retease of the draft and final .p~ans, a joint environmental review document ~vill be prepared and released which will satisfy Federal and State requirements. 3.5.'. Decision..The acceptance of the ptan, the CEQA and NEPA'environmenta[ documents and the Section 10(a) permit applications and the signing of an Implementation Agreement by the Service will resutt in the issuance Of Section 10(a) permits, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the ESA, to the local agencies that are participants jo.the p~anning effort for the public and private lands involved. The acceptance of the plan and the C£QA environmental documentation and the signing of an Implementation Agreement by the Department will resuff {ri the issuance of 2081 take authorizations for the covered specie~ that are adequately protected by the plan pursuant to the CESA to tocal agencies that are partjdpants in the plan for the public and private tands involved..Other appropriate decision documents will be issued by the Participating Agencies. 3.5 Implementation. Following or concurrent wff, h the issuance of the biological opinion, adoption of the plan, and r~_lot of the 10(8) permits and 2081 take authorizations, the signatories will revise their tand use plans and policies to conform wfth the plan and the 1O(a) perm~s and 2081 take aLTthor'Jzations or withdraw from the program. Take authorizations may not be in effect until land use plans are amended. Should any p.a. rticJpant:w~hdraw from the program, ~ may ad~,ersely affect the plan area and covered species tist and therefore may require appropriate modifications of the ptan.. The signatories will aiso ensure that future plans, policies, and actions will be Jn co. nformance wfth-the-pla~-and-the Section 10(a) perrafts and 2081 Shouid t._he need arise to amend the plan in accordance-with established procedures due t~ .new information or .the development of' more effective managemen( prescriptions or techniques, such amendment will occur through a cooperative involving the agencies and the public in the south~'~estern San Bernardino County tha( are subject to 10(a) permits"and 2081 ~ak~ authorizations or biological opinions may have already been issued 3.7 ConserVation S~ra~.c]v. The plan shall maximize the use of aDoroDriate publicly-owned lands, comply v~ith legally mandated conservation measures, and provide incentives ~or conservation of private lands (land acquisit ,on, density transfers, land s~,.,aps, ~_x incentives, mitigation ' ' etc.). DaRt:S, 4.3 Plan Cc ,roanco. In order to be ape. .,lee, Pa~icipating Agencies will ensure that their land use plans and policies are revised to conform with the approved plan and the 10(a) permits and 2081 take authorizations, and any other applicable regional, state or federal resource management plans 4.4 Plan Preparation Funding. Funding for this plan will come from a varie~ of sources m Participating Agency contributions, endowments from private or non-profit entities, matching grant programs such as offered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and other State and Federal funds such as those established by the California Natural Communi~ Conservation Planning Act, the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), Trafiqc Management Environmental Enhancement ('TMEE) program and Land and Water Co~senzation Fund program. The Participating Agencies will also provide a -,'air share contribution to funding the plan preparation and implementation by allocating appropriate staff and suppo¢~ services. 4.5 Proposed Schedule. Signatories acknowledge that time is of the essence and hereby agree to make their best efforts to complete and obtain final approval of the plan by a target date of June 30, i996. A timeline setting fodh specific dates for the completion of each identified task necessary to complete the plan is contained in A~achment D. 4.6 Environmental Compliance. In recognition of the goal of achieving the timely preparation' and approval of the plan, all Participating Agencies hereby agree that they will submit any and all comments on the appropriate environmental documentation on a timely basis, unless otherwise provided by law. 5.0 ROLE OF THF COUNTY The Coun~ of San Bernardino agrees to provide ~n_ following resources and to perform the following functions according to ~n_ funding mechanisms agreed to by the cities. local agencies, coun~ and other interested parties: 5.1 Lead A[~encv. Act as teed agency for~he plan. As lead agency, the Coun~ will provide overall leadership and coordination among the Paflicipating Agencies in the development of this plan. This includes functioning as Local Lead Agency in complying with the CE©A in conjunclion with the Depadment and coordinating NEPA compliance in coordination wilh the Service. 5.2 Plannine Team Personnel. Provide the primary members of the planning team. 5.3 Facilities Eou~pm~n~. and Support. Provide ox~ce ,ac~l,,~_s to house the planning team and orovide necessa,'7 support such as office machine supplies, The Coun~ also agrees to provide automated suppod, such as word processing and geographic information system products directly or through contracts. 5.4 Data Provide anv relevant data in i~s mossession for the use of ~h_ planning team ~nd "= . ~ =~- -= ~n~ Pafii~iDatine Agencies and s_~u,~ additional data on public lands as olan and its ulti~. = implementation, , -- ~n_ ParticiDat,,.~ Agencies will ~ilize the Interim Proiect Review. Process, included as A~achmeni F, to consider the potential effects of individual projects on the MSHCP. 6.3 Issuance of Section 10(a~ Permits and 2081 Take A" ' · u~nonzat~ons. The Service and the Department agree to issue the required permits and take authorizations for listed species to the local agencies upon finding that the plan and permit/authorization applications meet the 4:riteria for issuance of an incidental take permit and authorization contained in Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA and Section 2081 of the Public Resources Code for those species through the establishment of a preserve system that conserves adequate habitat and provides for the retention and management of such preserves in perpetuity. The Service and the Department also agree to provide for. expedited issuance of Section 1O(a) perm~s and 2081 authorizations for Covered Species not currently listed pursuant to the ESA or CESA in the event that a non-listed covered species is listed in the future. · 6.4 Assurances 1o Plan Padicpants The approved plan shall provide assurances to Parlicipating Agencies and landowners that if the plan is implemented as proposed, no additional land or financial compensation will be sought from them w~hout their consent if "unforeseen" or "exiraordinary' circumstances should arise with resoect to either listed or unlisted species that are covered by the properly functioning understood that soecies not covered by "~ , ~n_ ptan will not be afforded the same assurances as those that are covered. However, in the event that a species not addressed in the MSHCP is hs~_d a( some future date, the Service and ~h_ Pepadman( agree to use the MSHCP as a forum for addressing the conservation needs of "-' ,n~ ESA and CESA in the same manner tha~ ~n~ species as required by Covered Species have been addressed. All Parti=ipating Agencies will make every attomot a~ accommodating ",~ ' ~n_ conservation reou~rements of the newly ' , hs,~d species within the existing conservation strategies and preserves of the MSHCP. 7.0 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 7.l Good Faith. This Memorandum is ,= ',=, = ~n~_r~d into freely and in good faith by the signatory agencies. Each agency affirms that execution of this document is within its legal purview and agrees to fulfill the role slated herein and any other tasks and responsibilities incumbent. upon Padicipat. ing Agencies. All of the Participating Agencies by signature to this Memorandum agree to diligently pursue comolotion of the subiec~ MSHCP and endorse consensus decisions of the Steering Committee as long as the proposed actions are within the statutory and regulatory abiti~ of their respective agency. 7.2 Interim Proiec~ Reviews and Approvals. All Pa~i:ipating Agencies recognize that planning efforts undertaken pursuant to this Memorandum can be prolonged beyond anticioated olannina schedules due to various unforeseen ' . ~ clrcums~¢nces. patios agree that interim land use aztions shall be considered on a case by case basis wfthin ~'= ~n~ pu~iew of each aeonties: individual jurisdiction and in compliance with existing laws and regulati3ns. The MSHCP 31anning effo~ shall no~ be cause o~n_, .,~_ leoally ado . , ~ =u=~ programs and IN WITNESS WHERE(.,, , THE PARTIES HERETO have executed this Memorandum, on the date(s) set forth. below;' as of the day and year first above wr'~en, By Date Chair, San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and Flood Control District San Bernardino, Calffomia - By Mayor, City of Chino Chino, Catffomia - Da{e By Mayor, City of Chino Hills .... Chino Hills, CatiforHJ~ ...................... Mayor, City of Cotton C ott on, ' Ca liforn Date Date By Mayor, City of Fontaria .... Fontana'i California By Mayor, City of Grated ..'Terrace .......................... ...... Grafid Terrace, California Mayor, City of Highland Highland, California Date Date Date 11 By .... .... Mayor, City of Yucafpa ¥ucaipa, Calfforpia Date By. Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Oa e. By California State Director, Bureau of Land Management Date By District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date By Forest Supervisor, San Bernardino National Fores~ U.S. Forest Service Date Dire~or, California Department of Fish and Game Date By Region Director, Southern Caiffornia Edison Company Date By District Manager, Southern California Gas Company Date Regional Directc)r, Metropolitan Water DistricL Date 13 ATTACHMENT A · 'BQUN_DA..P,!ES OF THE?-fABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN The Habftat Conservation Plan for the San Remardino Valley will encompass the ...... area generally; bounded by the county lines between San Bernardino County and Los Angetes, Orange and Riverside Counties on the west and south and the San Remardino National Forest Boundary on the noah and east. -..' Species Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma coro~.atum blainviliei San Bernardino'ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus modestus Coastal rosy boa ' · :. ' j ichanura triviroata rosafusca Coast patch-nosed snake Salvodora_ hexatipis virouftea Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii White-tailed kite ?Janus leucurus Status Federal FC21FSS FC2/FSS FC2FFSS FC2IFSS FC2IFSS . ....E.'L ..... it_:' S~a~e CSC CSC CFP Northern harrier Circus cvaneus Sharp-shinned hawk Acci~)iter slriatus .' Cooper's Hawk Ac¢ipfter cooperil' :.' ' ' Ferruginous hawk ~ renalis ';.." Golden eagle Ac!~ila chrvsaetos canadensis American peregrine falcon Falco oereorinatus Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus FSS FSS FC2 FE FSS CFP CSC CSC SE CSC Species San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit ~ calffomi6us bennettii Los Angetes pocket mouse Perognathus Ionafmembds brevinasus San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus falJax f_~JLa._x San Bernardino kangroo rat - ' DiDodomvs merr/ami parvus Southern grasshopper mouse Onvchomvs '~orridus ramona San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma le~)ida__ {ntermedia Status Federal FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 FC2 State CSC 'CSC . _. CSC _ CSC CSC ........ CSC_." ' ' · Species Family Federal Many-stemmed dudteyea CRS Dudteva mutticaulis Santa Aria River woollystar PLM Fdastrum densifolium sanctorum FC2IFSS FE Hot Spring fimbristylis Fimbristytis thermalis CYP.'. FC3B California bedstraw Gatium ¢alffornicum primum RUB FC2 Los Angeles sunflower Heliathus nuttallii parishii AST FC2 Smooth tarplant - ' ' Hemiz~nia ~unoens laevis .... AST .... FC2 Southern California black Juotan$ ¢alifomica catffomica JUG Coulter's goldenfields I asthenia ~labrata couiteri AST FC2 Robinson's peppergrass BRA I e~)idium ~irainicum robinsonii -:: ..... -- ., "."'~ .......... . i : . :' . ".: o~eli;ted'Humbott til~/ . · ....---LIL.- .....FC2 , Lilium humbotdtii oceltatum --. Padsh's desert-thorn Lycium parishii Parish's bush mallow Malacolhamnus prishii Pringte's monardelta Monardelta pTinolei SOL : MLV FC2 LAM FC2 California spinefio~ver Mucronea californica PLG Status State SE SR CNPS 2 lB 1A 4 lB lB 1A 1A San Remardino County :. - ' Planning Department Randy Scott, Planning Manager 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182 (909) 387-4146 (_909) 387_3223.(FAx) ' c'rty of Chino ..... Community Develop~neni Department Jerry Blum, City Planner . 13220 Central Avenue Chino, CA 91708 (909) 591-9812 Ext. 520 (909) 59%6829 (FAX) ATTACHMENT C LIST,OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES AND POINT OF CONTACT Ci~ of Chino Hills Community Development Depa~menl Eric Noms, Senior Planner 2001 Grand Avenue Chino Hills, CA 91709-4669 (909) 590-1511 Ext. 223 (909) 590-5545 (FAX) Ci~ of Cotton Public Works Departmenl John C. Hut1,,on, Dire~or 550 North La Cadena Drive Colton, CA 92324-2893 (909) 370-5055 (909) 371:%5'154 (FAX) Cfty of Fontana PJanning Division Dennis Woods, Associate Planner 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92334 (909) 350-5724 (g0g) 350-7591 (FAX) Ci~ of Grand Terrace Community Development Departmen[ Patr~zJa Materassi, Community Developmenl D/re.or 22795 ~arton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 (909) 824-652 i (909) 783-7629 (FAX) Cky of Highland Planning Depadmen[ Steve Walker, C~y Planner - 26985 East Base Line Avenue Highland, CA 92346 . (909) 864-6851 Ext. 215 (909) 852-3180 (FAX) City of Loma Linda " Planning Department "' ' Dan Smith, Dire~or of. Community Deve~opmenl 25541 Barton Road Loma Linda, CA 92354 (909) 799-2810 (909) 799-2890 (FA%) City of Morttrait Community DeveJ=oment Depa~men[ Rob Clark, Community Development Director :5111 BenliD Street on,Ja~r, CA 91763-0808 (909) 525-9431 (909) 621-1_-184 (FAX) c'~ of Ontario Planning Departmen~ Ott,,o Kro~jl, City Planner 303 East 'B' SireeL Civic Center Ontado, CA 91754 (909) 391-2506 (909) 39%0592 (FAX) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Departmen( Sco~ Murphy, Associate Ptanner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 999-1851 (909) ¢48-154i] (FAX) City of Redlands Planning Depa~men~ Jeff Shaw. Ptanning Director 30 Caion Stree~ RedJands, CA 92373 (~Og) 7~-7555 (~09) 7~S-7503 (FAX) 0-i A'FTACHMENT F INTERIM PROJECT REVIEW GUIDELINES This document establishes an agreement among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service"), the California Department of Fish and Game ("Department") and all other federal, state 'And local agencies participating in the San Bernardino t/alley Multi- Species Ha]:)itat ConservatiOn Plan (MSHCP) pe¢,aining to an Interim Project Review · Process to be u'tilLzed during the preparation of :[he PIan. " · --.The Interim Project Review Guidelines (IPRG) f~a~,e twO' rotated purposes: (1) to ensure : eady review and conside~tbn of proposed proje~s by the Service and the Department so that proiects which could preclude the successful develo~)ment of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in the development' review process, and (2) to provide a opportunity for d!abgue between the toad agency, the p~:oject applicant and the regulatory agencies to explore alternatives .or mitigation measures which minimize and mitigate potential. project impacts. .. Local Agencies h~ve identhTed that significanl: pr0bf~s have arisen in the past when comments on proposed proie.~-ls are not received from ithe Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.: Fish and Vl~tdlife Service until very ~ate in the toad agency's decision- roaMrig process.'-' 'To address this. problem wi:ih respect to prDiects which may have the potential to preclude tong-term conservatiori strategies addressed in the MSHCP or ~mpact the viability of biofogica!. resources, the Service .and the Department are commiAing to meet with the appropriate project pro~)onent at the earliest feasibte point. Early identification Of potential impacts will assist in the preparation of environmental documents for the 'proie~ and p.r~)vide the opportuni~ ~o identify potential project alternatives and mitigation 'measures for"consideration in compliance with Public Resources § 21080.3(a)i" .... The IPRG specifical y does not cr~a~e an aEd~bnal layer of proje~ review nor to confer any add~tionaf authoffty on the Department' the .Setvice-.or.. lead agency.-. The recommendations of the'Service 'and Depaff~,'nen~ ar~' adviSOry; the final decision'of whether to a'pp~:ove,' mo~'"rf~, '~' de'ny'a project' re'ams in the.hands of the lead agency pursuant to e~isting laws." · A. Guidelines fo~: Pr ]Be Included in the Review Process -- ' -'- - Each lead agency and/6r proje~:t'prooonent shall determine whether a proiect should be revie~,~ed pursuant to the ]PRG. Generally, ~he toad agency or project proponent may consider that a project as defined by CEQA § 21055, except those projects statutory or categori~.ally 'exemPt from CEQA, located v.~ithin ~.he sensitive-habitat areas of the MSHCP boundaries, has'the potential .to preclude long term preservation olanninq or ~mpact the viability of biological resources and it Js appropriate to utilize the IPRG. The toad agency retains the discretion to de~.ermine that a project within the' plan area, because of the project's ' ' '='" , . cnarac,_nsdcs has no impact on the viabili~ of biological resources and v;ould not oreclude long term preservation oJanning £ PROCEDURE . " At least three weeks prior to the desired IPRG meeting date the Planning Director/designee or project proponent shall notify the Service and the department and the MSHCP contact person in writing of any proiect(s) which the lead agency or ~roject proponent ~Jshes to have ,=, '-- = r..v~w~d at the IPRG meeting. For each project , the lead agency/project proponent will transmit t~o copies of each of-the follo~,ing: a location map on a 7.5' qued sheet identffy, ing the project site a site p~an or other illustration depicting the project as proposed the project application or other summary sheet ident'rf-ying existing general plan designation ahd zoning, and any proposed changes; existing land use on the site; and the type and intensify of land use proposed. the initial Study or Environmental Assessment and a biological resource survey ff one has been prepared; ff one has not been prepared then a description of the site including vegetation, presence of a floodplain, blueline stream, or other environmental resource, hazard or constraint, and a list of sensitive species which have the potential to occur on site. Any other informat{on deemed pertinent by the lead agency. The lead agency or project proponent shall be responsible for not'flying the other party of the date, time, and location of the IPRG review meeting, ff the attendance of the project applicant is desired. At the review meeting, the lead agency, project proponent, the Service and the Department will have the opportunity to discuss the project, answer questions, etc. A representative from an adjacent jurisdiction which may be affected by the proposed project may atso attend the meeting at that jurJsdiction's discretion. At the review meeting ff possible, other~zise in not more than 30 days a~er the review meeting, the Service and the Department representatives shall provide the following info~.atJon to the lead agency and the proje~ applicant: -. A statement as to whether, in the agency's opinion: The project will not preclude long term conservation ptanning or adversely impact the v/ability of a species. The project has the potential to preclude long term conservation ptanning or adversely impact the vJabjJi~ of a species and additional studies on specific species may be necessary, and project .attema{iizes and/or mitigation measures need to be assessed in the environmental reviev., process. A project may be scheduled for an additional tPRG meeting a( an appropriate date if there is a no'=d for the Service or ~n~ Departmen( to respond to a Draft Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration. JERRY EAVES SU.m~RVISO~. ~{FTH DISTP. ICT August ~, 199~ All HCP Steering Committee Members VALLEY-WIDE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMENDMENTS Dear Committee Member: PLAN Now that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed by the majority o~ participating agencies, the County is moving fortyard to also approve the documen[. I b_h~v~ this is an appropriate point at which to improve the organizational formality o~ our coalition. County Counsel has drafted some changes to the MOU language tha~ will accomplish this objective by formalizing the Coordinating Committee and ident'rfi/ing its composition. This committee would consist of'b.vo representat yes from the Coun~ and one representative from each other signatory agency. There also would be oppodunity to appoint representatives from other interested gro,-.,ps as deemed appropriate. The MOU is being presented to the Board of Supervisors for adoption in this revised form. I am asking all the agencies that have already signed the MOU to review these changes and present the revised MOU to the appropriate approving authority for adoorion Attached is a clean copy of the revised MOU. A , - s~n,,~-ou~ and underlined version of the affected sections is provided for your =-'= r_,_r_nc~. Should you have any questions, please contact Randy Scott of the County Planning Depa~ment at (909) 387-4146. Sincerely, Supervisor, Fifth Dislric~ JE:js Attachments AT['ACHMENT C : usT OF i::;~,RTICIPATING AGENCIES AND POINT OF CONTACT San Bernardino County " Planning Department Randy Scott, Platting Manager 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-.Q! 82 (909) 387-4146 (909) 387-3223 (FAX) _ Cky of Chino . :' Community Development Jerry Blum. City Planner. 13220 Central Avenue Chino. CA g1708. (909) 590-5520 . (909) 591-6829 (FAX)- Chino Hills Commun~y Developme.nt Department Jeff'Adams, Planner I .. 2001 Grand Av~nu_ . Chino Hills, CA 91709-4869 .. . . (g0g) 590-1511 Ext~ 286 (909) 590-564s (FAX). City of Cotton Public Works Depa~ment John C. Hutton, Director. 550 North La Cadena Drive Colton, CA 92324-2993 (909) 370-5055 (909) 370-5154 (FAX) Fontana Ptanning Division Charles LaClaire, Deputy Planning Manager 8353 Sierra Avenue · · Fontaria, CA 92334 .: (909) 350-7627 (909) 350-5813 (FAX) City C~y of Grand Terrace Community Developmen[ Departmen~ PatrJzia Materassi. Community Develop,men( Director 22795 Ba~on Road Grand Terrace. CA 92313 (909) 824-6521 (909) 783-7629 (FAX) City of City of Highland Planning Department Steve W ' ,~ ali<.r, City Planner 25985 East Base Line Avenue Highland, CA 92346 - (909) 8'34-6851 Ext. 215 (g09) 852-3180 (FAX) City of Loma Linda Planning Departmen~ Dan Sm~h, Director of C~mmunfty Development 25541 Barton Road Loma Linda, CA 92354 (909) 7g9-2830 (909) 799-2890 (FAX) City of Montctair -. Communky Development Depad, ment Rob Clark, Community Developmen[ Director 5111 Benito Street Montelair. CA 91763-0808 (909) 525-9431 (909) 521-1584 (FAX) City of Ontario Planning Oepa~ment Otto Kroutil. City P~anner 303 Eas~ 'B' Street, Civic Center Ontario. CA 91764 (909) 391-2505 .' · (909) 391-0~92 (FAY,) City of Rancho ~ucamonga ~ Planning Oepartmen~ ' - --:' ' Scott ~urphy. AssoCiate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamongal CA 91730 (909) 9~9-1 ~51 (9o9) 948- 648 (FAX) City of Redlands Planning Departmen( Eric Norris. Principal Planner 30 Caion Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 79~-7555 (~.09) 7~8-7503 (FAX) C-i Page t AMENDMENTS TO THE ' MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, THE FIFTEEN AFFECTED CITIES IN SOUT.HWESTERN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND ADDITIONAL ...... "- UNDERSIGNED PARTICIPATING AGENCIES FOR -THE "--PURP0~E-'-~"F' DEV~LOPfNG 'AND IMPLEMENTING A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLaN TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY. 2, First Paragraph arid First 'WHEREAS"' This Memorandum of Understandfng (Memorandum) is made and entered into as of the date of signature t~y and among the Coun,.h/ of San Bernardino and the undersigned cfties, state and federal agencies and other participating local agencies and ]:)u~)lic utifities. The signatories collectively are referred to as the "Participating · Agencies." '.The Partiufipating Agencies for the purposes of this Memorandum are public utitfties and those aaencies that have local land use authorfry, are self- governing local agencies or are state or federal agencies v~h land management authori~ and/or iurisdiction over plant and animal species and natural habitats which are the subject of'the Habitat Conservation Plan. · WHEREAS, the ' novernmental Pa~icipating .Agencies are among the local governments, self-governing agencies, 'and state and federal agencies that have administrative responsJbiifty or regulatory authori~ over lands w~hin the planning area that are subject to Federal and State statutes including the Endangered Species of I973 (ESA), as amended, the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA), the National Environmental Poticy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Federal Migratory Bird'Trea~ AcL the Federal Fish and Wildlh,~ Coordination Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning AcL state planning and zoning ta~-~s, and local ordinances, and, Page 2, Section 1.0 1.0 PURPOSFS OF MFMORANDUM The aovernmental Participating Agencies have administrative and/or regulatory responsJbiities over species of concern in the southveestern San Bernardino County. They have voluntarily entered into this Memorandum for the following purposes: Page 6, Section 4.1 4.1 General Roles and Responsibilities. The County of San Bernardino shall act as the functional lead agency utilizing the assistance, support and cooperation of the Cld_S and local = ,-'= ag_n_~_s in preparation of the plan. The county cities and local Wo~ From: Re: Andrew K. Hartzell, Esq. CHewin & McGuire, LLP) Liam Davis, NCCP Assoc. Wildlife Biologist (California Department Fish and Game) Records of California gnatcatchers along the alluvial fans in southwestern San Bernardino County I. As promised I have enclosed California Department of Fish and Game CDepartment) Natural Diversity Data Base (N'DDB) California gnatcatcher (CAGN) records for areas east and west of the Lauren property along the alluvial fan. I distinctly remember the late James S. Bums telling me that he had several sightings of CAGN along the Etiwanda fan. I requested James to complete a NDDB form for one of his CAGN sightings at Etiwanda and subrrdt to the Department. James also recorded a CAGN sighting in the in press manuscript that we co- authored as well. I am to believe that you have a copy of this in press manuscript, "Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptilia californica californica) in San Bernardino County." Bob McKeman, San Bernardino County Museums, would be able to give you testimony of other occasions where he has personally observed CAGN along the Etiwanda fan. II. Todd Keller-Wolf, Ph.D. (Vegetation Ecologist, Department Fish and Game) lef~ message to me that the State sensitivity ranking for Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub as a S 1.1 "very threatened" natural community in southern California occurred in 1985. Please contact me if I can be of more assistance at 619-467-4207. b:haslzell.mmcm lhd ** California Department of Fish and Game ***** * POLIOPTILA CALI FORNI CA ~ California Gnatcatcher Status Federal: Threatened State: None ---Habitat Associations--- Natural Diversity Data Base ** NDDB Element Ranks ........ Other Lists * Global: G2 CDFG: Special Concern State: S2 Audubon: CNPS List: CNPS RED Code: General: OBLIGATE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BELOW 2500 FT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. , * Microhabitat: LOW, COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN ARID WASHES, ON MESAS & SLOPES. * * NOT ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ARE OCCUPIED. *** Element ID: ABPBJ08080 **************************************************** Occurrence Number: 468 Quality: Good Type: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Main Info Source: BURNS, J. S. 1994 (OBS) --Dates Last Seen-- Element: 1994/06/17 Site: 1994/06/17 Quad Summa,l-y: Cucamonga Peak (3411725) County(ies): San Bernardino Location: BETWEEN THE MOUTH OF EAST ETIWANDA CANYON AND DAY CANYON WASH, 3 MILES NORTH OF ETIWANDA. Lat/Long: 34d 10m 04s / 117d 31m 55s UTM: Zone-ll N3780724 E450968 Mapping Precision: SPECIFIC (80m Mile) Symbol Type: POINT Group Number: More Information? N Map Index Number: 26335 More Map Detail? N Township: 01N Range: 06W Section: 17 SW Qtr Meridian: S Acres: 0 Elevation: 2275 ft Threats: ALTHOUGH PARCEL IS A MITIGATION PURCHASE, TRESPASSING, VANDALISM, DUMPING, SHOOTING, AND ORV ACTIVITY OCCURS. Comments: Distribution Notes - BIRD OBSERVED ON AN ALLUVIAL FAN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PAVED ROAD BELOW THE ENTRA~NCE GATE. Ecological Notes - HABITAT CONSISTS OF RIVERSIDEAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ON AN OLDER, ROCKY ALLUVIAL TERRACE; DOMINANT PLANTS INCLUDE SALVIA MELLIFERA, ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM, SALVIA APIA~A, AND ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM. General Notes - 1 ADULT FEMALE OBSERVED CALLING AS IT MOVED THROUGH WHITE SAGE. ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THE SURROUNDING AREA IS TARGETED FOR DEVELOPMENT, THIS PARCEL WAS PURCHASED AS MITIGATION FOR STATE ROUTE 30 IMPACTS TO DOWNSTREAM HABITATS. Owner/Manager - UNKNOWN RareFind Report Date of Report: 07/02/97 Government/Conservation Client Date Information Purchased: 01/15/97 Page ! :** California Department,of Fish and Game ***** * POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA California Gnatcatcher Status Federal: Threatened State: None ---Habitat Associations--- Natural Diversity Data Base ** NDDB Element Ranks ........ Other Lists ......... * Global: G2 CDFG: Special Concern * State: S2 Audubon: , CNPS List: · CNPS RED Code: . * General: OBLIGATE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BELOW 2500 * * FT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. . * Microhabitat: LOW, COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN ARID WASHES, ON MESAS & SLOPES. * * NOT ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ARE OCCUPIED. * *** Element ID: ABPBJ08080 **************************************************** Occurrence Number: 36 Quality: Good Type: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Main Info Source: ATWOOD, J. 1980 (LIT) --Dates Last Seen-- Element: 1994/02/12 Site: 1994/02/12 Quad Summary: Ontario (3411716) County(ies): Los Angeles Location: ROBERT J. BERNARD BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION/RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN, N OF HWY 66 & E OF MILLS AVE, CLAREMONT. Lat/Long: 34d 06m 32s / 117d 42m 37s I/rM: Zone-l! N3774282 E434444 Mapping Precision: SPECIFIC (0 Mile) Symbol Type: POLYGON Group Number: 02841 More Information? N Map Index Number: 02841 More Map Detail? N Township: 01S Range: 08W Section: 03 SW Qtr Meridian: S Acres: 78.5 Elevation: 1300 ft Threats: THREATS INCLUDE SURROUNDING URBANIZATION AND POSSIBLE CONVERSION OF THE FIELD STATION INTO MORE COLLEGE BUILDINGS. Comments: Distribution Notes - FIELD STATION IS IN VARIOUS STAGES OF RECOVERY FROM DISTURBANCE - FROM INTRODUCED GRASSES TO GOOD COASTAL SAGE SCRUB. Ecological Notes - SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT, ON AN ALLUVIAL FLOODPLAIN. HABITAT IS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB, DOMINATED BY ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA, ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM, SALVIA MELLIFEP~A, AND SAMBUCUS MEXICANA. General Notes - 5-10 PAIRS ESTIMATED DURING A 1980 STUDY. ON 12 FEBRUARY 1994, 3 INDIVIDUALS WERE OBSERVED. Owner/Manager - CLAREMONT UNIVERSITY RareFind Report Date of Report: 07/02/97 Government/Conservation Client Date information Purchased: 01/15/97 Page 2 "** California Department,of Fish and Game ***** * POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA California Gnatcatcher Status .......... Federal: Threatened State: None ---Habitat Associations--- Natural Diversity Data Base ** NDDB Element Ranks ........ Other Lists * Global: G2 CDFG: Special Concern * State: S2 Audubon: * CNPS List: * CNPS RED Code: * * General: OBLIGATE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BELOW 2500 * * FT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. . * Microhabitat: LOW, COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN ARID WASHES, ON MESAS & SLOPES. * NOT ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ARE OCCUPIED. * *** Element ID: ABPBJ08080 **************************************************** Occurrence Number: 104 Quality: Unknown Type: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Main Info Source: WFVZ (MUS) --Dates Last Seen-- Element: 19!8/05/12 Site: 1918/05/12 Quad Summa. ry: Ontario (3411716) County(ies): Los Angeles Location: INDIAN HILL, CLAREMONT. Lat/Long: 34d 06m 59s / 117d 42m 45s UTM: Zone-ll N3775092 E434294 Mapping Precision: NON-SPECIFIC (1/5 Mile) Symbol Type: POINT Group Number: 02843 More Information? N Map Index Number: 02843 More Map Detail? N Township: 01S Range: 08W Section: 03 NW Qtr Meridian: S Acres: 0 Elevation: 1380 ft Threats: Comments: General Notes - EGG SET FROM A NEST IN CHOLLA CACTUS. Owner/Manager - UNKNOWN RareFind Report Date of Report: 07/02/97 Government/Conservation Client Date Information Purchased: 01/15/97 Page 3 E PCR Planning Consultan[s Research Irvine To: ~~ ~,~.'"~.~.. Date: Company: From: ~ j'ob No: Remarks: Hard Copy Number ofPa§es will tollow [ '~will not follow Fax Number PCR PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH 18881 Von Karman. Suite 650 Irvine, Callfomia 92612 (714) 752-5452 FAX (714) 752-1307 MODEM (714) 752-1110 Note: 1[ there are an)/problems ~qth this fax transmission. please call ?. 1/2 ~,0,2 I- Z ,~ut, 2. i997 tO'05~ ~o. 9~45 S, 101 00 '00 00:00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA C~JC-AMONG~N$ L~IT~/D-°FOR RF~A~ONABI~E EXP~ION, a ~on-prof~t ~inco~orated as~la~on P~I~IFF (S) VS. CI~ OF ~O ~ONGA; B~ B~.r.~R, individual, in his ~dividual ~d official ca.city; ~O~ G~. an individual, his ~vid~l ~d ~s 1-20 CASE NUMBER 97- 4.82 8 GNK(C'Tx.) SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED ~DEFENDANT(S) , YOU are hereby summoned and required to file with this court and serve upon MALISSA HATHAWAY McKEITH Plaintiff's atuorney, whose address is: LOEB & LOEB LLP !000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los. Angeles, California 90017?2475 an answer to the complaint which is herewith served ~pon you within__~o__days after sea-vice of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. DATE: JUL O 2.]99 / CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COI/RT By Deputy Clerk (SEJ~L OF THE COURT) CV-iA SUMMONS CCO-~A 101 ~ '~ ~:~ 212 oRIGINAL POOR QUALITY and ~m~aing in %h~ within action (TYf2 OR PRZt,~) P~a~:4. o~ ~aaIL£r~] ( } lcx~c ( | lOsincan p z p.s ~ ~ zxvI C1: PZRSC'e~L S~"4ICZ, by hardLing coi:)les to t~ I~rmon eatveal (r.R.Clv.e. 4(d]]. prescribed by ROi~ 4{d)(4) &rid {'~1 t.a-Clv. la, SU~Z~ ~ SUIT, C.C.P. 4l~.3O[a]; ~.R.Civ. P. 4(d) [41 , ~ deliverlnq 4 ~ o~ the su~s clams re~egred ~ in RuIEE 4(d)(1) ~ (31 F.R. CLV.P, 101 00 '00 00:00 212 P~4 on!GINAL pOOR QUALITY day o~ (~ iq~,d'r..u c4 J fo~ C'~-~.l C C11/13) 101 00 '00 00:00 212 P05 Jom-59Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 !5.' 16 17 !8 19 2O 21 22 25 26 ~7 28 THE BERLINER LAW OFFICES ' ERIC BERLINER (STATE BAR NO. 175352) LAWRENCE D. SANDERS (STATE BAR NO. 173411) 224 Main Street Nevada City, California 95959 Telephone: (916) 265-5585 FILED JuL Z 2 PH '97 LOEB & LOEB LLP MALISSA HATHAWAY McY~EITH (STATE BAR NO. 112917) 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, California 90017-2475 Telephone: (213) 688-3622 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CE/qTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGANS UNITED FOR REASONABLE ) EXPANSION ("CURE"), a non-profit ) unincorlDorated association, ') ) P!~intiff, ) ) v. } ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; BRAD ) BI/LLER, an individual, in his ) individual and official capacity; ) THOMAS GRAY2q, an individual, in his individual and official capacity; Does 1-20, Defendants. (CTx) 1. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2. Violation of 42 U.S.C2 § 1985; and 3. Violation of § 6256 of the California Government Code DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL JURISDICTION A/qD V~WUE 1. This is a civil rights action authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 to redress the deprivation under color of law of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the 'L ' oc 07. 4 5 7 9 10 !i 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 ' oo 1 Constitution of the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S'.C. §~ 1331 and 1343 (a) (3) and (4). . -- 2. This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiff s action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed. R.- Civ. p. 57. Injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C, § 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Fed. R. Civ. p. 65. Jurisdiction for the pendent State claim is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3. The Defendants named herein reside in, maintain an office in, or are responsible for enforcing the laws relevant to this litigation in the Central District of California. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Cucamongans United for Reasonable Ex?ansion ("CURE") is registered with the State of Cal'ifornia as' a non-profit unincorporated association. CURE is comprised'of property owners residing in the Central District of California. 5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CITY OF RANCHO CUC-~MONGA ("City") is located in the'Central District of California. 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant BRAD BLrLLER ("Bullet") is the Director of Plarkning for the City. In his capacity as the Director of Planning, Bullet has been responsible for implementing and promulgating departmental policies and customs. At all times material. Bullet has been the most senior employee in the City's Planning Department where he supervises and is responsible for overseeing all decisions of the planning 1 3 $ 9 10 l! 12 3.3 ]-5 ].6 .]-8 ].9 2O 2l 2:2 23 2~ 25 26 2'7 28 staff. Plaintiff alleges that Bullet lives in the Central District of California. 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant THOMAS GRAHlg ("Grahn'J$ i.s an Associate Planner for the City and, at all times material, reported to and was supervised by Bullet. Plaintiff further alleges that Grahn works and resides in the Central District of California. PRELIMINARy STATEM~%~ 8. This case involves the potential destruction of 25.9 acres of a rare and threatened habitat located at the base of the United States National Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains (the "Property") . The California Department of Fish & Game has designated the Property as S-l-1 and G-i, a category reset-red for the rarest and most threatened habitat in the world· 9. In addition to the irreversible impacts on ~nimal and plant life, development of the Property would involve the removal of a levee and swale system that currently p~otects downgradient homes from potential flooding and debris flow. Removal of the levee could result in the loss of millions of dollars in property damage and could threaten the safety and lives of downgradient families. Bullet's, Grahn's and the City's (collectively "Defendants") conduct in preventing any public notice or comment on the Project allows Defendants to ignore new information and changed circumstances that render the Project substantially more dangerous than originally claimed. These circumstances include, but are not limited to, the delineation ' .P12 3 1 5 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 30~ and designation of the Cucamon~a Fault as a probable 7.5 magnitude fault. 10. This case involves an unwritten policy or custom by Defendants of'enticing developers to build in the City by ensuring that other affected property owners and interested parties, including CURE members, have no meaningful notice or input into the planning process. This case tests the limits of a local planning staff's ability to unlawfully facilitate development by (1) granting extensions to a tentative tract map in violation of local and state law; (2) failing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard by affected property ow~ners, including CLTRE members, in violation of the state and federal constitution; and (3) depriving access to documents by withholding and/or denying the existence of numerous relevant documents concerning non7.complian.ce' among other matters, wi'th the federal'*Endangered Species Act ("ESA") in an effort by Defendants to Ehwart any challenge to the proposed project. *The implications of this case go beyond the pending matter. Recen[ amendments to the California Subdivision Map Act create certain loopholes that allow local m~nicipalities and developers to build projects years after the initial environmental review was conducted. The facts of the instant case are particularly compelling because of the rare nature of the habitat and the potential of serious risk to life and property. 11. At issue is a 25.9 acre parcel, the development of which has escaped any serious environmental or engin~erin~ review due to Defendants' wrongful conduct. The const_~-uction of ~0 homes on ~he Property was first proposed by Brock homes in eke 1 late !980s ("Project"). At that time, the City concluded that 2 there was no significant impact to the environment resulting from 3 construction of the.'40 homes. No biological, engineering, or 4 traffi~.~st~dies were completed at the time. Although public 5 notice was provided, fewer than ten homes were located in the 6 area at that time, and therefore comments to the proposed Project 7 were minimal. The negative declaration and Tentative Tract Map 8 No. 14771 ("Tentative Map") were approved in November 1990. 9 Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Initial 10 Study, Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination and it is i1 incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. In 1993 12 Brock Homes filed for bankruptcy, without having begun any 13 development. 14 12. Under California's Subdivision Map Act, tentative 15' tract maps ordinarily would expire two ~ears after'approval 'if ' 16 cohstruction had not commenced. Because of the downturn in 17 California's economy, the state legislature enacted laws to !8 permit extensions of tentative tract maps u~der certain specific 19 circumstances. The purpose of this legislation was to protect 20 developers who had expended funds to prepare the tentative tract 21 maps but who, at that time, were not financially able to commence 22 construction. In 1992, 1993 and 1995 the City, through Defendant 23 Bullet, approved the extension of the Tentative Map at issue 24 here. Each of those extensions were unlawful in that Defendants 25 (1) failed to 'provide notice to affected property owners as 26 required by federal and state law, and (2) granted extensions in 27 violation of local ordinances. 28 ~c~~' ~;1 .F, 12 )7,, ;' ~HH: jul 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lS 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or gOO 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in or about 1996, Defendan~ Bullet, on behalf of the City and in conjunction with Defendant Grahn, enticed develo~.~rs.to locate projects in the City by assuring developers that existing tentative tract maps could be finalized without any further environmental review or. public hearing. In September 1996, Lauren DevelopmenC, a completely new developer, resurrected the Tentative Map and began processing the Project toward final approval. No documents were ever circulated for public comment nor did che City or Lauren Development provide any notice co affected proper~y owners. The !~st public notice relating ~o ~he Projecc was in 1990. 14. On or about May 23, 1997, residents in ~he area including CLrRE members, learned of the Project for the first time. since 1990, approximately 45 additional homes have been constz-ucted in ~he' area and most of the residents moved to the Projec~ area in the past four years. CURE i~ediately'conzacted Defendan't Grab_n, the planner assigned to the Lauren Development Project, Eo inquire abou~ ~he status of the Project. Defendan~ Grahn, undar the supervision of Bullet, falsely informed.CURE members that: (1) Lauren Development had received all regulatoz-y approvals and permits for the project; (2) Chat it was "too late" to challenge the development; and (3) the Planning Commission would approve Lauren Development's "Development Review Application" on a Consent Agenda and that no public comment would be permitted. A specific request also was made that CURE members be added to the public notice list for matters concerning Lauren 6 101 00 '00 00:00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B O0 T,NkN: iwl Development. Grahn refused to do so, stating that no formal notice was required. 15. On May 27, 1997, CURE requested from Grahn, in writing.;.-a .complete copy of the Lauren Development file. Receipt of that request was acknowledged on May 29, 1997 in a memorandum from Defendant Grakn reaffirming that the Development Application approval would be heard on the Consent Agenda and that the file might be available on June 2, 1997. Because of the urgency, a local residen~ went in person to Defendant Grahn and'requested the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Project. Defendant Grahn provided a Negative Declaration for an unrelated development. On June 2, 1997, only portions of the file were produced with key documents missing, including a copy of the actual Tentative Map and any documents from the Development Design Application Review file rela~ing to the June 11 Hearing. Documents from unrelated projects were produced instead. Between June 2 and 5, 1997, several additional letters were forwarded to Defendant Grahn specifying which documents were missing from the file and stressing that iramediate production of those documents was critical to prepare for the June 11, 1997 h~aring. documents included: Missing Fire lane standards; Approvals from fire control district; Compliances with 50 Code of F. R. 17.11; Attachment A and B to Negative Declaration; Documents pertaining to the CEQA; Mitigation Monitoring Plan; 7 27 28 ~ooooooo 1 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ° Documents pertaining to Lauren Development,s approvals/compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations regarding levee removal and . '- flood control channel- ' Documents pertaining to letters of agreement from both affected school districts; · Documents regarding funding mechanism for proposed drainage channel; · Documents concerning Los Angeles Water and Power approval of grading in their easement. In particular, CURE was interested in documents concerning compliance with the Endangered Species Act and a Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the City, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish & Game, setting forth certain requirements' that the City must follow-prior to disturbing rare habitat area. On June 5, 1997, Defendant 'Gra.hn sent correspondence denying the existence of any Memorandum of Understanding. 16. On June 10, 1997, CURE wrote to the City Attorney for the City identifying what documents had been wrongfully with/~eld including, but not limited to, correspondence from the 22' U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to Lauren D~velopment and the Ci. zy 23 dated April 18, 1997, stating that Lauren Development had not 24 complied with the Endangered Species Act. Also missing were any 25 documents concerning extensions on variances and several 26 documents relating to the extension of the Tentative.Maps. In each instance, the missing documents were potentially fatal to the developer's ability to proceed with the Project. Attached as EO,::J £IE OO:OO OO, OO IOT £66-qof' TZG-~ 0~:21 .~ 6-60-"11"1 ~' 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 )00000000 ~7/0~/97 MP~: E~chibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the June 10, 1997 correspondence to the City Attorgey, with attachments Exhibits A to I, which is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully....~h~ above documents have not been produced and the City has neither acknowledged nor responded to the June 10, 1997 letter. 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the conduct of Defendant Grahn in failing to produce the requested documents or in producing documents entirely unrelated to ~he subject parcel was done under the direction of Defendant Bulmer, with the intent of preventing Plaintiff from discovering d~cuments demonstrating that the Project is unsafe and in non-compliance with state and federal environmental laws, among others. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Bullet and Grahn, as is customary of the'City, have repeatedly attempted to limit public ~omment about' the Project by, among 6ther wrongful acts: (1) not providing any public notice in seven years; (2) providing misinformation about the Project when recfuested; (3) discouraging interested parties from Qbjecting Co the Project by claiming that it was "too late" to object;. (4) claiming that approval of the Project' is ministerial and a matter for the Consent Agenda; and (5) stating that the developer is in compliance with all regulatory requirements. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Bullet and Grahn were aware that these statements were false when made. 18. By failing to provide public notice of the Tentative Map extensions. by obstructing Plaintiff's efforts to obtain relevant documents concerning the Project, and by ~'0cl ~'IE 00:00 00, 00 I~I misleading interested parties, including CURE members, into believing°that no legal avenue was available to challenge the Project, Defendants,.' and each of them, have deprived Plaintiff of its right to due process under the state and federal constitutions. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 Against All Defendants) 19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realleg~d and incorporated herein by reference. 20. Section 1983 of 42 U.S.C. provides that: [e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State subjeczs, or causes to be sud0jected, any cit'izen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper. proc.eed~ng for redress. 21. Acting under color of law, Defendants have acted to deprive Plaintiff of the opportunity to be heard, and deprived Plaintiff of access to the courts by failin~ to provide public notice for the three extensions of the Tentative Map, thus violatin~ the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth a~d Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 10 00, 00 12 13 14 16 1 22. Acting under color of law, Defendants further have 2 withheld public documents in an effort to thwart Plaintiff's 3 ability to exercise its legal rights to challenge the Project 4 before..f~fendants and the Courts, thereby depriving Plaintiff of 5 its Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process of law. 6 23. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide 7 notice and an opportunity ~o be heard, Plaintiff may be subject 8 to the construction of a Project that places Plaintiff a~ risk of 9 property damage and bodily injury and otherwise deprives 10 Plaintiff of its rights to provide input on and to challenge 1!. projects at the administrative and judicial level as'secured by the state and federal constitutions'. 24. The rampant level of obstructionism reflected by Defendants' conduct demonstrates a policy or custom of deprivation of Constitutional and statutory r~ghts. 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 oooooo~oo 0??02192' ~HN: SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 42 U.$.C. § 1985 Against All Defendants) 25. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realle~ed and incorporated herein by reference. 26. Section 1985 of ~2 U.S.C. provides that: [i] f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of ecfual privileges and immunities under the laws, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or 11 GOcl £'I:E 00:00 00, 00 £i~-qor Iz6-~ ~0'a 0~:~[ 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 :3000O00O0 ~ ~?'/02/~? ~: deprivation, agains~ any one or more of his conspirators. ~7. As part of an ongoing conspiracy, City officials, includ~ Rut not limited to Bullet and Grakn, have failed to provide notice of numerous hearings as required by federal, state and local ordinances; have approved extensions of thj Tentative Map in violation of sta~e and local ordinances; have mislead interested parties into believing that the Project could not be challenged; and have withheld and/or denied the existence of relevant documents. CURE is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' conduct was in furtherance of a conspiracy co ensure that developers, including Lauren Development, could easily complete projects without public notice and input. 28. By engaging in the wrongful conduct described above, Defendants -have conspired co deprive Plaintiff of constitutional rights and access to the courts. 29. In carrying out the conspiracy described above, Defendants have acted maliciously, arbitrarily, capriciously, and in bad faith. THIRJD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of California Government Code § 6256 Against All Defendants) 30. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 31. Section 6156 of the California Government Code provides that: 12 00:00 00, 00 1 3 4 S 6 ? 8 ~0 ].2 ~3 t4 15 16 17 18 20 2~ 22 23 24 25 2S 27 MC~ -~1.~12 ooooooooo. [a]n¥ person may receive a copy of any identifiable . public record or copy thereof. Upon requesz, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so .... Each agency, upon any requesc for a copy of records shall detersnine within 10 days after the receipt of such req~es~ whether to comply with the request and shall immediately notify the person makin~ the' request of such determination and the reasons therefor. 32. On May 27, June 4, June 5 and June 10, CURE requested documents pursuant to the California Pu~li~ Records Acc and otherwise not exempted from production uulder California law. As of the signing of this complaint, many of the requested documents have noc been produced including, but not limited to: documents relating to compliance with Che Endangered Speci'es Act; all documents relating to applications for and extensions of the Tentative Map and variances; and engineering plans and specifications concerning removal of the levee. 33. Defendants neither complied with document'requests submitted by Plaintiff, nor notified Plaintiff of the reasons for their non-compliance. Defendants thus have violated § 6256 of the California Government Code. 13 ,'.Od £tE 00:00 00. EGg-qoF tZ6-~ iO'd O§:2l ! 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 2B OOOOOOOO0 07/02/97 ~al~: ~I PRAYER FOR RELIEF (First claim for Relief) W~EREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against Defendant ~s .follows: 1. For actual damages according to proof; 2. For a declaration that extensions of the TehCative Map were in violation of federal and state law and thus of no effect; 3. For temporal-y, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the Project until such time as Plaintiff is provided with a complete copy of all relevant documents, constitutionally mandated notice and an opportuulity to be heard; ~. Costs of suit; 5~ Attorney fees; and 6. For such other relief as this Court deems proper. (Second Clai~n for Relief) WHEREFOP, E, Plaintiff demands judgement against Defendant as follows: 1. For actual damages according to proof; 2. For a declaration that extensions of the Tentative Map were in violation of federal and state law and thus of no effect; 3. For temporal/, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the project until such time as 14 808 £IE 00:00 00, 00 I0: £B~-qo? :Z6-~ BO'd 0~:.~ l Z6-BO-gl~r 1 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~"h. .~l.Pi2 OOOOOOOO0 97/02/97 ~1~: Jwl 4 o Plaintiff is provided with a complete file, notice and an opportunity to be heard; Cos~ of suit; Attorney fees; and For such other relief as this Court deems proper (T~ird Claixm for Relief) WT{EP~EFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against Defendant as follows: 1. For actual damages according to proof; 2. For declaratory relief, requiring Defendants to produce all requested documents, and all documents properly requested in the future. 3. Attorneys' fees; 4. Costs of suit; and' 5. For such other ralief as this Court deems groper. 15 E, Ocl £tE 00:00 00, 00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~c~. ,1 .Pl~ 07102t97 ~IH#: ,[,,,,1 DEMAND POR JURY TRILL Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on the Claims for Relief set forth in this Complaint. DATED: 'July '2 1997 T~E BERLINER LAW OFFICES ERIC BERLINER LAWRENCE D. SANDERS LOEB & LOEB LLP MA-LI$SA HATHAWAY MCKEITH Cucamongans ~ted for -Reasonable E~ansion ("~E"') 16 00:00 101 00 IMPORTANT- Lauren Development Update Thanks to widespread co~ntmi .ty support, C'ucamongan,q United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) *raa able to delay the Plannlnll Conunisslon's fins! approval of 40 rrac~ homes north of Hayarm'tenn. until fids coming !R'ednesdav, .lulv 9, 1997. need 3,ou to attend this c~lt~ca~l meet~. :' ' The Lauren I)evelopmem tract homes are priced in the 15270,000 range which wl/J have a devastating impsol on our propert)- value~ by crestLag ionn' "comps". A bu.~er wiU look at coml~ from similarly sized Lauren homes priced an>~ere from $40,000 to $100,000 le~s than your property and this ~ll substantially reduce what buyer is writing to pay for .your home. The area Impacted by Lauren Development's low comp$ would be north of ~R'i/son and west of the Deer Creek Channel to Beryl Lower propert?, values is not the only ~-ay you ma.~ be affected..As taxpa.vcr~, uU of us may end up paying larL~ judg~ne~ from lanesuits against the Cid.' if the City permits remon~l of a levee that protec~ aU of us. Exper~ civil enLrineer~ have testified that removal of the levee reduce,~ our proteclion from flooding and debris flow and that Lauren'a "so-called" mitigation measures are inadequate. For those of)~u ,a'ho aren't familiar with debrL~ flow, tal~e a look at the boulder~ in your back~'ard. Those boulders came donvn in a debris floxv. The enclosed map' demon,~trates jus! how much protection ghe levee has ~/ven down-~raclient property owner~ over the years. Approval Der the I,auren Development Project is only the beLd~nLn.,, of the Plantting Cornn~sion's latimer agenda to develop this entire area. Ther~ already are approvaJs for a nttmber of react developments east of Deer Creek tha~ man' impact your property. values, Increase traffic, and create more potential for fiDodiag. ofu~ have ~'orked hard to live in a nice area and ~'e must be vigilant to make sure this is not changed bn' the P 'lanJ~jlg Commiasion',n approval 0lone small project at Daze: Time: Place: Don't let lhe city ~overnrnent perrrd~ the construction of an u. nsaf¢ development of inexpen.nive ~ract homes. Please show )'our support by brin~mg )our friends and family to the meeting. For further information, contac/l<athy !R'3.a~t at 980-8960. If you t artnot attend, please $1~n CURE's petition opposing Lauren Development. July 9, 1997 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City HaM 10500 East Cixdc Center Drive (East of Haven between Arrow and Foothill) 101 00 '00 00'-00 .. ::, · ,..,. / ...... '~- ~ :~..~ ~-¢ '" · '~ '.~" ';" .L ". '.- ":.' ~ '~ ~L '"' ' ¢ '~'.¢~ I ',~ ~ x.'~.~ '", .... ¢¢ ~.' '.% '. ~e~.~).'.~ '~:.-,' ' "4>'~:' ' .... . .... , .., ~ .-,~.. .~,.. .,~. .~,, ...... ~ ,.. , . . ~ , -~ .. ' ~ ~ · ' ~ ~ ~--'"' ~,". ~' ' , " z ~;'~ ~-.~ ~ -" ~. '-'~ . .' ~ ~ ~ .~'~ -, ~ ,'-':.~.~- . , ~ _~'"...._, :,~ ~ :~?~ ~,.:.x'.. "~.. ~ ~, -., .:. , '~..,~L~:'5 . .~ .~. ~ ~ . ~_ ~ ,. .~,:~'~. . ( .- = ¢.=,~';--..' ,~.~. ~-.... . %, .~ . . ~-.~-.~ .- ~..¢~.~. · ~ ~"" ~ ~.,' ~' ~"~..¢ ;~ ~ ,.. ~ .... ~ ..',:' ,(_.~ . - _~ ~. , ~ ~ . .~'~ / ~, . * .~ -- ..:. ~ ~..~ , ...,_. ....,, . · .._. Z . ,~-, -~.~ ,.,~ r.' .~....~, ....'....~..,.~ ~ ~ · ~:r.- , .. . .-r.. ..**. ..-.-~. . ;, -.- . .-~ . , ~..,,-..- .... . .. ,,:,:,., ~... ,,,:~-~,.¢~,;~..~,:-¢.-... -.¢,~-T?-..,. ': : .I '.~<-2'.- *%~ ',~-'¢:~,~':'.~ "~- ';~:' ',~:'-~'-~ '~ ~ ~ *">.." ;' '~¢'" ' ' ' ~ ~ '. ~ '~ ~ · . .': .". . , L.. .~ ,..~--~ .,.' , .;~.-. .... .........., .....,.. ............ ...... - :" ..~'~,~' · . ...~ . ,.?~... · .', :.: ~:~.'.:~...'~~ ,~' .'..:,4.".~ ~'~ ~. .. ,~ .' · ' - '~ ~ '~~' . ..... ' ~'.~"'~,'~ ~:~V-'~% .... ..'~' .~ ..- ~.'. '.~ · ~.:~ ~-. ~ .; ~ . , ~z~-,.~.' .. · '., - r~:'.. '~.c~.'...*~ -;..... ~ ~'~,..~,~ ..~ ~.. · ......-..~ ~ :'X:~ ~..:'. ~'~ :,,;~ ,:z~.~.,~.',.:.; . .'...~ ~ ..~ ! = .:.~.. ?~, ~ . ~~ '. ..: . ~;;'.~'~ _ . '.,~ ~ · . ?, ~ .~ '~.~ -..~ ....~ ....~ ........ ~ .....'~ '"' ..' ' ' ''~ 5." . ..- . =~ ',- . · :-...,~ ..'. :' .~n~. .: . .~ ~ ~ ..~ . ~ ,~ · ~.=._.~-~t....,.~..,~ . .~..~7.. ...,,~. l.;~. ' ~ - ~,. ~ · ,~ , ~..'.,_ .. ~ . .,~ ..,~.~. · , <,. ~ ~ ~ - . ~. · -. . ~ . ~ -'<... ,'..~ . ~ ., . . . . ~ .. .~' ; ~ , I ..... ,~ ~'' ' ~ · ,~., .. ' ' '. ~ '? ~ ~ ', ~"~ ~' ' ~ ~ "":='. ~'-"'.:. ....~r. ·. . ~, . :~%.- :,L' ',,.. .;~..': '~' .~ · ...~ . ~., ~..~ ~ ..;~. , - . ~. · .'.' . . < ..... · ............. ----"--.-" ..... ~/. ,f'~ . ~ 4 , . ':~'~ . ~' .. :=~.. · .. ..... ~ ..... ~- ......... . . . ~ ¢::~;'.%4' ,.:%.~:.' / - . .. , · . ~ &. ~¢~.~s ~.~;~. . w . - · · ~. . '- ".:¢".':..::~. :: ..... · ....'~--~-~ ".. ".. ._.. ..... , ·. ....... ,. ._ ..~~ ~,. . · . .. % ..........,. .. . .. · . · ..~ ...~.'- · .~ ALTA L'O~P : '~ I ~' '=:'" 'v-~-~ ~ -~:~ -: ""~ ' -~' ./ FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL FROM: . Bu[o mi~osa~phus ~li{ornicu~ E~IRO~~ SERVICES DIVISION (SO~E~ ~IFO~IA) NA~ CO~I~ CONSERVATION P~ING (NCCP) 4949 VIE~I~E A~ SANDIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 TELEPHONE (619) 467-4251 l FAX TIME (619) 467-4235 NO. OF PAGES SENT INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEI~ ~L OF ~E PAGES I~ICATED. PL~E C~L ~ SE~ER AS SOON ~ POSSIBLE. ~~ 4949 Viewri,g, Av, nu, San Diego, ~lifo~ia 92123-%~ ~ mq ,L 1o31N(o,lDA~,~ CO~nPuf~-J?-v~-- C~ Liam H, Davis. Associate wildlif0 (619) 467-42 ATSS 8 7]4-42 FAX (619] 467-42 J u~.-O~-~' I~:~0 DEPt. FISH AND GAME ID' 619-467-42:35 JUL "'~ ' 97 15:$9 No.Ol$ P.02 Current Status and History of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) in San Bernardino County by Liam H. Davis California Departmen~ of Fish and Game Natural Community Conservation Planning 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 USA' Tel- (619)467-4207;Fax:619-467~4235 Robert L. McKernan San Bernardino County Museums County of San Bernardino 2024 Orange Tree Lane Redlands, CA 92347 USA Tel. (909)798-8570;Fax:909-798~8585 James S. Burns '(deceased) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 USA Tel. (619)431-944D;Fax:619-431-9624 DEPl:. FISH AND GAME ID'~[9-467-4255 3UL ~q'97 [5:~0 No.O[$ P.O$ Abstract.. The 1990 to 1995 California .gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) site locations for southwestern San Bernardino County are presented. This extends the currently known northern range distribution for a P.c.californica nesting population. Collated surveys report P.c.californica located within Riversidean coastal sage scrub and in both upland and wash areas of Riversidean alluvial'fan sags scrub. P.c.californica historical site location records are presented with current site location records. Keywords. San Bernardino County; California gnatcaTcher (Polioptila californica californica); historic/present distribution; Riversidean coastal sage scrub; Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Introduction. The California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica Muscicapidae) is considered an uncommon bird primarily from historical and current habitat destrhction. The species is an obligate resident of coastal sage scrub (Atwood 1980; 1988). Rapid and pervasive urbanization has resulted in decimated and fragmented coastal sage scrub habitat throughout southwestern California. Coastal sage scrub is considered "one of the fastest disappearing types of vegetation,, (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977). As little as 10-15% of coastal sage scrub remains in California and the habitat continues to b~ the fastest disappearing vegetation in the nation (Westman 1987). Historically P.c. californica range was northward in California throughout the coastal sage scrub areas of southern Ventura County extending southward to .approximately 30oN in Baja California, M~xico (Atwood 1990; 1993). The northern range distribution of the species has. been dramatically reduced by urbanization in Ventura, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties (Atwood 1993). Initially San Bernardino County reported (Atwood 1980) only pre-1960 historic site locations. Atwood later (1990; 1993) noted a single bird observed in 1990 near the confluence of Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek Wash (Fig. 1). Atwood also noted (1993) "one or two California gnatcatchers,, reported during four San Bernardino Valley Christmas Bird Counts during the "late 1960's and early 1970's" (Audubon Field Notes 1969, 1970; American Birds 1971,.1973). Atwood considered these reports "hypothetical,, because of field identification difficulties attributed to the species. Atwood (1990; 1993) suggested a P.c.californica extirpation scenario for San Bernardino County but concluded that the Lytle Creek Wash area and the Jurupa Mountains (aka Jutups Hills) could possibly still contain P.c. californica. Since 1990 there have been substantiated six P.c. californica site locations in southwestern San Bernardino County. These areas include portions of Lytle Creek Wash and Jurupa ~ills. Recent P.c. californica site locations are presented with the historical records. Study area. The study was conducted in southwestern California in 2 DEPt. FISH RND GRME ID '619-467-4255 P ~4 R-~11 Job-5?~ 3UL '"c~'97 15:40 No.O15 P,04 southwestern San Bernardino County in what is referred to as the San Bernardino Valley (approximately central to 34O5,N and 117°25'W) which is approximately 110 km east of the Pacific Ocean. The San Bernardino Valley is'generally bounded by the county lines between San Bernardino County and Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties on the west and south and the San Bernardino National Forest boundary on the north and east. Elevation ranges from about 180 m to 210 m on valley floors near Chino and gradually increases to about 360 m to 420 m near San Bernardino and Redlands. The climate is Mediterranean with cool, wet winters and dry, warm summers. Annual sunshine is 70% to 80%. Average daily maximum temperature is approximately 33oC to 37oC in midsummer and approximately 18oC in winter. Varying mean annual precipitation is about 30.5 cm to 50.5 cm. Approximately 90% annual precipitation is received from November to April. (Woodruff and Brock 1980.) The San Bernardino Valley is situated south of the Transverse Ranges below the eastern San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains. Predominate vegetation in the San Bernardino Valley is 1) Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub that intergrades at higher elevations with chaparral at 600 m to 700 m and 2) Riversidean coastal sage scrub. Other vegetation consists of a patchwork of valley grasslands, riparian, oak woodlands, and mixed hardwood forests with nearly closed canopies that border the San Bernardino Valley on the north and east. The San Bernardino VallEy is extensively urbanized. Methods. The historical compilation up to 1990 for San Bernardino County P.c. cali£ornica site location information (Atwood 1990; 1993) was consulted. For a 1990 to 1995 compilation other field biologists, reports and the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted. This data was collated with our 1994 and 1995 field surveys. Long duration P.c.californica sightings of over an hour followed spot-mapping technique (International Bird Census Committee 1970; Ralph et al. 1993). Study plots .were polygon delineated onto USGS 7.5 minute series topographic maps. Censusing was conducted during the breeding season and early in the.day. Some tensusing was. conducted over two breeding seasons at the same P.c-californica site locations. Some compiled P.c. cali£ornica sightings were incidental and involved averages of three to five minutes. A few sight locations were collated from field biologists that the authors deemed reliable after personal interview. Most P.c.californica site locations were made by the authors. A description of the habitat size, elevation (United States Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps 1966 - 1967), vegetation (Holland 1986; Hickman 1993), and soil types (Woodruff and Brock 1980) was compiled. Results. a) historic. Historic P.c.californica locations for southwestern San Bernardino County (Fig. 1) are cited by Atwood 3 DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID'619-467-4235 (1990, 1993) . P.05 3UL ~R'97 15:41 No .015 P.05 b) recent. 1990 to 1995 P.c. californica locations for' southwestern San Bernardino County (Pig. 2) are cited below: 1. Confluence Lytle and Cajon Wash ~e: 6 September 1990. source: Douglas R. Willick (p & D Technology) and Ray. Vizgirdas. habitat: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. elevation: Approximately 440 m. assoc4ate plant ~ec~Ps: "buckwheat, open chamise, Malosma, Prunus, Yucca whipplei,, (Willick per. comm. 1993). ~li~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slc ~s. comments: "The bird was female plumaged,, in "mature alluvial sage scrub on a high, stabilized bench in the center of a wash" (Willick per. comm. 1993). This site was destroyed (removed) in 1994 by gravel mining operations. 2. Sycamore Flat (at Lyt!e Creek) ~hl~: 16 March 1993. source: Steven G. Nelson (Michael Brandman Associates). hab~ta%: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. elevation: Approximately 600 m. associate plant ~Dec~s: "Salvia apiana and Lotus scoparius" (Nelson per. comm. 1994). ~LQ~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: "One adult bird" (Nelson per. comm. 1994). 3. Etiwanda Fan "The Etiwanda Fan represents the densest concentration of White sage (Salvia apiana) known within the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub community,, (Mary Meyer per comm. 1995). · (a)~h7~: 16 April 1994. ~ource: San Bernardino County Museums. habftat: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. elevation: Approximately 580 m. a~oc~ate plant species: Salvia apiana, Artemisia californica, Eriogonium famcicu!atum, Yucca whipplei. ~LO_~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. commen~: One adult female. (b)dat~: 3 June 1994. so%%rc~: Russel B. Dunkin (SouthWest Biologists, Tucson, AZ). habitat: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. e]evat4on: Approximately 580 m. associate plant specie~: Salvia apiana, Artemisia californica, Eriogonium fasciculatum, Yucca whipplei. ~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: One adult male and female. No nest observed. About 4 DEPt. FISH RND GRME ID '619-467-4235 ~-]11 Jot3-ST~ ~UL '"~'97 15:42 No,01;~ P.06 30 m distance from si9ht location (a). (c)~Td~: 17 June 1994. aource: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. habitat: Upland Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub elevation: Approximately 700 m. ' associate. plant ~p~.cie~: Salvia apiana, S. mel13'fera, Eriogonum fasc3'culattun, Ade;2osto~a fasciculatum. ~: Soboba stony loam sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: One adult male. 4. Jurupa Hills (Declez Pass) dates: Spring 1994 and 1995. source: San Bernardino County Museums, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. hahStat: Riversidean coastal sage scrub. elevation: Approximately 335 m. a~sociate p]an~ species: Salvia apiana, S. mellifera, Artemisia californica, Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens. ~Q-~: Cieneba-Rock outcrop comp].ex. comments: Two to three adult male and female individuals seen each sprin~ on different occasions. No nest observed. 5. Jurupa Hills (Alder Avenue) dates: Spring 1994 and 1995. so~,rce: San Bernardino County Museums and California Department of Fish and Game. habitat: Riversidean coastal sage scrub. e]eyation: Appr. oximately 365 m (1994 site) approximately 550 m (1995 site). ' associate ~]an~ sDec]es: Salvia apiana, S. mellifera, Ar~emisia californica, Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens. fto_~: Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex. comments: In 1994, one adult male feeding a juvenile adjacent to Alder Avenue. In 1995, approximately one half kilometer west of Alder Avenue, five nesting pairs in an area of approximately 40 hectares. 6. Santa ana River, east Highland (Fig. 3) G~: 28 June 1995. ~ource: San Bernardino County Museums. habitat: Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. elevation: Approximately 460 m. associate plant species: Salvia apiana, Eriogonium fasciculatum, Lotus scoparius, Eriodictyon trichocalyx. ~zQ~: Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. comments: One Juvenile bird. Discussion. The six P.c.californica site locations in San Bernardino County are represented in two subassociations of coastal sage scrub: Riversidean coastal sage scrub and both upland and wash areas of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (Holland 1986). JUL-OS-~? 15:50 .DEPT. FISH RND GRME ID'~'19-467-4255 P.0T 3UL ~'97 Joi:-5~'8 15:42 No.01~ P.07 Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, the predominate subassociation of coastal sage scrub in San Bernardino County, is a designated state of California listed Si.1 (Keeler-Wolf 1993). "threatened,, plant community by the California Department of Fish and Game. Over 75% of this plant community has been extirpated from southern California (Todd Keeler-Wolf per. comm. 1995). This report is not inclusive for P.c. californica San Bernardino Valley site locations. Additional surveys are warranted, particularly for other nesting site locations, throughout the larger conti~uous pieces of coastal sage scrub in San Bernardino Valley. The three 1994 sightings on the Etiwanda fan involved both adult male and female birds and could indicate possible nesting. The 1995 sighting in the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash along. the Santa Ana River, east Highland, was a juvenile bird. There are no known current P.c.californica nesting site locations in Riversldean alluvial fan sage scrub. The Jurupa Hills nesting site location in Riversidean coastal sage scrub extends the currently known northern range distribution for a P.c. californica nesting population. This site is located a few degrees latitude further north of the Chevron Montebello population in Los Angeles County (California Department of Fish and Game 1995, Dudek & Associates, Inc. 1995 ). S~ur~az-y. O'Leary {1990) stated that Jn southern California "the present decade likely represents an 'eleventh-hour, period" for the "imperiled', coastal sage scrub plant community. Gap analysis, utilized for conservation risk assessment for plant communities in the southwestern region of southern California, list. s "coastal sage scrub" and "Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub" as at risk from extirpation (Davis et el. 1994; Davis etal. 1995) . Census data in 1990 shows a 16,539,858 population (56% of the total California population) residing in southwestern California (Goodenough 1992). From 1980 to 1990 the population of San Bernardino County grew at a rate of more than 50% (Goodenough 1992). The estimated population for the San Bernardino Valley in 1990 was 1,107,582 inhabitants (Southern California Association of Governments 1995). Hester (1967) and Hayes (1991) concluded that habitat destruction was the major cause of species decline. In the San Bernaralno Valley habitat loss from urbanization and agricultural expansion has influenced decline of P.c.californica. The nesting population in the Jurupa Hills is approaching urban isolation and vulnerable to stochastic events. .It is not certain if the Jurupa Hills nestJ.ng population represents recent immigration or a continuing decline of an extant population. Much of the Jurupa Hills have not been surveyed although fifty years ago there were substantial populations of P.c.californica throughout the Jurupa Hills (Eugene Cardiff per. comm. 1995). Ground and aerial surveys reveal an existing fragmented corridor linking the Jurupa Hills eastward to Ehe coastal sage scrub habitat along the Santa Ana River. Although the use of corridors in conservation biology is new and controversial (McEuen 1993) it is prudent strategy whenever possible (Frankel and soul~ 1981:109) and could DEPT. FISH ~ND G~4ME ID' ~,].9-467-~255 ~UL ~q'97 ].5:4:3 No.01:3 P.08 be effective when linking fragmented and decimated arian habitat (Soul~ etal. 1988; Bolger et el. 1991). Most small populations of birds have an intrinsic potential to rebound from sever reductions in numbers (Pimm etal. 1988). San Bernardino County has begun habitat conservation planning (HCP) efforts in the San Bernardino Valley. Protecting coastal sage scrub habitat is the obvious way to preserve the encroached peripheral northeastern range of P.c.californica. Arian recoveries involving severely decimated populations require resource agencies to focus. equal attention on acquiring both occupied and adequate unoccupied habitat (Belovsky et al. 1994; Reed 1995). Recovering P.c.californica populations would be expected to disperse to unoccupied habitat when exploiting available resources. In HCP · planning allowing for some degree of development in less sensitive areas could have a positive impact, if the development mitigation serves to generaZe funds for both habitat acquisitiQn and restoration in designated reserve areas. The issue will be whether the extent and nature of the HCP conservation measures offer adequate protection for the 'threatened Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, Riversidean coastal sage scrub, and the associate rare and sensitive species. Acknowledgeumente. The authors thank Gerald T. Braden, Eugene Cardiff, and Marni~ S. Crook, San Bernardino County. Museums, and Kay Stockwell, National Audubon Society, for their contributions. Literature cited. American Birds 1971. 25:504-505. American Birds 1973. 27:526-527. Atwood, J.L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tail gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65-78. Atwood, J.L. 1988. Speciation and geographic variation in black- tailed gnatcatchers. Ornithological Monographs 42:1-74. Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished technical report, Mahomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. 79 p. Atwood, J.L. 1993. California gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: the biological basis for endangered species listing. pp. 149-170. in J.E. Keeley,. editor. Proceedings of the symposium on the interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, California. Audubon Field Notes 1969. 23:423-424. Audubon Field Notes 1970. 24:454. DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID · ~19-467-4255 P.O~ i-=11 I JoD-~F8 JUL nq'9? 15:44 No.015 P.09 Belovsky, G.E., J.A. B£ssonette, R.D. Dueset, T.C. Edwards, Jr., C.M. Luecke, M.E. Ritchie, J.B. Slade, and F.H. 'Wagner. 1994. Management of small populations: concepts affecting the recovery of endangered species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:307-316. Bolger, D.T., A.C. Alberts, and M.E. SoulS. 1991. Occurrence patterns of bird species in habitat fra~ents: sampling, extinction, and nested species subsets American Naturalist California Department of Fish and Game, and California Resources Agency. 1993. Southern California coastal sage scrub natural communities conservation plan: scientific review panel conservation guidelines and documentation. D.D. Murphy, J.F. O'Leary, P.F. Brussard, M.S. Gilpin, and R.F. Noss. California Department of Fish and Game and the California Resources Agency. 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814. 469 p. (11 sections) California Department of Fish and Game, and California Resources Agency. 1995. Natural Diversity Data Base. 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814. ' Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, and D.M. Stoms. 1994. Distribution and conservation status of coastal sage scrub in southwestern California. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:743-756. Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, D.M. Stoms, M.I. Borchert, and A.D. ~ollander. 1995. Gap analysis of the actual vegetation of California. 1. The southwestern region. Madrolo Vol 42 No 1 40- ' ' ° · Dudek and Associates, Inc. 1995. EXisting conditions biological resources report for the Chevron Montebello property Los Angeles County, California. 605 Third Street, Encinitas, California 92024. 18 p. (3 appendices) Frankel, O.H. and M.E. SoulS. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 327 p.. Goodenough, R. 1992. The nature and implications of recent population Growth in California. Geography 77: 123-133. Hayes, J..P. 1991. How mammals become endangered. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:210-215. Hester, J.J. 1967. The agent of man in animal extinctions. Pp. 169- 192. in P.S. Martin and E.H. Wright, Jr., editors. Pleistocene extinctions: the search for a cause. Yale University Press New Haven, Connecticut. ' DEPT. FISH AND GAME ID' ~t9-467-~255 JUL r~q'9? 15:44 No.015 P.10 Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual. ~igher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 p. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial' natural communities of CalifornJ. a. Nongame Her±tags Program, California Department of Fish and Game Sacramento, California. 156 p. ' International Bird Census Committee. 1970. An international standard for a mapping method in bird census work recommended by the International Bird Census Committee Audubon Field Notes 24:722-726. ' Keeler-Wolf, T. 1993. Rare community conservation in California. Pp. 43-50. in J.E. Keele¥, editor. Proceedings of the symposium on the interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, California. Kirkpatrick, J.B. and C.F. Hutchinson. 1977. The community composition of California coastal sage scrub. Vegetatio 35:21-33. McEuen, A. 1993. The wildlife corridor controversy: a review. Endangered Species Update 10:1]. & 12 7 p. O'Leary, J.F. 1990. California coastal sage scrub: general characteristics and considerations for biological conservation pp. 24-39. in A.A. Schoenherr editor. Endangered plant communities of southern California. Special Publications No.3. Southern California Botanists, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens, Claremont, California. Pimm, S.L., H.L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the risk of extinction. American Naturalist 132:757-785. Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. General Technical Report PSW- GTR-144. 41 p. Reed, J.M. 1995. Ecosystem management and an avian habitat dilemma. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3):453-457. SoulS, M.E., D.T. Bolger, A.C. Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sourice, and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands Conservation Biology 2(1) :75-92. ' Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. 1995. SCAG93 Regional Growth Forecast data base. Southern California Association of Governments. 818 W. Seventh Street, 12 Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. DEPT. FISH aND GAME ID,'~19-467-4235 3UL n~'97 15:45 N0.013 P.11 United States Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps: Cucamonga Peak 1966. Derore 1966. Fontana 1967. Redlands 1967. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Westman, W.E. 1987. Implications of ecological theory for rare plant conservation in coastal sage scrub. pp. 133-140. in T.S. Elias, editor. Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants: proceedings of a California conference on the conservation and management of rare and endangered plants. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Woodruff, G.A. and W.Z. Brock. 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County, southwestern part, California. Soil Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 64 p. ~: \CAGNSYM~P. PAP 10 ,IUL-O~-~ i' 1~:5~ DEPT. FISH ~ND G~ME ID' ~19-467-42:55 5UL r'q'97 15:45 No.015 P.12 DEPT. FTSH RND 6RME ]:D ' ~19-467-42:55 P. 13 ~-~11 JUL,'"q'97 15:45 No.01~ P.13 ORIGINAL POOR QUALITY Fig. 3. Santa Ana River area (east Highland) and 1995 sight location of a juvenile p.c.californica in Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub wash. Photograph by Robert L McKernan. · HI*.WlTT & McGUIRE, LLP ATTORN'EYS AT LAW 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 * (714) 798-0511 (fax) MARK R. McGuIRE DF. NNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. P.'d-~rlIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAm4 L. JOHN P. Y~GER July 10, 1997 John Allday Lauren Development, Inc. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917304825 Re: Lauren Development Project for Tentative Tract 14771 Dear John: Enclosed please find copies of the following documents for your files: 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers letter to Brad Butler, dated July 9, 1997; 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga Council Planning Cornmission memo, dated June 20, 1997, with handwrit-ten note from Johnny Chen dated July 7, 1997. 3. Letter dated July 9, 1997 from Malissa Hathaway McKeith to James Markman. Please feel free to call if you should have any questions regarding the above correspondence. Sincerely, Lyrme ,~Chapman Assistant to Andrew K. Hartzell Encls. 07-10-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97070018.L~R A~.N"i".ON Office o£ '&e Chief r~D.d.ato~ DEPAfiTMENT OF THE ARMY LO~ ANGEL~_,$ DIETRICT, CORPS OF 3233~ S~NTA AN~ C~NYON ROAD Mr. Brad Butl~ City of Rancho Cucurrmn§a Plann/ng Comm. 10500 Civic Certter Dr/re Rnncho Cucamonga, C.~liiornia 92.730 Dear Mr. ButJet: It has co,,'vu2/:o our at~enti. on th~ correspondence t:rom our office to Lauren Development reg_*rding a proposed housing development in your c/t7 (Tentative Tree,~ 14771; Corps file no. 97-30016-A~S) may have been m/sinterpreted as prov/d/n§ a detern'dn~iion that is beyond the scope of our rev/ew under tim CmT$ of En~neers ResPatory Program. This letter i.s/n~.ended to clarify our respons~biJi~ and involvement ~,'ith regard to this proie~. Our letter of February 7, 1997 (copy attached), only provided a determination that the proposed proiect would not require a permit from our o£5ce pursuant to ..,qec~on 404 oF the Clean Water Act. Section. 404. r%m. dates the discharge oF dredged or f/fl. material into waters of l-he United States. Waters of the U,~ted States g~neraIly do not k'xclude areas rant only flow dur/ng exit. orrin flood event's, ].00-year floodplains or areas of sheet fio;v. The focus of the 40,1. progr. a~.m/~ the pro~ct/on of the physical, them/col and biological int%~r/.ty of the nation's in revie.wing the proj~t site we de,.~rmJned thee w~e no jurisdichona[ waters of the Urdted States ;.;ith./n the bom~d~ries o,~ *Jne proFomd ~ ~nd thae the project as propo~d would no~ resuI~ in. any disd'~rge of fill into ~.'~ters, therefore no permit wouJd be required from. our o~ice. This w~s the ext.e. nt o( our de~rmJnation. Tim Coz-p, s' Regulatory Brrmctn bus hoe made any ~ssertirrns or expressed any op£-Jons as to the adequacy of flood consol ~e~t-ure.s of the project, including safe? L~sues suzromnd/ng tim removal of the e.',Jst/ng levee running along ~e southm-n botmdary of the pro~,~zt site. Our deternorton relates only to the presence/abs~,a'nce of jurjsdichorza[ ,,,-aters of '~'~e United States. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANG'E =I_ES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEWEN OAKS DAM RESIDENT OFF1CE 32330 S~NTA ANA CANYON RO~D FE, - 7 La ure~ Deve]opmen~ Attn: ]'o}'m AJJday 11030 A.szo'w Route, Suite 102 t"G~cho Cuc~mon§a, CtI/£om.ia 91730 Dear M.r. AJ]da7: Re£e_-~'~ce is made to your request (No. 97-300i~-AJ5) of February 3, 1997 f~ a Departm._m~t of fhe A. rmy Perm/t t~ cov. str~c,~ ~act ].4771, a residential housing de~'elopm~--~ near the Deer Canyon Chz_mne[ in Randin Cucamonga, Sin Bernardino CormS', C~iforrfa. Based on ti-~e ~ormzffon P,~.'nisi~ed ~o our ofgce and a site v/sit by our s~aH, ,,~'e have de~er~ned E~at yo~ proposed projec~ does not disch~ge ~edged or ~I ~te~l into a water of the b'~d Sm~es or an adjacent we:l~d. Therefore, '~e proje~ ~s not su~ect to our j=-~sdidion ~der ~cffon 404 of it~e Cle~ Water Ac~ and a Section ~ pe~t is no~ req~red from o~r oilJoe. /he recei:.~ oF your request is appreciated. If you have any ques,'dons, p]ease contact ,%nta[ Sziji oi my staff at {909) 794-7704. .=lie Ccpy Of~LIc'~,') - g7-3~D!~-A15 / Cl~pb,'~rd Co~,,- Lc~ A-~Eel~ Mark Durham Chief, South. Co~t Reg-uiato:?' Branch TOTPt_ P. DEAN DUtqN-R~iwICIiw C~L~LLF~ $. EXON WILLb~4 E. HALt~ A~tOem'W K. RART'2~ ~ HUGH HL~TT $OHff D. HUOSON ' I-I ,Wn T & McGum , LLP ATTORFrKYS AT LAW 19900 M~Arthur Boulcvard, Suit= 1050 Irvine, California 92612 (714) 798-0500 o (714) 798.0511 (fax) ~ R. ML"Gui~E DF.~t~I$ D. O'NE~L JAY F. PALCNIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WR.t.~ L. TwOe.~:Y IOHN P. YEAGER August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Robert McKernan San Bernardino County Museum 2024 Orange Tree Lane Redlands, CA 92347 Re: Information Pertaining to Map Supplied by USFWS Reearding Gnatcatcher Sightings in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties Dear Mr. McKernan: I am enclosing a map provided to me by Mary Beth Woulfe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mary Beth supplied me with this map recently and informed me that I would be able to obtain additional information regarding the data contained on this map from you. She could not provide me with any additional information; apparently, the Service does not have additional information regarding this map. In particular, I am interested in knowing the following regarding each marked location on the attached map: 1. The identity (name, occupation, relevant professional qualifications) of each individual(s) making the alleged sighting; 2. The location of the sighting; 3. The general weather conditions existing at the time of the sighting; 4. The number of gnatcatchers allegedly seen at that location; 5. The date (day/month/year) of the alleged sighting; 6. The title of the document wherein that sighting is recorded; and 08-05-97 3021-00002 S:\00C\161\:ORR\P7080014.LTR Robert McKernan August 5, 1997 Page 2 7. The nature of the activity (e.g., formal focused biological survey, anecdotal observation, etc.) which led to the sighting. I would appreciate your providing this information (to the extent such information is known) at the earliest possible date. As you can see from the attached, the information contained on this one-page map from the Service is rather difficult to decipher. I understand from the Service, however, that this information derives from your records and that you are in a good position to provide clarification on the necessary points. I thank you in advance for your time in providing needed clarification to this map. August 13. contact me. I would greatly appreciate receiving this additional information by Wednesday, Should you have any questions regarding my request, please do not hesitate to AKH/clt Enclosure Sincerely, cc: John Allday 08-05-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\CORR\97080014.LTR -JUL- 7-97 RON 11:18 FISH AND NILDLIFE ~J~j7~JBF ~ NO, 7604319624 P. 02 E2 A.Li'lvno UOOd 'IVNIOIEIO JUL- 9-97 WED 15:41 FISH AND WILDLIFE F~ NO, 7804319624 ( Unimd Stomas Dapanmanz of tha Inmrior FISH AND WTLoLII~ SERVICE 27~0 Lokcr Avcm~c C.a~,b~, CaRfomia ?.01 luly 9, 1997 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning D~partmcr~ 10500 Civ/c Cemer Drive R/ucho Cocamon~, California P1729 Subject: Clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wfldl/fe Serv/ce's letter of June 10, 1997, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (1-6-97-I-IC-240) Dear Mr. Grahn: The U.S. Fish and W'fidllfe Service (S~Mce) is writing ta clarify our letter of June 10, 1997, to the City of Rancho C'ucamonga regarding Tract 14771 by ~ Deve. lopment. We uadcrstand, ttn-ough Lain'an Dev~opment's attorney, that the foLlowLug areas concerning the Scrvice's letter have arisen and need clarification: 1) The Sin'vice understands that Lauren Development is not seeking a section 10(a) permit pursuant to the tEndangered Species Act of 1973, a~ amended (Act). The first paragraph in the letmr was merely me. ant to ~iterate the Service's letter of April 18, 1997, which stated that the surveys to determine presence/absence for the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Potioptila mlifornica californica) w~e not sufficient to determine absence of the bird on the project ~ite. Coastal California gnatcatchers are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project (see attachment). 2) The filth sentence in the second paragraph should read, "...approved by the Service could result in a violation of the Take prohibition of section 9 of the Endaagered Species Act." The Service is hopeful that the above pro,t/des clarity to the City and thc project proponent regarding the Service's letter of June 10, 1997. We reintin available to work with the project proponent and the City to avoid impacts to federally sensitive and listed species. Please contact ,,jUL~- 9-97 gED 15:42 FISH ~I) gILDLIFE F~ NO. 76n4319624 \ P. 02 Mary Beth Woulf~ Scott Eliason, or ]~d~Newman erEthis office at (760) 431-9440 if you have 1-6-97-HC-240 Enclosure cc: CDFG, San Diego, CA (At'm: Bill Tippets) 2 Sinceray, Field Supervisor Hcwltt and McGuire, T.T .t~, Lwine, CA (Attn: Andrew Hartzell) JUL~ 9-97 NED 15:42 FISH P, NI) WILDLIFE .._ ~_~=..?,6~4219624 P. 03 O~I~]NAL PC~OR QUALITY' "I-Iz &McGUtRE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 tVl.~Ar:hur Boulevard, Su;ae 1050 Irvine. ~Hfom~ 92612 UI4) 79~ - U14) 79~0511 (~) August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Rebec. ca Jones Environmental Special/st- Region 5 California Department of Fish and Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Brach, CA 90802 Re: Lauren Development - Tract 14771 in the Citv of Rancho Cucamon£a. California Dear Ms. Jones: This fn'm represents Lauren Development, the project proponent of an approximately 23-acre residential development project on the above-referenced tract in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. I understand that you left a voice ma/[ message for John Allday of Lauren Development at the end of test we~k requesting that Lauren Development contact you. This afternoon I left a message for you on your answering machine noting that I was returning your call on behalf of Lauren Development. Please contac/me at y.our earliest convenience at (714) 798-0500. Let me aga/n express my di~ppointment that the Department of Fish and Game has declined Io dam to w/thdraw or substantially clarify its June 23, 1997 letter to Mr. Brad Bulter at the City of Rancho Cu~amonga in writing. While the Department's oral clarifications are appre~ated, they have limited value whun not reflected in w-r/ting ~ven the written statements of June 23. As I have mentioned previously to Bill T/ppeB, you and others at CDFG, that tert~ conta/ns both inaccurate and misleading information and statements which do a disservice both to the Department and to the public which it serves, not to mention the potent/el prejudichal effect which they could have on the project applicant. Once agaSn, I request that the Department either withdraw or substantially ctar/fy its t'-.tter of Jun= 23 in whfing. The Department's letter of June 23 suggests that the Department may be interested in meeting with the City and Lauren Developm-..nt. City staff and Lauren Development would be pleased to me2.t with Bill Tippets, yourself and, if appropriate, other members of the Department. Such a m~fing should be held by Fr/day, August 15. Ple2se inform me of the Department's interest and ava/tability. 0S-05-97 3021-ODOO2 Rebecca Jones August 6, 1997 Page 2 Again, I would appreciate your returning my phone call on behalf of Lauren Development. I look for~vard to spealdng with you soon. Sincerely, AKH/clt cc: Jacqueline Schafer (via regular mail) Craig Manson, Esq. (via regular mail) Joim Allday (via regular mail) W~lt~am Tippets (via fax and regular mail) Brad Bulter (via regular m~il) 08-0S-97 SD21-00002 LOEB I. OEB . D~rcct D{al No. 213.68g,367.2 e-mail: MMCK~TT~ioeb.com August7,1997 F~c Via Fa~hnile M~. Gale Sanchez City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dcgartment 10500 Civic C~nter Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Cucamongans Un~tcd for Reasonablc Expansion ('CURE") August 20, 1997 City Council Hearing Date Ms. Sanchez: ' I lcarn~ yesterday evening that thc hearing hcforc the City Council on CUR~'s appeal from the July 9, 1997 Planning Commission approval of Lauren Development Design 97-11 has been ~ch~xtul~d for August 20, 1997. Over the past several w~ix, Peggy Gtorius of my office has l~d several convcrsagons with you in an effort to conrum the hearing date. In your most recent conversation of~Iuty 25, you stated that the transcript would not in: complctc until August 13, and thcrcfor~ the hcaring would not bc scheduled until .after August 20, 1997. Bascd upon your =.. sUttcmcnt, I calcndarccl judicial evaluation hearings' on behalf of the Govcmor's 3 Office the evening of Augusl 20, 1997. CLP11]OT. LB2 Ms. Gale Sanch~ August 7, 1997 Page 2 Und~ th~ drr. umstance.s, CURE r,:q~e..~ a c~ntinuanc¢ of the hearing date. In exchange for a continuance, CURE is willing to ar.c~t the _second City Council m~.ing date in Scptemba' in orda' to accommodale vacalions City emptoy~ may t~ taking in conjum:tion with the Labor Day holiday. Please advisc me of ~¢ procedur~ for getting a ruling on .CURE's request for an extension. Very truly M~{M:mgc ,Frcrm Jo, l. , AU~-~--S? ~, ~? F~O~,I~C 8J20/97 Time: 10:29:4,2 AM August I1, 1997 3 of Office of the Chief' Dcsig~ Bra~ch a;7 ~: .. ...... / z. .l?lgltilr.'[.Rll~ Ol',i .~dll~l Mr. 3oe O'NeiU, City Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive City of Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. O'Neill: Rcfe.,'ence a lclephoae call from Dan James to Bob'Hall of my staff on August 5, 1997, requesting/nforma~on on Deer Cr~.k De. bris Basin. Sp~/ficalty, h~ had questions about th~ s~smic design of the In the conversation with Mr. James, and prior conversations Mr. Hall had with a developer framed John Allday and a private citizen named Melis~ McK¢ith, a question arose regarding the seismic design of the bas/n. The issue concerns wheth~ we considered se. imfic conditions origkmlly when we d ',~_~'gned the basin in the early 19g0's and whether recemt information on fauRs and potential s~smicity in this area would c~,__ _,s~ a problem for the eanbankment Mr. Hall's initial mspons~/n e~_ r~h ca~, was that th~ debris bas/ns ar~ not sub]~ to th~ same ~ritewia as rc~rvo/r~ bexraus~ they don't pe~nancntly stor~ water. The joirrt probability of a basin full o£wat~r and a major ~arthqu~ is v~ry reinore He also point~xi out ~ this typ~ of ~m~at has historically p~rform~ v~y Mr. James asked if the Corps could provide some spcc/fic information on the origln-! ~Asmic considerations for the embankaheat. Jim Farley, Chief of the SoiJs Design Section, provided the following information originally ~ in the Corps' report, "19~ ~ Hillside and Demems I~bris Bas/ns - Embankment and Found~on Seismic Evaluation - Suppleancat to Fea~ I)csign Memorandum No. 6", dated 1u~ I979 and revis~ in October I980: 1. The debris basin was statically evaluated for two seismic event.% a magnitude 8 on the San Andreas Fault and a magnitude 6.4 on the Cucamonga Fa, lt. The analysis indicated the cmimukmcnt would perform adequately under both earthquake conditions, maintaining its integrity and function as a debris basin. 2. The joint probability of a 100 year flood event and either ~thquake is very rare, approximately 3.4 and 2-8 chances in 100,000, mstxx:tively. , From: Jo,~ L. A/Iday To: Andrew K. Ha~ · AUC;--2eI--S? els , Hall Dine: 8/20/97 ~me: 10~9:42 ~t ID,9094772949 ~4~4 3/3 -2- Based on the zeview of this information, the U.S. Army Corps of l=~,o~ineers Creek Basin to be safe fix~m failure during a major earfiutuake on either the San Andreas or Cucamonga Faults. Sinc~-~ly, Robca E. KopLin. P.E. Chief, Engineering Division 101 00 '80 00:00 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 10851 EDISON COURT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: (909) 989-1751 : FAX (909) 989-42~7 ' August 14, 1997 J~_-ren Development Inc I 1030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Tom Maran Subject: Engineering Geologic and Geotechincal Evaluation of Landslides Tract 14771, Vicinity of Haven Avenue and Tacksten Street Rancho Cuamonga, CA Gentlemen: In response to your request, we have made an engineering geologic and geotechnical evaluation of the potential impact of landslides in the San Gabriel Mountains on the proposed residential development of Tract 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The scope o1' our work consisted of field reconnaissance, review of pertinent geologic and seismic literature, review of aerial photographs, engineering geologic and geotectmieal evaluation of the compiled data, and preparation of this report. Tract 14771 is localed near the center of a conical shaped alluvial fan that emanates from the San Gabriel Mount~in~ (Figure 1). The base of the San Gabriel Mounta/ns is located about one mile to the north-northeast and ~A mile to the northwest of the tract. The fan is composed of coarse- grained sediments ranging from silty sands to boulders that are on the order of 1,100 feet thick (Fife and Rodgers, 1974). Gradient of the fan surface in this area is approximately 5 to 7 percent. The primary source of the alluvium is Deer Canyon. Nearby smaller canyons are comparatively small sources of sediments. The San Gabriel Mountainq are composed of a complex mixture of igneous and metamorphic rocks including mylonites and quartz diorite (Morton, 1974, and Bormgno and Spittler, 1986). 'llxe structural boundary between the San Gabriel Mountains and the alluvial deposits to the south is the Cucamonga fault. Based on its relatively young geomorphic expression and on seismic evidence (particularly the 1971 San Fernando earthquake), the Cucamonga fault is considered to be at°dye (Fife et. al., t976). The Cucamonga fault is a reverse fault, approximately 28 km in length, with a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (± 2 .mrn/yr.), and is believed capable of generating an earthquake w/th a maximum moment magnitude of 7.0 (Petersen et. al., 1996). Recurrence interval of large earthquakes along the Cucamonga fault is thought to be on the order of 700- years (Morton and Mart/, 1987). 00:00 339 ~ GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Dev¢lopmenh Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, .CA August 14, 1997 In the vicinity of Tract 14771, youthf-al alluvial sediments conceal the Cucamonga fault and its exact location is unknown. Some earlier regional geologic maps (e.g. Morton, 1974) show the Cucamonga fault crossing the Deer Canyon alluvial fan about 1,000 to 1,500 feet north of Tract 14771. Later maps (e.g. Morton and Matti, 1987, and Bortugno and SpiKier, 1986) show the fault further to the north, at the base of the mountain front/n the Deer Creek area (Figure 1). However, neither location has been confirmed. Several regional geologic maps depict landslides that are thought to exist in the Deer Canyon and nearby areas. A summary of these landslides is presented on Figure 1. All these landslides occur completely w/thin the mountainous terrain of the San Gabriel Mountains. None of the landslides are shown Io extend outward onto the alluvial fan surface, and no debris flow lobes extending onto the alluvial fan surfaces were observed on aerial photographs reviewed or during she field reconnaissance. Based on the information summarized above, we conclude that landslides originating in the San Gabriel Mountains will have no adverse impact on residential structures w/thin or to the south of Tract 14771 for the following reasons: Regional geologic maps do not shown any landslides within or south of Tract 14771, or any landslides extending out firore the mountains onto the Deer Canyon alluvial fan. Further, we observed no evidence of landslides extending from the San Gabriel Mountains out onto the Deer Canyon alluvial fan on aerial photographs or during the field reconnaissance. One method of mitigation of landslide hazards is to locate a development at a sufficient distance from landslides so that the developmere will avoid the hazard (Holtz and Schuster, 1996). The location of the site ~A of a mile or more from the base of the San Gabriel Mountains provides such mitigation from landslides within the San Gabriel Mounta/ns. Debris flows deposit sediments at gradients of about 20 percent or less (Campbell, 1975). Since the grariient of the Deer Canyon fan is about 5 to 7 percent, should any debris flows reach the fan surface, they would be deposited near the mountain front where the stream gradient changes prior to reaching the site. Page 2 PuMA Job N° 96-207-11 101 00 ~00 00:00 C-I Ip GEOTECI-INICAL CONSULTANTS Laure~ Dcvclopmcn~ Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, ~A August 14, 1997 The conical shape of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan directs runoff and possible debris flows at the base of the mountains to the southwest and southeast away from the site, with the exception of muoff from Deer Canyon itself (Figure 1). However, a debris basin and concrete lined drainage channel have been constructed to control drainage from Deer Canyon. Only the area south of the debris basin drains toward the site. It is our professional opinion that stx:cial mitigation measures to protect sU'uctures within or directly to the south of Tract 14771 from landslides originating within the San Gabriel Motretains are not needed owing to the distance Io the mountain front, the location of the property near the center of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan, the gradient of the alluvial fan, and the existing flood centrol improvements. This report has been prepared solely for evaluation of landslide hazards rclaed to development of Tract 14771. It has been prepared using generally accepted engineering aud geologic principles and praclices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. We trt~ this report will serve your needs at this time. If you have any questions or require any further information, please not do hesitate to conta~'t us. Respectfully submitted, RMA Group ~Wallace~~ Engineering Geologist CEG 1255 Ed Lyon, PE Vice-President GE 2362 AttachmcnLs: Appendix A - References Figure 1 - Regional Geologic Map Page 3 k~_ RMA Job N° 96-207-11 101 00 ~00 00:00 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX A REFERENCES j 101 00 °00 00:00 GI Ip GEOTECHN'ICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Developmem~ Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 l. Bortugno, E.3. and Spittier, T.E., 1986, Cmologic Map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 3A 2. Campbell, P,.H., 1975, Soil Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorms in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Pape~ 851. 3. Fife, D.L. and Rodgers, D.A., 1974, C_,-eneralLzed Map Showing Thickness of Fresh-Water Bearing Alluvium i~n Geologic I-t~rds in Southwestern San Bernardino County, C'aiifomia: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113. Fife, D.L. at. al., 1976, Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113. Holm, R. D. and Schuster, KL., 1996, Stabilization of Soil Slopes in Landglides Investigation and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board Special Report 2~7. Mor~on, D. M. and Streitz, R., 1969, Preliminary Reconnaissance Map of Major Landslides, San Gabriel Mountains, Califemia: California Eftvision oflW. mes and Cveology Map Sheet 15. Morton, 1974, Major Landslides and GeneraEzed Relative Slope Stability Map in Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California Divi~on of Nfmes and Geology Special Report 113. Morton, D. M. and Matti, J. C., 1987, The Cucamonga Fault Zone: Geologic Setting and Quaternary History in Recent R~versc Fanking in the Transverse Ranges, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339. 9. Petersen, M.D. et. al., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 96-08. 10. U.S. Geological Survey, 1966, Cucamonga Peak 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, photorevised ] 973. RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page A1 101 00 '00 00:00 GrMtp GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Laugh D~v¢lopm~a~ Luc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamong..a, CA August 13, 1997 1. 2. g ~RI.4,L PHOTOGRAPHS UTILIZED Source Flilr. Jat Date Flight No. 1 4-20-96 C-528 1 7-1-91 C487 I 2-25-86 C-450 1 1-21-78 C-279 1 2-7-70 C297 I 2-27-69 C295 I 1-30-69 C-293 1 1938 W-68 2 8-3-89 1834 San Bcmardiao Couaty Flood Control District U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center Photograpla No. 213,214 204, 205 177, 178, [79 156, 15'~ 74, 75, 76 18, 19, 20 49 E-3-6,7,8 E-2-11 153, 154. RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page A2 GJ'OUp GEOTECHiNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development! inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 ~ ~'~'i: '~ ,' ',,,.,,- ....... .' .."-.'.:'.;.~ ':.'./' '"" 2;.' :,. '~.' ,.' ............ :.',['.~> ,'"" !-~;,e,)::s andeta ' .. ".'., ",. r ..... ", '~ ..... '"'; ~' '/ ........ ~ 'k ...... '~,,, '"', , · .... ,. ', ' I '.,",'"' , ~ ' .' -' k~ , ....... . ....: ., ,~: .... .. :?L.,',~.. :1,.. ' ' ,.,,.',,, , ..... . "'.;1 . ,..,,,' ........ ,J.., ,, " ~2~TM ' ~ ' "' t , ~, ~'1 "- "" .....~ :11 ,' f "' &;O':'t~: ~'~2 .~.'.~,~' 9 '~, ,:.~,~';",','.." .'..5 ....- ,~~.:/..-. ~,.,'...,'.:..'.;..., . ~ ~,.'.. .'....., , .' ::):.-'~.'~~'~~1 h -t",~'* ':, '~-~ ',"' '. ' '"'*. ....'-"~"''tO / ' '"" ,"' y/ . ". ..... ~ · '~o ', ,, :,, ....~,;: .... ,, , , . , , ,, , . ~ · ,, , , . ','" "' '~"'~"'~"'/ '' '~" /".;(~;'. ' "'" ~ "' ' " ~[~.."'~\~'//.7~-.~' '" " ,' "~, '"' .~* :' ', ,' , ;-*,~,, ,,,,-~,,,,...,,~,, ......·', ,,~..~,.'.,~;~'.g- ,,. ,.· ~.=h\~..'~.>/~/.,a ~ .... ,': .*ti"~,t~'~ ',,o, ~, ....., .... ,'~'.:'.~.,." ~'".,':· ' ~,~'.-'".*-~-'.'~'~:?~ ,,;',~U~.5~!.~:,,-,.~ ......., .. ~:..~"~.F... .... · ~ · , 'q.. ~.. ,'~.~ ~ i ,~'. i / ........ :,.., .......":~_ ....,, ,~ .....~.~.~, ~/~,.~. ...,. . . ........... '' ,9 . ..... ~ .'I,~ "' · '""'~F~';,° ,.' .' ~- - ~...~.~?..~/~, , .-. .~.~ "- , ~. ,~ , ,,. ' , ~..~.~. : . · '": ........ : ......":".~'" "%'.. ":.",."";.' ." ....:"':' ~;,'~"-~'."I" ;' "'"""..'":"'7. ;~>." ". · ,,', . ' , , · ......~ 'I,.'-~ ',- .,,'' ,'.~,I;C:." ~ I~ ~~ -.-, ' " · '""," , , , ,,~ .... '~-;.,-,~]11,' - ,..~ . ,. , ' , ,, ,,,~.. , , · ,,",': .......,. '.::"" ' ....-%.'"' "'. ' ' ,..'.:' "~'.~'- ~, ",. ', ~",~-~-/~ C~~..'"t, ..,, ....., .... : .' ' ', .',';'. .... .. .. · ,; ........ ,. *~, ~: I .~.,,Uit~..', '~ ~ ' '"/.. " ': " '" "".:'"'"':: .... :, ' ...... ' '", ...... ', I} ~' ,," :~..?jll,~.~::" ......... ' ' ~ ' '" . .... . ;' ,':,¢~· · ,.'"":;~';;,,., "'- ..... . · ." ;~'.22.','n9~ '" · ' , . ~ -".', · -,; ' ," ',. "~.,'.: '" '..:"t. ' ...... , ' :' ;' '.. ' ......' ~,9.~.~3)~;':,-',": ....,. · ' '." ....' ....' :'. .....' ~ ,._ . . · ',,- , '", ....,,, ,, ......',~?~.~t'/~ '~ , ,,'~, , , , ,.,,,. · ....,,,,. . ',~,,,,: .... ~-,annshde (arrows show direction of mo]'ement) t "' :'"":'" ....'. i ':.!' ;'" ' ' · ,,, , ? ':-,:'[ ....... '""A. 7'" ".~,': ~ . , .Debris Basin '::' ..... .:,-. ...... Direction of 5~ream flow .-- ....... ."'":/'" .... "'I->_.~ 7.'.. ~ :,_ '~.- .........~v__~:~. · " ,' Alluvium (~ai) ' ',,-' :.i:: ~:.~...j.L., .;~ .........' '" . '~ 9,,, ~ ~ ..../: '"'..~J.::""> ~:":: '"'/i: '-.x',.: .... ~ -i '-' ?" -"-L'-~ ......' '~ ~ ' /, ~ '"... ~,:~::, : · '-"x '. ~ ~- .' . ..... ' / ...... ~ ~ ' ' ..' . -'!... % .......... (" ... .. '-,:~,,. ~:...,~'"'"'-~. /,'~ i'% .... 'x_ ~ ........; ) ......../'- ~T-~' Improved Channe[ ( .y t..ucamonga fault, dashed where :pproxim:~ie, dott~:d where c~,c~.ai¢'d, '."(' .' '/'¥..I.. .......... '-;',. 5_ .:!_~:r--.~._/~ "~ .....:.-.'~ .....- .....24: ' I~, { ;'--'I~;-::", .'" 'r~ "~...~.~:~ o~..~ . ~ ........ : . .-' :[ . '. .~'-'-." .~' .:.'~:~, ~ ' · ........... ~GIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Sere: 1"-2,000' S<,urccs: RelErences 4, 6, 7, 8 and Aerial Photographs Job N° 96-207- LEVEE FACT SHEET DR 97-11; Tentative Tract 14771 (8/13/97) STATEMENT: The levee no longer offcm protection from flooding from ~e 2,374 acre Deer greek Warembed, that purpose now being served by the Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin cons .trueted by the Corl~ of Engiaaera in 1983. Runoff from the 125 acres between the debris basin and Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subj~-t pml~rty" referred to below) will be intercepted by the on-sit~ storrn'ctsarmel which will be constructed by Lauren Development _before~ the levee is removed. The County Fldod Control District r~moved their easement in 1986 signifying that the l~-veewas no longer needed to flood control. In ~990 the Federal Eraergeacy Management Agency, the Corps of Engineers and the County Flood Control District all approvexl a revision to federal flood insurance maps which removed the flood plain designation from the subject property, regardless of the removal of the levee. The City and the Cour~ty Flood Control District permitted the grading of a 200' wide op~ni~g in the levee in 1989, a gap which remains today and through wh/ch waters would flow from the 125 acres parcel to the north of Haven View Estates i£a 100 year storm was to occur before the completion of Lauren Dcvelopment's on-site storm channel. The subject vrol~t~rtv and all of Haven View Estates will be more safe a.qcr construction of this vroiect than they are now, not less sa/k as C.U.R.E. contends. 1938 - Earliest Photos of Levee: The earliest photos showing the Deer Cre~:k Interc~tion Levee are from 1938.I Research to date has been unable To resolve when or by whom the levee was originally built, however it is doubtful that the levee was designed or constructed to today's standards for 100 year storm protection. Go 1941 - Flood Control Easement Recorded Over the Subject Property: In 1941, an "Ea.qi:mc-mt. for Flood Control and Water Conservation" in favor of the San Bernardino County Flood C0nrr,ol District was recorded over properties north and east of the levee, including the subject l:~p~rty.' 1969 - Levee Overflows Flooding Area of Elaven View Estates: Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, ~he levee was not sufficient to hold back the 1969 storm, which occurred prior to construction of the Deer Creek Channel and Debris Basin. The levee did not protect the castc~n portion of what is now Haven View Estates and this area was therefore flooded as a result Of the storms of January 1969.3 The 1969 storms were generally considered to be closer to a 50 year event than a 100 year event.n The combination of the De~r Creek Debris Basin, the Deex Creek Channel and the Lauren Development local storm drain are what is necessary to protect thee areas. Footnote References t Photos dated July 4, 1938 tak¢~ by th~ United States Department of Agriculture and obtained from the archive~ of the San B~mardino County Flood Control District. Early mal~ fi'om 1953 obtained from the United Sta~r_a Geologic:Service also show ~h~ levco. 1 Instrument # 1487 pag.~ 139 of records of S.B. CounW recorded August 2, 1941. '~ Ov~nffiow Limits, Storm ofJanu. arV, 1969 Soathw~t portion, prepared by the San Bernardino County Flood Comrol District dated May, 1969 ~ Mr. ~licha~l Fox, Chief, 9/ater Re..source~ Division, San Bernardino Counly Flood Control District, Telcon. August 4, 1997. Do 101 00 ~00 00:00 1983 - Development of Haven View Estates Approved: Tentative Tract 12332 (the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) was approved in May of 1983. ~ Although the Deer Creek Clla~nel and Debris Basin were in the process of being completed, the subject property was not subdivided at this time bemuse the County Flood Control District still owned the flood control easemerit over the subject property. However a conceptual residential layout was prepared for :he subject ~roperty and included on the approved tenantlye tract map. Testimony to the Planning Commission 'm 1983 indicated th.'~t the ultimate disposition of the subject property was unknown bemuse "the Flood Couuul District has not yet made up its mind" abotrt whether it was needed for flood control purposes .e t983 - Deer Creek Facilities Constructed: In June of 1983 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Deer Creek Charmel and Debris Basin.7 1983 - Drainage Report Refers to Levee: The Drainage Report submitted to the city in March of 1983 for Tentative Tract 12332 (the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) indicated that "With the Corps of Engineers' Deer Creek Darn and Channel and Hillside Basin and Channel in place, the site [T.T. 12332] is well protected against offsite flows." "Of the approximately I90 acres below the Deer Creel< Dam, about 160 acres are intercepted by either the Hillside system [or] the Flood Control Distrim's existing Deer Creek Reception Levee." s 1984 to 1986 - Flood Control Easement Abandoned by the County: In 1984, the owner' of the subject property requested that the Flood Control District investigate relinquishmere of the k"tood control easement because of his desire to develop the property.9 Alter determining that the levee was no longer needed for flood control purposes, the Flood Control District recommended to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors that the easement be rel~quished~I° tn January of 1986, the Cottory Board of Suvervisors abandoned their casement over the vroperty.~1 As a part of this abandonment, the Flood Control District reserved no fights to maintain or preserve the :toyed. The owner of the vroperty wa~ required to ray - and did ~ fact ray - San Bernardino c6tmtv for the value of the development fights to this property in exchange for the County's removal 6fthe development restricting easement. Footnote References s Tentative Tract 12332 was originally approved May 11, 1983 (Planning Commissio~ Resolution 83-66); and amendments o~ extensions were approved on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66A); February 12, 1986 (.Planning Commission Renolution 86-23): November 10, 1987 (Planning Commission Resolution 87-196}; Jan. u~'y 27, 1988 (Planning Commission Resolution 88-53); June 7, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January 11,'1989 (Planning Commission Resolution 89-03). Planning Commission Minutes, May I 1, t983. ~ Mr. Bob Hall, Chief of Design Branch, U.S. Army Cor!~ of Engineers, Tolcon. 7/28197. The Deer Creek Channel ('North Hal0 and Deer Creek Debris B~in were officially completed in June, 1983. s Drainate Rel~ort, Tract 12332 included with Initial Study dated March 18, 1983. * Lct'ter from Associated Engineers to S.B.Co. Flood Control Dialriot, January 9, 1984. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors from Flood Control District dated October 22, 1984. Instrument #86-014725 recorded January 20, 1986. 1988 - Development Restrictions on Adjacent Proper~ Also Lifted: Prior to 1988, the Flood Control District owned in fee the land north of the subject property, and an easement over the adjacent property for power line purposes was in place in favor of the Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light. This easement restricted the Bureau's use of the adjacent property due to the potential flooding. In 1988, the Flood Control District sold the adjacent property in fee to the City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, and in doing so, retained no easements or ot~er reservations for flood control purposes over.tEe use of. this pro~rry, which would been have done if this property was at all necessary for flood control purposes. 1988 - Approved Hydrology Study Refers to Removal of Levee: The Hydrology Study prepared in 1988 by Associated Enginee~ for Tract 12332-2 (Phase I1 of Haven View Estate) clearly anticipated the ultimate removal of the levee. The report stated that "before construction of the [Deer Creek] Basin the eazth levee was the only barrier to flows from the north." "For Phase T~ developmere of Tract 12332 the levee will remain in place, thus acting as a natural barrier t~ flows offsite. In the future when the remainder parcel [the subiect vropertv] i~ to be added, and'i~e levee removed, more recent topo will be available and mitigating measures can be analy-~d at that time to convey flows from the north." "The existing levee [is] more than adequate [to protee tract 12332-2 from the small remaining tributary area to the north]." t4 1989 - Major Breach in Levee Approved by' the City, the Homeowners Association and the County Flood Control District: Since 1989, the existbag levee has been incapable ofhotd!ng major storm runoff generated from the area extending from the Deer Creek Channel to the ~ubje~ property because a maior breach in the levee of over 200 feet in width was graded throuah it to provide an e. aslerty emergency access road for Haven View Estates. ~ The requirement f& ikis access road was a condition of approval of Tract ]2332-2 which was imposed by the CiD' Gounci[ aT the urging of the adjacent homeowner's association.~6 The grading of this hole in the l'e,~ee was avproved by the County Flood Control District.~ The fact that the city, tlOA and Flood Control District have all allowed violations of/he i~'ee provides compelling evidence that the need for the levee has lon~, since passed. Continued maintenance o~:th[$ road through the' levee is. a requirement of the adiaccnt homeowners association CC&Rs.~a D~pite this requirement for ~" Mr. Ken Williams, Right-of-Way Division, San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Telcon July 24, ~9c~7. The payment which Mr. Laband made to the county for development rights wa~ approxlm~teiy $18,000. '~ Mr. K~n Williams, San Bernardino County F~ood Control District Right-of-Way Division, Telcon 7/'24/97, ~ Hvdrolo.Ky Study in the City of Rancho Cucamo~:a, Tract 12332 prepared by Associated En§inccts, dated August, 1988 (cowr undat=d, however data inside report reflects this date). (UnderlininR added {o cited ouotes.) ~ 'l-he breach in the levee grad=el for the emergency access road is approximately 210' wide at the top and 80' wide at the boltore. Prior to the bn:ach, the levee in this location ranged from 10' to 27' high. '* See City Council Resolution 88-344 dated Jun= 2, 1988 (approving, on appeal, an extension of time xo rtco{d ~ract ~2332-2) requiring the easterly emergency access road. :~ San Bernardino County Flood Control District Permit No, P-188104 approved on December 6, 1988 an emergency access road through the levee.. ~= Declaration of Conditions, Covenant'~ and Rcstriction~ for Rancho Cucamon~,a V - Haven View lzntates recorded .June }3, 1990 (doc# 90-231127). 3 continued maintenance, the homeowners association ceased maintenance of the access road through the levee in 1996.19 The hole in the. levee remains however, and any_major storm runofftodav would freely flow through this opening causin~ damage to the ~oper[.ies below. 1990 - A Second Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prctmrcd in 1990 by Associated Engineers also clearly anticipaled removal of the levee. This report stated: "The tributary area to the north lofthe subject property] encompass~ - approximately 122 acres." "This ar~ is bounded on the north by the Deer Canyon Debris Basin, on the east by the Deer Creek Channel and on the west by an existing earth levee. [This] exlisting levee runs along the site south border, cutting off access to the second phase ['I'mct 12332-2]. Therefore,/he levee will be removed and flows from/he north will be diverted inside the proiects north boundary and empty to the easL~ ~o 1990 - T-T. 14771, Grading of Property and Removal of Levee Approved: In November of 1990, the city approved Tentative Tract 14771, the subject property. This approval included a Conceptual Grading Plan which clearly indicated the entire property Would be graded. in~lu~ling the removal of the levee.2~ A variance was also granted at this time due to the unusual requirement that the local drainage channel be constructed on site.z~ Prior to these approvals, three Neighborhood Meetings and two Planning Commission Public Hearings were held, and recommendations for approval were received by the city's Design Review, Technical Revie~v and Grading Committees.2~ All required findings, including those dealing with the safety of p, ro~pertics in the vicinity, were made. The Haven View Estates Homeowners Association rec0mmend~d a~proval of the development of the l~'opcrty..TM The Citw Enffincerine Devar~ent reviewed the tenlative plans for the drainage channel, and a number of c6nditions w~re imposed to insurd that the channel would be t~roperly d~signed, that adcauate safeguards would be in ¢lacc when the levee was removed. and that the site's protection from floodingr would first be provcn to the' fcdcral governmere. These conditions included: ~ The channel design shall be justified by a final drainage study approved by the City Engineer. Footnote Refere. nce.$ ~" Lerier from Ranzho Cucamonga Fire Protection District dated June 25, 1997 indicates that in 1996 the permit was repealed after outslanding pernait fees were paid in full by the adjacent homeowners association. :" Drainage Reoort in th~ City of Rancho Cucamonita, Tract 14771 prepared by Associated Engineers, January 1. 1990 f UnderlininR added to cited ClUOt~.) -'~ Tentative Tract 14771 w~ approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution 90-138). A Co,nceptual Grading Plan was approved at that time. Removal of the levee was an integral pats of the plans for this property. ~ Variance 90-08 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Cornrot,sion Resolution 90-139). 2~ Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 11/14/90. .u Letter from Bruce Ann Hahn. President (then and currently) of the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association. recommending approval of Tentative Tract 1477 I, dated November 12, 1990. . '"~ Engineering Division Conditions # 1-4. 4 · The channel shall be designed to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. · The developer stroll prepare report.s, plans, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations relating to flood plain boundaries and shall have the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone AO designation removed from the project area by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). · The drainage channel along the north project boundary shall be operational prior to -removal of the exi~ng levee. 1991 - A Third Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prepared in 1991 by Morse Consulting Group again clearly anticipated removal of the levee. This report stated "The levee will be removed and flows from the north will be diverted inside the projecm north botmdary and empty to the east. These flows will be conveyed eastward along the projeet's northern boundary via a concrete trapezoidal channel to the .existing Deer Creek Ch~mnel. The reouired drainage channel along the projects north boundary shall be orerational prior to removal oflhe existing levee at the projects southern boundary." 26 1991 - Federal Government (FEMA) Changes Flood Insurance Designation for Site: Engineered plans for the drainage channel along the northern boundary of the subject property were ' ' Jan ~ ' ' '' submitted ~o FEMA m uary, 1991. In August of 1991, after reviewing these local chainage channel plans and taking into account the existence of the new Deer Creek Channel, FEMA issued a Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) which officially changed the federal government flood insurance designation for the subject property from a flood prone designation (Zone AO) to a flood protected designation (Zone C). All of Haven View Estates - on both sides of the levee - now shares the same Zone C flood insurance designation signifying that this area is protected from flooding. ~ 1991 - Federal Government (Corps of Engineers) Attests to Safety of Deer Creek Facilities: As a part of FEMA's LOMR process, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that the Deer Creek £acilifies were designed to "provide protection for the Staadard Project Flood (SPF), which is estimated to have a recurrence interval of approximately 200 years. In addition, the channel was designed to withstand the high velocities in the range 0£60 feet per second ifps)." 29 1991 - County Flood Control District Concurs with Change to Flood Insurance Rating: As a part of FEMA's LOMR process, the County Flood Control District indicated that they are "in Footnote References :6 HydrotoRY and Hydraulic Calculations -- Offsitc Tributary Flows with Trapezoidal lnterceomr (~h~nnel for Tract 1477 prepared by Morse Consulting Group, d~ted June 1,1991._(Undertinine ~lded to c/~ed ClUOteS). ~? U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) C.~5e Number 91-07~7P 2~ Letter of May Revision (LOMR) from U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dated August, 19, 1991. Zone AO is defined as "Special Flood Hazard Area (Shallow sheet flow of' t-3' in 100 year storm)". Zone C is defined ~s "Area of Moderate or Minimal Flood Hazard (in a 500 year storm.)" v, Letter from Mr. Robert E. Kol~[in, P.E., Chief. Eneineerin~ Division, Del~artment of the Army, Los Angeles District Cor~s of Engineers, dated March 12, 199 I. Qo So concurrence with the proposed LOMR request that would change FEMA flood b~rd designations on District fights of way south of the Deer Creek Debris Basin." 3o 1992 - Grading of Levee Approved: The owner of the property at this tLme, Brock Hom.~, processext through the city Building & Safety Department a Rough Grading Plan for the subject property, consistent with the previously approved Conceptual Grading Plan (see Item "K" a~ bove), which included the removal of the levee? Just prior to starting the grading, Brock Hom'~ dropped the'project. Ut~on approval of a Rough Gradinu Plan from the Building & Smc-u-W Dcparrme'~t the levee could have been removed in 1992 or anytime since. No(e Re: Desig!a Capacities: To compare the size of the T.T. 14771 local drainage channe) with the long abandoned levee is incorrect. Contrary to teslimony by Ms. McKeith, Deer Creek Basin and Channel replaces the levee, not the local onsite drainage channel to be contracted by L.auren Development. As approved by the City, the County Flood Control District, the Corps of Erlgineers and FEMA, the on-site drainage channel on the subject property is designed to collect wate~ runoff from the 124.8 acres to the north not captured by Ihe Deer Creek Basin and Charmel? De.er Creek Channel is designed to contain approximately 5,400 cubic feet per second (cfs)3~ flowing fr~)m the 3.71 square mile (2,374 acre) De~r Canyon Watershed.34 Contrary to testimony by Dame's & Moore, the subject property's local drainage channel is designed m contain 447 cfs emanati.a~ from a local 125 acre watershed which is just five percent the size of the Deer Canyon Warershed.35,~6 1997 - Geotechnicai Analysis of Levee Confirms Inadequacy: According to a reccn! analysis of the levee, installation of the local clminage chinreel proposed for the subject property will remit in an improvement over the existing flood control protection offered by the levee. "From a geotechnical persr)ective, the proposed storm drain channel ~md associated slob)es m--e more gtable agulnst gross failure than Ihe existing levee." ~ Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, du6 to the breach in the levee, any water generated by ~the ~rr, a north of the property has the potential to Footnote References ~u Letter from Mr. Kcnntmh D. Guld~, P.E., Chlcf, Water Resources Division, San Bernardino County Flood Control Distrie[, dazed June 11, 199 I. 7~ Rough Gradin~ Plan Plan Check No. 91-3535. Planning Departmen[ approval or,he Rough Grading Plan w~ granted on March 24. 1992. ~ Hvdrology and Hydraulic Calculazion$ - Off, itc Tributary Flows wkh TraDez. oidal intercelItor Channel for Tract 14771 prepared by Morse Consulling Group, dated June 1, 1991 :o At inlet oft 14771 local on-site drainage channel. ~ HydmloLrv $~d¥ in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Tract 12332 prepared by A$soclal~d Engineers, dated August, t988 (cover undaterl, however data inside report reflects this date). *~ 2,374 ac / 125 ac == 18.092 ?* cfs, a~mage confirmed by MDS Consulting. 7/31197. '1"' Stubilit¥ Analysis, £xi~tin~ and Proposed Retention Betres, Tract 14'771, Rancho Cucamonu:a CA, by RMA Group, dated July 9, 1997 flow through this hole in the levee and severely damage the properties to the south. impotutor tha~ this local drainage channel be constructed ASAP. It i__.!s 101 00 '~ 2k39 716 L~NDSLIDE & E~THOU&KE F~CT DR 97-11; Tentative Tract 14771 08/13/97 ISTATEMENT: Erroneous and misleading information has bc~n presen.'ted which purports to show the possibility of large earthquakes and landslides occurring in the vicinity o£Tcntative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below). It is alleged that the 1ocation~ size, and direction and disrenee of fall of these landslides, plus the simultaneous occurrence of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake, plus the simultaneous occurrence of a 100-year plus strnm ia the Deer Creek Watershed following a significant forest fire, present a safety danger to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Landslides: The erroneous information presented by opponents to the project shows the purported slides to be of the ~VRONG size, sliding in the t~RONG direction and sliding the WRONG distance for a slide of the size which would be expected in thk area. All factual landslide information available today was known and available many years ago. There is no factual "new information." Earthquakes: Fault location and intensity information provided by the opponents is wrong. At! factual fault information available today was known and available many year~ ago. There is:no factual "new information." LANDSLIDES go The Location of the Landslides Shown on the Map Presented in Testimonies is Not New Information: The localion of the slides shown by CUR.E's consultant were known to exist as far back as 1969, were most recently mapped in 1987 and are shown on official maps lavpaF.' ed by the County of San Bernardino.l' 2 Further, based on geotcchrdcal observation, the regional geologic maps do not show any landslides extending out from the mountaim onto D~r Creek alluvial fan.3 The Direction of Fall of the Slides Shown on the Landslide Map Presented in Testimony is Totally Wrong. Mo~ sigoj!cantly, the direction of fall of the landslides shown by CLrRE's consultant defy not only gravity, but the scientific information documented by the County of San Bernardino ~ their official maps of slides in this area. Based the cortical shape of the Deer Creek alluvial fan, possible debris flows, arguing that such flows would even occur, would be directed to the southeast and southwest away from the site.4 C. Hazard: According to the R.MA Group, C~oteclmical Consultants, the s'abject prop~ is too distant from any known landslides in the San Gabriel Mountains to present any dangg.' Footnote Re. ference. s i Morton and Stmtiz, 1969, Preliminary R~connaissance Map of Major Landslide.s, San Grabhal Mountains. 2 Morton and Mufti, 1987, USGS Professional Paper 1339 a Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 '~ Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 .. "* Holtz and Schuster, 1996, Stabilization of Soil Slopes in Landslides - Investigation and Mitigation. The Location of All Known Landslides are Too Far from the Subject Property to Present any 101 00 EARTHOUAKES The Location of the Cucamonga Fault is not accurately known; The Approximate Location and the Fact That it Crosses Near the Deer Creek Debris Basin has been KJaOWn for Many Ye~ns. The fact that the Cucamonga Fault axleads for approximately 30 nailes in an east-west direction at the base of the lo .cal foothills and cxosses uader. Deer Creek Chanael, Day On~ Channel and numerous other local watercourses has been kaowa for many years.6 Contrary to misinformation ~resenlr, d by Ms. McKeith that the Drecize location of the fault is "right under the Deer Creek Debris B~.q,,'n," the location has never been !~ciselv martaed.2 Rather, the Cucamonga fault in the area north of the subject propen3,, is referred to on official maps as "concealed, poorl located or ada' "~ · · · ' Y gr aonai. The dotted line m no wmy ~s meant to imply the precision or certainty stated by Ms. McKeith. Maguitude of Cucamonga FanIt Not 7.5. Ms. McKcith states that new haformation places the probability of an earthquake on the Cucamonga fault a~ a 7.5 magnitude.° This is an tm~-uc statemere bv Ms. McKeith. Ms. McKeith slat, es that the source of this new information is from Dr. James F. Dolan of the Departmen! of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California? This is an untrue statement by Ms. McKeith, according to Dr. Dolan?~ Flirther, Ms. McKeith. mcludes as evidence of this ~rroncous statement sportion of a document prepared by Dr. Dolan ro the Cotrely of San Bernardino which references a 7.5 magnitude earthquake.n This is an in~rrect internrelation of this document by Ms. McK¢ilh, and an iaar~rovriatc use era portion of'his letter, according to Dr. Dolan. The lruth is that the document of which Ms. McKcith presented :a small portion in testimony to the Planning Commission was a proposal presented lo the County. of San Bernardino to study Ihe location and intensity of the Ctmamonga fault and, accordhag to Dr. Dolan, "the idea of occurrence ofa ma,_tmitude 7.5 earthquake was a hv'pothc$is, not a conclusion." ~ According to ,Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative for Supervisor Jon Michaels, this proposal was "City. of Rancho Cucamonga Safety Element Map. ? Report prepared by RMA Group dated August 13, 1997 "Symbol index to Southern C, alifomia £arthauake May prepared by California Division' of Mines & Geology is ~Solid [lme~] where accuramly located; long dashed where well located; short dashed where approximate or indefinite: dotted where concealed, poorly located or gradational." Letter from Ms. McKeith to James Markman, July 9, 1997, page 6. m £xtter from Ms. McKeith to James Markman, July 9, 1997, page 6, foo~ot¢ #5. tt Letter (E-Ma~I) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Science-s, Univexsfty of Southern Califomla, m Bill Ford, Juty 21, 1997. ~: Proposal to Conduct Pateo-Kartahquake Research on the CucamonRa Fault, North Eliwanda Site, Rancho Cucamonga, by James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University &Southern California. (Portion of front page of this wa~ presented to the Planning Commission by Ms. McKeith, Jub- 9, 1997.) ~n Lcrt~r (E-Mail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to Bill Ford, Juty 21, 1997. Do 101 00 '00 00:00 ibr excavations on the Etiwanda Preserve 2 miles east of the subject property, and the proposed study was never authorized by the County? The Latest Info~'~aation on the Cucamonga Fault was Prepared in 1987: According to Dr, Dolan and the Southern California Earthquake Center at Cal Tech, the latest information on the Cucamonga Fault is presented in a paper published in 1987. ~ The Cucamonga Fault is considered a normal faul~ zone win a probable magnitude of between 6.0 and 7.0 occuning at intervals of between 600 and 700 years. l~ This information was available at the time the Negative De~:iaration was approved, the tract map for the subject property w-~ approved and the Deer Creek-Basin and Charmel were designed. Fault Information Not New Information: According to John Marquis of the Southern California Earthquake Cemer at Cal Tech in Pasadena, the existence of the Cucamonga fault, the apL?roximate location, its expected magnitude and all other pen'inent data has been known since 1971.fv £ootnote Referenc~ a Telcon~ Ms. Vivian Null, Field Representative, 2nd Supervisorial DisIrlct, August 4. 1997. ~ Letter (]5-Mail) from Dr. James F. Dolan, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, to'Bill Ford, July 21, 1997. Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. John Marquis, Southern California Earthquake Center, California Institute of Technology, August 1, 1997. l0 Cucamonga Faait Zone data published by the Southern California Earthquake Center at Ca[ Tech. ~ Letter (E-Mail) from Dr. John Marquis, Southern California Earthquake Center, California institute of Technology, August l, 1997. 3 101 00 '00 00:00 339 PI9 TRAFFIC IMPPACT & ACCESS FACT SH]EET DR 97-1 I; Tentative Tru~ 1477! ~13~7 STATEMENT: Traffic impacts were analyzed when Tcma~ive Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below) was approved. Based on previou~ traffic studies, the size and layout of!he struts in Haven View F. mams have more than three times the minimum capacity necessary to handle the volume &traffic projec~l to be generat~ by the proposed development. The public record shows that the homeowners association agreed that the streets were adequate. Constmcedon, sales and timire resident access is guaranteed by court supervised settlement agreements recorded against each lot in Haven View Estates in 1990. Go Traffic Studies Prepared and Considered in 1990: Traffic Studies were submitted to the city on September 4, 1990, when the s-abject property was being considered for subdivision approval. These studies ~-utyzed the impacts of traffic from the 203 lots in tract 12332-I and 12337_-2, the 40 lots on the subjet! property, plus an additional 53 lots on the prope~y owned by the Flood Control District to the east of Haven View Estates. The ultimate traffic volume, based on these studies, wa~ 3,110 daily trips on Rings!era Drive and 590 daily trips on Tacks~em Street (the two main'private collector streets). Based on these conclusions, a condition w-as added to the tentative map Ihat no driveways be allowed onto these two streets. T~affic Engineering concluded that the maximum volume which could be accommodated on each of these roads is l 0,000 daily trips, which is more than titme times the volumes projected to occur when all 243 lots within Haven View Esmles are improved with a residence and occupied.l Neighbors Concerned in 1990, Design Changes Made, Then Neighbors Recommend Approval: The issue of traffle was raised by the opponents to this project in 1990 at the time of the processing of!he Tentative Tract Map. Actorcling to the Plan.uing Department staff report, the applicant mad~ certain concessions regarding the design of some of!he lots to mitigate these u-affic related concerns of!he opponents.2 The adjacent homeowners approved the changes and ~he President of the homeowners association recommended approval of!he project to the Planning Commission) Up to 45 Homes Agreed to by HOA: The Haven View Estates Homeowner's Association entered into a recorded agreement with the owner of!he property explicitly agreeing to the construction of up to 45 homes on the ~operty and acknowledging that these homes will not overburden'~e streets in Haven View Estates. Homeowners Association Paid $10,000 for Access Rights: As part of!he consideration for entering imo the recorded agreement to allow access for construe/on of all of Phase 2 of Tract .Staff Rel)ort t0 Planning Commission, September 26, 1990. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 26, { 990. I.ett~ tO City from Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, dated November 12, 1990. This leaer is in city ille,g. First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easeram3. ts, r~corded on M~rch 23, 1990 (Instrumenz No. 90- I ] 1246). 101 00 ~00 00:00 ~ ~0 12332 (which includes the subject property), the Haven View Estates Homeowner's Association was paid $10,000 by the owner of the propcrty.$ CC&Rs Refer to 42 Lots on Subje~ Property: The Rancho Cucamonga V CC.~R's ~.'ther s~e that '~dle development of the Properties is a two phase planned development" and Phase II (the subject property) ... will consist of no more than 42 lots.. 7'. Both of these documents clearly inform future property owners that this property would be developed and would not overbtlrden the COllllIlllII~ .6 Route 30 Freeway Impacts: Contrary to statements made in public testimony, the new l~reeway will not add tra~c to a gate guarded community at the norfix end of H~ven Avenue where only the owners o£the 1ozs inside the gates will have access. Access Guaranteed: A~s is fully guaxanteed in recorded settlement agreements. Construction access is allowed, just as access is currently allowed £or the construction of homes on other tots in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development and its cont'ra:tors are obligated to take care to be safe and good neighbors during the construction period. The recorded settlement agreements specify in great detail the emen~ of access allowed, even addressing the frequency which the developer of the subject property lots will be required to sweep or wash the streets over which ar, x, ess is taken. Lauren Development Inc. will fully comply with all aspects of these documents.? Lauren Development Inc. has received legal interpretations unequivocally supporting our rights of access.s Access Insured: Access rights to this property have previously been insured by three setJarate title insurance companies since 1990. Lauren Development has also received notification that its title in, surance company is prepan:d to issue a policy of title insurance M the amount of $5,000,000 insuring that a~ess to the property is guaranteed based on all previously recorded documents, agreements, government approvals and maps associated with the subject property. · ~ Developer Street Eascm~,'~t and Maintenance ARtcement, recorded on February t6, 1989 (lnsl~umet~t No. 8%056050). "Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, aqd'Restrictions of Rancho Cucamonea V-Haven View F_,~tates. recorded on June 18: 1990, Instrument No. 90-231127. 7 Develolaer Street Easement and Maintenanr~e Azrecmcnt, retarded on February 16, 1989 (instrument No. 89-056050); the Association Street Eazsement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Instruman! No $9-05605 ] ): and the Firat Amended and Resxated Grant of Mutual F.a.sements, recorded on March 23, 1990 (Instrument No. 90-! 11246). s Reference letter from Jackson, DaMarco & Peckenl~au~h dated June 25, 1997 (subm~ed to Planning Commission prior to July 9, 199'7 meeting.). '00 00:00 ~ P21 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ]FACT SHEET DR 97-I 1~ Te~ive Tract 14771 STATEMENT: The development of 40 homes in Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below), including the complete grading of the site. was re~o~zed as early as 1983, and approved by both property owners and the City in 1990 after receiving substantial public input. Five s~parately recorded documents, including thr~ easement agreements recorded in 1989 and 1990, and two sets of CC&R's recorded in 1984 and 1990 for all lots in Haven View'F, smtes clearly refer to the residential development of the subject property. All current property owners have for many years been given information concerning the pending development of the subject property. Over 50% ofihe existing homes in Haven View Estates also existed in t 990. 50% of the 1990 homeowners, 60% of the lot owners and 60% of those who participated in the 1990 approval meetings still live or own property in Haven View Estates. Lauren Development contacted both Homeowner Associations early this year and personally met with individuals owning well over half the lofs in Haven View Estates. No 9n.e. should be surprised at the pending grading of this property nor the construction of 40 homes on the lots. 1983: Haven View Estates Development Approved; Ultimate Development of the Subject Property Recognized At This Time: The first 204 Io~s in Haven View Estates Cl'enmtive Tract 12332) were approved in 1983 and a conceptual residential layout of the subject propm-ty was shown on this map. ~ Also, testimony at the Planning Commission Public Hearing referred to the ultimate development of the subject property.2 After 1983, T.T. 12332 was reconsidered by the city ~t least six times and the potential development of the subject property was part of the record on each occasion.a 1984: l-t[aven View Estates CC&R's Notify Owners About Development of the Subject Property: The CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (Tract 12332-1) clcazty indicate that the subject property may be developed." By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in this portion of Haven View Estates. 1989-1990: Lawsui~ Settlemeal Agreements Signed and Recorded Which Refer to Development of the Subject Property: in the late 1980's lawsuits were filed and litigation ensued between the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association and the owners of the subject property. Court supervised settlement of these lawsuits resulted in at least two (2) documents, all Tentative Tract 12332 was approved May 1 I, I983 (Planning Commission Resolution 83-66). Planning Commission Minutes, May 11, 1983. :' Tentat{re Tract 12332 was amended or extended on September 14, 1983 (Planning Commission Resohrtion 83-66A); February 12, 1986 (Planning Commission Resolution 86-23); November 10, 1987 (Planning Commission Resolution 87- 196); January 27. 19RE (Planning Commission Resolution 88-53); June 2, 1988 (City Council Resolution 88-344); and January 11. 1989 (Planning Commission Resolution $9-03). ~ Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Haven View Estates, recorded on August 16, 1984, Instrument No, 84-195405. (Reference Exhibil C ther~of). of which have been re~rded in the County of San Bernardino against all lots? All of these recorded documents allude to the ultima~e development of the subject property, and one of the notices recorded against the lots states that the ~ubject property could be developed with as'many as 45 lots.~ June, 1990: Rancho Cucamoaga V CC&R's Notify Owners of Development of the Subject Property: Similar to the CC&R's for the initial 53 lots in Haven View Estates (scc item B above), .the CC&R's for the s~cond~phase (150 lots; Tract 12332-2) cicafly indicate that the subject property will bc developed.. These CC,&R's state that the subject property is "currently being reinappeal" and "intended to consist of 42 residences." By law, a copy of these CC&R's must be given to and reviewed by each buyer of a lot or home in Haven Vicw Estate. July, 1990: Public Report for Haven View Estates Notifies Lot Buyers of Development of the Subject Property: The Subdivision Public Report approved by the Califorr~a Department of Real Estate for the second portion of Haven View Estates (the 150 lot Tract 12332-2) rcf'crs to the future development of the subject property, clcarly referencing the plans for 42 additional lots on this property.s By law, the Public Report must be given to, reviewed by and a receipt signed by each buyer of a lot in Haven View gsmates. November 12, 1990: Haven View Estates HOA Endorses Development of the Sttbject Property: Property owners who are currenfiy on the boards of both HOAs in Haven View Estates attended and testified at thc Ncighborhood Mactings and Public Hearings held regarding the development of the subject property, including the grading ofthc sitc and removal of the levee? The current and then President of the Haven View Eslatcs HOA. on behalf of the property owners, recommended in writin~ the approval oft he development. l0 November 14, 1990: The Subject Property Approved For Dc,-vclopment4 Including Complete Grading: After three N¢i~zhborhood Meetings and ~vo Planning Commission Public Heatings the subdivision and grading of 40 lot~ on the subject property was approved. This action was also ~vcrti$cd in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a Public Hearing, the site was posted and ~oticcs wcrc sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the siIe.~ The grading of the entire site, : Develooer Stro~ Easemere and Maimenan~ Atr~ement, recorded on February 16, 1989 (Insa-umcnt No. 89-056050); and the A~$oclation Strce! Easement and Maintenance Agreement, rgcorded on February 16, 1989 (instrument No 89- 056051 ). ~ Firs[ Amended and Restated Gmn! of Mutual Easements, recorded on Ma~h 23, 1990 ('lns~rumcn! No. 90-I ] 1246). ? Declarations of Covenants. Conditions, and Restriction~ of Rancho Cucamon£a V~Hav~n View Estates, recorded on June 18, t990, Instrument No. 90-231127. (Refcrgncg Page 2 thereof). · DRE File Numbe~r 066828LA-FO0 issued July I I, 1990 and expired July I0. 1995. (Reference Page 5 thereof). ~ From Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1990 and November 14, 1990 and Neighborhood Mectin£ Sign-Up Sheets August 9, ~990; September 4, 1990 and October 16, 1990. ~0 I.cHcr to City from Ms. Bmcc Ann Hahn, dated November 12. Ic)90. ThLs loller is in city fitcs. t~ Staff Repor~ to the Planning Commission. daryl November 14, 1990. including ~he removal of the abandoned levee, was a clearly recognized part of the hearing process. I~ Ho 1990 to 1997: Qver Half the Homes in Haven View Estates in 1997 W~re There in 1990, and Half of Those Hom~s Are Still Owned by the Same Pepale: Contrary to testimony that there were "only 10 homes" in Haven View Estates when the subject property was approved, there were in fact 31 homes in Haven View Estates at that time, plus an additional 9 JCC homes under .construction, which is more.than .half the total number of homes (55) in Haven View Estates today.c~ Of the 31 non-tract homes existing in 1990, 15 of these are still owned by the same people who owned the homes a! that time.~4 1990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent of the Lots in the Haven View F~t. stes HOA Are in 1997 Owned by the Same People Who Owned Them in 1990: Of the 53 lots within the Haven View Estates HOA, 33 of them are today owned by the same people who owned lots when the subject property was approvexl?,~6 1990 to 1997: Over Sixty Percent of Those Who Attended the 1990 City Meetim,s Still Own Homes or Lots in Haven View Estates in 1997: At least 19 Haven View Estates property owners attended or testified at the 1990 Neighborhood Meetings and Public Hearings when the development of this site was approved, 12 of whom still own property in Haven View Estates.17 1996: Lauren Development [nc. Makes Initial Contact With Neighbors: Over a ye.~ar ago, Lauren Development discussed development of these 40 lots with a boaxd member of the Haven View Estates HOA~s and in July, 1996 spoke with a board member of the Rancho Cucamonga V ]-1OA. re Since that time conversations continued. and a board member of the Haven View Estates HOA visited Lauren Dt:velopmem's offices in October, 1996 to discuss trails and other concerns. 20 ~z Tentative Tract 14771 was approved on November 14, 1990 (Planning Commissioo Resolution 90-138). A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved at that time. Removal of the levee was an intcgr~[ I:Mtrl of the plans for thls property. ~ From Buildin£ Permit records, City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of'Building & Safc-~3,. Dates of Building Permit activity in Haven View Estates prior to approval of Tentative Tract 14771 was as follows: 1985 = 4 permits; 1986 - ! 2 permits; 1987 - 8 permits; 1988 - 2 permits; 1989 - 3 permits: 1990 -~ 2 pennies (plus 9 JCC tract home permits). Tolals 31 custom homes plus 9 tract home.& i-, 1990 and 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office. ~ 1990 and 1996/97 ownership information from public records at the offices of the San Bernardino Counw Assessor~ Office. ~ tn 1990, the 151 lots in Phase II (Tract 12332-2) wen: owned by Brock Homes, the applicant of the owner ofTtact t477 I. 1990 attendance information from Ptannln~ Commission Minutes Sepcembcr 26. 1990 and November 14, 1990 and Nei,.t, hborhood MectlnI:. Sitka-Up Sheets August 9, 1990; Septemir 4, I qqo and O~obcr 16, l~0. 1996~7 ownc~hip info, etlon from public ~or~ at the o~ces of the Sun ~mardlno County As~ O~ce. u Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn Mr. Bill Angel 2o Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn 3 January, 1997: Both HOA.s Contact Current Owner: In January, the rnm~ge. ment company responsible for the two HOAs in Haven View Estates wrote the cun-ent owner of the 40 lots requesting his attendance at a joim meeting with the boar& of directors of both HOAs to diguss Lauren Development's plan~ for the property. The owner felt it was not his position to digcu~ the plans of Lauren Developmere with the two boards, and suggested the management company contact Lauren Development di.mctly.:~ M. March, 1997: Lauren Development ContacCs Both HOAs, Scheduling Meeting for April. HOAs Cancel Meeting: On March 26. Lauren Development wrote the management company requesting a meeting with the two HOAs' board members to hear what concerns, if any, they may have. A copy of that letter was provided the city. That joint meeting was scheduled for A~ril 4. Two days before that meeting, the managersent company can~ted the meeting be. cause of as inability of the two associations to get a quorum. April 3, 1997: Lauren Development Rescheduics Meeting With Both HOAa: On April 3, Lauren Development wrote a letter to the management company expressing regret that the two HOAs were not able to get together when scheduled, and asked fro' an alternative date "as soon as possible." A copy of that letter was provided the city. After numerous phone cars, a joint meeting of both HOAs was then scheduled foz May 16. May, 14, 1997: Last Minute HOA Meeting: On May 14 the management company requested that Lauren Developmere attend a meeting that eveninn with the Haven View Estates HOA to discu~ their plans. The management company apologized for the late notice. Due to tt~e last minute notice, Lauren Development was unable to attend this meeting. May 16, 1997: Joint Meeting of Both HOAs: Two representatives of Lauren Development artended the joint board meeting scheduled for May 16. Three representatives of one HOA and two of the other attended the meeting. A copy of the minutes was provided to the city. Q. May 20, 1997: Design Review Committee Meeting: On May 20, board members from both HOAs attended the Design Review Committee meeting and offered testimony. May 27, 1997: Neighborhood Meeting: On May 27, a Neighborhood Meeting wa~ held. Board members and other property owners from both HOAs participated in this meeting. 1997: Over lalalfofAII Properties in Haven View F. states Have Been Represented at These Meetings: In all the above 1997 meeting:s, owners of~6% of the 203 existing lots in Haverl View Estat~ h~v¢ attended. May 29, 1997: Request to Meet Again With HOA Ignored: On May 29, Lauren Development contacted the President of the Haven View Estates HOA (Ms. Hahn) and offered to meet with her and representatives of the other HOA to discuss additional changes to the proposed hom~ and to tour other high-end semi-custom home developments. Ms. Hahn said she was meeting with a~ Letter dated January 15, 1997 from Euclid Management C~mpany 101 00 She U. June, 1997: Letter to All Property Owners: Since the initial Planuing Commission Design Review meeting on June 11, Lauren Development sent a letter to every property owner in Haven View Estates inviting them to visit their local office and to discuss their plans in detail. A copy of this letter was provided city staff. As of the date of this writing. ontv three people msuouded to the -invitation. Date: 8~18/97 T~rne: 12;4&:22 PM Time: 12:20:46 PM 8-18-97 12:13PM; 9094772847 => Lauren Development; Page 2 of 3 10f2 #1/2 U~i ted Stste-~ ~epo~taen t of A~icultu[~ Fo~es t Service Sam Bez-nax'di no National Forest. 1209 bytle Creek Lytle C~eek, CA 92~58 FAX: (909) 887-8197 909 887-2576 TDD File Code: 1560/6270 Det~: Au~uSL 15, ]997 Leeone Klippsteln, Conservation Director Spirit of the Sage Cotmcil POB 77027-~02 cA 91107 Post-It' Fax Note ~K~W # 7671 C~. FAx I This ]ettcr responds to your 8-5-97 Freedom of Info~atloz, AcL (FOIA) r~quest, which you f~xed to me on ~-6. You asked for two items: 1) "a copy of any documents, information ~nd m~ps that the Forest ~rvice h~ in ft~ ['iles on this parcel. includ/nE a copy of the deed ~d title" (you we~c ~ferin~ to a small parcel Gary ~ey h~ dtsc~s~ with you in a recent phone conversation); ~d 2) "~y ~teeolo~tc~ ~pomts fop ~r C~yon ~a that the RE #1 Ga~'X w~s paoLially mistaken in his phone conversation with you t-ecentl~ ~eca~din¢ the National Fomest parcel in NE/NE/SE/SE Sac ~, T1N R7w He w~ correct in that the ~arcel is ].oca:ed about 1/~ mile not,J% of the Cl~y of Mancho Cucamon~a's lq' 1~771 (~u~n ~velo~ent). ~o~ver, he ~ncor~ectly descried that pm~.cel's history (he confused it with o~ ~n ~o~er a~e~); it does no~ have a deed o~ title w~ ~est~ic~ons. Instead it eventuall~ ~c~e p~t of thi~ National Fo~t ~au~e of l~ o~l~nal 12-23-1907 ~mov~ f~ p~oclametion placed it into ~e Rcsc~vcd ~blic ~main (~ optsod to ~neral public dom~n l~ds which ~e ~ve~ent ~ted to d~s~se of), ~d it late~ ~c~c part of the national fo~s: syst~. I am attaching copies of two pe~es f~om ou~ Land Status Atlas that show legal status o~ che land in question (these a~e the only reco~s th~s Forest has re~ardinE this land): a) a map showing its location (highlighted in yellow), and b) the_accompanyin~ description of that lamd (see Ld. ne No. 20, for the 10 ac~e paFcel (aLso h%~h].i~hted in ~ellow). The small isolated mqt,e~c is 2.5 acres; the rect~z~Llar parcel immedia~el~ to its ea-~t is 7-~ acres; to~ether they total 10 ace, s. If you h~v~ difficulty inte~pr~tin~ thi~ informaLion, please feel fi~e to call me. Fr~n: Jo~'~ L. A~td~ To: ~'~ K. ~ ~ · Fr~:~l~.T0:48~8~ S:~.NT BY: R CUCAMONGA COY DE'V; Date: 8,/18/97 Time: 12:4.8:22 Date: 8/18~7 '~m: 12:20:46 PM 8-18-97 12:13PM; 9094772847 -> Laur'en Development; Page 5 of 3 Pap 2 of 2 #~/2 HE #2 ~e FuresL has no Archaeological Repo-.rs For :he Deer Canyon are.. Since Regional Fo~ootem fo~ his reply. ~e S~ ~nardino Co~:y Museum would Sincerely, ELLIOTT [., GRAHAM District Ren'~g~ r Land S~=u~ Atlas. TIN R7W pe~cs LOEB d EB Dl(c: To: Re.' M.F.M 0 R A N D.U ~ URGENT - DELIVER OR FORWARD IMMEDIATELY File No. 00000000~ H. Craig Man.~,n. Esq. Ge-a~ral Co~.,,~I, ~t of Fish & G=mc CC: Patrlc/e Wolf, Ac~ing Regional Manager Catifomi~ ~m~t of Fi~ & G~c. Rcgio~ 5 Ms. Mm"y Meyer California I)cp~tmcn! o~' Fish & G~anc Mr. Glcn gilt-1.; Cucamong~ Unimd for Rr.a.sonablc Expansion (CUtLE) Challcngc m chc Lau::ca Do, clopmcm Project Dcar Mr. Mansan: Respo. ps~btc ~gcncy tnvoJvcot=n_._! As you know. the ~parlm~'lt of Fish & G~rac inform=d the City of Rancho Cucamonga ["City") on June 23, 1~)7, of the D~mmcnI's opinion that the I~D Negative Ekclaration should bc recirculated prior to final ztpprovnl of the Lauren Dcvclopmcnt Projccl ["Projccf') in light o[ clanged circumstances and new informalion. Spccificalty, lhc Dc!rmr~cm conctud-'d' "['l']hc DcpartmcnI bclicvcs additional cavirommcnt~l tcvicw is now required to f'ally. H. Cm~g Manson~ Esq. A~us~ 18, 1997 P~e 2 disckyso ~c projca's current potential significant impacts Io sensitive ~iitlife r~~. ~t pu~uant m ~ Cattiffin ~vi~m~ ~li~y AcL ~]ati~ of lhe Nc~fivc ~i~i~ is w~~ ~:ause: (1) sub~minl change h~ ~~ wi~ r~c~ to ~e circainstants ~ which ~c P~i~ un~ak~ ~ ~c ~ p~posed for is now within ~ ~ve Na~u~l Co~oniw Consolation P~n~g ~CCP) ~n-- of which ~hc City is ~ ~ci~I ~fl (2) nc~ info~afi~ of substantial im~ce to the projecI h~ ~mc av~labte anti ~e ~oj~ will now ha~ one or mo~ ~i~nifi~ eff~ no~ pr~iousty disuse, si~ifi~t im~ ~o ~c ~ucdon in ~hc numb~ Of uuiqu~ pl~ ~d ~imals ~s~iat~ RAFSS, a s~ si~ific~t natural ~abi~at ~ked as 'v~ ~aten~', (CEQA ~idctin~, icelion ~5162.)" (June 23, 1997 lclttw from Patricia Wolf). in ~.his tct~cr, the Dcpw~menI ~quir~ what ~ditionat dis~~ approvals w~ r~u~ ~ ~x it ~ld ~ Ih~e CEQA ~su~ ~d ~~ ci~u~Ianc~. ~ Juiy of the final Pt~ing Co~i~ioa H~ring ~ the ~veiopm~t ~i~ App~ of the ~ojc~ the Ci~ An~ey, .lames M~~ ~rd that ~e ~cl~m~X ~i~ ~pmval being ~ dictionS. The Planning Commission approvexi the Projc~ on luly 9, 1~7. ~d C~E applied to ~e CiW Co~cil. ~e Ciw W~~, Augusl 20, I~7 aI 7:~ pm ~ Ran~o Cu~~ ~nent~ have pal consid~blc p~ssu~ an ~ Patricia Wolfs June 23, I~7 co~dcnce, and ~c Dc~m~t to do so. in light of the D~artmcnt's position thai furth~ CEQA documentation is required, ms well as ils August 5, 1997 .~dcnca: '~0 'd T.S:lZ~. Z6, 8Z Bnu ~08£-~c9-9i6:~-3 fiI~ S~IUJ_Yd 9U939 I-I. Craig Manson, Esq. August 1 $, ! 997 Page 3 requiring streambed akcralion agraemcnls,~ CURE mqum~ ~t ~c · c ~m~t h~s 1imiIed ~~ however, lhe ~ Pmj~t raises i~ues ofs~t~wi~ ~n~m. Wi~h ~c:impmved ~omy, ~d mo~ do~l t~tive ~s am being r~l~ I~ d~et~m~t ~thouI ~y ~ditional cnvi~mt~ review. ~e ~t~ pr~ ~ ~su~ ~ ~n dcai~at~d Catego~ ~t-1 ~d G-I Olluvi~l t~ ~age ~). ti h~ ~ ~udicd c~mqivcly by ~ Mcy:r o1' your D~mcnt ~ p~ of the ~imn~ Pr~c. A p~mI supporting lhe ne~ f~ ~ditional env/ronm~Ial review on old ten~/ve m~s, ha~d u~n ~g~ ci~st~ces ~d n~ infi}~atiun. would ~ of ~ml impofl~ on a num~ of pmj~ ~d ~c S~c. 2. Rc 'ch,,rgt: I will be meeting with Kurt Bcraold, Assislam Executive Officer, Regional W,qer Quality Control Board at 1£}:00 a.m. on Monday, August 18, 1997. Kurt's tel:phone number is 909-7It2-3298. CURE's hydrologists es/inmle Ihat groundwalcr recharge could hc rcduc.,;3 by over 2,000 acre feet per yc~r if the Lauren Development is approv~:d and lhmc arc cstimatr...s that, if' rill possibtc rechm'g~ we:n: utilizefl, it could be over 10,000 acre feet. Recharged groundwater typically is the least expensive, and highcat quality water available. Although I belim, c th= Regional Bourd has indcpend~t jur/.,ml. iclion under Ihc Porter Cologne Act to e,ratuatc these issues, rec,~vin8 some direa/on from Fish & Game Agency would bc hr_tpful. 3. C~pimmt:nl Assistante ist lgc Aui, us~ 20, 1997 IfaI all possible:, we need Mary Me:ycr's assistance prior to or ~: the Augusl 2r0, 1997 hearing. One of LOt: mosl-important changcat ' 'l~e Developer cannot comply with the s~trcarnbed akcration al:xeenmnl besed upon ~n old ncgativc decimation Section lB(a) of tiac Streambed Notification Guidelines specific~lty requirm "applicablr scmtions of the irinnl c,c~fted CEQA docurrtcnI, including lhosc sections which address biologir.~l mu:t §colokical impacts." Tim t990 Ncgalivc D~tarat/on mcmty ctleckcd the "rm" box u_q Io any slgnilrtcant impacts in th~sc (r. nd eli mhcr) arc~. .. ag:,71 ZS, 8! 5nu Er-'~:- ~-.'~ :.t:. ::::, ,z_:, ..... I'I. Crai~ Mam~n, E'~i. /~ugl~ 15, 1997 ?lJc 4 circumszanccs coneming alluvial fan sagc scrub is lhat recent studies h~ve · ~di~'-~t ~is -~os~m "~ot -~ - ~l~ed -~ -it -~ ~~. A~iti~lty, M~ h~ ~e e~~ n~ of AFSS ~s r~a~g d~cd $i~mili~liy sin~ l~. by providing ~lt~ or oral ~~i~Iio~ on ~ese k~ ~in~? ~ City ad~c~ ihe He~n~ Dale ~m Scp~mb~ imping CI~'s ~bility to ~ MI ~li~l intb~ati~ into ~c ~minls~Iivc ~cord ~tbrc iI clos~. Please contact me a! your c. arl;cst convenience to discuss ~e above. My home number is 909-989-8'/a2 and my cellular numbc~ is 213-999-4332. 85:17I Z6, 8i finhl §08£-~c-9-9iS'x-e-3 hI~ S~iU_~:U qb93q 0CT-15-9F 11:49 818-991-3904 P.03 Date: 10115197 Time: 11:48:10 AM R-554 Job-645 Page 3 of 12 To: Bill Ford, LaurenDev From: INTERNET:dolan@earth.usc.edu, iNTERNET:dolan@earth.usc.edu Date: 7/21/97, 4:01 PM Re: Re: Cucamonga Fault Sender: dolan@earth.usc.edu Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.2) with ESMTP id TAA19623 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:01:36 -0400 (EDT) From: dolan@earth.usc.edu Received: from earth.usc.edu (earth.usc.edu [128.125.253.158]) by usc.edu (8.8.4/8.7.2/usc) with ESMTP id QAA27237 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:01:32 -0700 Received: from [128.125.23.113] (dolan.usc.edu [128.125.23.113]) by earth.usc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4/usc] with SMTP id QAA22191 for <LaurenDev@compuserve.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:01:33 -0700 Message-In: <199707212301.QAA22191@earth.usc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:07:05 -080C To: Bill Ford <LaurenDev@compuserue.com> Subject: Re: Cucamonga Fault Dear Mr. Ford, Sorry to be so long in getting back tQ you. I've been in the field most of the summer. This letter is in response to your request for a copy of the proposal I sunbmitted to San Bernardino County to conduct paleo-earthquake excavations of the Cucamonga fault. I am at a bit of a loss as to who is distributing this proposal, since the county turned down my request to conduct excavations on their property. Or at least I never heard back from Ms. Vivian Null, the site manager for the County property to whom I submitted the proposal two years ago. She had promised to submit the proposal to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, but I never heard back whether this was done or not. If you don't mind my asking, who forwarded the proposal (or part of the proposal) to you? To clarify one point, the major focus of the proposal (as with much of our work in the greater metropolitan area) was to determine whether or not the Cucamonga fault breaks by iteslf in moderate to moderately large earthquakes (magnitude 6.5-7), or whether it ruptures together with other faults in much larger (magnitude 7.5) earthquakes. I must emphasize that this was the question we were trying to address, and the idea of occurrence of M 7.5 earthquakes was a hypothesis, not a conclusion. The best available reference for the Cucamonga fault is an article by Doug Morton and John Matti in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339, published in 1987. Most major Uinversity Geology libraries (e.g., Caltech and UCLA; USC does not have a Geology library) will have a copy of this. That article contains detailed maps of the fault zone across Day Canyon fan in Rancho Cucamonga, which sounds as if it is your area of interest. hope the article helps you. The fault is currently zoned as active by the State and should therefore be considered as a possible seismogenic source. Beyond that, about all we can say with certainty at this point is that the fault appears to exhibit at least two, and possibly three, active strands (strands B, C, and 'Etiwanda Avenue scarp' of Morton and Matti, 1987). We would know more about the earthquake potential of active faults in southern California if City, County, and State agencies were more receptive to allowing excavations on their publically held land. Withcut such investigations our hands are tied. Sincerely, Jim Dolan 0CT-I5-9T 11:49 818-991-3904 P,04 R-554 Job-B45 Date: 10/15/97 Time: 11:48:10 AM Page 4 of 12 James F. Dolan Assistant Professor Dept of Earth Sciences University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 phone: 213-740-8599 fax: 213-740-8801 2 0.3/05/97 · Note: WED Z5:29 FAX 909396157~. BIA OF SO CAl.,IF 1~]002.~ The Servic~ will honor coastal California gna~tcher surveys completed during previous breexting Coastal California Gnatcatcher (,Poliep~ila c~lgfornic.~ ca~/forn/c~) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines February 28, 1997 ~~, 1~, ~~ ~-~~ S~ ~ of !~73, ~ ~~ (A~). f~;~ ~on ~ ~~ ~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~h 30, 1~3 (58 F~ 1~42). ~ ~~ 10, 1~3, ~ m ~n ~d) of~ A~ ~ U.S. The coaa-lal C~llfrnrrla ~~ly 30 ~HO~ !-~;~,,de ~ ~ ~o (~~ ~olo~' U~on 1957; ~ 1980, 1~; Jo~ Th~ ma~o~y ofplanl spexies found i~ sage scrub are low-growing, ~~duo~ ~ ~~s, ~1~ ~o~ ~e~ (~em~ ~i~), (~bgo~m f~ci~), ~ ~ (~l~a ~R~ K~I~-Woff 199~, ~ ~mm~y ~ng ~ ~cl~e 1~0~~ ~e~l~ ~ gold~h~ (~ocoma me~O, ~1 ~ (M~ 1~), ~om (Z~ ~.~ ~ ~ (E~rb~ m~era), ~ jojo~ (Sf~~ c~). Su~l ~, ~ ~ ~ (~ li~oral~, O. ~I~a Fer~c~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~p. ' ~~ dsm ~ ~ ml~y riffle ~m '~. ~~ ~ ~n-~e ~ ~m (e.g., ~ ~d ~s~~ ~i~). The breeding scion of the conrad C~lifomia gvzmatch~r extends from aborn February' 15 thro-Eh August 30, with the peak of nesting activity o¢oarx~g fram mid-Mm'~h through mid- May. Inc~balion raima 14 days. TI~ young fledge at 8 to 13iday~ of age and are depea&mt upon their pmamts for as little as three to four weclm (EKCE 1990)} but fledg/ings may asnocia~ wixh thor pam~ for scveaal mouths. ThLs protocol is baseel on the best available scientific information regarding the d,l:~-tabiliry of the coastal c'-~;i~omia gnat~' and is subject to change pending rcccilrt of additional pertinent 03/05/97 BIA OF SO CALIF ORIGINAL POOR QUALITY 9003 2 03/05/97 ~ 15:30 F'AX 9093961S71 B]A OF' SO CAL]F' ~,otacol for ~ Coastal California Gna~tcher 3 From July 1 thro,,_.~ 1Vanv. h 14, a'"~r~mum of nine (9) ~ shslI be conducted Survey~ qhs!l be conducted ~ 6:00 a_m. and 12.-00 p.m. Surveys shall livoid. periods o£~e~ssiv= or -hnor~al heat, wind, rain, fog, or other inclemem w~.~. Taped coastal CaIifr, m~ ly, s*c~rh~r vocali=~o//s shall be ustxi only until individuals have been initially located. Tapes nh~H not be used f~queutty or to ellc/t furthcr $urvey~ shall be conducted by slowly walking survey rotam. Sims with deep canyonz, fldge. ling~. ste~..t!m~'~-' .and thick shrub cover should be survt-y~ more slowly. approp~,,~- surv~. ru*,-s_ ..~ am'~age cov~cd p~ day. Thes~ factors may dic'm~ tha~ the maxima daily coverage spccificd below'/s not prudent under certa/n condit/ons. $misdictions ~~i' i~ ~e NCC'P i.+.m-lm section No more than 1 O0 ~ (dO ha) shaI1 be sm-veyed l~r biologist per day. All other jurisdictions: - No more than 80 acr~ (32 Ira) sh.l_l be surv~cd !x:r biologis~ per clay. No a~mpts shall be made W closely approach or ournlne coastal Californl- gn.te~-h~ nes*s unle..s.s authoriz~ by Servi~ lOrn'mits. Tim - -~_,~_- _~hs{! .pr_ovid~ tim following iaforrr~tion fia a x:port m ~1~ Carlsbad Field Ot~.ce and d:se Califo,'~ia ~ of Y/.sh ~,a G-arno within 45 days f~llowing the Tim lot ation of the surv~ ~ d~lin,-~h.,tl on a 7_5 mim,~- U.S. Geological Survc-y topographic rn~T2 at 1:24,000 and 1'-200 scale. Nm,nes of all biologists and as.sociat~ personnel with refea-ence to ~ section 10(a)(1)(A) ~ m~m.~. A ~lem ~~on of~ m~, ~l~, ~ a~ of~ ~~ ~ Nolo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~cd ~ ~y ~ biolo~ ~ nm~ ~ ~ of ~, ~ ~p ~m~ of ~, ~ m~ ~~ on ~s, ~ ~n~ ~d w~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~nning ~ ~ of ~ ~, ~ how 03/05/97 WED 15:31 FAX 9093961571 BIA OF SO CALIF ~005 Writam aacl mapped qualit~ve dcscr/ptionz o£plant co~-,~uniti~s ('including riomiriam speci~ ami habitat quality) on and adjaccm to the area surveyed. and color ~ hxform~o, (from mp ~ bosom a~d fro~ 1~ to ~.b~) ff~y. These dam also sha//be plowed on 1'.24~O0 a-d 1:200 scale m,~t~s of~hc survey th= amhmity of S~-vic= permits (e.g., rt~ports for clients prepared by con.sulti,,g rum) shall be submitt=d to the Carlsbad Field Office {mme~llz,ely upon c~,,pl~on Raw/fi~ld a~,~_. no~s, and o,~,w.infor~,~ion r~suliing form work ~ t~de:z'thls p¢:l:mit shall 1~ submitr. z~ to the Service/mmexliately upon. This l~otocol ~ ~ by th~ S~vic~'s Carisbad Field Office, 2730 Lok~ Av~nu~ West, Carlsbad, Califom/a 92008. If you have any qticstions regarding the protocol plca.s¢ call 619-431=9440. 4 · 03/05/97 RED 15:31 FAX. 9093961ST1 BIA OF SO CALIF ~006 Sm, pey avrotocol for ti~ Coamzl California Gnatcatcher 5 ~',~terature Cited American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Checklist of North American binis. 5th exl. Azaezican Ornithologist' Unioa, Washinga~i, D.C. .. A/wood, J. 1980. The Un/ted States d/stribufion office California black-railed C~-t~tcher. 8re, tern B/rds 11: 65-78. 1990. S~ms review ofthe Cal~omia gnamamher (Polioprtla callforra'c.a). Manomex Observatory, M~ome~ Massachuse~. Bmde~ G. and tVL B. Woulf¢. 1995b. Observations on nan-breeding season detectability and surveys for the California gnatcatcher (2%lioptila californica caI~/brnica}. UntmbHshed manusc~pt sub~.d to W~ Riverside ~{~figplc Spc~e.s Reserve Maaagu-'me~t Bruasm~ P. F, M. S. C-rillr~ J. F. O'Leary, D. D. Murphy, and R. F. Nos~. 1992. Coaxtal Sage Scrub Survey Cmicld/a~ Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Sci~mffic Rev/~v Panel En, L~,i,~r~l and Energy Servic~ Company. 1990. Phase I Report Amber Ridg~ C, ti~'omia Crna~.~teher Study. Report for the Co~_~*y of San Di.¢go Depm"magat ofPi-nnlnE and Land U~e Envim-menlal Quality Division. San Diego, California. HoKan~ tL 1986. A Descr/ptionofxh~ T~Namml Commua/t/es of C,,liTbmia. Cal:i.f~ ~ent ofFish aud Game, October. $on~, C. m~d R_ l~m/v~ 1995 Sighing of Califom/a Gnatcatcher in Ventura CounW. Poster p .r~ented ~t~a~ Symposinm onthe B/ology of~h~ Califora/a ~h~r held 15-16 · $~, 1995, Univm~iW of California, Ri, n=,side. lVlock, P. J-, B. I.. Jrme_% and J. Konency. 1990. California C~stca~cher Survcy Guidelines. ERC g.,wixorrmental and Energy S~rvice Company, San Diego, Cahfomia. Sawyer, J. and T. Keelcr-Wol-T. 1995. A Nfmm~l of California Vegetation. Calffomi,a Native Plan~ Soci¢~. A.WDe. EW K. HAR'~ ~ HUGH H~*TTT JO~ D. "HEWTTT & McGUmE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 M~Arthur Boulevard. Sure 1050 l~c, ~&~h 92612 ~14) 79~05~ - U14) 79~0511 (fax) August 5, 1997 VIA FACSIMTLE and U.S. MAlL Rebecca Jones Environmental Specialist - Region 5 California Department of Fish and Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Re: Lauren Development- Tract 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California Dear Ms. Jones: This firm represents Lauren Development, the project proponent of an approximately 23-acre residential development project on the above-referenced tract in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. I understand that you left a voice mail message for John Allday of Lauren Development at the end of last week requesting that Lauren Development contact you. This afternoon I left a message for you on your answering machine noting that I w-as returning your call on behalf of Lauren Development. Pierose contact me at ypur earliest convenience at (714) 798-0500. Let me again express my disappointment that the Department of Fish and Game has declined to date to withdraw or substantially clarify its June 23, 1997 letter to Mr. Brad Bullet at the City of Rancho Cucamonga in writing. While the Department's oral clarifications are appreciated, they have limited value when not reflected in writing given the written statements of June 23. As I have mentioned previously to Bill Tippets, you and others at CDFG, that letter contains both inaccurate and misleading information and statements which do a disservice both to the Department and to the public which it serves, not to mention the potential prejudicial effect which they could have on the project applicant. Once again, I request that the Department either withdraw or substantially clarify its letter of June 23 in writing. The Department's letter of June 23 suggests that the Department may be interested in meeting with the City and Lauren Development. City staff and Lauren Development would be pleased to meet with Bill Tippets, yourself and, if appropriate, other members of the Department. Such a meeting should be held by Friday, August 15. Please inform me of the Department's interest and availability. 08-05-97 3021-00002 S:\DOC\161\:~R\970BDO13.LTR Rebecca Jones August 6, 1997 Page 2 Development. Again, I would appreciate your renaming my phone call on behalf of Lauren I look forward to speatcing with you soon. Sincerely, AKH/clt cc: Jacqueline Schafer (via regular mail) Craig Manson, Esq. (via regular mail) John Allday (via regular mail) William Tippets (via fax and regular mail) Brad Buller (via regular mail) 08-05-97 3~21-0~02 S:\DOC\i61\CI3~R\9?O800~3.L~R LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. September 12, 1996 Ms. Becky Jones · California ~ime. nt of Fish & Game 36431 41st Strut East " Palmdale, CA 93552 RE,: Subdivision a: Northern End of Haven Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga ;}ear Ms. Jones: thank you for ~alking to me on lite phone ye~uzrday at~.emoon. As you requested, enclosed are rome maps and photographs of the subject propc-rty. As I indicated when we spoke, I am in the process of buying this l:n'eviously approved subdivision (which, by the way, received a Negative Declaration) and am now trying to learn all I can about the site I~fort: I clo~ ~scrow. One of the items I am concerned with is whether I will have to formally submit anyfiring to your agency. Some people have advised me that even if thin is curm~ly no stream on the site - year-round or intermittent - I will still need to deal with your agency because a "blue Hne" shows up on the latest USGS maps, while others advise that sim:e the San Bernardino County Flood Control District constracted the nine-by channeL, there is now no longer a stream on the property and therefore them is no need to deal with Fish and Game. Obviously I am in a quandary and would very much appreciate any guidance you can provide me on th/s matter. Enclosed are the following maps: · Thomas Brothers Map (Subject prol~rty outlined in pencil) - 1952 - 53 USGS Map (Subject property outlined in pencil) · t 966 CR~vised 1988) USGS Map (Subj¢~ protx'~ outlined in pencil) · 1966 San Bernardino County Flood Control District map ofare. a (Subject property outlined in pencil) · 1991 m-o~osed Crrarling Pla~ Let me give you a brief history of the property as I understand it: Prior to 1952 a dike was cons~cted across the southern edge of the propea ty diverting water ikom the mouth of Deer Creek Canyon to the southeaxL This dike shows up on the 1952-53 USGS map and all subsequent maps. As can be seeu onthe 1966 USGS map, a "blue line stream" (let me call it S-I) is depicted running aJ:ross the subje.~t prope. Ity behind the dike and a second "blue line stream" (S-2) is shown flowing into S-1 midway across the site. The 1966 Flood Control District map also shows a drainage pattern, which I will call S-3, flowing into S-1. P.O. Bl:~7gO/~,goura{,.~l~ C..A..~t3'/'6 818991--__al51~__ FAXItlS~I~1-..a80,4 PANCHO CUC. ANIONG~ OFFICE 11[1313 ARP. OVV P. OIJTE, Suito 11212. PANCHO CUC, ANIONGA 91T30-482.5 gO9 484--1863 FAX g(l~ 484-1864 The San Bernardino County Flood Contel Dislxiet constructed Deer Creek Chatreel in about 1980. The location of the ab-_ nnel can be seen in the purple 1988 update of the 1966 USGS map. It also shows up on the far right hand side of the proposed Grading Plan. I called the USGS in Colorado (telcon with Ms. Sherry Girl 9/3/96) and was told that when aerial photo updates (such as the 1988 additions) are pxel~ared, the USGS does 110t remove possibly outdated information (such as blue line streams) as the only purpose of the updates is to ~d information, not correct old informaft'On. USGS eon6nned that while it is possible that the addition of the flood control cb~-nel could effectively have eliminated the blue line streams below it, removing these stregms from the USOS maps would not ocza~r until a full scale update is performed. Sometime after the 1966 topo maps were prepered and before the Deer Creek Channel was constructed, the Flood Control Dishlet dredged a 5040' wide swale across the property, roughly paralleling the dike and S-l, but a few hundred feet to the north. This swale shows up on the base topography of the 1991 ~ Plan. When the swale was constructed, the exports were dumped in the area between the swale and the dike, thus disrupting even more of the site than just that affected previously by the dike. I lxaced the location of S-2 and S-3 on this Grading Plan and found that only a few fundveal feet or.so of similar topo still exists in the northeast portion oftl~ site before being elkninate~i by the swale. If you compare the 1966 topos with the 1991 topo, you can see tim! the only portion of the site which is similar on all maps (i.e., still "natural~)/s the comer of the property northeast of the swale, which I estimate to be about 25% of the entire die. Based on the above topo maps alone, I think the following is evident: Fixxt, the construction of the swale behind the dike diverted any water from flowing through S-1. Second, the swale also physically obliterated most of S-2 and S-3 from the site. And third, the construction of the Deer Creek Channel diverted the water source of the swale, S-I, S-2 and S-3. In addition to the above maps, I also enclose photographs which I took yesterday. I hiked all over the site, looking for any semblance ofriparian vegetation. I found none. Please note the 'existence of east-west service roads along the northern boundary of the site. These roads are used by SCE and LADWP for acc, es~g their transmission lines. There are no culverts under these roads for water, and no erosion damage which would be caused if the swale, S-l, S-2 or S-3 still flowed even intennittently across the site. Please note also that even the swale has no riparian vegetation in ix. Please also note that the area to the south of our property is an approved and constructed subdivision. Another blue line stream (S4) shows up on the 1966/88 USGS maps and runs right through this tract. Deer Creek Channel also eliminated this drainage pattern. This entire subdivision is large half acre lots, many of which in the area of S4 are vacant and only rough graded. There is no visible evidence of S-4 in this subdivision. RANCHO CUCAMONGA OFFICE 11030 ARROWROUTE, $uile 1Q2, RANCHO CUC, A~ONC~ 909 4~1,-1863 FAX 909 484--1864 Dt::PARTMENT Of: FISH ,AND GAM5 'November 18, 1996 Mr. John All.day Lauren Developme-p. t Inc. !lO30 Arrow Route, Suite 1D2 Rancho Cucamonga, CA' 9!730-48~5 Dear Mr. kllday: This letter is regardins the s~bdivision at the northern end of Haven Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga and the need for a Streambed Alteration A~reement. As discuss at the site visit, a Streambed Alteration A~reement will not be need for the project since the "blue line stream" has been blocked from the normal flow regime by the Flood Control Dfstrict's levee. Please recall at our meeting .I mentioned the need for gnat catcher surveys, per U,S. Fish ~r~:, ~Sildlife' Service protocol, prior to disturbance of the area. A cop_v ~f the survey should be submitted to the Department. This letter is in no way an authorization fo.r the take of:~any li~t~d species, nor does it constitute Depa. rtment of Fish and Game endorsement of the proposed operation, or. assu~e the Depa. rtment' s concurrence with other permits re_~uired. If you have a~y further questions, please contact me at. (805) 2B5-5867. Sincerely, Enviror~ent al Sgecialist'. RegiOn 5 cc: Liam Davis 101 00 '00 00:00 ~-55~' 048 P02 J0b-$48 _MD_..~S CONSUL TING.., 17320 ~ A~, ~ltte 3BO Ir~n,~, CA 92614 17141 2!~1-8821 Fa~Y ~_S1-0516 June 26, 1997 Mr. John Allday Laul~n Development Poet O~e BOx 790 A~oura Hills, CA 91378 TRACT 14771 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES Deer John: In response to the Declaration of Bruce Collins dated June 1t, 1097, the oral presentation to Me City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission by Ms. Mer~.,a McKeith on June 11, 1g97, and the correspondence from Loeb and Loeb to Mr. James Markman, Esq., also dated June 11. 1997, I offer the feltowing comments: I am the president and founding par~ner of MDS Consulting, and have been in private practice since 1970, starting my own fir~n [n 1976. I have ~ Oachelor of Science degree In civil engineering and am a registered civil engineer in Carifom~ and Arizona. I hlwe practiced civ~ ertgine~ng, incJuding all facets of grading and drainage design, since entering priva{a practice. My company has worked extensively in the western portion of San Bernardino County, including the city of Rancta3 Cucemonga, and has followed the development. and construction of many of the major flood control channels, including Deer Creek Channel and Its appurtenances. I have been personally involved tn the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations performed on T~-'t 14771, and in the subsequent processing through the involved approving government agencies. Our company was retained by Brock Homes In April of lggl to complete the preparation of various construction drawings for the final phase of Master Tentative Tract NO. 12332, a forty lot sul~ivision named as Tentative Tract No. 14771. The Master Tentative Tract No. 12332 end fts related construction drawings were prepared by Associated Engineers. Included in their drawings were detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations including various analyses of off~t~ (lrainage conditions. All of tl~ese calculations were reviewed and approved by all a13propdete governmen! agencies. Our assignment for the forty lot subdivision (Tentative Tract No. 14771) was to ulxlate and complete the processJn9 of the FEMA map revisions, both the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and the Letter of Me; Revision (LOMR), which we accomplisrted. At a project level, we prepared the various hydrologic and hydraulic studies In e~ordance with generally accepted engineering practice required tO substantiate the design of the hardeneO concrete drainage channel at the northern property llne of Tentative Tract No. 14771. Theae hydrotogic and hydraulic studies were reviewed extensively and were deemed acceptable for permit in December of 1992, The pro~ct laid fallow (due to the general economic recession) until 1987. when Laure~ Development resurrected the project and reprocessed the plans. The hydrology and hydraulic portions of the d~Jgn have again been determined to b~ acceptable and the p~ar~ are in Me final stages of processing for construction pertorts. We are not sure if either Mr. Collins or Ms. McKeith have ever reviewed the volum~ of material available on the design of the various drainage facilities designed for Tract 14771, as our company has never been contacted by them. Apparently, they or~ly reviewed the tentatJve tract map, and, as we all know. a tentative tract map is Just that, a tentative plat to be used as a guide to more detailed construction plans, Even at that, STANLEY C. MORSE GARY DOKICH SKiP SCHULTZ 0CT-15-$~ 12:28 p n3 R-5§~ Job-848 101 00 '00 00:00 048 P03 June 26, 1997 Page Two the City of Rancho Cucamonga requlre~ preliminary drainage studies to accomoany the tentative: tract maD. documents that neither of the project opponents menfione<l es being reviewed. In ou~' pmfes~ional opinion, the replacement of an aged, unllned, earthen training levee that was conetmcted years ago to provide flood protection untit Deer Creek Channel was complete, Dy a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic arid hydraugc sta~da~$, is one where the benet~t Is, ~o obvious that It speaks for itself. As a sidelight, t~ County of San Beman~lno Flood Control District aban~loned their drainage easement through Tract '~4771 in 1988, as it was no Ionget ner,,ee~ry for their operation. In other worde, the maintenance and operation of that earthen levee is not within any organization currently, wfiether private or public. By the construction of the concm~ channel wiffi Tract 14771, a maintenance association will be in ~ to tai(e care of the Cttannel. Should either of the project opponents need to perform pn~pe~ complete research on the protect. we ere available to meet wtt~ them and discuss both the regional facilities (Deer Creek Channel) and the 0roject level facilities (Tract 14771). Sincere~ _ SCM'.jo G Robert & CrL~auo 9 Aurora Irvine, CA 9261~ 714.8~4.~-398 June 26,~t997 Brad Bull~ City of Rancho Cu~amonga P.O. Box 807 10500 Civic Cemer Drive Rancho Cucamonga, C.~ 91729 R~: I~unm Do~lopmcnI Design R,~i~w T~ T~ ~ g14~l ~ ~ ~M~li~ ~i~h ~ I~ 11', 1997 for gl~,ODO?' S~~y, ~ m~on~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ 9~ ~ ~ ~c imPore ~ n'~ ~oi~ in ~ ~ a p~ ~ ~im ~ m ~ 1~ for ~'~o ~on~ l ~ ~~- The p~ ~ ~$I~,~0 m~ 1989. Bro~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~t Robca 3. Crist/ano for Crist~o ~'artn~'s I, o~nc-r c~the prop~ty Attachment A Page 1 of 2 . OCT-15-~? I ;~ :21~ P.04 10'1 00 '00 00:00 04El P04 Job-848 July 9, 1997 Lauren Development P.O. Box 790 Agora Flills, CA 91376 Attemion: Tom Maran Subject: Stability Analysis Existing and Proposed Retention Benns Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA Gentlemen: As per your request we have performed an analysis of the stability of the existing flood control levee and the proposed earthen benn and storm drain channel. Our analysis was performed based on the cross sections developed at locations representing the highest relief in each slope, assumed geoteclmical strength parameters, and an assumed water surface at the upslope side of both the levee and the berm. The slopes were analyzed for gross pseudo-static stability using a computer program based on the modified janbu method of slices. This method is based on the static analysis of the mass above any failure arc. The failure mass is broken up into a series of vertical slices and the equilibrium of each of these slices is considered. The force acting along the sides of any slice are assumed to have a zero resultant in the direction normal to the failure arc for that slice. In this method, the stability of the slope is expressed as a safety factor. Safety factor is defined as the relationship of the resisting moments, about the center of the tkilure arc, divided by the overturning moments, about the center of the failure arc. The seismic analysis is based on the pseudo-static method of slices which includes, in addition to the static forces, the effect of hor/zontal and vertical inertial forces acting out of the slope and through the center of the failure mass. The computer program uses an iteration process to evaluate many trial failure surfaces and select the arc with the lowest factor of safety. After completion of the calculations the program prints out the characteristics of the critical failure arc. _.2 lZ:Z8 00 '00 00: 00 048 P05 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, C A July 9, 1997 '[he results of these analyses indicate that the factor of safety against failure of the proposed storm drain channel is larger than that of the existing levee. The results of our analyses are attached as Appendix A to this report. The increased stability of the proposed slopes and storm drain channel are tnost likely related to the shallow slope angle and reduced height of the new channel slopes. The existing levee extends to an approximate maximum height of 25 feet at inclinations steeper than 2:1 (horizontal m vertical), whereas the proposed slopes do not exceed 10 feet in height and are proposed at inclinations of 2:l or flatter. Therefore, based on the results of our analysis it is our professional opinion that, f¥om a geotechnical perspective, the proposed storm drain channel and associated slopes are more stable against gross failure than the existing levee. Respectfully, I~MA Group · E:. y , Vice President GE 2362 34,1-01 Attachments - Slope Stability Calculations k,~ RMA Job N°: 96-207-01 Page 0¢T-]5-~? 101 00 '00 00:00 /. RMA GJ~wp 048 P06 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS OCT-I~-~? 101 00 '00 00:00 P.Ol' R-557 Job-648 048 PO? o~ Co _ I,q II --I 101 00 '00 00:00 ** PCSTABL4 ** by Purdue University P.OB R-551' 0~;8 P08 Job-B4B --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu Method of Slices or Simplified Bishop Method Run Date: Time Of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 07-08-97 5:05pm D:LAUREN1.DAT D:LAUREN1.0UT D:LAUREN1.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Lauren Development 96-207-01 Tract 14771 Case 1 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 12 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right NO. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 150 00 200 00 242 00 252 00 262 00 270 00 272 00 310 00 323.00 338.00 351.00 368.00 230.00 230.00 235 00 240 00 245 00 250 00 255 00 255 00 250 O0 245 00 240 00 235 00 200.00 242.00 252.00 262.00 270.00 272.00 310.00 323.00 338.00 351.00 368.00 450.00 230 00 235 00 240 00 245 00 250 00 255 00 255 00 250 00 245 00 240 00 235 00 235 00 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. OCT-I ~-B7 12:2B 101 00 '00 00:00 Type Unit Wt. Unit wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 120 . 0 130 . 0 100 . 0 P. OB R-557 Job-648 048 P09 Angle Pressure Constant Surface (deg) Param. (psf) No. 34.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by S Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 230.00 2 250.00 235.00 3 270.00 240.00 4 310.00 250.00 5 4S0.00 250.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .100 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Usin~ A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 50 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. i0 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 200.00 ft. ai%d X = 225.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and X = 310.00 ft. x = 335.00 ft. Unless Further Lim/tations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 101 00 '00 00:00 048 P10 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - MOst Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 206 25 210 33 214 59 219 02 223 59 228 29 233 09 237 97 242.92 247 90 252 90 257 89 262 86 267 77 272 61 277 36 281 99 286 48 290 82 294 98 298 95 30270 306.22 309.50 312.52 315.27 316.05 230.74 227 85 225 24 222 91 220 89 219 18 217 78 216 71 215 97 215 57 215.49 215.75 216.35 217.27 218.53 220.10 221.99 224.18 226 67 229 44 232 49 235 79 239 34 243 11 247 10 251 28 252 67 *** 1.139 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) OCT-I~-9? 101 00 '00 00:00 P.]l R-557 Job-64B 048 P11 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200.00 203.80 207.83 212.05 216.45 221.01 225.70 230.50 235.38 240.33 245.32 250.32 255.31 260.26 265.15 269 95 274 65 279 ,21 283 62 287 85 291 88 295 70 299 28 302 60 305 65 308.41 310.88 312.94 230.O0 226.75 223.79 221.11 218.73 216.67 214.94 213.54 212.48 211.77 211.41 211.41 211.75 212.44 213.49 214.87 216.59 218..63 220.99 223 66 226 61 229 85 233 34 237 08 241 04 2%5 20 249 55 253 87 Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) I 212.50 2 216.31 3 220.37 4 224.65 5 229.13 6 233.77 7 238.55 8 243.43 9 248.38 10 253.38 11 258.37 12 263.35 13 268.26 14 273.08 15 277.78 16 282.32 17 286.68 231.49 228 25 225 33 222 75 220 52 218 67 217 19 216 11 215 43 215 15 215 27 215 80 216 74 218 06 219 77 221 86 224.31 0¢T-15-97 101 00 '00 00:00 R-557 Job-G4$ 048 P12 18 290.83 227.10 19 294.74 230.22 20 298.38 233.64 21 301.73 237.35 22 304.77 241.32 23 307.48 245.52 24 309.84 249.93 25 311.76 254.32 1.152 Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 212.50 216.33 220.39 224.67 229.14 233.78 238 54 243 41 248 35 253 34 258 34 263 32 268 26 273 11 277 86 282 47 286 92 291.17 295.20 298.99 302.52 305.75 308.68 311.28 313.54 314.08 231 49 228 27 225 36 222 78 220 54 218 65 217 14 21G 00 215 25 214 88 214 91 215 33 216 14 217 33 218 90 220 83 223 12 225 75 228 70 231 96 235 51 239 32 243 38 247.65 252.11 253.43 1.160 Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) OCT-15-B? l[:28 101 00 '00 00:00 ~-~5~ 048 Pi~ 1 212.50 2 217.03 3 221.67 4 226.42 5 231.24 6 236.14 7 241.08 8 246.06 9 251.06 10 256.06 11 261.04 12 265.99 13 270.90 14 275.74 15 280.49 16 285.16 17 289.71 18 294.13 19 298.42 20 302.55 21 306.51 22 310.28 23 313.86 24 317.17 231.49 229.37 227.52 225.94 224.63 223 60 222 86 222 40 222 23 222 35 222 76 223 45 224.42 225.68 227.21 229.01 231..08 233.41 235.99 238.81 241.87 245.14 248.63 252.24 *** 1.166 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 218.75 222.54 226.60 230.91 235.42 240.11 244.93 249.85 254.83 259.83 264.81 269.73 274.56 279 24 283 76 288 06 292 13 295 91 299 40 302.55 305.34 232.23 9_28.97 226 05 223 51 221 36 2!9 62 218 30 217 42 216 98 216 98 217 42 218 30 219.62 221.36 223.51 226.06 228.97 232.24 235.82 239.71 243.85 OCT-15-gT 101 00 '00 00:00 ~-5§? Job-648 048 P14 22 307.75 248.23 23 309.77 252.81 24 310.45 254.83 *** 1.167 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 206.25 209.81 213.64 217.72 222.01 226.50 231.14 235.92 240.80 245 76 250 75 255 75 260 72 265 64 270 47 275 18 279 74 284 12 288 30 292 24 295 93 299 33 302 44 305 21 307 65 309 73 311.43 230.74 227.23 224.02 221.12 218.56 216.35 214.51 213.04 · . 211.96 211.27 210.98 211.09 211.60 212.50 213.80 215.47 217.52 219.93 222.68 225 75 229 13 232 79 236 71 240 87 245 24 249 78 254.45 1.170 Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 212.50 231.49 217.02 229.35 221.66 227.48 0¢T-15-97 12:Z8 101 00 '00 00:00 1~-587 Job-648 048 P15 4 226.39 5 231.21 6 236 .TO 7 241.04 8 246.01 9 251.01 10 256.01 11 26l. 00 12 265 13 270.87 14 275.72 15 280.50 16 285.19 17 289.77 18 294.22 19 298.55 20 302.72 21 306.73 22 310.56 23 314.20 24 317.64 25 318.18 225.88 224.54 223.49 222.71 222.21 222.00 222.07 222.43 223.07 223 99 225 19 226 67 228 41 230 42 232 68 235 20 237 ,6 2'40 94 244 16 247.58 251.21 251.85 *** 1.172 Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points Point X- Surf Y-Surf No, (ft) (ft) 200.00 230.00 204.43 227.68 208.97 225.58 213.60 223.70 218.32 222.04 223.11 220.62 227.97 219.43 232.88 218.48 237.82 217.76 242.80 217.29 247.80 217.06 252.80 217.07 257.79 217.32 262.77 217.82 267.71 218.55 272.62 219.52 277.47 220.73 282.25 222.18 286.97 223.85 291.59 225.75 296.12 227.87 300.54 230.21 304.84 232.76 OCT-15-9~ 12:2B 00 '00 00:00 P.16 R-55T 048 Job-64B 24 309.01 235.51 25 313.05 238.47 26 316.93 241.61 27 320.66 244.94 28 324.23 248.45 29 325.03 249.32 *** 1.180 Failure Surface Specified By 25 CoordinaCe Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 218.75 222.74 226.94 231.33 235.90 240.60 245.42 250.32 255.28 260.28 265.28 270 25 275 17 280 00 284 73 289 32 293 76 298 00 302 03 305 83 309.38 312.64 315.62 318.28 318.90 232.23 229 21 226 51 224 12 222 07 220 37 219 03 218 06 217.46 217.23 217 38 217 91 218 80 220 07 221 70 223 67 225 99 228 63 231 59 234 84 238 37 242 15 246 17 250 40 251 58 *** 1.200 *** OCT-1 ~-~ I~:ZS 101 00 ~00 00:00 E-55~' Job-648 048 PI? CO H 181 80 '80 08:88 048 P18 ** PCSTABL4 ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu Method of Slices or Simplified Bishop Method Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 07-08-97 5:01pm D:LAUREN2.DAT D:LAUREN2.0UT D:LAUREN2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Lauren Development 96-207-01 Tract 14771 Case 2 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Soil Type Below Bnd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 100 00 150 00 165 00 178 00 191 00 210 00 244 00 249 00 255.00 264.00 285.00 264.00 264.00 266 00 268 00 270 00 280 00 280 00 276 00 276 00 280 00 270 00 150.00 165 00 178 00 191 00 210 00 244 00 249 00 255 00 264 00 285 00 350 00 264 00 266 00 268 00 270 00 280 00 280 00 276 00 276 00 280 00 270 00 270 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type unit Wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface OCT-I~-~? 1~:~8 101 00 '00 00:00 048 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) 1 120 . 0 130 . 0 100 . 0 34 . 0 . 00 . 0 NO. 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 4 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 262.00 2 178.00 265.00 3 244.00 280.00 4 350.00 280.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 ~Ias Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .100 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, using A Random Tec~lique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 50 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150.00 and x = 180.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and x = 256.00 ft. x = 265.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A Surface Extends Is y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Eacll Trial Failure Surface. ~0~ 88 '00 00:00 048 P20 Followin~ Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical O~ The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 264.00 2 154.35 261.54 3 158.84 259.33 4 163.44 257.36 5 168.13 255.65 6 172.92 254.21 7 177.78 253.03 8 182.69 252.11 9 187.65 '.251.47 10 192.64 251.11 11 197.64 251.01 12 202.64 251.20 13 207_61 251.65 14 212.56 252.39 15 217.46 253.39 16 222.30 254.66 17 227.05 256.19 18 231.72 257.99 19 236.28 260.03 20 240.72 262.33 21 245.03 264.87 22 249.20 267.64 23 253.20 270.63 24 257.03 273.84 25 260.68 277.26 26 262.79 279.46 *** 1.396 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 150.00 26~.00 154.08 261.10 158.32 258.46 101 00 '00 00:00 048 P21 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 162.72 167.26 171.91 176 67 181 52 186 43 191 39 196 38 201 38 206 37 211 34 216 26 221 11 225 89 230 56 235 12 239 55 243 82 247 93 251 85 255 58 259 09 262 39 264 38 256.09 253.99 252.16 250.63 249 39 248 45 247 82 247 49 247 46 247 74 248 32 249 21 250 40 251 88 253.65 255.71 258.04 260.63 223.49 266.58 269.92 273.47 277.24 279.82 *** 1.408 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point x- Surf Y- Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 150.00 153.81 157.83 162.06 166.46 171.02 175.71 180.51 185.39 190.34 195.33 200.33 205.32 210 215 219 224 229 233 237 241 27 16 97 67 24 66 90 95 264.00 260.76 257.80 255.12 252.75 250.69 248.95 247.55 246.49 245.78 245.41 245.39 245 73 246 41 247 44 248 81 25O 51 252 54 254.89 257.53 260.47 OCT-15-B7 12:28 101 00 '00 00:00 R-SS? Job-8~B 048 P22 22 245.78 263.69 23 249.37 267.16 24 252.71 270.88 25 255.78 274.83 26 257.25 277,00 *** 1.412 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X- Surf Y- Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 150.00 153.90 157.99 162.26 166.69 171.26 175.95 180.74 185.62 190 56 195 53 200 53 205 53 210 50 215 44 220 31 225 09 229 77 234 33 238 75 243 01 247 09 250 97 254 64 258 08 261 28 264 23 264 59 264 00 260 87 258 00 255 39 253 07 251 05 249 32 247 89 · '246 78 245.99 245.52 245.37 245.54 246.04 246.86 247.99 249.44 251 19 253 25 255 59 258 21 261 11 264 26 267 65 271 28 275 12 279 16 279 72 *** 1.424 *** Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) OCT-I~-Bi' 101 00 '00 00:00 ~-551' Job-640 048 P23 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 157.50 162.04 166.69 171.43 176.25 181.13 186.07 191.04 196.03 201.03 206.02 210.99 215.93 220 82 225 64 230 39 235 05 239 60 244 03 248 -34 252.50 256.51 259.73 265.00 262.91 261.07 259.48 258.14 257.06 256.25 255.71 255.43 255.41 255.67 256.19 256.98 258 03 259 35 26O 92 262 74 264 81 267 12 269 66 272.43 275.42 278.10 *** 1.437 ***. Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 157.50 162.04 166.68 171.41 176.22 181.10 186.04 191.00 196.00 201 00 205 99 210 96 215 90 220 79 225 62 230 235 239 244 248 252 256 260 37 03 58 02 33 49 50 27 265.00 262.89 261.03 259 43 258 08 256 98 256 16 255 60 255 31 255 28 255 53 256 04 256 82 257 86 259 17 260 73 262 54 264 61 266 91 269 45 272 22 275 21 278 34 101 00 '00 00:00 04B P24 1.438 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X- Surf Y- Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 157.50 161.74 166.13 170.66 175.31 180.07 184.91 189.82 194 78 199 77 204 77 209 76 214 73 219 65 224 51 229 28 233 96 238 52 242 94 247.21 251.32 255.24 258.97 292.48 264.62 265,00 262.35 259.96 257.85 256.01 254.47 253 22 252 27 251 63 251 29 251 26 251 53 "252 11 252 99 254 18 255 66 257 43 259 48 261.81 264 41 267 26 270 36 273 70 277 26 279 71 *** 1.439 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 157.50 2 161.33 3 165.39 169,66 5 174.11 6 178.72 7 183.45 8 188.30 265 00 261 79 258 87 256 26 253 98 252 04 250 45 249 21 OCT'IS-9? 12:ZB 101 00 '00 00:08 048 P25 9 193.22 10 198.20 11 203.20 12 208.19 13 213.15 14 218.05 15 222.87 16 227.57 17 232.12 18 236.52 19 240.72 20 244.70 21 248.45 22 251.94 23 255.16 24 257.84 248.35 247.85 247.72 247.97 248.59 249 58 250 94 252 65 254 70 257 09 259 80 262 82 266 13 269 71 273 54 277 26 *** 1.446 ***' Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point x - Surf Y- Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 150.00 153.69 157.60 161.71 166.01 170.48 175.09 179.82 184.65 189.56 194.52 199.52 204.52 209.50 214.44 219 32 224 11 228 79 233 34 237 74 241 96 245 99 249 80 253 39 256 72 259 80 262 59 264 09 264.00 260.62 257.51 254.67 252.12 249.87 247.93 246.32 245.03 244.08 243.47 243.20 243.27 243.69 244.45 245.55 246 98 248 74 250 81 253 19 255 87 258 83 262 06 265 55 269 28 273 22 277 37 279 96 101 00 '00 00:00 1.447 Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 150 00 153 68 157 58 161 69 165 98 170 43 175 03 179.75 184.58 189.48 194.44 199 43 204 43 209 41 214 36 219 25 224 06 228 76 233.34 237.77 242.03 246.10 249.96 253.60 257.00 260.13 263.00 264.97 264.00 260.61 257.49 254.63 252.07 249.80 247.84 246.19 244.88 243.89 243.24 242.93 242.96 ..243.33 244.04 245.08 246.46 248.16 250.17 252.50 255.11 258 02 261 264 268 272 276 279 19 62 29 18 28 54 1.450 *** LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. August 14, 1997 Mr. William J. O'Neil City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Ca 91730 RE: Landslides and Earthquakes in the Area North of TT 14771 Dear Mr. O'Neil: In response to testimony by Ms. Malissa McKeith regarding supposed earthquake and landslide dangers in the area of our development, we asked RMA Group, a geotechnical finn familiar with your city, to look into these allegations. Enclosed is a copy of the report for your information. If you have any questions, please contact me or the report's authors. Thank you. Very truly yours, John L. Allday cc: Brad Buller, Planning Director P.O. Box790 ,N:jouraHiis, CA-91376 818991-,3680 FAX818991.3904 RANCHO CUCAMONGA OFFICE 11030 ARROW ROUTE, ~ 102, RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9173G,4825 909484-1863 FAX 909 484-1864 GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL'I'ANTS 10851 EDISON COURT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: (909) 989-1751: FAX (909) August 14, 1997 Lauren Development Inc 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cacamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Tom Maran Subject: Engineering Geologic and Geotechincal Evaluation of Landslides Tract 1477 l, Vicinity of Have/~ Avenue and Tacksten Street Rancho Cuamonga, CA Gentlemen: In response to your request, we have made an engineering geologic and geotechnical evaluation of the potential impact of landslides in the San Gabriel Mountains on the proposed residential development of Tract 14771 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The scope or' our work consisted of field recormalssance, review of pertinent geologic and seismic literature, review of aerial photographs, engineering geologic and geotechnical evaluation of the compiled data, and preparation of this report. Tract 14771 is located near the center of a conical shaped alluvial fan that emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains (Figure 1). The base of the San Gabriel Mountains is located about one mile to the north-northeast and V~ mile to the northwest of the tract. The fan is composed of coarse- grained sediments ranging from silty sands to boulders that are on the order of 1,100 feet thick (Fife and Rodgers, 1974). Gradient of the fan surface in this area is approximately 5 to 7 percent. ]'he primary source of the alluvium is Deer Canyon. Nearby smaller canyons are comparatively small sources of sediments. The San Gabriel Mountains are composed of a complex mixture of igneous and metmnorphic rocks including mylonites and quartz diorite (Morton, 1974, and Bortugno and Spittier, 1986). The structural boundary between the San Gabriel Mountains and the alluvial deposits to the south is the Cucamonga fault. Based on its relatively young geomorphic expression and on seismic evidence (particularly the 1971 San Fernando earthquake), the Cueamonga fault is considered to be active (Fife et. al., 1976). The Cucamonga fault is a reverse fault, approximately 28 km m length, with a slip rate of 5 rnrn/yr. (4. 2 mm/yr.), and is believed capable of generating an earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude of 7.0 (Petersen et. al.. 1996). Recurrence interval of large earthquakes along the Cueamonga fault is thought to be on the order of' 700- years (Morton and Matti, 1987). GEOTECHNICAL CONSU LTA NTS Lauren Development, Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga. CA August 14, 1997 In the vicinity of Tract 14771, youthful alluvial sediments conceal the Cucamonga fault and its exact location is unknown. Some earlier regional geologic maps (e.g. Morton, 1974) show the Cucamonga fault crossing the Deer Canyon alluvial fan about 1,000 to 1,500 feet north of Tract 14771. Later maps (e.g. Morton and Matti, 1987, and Bormgno and Spitder, 1986) show the fault further to the north, at the base of the mountain front in the Deer Creek area (Figtare 1). However, neither location has been confirmed. Several regional geologic maps depict landslides that are thought to exist in the Deer Canyon and nearby areas. A summary of these landslides is presented on Figure 1. All these landslides occur completely within the mountainous terrain of the San Gabriel Mountains. None of the lands[ides are shown to extend outward onto the alluvial fan surface, and no debris flow lobes extending onto the alluvial fan surfaces were observed on aerial photographs reviewed or during the field reconnaissance. Based on the information summarized above, we conclude that landslides originating in the Gabriel Mountains will have no adverse impact on residential structures within or to the south of Tract 14771 for the following reasons: Regional geologic maps do not shown any landslides within or south of Tract 14771, or any landslides extending out from the mountains onto the Deer Canyon alluvial fan. Further, we observed no evidence of landslides extending Erom the San Gabriel Mountains out onto the Deer Canyon alluvial fan on aerial photographs or during the field reconnaissance. One method of mitigation of landslide hazards is to locate a development at a sufficient distance from landslides so that the development will avoid the hazard (Holtz and Schuster, 1996). The location of the site ~A of a mile or more from the base of the San Gabriel Mountains provides such mitigation from landslides within the San Gabriel Mountains. Debris flows deposit sediments at gradients of about 20 percent or less (Campbell, 1975). Since the gradient of the Deer Canyon fan is about 5 to 7 percent, should any debris flows reach the fan surface, they would be deposited near the mountain from where the stream gradient changes prior to reaching the site. RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page 2 (RMA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lauren Development, Inc. Tract 14771 Rancho Cucamonga, CA August 14, 1997 The conical shape of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan directs runoff and possible debris flows at the base of the mountains to the southwest and southeast away from the site, with the exception of runoff from Deer Canyon itself (Figure :). However, a debris basin and concrete lined drainage channel have been constructed to control drainage from Deer Canyon. Only the area south of the debris basin drains toward the site. It is our professional opinion that special mitigation measures to protect structures within or directly to the south of Tract 14771 from landslides originating within the San Gabriel M(,untains are not needed owing to the distance to the mountain front, the location of the property near the center of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan, the gradient of the alluvial fan, and the existing flood control improvements. Tl'fis report has been prepared solely for evaluation of landslide hazards related to development of Iract 14771. It has been prepared using generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is mme. We trust this report will serve your needs at this time. If you have any questions or require any fu~her information, please not do hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, RMA Group Gar~ Wallace Engineering Geologist CEG 1255 Ed Lyon, PE Vice-President GE 2362 Attachments: Appendix A - References Figure I - Regional Geologic Map Exp. 3-31-01 RMA Job N° 96-207-11 Page 3