The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/09/16 - Agenda Packet - Attachments, ITEM FIRemarks to Rancho Cucamonga City Council by Frank Williams Executive Officer Building Industry Association of Southern California Baldy View Chapter September 16, 1998 Property rights are no less important than the rights of free speech or due process. In fact, property rights are the very cornerstone of our freedom as Americans. It shouldn't surprise anyone to hear me say that since I represent an industry which relies on property values. But I also speak as a veteran and as someone who has held public office in two states. I have been sworn my entire adult life to defend the Constitution of this country. Having served six terms in the Florida State Legislature, I understand that elected officials have to make tough decisions, and I also know that sometimes elected officials are wrongly accused and there are attempts to impugn their reputations. I am incensed when I see a "McCarthy Era" hit piece attacking members of this council and the development community questioning their honesty and integrity included in a piece of mail that was sent to my old Alta Loma address. I might add that Lauren Development is not a member of BIA. I read the hit piece that must have been sent out by some Haven View homeowners against the Lauren Development project, and all I can say is I am sorry that the members of the City Council have to be subjected to such an attack. I'm not usually in the name calling business, but I call the authors of this piece nothing but low life cowards for not signing their names to it. It is unfair but not unexpected from people who use these kinds of tactics. It upset me enough, especially when it is insinuated that a member of the development community, whether a member of the BIA or not, is paying off city officials, to do some research that I want to read into the record tonight. In my research I found that the attacks by some Haven View homeowners did not start with Lauren Development's application to build 4,000-5,000 square foot homes in that community. They began as early as 1984. That's 15 years ago! Walter Laband, the original property owner decided to develop phase one of Haven View in the early 80's when he was 77 years old. He delivered his finished custom lots when interest rates were 17% and the project failed. He liquidated his lots by auction, selling finished lots for around $40,000. The first homeowners association turned on Mr. Laband immediately. Rather than appreciate the great deal they received at Mr. Labands expense, they immediately took steps to block phase two, an approved tentative map that consisted of 151 lots. They threw up every obstacle to stop him from developing his property until his tentative map expired. They denied him entry to his own property even though they knew this was a violation of the law. By now Mr. Laband was 82 years old and tired. Robert Cristiano bought the property in 1987. The City Council has heard testimony that "most of the homeowners are new and did not know about the plans for development". This is absolute hogwash. At Cristiano's first meeting with the Haven View homeowners in 1987, Bruce Ann Hahn, now a member of CURE, told him "You will never get your project approved". Cristiano processed a tentative map for 151 lots and received Planning Commission approval, despite heavy objection by the same Haven View homeowners. This was phase two, now known as RC-5. A part of the discussion in 1989 was what would happen to the phase three property within Haven View, the subject oftonight's debate. Staff requested and Cristiano provided, a detailed site plan showing the 40 lots zoned for the property. Bruce Ann Hahn, a member of CURE, and others from Haven View were present at that hearing. The approval was appealed to City Council in April of 1989 on the grounds of public safety. The public safety objection was based on this scenario. If an 8.0 earthquake collapsed the box culvert on Haven Avenue, and a simultaneous forest fire were coming from west to east, the Haven View homeowners would bum to death, as they would not be able to drive out of their community. The solution that staff recommended, and Cristiano accepted, was to punch a hole in the abandoned levee and construct an emergency access road connecting RC-5 to the Flood Channel service road. This emergency road, built at considerable expense and so important to protect the lives of the Haven View homeowners, has since been abandoned by the RC-5 homeowners. In fact, the RC-5 homeowners association is now suing Cristiano, claiming of all things that the breach in the levee, that they demanded, is a nuisance that allows vandals into their community. In 1990, a tentative map application was submitted to staff for the 40 lots in phase three. After protracted negotiation during which the application was modified to accept the concerns of the community. Bruce Ann Hahn, member of CURE and then president of the Haven View Homeowners Association, w~'ote to the city in support of the project. The project before you tonight is unchanged from that approval. Including the removal of the now famous levee. A condition of the 1990 approval was the removal of the levee and its replacement by concrete flood control facility. The record will show that not one resident from Haven View wrote, called or discussed the removal of the abandoned levee from 1990 until 1997 when Lauren requested a Design Review Heating. These same people, the ones that probably produced the hit piece on the City Council, are here tonight. They told you Cristiano turned down an offer for one million dollars for his property-- which is a lie. They told you that if you allow an abandoned levee with a hole in it to be removed, people will die - if a simultaneous earthquake and flood occur. Their expert testimony turned out to be nothing more than fiction. They told you there is no access to the property--another lie. They told you that they never knew about the 40 lots--another lie. They brought in a big law firm to lecture you the property is zoned open space--another lie. I could go on. There have been too many lies. Someone has to set the record straight. I trust that you will vote to approve this project. WRITER'S DIRECT LINE (213) 617-4137 SHEPPAF~D, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A LIMITED L~A~LiTY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING ~ROFE~SIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448 TELEPHONE (213) 620-1780 FACSIMILE (213) 620-1398 VCD-63494 September 16, 1998 Debra J. Adams City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Development/Design Review (DR 98-13) for the Lauren Development Project - Tract No. 14771 Dear Ms. Adams: This fn-m represents the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association and Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association ("Homeowners"), which consist of residential property owners who live directly adjacent to a 26-acre parcel of land ("the Lauren Development Property") which Lauren Development seeks to develop with 40 single-family homes. The purpose of this letter is to submit additional materials in opposition to Development/Design Review approval for the Lauren Development Project. Homeowners submit the following evidence in opposition to Development/Design Review (DR 98-13): A copy of the Verified Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate in San Bernardino Cotmty Superior Court Case No. RCV 31906; Six copies of an excerpt of the Land Use Plan Map, Figure III-1, of the City's General Plan depicting the area in which the Lauren Development Property is located; LOS ANGELES · ORANGE COUNTY · SAN E~IEG 0 · SAN FRANCISCO SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLi= Debra J. Adams September 16, 1998 Page 2 Six copies of an overlay of the Final Tract Map for Rancho Cucamonga V, Tract No. 12332-2, overlaid over the Land Use Plan Map of the General Plan; Six copies of the Open Space Plan Map, Figure IV-4, of the City's General Plan, depicting the area in which the Lauren Development Property is located; Six copies of the Final Tract Map for Tract 1233-2, overlaid over the Open Space PlanMap of the General Plan; and One copy each of a transparency of each of the maps referenced above. Enclosures LA3 :LSQ~LET~VCD\21137764.1 Very truly yours, Richard L. Stone for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1 SHEPP .AI:~D_; MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON u~ A Limited Liability Parmership 2 Including Professional Corporations RICHARD L. STONE, CAL. BAR NO. 110022 3 JACK H. RUBENS, CAL. BAR. NO. 106240 333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 FILED. West District San Bernard/no County Clerk DEC 3 1 1997 Deputy Attorneys for Petitioners HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION and RANCHO CUCAMONGA V-HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO - RANCHO CUCAMONGA DIVISION HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION and RANCHO CUCAMONGA V-HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a mumcipal corporation and political subdivasion of the State of California acting Yoand through its City Council, Planning minission, Department of Planning anit Redevelopment, Department of Public Works, and other committees, commissioners, staff, agencies, departments and officials, Respondents, LAUREN DEVELOPMENT, INC., a California corporation; CRISTIANO PARTNERS/,,a California general parmership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Real Parties In Interest. Case No?'~.CV .~ ~1.~O~ VERIFIF. D PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE [CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 1085 and 1094.5] LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VCDX21086653.2 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 REI,IEF SOUGHT Petitioners, Haven View Estates Homeowners Association and Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association (collectively, "Homeowners"), respectfully petition for a peremptory writ of mandate to: (a) set aside Tract Map No. 14771 (the "14771 Final Map") and any other permits, approvals or ordinances granted or adopted by respondent City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City_") to real party in interest Lauren Development, Inc. ("Lauren Development") for the proposed development of 40 single-family homes on approximately 25.35 acres of land ("the Project") located in the City at the northeast comer of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Street, east of Haven Avenue and north of Hillside Avenue (the "_Lauren Development Property"); (b) enjoin and/or stay the City from granting or adopting any further permits, approvals or ordinances for the grading or construction on, or other development of, the Lauren Development Property that are inconsistent with or otherwise in violation of the City's General Plan (the "General Plan"), including without limitation the Land Use and Development Super-Element (the "Land Use Element") or the Environmental Resources Super-Element (the "Environmental Resources Super Element") of the City's General Plan, the City's Development Code (the "Development Code"), the City's Subdivision Ordinance (the "Subdivision Ordinance"), or any other applicable statute, ordinance or rule of law'; and (c) immediately enjoin and/or stay any and all grading, construction o,r other work relating to the Project. LA3 :L SQXPLD~VC'DX21086653.2 - 1- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City's approval of the 14771 Final Map was unlawful, and the subsequent issuance of any development plan review approval, grading permit, building permit or other permit or approval in connection with the Project would be unlawful, because: (a) as set forth in the First Cause of Action, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan because the Land Use Element designates the Lauren Development Property as "Open Space - Flood Control/Utility Corridor", and the Open Space Plan m the Environmental Resources Super Element of the General Plan (the "Open Space Plan") limits the density of any residential development thereon to one dwelling unit per net buildable 10 acres, while the 14771 Final Map includes a density of two dwelling units for each net buildable acre; (b) as set forth in Second Cause of Action, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan because the Open Space Plan in the Environmental Resources Super Element of the General Plan designates the Lauren Development Property as "Open Space" under the categories of "Flood Control Lands" and "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area", and the open Space Plan limits the density of any residential development thereon to one dwelling unit per net buildable 10 acres, while the 14771 Final Map includes a density of two dwelling units for each net buildable acre; (c) as set forth in the Third Cause of Action, in approving the 14771 Final Map, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council (the "Cily Council") failed to make necess,xy findings that: (i) the General Plan; (ii) the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the Open Space Plan in the Environmental Resources Super Element of the General Plan; the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the Land Use Element of LA3 :LSQXPLD\VCDX21086653.2 -2- 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (iii) the Lauren Development Property is physically suitable fc,r the proposed density of development; (iv) the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements axe not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; and (v) the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or public health and safety problems. In support of theft Verified Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate (the "Petition"), Homeowners allege as follows: GENERAL AT.T.EGATIONS THE PARTIES 1. Homeowners bring this action to enforce the City's performance of its mandatory duties under State and local law, including their duties under the City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance, which duties the City has failed to perform as specifically alleged herein. Homeowners have no direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of this litigation. 2. Petitioner Haven View Estates Homeowners Association ("Haven View Homeowners") is a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation comprised of property owners who live in a residential development located east and southeast of the triangular-shaped Lauren Development Property ("Haven View Estates"). The location of Haven View Estates is shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto. LA3 :LS QXPLD\VCDL2101~6653.2 -3 - 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 3. Petitioner Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners' 2 Association ("Rancho Cucamonlga V Homeowners") is a California nonprofit mutual benefit 3 corporation comprised of property owners who live in a residential development Iocared 4 immediately south of the Lauren Development Property ("Rancho Cucamonga V"). Rancho 5 Cucamonga V and the Lauren Development Property are separated by a 40-foot high flood 6 control levee, sometimes referred to as the "Deer Creek interception Levee" (the "FI9(~ Control Levee"), which forms the southerly border of the Lauren Development Property. The location of Rancho Cucamonga V and the Flood Control Levee are shown on Exhibit 1. 4. Homeowners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that respondent City is, and at all times relevant herein was, a general law city duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Califorma. Homeowners are further informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the City is a political subdivision of the State of California located within the County of San Bernardino, exercising its authority through its City Council, Planning Commission, Department of Planning and Redevelopment, Department of Public Works and other committees, commissioners, staff, agencies, departments and officials. 5. Homeowners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that real party in interest Cristiano Partners I is a Califorma general parmership and is the current owner of the Lauren Development Property. 6. Homeowners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that real party in interest Lauren Development is a Califorma corporation with a development interest and/or contingent ownership interest in the Lauren Development Property. 7. Homeowners are ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of real parties in interest Does 1 through 50, inclusive. Such fictitious real parties in interest are sued pursuant to the provisions of LA3 :LSQ',PLD\VCD',21086653.2 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. Homeowners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each fictitious real party in interest was in some way responsible for or participated in or contributed to the matters of things of which Homeowners complain herein, and in some fashion is legally responsible therefor. When the exact nature ancl identification of such fictitious real parties in interests' responsibility for, participation in and contribution to the matters herein alleged is ascertained by Homeowners, they will seek to amend this Petition and all proceedings herein to set forth the same. THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS FOR THE LAUREN DEVEI,OPMENT PROPERTY 8. The Lauren Development Property is an approximately 25.3 acre triangular parcel, bordered on the southwest by the Flood Control Levee, on the north by a parcel of land (the "DWP Easement Area") across which the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power holds a power and light easement, and on the east by the Deer Creek flood control channel (the "Deer Creek Flood Control Channel"). The northerly boundary of the Lauren Development Property coincides with the northerly boundary of the City. The location of the Lauren Development Property, the DWP Easement Area and the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel are shown on Exhibit 1. 9. In 1981, the City adopted its General Plan, which includes the Lmad Use Element and the Environmental Resources Super Element. The Lauren Development Property was designated as "Open Space - Flood Control/Utility Corridor" in the Land Use Plan Map set forth in Figure III-1 of the Land Use Element (the "Land Use Plan Map").. A true and correct copy of the Land Use Plan Map is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As set forth on page IV-21 of the Open Space Plan in the Environmental Resources Super Element,. "[a]ny residential development in the open space categol3t should not exceed an average LA3 :LSQ~LD\VCD~21086653.2 =5- 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 density of 1 umt per net buildable 10 acres." True and correct copies of this and other relevant pages of the General Plan are attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 10. In 1981, the Lauren Development Property was also designated as "Open Space" in the Open Space Plan of the Environmental Resources Super Element. The Open Space Plan includes an Open Space Plan Map (the "Open Space Plan Map"), w~fich is set forth in Figure IV-4 of the Open Space Plan and specifically designates the Lauren Development Property under the "Open Space" categories of "Flood Control Lands and Utility Transportation R.O.W." and "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area." A true and correct copy of the Open Space Plan Map is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 11. The boundaries of "Flood Control Lands" on the Open Space Plan Map are designated by jagged lines. See Exhibit 3. The entire Lauren Development Propex~y falls within a large "Flood Control Lands" area in the central northern portion of the Open Space Plan Map. One of the boundary lines for that "Flood Control Lands" area coincides with the Flood Control Levee located on the southerly border of the Lauren Development Property. Id. The Flood Control Map set forth in Figure V-6 in the Public Health and Safety Super-Element of the General Plan (the "Flood Control Map") further confirms that the existing residential developments in Haven View Estates and Rancho Cucamonga V separated from the open space/flood control lands located on the Lauren Development Property by the Flood Control Levee. A true and correct copy of the Flood Control Map is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 12. The "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Areas" on the Open Space Plan Map are designated by dense, black horizontal lines. See Exhibit 3. The entire Lauren Development Property is included within a large "Streamside Woodland & Water Area" in the central northern portion of the Open Space Plan Map. Id. Once again, the LA3 :LSQ~LD\VCD~ 1086653.2 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 southerly border of that area coincides with the Flood Control Levee, which is also the southerly border of the Lauren Development Property. Id. 13. Prior to the approval of the 14771 Final Map by the City Council, Homeowners submitted maps which superimpose the tracts for Haven View Estates and Rancho Cucamonga V over the relevant portions of the Open Space Plan Map and the Land Use Plan Map. True and correct copies of those overlay maps are attached hereto as Exhibit 6. As reflected on the Open Space Plan Map, Haven View Estates and Rancho Cucamonga V are separated from the Lauren Development Property by the jagged line demarcating "Flood Control Lands" which coincides with the Flood Control Levee. This further demonstrates that the entire Lauren Development Property has been designated under the two "Open Space" categories of "Flood Control Lands" and "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area" in the Open Space Plan. 14. The text of the General Plan reflects the City's intent that the Land Use Plan Map, the Open Space Plan Map and the Flood Control Map provide sufficient geographic detail to permit the City to identify the land use designation for each parcel ,of land in the City: "Plan graphics take the form of diagrams or maps which perform a variety of functions, including prioritizing or emphasizing certain physical factors showing relationships between them, and illustrating the geographic application of Plan policies and programs to these factors. Because these diagrams and maps impose a certain pattern on land, they define the spatial dimensions of the Plan." General Plan, p. VI-16, Exhibit 5. LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VCD~21086653.2 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. The text of the Open Space Plan further underscores the City's intent to treat the triangular' Lauren Development Property as open space in the General Plan. The Open Space Plan provides in relevant part: "The three major sources of open space in Rancho Cucamonga are the flood control lauds, the agricultural lands which may or may not be an active production, and private vacant lands." General Plan, pp. IV-18 and 19, Exhibit 5. 16. The Open Space Plan also includes the following objective: "Maintain open spaces where flood, fire, geologic or seismic conditions may endanger public health and safety." General Plan, p. IV-19, Exhibit 5. 17. Finally, the Open Space Plan includes the following policy: "The City shall designate the creeks, channels, utility corridors and transportation rights-of-way .as major elements of the open space network." General Plan, pp. IV-19 and 20, Exhibit :5. 18. Under the General Plan, "any residential development in the open. space category should not exceed an average density of 1 unit per net buildable 10 acres." General Plan, p. IV-21, Exhibit 5. Thus, to be consistent with the multiple open space designations on the Land Use Plan Map and the Open Space Plan Map, the Project cannot include residential development that exceeds two dwelling units. THE CITY'S AND LAUREN DEVELOPMENT'S ADMISSIONS THAT THE LAUREN DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED "OPEN SPACE" 19. Following the adoption of the General Plan in 1981, the City and Lauren Development prepared a series of documents which confirm that the Project is LA3:LSQ~LD\VC'DX21056653.2 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 inconsistent with the General Plan. On May 11, 1983, the City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 12332 ("Tentative Tract 12332"), which included 204 lots on 140 acres and covered all of what are now Haven View Estates and Rancho Cucamonga V. Subsequently, the final map for the 53 lots in Haven View Estates, designated as Tract No. 12332-1 (the "Haven View Final Map"), was recorded. However, when the developer failed to record a final map with respect to Rancho Cucamonga V in a timely manner, Tentative Tract 12332 expired with respect to the remaining 151 lots. Subsequently, the City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 12332-2 ("Tentative Tract 12332-2") for the remaining 151 lots which now comprise Rancho Cucamonga V, and the final map for Tract No. 12332-2 was recorded in February, 1989. 20. In August, 1997, Lauren Development submitted a "Levee Fact Sheet" to the City in support of the Project. That document included the following statement: "In 1941, an 'easement for Flood Control and Water Conservation' in favor of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District was recorded over properties north and east of the Deer Creek interception levee, including the [Lauren Development Property]." A laate and correct copy of the Levee Fact Sheet is attached to the City's Staff Report dated August 18, 1997, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 21. As reflected in the Levee Fact Sheet, Lauren Development does not dispute that' at least until June, I983, the Flood Control Levee offered virtually the only flood protection from the 2,374-acre Deer Creek watershed to the no~oh of the Lauren Development Property. See Exhibit 7. In June, 1983, the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers completed the Deer Creek debris basin to the north of the Lauren Development Property (the "Deer Creek Debris Basin") and the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel at the easterly boundary of the Lauren Development Property. Id. LA.3 :LSQ~PLD\VCD~21086653.2 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22. The Levee Fact Sheet states further that, at the time Tentative Tract 12332 was approved in May, 1983, the Lauren Development Property "was not subdivided at this time because the County Flood Control District still owned the flood control easement over the subject property." Id. The Levee Fact Sheet also states that "[t]estimony to the Planning Commission in 1983 indicated that the ultimate disposition of the [Lauren Development Property] was unknown because 'the Flood Control District has not yet made up its mind about whether it was [still] needed for flood control purposes". Id The County Flood Control District continued to utilize that easement until 1986, five years after the City's adoption of the General Plan. Id. These facts indicate that, not only did the City designate the Lauren Development Property as "Open Space" in 1981 when it adopted the General Plan, there was no legitimate basis for amending any of those "Open Space" designations until at least 1986. 23. Regardless of whether the Flood Control Levee remains necessary to provide adequate flood protection for Haven View Estates and Rancho Cucamonga V (although Homeowners vigorously assert that it is), the fact remains that the City never amended any of the "Open Space" designations for the Lauren Development Property in the General Plan after the construction of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Deer Creek Flood Control Channel or. for that matter. at any time followini, the adoption of the General Plan in !981. Consequently, to this day, the Lauren Development Property is still designated as "Open Space - Flood Control/Utility Corridor" in the Land Use Element and as "Open Space" under the categories of "Flood Control Lands" and "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area" in the open Space Plan of the Environmental Resources Super Element. 24. A true and correct copy of the May 11, 1983 Staff Report prepared by the City's plaxming staff (the "Plannin~ Staff") in conjunction with the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract 12332 is attached hereto as Exhibit 8 (the "May 11 Staff' Report"). In the May 11 Staff Report, the Planning Staff correctly noted, LA3 :LSQ~D\VCD~210g6653.2 = 1 O- 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 under the heading "General Plan Designations", that the property to the north of Tentative Tract 12332 (i.e., the Lauren Development Property)~was designated m the General Plan as "Flood Control/Utility Corridor". Exhibit 8. 25. During the administrative process for Tentative Tract 12332, the Planning Staff also prepared a Site Utilization Map (the "Site Utilization Map") that correctly depicted the entire triangular Lauren Development Property as "Flood Control District Easement". A true and correct copy of the Site Utilization Map is attached as Exhibit A to the May 11 Staff Report. See Exhibit 8. A comparison of the Site Utilization Map with the Open Space Plan Map (Exhibit 3) confirms that the Lauren Development Property is currently designated under two "Open Space" categories m the Open Space Plan Map, "Flood Control Lands" and "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area", each of which permits an average density of only one unit per net buildable 10 acres. Furthermore, a comparison of the Site Utilization Map with the Land Use Plan Map in the Land Use Element (Exhibit 2) indicates that the entire Lauren Development Property consists of "Open Space-Flood Control", which also does not permit residential development in excess of one umt per net buildable 10 acres. 26. On February 12, 1986, the Planning Staff prepared another Staff Report, this time in conjunction with Tentative Tract 12332-2 for the 151 lots in Rancho Cucamonga V. A true and correct copy of that Staff Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. In that Staff Report, the Planning Staff again accurately stated that the General Plan designation for the property to the north of Tentative Tract 12332 (i.e_ the Lauren Development Property) was "Flood Control/Utility Comdor within the City's sphere of influence." Exhibit 9. 27. On February 22, 1989, the Planning Staff prepared another Staff Report in conjunction with an application for Design Review approval for Tentative Tract 12332-2. LA3:LSQ\PLID~VCD~21086653.2 - 1 1- 1 A true and correct copy of that Staff Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Once again, the 2 Planning Staff correctly found that the Lauren Development Property to the north was 3 designated m the General Plan as "Flood Control". See Exhibit 10. Under the heading "Site 4 Characteristics", that Staff Report went on to state: "The site is bounded on the south by the 5 Hillside channel, on the east by flood control property and the Deer Creek channel, and on the north by flood control property and the Deer Creek channel." ld. The Planning Commission approved the Design Review for Tentative Tract 12332-2 on February 22, 1989. 6 7 8 9 10 28. Following that approval of Design Review, the 151 lots which comprise 11 Rancho Cucamonga V were sold to another developer, JCC Development. JCC 12 Development submitted a new application for Design Review with respect to 30 of the lots in 13 Rancho Cucamonga V. In connection with that application, the Planning Staff prepared a 14 Staff Report dated March 28, 1990, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as 15 Exhibit 11. In that Staff Report, the Planning Staff expressly referenced "Proposed Tentative 16 Tract 14771", which had been submitted to the City several months earlier for the purpose of 17 subdividing the Lauren Development Property. Following that reference, the Planning Staff 18 for the first time incorrectly described the General Plan designation for the Lauren 19 Development Property to the north as "Very Low Residential (less than two dwelling units 20 per acre)." See Exhibit 11. The only thing that had changed from the prior three staff 21 reports, which had correctly identified the General Plan designation as "Flood Control", and 22 this Staff Report was that one of Lauren Development's predecessors in interest, Brock 23 Homes,, had submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 14771 ("Tentative Tract 14771") to the City 24 for approval. Id. However, neither Brock Homes nor anyone else has ever applied for, nor 25 has the City Council ever adopted, any General Plan amendment with respect to the Lauren 26 Development Property to change any of its various open space designations, including the 27 "Open Space - Flood Control/Utility Corridor" designation on the Land Use Plan Map or the 28 "Flood Control Lands" and "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area" designations on LA3 :LSQ~LD\VCD~21086653.2 - 12- 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 the Open Space Plan Map. The three prior staff reports, which were prepared before the City evinced an interest in the development of the Lauren Development Property, accurately reflects the current General Plan designations for that property. THE 14771 FINAL MAP 29. The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14771 for the Lauren Development Property on November 14, 1990. However, Lauren Development's predecessors in interest were unable to proceed with the developments of the Project for various reasons, including financial difficulties. Tentative Tract 14771 included a stated expiration date of November 14, 1992. However, during this extended dormant period, Tentative Tract 14'771 was purportedly extended four times. Homeowners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that in 1992, the Planning Commission extended the expiration date of Tentative Tract 14771 to November 14, 1993. The expiration date of Tentative Tract 14771 was subsequently extended for a period of two years to November 14, 1995 by operation of Senate Bill 428. On October 30, 1995, the Planning Staffpurportedly granted a further extension of the expiration date of Tentative Map 14771 to November 14, 1996. Finally, the expiration date of Tentative Tract 14771 was purportedly extended by one year fi'om November 14, 1996 to November 14, 1997 by operation of Assembly Bill 711. 30. In September, 1996, Lauren Development submitted new improvement plans for the Project for review by the City. Lauren Development subsequently submitted the 14771 Final Map to the City for approval. 31. The consideration of the 14771 Final Map was placed on the consent calendar for the City Council's meeting on October 15, 1997. Prior to that meeting, on October 8, 1997, counsel for Petitioners wrote to James Marianan, the City Attorney, and set forth in detail Petitioners' objections to the Project generally, and discussed in particular how LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VCDX21086653.2 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Project was inconsistent with the General Plan. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 12. The City Attorney responded to that letter on October 10, 1997. A true and correct copy of the City Attorney's response letter is attached as Exhibit 13 for the Lauren Development Property. In that letter, the City Attorney refused to address in straightforward fashion how the Project could be consistent with the General Plan. Instead, the Ci.ty Attorney offered the convoluted argument that (a) the City Council rezoned the Lauren Development Property as "Low Density Residential" in 1983, (b) the "Low Density Residential" zoning designation permits the development of the Project, (c) at the time the City Council adopted that zoning designation, it must have determined that the zoning designation was consistent with the General Plan and (d) therefore, the Project must be consistent with the General Plan. However, the City Attorney did not, and could not, explain how the "Low Density Residential" zoning designation was consistent with any of the numerous "Open Space" designations in the General Plan. 32. On October 13, 1997, Petitioners' counsel again wrote to the City Attorney and advised that the City's zoning designation for the Lauren Development Property must conform to the General Plan, not vice versa, and that under settled law, the "Very Low Residential" zoning designation adopted for the Lauren Development Property was inconsistent with the General Plan open space designations for the property, and was therefore void ab initio. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 14. Petitioners' counsel also pointed out to the City Attorney, as Lauren Development had in its Levee Fact Sheet, that when the General Plan was adopted in 1981, the Lauren Development Property was considered "flood control lands", and that up until 1986, the City itself had referred to the Lauren Development Property as flood control lands. See Exhibit 14. Petitioners' counsel further noted that the City Attorney had not disputed that the Lauren Development Property has always been designated as Open Space on both the Land Use Plan Map and the Open Space Plan Map in the General Plan. Id. Petitioners' counsel also responded that, instead of explaining how the zoning designation for the Lauren LA.3 :LSQkPLD\VCD~10~6653 2 - 14- I Development Property was consistent with the Open Space designations in the General Plan, 2 the City Attorney had simply stated that the Lauren Development Property had been zoned 3 in 1983 with the "intent" and "purpose" of conformity with the General Plan. I_d. Finally, 4 Petitioners' counsel noted Petitioners' understanding that the City itself had historicallyfound 5 the Lauren Development Property to be designated as "Open Space" in the General Plan. lcl. 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33. On October 15, 1997, in response to strong public interest, the City Council removed Lauren Development's request for approval of the 14771 Final Map from its consent calendar and conducted a public hearing. Petitioners' counsel spoke during that hearing and objected to approval of the 14771 Final Map on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the density limitations established by the "Open Space" designations in the General Plan. A true and correct copy of the transcript made from the official tape recordings of that meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit 15. Tellingly, although the City conceded that the General Plan had never been amended with regard to the Lauren Development Property since its adoption in 1981, the City refused to answer the basic question posed by Petitioners' counsel: What was the General Plan designation for the Lauren Development Property when the General Plan was adopted in 19817 Exhibit 15, pp. 108-110, 130. The Planning Staff claimed that the General Plan designation for the Lauren Development Property was "conceptually" Open Space in 1981, but that the "delineation as to what property fell within inside which land use category [of the General Plan] was determined in 1983, through the zoning." ~ pp. 131-132. Finally, the City Attorney informed the City Council that if they agreed that the 14771 Final Map did not conform to the General Plan, the City Council would have to disapprove it. ~ pp. 136, 137, 142. 34. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing on October 15, 1997, the Council voted 3 to I to approve the 14771 Final Map. A true and correct copy of Resolution No. 97-158 approving the 14771 Final Map is attached hereto as Exhibit 16 ("Resolution 97-158"). Notwithstanding the City Attorney's admonition, Resolution 97-158 does no__[t LA3:LSQ~PLD\VCD~21086653 2 - 1 5- 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 include a finding that the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the "Open Space - Flood Control/Utility Corndot", "Open Space - Flood Control Lands" or "Open Space - Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area" designations in the General Plan. 35. Homeowners have exhausted all available administrative remedies required to be pursued by them. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate - Violation of Land Use Element of General Plan) 36. Homeowners reallege and mcorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, as though set forth in full. 37. Under California law, any and all development of land in the City, and all permits and approvals issued by the City in connection with such development, must be consistent with the General Plan. 38. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Lauren Development Property as "Open Space - Flood Control/Utility Corndot." See Exhibit 2. 39. The General Plan provides that land designated as "Open Space" cannot be developed beyond a density of one dwelling unit per net buildable 10 acres. See Exhibit 5, p. IV-21 40. The Lauren Development Property is approximately 25.3 acres m size. LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VCD~210866~ 3.2 - 1 6- 1 41. The Project is inconsistent with and violates the General Plan because it 2 includes 40 dwelling units on the 25.3-acre site, while the General Plan permits a maximum 3 density of only two dwelling traits. 4 42. The City's Development Code provides that the General Plan controls 5 any action by the City concerning land use and zoning: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Development "No use of land or building for which an application is required pursuant to this title is to be approved for processing under this title unless it is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In any case where there is a conflict in regulation between this title and the Land Use Element, the Land Use Element prevails." Code § 17.02.010(D). 43. The City Council's unlawful approval of the 14771 Final Map and Lauren Development's development of the Project will, unless invalidated or enjoined by the Court, cause immediate and irreparable harm to Homeowners. The grading for, and construction of, 40 homes in violation of the General Plan would permanently impair Homeowners' and the general public's interest in having the General Plan applied consistently to all residents of Rancho Cucamonga and it would permanently destroy Homeowners members' quiet enjoyment of their property. Moreover, the grading and construction in connection with the Project would permanently destroy the natural aesthetic that the open space designations m the General Plan were intended to preserve, as well as eliminate a designated major water recharge area in the City. Finally, the Project will involve the removal of the 40-foot Flood Control Levee, which now provides a necessary protective bamer for flood waters and debris flow originating across the broad alluvial fan of Deer Creek Canyon. Because the Deer Creek Debris Basin has insignificant storage LA3:LSQXPLD\VCD~210866~3.2 - 17- I 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 capacity, removal of the Flood Control Levee will cause a significant risk to the health and safety of all downgradient residents, including members of Perihoners. 44. The City Council's approval of the 14771 Final Map was arbitrary, capricious and entirely lacking in evidentiary support, in that the 14771 Final Map is facially inconsistent with the General Plan. Alternahvely, the City Council's approval of the 14771 Final Map consrituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion because the City Council failed to approve the 14771 Final Map in the manner required by law and because there was no substantial, credible evidence that the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the General Plan. 45. Homeowners do not have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law, other than the relief sought in this Petition, that will prevent respondents and real parties in interest from acting outside their legal authority. 46. The Court should: (a) enjoin and/or stay the effectiveness of any and all permits, approvals and ordinances granted or adopted by the City relating to the development of the Lauren Development Property, including without limitation the 14771 Final Map approved with respect to the Lauren Development Property; and Co) enjoin and/or stay any and all grading or construction on, or other development of, the Lauren Development Property pending a final adjudication of this Petition. 47. Unless the City is so enjoined and/or stayed, Homeowners and the general public will suffer irreparable environmental, safety, economic and social harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, as described above. The imposirion of a stay is LA3:LSQ~PLD\VCD~210~66532 - 18- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 not against the public interest in that a stay will prevent respondents and real parties in 2 interest from taking actions that create a substantial likelihood of the construction of an 3 illegal development and the destruction of a flood control levee vital to the public safety, a 4 major water recharge area, and a vast area of open space designed to preserve the natural 5 aesthetic. SECOND CAUSF. OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate - Violation of Open Space Plan of the General Plan) 48. Homeowners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, as though set forth in full. 49. California Government Code Section 65567 provides: "No building permit may be issued, no subdivision map approved, and no open-space zoning ordinance adopted, tatless the proposed construction, subdivision or ordinance is consistent with the local open space plan." (emphasis added). Section 65560 of the California Government Code defines "local open-space plan" as the "open-space element of a county or city general plan .... " 50. The City has included its Open Space Element m the Environmental Resources Super Element of the General Plan. 51. The Open Space Plan in the Environmental Resources Super Element designates the Lauren Development Property as "open Space" under the categories of "Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area" and "Flood Control Lands". See Exhibit 3. 52. The General Plan provides that land designated as "Open Space" cannot be developed beyond a density of one dwelling unit per net buildable 10 acres. See Exhibit 5, p. W-21. LA~:LSO~'LDXVC~2~OS~3.2 - 19- 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 53. The Lauren Development Property is approximately 25.3 acres in size. 54. The Project is inconsistent with and violates the Open Space Plan because it includes 40 dwelling units on the 25.3-acre site, while the "Open Space" designations permit a maximtun density of only two dwelling units. 55. The City Council's approval of the 14771 Final Map was arbitrary, capricious and entirely lacking in evidentiary support, in that the 14771 Final Map is facially inconsistent with the General Plan. Alternatively, the City Conncil's approval of the 14771 Final Map constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion because the City Council failed to approve the 14771 Final Map in the manner required by law and because there was no substantial, credible evidence that the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the General Plan. 56. The City Council's unlawful approval of the 14771 Final Map and Lauren Development's development of the Project will, unless invalidated or enjoined by the Court, cause immediate and irreparable harm to Homeowners. The grading and construction of 40 homes, in violation of the General Plan, would permanently impair Homeowners' and the general public's interest in having the General Plan applied consistently to all residents of Rancho Cucamonga and it would permanently destroy Homeowners members' quiet enjoyment of their property. Moreover, the grading and cons~ucfion in connection with the Project would permanently destroy the natural aesthetic that the open space designations in the General Plan were intended to preserve, as well as eliminate a designated major water recharge area in the City. Finally, the Project will involve the removal of the 40-foot Flood Control Levee, which now provides a necessary protective barrier for flood waters and debris flow ori~natmg across the broad alluvial fan of Deer Creek Canyon. Because the Deer Creek Debris Basin has insignificant storage capacity, removal of the Flood Control Levee will cause a significant risk to the health and safety of all downgradient residents, including members of Petitioners~ LA3: LSQkI?LD\V C'D~21086653.2 -20- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 57. Homeowners do not have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law, other than the relief sought in this Petition, that will prevent respondents and real parties in interest from acting outside their legal authority. 58. The Court should: (a) enjoin and/or stay the effectiveness of any and all permits, approvals and ordinances granted or adopted by the City relating to the development of the Lauren Development Property, including without limitation the 14771 Final Map issued with respect to the Lauren Development Property; and (b) enjoin and/or stay any and all grading or construction on, or other development of, the Lauren Development Property pending a final adjudication of this Petition. 59. Unless the City is so enjoined, Homeowners and the general public will suffer irreparable environmental, safety, economic and social harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, as described above. The imposition of a stay is not against the public interest in that a stay will prevent respondents and real paxties in interest from taking actions that create a substantial likelihood of the construction of an illegal development and the destruction of a flood con~xol levee vital to the public safety, a major water recharge area, and a vast area of open space designed to preserve the natural aesthetic. 60. Homeowners will be permanently and irreparably harmed ff Lauren Development is permitted to proceed with the Project. LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VC'T~ 10116653.2 -2 1- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate - Failure to Satisfy Findings Requirements) 61. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs I through 60, inclusive, as though set forth in full. 62. Pursuant to SecUon 1094.5(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if the respondent's "order or decision is not supported by the findings .... "State law requires that the decision-making body render findings m support of any quasi-adjudicatory decision sufficient to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis to seek review of the decision and, in the event of judicial review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the decision-making body's action. Topanga Assn. For A Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 514-15 (1974). Additionally, under State law, to be legally sufficient, all required findings must bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or order. I_4d. 63. As set forth in the First Cause of Action, and as the City Attorney admonished the City Council (see Exhibit 15, pp. 136, 137, 142) under State law the City was required to make an express finding that the 14771 Final Map was consistent with the General Plan. In Resolution 97-158 approving the 14771 Final Map (see Exhibit 16), the City failed to make any findings, including any finding that the 14771 Final Map was consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City Council failed to bridge the analytic gap between its approval of the 14771 Final Map and any evidence in the administrative record that the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the General Plan. 64. As set forth in the Second Cause of Action, under California Government Code Section 65567, the City Council was required to make a f'mding that the L A3: LS Q',PLD\VCDX21086653 ~2 -22- 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 14771 Final Map was consistent with the Open Space Plan. As noted above, Resolution 97-158 does not contain any findings, including any finding that the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the Open Space Plan. See Exhibit 16. In addition, the City Council failed to bridge the analytic gap between its approval of the 14771 Final Map and any evidence in the administrative record that the 14771 Final Map is consistent with the General Plan. 65. Under Sections 16.18.110 and 16.16.110 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council was required to make the following additional findings before approving 14771 Final Map: (a) that the Lauren Development Property is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (b) that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; and (c) that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 66. As alleged above, the City Courteft failed to make any such necessary findings or bridge the analytical gap between its approval of the 14771 Final Map and any evidence in the administrative record to support such findings. 67. The City Council's approval of the 14771 Final Map was arbitrary, capricious and entirely lacking in evidentiary support, in that Resolution 97-158 failed to include any of the findings required pursuant to State or City law, including without limitation the findings required under Section 65567 of the California Government Code and LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VC'Dk21086653.2 =2 3 = 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Sections 16.18.010 and 16.16.110 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Alternatively, the City 2 Council's approval of the 14771 Final Map constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion 3 because the City Council failed to proceed in the manner required by law, in that Resolution 4 97-158 failed to include any of the findings required pursuant to State or City law, including 5 without limitation the fmdings required under Section 65567 of the California Government Code and Sections 16.18.010 and 16.16.110 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. relief: WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request the Court grant the following ON AT ~l~ CAUSES OF ACTION 1. Issue a peremptory writ of mandate: (a) ordering the City to set aside the City Council's approval of the 14771 Final Map and any other permits, approvals or ordinances granted or adopted by the City to Lauren Development for the proposed development of the Project on the Lauren Development Property; (b) enjoinrag and/or staying the City from issuing any further permits, approvals or ordinances for grading or conslxucfion on, or other development of, the Lauren Development Property that are inconsistent with or otherwise in violation of the City's General Plan, including without limitation the Land Use Element and Environmental Resources Super Element of the General Plan, the Development Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, or any other applicable statute, ordinance or rule of law; and (c) immediately enjoinrag and/or staying any and all grading, construction or other work relating to the Project. LA3 :LSQhULD',VCDk210g6653,2 -24- 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 2. Issue an order:: (a) immediately enjoinrag and/or staying the effectiveness of any and all permits, approvals or ordinances granted or adopted by the City relating to the development of the Lauren Development Property, as well as the granting or adoption of any further permits, approvals and/or ordinances inconsistent with the General Plan, the Development Code, the Subdivision Ordinance or other applicable statute, ordinance or law; (b) enjoinrag and/or staying any grading construction or other development of the Lauren Development Property pending a fmal adjudication of this Petition; (c) prohibiting the City from granting, issuing or adopting any further permits, approvals and/or ordinances with respect to the Project which are inconsistent with the General Plan, the Development Code, the Subdivision Ordinance or other applicable statute, ordinance or law; and (d) prohibiting any further grading, construction or other development of the Lauren Development Property which is inconsistent with the General Plan, the. Development Code, the Subdivision Ordinance or other applicable statute, ordinance or law. 3. Enter an order awarding Petitioners their reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and costs incurred in this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 and all other applicable laws. LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VCDX210~(~53.2 -25- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. December 31, 1997 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON RICHARD L. STONE JACK H. RUBENS By Attorneys for Petitioners HAVEN ¥1EW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION and RANCHO CUCAMONGA V- HAVEN VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION LA3 :LSQ~PLD\VCD~210S6653.2 -26- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICA FION I, Millie Morns, declare as follows: I ~ Presidem ofRC-3 Ho~o~ers' A~sociafio~ one of ~e petitioners ~d pimPifs ~ ~s acton. I have read ~e foregoing Petition md Cornpitot ~d ~ow its contents. ~e facts flleged m ~e Pe~fion ~d Cornpitot ~e ~e of my om ~owledge ~d belief, except ~ to ~ose ma~ers flleged on ~omafion ~d be~ef, ~d as to ~ose maners I believe ~em to be ~e. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califorma that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this,~q%y of December 1997, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ' ' ~ MILLIE MORRIS ,27 LA3: LSQ\DEC\VCD\21090566.1 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 VERIFILc~ rlON I, Bruce Ann Hahn, declare as follows: I am President of Haven View~Homeowners['Association, one of the petitioners and plaintiffs in this action. I have read the foregoing Petition and Complaint and know its contents. The facts alleged in the Petition and Complaint are true of my own knowledge and belief, except as to those matters alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this~__~y of December 1997, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. BRUCE ANN HAHN LA3 :LSQ~DEC~VCD~21090574, I ,?8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 Exhibit 3 l 4 2 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 INDEX OF EXHIBITS Description Pace Area Map ............................................... 30 Land Use Plan Map ...................................... 31 Open Space Plan Map .................................... 32 Flood Control Map ....................................... 33 General Plan Text ........................................ 34 Overlay Map ........................................... 46 Levee Fact Sheet ......................................... 48 May 11, 1983 Staff Report ................................... 54 February 12, 1986 Staff Report .............................. 73 February 22, 1989 Staff Report .............................. 81 March 28, 1990 Staff Report ................................. 86 October 8, 1997 letter from Richard L. Stone to James Markman .... 91 October 10, 1997 letter from James Markman to Richard L. Stone ... 97 October 13, 1997 letter from Richard L. Stone to James Markman .. 100 Transcript of October 15, 1997 City Council Hearing ............ 106 City Council Resolution No. 97-158 ......................... 145 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1 OOO'+/- A DEER CREEK DEBRIS BASIN FLOOD CONTROL LAND LAUREN DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY HAVEN VIEW ESTATES RANCHO CUCAMONGA V FLOOD CONTROL LEVEE DEER CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS -'DWP EASEMENT AREA FLOOD CONTROL LAND CITY LIMITS .J WILSON AVE. EXHIBIT 0O3O ' ' ' ll~ "" ' · ' I :' ---- '-/:,'.'": ::__--:----:----Z.Z~"''f':': ,f'~.:'" ',:'.',:' '." '---Z---- 'l,' .,:',:.' l;: ~ .'.', .~: -~. '-5::::: :::.'Z:;::~ , , ~..~ ~ . __ ,,~:. .........__ ,.,...__..11i~_..:. _.~::::,.~....~.~.LAND USE PLAN ~,~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~-- .::~_ ~ ~ ..... ......~~ ~-~.~-~~~~~.~:~~~;:~::-~.,,~,~:~-~.~~.~.,~ ~ .~~...-:.~RESIDENTIAL ,~. ~ ~ (~~ Z~ ~ .. ~ ~. ~ -- - , : ----'-:----~-'-~~" ~ -'-' -'~~ "~'~~'~~~~'~~~~~~ ~ VERY LOW <2 DU's/AC ~ ~ ~ ..... :-'.~ ' ' - -: :~:!---- ....-~ ~~~~~-~:E::;'~' ~ ..... ....7::cf~<?~-- -~::~r~ -...>~ LOW 2-4 DU's/AC ~':~~~ ~. 1 -- ' - ': _ ~, .......---~_-~~~ ,~~~~~~-~..-, ~.?~<<<~ ..~~>:<<-: :-'~'~ MEDIUM 8-~4 DU's/ac · . : ....-: . / ..- . .... .~ , .,,,,~ ~? . .. .. ... ....,..~ , ~ L ' ~:~ _]~ : ~'::~ ~Hi~''iU" ', f l .... ' ,.,,;~7 (,~ , ':4';~/ ...... ~ '~==~"~ MEDIUM'HIGH la ·~ ~ ~-- ~--~ - · ",' · ~"' I ~<<~ · ~..,~. ~ .:::~:: ,, . . .7/ ,~ . :~ ....... ~ ................... ...._ .... _ ................ ~ ....... ..... _ ~ ~-' :~-: ~ ~ ...... .....~ ....~.: ..... .....:_ . '. '"1~ u.-...', ~. ~EEE~ '~i :~-::~.~ '.':H'H'~:~:~ '~.~.4.f~· ." t-,,~ --,~.--;-t]~,,'-'"'="~'"" ....~'~T.:~-:~ ....":.~"E'V-'t ~-~ ' f~l~:l'" i 'i 'r: = · ~:~:~:::::::::..:.:.:'~ : ........... ......~~"~.~ ~. ..... -~ ..... ~-__ ......] .... __ . ..... .................:::.:.:.:.. , ,,:,,,,_ _ __ ~ ~, ~ '~ '~ ~ ~ '~~ ~. ~ .?- ~-- L~- ~ _. = . - ' ~ ~ ',, ~ ' - . .......... ~ .... I . , -.."1 ~ · .. 1~ ...... ·~'"':'"'": .........::'::::".'-'-' .......~ "'"'"'"'"""'· .. · '~e , ~ ..........~:::::.>:~ :'~-::~ -, ..... ......., . ,,~ . .~. __, _~I ,,: ..::: :.:~ ......:~f ~i:~:. 1 .....//' '~,~.,,~..~:.,.~ ~.,~ · ::::::::::::::::::::::: ~1 !'~ [ ........ v ,! · .'..v. I ! f:~ .... ~ ~ t --, ~ --.~ ' ' ' ..... ::;::E:::]f ~t~'~".':~:;,':[...'t[ ::::::::::::~:~:'' .......:/~~[~'-', ~ r'm ~ "--q[ j ~ .:.:.:.: ......:.::~~:t>~~~:::~,~ ....:..'-'.'.'.' .....J, .......'/ .......~,t .....~~ ~L ',' .........' - ~ · . ~ ........ , ,HmlH~t- ,--~.~.~ ~ .......---: .-. , ,.~ .... ,~ ' ' . · ~ ~ ........ - .........,. · ~ -, ~ -,---. ....... I ..... -~- ,~._ · . .,-. . . , ............,,..,,.,: ...... ..........,.., ~r, · ~ ~ . I · ~:~:::~:::..'t i -,'~ ~ ~ ~ I " ' ~ ' ' · ~ · ... ,... ~ ,,, , I i~ · 14-24 DU's/AC ® MASTER PLAN REQUIRED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE ]se Line Adopted Planning Commission ":':~" ~! it IIl: '~ ]~"'~'~ ~"' 'eb. 17,1981 RES. No. 81-13 :~:~:E:~:~::~:~:~ I: ~ , I April 6, 1981 RES. No.81-40 E "'.,,', ,,..- , [-.--.-~ ~.:~ ' ,~, ,i,,,,~.=,= :~'~'""':-~ ~i , ,._ ..,,.,,, ,,..,, i '~ ,..,~s ~-~ - ,.~ ,,-~ Arrow [:' r~.- . ....... ~ ~,.~,,2 - Res. ~1~ ~t~ Re~ 91-362 1', ~91 ......................... ,.,. I [ Res. 8~69&2-~~ g1-36711-~gl lllllllJllllJ[ IIIIIlllllll ~ g~-3~ ~l-~-g~ ~,~ .~////~,... ," " .......... :.. .... ~ ~ ReS. 87-192 . ~ . ~S. 07-163 Res. ~01A~1-~ ,,..- Res. ~2 ~ ~ ~ ~ Re.. ~6~ I~1~ ~' ~ O ' ~ ~ ReS. 8~ 2-1~09 COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL t~_/7Z,] INDUSTRIAL PARK l~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ~ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL :.'..'.~'~'~ MIXED USE OPEN SPACE ~ HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ~,v?..~ OPEN SPACE :~:-:~ FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY COR'D. ~ SPECIAL BOULEVARD PUBLIC FACILITIES ~J EXISTING SCHOOLS [_~ PROPOSED SCHOOLS ~ :',;.~PARKS '(EXISTING PARKS SHOWN 'P') ~---1CIVIC/COMMUNITY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN ,, iBanyan FIGURE IV-4 OPEN SPACE PLAN NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Ff=ew8¥ PROPOSED PARK FLOOD CONTROL LANDS AND UTIMTY/ TRANSPORTATION R.O.W. LIMITED DEVELOPMENT :::::::::::::::::::::: HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IV-21 Base Line ~ STREAMSIDE WOODLAND & ~-. WATER RECHARGE AREA ' , l''-- SPECIAL VEGETATION ]~ i:~:,{ ~ I __Z'_'-----~ HAZARD PREVENTION .- ., - ......... r EXCESSIVE AND < ~ : >~ ~ .............. ~: ~ ' -"-""' ' ' , UNSTABLE SLOPES , ~. · t_ ! ; ~..'"?.~ .... , ½'.:~:-.:_.~:!.-'..::..'. ....: RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ": ....: ....' ....: ......:' EXISTING PARK · i , , , i ' ........... FIGURE I I.~.-; t,--.,; ! I 13el~ ~a~il~ I i 1 - FLOOD CONTROL MAP r-"l . : ~._.: .. ,, . ~ i ! , .... ~ ....-:~----%' . ~ -. ,:: , .,. ..-- FLOOD cONTROL CHANNEL ' ~ ~ ' ' -"- ~ ' ~'" .......' ~ -~""PROPOS~ CHANNEL _ ~_..~,,~mo~,{'~ o ~ ., ~ ,~. ~ : -. ,= :,,. ,,., L~ . ~CHECKDAM OR DEBRIS BASIN -. \ /, Ill ----t w,,.o. · .l ~ ._.. L_ _ L'~._ .....,..__._. ~, --., ,.,. ~ __~__=-_.. ........,-.~---~ ............, ......~.~PROPOSEDBASlN ~ t o,:- ~, .- . -:= i ,~STORM DRAIN' ~. .~.~e -- ~.---------.' I e° ~_1 "~ ~ ~ · · urnmir ' .-~. ' u % · · · ·--- · o : · · -.-,--,~,,_~.. ::, ~ ...... PROPOSED STORM DRAIN . . .., -. ~ L ..-- ---'----- ---- ...... ~ ., ~ --LEVY - · ~ t'_ .,, ~....,.,m ~ ~' ~.. ~ ...,-.~ _ ~ II ell ~ m, -.~ · · % 1.J---,. ~ o ~. , ..~. %',: ~. . % . 0,, c..~ , ~., 8,-, . .:, ~,6" : \ \\= · _.. .,_.. ,,,,,-,,,~,,'-u ~ * " ///-; ~ '- '~'~ " ,':, i / i ,,',' : ~. :.' ,/~f :'§ '-.. : ' / ; ~ ~ e..i. ; ,. , '- _:J // ~ t . %/?\ / I ~--- ~' :, // '.~ : c ~' ~, ' / ........: ........,' ~ /7 :~ ' r '---~ : / ; =.,'// :! / -~· . /' · ! // .I / ,- I · . / . -- i// .s I ..* I ae I ~ · V/ II .... ' ' i · .' // ! :1 ! I · ' ' , II I -I , , ~. rf i .. :l , .i ! . ....... ,. ..... j , .1 .... .._,._. , ~ , . . . j.. ,, · ' art- ' '- 1 XX - ..\ .-, : · E I · '- ,;x,,,'-,, .... ___._._._._._._._~.~ . · '~*~q, ), · / I ' · ~ : .~/,~,.., ~ ~ : CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN for the - California - Recommended for adoption by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission By Resolution No. 81-13, February 17, 1981, (Amended June 13, 1984; Resolution No. 84-49 & October 26. 1988. Resolution No. 88-124) I:Mncho Cucamonga City Council Resolution No. 81-40, April 6, 1981 (Amended July 18, 1984, Resolution No. 84-207 & January 4, 1989, Resolution No. 88-701 ) ~XtIIBIT 5 0034 LAND USE: Implementation Through the Industrial Specific Plan, greater definition of uses will be established in the subareas of this land use category. An example of industrial heavy uses west of Devore Freeway include: forge shops, steel milling facilities, plastic plants, steel fabrication -facilities, welding shops, wood-working facilities and heavy machine shops. Uses east of the Devore Freeway could include large structures to facilitate processing and manufacturing and open area storage of raw or semi-refined products. Public Facilities: Public land uses and community services include parks and recreation, schools, fire protection, civic center, and other governmental/quasi-governmental uses. Written policies relating to the location of these critical public services are identified in the Public Facilities Element and the Land Use Plan reflects these provisions. Open Space: The City must maintain areas of open space in order to protect valuable natural resources, and to prevent development in areas considered unsafe because of environmental constraints. ^ desire expressed by members of the CitizensAdvisory Committee is the need to preserve the area's openness and rural setting. This suggests that the City should actively promote the conservation, management, and protection of natural resources. Written and mapped policies to ensure that the resources are managed so that posterity can enjoy them are outlined in the Community Design Element and the Environmental Resources and Public Health and Safety Super-Elements. The purpose of the Hillside Residential District is to maintain natural open space character; protect natural land forms; minimize erosion; provide for public safety; protect water, flora, and fauna resources; and establish design standards to provide for limited development in harmony with the environment. Man-made open spaces, such as parks, golf courses, and common open spaces within residential housing projects, also help maintain an open character within the City. In particular, large open spaces, such as Hedtage Park, Red Hill Park, the future Central Park, the future Subarea 18 golf course and the Red Hill Country Club golf course, provide significant vistas, and provide animal habitat, vegetation and water resources in areas that would otherwise be developed without such features. Mixed Use: The opportunity exists to mix different, but compatible, land uses and activities within mixed use developments. Mixed use developments are ideally suited for land within downtown or adjacent to high activity nodes along majortransportation corridors. The concept capitalizes on the ability of a mixed-use project to provide an integrated environment, to respondto evolving market conditions, to offer a variety of physical development types, and to create strong pedestrian orientation. Mixed use projects typically incorporate a mix of office, commercial, light industrial, and research oriented activities, and residential uses all clustered together into unified, highly identifiable developments. Entertainment, recreational, cultural, and conventionuses may also be part ofthe mix. These projects III- 16 (Revved June 1. 1994) 0035 TABLE III - 2 LANDUSE SUMMARY CITY ESTIMATED PERCENT VACANT LAND USF ACRF::A~F OF TOTAL ACRFA~F:: Residential Very Low 3,990 16.6 1,1 70 Low' 3,895 16.2 495 Low Medium 1,799 7.5 602 Medium 849 3.6 235 Medium High 441 1.8 160 High 79 0.3 55 Subtotal 11,053 46.0 2,717 Commerical General 716 3.0 369 Community 71 0.3 16 Neighborhood 188 0.8 59 Regional 91 0.4 91 Office 251 1.0 153 Subtotal 1,317 5.5 688 Industrial General 2,16~ 9.0 875 Industrial Park 1,095 4.6 747 Heavy 942 3.9 436 Subtotal 4,198 17.5 2,058 Open Space General 375 1.6 203 Hillside Residential 134 0.5 125 Flood/Utility 1.611 ° 6.7 1.166 · Subtotal 2,120 8.8 1,494 Public Facilities Schools 641 2.7 567 Parks 404 1.7 237 Civic Community 21 0.1 8 Roads 4.039 16.8 317 Subtotal 5,105 21.3 1,129 M~edUse 227 .9 141 CITY TOTAL 22,764 100.0 10,835 ' 175 to 225 acres has development potential upon improvement of flood control facilities (Revised June 1, 1994) III - 17 0036 Chapter IV ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Land Resources, Water Resources, Plant and Animal Resources, Open Space, Energy, Implementation 003? OPEN SPACE rapidly being depleted. The growth in Rancho Cucamonga between 1981 and 1988 brought 37,927 more persons and 13,408 housing units. Public and private recreational areas and utility corridors also provide open space. Location of Open Space: OPEN SPACE As a basic environmental resource of every city, open space serves a wide variety of essential functions. According to Government Code Section 65560(b), these include preservation of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. As mentioned earlier, a discussion of open space overlaps many of the subject areas discussed in the General Plan. The three major sources of open space in Rancho Cucamonga are the flood control lands, the agricultural lands which may or may not be in active production, and private vacant lands. Combined, these three resources, as of 1986, accounted for52 percent of the City's total area. Includingthe unincorporated areas to the north, 66 percent of the planning area currently exists as open space. The flood control lands traverse the City in a north-south direction along the creeks and channels. Unlike the agricultural and pdvate vacant lands, these corridors will not be developed. Consequently, they will play an even greater role in the future m not only will function to protect public safety but they will also provide visual relief and opportunities foroutdoorrecreation. The other open spaces, which are privately owned, are IV- 18 The Community of Alta Loma, with the exception of a few citrus g roves and windrows, shows little evidence of having been an area for agricultural production. Although the area is subdivided into 1/4 acre lots or greater, any illusion of openness that may be associated with large lots is suppressed by the block walls that enclose all subdivision tracts. Visual relief in the form of open space is offered by the citrus groves and windrows, as mentioned above, by the foothills that dse steeply at the City limits, by the 40 acre Heritage Park and also the flood control lands along the Cucamonga Creek and Demens Channel. South of 19th Street, much of the City's vacant lands are privately owned. Unless the City initiates action to purchase the land and maintain it for open space purposes, vacant areas will be filled in with development. Open spaces in this area at the time the City is fully developed will include the public school grounds, the public parks, the Cucamonga Creek, and the private Red Hill Country Club atop Red Hill. The Foothill and Industrial Area Specific Plans, in their designs and use limitations, will encourage openness and quality within development projects, and also continue linkages of open space throughout the community. A large public golf course is planned to stretch from 4th Street to the A. T. & S. F. Railroad, west of Milliken Avenue, as the central open space amenity ofthe Subarea 18 Specific Plan. (Revised June 1, 1994) 0038 The character of the City east of Haven Avenue is becoming less open and rural. The area consists of three Planned Communities, portions of the Industrial Specific Plan, Foothill Specific Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan. All of which have a specific character and identity · which incorporate some form of open space into their plans. To the extent that the large planned communities are under single ownerships, there is a rare opportunity to ensure that adequate attention be devoted to providing open space dudng the development and design of the communities. Both Deer and Day Creeks along with utility easement.~, which .cross this area, are key elements ofthe regional open space network. Toward the northeasterly boundary, Eftwanda is predominantly undeveloped. The Etiwanda Specific Plan guides residential development to preserve the rural atmosphere which now exists in the area. The Foothill and Industrial Specific Plans, in their designs and use limitations, will encourage openness and quality to projects and developments, and also will continue link- ages of open space throughout the community. Again, the City has the opportunity in these areas to ensure that development preserves the maximum amount of open sp~ce, especially where it lies adjacent to flood control lands or other publicly held lands. provides recreational opportunities for the entire region. OBJECTIVES: The objectives and policies that guide the City's decisions on open space resources are found throughout this General Plan. The premise of these objectives is summarized below (with the sections of the plan where the main discussion can be found indicated in parentheses). Promote a well-designed, continuous system of open spaces to preserve the qualift es of openness and to detine the City boundaries and the identity 'of neighborhoods and districts. (Community Design) Develop a continuous system of open spaces to facilitate provision of an integrated recreational facilities. Maintain open spaces to preserve lands with natural resource and scenic values. (Environmental Resources, Community Design) Maintain open spaces where flood, fire, geologic or seismic conditions may endanger public health and safety. (Public Health & Safety) POLICIES: Environmental constraints in the foothills include flood, fire hazards, geologic and seismic hazards. In order to ensure public safety, this area should be left, for the most part, natural, offering residents a scenic and recreational resource with limited development potential. The San Bernardino National Forest lies immediately north of the foothills and IV- 19 (Revised June 1. 1994) The City shall preserve the open space character of the foothills and encourage the County to adopt and implement a similar policy. The City shall designate the creeks, channels, utility corridors and transportation 0039 OPEN SPACE: Policies rights-of-way as major elements of the open space network. The City shall determine appropriate guide line s for setbacks and landscaping of creeks, channels, etc., in accordance with the objectives and policies contained in this Plan, in order to provide a visual and experiential link with the surrounding environment. Open space and tree landscaping should be used to define neighborhoods and distdct boundaries, and to delineate edges between the natural and built environment. The City shall seek to develop their park system, as described in the Recreation section of the Public Facilities Element, so that it affords open space relief as well as recreational opportunities to all neighborhoods in the City. Landscaping and trail systems shall be used as a means to connect the local recreational/open space network with the regional recreational/open space network. The City shall encourage the County to develop the regional trail system and to expand Cucatnonga-Guasti Regional Park. The City shall construct the City Central Park that will ensure its role as a major element of the local open space system. As part of the local open space network, historic centers should be upgraded and to the extent possible developed as centers for the districts around them. They will function as key focal points and reminders of the City's heritage. A Specific Plan should be developed for the hillside area. The City shall regulate land uses to prohibit development where excessive slopes and land instability may endanger public health and safety. In areas with development constraints including but not limited to tim, soil erosion, slopes and seismic hazards, development should be restricted and the area predominantly maintained as open space or as low intensity development, as determined justifiable by further site investigations. Pdor to any development within the hillside residential category, appropriate environmental studies should be conducted to determine land hold capacity and site development constraints. In no event, however, will development exceed a residential density of two units per net buildable area. (Revised June 1, 1994) 0040 A pdmary purpose of the open space land use designation is for protection of environmentallysensitive lands. However, there may exist limited opportunities for development in areas where slopes do not exceed 30%. An open space zone category ..... should be developed which establishes criteria for any development within the open space areas. Any residential development in the open space category should not exceed an average density of 1 unit per net buildable 10 acres. ~_..~..~...-" .~'~" /.//~// (Revised June 1. 1994) IV - 21 0041 CONSI.e'rENCY BETWEEN GENERAl.. PLAI~ 4ND IMPI..EMENTA TION ACTIONS Section 65566 requires that any zoning action by the City which restricts or regulates the use of open-space land or any interest in such land must be consistent with the City's open space plan. Closely related is Section 65567 which requires that the City's open space zoning ordinance, the adoption of which is mandated by Section 65910, also be consistent with the open space plan. Section 65911 specifies an additional criterion to be applied in granting vadancas from the terms of an open space zoning ordinance. CONSISTENCY BETWEEN GENERAL PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS This section of the chapter lists those requirements of state law which require consistency between the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the exercise of its police and corporate powers. Included in this listing are requirements which apply to powers the City is not now exercising, but may utilize in the future. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS: 7oning Reg,,l~tions. Section 65860 requires that the city's zoning ordinance be consistent with its general plan. Consistency in this instance may be achieved only if the City has adopted a general plan and the various land uses authorized by the zoning ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan. This section also requires that when the General Plan is amended, the zoning ordinance must likewise be amended as is necessary to maintain consistency with the Plan. Section 65853 requires that the Planning Commission provide City Council with a written recommendation on a proposed zoning ordinance and all amendments of an existing ordinance. As required by Section 65855, this recommendation must include discussion of the relationship of the proposed ordinance or amendment to the General Plan. State law has not yet addressed the issue of consistency between the General Plan and the various discretionary land use entitlements available under the zoning ordinance, i.e., variance, use permit, planned unit development, design review, etc, The one court decision (J-I~wkins v. Co, Jnty of MArin, (1976) 54 C.A.3d 586), which could offer some guidance in this area is subject to differing interpretations. Reflecting on the overall intent of consistency between the General Plan and the zoning ordinance, sound planning practice would argue that the granting of these entitlements should be based on a finding of consistency with the Plan. Many local governments have adopted this approach, and the criteria for these entitlements include consistency findings. RJJbrlivision Re~t,!;fions. Section 66473.5 provides that City shall not approve a proposed subdivision map unless it finds that said subdivision, including its design and proposed VI- 13 0042 improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. In a mannersimilarto zoning regulations, consistency may be found only when the City has adopted a plan and the proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Plan. It is important to note that this requirement applies to subdivisions for which parcel, as well as tentative and final maps, am required. Section 66474 is converse of Section 66473.5, but it applies only to the approval of tentative and final maps. This section states that the City shall deny approval of such maps if it finds that the proposed map, or the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision shown on the map, is not consistent with the General Plan. Although somewhat confusing as stated in the law, the two above sections also apply to condominiums, community apartment projects or stock cooperatives which must submit tentative and final maps (see Section 66426). Unless the General Plan contains definite objectives and policies specifically directed at condominium projects of stock cooperatives, these two requirements do not apply to such conversions (see Section 66427.2). Finally, the City may require the reservation of land within a subdivision for parks, recreational facilities, fire station, libraries or other public uses, provided such requirements are based on appropriate general plan elements (see Section 66479). ~qpitAI Irnl;m)vements. Section 65401 requires City Council to require the preparation and submission of a list of public works projects recommended by city officials and agencies for study or construction during each ensuing year. This requirement also applies to school and special districts whose jurisdictions lie wholly or partially within the City. Upon submission, such lists must be integrated by the City into a coordinated program which must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review as to its conformity with the General Plan. Section 65402 requires review by the Plan ning Commission as to conformity with applicable elements of the General Plan of: acquisition of lands for public purposes, disposition of lands, - street vacations, and Section 66567 requires that a subdivision --~ map may not be approved unlessit isconsistent with the open space plan. The City may require the dedication of land, the payment of in-lieu fees, or some combination ofthe two, for perk or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a final or parcel map, but only if the General Plan contains a recreational element and the dedicated facilities conform to definite principles and standards contained in the element (see Section 66479). - authorization or construction of public buildings or structures. FnvimnmentAI ImJ~Ac't Pmcerlures. Section 15080(c) of the State EIR Guidelines requires that the initial study of a project consider whether ff is compatible with the General Plan. A recent amendment of the guidelines has added subsection 15142(b) which provides that an EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the General Plan. Appendix G(a) of the Guidelines states that a project will normally be found to have a significant effect on the environment if it will Vi- 14 0043 ADMINISTx ?VEL Y DEFINING CONSISTENCY conflict "with adopted environmental plans and goals ofthe community. where it is located." ~,Ildin0 .nrl Ho-sing C'.orles. Section 65567 provides that building permits must be consistent with the open space plan. The State Housing Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 17910 et seq.) requires the CRyto adopt regulations imposing substantially the same standards as those contained in various uniform industry codes. This law also imposes special standards, which may be more burdensome than the uniform industry codes, designed to protect against certain types of hazards (fire, noise, earthquakes, unstable soils) and to achieve certain resource goals (energy conservation). The City may adopt regulations and standards at variance from those mandated by the State Housing Law if justflied by local conditions, Although not explictty required by the State Housing Law, the General Plan is an eapedally appropriate vehicle fordocumenting such local conditions and specifying the necassm7 regulatory response in orcisrtojustify variances from state law. Other Consisten(;;y Req~,irement.~. Listed below in capsule form are other consistency requirements contained in state law which at some future date may apply to the City of Rancho Cucamonga: Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 3331, consistency between General Plan and redevelopment plan, - HSC Section 34326, consistency between General Plan and housing projects, HSC Section 34711, consistency between General Plan and housing for developmentally disabled, mentally disordered and physically disablecl, and, Streets and Highway Code Section 32503, consistency between General Plan ancl parking facilities. Finally, it is importantto keep in mind that state legislated consistency requirements are likely to continue expanding into other areas of IocaJ govemment concem. The City should therefore periodically review state lawto keep abreast of such requirements. ADMINISTRATIVELY CONSISTENCY: DEFINING Administratively defining consistency is a two- part task. Part one concerns the adequacy of the City's General plan' does it address all issues specified under the nine mandatory elements (see Section 65302) in a systemafic, intemally consistent fashion (see Section 65300.5)? Part two is concerned with the consistency between the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the Plan and a particular aspect of the implementation system. The critical element of this latter part is, of course, a practical definition of the term 'consistency.' Several definitions of this term in this particular context have been pmposacl and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In the interest of promoting uniformity in this important area, the following definition of consistency closely follows that proposed by the State Office of Planning and Research in the implementation section, June 1987 edition ofthe General Plan Guidelines: An implementing action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if it, conside[ing all its aspects, will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. Vl. 15 0044 Thisdefinition initially evolved from Califomia's landmark' consistency legislation, AB 1301 which was passed in 1971. It required zoning ordinances and subdivision approvals to be consistent with adopted general plans. Previous to this, the general plan had been regarded as an advisory document with minor legal effect; it mattered little fithe general plan was used to make decisions. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, this role was changed, as a fundamental shift occurred in the philosophy and law regarding the role of the general plan in local decision-making. Many elected officials, planning professionals, and citizens came to feel that if long-range comprehensive planning were to be meaningful, a more direct link hadto be forged between the general plan and the day-to-clay actions of local governments. The final step in administratively defining consistency is the recognition that this test for consistency must be uniformly applied in three dimensions; substance, space and time. This observation reflects the multi-dimensional nature of the Plan. The substantive content ofthe General Plan is expressed by its goals, objectives, policies and programs, and the level of spe(:ifK=ity within a given plan may range from general discussions to very detailed and carefulIx, drafted statements. A major portion of the substantive content of the Plan is expressed graphically as well as textually. -..= Plan graphics take the form of diagrams or maps which perform a variety of functions, including prioritizing or emphasizing certain physical factors, showing relationships between them, and illustrating the geociraDhic applications of Plan policies and programs to these factors. Because these diagrams and m__ap_s impose a certain pattern on lar,~. they d.e§ne the spafi'al dimensions of the plan. VI- 16 The substantive context of the Plan also has a time dimension because it is a long-range policy document. Achieving consistency between the Plan and the implementation system is inherently difficult because the time horizon of the former may range from 5,10, to 20+ years into the future, while the latter has atime horizon which isimmedlate. Reconciling these difr'KAJIties is especially troublesome in cases where the Plan is end-state ohented and provides little or no guidance for the incremental, time-phased realization of this end state. Thus, while the General Plan provides the framework for community development, the everyclay actions of the City shape the community. The manner in which the Plan is implemented is the real test of the City's commitment to the goals, objectives and policies. The revision of its implementing actions to be consistent with the Plan is a reflection of the City's commitment. 0045 fl EXHIBIT 6 ]e STATEMENT: The levee no longer offers protection from flooding from the 2,374 acre Deer Creek Watershed, that purpose now being served by the Deer Creek Chm~el and Debris Basin constructed by the Cotp~ of Engineers in 1983.. Runofffi'om the 125 acres between the debris basin and Tentative Tract 14771 (the "subject property" referred to below) will be intercepted by the on-site storm channel which w/ll be constructed by Lauren Developmemt befot~ the levee is removed. The County Flood Control District removed their easement wi~ch protected the levee in 1986. The Federal Emergency Mana&ement Agency, the ~ of Engineers and the County Flood Control District all approved in 1990 a revision to federal flood insurance maps which removed the flood prone designation from the subject property, regardless of the presence of the levee or not. The County Flood Control District pertained the grading of a 200' wide opening in the levee in 1989, a gap which remains today and through which flood ~ztets would flow ira 100 yea~ storm was to occur before the construction of Lauren Development's on-site storm channel. The subloot mooertv and all of Haven View i:,,tates will be m~re sa/'e after conqtuction of this oroiect than they are now. not tess sa£e as C.U.R.F.. contends. 1941 - Flood Control Easement Recorded Over the Subject Propert)': In 1941, an "Easement for Flood Control and Water Conservation" in favor of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District was recorded over properties north and east of the Deer Creek Interception Levee, including the subject property.I While the levee ~as probably built around this time, the earliest map found which shows the levee is from 1953.2 In either cue, the levee ~ns not designed or constructed to today's standards of' t00 year storm protection. 1969 - Levee Overflows Flooding Area of Haven View Estates: ContraS' to testimony by Ns. McKeith. the levee did not even hold back the 1969 storm. The levee overflowed during the storms of January 1969. and the eastern portion of what is now Haven View Estates flooded? The o ,1 1969 storms were generally considered to be closer to a 50 year event ttum a 100 .year event. 1983 - Development of Haven View Estates Approved: Tentative Tract 12332 (the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) was approved in May of 198.~. s Although the Deer Creek Channel References ~ instrument ~ I 4~? aate 139 of ~cords of' S.B. Counv,' recorded Aulust 2. 194 I. Unknown when or by. whom the levee was originally constructed. : Cucamonta Peak Ouadmnele MaD. 195~. U.S. Geololical Service. ; Overflow LimiL~. Storm of January. 1969 Southwest Pomon. prepared by the San Bernardino County Flond Control District elated ~lay, 1969 ~ Tolcon. Mr. Michael Fox, Chief, Water Resources Division. San Benuu'dino County Flood Control District, Aulust 4, 1997. Tentative Tract 12332 wa~ otilinally approved May I I, 1913 (PlanninI Commission Resolution 1.~-66); ~ amet~mmu or extensions were apllmved on Seplember la. 1983 (Pianninl Cammmien Rssolution I.~-66A); February 12, 19~6 {PlanninI Commission Relolution 16-23); November 10. 1917 (PlanninI Commi~i~n Resolution 17-196): January 27. 19~8 (Planninl Commission Resolution 11-;53}; June 2. 1911 {City Council Resolution 11-344}: and January I I. 1919 (Plannin~ Commission Resolution ~9-03). . ,B!BIT OO48 Do and Debris ~-~ in the process of being completed,_th~,.-' t propert)' ~s not sulxiivided at this t~ne ._..a. the County Flood Control Distzict m , the flood control easement over the subject property. However a conceptual residenda] layout was prepared for the subject property. and included on the approved tentative tract map. TestLmony to the Planning CommL~ion m 19s3 indicated that the uttimate dLq~osition of ~ subject property was unknown because "the Flood Control District has not yet made up its mind" about ~ it was needed for flood conuol purposes.~' 1983 - Deer Creek Facilities Constructed: in June of 1983 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Deer ~ Channel and Debris Basin.? 1983 - Drainage Report Refers to Levee: The Drainage Report submitted to the city in lvtarch of 1983 for Tentative Tract 12332 (the initial 204 lots in Haven View Estates) indicated that "With the Corps of Engineers' Deer Creek Dam and Channel and Hillside Basin and Channel in place, the site [T.T. I2.332] is well protected against offsite fio~." "Of the approximately 190 acres below the Deer Creek Dam, about 160 acres are intercepted by' either the Hillside system [or] the Flood Control District's e:dsting Deer Creek Reception Levee." s 1984 to 1986 - Flood Control Easement Abnndoned by the Count': in 1984, the owner of the subject propert)* requested that the Flood Control District investigate relinquishment of the flood control easement because of his desire to develop the property.* After determining that the leYee was no longer needed for flood control purposes, the Flood Control District recommended to the San Bernardino County Board o~'Supervisors that the easement be relinquished.t° In January. of 1986, the Coum¥ Board of Stmeruisors abandoned their ~ment oYer the ~moertv.:' As a part of this abandonment. the Flood Control District reserrol no rishts to maintain or preserve the levee. The owner of the proonto' was renuired to ~a¥ -- and did in ~'act Day -- San Bernardino Coum¥ for the value of' the deYelonment riehts to this oroeen~- in exchange £or the County's removal of' the deYelopment restricting easement. 1988 - DeYeiopment Restrictions on Adjacent Propert').' Also Lifted: Prior to 1988, the Flood Control District O~Tted in fee the land north of'the subject property. and an easement m, er 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 * Plannine Commission Minutes. blay 1 I. 198.~. : Telc0n. Mr. Bob Hall. Chief of De$iln Branch. U.S. Army Co~$ of Engineers. 7/28/g7. The Deer Creek Channel ('Notch Half) and Deer Creek Debris Basin were officially completed in Jun-,. 1983. Drainate Reonrt. Tract 12,~32 included with Initial Study dated March 18. Letter ft~'n A~inted Ermineors to S.B.Co. Flood Central Dis~ri~ January 9. 191.1. ,o Le~er to San Bernardino County Board of Suoervisors from Flood Control District dated October 22. 1914. instrument #86-01472.5 recorded January 20, 19S6. Telcgn w/Mr. Ken Wdlmms, Risht-ot~-Way DWision. San Bernardino County Flood Control Distr~ct. July 24. 1997. The pa.¥ment which Mr. Laband made to the count.v for development rilh~ was approximately SI8.000. 2 0049 potential fl"-'d¢ .1988, the Flood Control District said 9- ~-ent propert}' in fee to the tit}' of Los An[ .:s dazunent of Water & Power, and in c g ~ttached no easements or other reservations for flood control pro'poses over the use of this t~' which they would have done if this property was also stilLneeded for flood control purposes. 1988 - Approved Hydrology Study Refers to Removal of Levee: The Hydrology Study prepared in .1988 by Associated Engineers for Tract 12332.2 (Phase H of Haven View Estates) cJ~ariv ~ticioate8 the ultimate removal of the levee. The report stated that "before construction of the [Deer Creek] Basin the eaz~ levee was the only barrier to flows from the north." "For Phase II development ofTram 12332 the levee will remain in place, thus acting as a natural barrier to offsite. In the future when the remainder eareel fthe subject oreoertvl is to be added. and the levee removed. more te,-ent tooo will be available and mitieatine measures can be analv'zed at that time to convey flows from the north." "The existing levee [is] more than adequate [to protect tract · 12332-2 from the small remaining tributary. area to the north]." ~ 1989 - Major Breach in Levee Approved by the Cid', the Homeowners Association and the Coune,.' Flood Control District: Since 1989. the exiszinn levee has been incanable of hoidirt~ maior storm tunoff because a maior breach in the levee of over 200 feet in width was traded thmueh it to provide an easterly emergency access mad for Haven View Estates.u The requirement for this access road was a condition of'approval ofTtact 12332-2 which ~as imposed by the City Council at the urging of the adjacent homeowner's association. ~ The tradin~ of this hole in the levee was annroved by the County Flood Control District.~ The fact that the city, and Flood Control District have all allowed violations of. the levee provides compeUing evidence that the need for the levee has long since passed. Continued maintenance of this road throunh the levee is a reouirement of the adjacent homeowners association CC&Rs. ts Despite this requirement for continued maintenance, the homeo~ers association ceased maintenance of' the access mad through the levee in 1996.~ The hole in the levee remains however. and any major stom~ runoff today would freely flow throueh this ooenin~ and cause damace to the orooerties below. [. 1990 - A Second Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prepared in 1990 by Associated Engineers also clearly anticipated removal of the levee. Foolnote Re£g'renc~ ~; Telcon w! Mr. Ken Williams. San Bemardino County Flood Central District Right-of-Way Division. 7~4/97. "HvdroIoev Study in the City of Rancho Cucamonta. Tract 123.~2 prepared by Associated Engineers. dated August. 1988 (cover unclated. however d_ntn inside report reflects this date). fUnderlinint added to cited ouotes. 1 ~: The breach in the levee ~raded for the emergency access road is approximately 210' wide at the top and gO' wide at the bottom. Prior to the breach. the levee in this location ranged from 10' to 27' high. ~ See City Council Resolution 88-.~44 dated June 2. 1~88 (approving. on appeal. an extension o~'time to record Tract 12.~.~2-2) requiring the eas~ert) .41ttergency access road. ~: San Bernardino C~untv Flood Control District Permit No. P-18810.t approved on December 6. 1988 an emergency access road throulh the levee.. ,a Declaration of'Conditions. Covenants and Restrictions for Rancho Cucamonna v. Haven View Estates recorded June 13. 1990 (doc# 90-231127). :~ Letter from Rancho Cucnmonea Fire Protection District dated June 2.5, 1997 indicates that in 1996 the permit was repealed after outstandin~ permit fees were paid in full by the adjacent homeowners association. 0050 Th~s report -'~t~~ ~e u'ibmary a~a to the north [oft~e sub:- ~perty] encompasses appto.,dma~.. ~. ~ and is part of the National Fort o .t with sa~e and other deser~ brush." "Titis area is bounded on the north by the Deer Canyon Debris Basin, on the east by the Deer Creek Channel and on the w~ by an existing earth levee. [T1~] existing levee runs along the site south border, cutting oflr access to the second phase [Tract 123.32-2]. Therefort. the levee will be removed a,~fiows from the north will be diverted inside the Projects north boundary and emmv to the 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 Conc~tunl OradingPlan.,wi~i,'ch clearly indicted ~ entire property would be graded, including the removal oftbe levee.' Prior to the approval, three Neighborhood Meetings and t~,o Planning Commission Public Hearings were held, and teconunendations for ,approval were received by the city's Design Review, Technical Review and Grading Commiuees.- The Haven Vie, T {:,~tates Homeowners Association recommended onereval of the develoument of the urouertv.-'$ The City Entineerinn r~uartment reviewed the tentative olans for the drainace channel. and a number of conditions were imuosed to insure that the channel would be orouerlv desiened. that adenunto safeeuards would be in olaee when the levee w-~ removed. and that the site's umtectiqn from fioodin~ would fitst be urnyen to the federal novernment. These conditions included?a * The channel design shall be justified by a final drainage study approved by the City Engineer. · The channel shall be designed to the satisfaction ofthe San Bernardino County Flood Control District. · The developer shall prepare reports. plans. hydrologic and hydraulic calculations relating to flood plain boundaries and shall have the Flood Insurance Rate .&lap (FIRa~,I) Zone AO designation removed from the project area by the Federal Emergency ~lanagement Agency (FE~A). - The drainage channel along the north project bounda~' shall be operational prior to removal of the existing levee. 1991 - A Tlmir~l Approved Drainage Report Refers to Removal of Levee: The Drainage Report prepared in ! 991 by .&iotse Consulting Group again clearly anticipated removal of the levee. This rel~ort stated "The legee will be removed and flox~ from the north will be diverted inside the £om. me Relr#re.c~ Drainat.- Reoon in the City or Rancho Cucamonea. Tract 1.1771 prepared by Associated Enlineers. January. I. 1990 Underlin tot added to cited euo~es. ) Ten:ative Tract Id771 was apwoved on November I.1. 19gO (Planning Commition Resolution 90-I3~}. A Conceptual Oradin~ Plan w~. approved at ~at time. Removal of the levee wu an intolral ~ of the plans for Ibis proptomy. Slat'TR.-uort to Pianninl Commi'~sion dated I !/la/~0 Letter from Bruce Ann Hahn. President fthen and curtemir) of the Haven View Estates Homeowners Associatimm. recommendinl approval of Temmive Tract In7? I. dated November 12, leg0. · En{,neer,n{ Division Conditions 0051 Mo The t~ouir~d dralnn~e e!~m¢l alon~ the ~oiect~ north boondnt~4~.!! be o~erat~op.I ~.or to r~noval ofthe e~t~nn lov~ at t.~e projects southern undary. 1991 - Federal Government (FEMA) Changes Flood Insurance Designation for Site: Enginegini plans for the drainage chanAel along the noru~'n boundary of the subject property submitted'm FEMA in January, 1991.26 In August of 1991. after reviewing these local drainage .channel plans and taking into re:count ~ existem:e of the new Deer ~ Oatme. l, FEIvlA issued a letter Of ~ Revision (T.,OMR) which of~cially cJumged the federal government flood insurance designation for the subject property from a flood lxone designtalon (Zone AO) to a flood protoc~,d de~ii, r~tion (Zone C). All ofl,laven View ~,-~ - on both sides of the levee - now sheres the ~tme ?,~ne C flood ip~tra~tce desitmation. 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 facilities will convey the entire 100-year discharge and that the channel has been constructed to withstand the high velocities ~s~:iated with the 100-year evenc~s 1991 - County Flood Control District Concurs with Change to Flood Insurance Potting: As a part of FEMA's LOMR process, the County Flood Control District indicated that they am "in concun'ence with the proposed LOMR request that would c.han,~.~e FEMA flood hazard designations on District right of way south of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. ' 1992 - Grading of Levee Approved: The owner of the property at this time, Brock Homes, processed through the city Building & Safety Depnrunent n Rough Grading Plan for the subject property. consistent with the previously ~,~proved Conceptual Grading Plan (see Item "K." above), ~ich included the removal of the levee. Just prior to starting the grading, Brock Homes dropped the project. Uoon attaroval of a Rough Oredine Plan from the Buildinn & Safety Det~anment. the levee could have been removed in 1992 or anytime since. :s Hv~rolotv and H~i~ ~l~d~s - :* U.S. F~I Em~' M~ ~: Lener oF Mao Revis~ fLOMR! ~ U.S. F~ml ~cy &t~gm~t A~ (~MA)~ Au~ 19, I~1. Zone AO is defi~ m 'S~l F~ Ha~ "Area oF ~l~m or Mmi~l F~ Hm~ (in a ~ ye~ uo~.)** ~ L~er f~ Mr. R~ E. Kooiin. P.E.. Chef. Ent~rme ~vis~. Corns o~ Ennm~, ~ ~h 12, I~1 M~ 2~, I~1.) ~ L~er f~ Mr. K~ GuMs. Ch~r. Water R~u Divisi~. J~e t2. 1991. ~ Rough G~dint Plan Pbn C~k No. on Ma~h 24. 0052 Note Re: P-~i~ acities: To compare the siz~ of the T.T '1 local dmnage channel ~%~th the long a~ ~c levee is incorrect. Contrary to tes~ ~ ~. McKeith, ~ Creek Channel replaces u~ levee, not the local ohsitc chainage channel to be co~ by. Lauren Developmen~ As apl~oved by t~ City, ~ Coumy Flood Conu'ol District, ~e Corps of Engineers and FEMA, the on-site drainage channel on the subject proper~ is designed to collect rimoff from the 124.8 acres above it not captur~ by lhe D~r Creek Basin and Channel.]~ Deer Creek Channel is designed to contain approximately 5,400 cubic feet per second (cfs)~a flowing from the .3.71 square mile (2,37q a~,e) Deer Canyon watershed.:u Contrary to testimony by Dames & Moore, the subject ptope~'s local drainage channel is designed to contain 447 cfs from a local watershed just five percent the ~ of the Deer Canyon Watershed?,~ 1997 - Geotechnical Analysis of Levee Confirms Inadequacy: According to a recent analysis O the levee, installation of the local drainage channel proposed for the subject property will result in an improvement over the existing flood control protection offered by the levee. "From a geotechnical perspective, the proposed storm drain channel and associated slopes are more stable against gross failure than the existing levee." ~6 Contrary to testimony by Ms. McKeith, due to the breach in the levee, any water generated by the area north of the property has the potential to flow through this hole and severely damage the properties to the south. It is imoortant that this local drainane channel be constructed ASAP. ;' Hydrotory and Hydraulic Calculations - Offsile Tributary' Flows with Traoezoidal Interceotor Channel for Tnlct 14;/71 prepared by' ~1orae Consuitet Group, dated June I, 1991 ;: At inlet oFT 14771 local on-site drainage channel. ;; Hvdrelotv Study !n the City ~-r-Rancho Cucamonta. Tract 12."32 p~e;~ated by Au, oc~ated F~.$ineera, dated August, 1911 (cover undated, however ~ata inside report m~ecu this date). ~' 2..37'a ac / t25 ac ,. 11.992 ~ els, acreage ~onfitmed by' MDS Consulting 7/31/97. ~ Stilbilitv Analysis. F_xi~tmt and Prom:~ed Relention Berths. Tract 147'/I. Rancho Cucamontl CA, by RMA Group, dated July 9. 1997 0053 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CIS',!Y OF RANCHO C" .dONGA STAFF R.&ORT May 11, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission 1977 Rick Gomez, City Planner Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 - LABAND - A custom lot residential subdivision of 204 lots on 140.98 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 zone, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north of the Hillside Drainage Channel - APN 201-121-12. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Requested Action: The applicant .is requesting approval of a tentative tract map for the above-described project. B. Purpose: To create 204 single family lots. C. Location: East side of Haven Avenue, north of the Hillside Drainage Channel. D. Parcel Size: 140.98 acres E. Existing zoning: R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential) F. Existing Land Use: Vacant Parcel Ge Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Utility Corridor South - Single Family Residential, zoned R-1-20,000 East - Deer Creek Flood Control Channel West - Single Family Residential, zoned R-1-20,000 He General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du's/ac) Proposed Project Density - 1.45 du/ac North - Flood Control/Utility Corridor South - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du's/ac) East - Deer Creek Flood Control Channel West - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du's/ac) :HIBIT 8 ITEM H 0054 Tentative Tract ~''~2/LaDan~ Planning Commi' Agenda May 11, 196 Page 2 II. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site consists of a vacant parcel which slopes in a north/south direction at approximately 10 percent grade. The elevation of the property ranges from 2,008 feet at the southeast corner, to an elevation of 2,298 feet at the northern boundary. Aproximately 90 percent of the site is covered by chaparral and other indigenous native brush and grasses. In addition, Eucalyptus and Olive trees are clustered generally within the southwest section of the site. ANALYSIS: Ao General: The applicant is requesting review and approval for the development of a 204 lot single family residential subdivision of 140 acres of land located east of Haven Avenue, north of the Hillside Drainage Channel (Exhibit "A"). The project has been submitted as a custom lot/tract subdivision, thus precise dwelling unit locations or designs are not required. However, should the applicant decide to develop this tract, precise designs will be required to be approved by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission. Presently, the project as proposed indicates variable lot sizes ranging in size from 20,000 to 44,000 square feet. Presently, the applicant intends to develop the project in eight phases of approximately twenty-five lots each. All lots are designed for equestrian use with appropriate connections to community and local feeder trails. In addition, all interior, community, and feeder equestrian trails will be provided with extruded concrete or split rail fencing per city standards {Exhibits "C" & "D"). Access to the project will be provided via Haven Avenue in two locations (Exhibit "B"}. Interior streets consist of loop roads, which are designed to provide access to individual cul-de-sacs. All interior streets will be designed and improved in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Presently, no interior parkways will be created except along the northern perimeter road; however, an exterior entrance/parkway adjacent to Haven Avenue will be provided to accentuate the development and provide a landscaped entrance statement (Exhibit "E"}. 0 Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee determined that the proposed subdivision adequately conforms to the basic design standards set forth by the City's Zoning Code and General Plan in terms of integration and compatibility with surrounding land uses. 0055 Tentative Iract ] Planning Commi? May 11, 198 Page 3 ~Z/LaDano Agenda Development Review Committee: The Development Review Committee recommended the installation of full street improvements along Haven Avenue and the newly created interior streets, per each phase. Improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pavement, street lights, drive approaches, equestrian amenities, and landscaping~ where appropriate (see Standard Conditions). In addition, the Development Review Committee recommended providing corner cut-offs and non-slip paving in relation to equestrian trails. Also, the Committee recommended that the local trails system connect to interior streets for police protection. Lastly, the Committee recommended that a structural block wall be constructed along the north boundary line, east to the levee, for flood control protection. Growth Management Committee: The project has been reviewed by the Growth Management Committee and has been assessed a total of 43.5 points under the Residential Assessment System, thus exceeding the threshold limit, and can be considered by the Planning Commission for approval. Citizens Advisory Committee: The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was concerned with preserving the existing clusters of Eucalyptus and Olive trees which are located in the southwest section of the site. The Committee suggested that the trees could be preserved through the use of CC&R's (Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions) which would encourage individual property owners to preserve the tree clusters. Trails Committee: The Trails Committee has reviewed the tentative subdivision map and has made various recommendations to the applicant in relation to equestrian trails, which have been incorporated into the Equestrian Trails Concept, Exhibit Grading Committee: Due to the nature of the project, a custom lot/tract subdivision, grading will be minimal consisting primarily of street grading with minimal cuts and fills. Dwelling units with related building pads will not be provided with this development. The Grading Committee approved the conceptual grading plan subject to approval of a rough grading plan by the Building Official prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. Environmental Review: Part ! of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff completed the Environmental Checklish and found no significant adverse environmental impacts related to the development of the proposed subdivision. If the Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. 0056 Tentative Tract TM 't/Laband Planning Commi~ Agenda May 11, 198 Page 4 III. FACTS FOR FINDING: The findings listed in the attached Resolution are supported by the following facts: The subdivision provides adequate improvements which make it compatible with surrounding land uses. The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed subdivision in relation to the City's Zoning Code and Growth Management Ordinance. The proposed subdivision, in conjunction with the conditions of approval, are consistent with the current development standards of the City. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised for public hearing and environmental review in The Daily Report newspaper. In addition, this project was reviewed by the Deer Creek Homeowner's Association, which has been working closely with the applicant. Presently, no problems are anticipated with the development of the applicant's project in relation to the adjacent Deer Creek development. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider public input and elements of the project. If after such consideration the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions of approval as recommended, the adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions would be appropriate. Respectfully ~bmitted, 'qick Gon~ 'City Planner RG:FD:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Equestrian Trails Exhibit "D" - Equestrian Trail Details Exhibit "E" - Landscape Concept Resolution of Approval with Conditions O057 RESOLUTION NO. 83-66A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 83-66 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12332 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12332 hereinafter "Map" was submitted by Walter Laband, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a custom lot residential subdivision into 204 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on May 11, 19813; and WHEREAS, said Map was conditionally approved by a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga numbered 83-66; and WHEREAS, applicant' has requested a change in use of the internal streets of said Map from Public to Private Use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission Resolution No. 83-66 attached hereto and by reference is made a part hereof, omitting the standard conditions. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12332, a copy of ~ich is attached hereto, dated August 1983, is hereby approved subject to the attached standard conditions andSthe following special conditions. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A signature sign-off shall be contained within the individual homeowner CC&R's designed to alert the buyer as to the requirement for street trees, including maintenance. Prior to occupancy, street trees and slope plantings on individual parcels must be inspected and approved by the City. 2. Parkstrip landscaping and street trees, with appropriate irrigation systems shall be required along streets "A" and "C". The required landscaping and street trees may be added with each phase of street construction. 0058 Resolution No. Page 2 e All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated-'~ith subterranean sprinkler systems) in accordance with slope planting requirements of the City. The slope planting shall include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per 250 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate rooted ground cover. Hydroseeding shall not be allowed due to the rocky nature of the soil material. The proposed security gate entrance system shall be approved by the Foothill Fire Disrict and the County Sheriff's Department, prior to approval and recordation of the final map. ENGINEERING DIVISION 5. Standard condition no. L-1 shall now read: "Dedication of ingress and egress and maintenance easements overall interior streets shall be dedicated on the Final Map to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering and Public Works Divisions; the Cucamonga County Water District; the San Bernardino County Flood Control District; Southern California Gas Company; Southern California Edison C~pany". The northeasterly portion of the project area (Flood Control District Easement) shall be made a part of the tract map. The C.C.&R.s for this tract shall make provisions to incorporate this area into the Homeowner's Association once this area is developed. An access easement by separate instrument shall be provided to the property lying east of the project area (owned by San Bernardino County Flood Control District). The document shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the District. This condition shall be waived if the access is not required by the Flood Control District. The Homeowners Association established shall provide specifically for adequate funding for the future maintenance of the private roadways and the Haven Avenue landscaping. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1983. 0059 Resolution No. Page 3 PLAN ,~ COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dennis L. ~tout, ~hairman .... i Sec6e~ of t~e P~nni~ission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of September, 1983, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, McNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 0060 ',: Project No.T'T iZ~Z D£PARTHENI' OF COlJaUllli'¥ DEVELOPHENT STANDARO £OUDI fieNs 1~o$e Items checJed are conditions of approvaJ. APPLICAN! SHALL CONIACI Tile PLA~I~G OI¥lSlOH FOR COHPLIANOE ~lTII TIlE FOLLONIrlG Its Oevelol~ent Review approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not Issued or approved use has not commenced within eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. Conditional Use Permit approval is granted for a period of months/years. Approval shall expire, unless extended by tee Plannin~ Commission, if b~lldlng permits are not Issued within eighteen (~8) months from the date of approval. Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission tf the approved use has not commenced within eighteen (~8) ~onths from the date of approval. Tentative Tract Nap approval shal) expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, !f the final subdivision map is not approved and recorded within twenty-four (24) months from the approval of this project. 5. This approval shall run with the applicant and shall become veld upon .... a change o~ ownership or If the business operation ceases. Oevelqmnent The site shall be developed In accordance with the approved site plans on file In the Planning Olvlslon and the conditions contained herein. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating al1 conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning OIvt$ion prior to issuance of bu$1dtng permits. A11 site plans, grading plans, landsc*pe and Irrlgaiinn pl,~n~. and street Improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior tO issuance of building permits, prior to final map approval in the case o( a custom 1or Subdivision, or approved use has com'nenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable co~nmnlty plans or specific plans in effect at the time of Building Permit Issuance. Prior to any use of the project site or b,~slness activity being commenced thereon, ail conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. A detailed On-Site Lighting Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance or Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, tllu,ninatlon, location, height and method of shielding, as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. ?. A11 corner dwellings shall have the si~e elevation f~cing the street upgraded ~lth additional wood trim around windows and .end siding or plant-ohS ~here appropriate, subject to ravia. and approval by the City Planner. ^11 composition roofing shal! be a variable thick-cut architectural style. A sample of the roof m,~tertal ~hali be s.b~itted to the Planntng Division for review and approvaJ prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including a!r conditinners, shall be architecturally integrated, shielded !r~ view anl the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the PlRnning and Building girlsions. Details shall be included in building plans. All swimming pools Installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. lexturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings with open spaces and recreational uses. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public vte~. J3, Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high masonr~ wall ~lth view obstructing gates pursuant to City standards. Location shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 0 0 Project No.'T'l' 12.~7-- J18. All ground mounted utility appurtenants such as transformers shall be located out of public view of the main building area and aequately screened through the use or combination of concrete or masonry walls, bermln~, and landscaping. Street names shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, in accordance with the adopted Street timming Policy, prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Hap. All bulidlng's numbers and Individual units shall be identified In a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. Local and Hastar Planned Equestrian Trails shall be provided throughout the tract in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating wadills, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, In accordance with City equestrian trail standard drawings, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning OIvision prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Hap, and prior to approval of street Improvement and trading plans. Developer shall grade and construct atl trails, ncludlng fencing and drainage devices. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animals, where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowner*s associations for amendments to CC&R's. lg. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Arttoles of Incorporation of the iio~eowners Association, subject to the approval of the Ptannlng and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney, shall be recorded with this map and a copy provided to the City. Growt~ Managemen~ Solid core exterior doors, security dead bolts and locks shall be installed on eact~ unit in this project. Security devices s~ch as window locks shal) be installed on each unit, All units within this development shall be preplumbed to be adapted ~- for a solar water I)eatlng unit. Energy conserving-building materials and appliances are required to be incorporated into this project to include such things as but not limited to reduced consumption shower heads, better grade of Insulation, double parted windows, extended overhangs, pilotless applicances, etc. 11. D. Parking This development shall provide an option to home buyers to purchase a solar water heating unit. Owelling units shall be constructed with fire retardant material and nonecombustible roof material. All parkwayS, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning OIvlslon prior to Issuance of building permits. This project shall provide a minimum percent of affordable housing and/or rents, to conformance wit~"General Plan housing policies and the hmJstng criteria defined in the Growth Hanage~ent Ordinance. Affordability shall be determined by current market rates, rents and median Income levels at the time of construction of the project. An agreement to such shall be approved by the City Planner prior to Issuance of building permits, Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to issuance of building permits, when no subdivision map iS involved, written certification from all affected School Districts, shall be submitted to the Oepartment of Community Develop'neet which states that adequate school facilities are or will be capable of accow.odatin) students generated by this project. Such letter of certification must have been issued by the School O~strict within ninety (gO) days prior tO the final map approval in ti~e case of the subdivision m~p or issuance of permits in the case of al! other residential projects. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to issuance of building permits when nO mad iS involved, written certification fro~ the affected water district, that odequite sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project, shall be submitted to the pepa,'teent of Com~unity development. Such letter must have been Iss.ed by the water district within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. For projects using septic tank facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional W~ter Control Board and the City. written certification of acceptability, including all supportive Information, shall be obtained and s~bmitted to the City. lhls subdlvis$on was not submitted as a total development package and Is required to reapply for a point rating relative to ti~e design section of the Growth Hanagement Ordinance prior to final moproyal and recordation of the map. & Vehicular Access AI1 parking lot landscaped Islands shal) have a minimum outside dimension of 5' and shall contain an 18" walk adjacent to parking stall (including curb). 0 0 Project No. ~"[ k 3. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size, planted Intervals of IO feet less than the mature diameter of the tree along the perimeter of each parking bay. 3. All parking Spaces shall be striped per City standard drawings. 4. All units shall be provided with automatic garage door openers tf driveway is less than 20 feet In depth. 1he Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principle source of transportILion for the owner and prohibit parking on Interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. taping A detailed landscape and Irrigation plan, Including slope planting, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Otvlston prior to tl~e issuance of building permits or prior to final map approval In the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees shall be retained wherever possible. A master plan of existing trees slmwtng their precise 1oration, size and type shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to approval of tile rough grading plan. Said plan shall take Into account the proposed grading, what trees are to be retained, trimming methods, and where new trees will be planted for replacement of removed trees. Street trees, a minimum of IS gallon size or larger, shall be Installed per City standard in accordance with the Master Plan of street trees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be planted at an average of every 30' on Interior streets and 20' on exterior streets. A minimum of 50 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the development; 20%-24" box or larger, 70%-15 gallon, and IO%-5 gallon. A minimum of % of the trees planted within the project, shall be specimen sl'~ trees. All slope banks In excess of five (5) feet in vertical height and of ~:! or greater slope shall be landscaped and Irrigated In accordance w{t~ slope planting requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Such slope planting shall Include one S-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area, one l-gallon or larger Size shrub per each 1OO sq. ft. of Slope area, and appropriate ground cover. All slope planting and Irrigation shall be contlnuo,Jsly'maintaincd in a healthy and thriving condition by the deve{oper until each Individual unit ts sold tnd occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning OlvisIon to determine that it ts tn satisfactory condition. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a health and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The front yard 1andsraping, and an appropriate Irrigation system shall be Installed by the developer In accordance with submitted plans prior to occupancy. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, !andscmptng and sidewalks shall be Included In tile required landscape plans and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division and coordinated for consistency with toy parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Oivislon. Special landscape features such as moundtog, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sIdewtlks (both vertical and horizontal ch,lnqe) Ind intensified landscaping, Is required along "~'~~ Water and energy conservation techniq.es shall be utilized, such as special irrigation techniques (e.g., drip Irrigat~on), drought tolerant plant species, alluvial rockscape, etc, Landscaping and Irrigation systems req. ired to be installed on public right-of-way on the perimeter of this tract area shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City and annexed Into the landscape maintenance district, ll~e signs Indicated on tile sui)mttted pl,lns are not app,'oveq with thi~ approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall he designed in conformance with the Sign Ordinance and sinai} req. ire separale application tnd approved by the Planning DiviSion prior to Installation of any signs. A uniform sign program for this develop,cot shall be submitted to the Planning Division for their review and approve{ prior ~O issuance of Building Permits. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium or townhouse projects. O O "'. ... Project No.'/")' !Z3~Z. Additional Approvals Re~lred 1. Development Review shall be accomplished prior to 2. Approval of TenLatlve Tract ltD. is granted subject to the approval of Other A~encles Emergency secondary access shall be provided In accordance with Foothill Fire Protection District Standards. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a - minimum of 20 feet wide at all times during construction tn accordance with Foothill Fire Otstrlct requirements. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits for combustible construction, -/- evidence shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire District that te~Loorary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of req, lred fire protection systems. 4. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the - appropriate type and location of mall boxes. This project falls within the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Area. Any participation by the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency on this project, will require review and approval of the development plans by the Agency. ~_~6. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: A. Calframs for: .... B. County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance ~f a grading permit). C. San Bernardino County Flood Control Otstrlct. ' O. Other: Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Foothill Fire District and the Environmental tiepith Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWO will be requtred prior to recordatlon. IILOlNr 'qSION _~._11! t_._.e_ eeve Iopm_?t · The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Hechanlcal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, HatIDeal Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. x~ist¢' J. i. Prior to Issuance of building permit for a nqw residentill unit(s) or major addltinn to an exlstin~ unit(s). the applic)nt shill pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Bea~)ttficatinn Fee. Park Fee. Oraina]e Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, School Fees. 3. Prior to Issuance of building permit for a new ccmercial or Industrial development or addition to an e~lstinq development. the applicant shall pay development fees a[ the e~tablished rate. SuCh fees may Include, but not be limited to: Systems Development Fee, 0rainage Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. Struct,res Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for property line clearances considering use, area and ftre-reststiveness of e~istlng buildings. Existing building(s) shall be made to comply with current Buildinn and Zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished· Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed. filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Cod~. and Uniform Building Code. Underground on-site utilities are to be 1ocatqd and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. Grading of tile subject property shall be in ,~cc~rdance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Stand)rds and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be In substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a ~ ........... , .... geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. A rough grading plan shall be completed and moproved by the Grading Committee prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior tO issuance of building permits. O O Project No.'~'[ 17.~'2' S. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing cmnpletion of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels, to the satisfaction of tile Building and Safety 0irisIon prior to recordation of the map. b. Appropriate easements, for safe dtsposa] of drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of tile Building and Safety Division. c. On-site dralnge improvements, necessary for dewatering or protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to, or contributes to drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. {This may be on an Incremental or composite basiS.) e. All-'~-~ope banks In excess of five (S) feet tn vertical height and ~f ~;1 dr greater slope shall be seeded with native grasses upon ~omple[lbn of grading or some other alternative method of erosion ~ontro~ shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Butlding Official and City Planner. Irrigation shall be provided to ger,ainate tl~e seed and maintain growth for a period of $ months after germination. EtliG~IEERING 01VlSIOff L. Dedication and Vehicular Access ~. Dedications shall be made by final map of all Interior ~treet rights- ~ of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on 3. Irrevocable offer of dedication for ,~-feet wide roadway easement shall be made for all private streets or drives. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards and drawings. 5. All rights of ve~.~lc~aG I~ss to and eqress fro~_..shaj~be dedicated as follows: A~_(~4 cA Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and ~olnt maintenance of all co,on roads, dt~ves or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds an4 shall':be recorded concurrent ~ith the map, or prior to issuance of building permit, ~here no map Is Involve4. Adequate provisions shall be made for the Ingress, egress and internal circulation Of any trucks ~hlch ~111 be used for delivery of goods to the property or In the operation of the proposed husiness. Private drainage easements for cross-lB: drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. All existing easements lying within future righL-of-way are to be quitclaimed or to be delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. lO. Easements for sidewalk for public uses shall be dedicated to the where sidewalks ~ander through private property. Street ~mprove~nts ~ 1. Construct full street improvements ~nc~udtng, b~t n~t ~te~ tO, curb ~ and gutter, A.C. pavement, s~de~alk, drive a~proaches, parkway trees and street lights on all lnterior~ streets. Requirement of s~dewalk ~tll be governe~ by the provision of Planning Resolution ~o. g. A mtnt~m of 26-foot w~de pavement w~thin a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-ray shall be constructed for all half-section ~ 3. Construct the following missing improvements including, but not limited to: CURO& A.C. SIDE- DRIVE GUTTER PV~T. ~ALK ~PR. OVERLAY OTH[R STREET HAME *includes landscaping and Irrigation on meter. STREE1 LIGIt1S ? Project No.~'~[ !2'~32- 5. g. 4. A Lien Aqreement or In-lieu cash deposit shall be required for the construction of on pr~or to recordation of the map or Is~uaf~-~r-b-"~llding permit, whichever comes first. Prior to any work being performed in the puhllc right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City [nglneer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be req~jlred for all public streets prior to Issuance of an encroachment permit. final plans and profiles shall show the location of all existing utility facilities within the right-of-way. A separate landscape and Irrigation plan (~"_x 36'_.51z~ plans) for the parkway and/or median landscaping on~3~ ~.~ shall be required for revle~ and approval~he City Engmeer. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to recording of the amp or the Issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Street improvement plans {24" x 36" size plans) for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work be'leg performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City £ngineer's Office, tn addition to any other permits required. AII street Improvements Shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Englneer~ prior to occupancy. Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name stgntng shall be Installed per the requirements of the City Engineer. 13. Existing city road requiring reconstruction shall remain open for - traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction or street closure peratt may be required. A cash deposit shall be required to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded on completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Walkways shall be provided between public sidewalks and on-site pedestrian areas. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be Installed to City Standards. Orainage and Flood Control ,.Z~. l[he applicant will be responsible for cons[ruction of alt on-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer, ~. Intersection drains will be required at the following locations: 3, 4. 5, 8o 11~e proposed project falls within areas indicated as subject to flooding under the Hatlena1 Flood Insurance Program and is subject to the provisions of that program and Ctty Ordinance He. ZA. A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. Letter of acceptance from downstream property owners shall be required where runoff flows onto private properties. Drainage Acceptance Easement Deed shall be required ~rem thai) be desiqncd as a majnr w,)Ler carrying street requiring a combination nf Special curb heights, Commercial type drive approaches, rolled street connections, flood proteCtiOn walls, and/or landscaped earth berms and rolled driveways at property line. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: / Utilities 1. A hydrologic and drainage study for the project sha)l be submitted to the City Engineer for review. Provide all utility services to each lot inchiding ' .- · e,~.,~tt.~, water, electric power, gas and telephone tn accordance with utility standards. AIi utilities within the project shall be Installed underground Including utilities along major arterials IZ KV and less. O Project No.~'~ 17-3 2- Utility easements shall be provided to tile satisfaction of the serving utility companies and the City Engineer. Developer shall be responsible for the reiDcation of existing public utilities, as required. Developer sl~all be responsible for the installation of street lighting In accordance wtth Southern California Edison Company and City Standards. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other Interested agencies Involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. ~eral Requl.rementS and Approvals Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City Standards and procedures. A parcel map shall be recorded prior to first phase subdivision to prevent creation of unrecognized parcels. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed Into the landscape maintenance district: Prior to recordation, a Ilotlce of Intention to form and/or Join Landscape m~d Lighting Districts shalt be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District Formation shalt be borne by the developer. ~,~ o o 7 SITE UTILIZATION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCA MONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: EXHIBIT: z~. SCALE: 0068 :'E NTATIYE TLACT 12332 NU)RTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: '~"~.- rl~M'q F~XHIBIT: [~ SCALE: 0069 El, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: ~HIBIT: ~ SCALE: 0070 Haven View Estates TENTATIVE TRACT12332 ~£Clr~O NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: F=-/-~' te'~:'!"L:~ ~F,:~tt ~XHIBIT: ~ ~LE: 0071 NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: ~'~ ,~:~- ~")',"Y ~'.~ EXHIBIT: ~ SCALE: 0072 DATE: TO: FROI~: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF I~d~CHOf February 12, 1986 STAF," 'ORT 1977 Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~tssion Brad Bullet, City Planner John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner ENVIRONI~NTAL ASSES~ENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 - LABAND - A custm~ lot residential subdivision of 151 lots on approximately 85 acres of laml in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 du/ac), located on the east side of Hmven Avenue, north of Hillside Drainage Channel - APN 201-121-24. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. A~tton 'Requested: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map for the above described project. B. Surroundtnq Land Use and Zontnq: North - Utility Corridor; Footht11 Community Plan (County) South - Single-Family Residential; Very Low East - Deer Creek Channel; Flood Control West - Single-Family Residential; Very Low C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Very Low Residential, less than 2 du/ac North - Flood Control/Utility Corridor within the City's Sphere of Influance South - Very Low Residential, less than 2 du/ac East - Flood Control West - Very Low Residential, less than 2 du/ac Stte Characteristics: The site consists of a vacant parcel ~ich slopes in the north/south direction at approximmtely 10% grmde. Approximately 90% of this site is covered with chapmrrml and other indigenous native brush ~nd gr~sses. In addition, there are some Eucalyptus trees clustered genermlly in the southwest corner of the site. ITB~ D ] HIBIT 9 0073 Tentative Tr- 1233Z February 17 ~6 Page 2 Labind II. ANALYSIS: Tract 12332 (204 lots on 14! acres) was originally approved on May 11, 1983. The Applicant has recorded Phase I, 53 of the original 204 lots; however, he has failed to submit for a time extension on the remaining phases. Therefore, tonight's action would grant tentative approval on the remaining 15! lots. The tract plans are identical to those p~evtously approved and meet the standards and provisions of the Development Code. The applicant has agreed to adhere to the ortgnal Conditions of Approval. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Cmmtsston shall make the following findings before approving the residential develobment project: The subdivision provides adequate improvements which make tt compatible with surrounding land uses. The project site is adequate in size and shape to .accmmaodate the proposed subdivision in relation to the City's Zoning Code and Growth Management Ordinance. The proposed subdivision, in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval, are consistent with the current development standards of the City. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in ')he Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. RECOI~4ENDATION: It ts recommended that the Planning Conmatsston conduct a publtc hearing to consider poblic input and elements of the project. If after such consideration, the Cmmtsston concurs with the findings and Conditions of Approval as recmmnended, adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions would be appropriate. Respectfully submitsted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:Jlq:cv 00?4 February Page 3 L~b~nd Attachments: Exhtbtt "A" - Location Hap Exhtbtt "B" -Stte Plan Exhtbtt "C" - Equestrian Tratls Exhtbtt "O" - Equestrian Trat1 Detatls Exhtbtt "E" - L~ndscape Concept Hay .1[, 1983, Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution No. 83-66A wtth Cofidtttons Resolution of Appmval with Conditions O075 SITE UTILIZATION MAP TEN ?ATZVF., TRACT 12332 CITY OF KANCPK) CUCAMONGA PLANNING INVISK3N EXllIErr: ~ SCALE: 0076 :'ENTATIV£ T~2ACT 12332 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC.,A PLANNhNG Dlxrls~N 0077 RANCt-~ CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISI~NI !Iii If E. XHIBIT: C~ SCALE: 0078 TENTATIVE TRAC:T 12332 ~.~,,,.. 'l~l~fi~,~. ~'&~,~,~s.'l~,~'~'~.~.,~ *'"" ' .............. EXHIBIT: ~ SCALE, 0079 ,% 0080 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF }L4.NGH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 22, 1989 Chatran and ~e~bers of the P~annlng Comatsston Brad Bullet, Ctty Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12332-2 - M.d. BROCK - fhe design review of building elevetlons and detalled plot plan for a previously approved tract mp consisting of 151 stnB]e family lots on 101.4 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (]ess than 2 dwel]tn9 untts per acre), located east of Haven Avenue at Ringstee - APN: 1074-351-02. PROJECT ANO SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Site Plan, Grading Plan, Build1 ng Elevations, and Conceptual Landscape Plan. B. Project Density: 1.49 dwelling untts per acre C. Surrounding Land Use and Zontn~: North - Vacant; FIOO(] Control South - Stngle Family Residential under construction; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre ). East - Vacant; Flood Control West - Single Family Residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling untts per acre). O. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). North - F1 ood Control South - Flood Control and Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). East - Flood Control West - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) E. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant with an average slope of approximately 6. percent frm northwest to southeast. The site is bounded on the south by the Hillside Channel, on the east by flood control property and the Deer Creek Channel, and on the north by flood control property and the Deer Creek Channel. .. HIBIT 1 0 0081 PLANN/NG C~ TENTA" FEBRU. PAGE 2 ~SZO" ~TAFT REPORT .f 1~. :-2 - M.J.BROCK 1989 II. ANALYSIS: Re Background: Tentative Tract 12332 (204 lots on 141 acres) was originally approved by the Planntng Cmtsston on May 11, 1983. The applicant then proceeded to record Phase ! consisting of 53 lots but fatled to record the remainder of the tract resulting tn the expiration of the tract map. Subsequently, the applicant received a new approval on February 12, 1986 for the remaining 151 lots. On January I8, 1989, the City Council approved the final mp and related agreements and the map is now in the process of betrig recorded with the County of San Bernardino. General: Wtth the ftrst phase of Tract 12332 being developed as a custom lot subdivision, the applicant's intent was to dest~n a product type that ts in keeping with the custom lot atmosphere that currently extsts. The applicant retained the services of two separate architectural fires that have provtded seven bastc floor plans ranling in size froe 4,028 to 5,187 square feet. All of the floor plans uttlize stee wall and spltt level construction which will eliminate a padded-out situation. Each floor plan wtll have four bastc butldtng elevations wtth variations on the elevations provided through the use of side entry garages and through grade differentials resulting in as any as 40 different butlding elevations over the entire tract. As a result, a great deal of diversity will be provided within the project to maintain ~ore of a custoe lot appearance than traditional tract housing. Design Review Camtit, e: The Design Review Cmittee (Chitlea, Blakeslay, Kroutll ) originally reviewed the proposal on January 5, 1989. At that tt~e, the Coat tree racemended the following revisions: Differentiation should be provided in the 'Normandy' and 'Mediterranean' building for~. On down hill lots that have stem walls over 6 feet on the uphill side, additional detailing should be provided. e For the front entry garages, the applicant should explore the possibility of using a bonus room with a 3- car garage. e On elevations utilizing brick or rock, a cap should be provided on the chimneys incorporating these elamants. O082 PLAHNING C~ ~SIO'* =TAFF REPORT TEETA' '~ .T 12. :-2 - #.J.BROC[ FEBRUA~, 2~, 1989 PAGE 3 S. All stonework should be made of native stone. Plan 4A should incorporate a greater use of brtck on the front elevations. Plans 4, 5, and 6 should provide ratllng details on the rear elevation balconies similar to the rat]tng details used on the front elevation. The right elevation of Plan 7A should use more hardboard stdtn9 above the garage. Window treatment (i.e. multi-pane) used on front elevations should be carried around the entire dwellin9. 10. The vent detail on the front elevation of Plan $A should be more ornate. On February 2, 1989 the Design Review Cmtttee (Chitlea, Blakesley, Bull,r) reviewed the revised plan submitted by the applicant. The plans incorporated many of the c~nts originally requested by the Design Review Committee. Following the review, the Committee reco~nded approval of the plan subject to the fol 1 owl rig: 1) Exposed stem walls over 5-6 feet high, with stucco as the primary element, should have additional articulation. 2) Railing details on balconies of some elevations should be enhanced to avoid an add-on appearance. This might include the use of more substantial corner post elements. De Trails Comittee: The Trails Advisory Comtttee reviewed the proposal and reco~m~ended approval subject to a condition requiring the equestrian trails that exit onto Haven Avenue to be re-worked to allow opan passage. Neighborhood Meeting: During the course of review for a time extortsIon for Tract 1Z332 in February of 1988, existing residents of Haven View [states expressed concern about the proposed development of the remaining 151 lots. As a result of this concern, a neighborhood meeting was conducted on January 26, 1989 between City staff, extsttng residents of Haven View [states, and the applicant. There were two main concerns expressed by the h~meowners that were not addressed tn the plans provided by the applicant. These 1terns include the fol 1 owt n9: 0083 pLANNI#G COI~ *Z~' ~TAFF REPORT TEllTAT' '* . FEBRUAk. 2Z, :~989 PAGE 4 1) A greater use of stde entry garages should be provided. Currently within the ft~st phase of Tract 1233Z, a11 homes uttllz~ stda entry garages - no front entry garages eere permitted. The proposal by the applicant Indicates that 87 units wtll be stde entry garages and 63 units utll be front entry garages. 2) The current phase of Haven YteN Estates has a hetght limitation of Z8 feet specified vJthtn the CC & R's. Some of the elevations proposed by the applicant are as htgh as 32 feet. The h: e~,nars stated that they have no objection to the use of the 3Z foot high untts wtthtn the project lint felt that. adjacent to the extsttng phase of Haven ¥tew Estates, the 28 foot hetght limitation should be adhered to. This uould requtre the replotttng of several untts along the border with the first phase of Haven Vte~ Estates. To date, no revtsed plans have been submitted that tndtca~e any changes to etther the front loaded to stde 1oadod garages ratio or the replotttng of units to adhere to the 28 foot hetght limitation. III. RECOt~ElJOATZ011: Staff recomeends that the Planntng Cometssion approve the Design Revte~ for Tract 1233Z-2 through adoption of the a~tached Resolution with conditions. ,' Ctty P~nner ' BB:~:~Js Attachments: £xhtbtt 'A' -Stte Utt11. zatton Hap Exhibit "B' - S~te/Gradtng Plan Exhibit 'C' - 8utldtng Elevations Exhibit 'D' - Conceptual Landscape P]an Exhtbtt '[" - Equestrian Envelope Plan Resolution of Approval 0084 0085 .f OATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RAN~'gO ~' AMONGA STAF Narch 28, 1990 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12332-2 - JCC DEVELOPMENT - The design review of building elevations and detaiied site plan for 30 lots of a previously approved tract map consisting of 151 single family lots on 101.4 acres of land in the Very Low Residential Oistrict fless than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of 'the Hillside Flood Control Channel - APN: 1074- 521-6 through 23 and 1074-531-1 through 9o and 14 through 16. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the site plan, grading plan, and buildin~ elevations. B. Project Density: 1.a9 dwelling units per acre C. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant (proposed Tentative Tract 14771); Very Low Residential District {less than 2 dwelling units per acre) South - Hillside Flood Control Channel and Tract 12550; Flood Control and Very Low Residential District, (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant; Flood Control West - Single Family Residential; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) O. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Very Low Residential; rless than 2 dwelling units per acre) North - Very Low Residential; (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) South - Flood Control and Very Low Oenstty Residential, (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control I I![HIBIT 11' 0086 PLANNING C' 'lSSIq ~TAFF REPORT DR F~' ~ J2-2 - JCC DEVELOPMENT Marc, .6, /go Page 2 II. West - Very Low Residential, (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant with an average slope of approximately 10 percent from northwest to southeast. ~ The project is currently rough graded and some streets have been constructed. The site is bounded on the south by the Hillside Channel, on the east by Flood Control property and the Deer Creek Channel, and on the north by vacant land currently proposed for Tentative Tract 1477! (4! Single Family lots on 25.9 acres). ANALYSIS: Backqround: Tentative Tract 12332 (204 lots on 141 acres) was originally approved by the Planning Cmm~ission on May !983. The applicant then proceeded to record Phase I consisting of 53 lots, but failed to record the remainder of the tract resulting in the expiration of the tract map. Subsequently, the applicant {LaBancl) received a new approval on February !2, 1986, for the remaining 151 lots. On January 18, 1989, the City Council approved the final map and related agreements and the map ~as recorded on February 1S, 1989. A Design Review application for all 151 lots in Phase II was approved for Brock Homes by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2989. Since that time, those lots have been sold to JCC Development. General: At this time, the applicant, JCC Development, has submitted a Design Review for 30 lots {32 through 52 and 108 through !I6). JCC is proposing 6 plans {D, E, F, G, H, and J!... Each floor plan has 2 elevations each with the J plan having 3 elevations. All of the elevations have side-on garages except for Plan F. Originally, !3 different color schemes were proposed, but in response to concerns voiced by the Homeowners Association, the applicant is now proposing a total of 30 different color schms. The homes range in size from approximately 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. The plans have a')) been designed with split levels and stem walls in order to minimize grading as much as possible. The building elevations also comply with the building envelope requirements as outlined in the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (MeNial, Wainberger, Coleman) reviewed the project on March 8, 1990, and approved it with the following conditions: 0087 PLANNING ¢nMMISSI=, .STAF~ REPORT DR FOR 1~ '.32-2 . JCC ~)EVi[LOPHENT Page J 1. Rock or brick detailing should be carried through on the chimneys for those elevations where brick or rock is proposed. Revised drawings should be presented to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 2. The J3 Elevation should be revised to provide brick at the bottom of the pilasters. Revised drawings should be presented to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 3., The F2 Elevation should be revised to provide additional rock wainscoting. Rock detailing does not need to be added at the base of the pilasters. 4,. The Design Review Committee could not reach a decision regarding additional detailing at the base of the pilasters for elevations G~, HI, and E2. The options of concrete, stucco or rock bases were discussed. The Committee requested 'that this issue be reviewed by the full Planning Commission. Trails Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Special covers are to be provided for manholes located within the trail. 2. Local trail fencing shall match existing 3-rail PVC fencing. Neiqhborhood Hoe~tinqs: Three meetings were held with the Haven View ~state Homeowners Association. City representatives were not present at the first meeting which was held January 12, 1990. However, staff was present at the two subsequent meetings held on February g, 1990, and March 2, I990 {see attached). There are three main concerns expressed by the Homeowners Association that were not addressed by the applicant. These items include the following: I. Where brick or rock is used as an architectural element on pilasters, the material should be carried all the way to the ground. ~. ~ore variation in front yard setbacks should be provided,. 3. The house on lot 42 should be reversed. 0088 PLANNING C' '"ISSI(~ STAFF REPORT DR Fp" T' J2-2 - JCC DEYELOI~ENT Ha rc 8 gO Page 4 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan and the project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addtttona the proposed use is in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. IV. RECOMMEND~ON: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ~,vejh~ Design Review for Lots 32 through 52, and 108 through /'1I..6. e~f/T '~ct I2332-2 through adoption of the attached Resolution / ~cn~c~ch(,tions. Brad Bu~ City P1 ~(ler BB:BN:J(s Attachments: Exhibit "A' - Site Utilization )lap Exhibit "B' -, Site Grading Plan Exhibit 'C" - Building Elevations Exhibit 'O' - Building Envelope Exhibit "E" -Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Equestrian Overlay Map Exhibit "G" - HOA Meeting Notes/February 9, lggo Exhibit "H" - HOA I~eeting Notes/March 2, 1990 Resolution of Approval with Conditions 0089 ~2:"- - srTr.. UTILIZATION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT 12332 'wrt. E= ~ o'7'//-,~' E.xHmm ^ SCALE.- 0090 WRITER'S DIRI~CT LINI~ (213) 617-4137 FACSIMILE October 8, 1997 OUR FILE NUMBER 003-00003 VIA MESRF, NGF, R James Markman, Esquire City Attorney City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 The Lam'en Development Project - Tract No. 14771, APN: 1074-35 l- 10 and 1074-541-91 I am writing this letter on behalf of the Haven View Estates and RC-5 Homeowners' Associations in opposition to the Lauren Development Project ("Project") including the Development Plan Review and the proposed final map approval in connection therewith. After reviewing the relevant materials, as is explained more fully below, I have concluded that the proposed Project is blatantly inconsistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's ("City") General Plan and thus, is illegal under clearly established California statutory and common law and the City's own Development Code. Further, as is expislned more fully below, because this is such a clear cut case and the governing legal standards so well setfled, if the City proceeds to approve this Project and issue any permits in connection with it, aH responsible City officiah, incl~ainE the individual members of the City Council, will be liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. See. Bateson v. Cteisse. 857 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1988). I am not speaking out of school on this issue. I recenfiy litigated these very same issues against the City of Glendora in C~i,,u6 v. City of Glendom et .!.. L.A.S.C. Case No. BS 046662. In thnt case, the Second DisUict Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion halting a project in that city that was inconsistent with the LOS ANGIr LE$ · ORANGE COUNTY · SAN DIEGO · SAN XHIBIT' 1 2 FRANCISCO 0091 SH£PPARD, MULLIN, EICHTER & HAMPTON ,,~, James Markman, Esquire October $, 1997 Page 3 "the Pl~nni~tg and Zoning Law itseft precludes consideration of a zoning ordinance which conflicts with the Genera] Plan as a pro tanto repeal or implied amendment of the General Plan. The General Plan stands. A zonin~ ordinance that is inconsistent with the general plan is invalid when ps,sed [citations omitted] and one that was originally consistent but has become inconsistent must be brought into conformity with the Crene~ Plan." [~ at 541 (emphasis added). The California Supreme Court went on to say that the controlling state statute automatically invalidates any zoning ordinance inconsistent with the General Plan and that such a void statute or ordinance cannot be given effect. Id. at 544. See also, l.~nd Ws~e M~nagement v. Contra Costa Board of Sl~pervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 950, 957 (1990) ("the fundamental constitution of all local land use policy, governing future growth and development, is the General Plan. The policies embodied in the General Plan are, in turn, legislatively implemented by local agencies throug~h zoning ordinances. By statute, zoning ordinances must be consistent with the General Plan [citations omitted]") Accordingly, to the extent the 1983 adoption of the zonln~ ordinance resulted in this parcel being zoned inconsistently with the General Plan, it is null and void. This result is also mandated by the City's own Development Code. Section 17.02.010 D of the Development Code provides: "no use of land or buildings for which an application is required pursuant to this title is to be approved for processing under this title unless it is consistent with the land use element of the General Plan. In any case where there is a conflict in regulation between this title [Development Code] and the Land Use Element, the Land Use Element [of the General Plan] prevails." The Development Code goes on to provide that consistency requires conformity with the "standards" of the Land Use Element. Id. Obviously, the basic development standard of the land use designations in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is den.~itl/. ~ General Plan, p. IH-8. In fact, the primary demarcation line between the various land use categories in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is density. Indeed, one of the "Absolute Policies" under the City's Development Code, Section 17.08.050, is thst the Project be consistent with the adopted Gene~ Plan. Should there be any doubt on this issue, let me quote from the Second District Court of Appeal from the opinion issued in the ~ case: "When we apply the applicable standard of review ... we conclude the C~-neral Plan density limits on "Open Space" must be enforced and a prel'uninary injunction should have 0092 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, ~ICHTER & HAMI=TON u., JAmes/viarkman, Esquire October $, 1997 Page 4 issuecC It i~ black letter Califo~ law that a building permit which violates the General Plan is invalid." citing Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 570 (1990). You should note the Appellate Court ordered the 5 acr~minimum of the General Plan to be enforced despite the fact that the zoning category for the property, RHR, allowed a one acre minimnm~ If you would like to obtain the briefs and the Court's ruling in the G-agn6 matter, the Appellate Court case no. is Bl14761. The requirement of consistency with the General Plan apphes with equal force to tentative maps. Cal. Gov. Code § 66473.5 ("no local agency shall prove a tentative map ... unless the legislative body finds that a proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan .... "See also. Corona -Norco U~ified School Dis~ict v. City of Corona. 13 Cal. App. 4th 1577 (1993). As with the issuance of any other land use permit inconsistent with the General Plan, a tentative map approved inconsistently with the General Plan is null and void. Land Waste Management. ~ 222 Cal. App. 3d at 958. It is my understanding that the City has suggested that because Lauren Development has already obtained a tentative tract map, that the Creneral Plan density limitations cannot be imposed upon it. L~ in fact, this is a justification relied upon by the City it is completely without merit. First, as is discussed above, any tentative map that is inconsistent with the General Plan is void as a matter of law. In any event, even if it were assumed that Lauren Development had a properly approved tentative tract map, it could not develop or use its property inconsistently with the General Plan. Avco Comrnnnity DevelQ~ers. Inc. v. South Co,.nt Rei6onal Commi.nsio~ 17 Cal. 3d 785 (1976). In Avco the developer had received approval for a final map dividing its tract into 27 parcels for multiple residential uses. The developer had also subdivided and graded the property and had expended over $2 million in pre-building permit improvements to the property. Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court held the developer could not develop the property inconsistently with subsequently enacted zoning ordinances. In other words, the only exception to complying with currently operative general plans and zoning ordinances is a pre-existing, non-conform/ng use. However, % non-use is not a use. Therefore, a lot owner does not have the fight to build on his approved subdivision if the present zonln~ ordinance requires a larger minimum lot size.' California Zoning Practice (CEB 1969) Section 9.6, p. 384. See 0093 $HIEPPARD, MULLIN, ~I~HTIER James Markman, Esquire October 8, 1997 Page 5 also. Hill v. Cl. ily of M,nh,ttsn Reach. 6 Cal. 3d 279, 285 (1971). ("Land which has not been used for building purposes would not create a non-conforming use.") In fact, the California Attorney General has opined that even subdivided lands cannot be used inconsistently with controlling land use relpalations such as general plans and zoning ordinances. 43 Ops. Cal. Atty. G-en. 144, 146-47 (1964') (Attorney General Stanley Mosk stated, "Government Code § 65800 delegates to local governments the authority to im?ose separate and additional lot design requirements as a condition of use of both subdivided and non-subdivided land through zonlnE .... To hold that the county could be estopped from performing this function [zoning and planning] by the filing of a map would be to fly in the face of an express statutory grant.") ( emphasis is added.) Thus, nnless Lauren Development had already,' legally constructed 40 homes on the subject property, no land use approval or permit may be issued to it allowing development of 40 homes that would be violative of the General Plan and consequently, the City's Development Code. California Courts have consistently held that property interests giving rise to due process protections are at stake in land use proceedings concerning adjacent property. Scott v. CiW of Indian Wells. 6 Cal. 3d 541 (1972); Hayssen v. Board of Zonir~ A~ustment, 171 Cal. App. 3d 400 (1985). Indeed, in Pettitt v. City of Fresno, 34 Cal. App. 3d 813 (1973), the court held: "In the field of zoning laws, we are dealing with a vital public interest .... all the residents of the community have a protectable property and personal interest in l~n~intzining the character of the area as established by comprehensive and carefully considered zoning plans .... "Id. at 822-23. Thus, if the City approves this illegal Project which flies in the face of over 30 years of California land use jurisprudence, the City will be subjecting itseft to damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. See. Beaver v. Rorough'ofJobn.~onbm~, 375 F.Supp. 326 (W.D. Pa. 1974) (Section 1983 claim allowed where substantive due process violation consisted of city council and zoning board's refus~ to enforce permit restrictions on neighboring pulp mill). See also, DeRiasio v. 7ooing Board of A~Ll~.~tn~enL 53 F.3d 592, 593 (3d Cir. 1995) ("[A] property owner states a substantive due process cJRim where he or she *lieges that the decision limiting the intended land use was m'bitrarily or irrationally reached.") Moreover, both the City Co,mcii members and responsible plasming staff members can be held personally liable for viol~ing the civil ri~ts of the affected homeowners. See. Batesoy supra~ 857 F.2d at 1305 (city council members liable for voting to deny building permit); Curmi~gh,m v. City of Overland, 804 F.2d 1066 (gth 0094 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LiP James Markman, Esquire October 8, 1997 Page 6 Cir. 1986) (Board of Aldexman members liable for voting to deny merchant's Ucense); Cinevi~ion Col~. *v. The City of R,trbnnk 745 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1984) (city council member liable for voting against contract for concerts.) And, the City Council members and plnnning staff will only have qnnlified imm~mlty in thi.~ c~se. See. Bateson ~ 857 F.2d at 1304. But, this q,,,iified infin,mity doe~ not staply if the inidivdual ~def~ndauts' actions violsted a clearly established sutmtory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v. Fi~v~erald. 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In fact, in d~terminin~ a q. nlified imm~mlty claim thecourt will only determine a narrow question of law, "wht~er the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged action" Southern California lZ~pid Trsm.~it !%,avict v. S~tl~rior Court, 30 Cal. App. 4th 713, 731 (1994) quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985). The law governing this case is abundantly clear and follows firore state statutes, California Supreme Court authority and the City's own Development Code. And, the City is now on notice of this clear law and thus, cannot argue that it ~ in good faith. See Rateson ~ 857 F.2d at 1305; Omninghnm ~ 804 F.2d at 1069. The homeowners I represent do not desire further litigation. Rather, their desire is to prevent the construction of an illegal development, Uterally in their back yards. They are, however, committed to doing whatever it tskes to preserve their constitutional rights. Hopefully, this letter will cause the City to reevaluate its position and foUow the law thus avoiding the trap into which the City of Glendora feU. If you have any disagreements with my recitation of the facts or rendition of the law, or if you have any questions with regard to any of the foregoing, I will be happy to discuss them with you. LAa~~!0T/aSl.I Vexy truly yours, Richard L. Stone for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON 0095 $HEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMFTON u.~, James Markmsn~ Esquire October 8, 1997 Page 7 Mayor William Alexander Councilmembers: Diane Williams Rex Gutierrez Paul Biane James Curatalo Planning Commissioners: David Barker Larry McNeil Peter Tolstoy Rich Maci~s WilliAm Bethel Mr. Brad Bullet, City Planner Mr. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner 0096 ~ I~x2,WN E JE~qqqEY ~- RICHARDS, WATSON & GL ATTORNEYS AT LAW NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTE~R CIRCLE BREA, CALIFORNIA ~28~1 POST OFFICE BOX 1059 BREA, CALIFORNIA ~'8~:-1059 FACSIMILE (714) oc@n~glaw.corn 3h ....~-CE.. ,, ED OCT 1 1997 October 10, 1997 Richard L. Stone Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton Attorneys at Law Forty-Eighth Floor 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 Re: Your letter dated October 8, 1997 on the Lauren Development Project - Tract 14771 Dear Mr. Stone: This date I just received the above-referenced letter. Evidently, you supplied it to me by messenger, but directed it to the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center. In any event, I just read the letter and hope to provide you this immediate response so that you have the correct intbrmation and, accordingly, reconsider the matter addressed in your letter. "' First, let me say that I do not disagree with the legal concepts stated in your letter which boil down to the fact that a city may not proceed to approve a development in a manner inconsistent with the City's General Plan. The premise of your letter seems to be that some City official or officials are allowing the Lauren Project to go forward even though those officials hold the belief that the project, and particularly the low density residential zoning, does not conform to the City's General Plan. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The City Planner has reviewed the zoning history of the subject property and has concluded with substantial justification that the Lauren Project does conform to the General Plan. 'I 1t I-IIB IT 1 3 0097 RICHARDS, WATSON ~' G~ Richard L. Stone October 10, 1997 Page Two ~N If the inconsistency which you are asserting is the same one which we have discussed with some of the neighboring residents, the issue revolves around some · diagrams contained in the Open Space Element of the General Plan which generally delineate certain open space areas but which were not intended to be "blueprints" for delineation of zoning areas once City zoning for the area was adopted. For your information, a few years after the General Plan was adopted, the City staff processed to the City Council zoning for the subject property which, by its very nature and its stated intention, was to zone the property for the first time under the auspices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan. That zoning effort, which, again, was not induced by a developer's application, specified that the particular property under discussion would be zoned low density residential and would not be included in open space zoning areas. The above-referenced process by which the City Council specifically found that the zoning which you now are questioning conforms to the General Plan occurred approximately in 1983 according to my memory although I do not have the specific staff report in front of me at this time. Since that date, every administrative interpretation concerning the zoning of the area has considered the subject property to be zoned in accordance with the way the Lauren Company is processing its proposed development. Mr. Stone, please understand that no official of the City of Rancho Cucamonga takes the position that the City may ignore its General Plan in processing developments. Rather, it is and has been the consistent view of the City staff since approximately 1983 that the subject property is zoned as Lauren is proceeding in accordance with the General Plan as specifically found by the City Council during a process, the only purpose of which was to zone the area in conformity with the General Plan. Unfortunately, I will be out of town until next Wednesday which is the day set for the Council's consideration of the final tract map in the matter. However, I will be in my office during the morning of October 21 if you wish to discuss this matter further with me. Again, I do not perceive that we disagree on legal concepts or issues here. I also believe that if you had before you the staff report recommending the zoning of the subject property during approximately 1983, you would concur with the staff's view of this matter. 0098 RICHARDS, WATSON Richard L. Ston~ October 10, 1997 Page Three In any event, thank you for your input. Very truly yours, L. Markman City Attorney City of Rancho Cucamonga JLM:Ijl S\RCkLSTONE CC: Jack Lam, City Manager (w/o encl.) City Councilmembers (w/o encl.) Brad Buller, City Planner (w/o encl.) Tom Grahn, Associate Planner (w/o encl.) 0099 WRITER'$ DIRECT LINE (213) 617-.4137 IEPPARD, !V~ULLIN, RICHTER ~ F~. .'~TON u~ A~ORN~ AT ~W LOS ANO[L~, ~IFORNIA TELEPHONE ~13) ~7~0 rAC'r-IMILE (,~.13J 6~'0--1398 October 13, 1997 OUR FILE NUMBER 003-00003 VIA Mlv. SSENGER James Markman, Esquire City Attorney City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Califorma 91730 Re.' The Lauren Development Project- Tract No. 14771, APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21 Dear Mr. Marianan: This letter rebuts the points you made m favor of the Lauren Development Project in your letter of October 10, 1997. Normally, at this point, I would ask you to distribute copies of my letter to the City Council members and the responsible city officials, but since you will be out of town, I have copied them directly. Nothing in your letter dispelled my firm conclusion that the proposed Project is blatantly inconsistent with the operative General Plan and that the city officials who vote to approve the Project will be personally liable for approving such a demonstrably illegal project. In your October 10, 1997 letter, you agree that the controlling legal norms are clearly established and that the "City may not proceed to approve a development in a manner inconsistent with the City's Cmneral Plan." Although not expressly addressed, you did not dispute the authorities cited 'm my October 8, 1997 letter holdin~ that a zoning ordinance must be cons~ with the General Plan designation as well, including density limitations. Indeed, you could not dispute thk proposition as numerous cases have held that the density limits of a zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan's density limits. See, Hsrromsn Co. v. Town of Tib-ron. 235 Cal. App. 3d 1377 (1991) (master plan application to build 70 LOS ANGELES · ORANGE COUNTY · SAN DIEGO · SAN FRANCI$CI~ XHIBIT i 4 OlOO $HEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON ,,. James Markrnan~ Esquire October 13, 1997 Page 2 dwelling nnits on a 101-acre parcel denied because the proposed density of O.7 dwelling nnits was inconsistent with General Plan Open Space designation permitting a maximnm of only 0.4 dwelling nnits per acre.); DeRottnri v. City Council. 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1212 (1985)(proposed referendum repealing zoning ordinance was invalid because it "would result in the subject property being zoned for the low density residential use [2 dwelling units per acre] while the amended plan calls for a higher residential density (4 dwelling units per acre].") See also. California Government Code Section 65302(a)(West 1997) ("The land use element [of the General Plan] shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other tenitory covered by the Plan.") You should note that the DeBottari case is a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision. In your letter you also did not dispute the California Supreme Courfs proclamation that a zoning ordinance that conflicts with the General Plan is invalid as of the time it was passed, by operation of law. l~sher Communication.~. Inc. v. City of Wninut Creek. 52 Cal. App. 3d 531 (1990). Finally, you did not dispute, because it cannot be disputed, as demonstrated below, that the Lauren Development property has always been designated Open Space both in the Land Use element and the Open Space Plan element of the City's General Plan. Thus, the critical inquiry is very narrow and straightforward, as mandated by cases such as Harromsn and DeBottari: Is the proposed density of the project of two dwelling units per acre inconsistent with the density limitations of the Open Space designation? Although irrelevant, because the City seems to rely upon the zoning category as the basis for approving the Lauren Development Project,- a corollary inquiry is whether the density limitations of the zoning category of VL, adopted in 1983, are inconsistent with the density limitations of the controlling Cveneral Plan Open Space designation? Curiously, in your October 10, 1997 letter you have vimrally ignored the confro!ling ~eneral Plan designation for the Lauren Development property. Instead, you have simply stated that the City zoned the subject Property in 1983 with the "intent" and "purpose" of conformity with the ~eneral Plan. You go on to state timt since that date every sdministrative interpretation concerning "the ~ of the area" has considered Lauren Development's proposed project to be in accordance with the way the property is zone. You have either missed or purposely evaded the only real issue. Setting aside the City's proported intentions in 1983, is the proposed demity of the Lauren Development Project in fact greater than the Gen~ Plan desi~stion allows and, was the zoning category adopted in 1983 in fact consistent with the density limitations of the Open Space General Plan designation. The fact that the 0101 $H£PPARD, MULLIN, F~ICHTER & HAMPTON James Markman, Esquire October 13, 1997 Page 3 planning staff and the City made a finding that the zoning classification was consistent with the General Plan is irrelevant, i~ in fact, the two were inconsistent. City and Co, mty of San Francisco v. Board of Permit A~eals, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1099 (1989) (a decision based on findings contrary to the evidence or which are legally irrelevant is an abuse of discussion under C.C.P. § 1094.5.) In other words, the City cannot make the zoning category consistent simply by saying so. [~ The resolution of the issues identified above follows from simple mathematics and the clear l~n~_~_~ge of the City's General Plan itseft. Under the City's General Plan "any residential development in the Open Space category should not exceed an average density of 1 unit per net buildable 10 acres." General Plan. p.lV-2I. The VL zoning category adopted for Lauren Development's Open Space designated property allows a density of up to two dwelling units per acre, much greater than the one dwelling nnit per ten acres specified in the General PIa~L It is simply an incontrovertible mathematical fact that the zoning category is inconsistent with the General Plan. See Hatroman. supra. As fireore proof were needed that the VL category is inconsistent with the General Plan Open Space designation, the General Plan further provides: "an Open Space zoned category should be developed which estab 'hshes criteria for any development m the Open Space areas." Id. And, in fact, the City's Development Code has an Open Space zoning district with specified development standards. See, Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Ch. 17.16. In sum, the proposed project is for 40 houses on a 26-acre parcel. The Open Space designation only allows two homes on a parcel this size. The conflict is self-evident and, under the City's own Development Code, the General Plan. designation controls over the zoning category, even if the zoning category were not invalid as a matter of law, as it is in this case. See, Development Code Section 17.02.010(D). Tellingly, I have still not heard any explanation from the City as to how a project with 40 houses on a 26-acre parcel designated Open Space can be consistent with the General Plan designation which only allows two homes to be built on this same parcel. Moreover, there is no explanation for how a zonin~a category of VL which allows up to two dwelling units per acre can be considered consistent with the General Plan Open Space designation which has a maximran density iimi~tioll of one dwelling unit per ten acres. Certainly, your letter of October 10, 1997 did not address these issues. However, ff this Project is approved, the responsible members of the City 0102 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON James Markman, Esquire October 13, 1997 Page 4 Council and Plsnuiug staff will ultimately have to explain before a jury how they could have found consistency in the blatantly inconsistent mathematical facts related above. Should you or the City be tempted to revise history and claim that this property has not always been desi,~nAted as Open Space in the General Plan, let me point out a few facts. First, the Lauren Development property was originally owned or controlled by the Flood Control District and desi~nAter! in the General Plan's Open Space Plan element as flood control lands and utility/transportation right-of-way. As your General Plan makes clear, flood control land is considered Open Space within the Open Space Plan. See, General Plan Fig. IV-4. In fact, the City prepared an exhibit for the RC-5 tentative and final maps in 1986, which reflected the Lauren Development property as flood control lands. This is also easy to determine from the City's General Plan maps because the Lauren Development property is bordered on the south by a 40-foot high levy which was built by the Army Corps. of Engineers. This southern boundary line is reflected on the City's Flood Control Map, Figure V-6 to the General Plan~ This is the only levy below the Deer Creek debris basin. By correlating the Flood Control Map to the other maps in the General Plan one can easily determine that the Lauren Development property has always been designated Open Space in the Land Use element and in the Open Space Plan map. In fact, it is my understanding that the City has made findings in the past that the Lauren Development parcel is designated as Open Space in the General Plan. Concurrently with this letter, I have served a Public Records Act request for the documents relating to the Lauren Development Property which should reveal this fact. Finally, the homeowners' associations have superimposed the location of the existing Haven View Estates and RC-5 subdivisions on the various General Plan maps for the City Council and these maps are now part of the public record for this matter. As the City Council can see by reviewing those maps, there is no question that the Lauren Development property is within the Open Space designation of the General Plan. The final map cannot be approved in this case because it violates state law in that it is inconsistent with the Land Use element of the General Plan and is also inconsistent with the Local Open Space Plan element of the General Plan. See Cal. Govt. Code § 65567 ("no building permit may .be issued, no subdivision map approved, ·.. unless the proposed construction, subdivision or ordinance is consistent with the local open space plan.") See also. Save El Toro Association v. Days, 74 Cal. App. 3d 64 (1977) (final map may be attacked as inconsistent with state law because it violated requirement of consistency with Open Space Plan.) I believe some of the City officials 0~03 $HEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMlaT'ON u~ James Maxkn~ Esquire October 13, 1997 Page 5 have complained that they are caught in the middle between the developer and the opposing homeowner sroups. Actually, the only reason the City officials are canght in the middle is because they are i~noring setfled California law. If the City officials state law which unequivocally requires consistency with the General Plan as does the City's own Development Code, it will no longer be in the middle. But, to put it bluntly, if the City approves this Project, the City will be sued and the responsible City officials will be held personally responsible for approving a demonmably illegal Project. Certainly, I have not seen a single facpmi explanation or case cite which would change this result. So, again, I have tried to provide s,,mcient facts and law so that the City officials will not repeat the mi.~kes made by its brethren at the City of Glendora. I would be happy to discuss this mauer with you or the appropria~ City officials further. Very Uuly yours, ~c~~d L. Stone I.Al~1071111l for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON 0104 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON ,,. James Markman, Esquire October 13, 1997 Page 6 Mayor William Alexander Councilmembers: Diane Williams Rex Gutierrez Paul Biane James Curatalo Planning Commissioners: David Barker Larry McNeil Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias William Bethel Mr. Brad Bullet, City Planner Mr. Tom ~ Associate Planner 0~05 TRANSCRIPT CITY COUNCIL lV[g. gTFING (10/15/97) RANCHO CUCAMONGA VOICE 1: Who wants to begin thi.~ ... I~te never raised the approval of ·.. improvement agreement, improvement securities, improvement and m,intenance agreement for the storm drain channel and emergency access road and look at of landscape nanintenance district number one and street lighting maintenance, disuicts number one and two, for tentative tract number 14771 located on the End Drive, east of Haven submitted by Lauren Development. Jim~ do you wauna .... JIM: [Markman- City Attorney] Well the only thing I can tell the council is this is a final map that the city engineer is recommending for approval, as he is telling you m his view it conforms to the tentative map. On the other hand, we know the council has received at least two items of correspondence. Two on behalf of the homeowners association. One on behalf of CURE which disagrees with the city cngineer's recommendation on various grounds, one of which is the issue raised of conformity of a tentative map which was approved m 1990, and the zoning in 1983 with the general plan which was adopted m 1981. I know counsel wants to address you on that. You have received the correspondence. I also know counsel for Lauren, the applicant, wants to address you on the same issue and there may be others who want to raise other issues. We~ve had staff reports about a page long and I don~ think it needs embellishment. Staff would like the opporDmity to respond after all of the statements that are going to be made are made. I leave it to the Mayor's discretion as to how long and how much you listen to. VOICE 1: [Mayor Wilham Alexander] Thank you, Jim. All right, this evening I will say this, weYe not going to really ... I don~ think we've ever put any great time limits. The only thing we request is that you please don~ L.~ .2~Q~OTHER\VCD~210119 i 6.1 110497 EXHIBIt' 1 5 0106 MARK McGLHRE: VOICE 1: MARK MCGUIRE: VOICE 1: RICHARD STONE: contra-Ally repeat the same toforotation over and over again, keeping in mind there's a lot of this that we have heard. I know that Mr. Beyong (sic) was here last night but try, for the sake of everybody here, not to completely repeat the same statements over and over again. With that, item number eight was pulled. Who wanfs to come up and speak to the issue. Good evening honorable Mayor and members of the council. My name is Mark McGuire. Pm an attorney with the law firm of Hewitt and McGuire and we represent the applicant on the final map and I'd like to say two things. One, I was in the band if that helps, and two Pve never been in front of a council on a final map hearing and the reason for that, as you well know, is that final maps are mini~erial. We agree entirely with your staff that the final map conforms to the tentative map and so we support the recommendation of sta~ of course, to approve. We could go into a variety of the issues. I would just like the opporttmity to respond to the claims that opponents of this bottom lot might raise, so I will just reserve the opportunity to respond. l'm not familiar with the CURE correspondence. I did receive copies from the City of the Sheppard, Mullin letters but ,.. The correspondence from CURE amived at or about 4:00 p.m. this afternoon as I recall. I can't say I'm entirely surprised by that but hopefully representatives of CURE will speak and we can have an oppommity to respond. And, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Any questions for Mr. McGuire? There may be later. But thank you very much. Good evening, honorable Mayor, city council members. I~n Richard Stone, and I apoloEi~'ze I was not in the band. I'm tone deaf. But I am a trial lawyer and a land use litigator with the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, and we represent the RC5 and Haven View Estates Home Owner's Associations. I do not represent CURE, let me make that clear. There was an erroneous report in the paper today. This L~3 :LSQ~I'HER\V~ 10~ 1916. i 110497 -2- 0107 VOICE: RICHARD STONE: VOICE dispute to me is, to quote Yoga Ben'a, 'deja vu all over again." I recently successfully litigated a consistency with general plan issue again~ the city of Glendom so I am fresh on the law, and have recently been up to the appellate court on this very issue. You may or may not have seen the correspondence going back and forth between myself and your city attorney, Mr. Markman. Mr. Mm'lemAn and I, ifs safe to say, disagree on a rottuber of issues. One issue that we do agree on is the law that applies to this process. Mr. Markman and I agree that this project has to be consistent with the general plan. If it is not, it is illegal. If it is not, the filial map c~nnOt be approved. There is a case directly on point called Save El Toro Association. There is also Government Code 65567 that requires any subdivision map to conform to the open space plan which is an element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Now this is an im,norllmt issue for two reasons. A very important issue. If this isn~ a legal project the approvals will be rescinded. If this is an illegal project, ff you pass it knowingly, in my opinion, it constitutes an arbitrary and irrational deprivation of the property rights of the adjoining land owners. That's a fairly common sense proposition. You can~ pass illegal projects. So the question is, is this project consistent with the general plan? That is the key narrow issue we have here. Now, I think I can establish here tonight very clearly that it is inconsistent with the general plan. Let me start Sony, did you say is or isn~? Is not consistent with the general plan. To begin this analysis I need to get an answer to a question that I have asked and which my clients would like the answer to, and that is; what was the general plan designation for the Lauren Development property when the general plan was adopted in 19817 Can I get an answer to that question? Can I get an answer to that question from staff, or if anyone knows it ... Well, first of all, this is not, council knows, this is not going to be question and answer cross exsmins6on with he and Mr. McGuire quiwing the staff or other people. This is his LA3 :LSQVYI'HER~VCD~21051916.1 110497 -3- 0108 RICHARD STON~: MALE VOICE: STONE: opporumity to address the council. to discuss that with him and we'll be happy to respond to any point he wishes to make. I'd beg to differ. I am trying to help the council do the right thing and I think this is a basic question that needs to be nn.~/ergd. The nn.~wer normally would be given by the City Planner. I think the City Planner in this particular case spoke to the Plnnnin~ Commiesion, as well as the Plnnnir~g Department and staff. We are going to apparently disagree on whether or not this conforms to the general plan or not, but maybe Brad you'd like to go in. Mr. Mayor really before we get into this, we're going to have counsel, instead of addressing the council, making his argument, which is evidently that every general plan must have a map that has land use designations for every piece of property which are discernible. What he and I disagree on wdve already talked about We politely, professionally disagree on that. Can I address the counc/l? I strongly suggest you don't get into questions and answers because then we're going to turn to Mr. McCmire and say, would you like to cross examine Mr. Bullet and go back and forth as if this were a trial. It's not a trial, it's not even a heating but its an opportumty to address the issue under communications from the public.. That is what it is. Let me explain, if I may, the importance of that inquiry and see if that may resolve this situation. Whatever the designation was in 1981 in the general plan for this property cames forward to this day unless and until it is amended. It is my understanding that the general plan with respect to this property has never been amended. So the critical issue is what was the designation in the general plan of this property in 19817 It's a very basic question and if it can't be answered to me in an open forum, I would ask that each of you Uy to determine what that answer is before you take a precipitous vote. LAa~\VCE~!081916.1 110497 0109 MALE VOICE: STONE: MR. ALEXANDER: Is there some reason liabilitywise why Brad couldn~ an.~wer that question now just for information or is that something No, Rex, the reason is that it is inappropriate in my opinion under comm,,nications from the pubhc on consent calenrinr agenda item to have counsel start asking questions which will lead to other questions and then have counsel cross examine and so forth back and forth. This is an opportunity for counsel to make his points to the city council. It is not a question of liability, ifs a question of proper procedure. Well, letme continue then. In 1981, when the general plan was adopted, this property was in the Flood Control District, Flood Control easement. I have a document prepared by the Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamong~ It is in connection with the tentative tract 12332 application which that map became the RC5 and Haven View Estates subdivisions, and it clearly shows that the Lauren Development property, which is above those developments, is listed as, and I quote, 'Flood Control District Easement." That is the entire property and I submit this to the City Clerk for inclusion m the administrative record. Now having shown that it was Flood Control Lands, I actually don~ know that there is a dispute on that issue. If there is, I prefer to know now. I turn to your general plan. Maybe I could ask you something counsel. That document that you just identified, you said it said Flood Control District Easement on it? STONE: MR. ALEXANDER: STONE: Yes I did, And are you suggesting thafs a land use designation or is it just a description of an easement area? It's a description of a flood control easement area and I will establish that this property has been at least until 1983. Now in your general plan it states at Page IV-lB that "the three major sources of open space in Rancho Cucamonga are the flood control lands, the agriculOmtl lands which may or may LA~ '.LSQ~'I/F-R~V~ 1 OS ! 9 i 6.1 11049'/ 0110 not be in active production, and private vacant lands.~ It goes on to state "the flood control lands traverse the city in a north- south direction along the creeks and channels unlike the agricultural and private vacant lands, these corridors will not be developeeL" On the very next page of the general plan it references that "both Deer and Day Creeks along with utility easements which cross this area are key elements of the regional open space network.~ It goes on to state that "the city has the opporpmity in these areas to insure that the development preserves the maximum amount of open space especially where it lies adjacent to flood control lands or other publicly held lands. ~ The general plan goes on to state as one of its policies: *the City shall designate the creeks, channels, utility corridors and transportation rights of way as major elements of the open space network. ~ Now if I could direct your attention to the maps that are behind you and I~l ask Bill Angel to come up and assist and point this out so that I can walk you through this. The Lauren Development property has a man-made boundary, it is the levy, and if Bill you go to the flood control map you can show where that levy is as reflected on the Flood Control Map of the City~s general plan. That clearly demarks the boundary of this property and always has. Now if you go to the open space plan, Bill, if you can point out where that shows that levy, the open space plan counts as open space and let me quote: ~Flood control lands and utility/ transportation right of way. ~ And it denotes those by a squiggly line around those, and as you can see, and if you'd like to take a second and walk up to them and look ifs pretty evident from the map and this is found at Figure V-4 of the General Plan. This land to this day is denoted in the open space plan as open space flood conUol lands. Now there has been some suggestion that these boundaries are fluid or vague or don't necessarily establish land patterns to be followed. Let me quote again from your C-encTal Plan at Page VI-16: "A major portion of the substantive content of the plan is expressed graphically as well as technically. Plan graphics take the form of diagrams or maps which perform a variety of funchous including priori 'tuing or emphas'u~zg certain physical factors showing relationships between them and illustrating the geographic applications of plan policies and programs to these factors. Because these diagrmm and maps LA3 :LSQ~OTHERWCD~2 ! 0~ 1916.1 110497 0111 impose a certain pattern on land~ they define the spatial dimensions of the plan." In other words, these maps in fact set the policy and set the spatial limits of that policy according to your own general plan. There is no dispute that the maximum density allowed by the open space designation is one dwelling unit per ten acres, thafs found at your General Plan Page IV- 21. There is also no doubt that the proposed project has a density of two units per one acre. There is no doubt that the those are inconsistent. This is true irrespective of the zoning. There has been some suggestion that this project conformed to the zoning. There are two problems with that suggestion. One, the zoning that was adopted in 1983 by state law had to be consistent with the Creneral Plan. If it was not it was invalid when passed. That is the California Supreme Court in Lesher Communications. The zoning category of VL is inconsistent with the open space designation which limits density to one ,,nit per ten acres. It's pure mathematics, it's that simple. Secondly, under state law and California Supreme Court authority, irrespective of whether the zoning is valid or not the project must be consistent with the operative general plan. In other words the general plan trumps everything and that is also stated in your own Development Code. This applies to final maps too. I've heard there has been a suggestion that your hands are tied on this issue. They are not. That is absolutely false under California controlling law. There is Save E1 Toro Association and I direct you to Government Code 6556?: "any subdivision map must be consistent with the open space plan." You've got it up on the wall there, it has clear lines delineating this property as flood control lands. It stays that way until the general plan is amended under state law. I don~t necessarily expect you to take everything I say as gospel. Again let me reiterate I have recently litigated this issue. I've tried to help you folks do the right thin~ I'm sure thafs what you want to do. At the very least I think, one, you need to get the answer to the question: What was the designation in the Cveneral Plan of this property in 1981 when the Creneral' Plan was adopted? Has that designation ever changed? Cret the answer to that question and I also think that bec4mse this is such an important issue this may be appropriate for a second opinion. Second opinions are often gathered in medical issues or other important issues. There is nothing wrong with getting a LA~ :LSQ~OTHE~VC~Y~2 ! 0S 1916.! 110497 -7- 0112 MIL ALEXANDER: STONE: STONE: second opinion. In the case I handled against the City of Glendora, they brought in special counsel, unfortunately for them much, much too late. Because after we had won m the appellate court in the City Council was facing a lawsuit for damages. But the special counsel they brought in agreed with our position within about a week. I~ they had brought that gentleman in at the beginning a huge legal mess could have been avoided. So pealtaps this is an appropriate situation simply to get a second opinion to double check this. We're all humans here, mistakes can be made. Pm asking you to try and avoid one here. Thank you very much. So are you saying you could be mistaken? I don't - could be, but I~a relying on your own documents, and so I think I'm absolutely correct on this one. I have a question. In what way is the Glendora case similar to this and are there any differences in these two cases or potential cases, that would preclude us from being able to compare us to Glendora. Yes there are some differences in that case. It is not the exact situation of this. The fundamental controlling principle upheld by the Appellate Court though was that the General Plan superimposes everything. All land use permits and developments must be consistent with the General Plan including density limitations. In that case the General Plan provided that the maximum density in the open space designation was one dwelling unit per five acres. The gentleman that was uying to build a house had less than one acre, although it was close. The zoning for that open space designated property was RHR which would have allowed development on one acre. Theoretically, they could have maybe made an argument that through a variance that he was within the zoning. The court said thafs irrelevant. You don~ even 1oo.k at the zoning, we look at the general plan open space designation and its density iimit_stions and those control no matter what. LA3~WCI~21081916.1 11O497 -8- 0113 MR. ALEXANDER: STONE: MR. ALEXANDER: STONE: MALE VOICE: FEMALE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MP~ ALEXANDER: STONE: MR. ALEXANDER: STONE: MR. ALEXANDER: STONE: STONE: You refer to the boundary as being a man-made boundary up there the barrier, who made that? Do you know? Army Corps of En~neers. The Army Corps of Engineers made that boundary up there? I don~ understand the question. By the levy? Do you have evidence of them conslructing it? If you do they would have records that we need. I don't have those with me. I'm sure we can gather those for you. I believe that has been submitted. Army Corps made that? Okay. Mr. Mayor [several voices] about six hours of hearing and even Melissa dicha~t purport to identify who built that or why. There is no information to that at all. That's why I asked. My point was that there is a large levy that forms a natural boundary that you can see on the map. But you say it was man made thafs why I asked you who made it and you said it was Army Corps. That's my understanding that it was the Army Corps of En~neers~ Thank you, thank you. That's not the critical point in my opinion. Okay. L~~~VCI~10~1916.1 1 !(M97 -9- 0114 MALE, VOICE: MALE, VOICE: MALE VOICE: STONE: MR. ALEXANDER: MR. ALEXANDER MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE', VOICE: . MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MARC: MALE VOICE: MARC: Thank you very muck Are there any other questions? I didn't mean anything personal. I know you didn~. I would like a chance to rebuttal too if I may. Very briefly. Very briefly. Is there anyone else here tonight that would like to speak to this issue? Without please being repetitious. Okay. H! try not to be repetitious, but As best you can. I know tkat is very difficult. Well anyway, welcome to El Nino and anyway I'm just wondering under the with Dames & Moore who is a world- wide authority m en~neermg Excuse me, did you give your name already for recorded? No, I didn't. Marc Estop'mian. And I reside at 11045 Ranch Drive in Haven View Estates. Mainly because it's recorded so we can keep everybody. Anyway with this authority and knowing about the 7.5 earthquake that's going through the levy and about - I don~ know, all I want to do here is stress about our families and our children and if this levy comes down, you know, puts us at risk and ff there is changed circumstance, and there is a potential to hurt people and property beearose it is, you know, there is a chance that this debris basin might ~ such as what happened in San Bemardlno. Now is this happens, you know, L/L3 -J~Q~O'I~ril~V~1081916.1 11049'1 0115 MALE VOICE: BRADFORD: ANGEL: who do we go to. WeYe here basically to rely on you guys to protect us, so I just say make the right decision. Thank you. Thank you Marc. My name/s Tom Bradford. I live at 107 excuse me, I live at 5066 Cn~n,a, Court. I also have a business in Rancho Cucamonga - Bradford & Barthel. I'd like w emphasize a couple of things. N-tuber one, I don't believe Mr. Stone even let you know how successful he was, now ifs just a matter of damages. He won that cleanly. Talking about very large damages for whatever thafs worth. Number two, you know CUREs position on changed c/rcumstances. Number three, that map on your far left was purchased today. If you'll take a look you~l see right where the levy is and how it is zoned on your own map that was purchased today, and you'll see that that designation is exactly as listed by Mr. Stone. Thank you. Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Bill Angel. I live at 12966 Arapahoe Road in Rancho Cucamonga and I would like to talk about the final map that you're approving tonight. As part of the approval process, the developer had to meet certain conditions to construct a replacement channel. I shouldn't say replacement channel, but a new channel along the northern edge of the boundary that I'm sure you are all aware of. The concrete lined channel approximately six feet wide. That will replace or take the place of the levy that they're going to be taking down. The City endneet has reviewed the plans and I'm not an engineer and the Homeowners Association has not yet had the opporumity to review the revised plans, but if you will refer back to the open space map, or as you all know that the giant levy that was made back in the 1930s that protected most of Rancho Cucamonga or at least this end of Rancho Cucamonga south of Haven since the 1930s before the debris basin was built, kind of does a long sweeping motion and I think most of you have already beell up or ! think all of you have been up there and walked the levy. What the developer is proposing now is that the local drainage from the debris basin south is going to be collected by this smaller channel and then taken to the east and t/es into the flood control district Deer LA.3~\VC~210SI916.1 110497 -ll- 0116 Creek Channel, but again I'm not an engineer but what happens is the water, Ikn just talking about local flows right now, the water gets concentrate along the edge of that dam and ~m.s down to where ifs going to be intercepted by this channel and the channel will take along the northern boundary of the Lauren Development Project. Those plans that were originally submitted to the City and reviewed and apparently approved relied on the developer obtaining an easement from the Dept. of Water and Power in order to construct this new channel according to plan. Well, as we all ]mow now, Melissa McKeith has successfully convinced the Dept. of Water & Power that further environmental review and safety review needs to be done prior to them granting access to Lauren to do their construction. They... the Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power has determined that further environmental and safety issues need to be resolved prior to them granting that, unlike the City of Rancho Cucsmonga. Since they don% have access to the .... Since the Dept. ofWater & Power has not yet granted them access to do that, theyk, e come up with an altemative designed project. That I was in the city offices on Tuesday and Mr. James brought out the concepp_~-! plan that the city ensineer I guess is approving or will possibly approve in the event they are -n-~uccessful in getting an easement or getting the right to come on to the Dept. of Water & Power property to do their construction. So they've come up with an alternative design to do the grading and the construction on site without going onto the Dept. of Water & Power property. I'm not an engineer, but I looked at the plans and I'm thinicing to myself, there's an awful lot of water that's going to be running down along the edge of this levy that's existing being intercepted by this six foot chalmel and today I was thinicin~ about that and I realized that, by the way, Ikn one of the board members of the RC Homeowners Association, so I have the duty to protect the Homeowners Association propeily. This point where the levy and the channel intercept is right at the location of one of our privately maintained streets. In the event of a major inundation, the water could jump that channel and go into the streets and I ]mow that the City en~neer has to take this into consideration but since the project you're going to be approving is not ac~_mlly City property, this is going to be... I don't think they're going to be able build the original design. LA3 ~\VCD~10~1916.1 110497 -12- 0117 This channel, this device and everything is going to be rosinrained by the Homeowners Association that they're going to establish clearly could potentially affect the Haven View Estates and RC5 Homeowners Association because if it is inadequately designed we would be responsible for repairing that. Then major &,msge could be done to our streets not to mention the ovens'helming evidence that Melissa McKeith provided in the event that debris basin fails. I think that ifs only prudent that the City allow an engineer that the - or at least allow the homeowners association to review the plans that tbeyYe going to be approving prior to recording a final map. I mean weYe paying for the maintenance of those streets and this could clearly affect us. While I saw it the City wasn~ an approved set of blueprints that were drawn, it was a hand drawn superimposed redlined drawing on top of the original plan. There wasn~ a backup - this was Tuesday. There wasn't a backup drainage study and it didn't even carry the proposed construction all the way across. It was just like the first - I don't know, maybe three or four hundred feet of it. It's probably a thousand feet of it altogether. They were showing how this new channel - the new proposal of what they're having to do them - you know, I think further investigation is required before you approve somethug like this. What they're proposing to do - the original design was the bottom of the channel would be higher. That they would grade on the DWP property to bring the grade to equal the top of the channel so that when the water comes down this levy it gets dispersed and it runs into the top of the channel. What theyYe proposing now is to drop the channel down to the lowest point at the V of the edge of the levy that comes down and construct these giant retaining walls to hold back the levy. I mean weYe talking 22 feet overall from the base to the top of the channel up to the top of the wall and by the way, that also I talked to the staff planner and this planning department didn~ even know about this conceptual drawing that the City is going to rely on in the event that they that Lauren is unable to acquire rights from the DWP. That 22 foot high retaining wall in itseft is a direct violation of the Hillside Ordinance since the Hillside Ordinance flat out doesn~ allow re~ining walls that tall. Five foot is the max under the Hii!.~ide Ordinance, so, not only that, this isn't buried somewhere in the back of the tract, you know LA3 'J~Q~OTHER~¥CD~210819 i 6.1 ! 10497 -13- 0118 it's behind a home or something like this. This is on our main street. It's on Tackstrem where it curves, that's right where the levy comes down, that's where they're going to put this 22 foot high retaining wall and I don~ know, I think that definitely requires pJanning review and c,~__ inly more than just a pencil drawing at the counter. Now this is all saying that they don't get DWP approval. I talked tO someone at the DWP, DepL of Water & Power, and he said that without a full environmental impact report because of all the evidence that was presented to them, they're not going to give permission. They're deregulating the electric companies and theyYe really concerned about cost and things like that and he said and he probably wasn't the foremost authority, but he said he didn~ see - there's no reason for them to grant it. He didn~ think that they would ever get it, so then the City is going to have to rely on the conceptual drawing. That's not cast in stone yet, no one has seen the drainage studies. We, as the homeowners association would like to see those. In addition, by approving this final map there is also bonds that go with this. In the event that something happens to the developer, the City relies on these, as you all know, to complete the improvement projects. Well those bonds are based on the original design and I think you should withhold the final map. I think it's all rudimentary that you should withhold the final map until they have a final design, not a conceptual design. If you're going to improve something based on an alternative design then you should collect bonds for that. I am a builder and I know that just by looking without doing any calculations that the conceptual designs, the alternate design is going to be way more expensive to build than the original design. I mean you can see the number of retaining walls that are going to be there alone and know it's going to be a lot more expensive. So if you approve the final map and you have bonds that are insufficient to build it, the City is going to be stuck. Especially if we have the El Nino and you know the things get inundated. I think there is enough public record in the last few meetings from the CURE group that it's warranted for you to take another look at it. In addition, as far as the homeowners association is concerned, we are in full agreement with Mr. Stone's analysis of the open space plan. I was a property owner back in 1990 in Haven View Estates and ifI had known LA3 '.LSQ~THE~VCD~210S 1916.1 ! 1049'/ -14- 0119 MALE VOICE: HAHN: back then that ~is project was not consistent with the general plan and that we did not have to live with the VL zone two dwelling units per acre, then I as one property owner would not have supported the project back then. I thought all we were talking about was design and back then the Hillside Ordinance wasu~t even adopted when they were originally looking at it, you know, the street layouts and thugs like that. I thought we had to live with you know, two dwelling units per acre, but come to find out your own general plan is inconsistent and I think thafs something that you as council members should take into consideration. I think that's definitely new information and I appreciate you all listening to me. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Angel. My name is Bruce Ann Hahn and I live at 5087 Granada Court. I too went down to the City, I think it was Monday and to look at this new drainage system that was going to be put in and I was amazed that it was a conceptual plan. It hasn't been en~neered and you're going to give these people a final and" I'm really concerned about that, because we don't even know if this drainage plan is going to work or not. This tentative that has been around for seven years and I don't think we need to rush to try to get this through so quickly. I would like to see that conceptual plan, have en~neers look at or whatever end see if its going to work. I was around in 1990 and I did not realize that these maps showed how this property was in the open space or m the streamside woodland area or the water recharge area on all the general plan maps. I didn't see them. I didn't. And I think it can be answered if you go back and you look through all the files, the file for this project' originally looked like it was tract, 12332-2, which was the second part of Haven View Estates and the file even sits in that folder and then it's crossed out and a new tract number is put in and I think that the planner assumed that this was in the same general plan designation which would have been residential as the other part of the tra~t. I think it was a human error just like tonight's resolution 97159 has an error I think and Brad will be able to answer that for me. I have been told that Haven View Estates, the first section, cannot be in a lighting district no. 2. LA3 '.LSQ~Yl~IER~V~ 10~ 1916.1 110497 -15- 0120 ~ MCGUIRE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MR. MCGUIRE: We can only be m lighting district no. 1, that we can~ be in lighting district no. 2. ff we can, I would like Haven View Estates to be put into lighting district no. 2 and I think that's all I have. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Hahn. Anyone else? Good evening again, Mayor, members of the councfi, Mark McGuire on behalf of the Mark would you raise the volume up a litfie bit? Pm trying not to raise my volume but just if I could briefly respond to the points made tonight. The first primary point is this notion of the general plan and I think basically the problem is that it assumes a level of precision that just simply isn't in those maps and I think that if the counsel, the learned co,msel for the homeowners association took a look at the maps that there are arguments that are equally available, but I think wrong and silly that pans of the existing Haven View Estate tracts were within those map flood control open space areas and that under his reasoning the entire tract maps would .. have been invalid as he says void ab initio and people would be living in nonconforming structures and the empty lots would be inconsistent with the general plan and, you know again. I don't want to get into this, but if you compare those maps they do not tract absolutely precisely with one another, they do not tract precisely with the lines of that levy. Our property does not - the boundary of our property is not that levy, that levy is in it's on one side but not on the very edge of it there is space between the levy and the boundary of our property line, a fair amount of space in certain places. Before I forget, and I'll say it again, there is a hole in the levy 200 feet wide, which was required as a condition to satisfy the homeowners association's the existing Haven View residences, there is a hole in this levy. So again on the general plan there is not the precision in those maps. Ifs my understanding generally that in most cities general plan maps are not done on a parcel by parcel basis, theyke done at a more generalized basis and the zoning in 1983 there was adopted to bring your zoning into conformance with your recently adopted general LA~:LSQ~THER\VCD~210~ ! 916. ! 110497 0121 Tape 1 side 2 MR. MCGUIRE: plan dealt with the issue and clearly designated this pwperty low density residential with the understanding that that would be consistent with the general plan designation. None of these residents were there in 1983 when the original tract maps, which by the way included our property, all of the Haven View Property was part of one tract a sequential tract but they were all included by the same landowner. The property was never owned by the Flood Comml District and they could have easily asked for a general plan amendment at that time, there were no neighbors, there would have been no one opposed that amendment. They didn~ need to. It was consistent with the zoning. The zoning was consistent with the general plan, they just made the proper application at that time and I think ifs also clear from the testimony that none of these residents is surprised and had a reasonable expectation that this property was going to be a residential subdivision. In fact what they're surprised is that gee we didn~ know maybe there's an argument that this could have been open space and again I hasten in fact one of the folks that testified I think if he looked to closely and treated that as a precision he would find that his own property arguably is m an open space and that his property.._is' .illegal. 1 just think it's an argument that falls on itseft..It's based on an improper assumption of precision that just isn't there. The other point where they tried to obtain textual support for the maps, which again I think are done in the general level the textual support that they say is that flood control properties are to be open space in order to serve as a primary source of open space. Again this property was never flood control property. Yes, there was a flood control easement on it but the property nght next to us is owned in fee by the Flood Control District. So I believe that a logical rea_&in~ of that is that flood control property meant fees - fee owned property owned by the Flood Control Disuict. On the issue of the storm drain improvement let me just say that - two things. One, we're not/going to do any grading during this winter. The El Nino is going to come - - we're not going to be gra&ing or modifying that levy in any way. We're not going to be plugging the hole in the levy either, but I would just, you know, to comfort anyone, we're LA.3 '.I~Q~YI'HER~V~ ! OS 1916.1 11049'/ -17- 0~22 not going to grade during fl~i.~ winter season. I'd also say that our intention is to do the im?rovement as shown on the final map precisely and we plan to get approvals from DWP. We have to struggle with DWP because false claims were made to DWP. In particular, on August 18 we received a letter to the effect that we've been apprised, and again I was apprised by Melissa McKeith, that the subdivision is not in compliance with the California Environmental Q, mlity Act. Well, you made a resolution - you adopted a resolution to the effect that it was in compliance. I don't know why this person at the DWP just accepted that premi.~e, but it, s not a proper premise and we are in the process of explaining that. A second example is that she's the DWP representative said it's my understanding that the property is in a recharge area and the regional water quality control board is evaluating whether the development can go forward. Well, H1 submit with a package of materials a letter received as pan of the final map submittal from the regional water quality control board allowing perceptic use of this tract and that the traet's cleared from the regional water quality control board's standpoint. So these are the types of claims that we,re been chasing down with every agency. We're doing our best, we will get it, we will construct the improvement as shown. The purpose for the conceptual plan was to show that there are alternatives. The Improvement is entirely on our property, we just need to do very limited grading during the construction period on the DWP property and we wanted to show that in the event we don~ obtain the DWP gr,_cling license, we eau come in, show a functionally equivalent storm drain that complies entirely with the City's ordinances. Again, we have a condition that our tract not proceed to grading until this storm drain is in place. So it's not as if we're going to sell off these lots, build homes and not do that improvement. Until that improvement is in place, we can't proceed with the tract. MALE VOICE: Did you say you were going to sell lots. MR. MCGUIRE: We're not going to sell lots. MALE VOICE: Will you eventually sell off the lots? LA3 '.LSQ~OTHF. RXVCI~!081916.1 11049'1 -18- 0123 MR. MCGUIRE: MALE VOICE: MR. MCGUIRE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: McGUIRE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: MALE VOICE: Eventually as part of the subdivision. Ifs our plan to - weYe not going away. It's our plan to come back to get the final map approved, to put in the necessary improvements to come in back before the city to make our case on the design review issues and to come back with a project we hope satisfies the concerns voiced by the council at the design review hearing and then we will sell lots. So Pm going to go into all of the issues that were raised like here in the previous hearing but I am going to submit just for purposes of the record, I feel it necessary for purposes of the record to submit in the package of materials that perhaps are responding to the claims that CUR~ made as of four o'clock today. [Whtspenng] Clarify that you are not selling lots, you're building homes. You say you are selling lots. Let me clarify. We are going to sell homes and I was thinking is that includes selling lots. We are not solely selling empty vacant lots for individual development, we're going to come in and You have the desi~rm.~ yet? Do we have designs yet - What was the question Right, they were going to change them all and all that. We're going to come back through the process through the design process, so we are selling homes on lots, that's our intention, If there are any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you Mr. McGuire. Mr. Stone did you? There's more. I'm sorry. Hold on to LA3 -.t3Q~OTHI~VCD,2 ! 08 i 916.1 i 10497 -19- 0124 MALE VOICE: mwe've another one. MALE', VOICE: Yeah, we do. MORRIS: Good evening, my name is Stan Morris of MBS Consulting. I'm the civil engineer on the project. I designed the storm d.ra~ channel. The trapezoidal channel, the Hardin Channel, that intercepts the local flows north of our tract. We talk a lot about the levy. The levy doesnt collect all of the waters, they don~ nm up against it. Then general drainage pattern is to the southeast parallel to the levy, so all the water is don't collect at the east side. They sheet and this is interceptor channel we collect along the total length of our north boundary. The original trapezoidal channel and we have design, and we have redline plans that are ready to be signed by your city engineer have been through two review processes at the city and two similar review processes at the flood control district. So they had been reviewed by a lot of hydrologists, civil engineers and their total status on both the hydrology, the water coming to the channel and the hydraulics the water if it's in the channel. One of the questions raised as the result of the many hgarim3~ we~,e had on this project is just what happens if you don't get this very routine grinding license from Water & Power. So we prepared an engineered sketch, ifs not just a free hand drawing, it's an engineered sketch that shows how instead of a trapezoidal channel we could put in a vertical channel. Accompanying that vertical channel are some retaining walls that could go as high as 10 feet. There is no 22 foot high walls~ In working with you city ever since it has been a city, we processed all kinds of plans through including plans with your hillside that conform with your hillside grading ordinance. The way we can easily modify this concept sketch is to put in dual retaining walls with grouted cobble. And the grouted cobble I think was contained within some of the things that Laura showed us earlier that are more acceptable for your city. Included within this concept sketch that we provided to the city we did detailed hydraulic calculations that show that all of the waters contained within a channel. In many cases we have two or three feet of free board much more free board than is required. So the concept channel works, it's an engineered channel, the hydraulics work, there is no flood b*?Jrd there. LA3:~\VCI~21011916.1 11049r/ -20- 0125 FEMALE VOICE: MALE: FEMALE: MORRIS: FEMALE: MORRIS: FEMALE: MORRIS: FEMALE: MORRIS: FEMALE: MORRIS: The preferred channel, the correct channels, the trapezoidal channel and all we need to do with the Dept_ of Water Power is work tkrough that large organization. All it does is lake time. You can% start too early with those folks. They say well come back when your plans are ready to be signed and thafs what weYe doing now is processing. We do that all along the north boutduty of your city, ifs a auily process, it just takes time. We'll be successful with those folks. If there are any questions I'll be glad to I have a question. Go ahead Back to the channels, either the trapezoidal or horizontal sides and then the, you're talking aborn a wall would be above and beyond that? Yes, if we did... Well, then wouldn,t you figure the height f~om the'tmse of the channel the wall of the channel and.the height of the wall, that - couldn't that equal about 22 feet? That channel, we've designed it to be 4 feet deep. That'll ... four feet deep? -- four to five feet deep and that will take all of the water we need in that. It's ten feet wide at the bottom. That will handle a real - that's - That handles hundred year storm. Really? What about the 250 year storm? Well, with the pre-board it will handle that as well. We design for hundred year storms. LA3-~\VCI3~!O~ 1916.1 110497 -21- 0126 MORRIS: FEMALE: MORRIS: FEMALE: MORRIS: MALE? MORRIS: MALiE: MALE? MORRIS: MALE? MORRIS: I was just in Redlands today on a field trip watching digging out and getting ready for a 250 year storm, so I~a kind of curious now as to why we have - - I should add we design the channel for the hundred year storm on the down side, we have a block wall - the downhill side of the levy separating the channel from our project. Wehte designed - How tall would that be? - a six foot block wall - wehte designed the lower two and a haft of that block wall to be a flood prevention wall. So in addition to the water in the channel, we have an extra two and a haft feet of our block wall that is designed as a water canying wall. How far does that wall go into the earth? The wall goes into the -- it goes into the earth (and I'm doing this from memory), the top of our footing is imbeddr~.8_inches and then we go another 12 to 18 inches in. -. So a 14 foot high boulder that happens to roll down with water like it has, you know this whole area is full of them, that should take care of that? I have not designed the wall to handle a 14 foot boulder. Well I'm sure no one asked. I have a question. Yes sir,, If I understood you to say that all the water is not levy; there is an active flow of the ~ files. Do I understand that correctly? Yes. The general - LA3 ..LSQ~O'ITi~R~V~ 1081916.1 110497 -22- 0127 MALE? MORRIS: MALE,?: MORRIS: MALE?: MORRIS: MALE?: MORRIS: MALE?: MORRIS: MALE?: How much of the water do you think as a natural flow from the fries now where is that water going as compared to the water thst is going against the levy today - right now without any construction on it? Well, we're not doing any consu'uction on the levy north of our property, so whatever is there now will be there when we're done. WeYe only intercepting water when it crosses the property and if I were to estimate the amount of water running against the levy, it would be in the neighborhood of 5 to 10 percent. Again~ it trends away. Five to ten percent; so where is the other water going? you know, take for instance - Where it goes right now? We,re designed for theoretical storms we probably haven% seen that kind of a storm up there. Right now, that water would trend down against the existing levy and where the breach is, it will come up to that breach. So as things stand, now, ff we have aJ~i.~qorm, Haven View would get flooded, even with that ~vy there? There is a potential that the easterly side of Haven View Estate could be flooded with the breach - All right - so without a major storm, where is the water going today from the files? It sheaths against, when the levy is inside of our property, it collects against that and then it flows on to the flood control property. Notwithstanding the breach that's there. And you say only ten percent of the dram-off is doing that? At our westerly boundary, about 10 percent hits against the levy - the levy curves very - easterly and so that all it collects inside our property, but our westerly boundary, only about 10 percent. Thank you. L.~ 4 _~Q,OTHERWCD~i 081916.1 110497 -23- 0128 MALE: STONE: MALE: FEMALE: STONE: MALE: MR~ ALEXANDER: STONE: Are there questions - thank you. Be~nning now, lql try to keep this very brief. Before counsel starts, to make sure that he doesn't have someone else to · are they through? laughing - coughing Because I saw somebody else - Is there anybody else who is going to be - Mr. Stone please. Thank you, your Honor. Let me start by explaining the basic concept of the general plan ..... come to me that there is - we're assuming too much precision in the general plan. I am not assuming any more precision in your general plan maps than your own general plan give them, and I quoted that language to you. These maps embody the policies, geographically and spatiaily. These are public documents, every citizen is supposed to be able to walk in and look at these maps and be able to plan what they can build and what I'm hearing today in defense of this project is that these are sort of inchoate, categories that nobody really knows what they stand for until the planning staff tells us. That's not true. That is not California law. These set boundaries for land use development and people are supposed to be able to rely upon them. That is the fundamental nature of these documents. This happened in the City of Glendora; how do you think that they figured out that the open space was covering that land. There was a channel there, it was very clear from the maps just as it is crystal clear from here. Do you really think in a court of law someone is going to buy the argument that those are not flood control lands? Look at that map. Nobody from the planning staff has ever disputed ttmt those aren't flood control lands. If they are flood conlrol lands, it's open space by your own map - that's Exhibit A. It is very simple and the mathematical facts that flow from that is one unit per ten acres is does not equal two units per one acre. It is that simple, it is LA3~lVCI3~1081916, I ! ! -24- 0129 MALE: MALE',: FEMALE: MALE: MALE: FEMALE: MALE: BRAE) BULLER: that clear cut - I've just been through this with the Court of Appeal. The zoning that was adopted in 1983 is irrelevant, whether it was valid or invalid, but I will tell you it was invalid because it is inconsistent with your open space designation. And again the importance of this is, there is no inchoate zones. There had to have been a general plan land use designation in effect for t_his property in 1981. What was it? I still don't have an answer to that question and I'm not sure many of you do. You've got to get to the bottom of that before you pass on this. Thank you very much. Thank you ~ Okay - Now, can Brad answer the question? he had - do you want to staff response to his -- to these -- Well, , since the, since it. keeps corning Ul~ that we're not allowing him to unswer, let's get the unswer. [mumbled, inaudible] - Up on the overhead is the copy of the land use, actually it's an enlarged version of the land use map within the general plan. Highlighted m yellow are the land use designations that identify residential designation. The area that is in - appears to be cross-hatched in the overhead is a flood control designation m the general plan. For me, I identify two areas of the general plan document that says that maps [they're called policy maps] and it says Policy maps show the intended spacial application of the written policies; it is important that both the text and the policy maps be referred to m making future planning decisions. It further says in the general plan that "The proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for homing business, industry, open space staff has taken the position that our general plan is not parcel specific. You cannot go up to the LA3 :LSQ~O'I~r!F.,R\V CIJk210819 ! 6.1 11049~ -25- 0130 MR. BULLER: general plan and point to a parcel of land and say "That is my land use." The interpretation of the general plan and then the final zoning of the property was done in 1983 and that interpretation indicated that the property was to be zoned and was zoned residential for development. If I can, I'm going to overlay a map that we produced through our GIS, the tract boundaries and the tract development not only of Haven View Estates but the Lauren Project as well as RC-V I'Ll need to point out an e~,mple of how diagramrustic these policy maps and exhibits are within the general plan. Again, you'll notice on this exhibit here, most of the lines in demarcations of land use patterns are very broad in their brush stroke or curve at the comers. If you were to go and lay over the parcel specific and it may be difficult for those in the audience to see, but this being the Haven View Estates project, and this being the Lauren project right here. As you can see, the underlying general plan land use map when blown up to this scale, there is a portion of that land that is within the residential and also here. There is also in the general plan what appears to be flood control open space designation that runs in this pattern. If you were to what is out there today, yo~. c~u~qee where that falls within the pattern of existing development that's currently in the - right now. It runs right through here. The physical channel that is out there in place today runs right here. So staff has taken the position that the zoning determines compliance with the general plan in '83, the map approved in 1990 was consistent with both the general plan and the zoning and as with that we then also made that same statement and finding when approval of our recommendation for the design review of the project. So the answer to 1981 which you, I think are saying~ is irrelevant. Is that what you're saying? The question, I think as was asked was "what was the property designated?" Well the property was, then again, ifs conceptual; it's relationally. So until 1983, that was refined in '83 and defined to be residential. MALE: Okay, so m '81 -, LA3 .~Q~VCD%21081916. ! 11049'7 0131 BULLER: MALE: MALE: MALE: BULLER: MALE: BULLER: BULLER: MALE: BULLER: MALE: MALE: MALE: The general plan laid out relational, and so you could not go to that general plan - Right - - tO say that property - and so the conceph_m! is speaking kind of like, out m the universal. Conceptually, in 1981, it was open space. Correct? It was, it was - - conceptually. - there was a demarcation within the general plan that said, there is a boundmy between what is flood comrol open space and residential. That delineation as to what property fell within inside which land use category was determined in 1983, through the zoning. So you're saying there was nothinu t~at designated in 1981. Is that what you're saying? The zoning? Yeah. What was the designation on what is now the lower property m 19817 You're saying there is no answer to that? time for an interim zoning by have to look and see what; how it was designated and there're some areas within that combination - So, we don't know then? Rex, Rex, let me, let me throw something m on this. I mean, I think counsel for the Homeowners' Association has presented to council an 'interpretation and obviously a colorable argument and I'm not trying to say that he didn't do so quite well professionally, but there are some things I don~ agree LA3 -.LSQ~(YI'HI~\VCD~21081916.1 11049'7 -27- 03.32 with him tonight, I don~ think its worth a chuckle, I think it's a tough issue and the council needs to decide it on good faith. First of all, I didn~ say or didn~ mean to say, or to give the council the impression that if you don't agree this conforms to the general plan that you have to approve and in fact if you don~ agree, it conforms to the general plan, you have to disapprove it. So let's clear that up to start with. But I don~ agree with the counsel that the fundamental purpose of a general plan or a general plan map or land use map is so that somebody who wants to develop or understand what they can do with their property can walk up to the map, point at it and say especially when ifs never been zoned in the city as was the case here in saying, I know what I can do with that. Let me give you an example. I can walk into a courtroom, maybe 50 zoning ordinances with land use maps or open space maps where the land use designations in the general plan are residential and the zoning ordinance has six categories of residential which you have to find out what you're in to determine your density and there is no way you can walk up to that land use map m the general plan or any other map and say, "I know what my property is designated and_v~h~ ! can build there. And there are - and thafs just on~ example. There are a variety of land use maps or diagrams you find in a number of general plans. The issue here if litigated or I guess when litigated, whichever way the council decides this, is fact specific as to the maps that are up there - the general plan you were dealing with. How it was intcs~scted by the legislative body, menning whe - why didn't maps to do as Brad has argued one side; council has argued the other; staff has consistently applied Brad's interpretation (at least since '85), since I've been here and probably before. Systemically to hundreds of developments. And that - that doesn't mean you have to be sold on that position, but I will tell you that contemporaneous administrative intcrl~lCtatlon of what it is meant as to what is controlling or not controlling in the general plan map and how it interfaces with the zoning of'83 will be given weight by the Court; counsel would like to tell you that now, fourteen years later after consistent intc~prctatlon to the contrary, he need only walk into the court and fundamentally put up those maps and that there won~ be testimo~ and evidence explaining what the intentions were. There will be, I.~3 ~\VCIY~1081916.1 11049/ -28- 0133 and maybe he's correct, maybe this council think he's correct - that's up for you to determine. It's not for me to vote for you, but I think it's worth explaining the staffs position; the other pan of the staff position on the language of what is flood control property. Is co,m~l sitting here re~ding those passages. It occurs to me - it's absolutely clear flood control property was meant to be the fee owned property of the Flood Control District that constituted the resjot corridors. The third paragraph he read talked about the major corridors; obviously being retained for open space, we knew they would be because they have to be m~inl~ined to carry flood water and some for recharge purposes. And so to go ahead and take that language and say, "Every property over which there lies a flood control district easement, many of which, by the way, would never have conformed to those maps that he relies on necessarily means that open space. I don~t think this is (~lendora, I think it's a fact specific case. I think counsel knows that. I think there are similarities to Glendora as to what the issues are. I think here when you're not talking about somebody applying to build somethix~ you're talking about really back in '83 when the city staff. beld hearings. and. public workshops; brings to the planning commission and counsel the two bodies that interpret the general plan maps they just adopted in '81 and say "Our interpretation of this particular area is it is very low residential." It's also very pers~msive. Just as counsel has been persuasive with his point of view, I think other arguments are - - will be made that are persuasive. You are going to have to decide what you think that meant. You~e heard it, he's had an opportunity to present it to you. I am telling you that this is a ministerial action if you agree that this project conforms to the general plan. Obviously, if you dont agree with that it's another story and our legal position with respect to the developer and his alternates that Bill Angel talked about is that he's got a condition to build that channel as commissioned before he can do anything or do anything there. ffhe cant get onto the DWP property, and he cant meet the hillside ordinance standard or he cant meet the design review because he's building big retaining walls may mean he never builds this. The condition is that he's got to build it - meet that drainage condition before he builds anything else and that's our function. To make sure he does. And you know, it's not our L,A3 ..LSQ~-!~\VCD~!0819 i 6.1 110497 -29- 0134 VOICES: MALE: [GAP IN TAPE] MALE VOICE: FEMALE VOICE: function to sit and speculate whether heql ever get DWP approval. We don~ know thaL They maybe he never gets it and he can never design an alternative that ultimately satisfies the engineering and planning ~aff.~, I don~ know that. So, I don~t think the council should be persuaded by the alternative they've offered or by either position at DWP. The question is this, if you concur, the general plan intention is met by this zoning, then the question is whether the final map conforms to the tentative. Whether he ever builds it because he can't get on DWP property is his problem and his risk. I don't even want to add anything to do all of that Rick, or - oh, well, I guess by the way, Brace Ann was right on the lightening district. So if you ever get to that point, you're going to have to amend that resolution and I guess it only goes into Lighting District No. 1. She was correct on that. Inaudible, many people talking at once. - because the streets are private, whatever. Obviously your staff already has said they feel ~ drainage sufficiently to protect the neighbors and he gets an approval. If he comes m with an alternative however, and it could be a number of alternatives, and it has structures in it like retaining walls that are physical features that have aesthetic impacts. My view of it is they could be walking through the design review on that and which becomes discretionary and we all know what that process will be. Design review opens the door to discussion of the environmental impact? Every time - I'm sure that people will then assert the same things they've asserted about change circumstances that council will be represented with all of that CEQA argument that would happen and the developer would have face that if he does anything that triggers another discretionary act. He's already said he's coming back for another design review. That's their retention then on the houses, that obviously is I. A3 :I.~QkOTHER\VCIY'O,1051916.1 110497 0135 going to lrigger that whole debate and the neighbors are enfified to make that every time a discretionary matter comes before you on this project and I'm sure they will. And you know they may also succeed in convincing three of you that's the case one of these times. I doWt know. Thafs the developer standing before you tonight saying we're trucking forward knowing all of that FEMALE VOICE: Okay. Now spell out for me in a fairly simple quick way then for sure there is an opportunity. I guess lb just looking for any opportunity so weYe ready for what we're getting into. There's design review potential about three or four different places. It's selling of any lots MALE VOICE: Yes, but ] can FEMALE VOICE: a needed wall that has any aesthetic impact and at design review of the home? MALE VOICE: We, we, we, we, we absolutely intensely look at all these issues anticipating these auestious riffs afternoon at the staff level. We even think, I think the staff told me something that I really didn't even know until tiffs at~ernoon that even if somebody came in with a custom house. Let's say they started to sell off the lots for custom lots because they got through building the public improvements or the private improvements, the drainage improvements. Even one of those houses could be subject to design review all the way through the process. And subject to the neighbors' scrutiny and subject to CEQA if that becomes the case. That is possible. MA~E VOICE: Is it possible for them to not go through the process? I would say its possible that except I think highly unlikely with the scrutiny that these people are receiving from their neighbors and the legal scrutiny. I think there would be a demand for a complete review of anything presented and that also assumes they got to the point of building the channel and got to the point where they could actually have somebody come in and seek a building permit for a house. It's a torturous road which I am sure the developer must understand that no L.~ '.LSQ~THER~,VCD~210g 1916.1 11049~ -31- 0136 FEMALE: MALE: FEMALE: FEMALE: MALE: FEMALE: MR. ALEXANDER: matter how you look at it to ever get to that point. But that's not whafs here tonight. I guess tonight whafs here is (a) the general plan issue which counsel has raised we have to deal with and if you get by that the issue of the whether the final maps conforms to the tentative, that's where you are this evening. All right. Any other questions? I guess I'm just still dense on this one. So we need what we're trying to clarify really is that the final map is exacfiy in conformation with the tentative map which was Substantially in conformity. Sub okay, when was that tentative map? 1990 '90, okay. So by doing so are we saying that we acknowledge that there has been no physical or evidence of change m perhaps environmental facts smee '907 That doesn't apply here? Is that more than an environmental re_view? If you approve this tonight you are acknowledging you agree with staffs position on the general plan, okay? Other than that it's ministerial. It is presented to you as a ministerial act, you're not necessarily agreeing you're not abandoning the position you took Dianne and if that CEQA review should have applied to the design review process. Frankly, I'd just like to just get this thing moving down the road.. If we can get to the meat of it in a few months. What is your pleasure? Well, Mr. Mayor, I don't know. Maybe everyone is waiting to hear from you. You know, I think I've almost said enough in the way we've dealt with a lot of opinions. My own personal opinion.at this point is that the winners on this one are going to be the attorneys. We hire land use professionals, we hire comm~mily LA3 .~Q~O~WCD~21051916. I 11049'7 -32- 0137 GUTIEKKEZ: development professionals and we hire engineers and we ask them to be able to come up with an answer on things. Things that we are not experts on. When they come up with those showers - you know l~m not in complete agreement in many ways with either side, but after listening to the side that represents the current homeowners up there, I wonder if they should even be up there to begin with. Maybe they shouldn't be. But I also don~ think that we, you know, I think it is almost counter productive when we give people rules and they abide by the rules and they go through the heatings and then we develop what amounts to new standards to come up with. You know if we are as it was said earlier, if we're really trying to avail ourselves as trying to be understanding of not only our standards and rather harsh they may be at sometimes, but also understand the difficulties that the development cornmullity goes through at the same time. I think staff has done an admiral job under some adverse conditions and I appreciate what they've done. I don~ expect this no matter what comes out tonight, this is going to end here. I think the city ultimately is going to spend probably thousands upon thousands of dollars in being, inyolved ui litigation. I think that's terribly unfortunate, but I don't know what it's ultimately going to take away from, but it's going to take away from something Because if you don't have money in some areas it is going to rob Peter to pay Paul and I think that's too bad. Nonetheless that's my feelings. Well I have a feeling too. I think staff is doing exactly what they think is right, because I don't think they'd take any other road except what they honestly believe is right, that's their job. They're experts in this field and I also believe our city council. Mr. Markman is telling us what he believes is legally correct, so I have to accept the position of staff and the position of our city council. That's my position. Let me say something. I don~ want this to get into an issue of whether or not we have faith or whether or not we admire or have respect for the job and the reputation of the people who work for us. Yes, we rely many times in my opinion too much because we haven't had the 1/me to do all the homework that we like to do or we get our information a half an hour before LA3 ~'~VCD~210$1916.1 11049'7 -33- 0138 the meetings, but in no way do we need to focus or put our attention and be concerned about whether or not we're endorsing the professional opinion that we paid for here in the city. I appreciate very much the work of all the professionals on both sides that have put their time into this for us for paying the staff and our legal co-n~l, I even appreciate what these homeowners are doing to pay for their professional opinions. We listen to these opinions. Tonight we get to be judges in a sense and we decide no feelings, no hard feelings about the other side or this side or that side if they don't win, but we decide what's in our hearts and in our minds whalfs best for the city. We all have different issues that we focus on. Different opinions. If you read these Supreme Court decisions or any other well particularly Supreme Court with all the different opinions you have, youke going to find you have a lot of respect and a lot of differences, but you go back and you become a team again and you work for the common good. I was very impressed with the arguments made by Mr. Stone. I have to admit, I don't think anyone here wasn't impressed, and I'm impressed by Jim's expertise as well, but this general plan I never knew until tonight. I never knew how mt .~.it. is for a city to have such high standards and is so procise if you ever go to one of planning commission meetings or design review and for us to say that it's so murky that oh it's just general, it's kind of a drawing, it's round whatever like all these other bubbles, and I don~ know. That wasn~ as convincing. Again, no offense, I love this staff. I've been with them for six years, but I was more persuaded by the other side tonight. When in doubt you go to this general plan. I thought it was more of a guide, more of a bible than I guess it is and there is a lot of things about this whole story that I'm concerned about. I know this is just a one-issue vote tonight, but I'm concerned about this whole project. I don't know why this levy was put there. I think there is a reason. It's an added protection perhaps. But we talk about public safety in this city. Now I don~ live real close to this area, but I live in its path. If we ever did have some serious flooaing and think about it. I'm not going to put my name to letting this thing happen. And I would rather side with caution on this, but even with the arguments given on just on the straight, is it consistent with the general plan. I was convinced enough or impressed enough with the arguments by LA.3 :LSQ~}THER\V~1081916.1 I 10497 -34- 0139 the homeowners that there is just no way I could support this. There is no way. tape #3 ·.. flint lkn ever gonna support ~his. I don~ know what DWP is gonna do. They don~ want to let them on their land. I think theyYe concerned too. May be very peripheral and may be it's very superficial. May be ifs very bureaucratic which could be the case, but there's enough questio~ with this whole thing that leaves me very uneasy and Pm not gonna do anything that makes me feel uneasy. So we'll go on, perhaps for years fighting this over. I wish as Christiano, we~l get together with some of these homeowners or all of them and shake hands and may be sell them the property or do somefiring. I wish there was a way that we don~ have to spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in the next 3 or 4 years going back and forth on this. And I wish there was more than effort by both sides to see if there is a creative masterful compromise because I beheve ifs possible. And I don~ know, I don~ live up.tb~.~,~d may be it's very presumptuous and arrogant to say this, I almost wish that homeowners up there could get together and find out what that property would cost to buy, preserve for whatever they want, but thafs up to them. I am not gonna vote for this and I'll say tomght although there's many other reasons in my estimation, I'll say it wnight that for purposes of the consistencywith the general planner I don't think there's enough compl/ant information that's been given to me to approve this now. Thank you. Male 2: I~l just one of the last thing - one of the things you said based the questions in general, if you don~ mind, the mitigation for the levy in rearling every tach of what was presented to us I think we've brought by clearly, we have a flood control channel up there. Yet, I would say if there's no flood conuol channel up there, and I'm not talking about the developer's ,Pm talking about the flood control channel up there. If there was no flood control channel which was put in to mitigate the drainage problems I would agree with you, but who, I can~ help it, who, who's responsible is, rather than any, asking , who is responsible for maintaining the levy right now? LA3 ~~VCD~21081916.1 11049~ -35- 0140 Male 3: Male 2: Male 3: Male 2: Male 3: Male 2: Male :2: Female 1: Male :3: Female 1: Male 2: Male 4: Male 2: Male 4: Male 2: Male 4: Male 1: Nobody. Nobody. Why? The levy is on private property and the Flood Control District gave up the many years ago. For what reason? Because the flood channel were [tallang at the same t~me] . . . the channel and damn That's the kind what I thought. I thought we had mitigated the levy. What year is the channel,... become functional? Do you remember. I know we had big fuss over it - I know we had thing to do - '877 '82, '83. ~= ~ That early. Okay. Was it before or after the rams we had? Aren't we getting off track? The only issue tonight of what we're going to vote on is as the final map conform with the tentative map. Yes. ·.. that's what we're voting now? Right. WeYe not going... flying on over... It doesn't conform, that's what I'm saying. LA3 :L~Q~YII-IE~XVCI2~21081916.1 110497 0141 There's an issue that has been presented by the opponents that this tract mop does not conform to the general plan because the underlying zoning ill '83 did not conform and therefore every action along the way doesn~ conform with what was - with that map or what was intended in those schematics. And you~e heard both sides on that, I want to reiterate. So you do have that issue too. So if you approve thi.~ you may assume you're deciding that it does conform to the general plato If you approve it you are necessarily deciding that I believe, tonight. Female 1' If it's not approved, what's the next step? Male 2: If it's demed - you mean if it's iimboed or denied? Female 1' Whichever. If it's denied, basically I would ask you to direct us to make a finding why you're denying it which I assume would be the general pi-nner argument, and we would come back with a resolution and then, although I haven~ had a letter threatening litigation from the developer, I su.m~o,.~ they'd have the option of bringing an action to m*ndste t,s to approve this and possibly throw m some curious theories of damages for - you know, temporary deprivation of use of property, what we like to refer to as roterim reverse condemnations which are becoming quite common whenever somebody gets a zoning or ~act denial and we'll be in court, presumably with the intervention of the homeowners helping us out. I'm done to.. Male 2:: If it goes into limbo this evening because there's a two-two position, I would suggest to you that you bring it back on the fast council meeting m November where there'll be 5 members of the council here. Male 1' Can we say one last thing before Diane starts. I forgot to mention that even though it's not question of the general plan, I have a real concern about this alternative conceptual design, I know ifs been done very professionally. In case we can~ or in case Lauren can't get over onto DWP, I wanna see more than just knowing that LA3 '3~Q~OTHER\VCI~210g 1916.1 110~9'7 -37- 0X42 Female 1: Male 1' Female 1: Male ' Female: Male ' Female: there's gonna be an alternative plan. I wanna see, I wanna look at it, I want to know about it, I don~ want just be told aborn it. And I really do think that it c, an't hurt, it just can~ hurt, even we had to go into limbo and wait for two more weeks or whatever. It woulcln~t hurt me to be able to get the information that I'm trying to find and make a decision. But the vote would not have anything to do with coming back with a better plan for the channel, right? What I mean, that's not what we're voting on? That's not what weYe voting on now. But the channel is not going to be accepted by us unless it meets, I mean, aren't we the ones in charge of the final decision of the map - of the channel design, so we have complete control of that. And then, can we ask you then that you would - if you want me involved in the comments and study of it, wouldn't that be appropriate, I mean, you know, just keeps... I share the concern. I mean, we're all concerned but then I = we all also know that - that's not our ~_- .. ffyou ever get to the point of specific channel design as an alternative. Council can direct the staff to keep the council informed before the staff makes any decision - I mean, you can direct any kind of police... That's what I'm saying, we can be involved on a subcommittee workshop basis or whatever... Any basis you like ·.. I mean workshop basis. Okay, but that can be done - because that's... Well, I'll - everyone knows my feelings on the whole project but I'm trying to feel real practical on anything, I'm going to just - you know - the map thing - because I've studies the maps qmte a litfie bit and - I've even sat in-~ide a lot of those meetings where those maps were being done, you could imagine. Anyway, and those were just about as dull as this is - and it went on as late. But anyway those maps were done apecificaily for the purpose of identifying, like I remember sitting and listening to some of those, LA~ -.LSQ~OTHER~VCD~210~ 1916.1 110~' =38- 0143 Male: Male: Male: Male: Female 1: Male: Male: Female 1: Male: Male: Male: Female: Male: and it was a gener~liTation of this goes there and that goes there, and it sort of like the first sketch of a, you know, in tlifference to custom home though, they had the first sketch of sitting down with someone saying what would you like your house to be, and I assume that by the time you~e finished, that some of the comers aren~ either as rounded or as squ~re, may be they changed a little direction. And the first one still ends up being the last one but there's some variations just by the matter of the curves of the lines; but anyway, and I will have my chance, I got at least three opport~mities coming back here where I can still at least make my wishes known, so no problem. The motion to approve the Item 8 on the consensus So moved. Make clear that's the two resolutions. Yes, it is. It's all in Item 8... Wait a minute, wait a minute . Yes, but the second resolution will no longer refer in any way to lighting, maintenance district... Thank you. I .... with due stand correct it. ·.. will it be - that wouldn't As part of the motion referencing the... all right. I second it. Please indicate your vote. ·.. done. Motion case 311 with the test voting no and beyond absent. All right. Going on to Item F. Advertise... [tape end] L~-I -qQ~THER\VCI~i 081916.1 110497 -39- 0144 RESOLUTION NO. 97-158 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC-,A. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 14771, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE STORM DRAIN CHANNEL AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD WHEREAS. Tentative Tract Map No. 14771, submitted by Lauren Development, inc., and cons'ming of 40 lots located north of Ringstem Drive, east of Haven Avenue, was approved bythe Ptlnning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on November 14, 1990, and is in compliance with the State SubdNision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pumuant to that Act;, and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 14771 is the f,~lll map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guamntoecl by tcx:ep*-"ls Improvement Secudtie~ by Lauren Development. inc.. ~s developer:, end WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related ~, the .treet~ delineated thereon and said Improvement and Maintenance Ag~4)¢.~nt for the storm drain channel and emergency access road. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HERE~Y RESOLVES, that laid Improvement Ag;M;J~x:nL Improvement Securilies and Improvement and ~/#' ~tlrtarim A~it~a,~nt submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to ~ said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to abest; and that the offers for dedic~l~on and the final map de#ne~-fir, g the same for ~ Tract Map No. 14771 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is autho, i sd to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. 0145 R,~ion No. 97 Pap2 PASSED. APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th clay of October. 1997. AYES: AlexanOer, Curatalo, Williams NOES: Gutierrez ABSENT: inane ABSTAINED: None VillEam J. Alexander, M~yor ATTEST: City of Rancho Cu~a,,,orlga, California, at a regular meeting of ~ City Council held on the 15th clay of October, 1997. Executed this 16th of October, 1997, at Rancho Cuca,,4nga, California. 0146 ee,.eeee, e -.~e.---~ me- ,4~eeee~ e eed~ · ® 'e ee m Pht)tograph 21 - January 22~ 1969 - GI,ENDORA~ CALIFORNIA, SIlOWING DAMAGE TO RESIDENCE FROM GLENCOE CANYON DEBRIS FLOWS. Sei~miei~ The project site is almost entirely within an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone. The Alquist-Priolo Act of 1972 established special study areas for active faults in California. Developments proposed in these areas are required to have a geotechnical study that specifies setback and design requirements. The San Bernardino County West Valley Foothills Community Plan Safety Map places the site within a "geology overlay zone," which also provides that geoteehnical studies are necessary to determine habitable-structure setbacks. The community plan also specifies that utility lines and roads should not be placed within fault setbacks except when they cross the setback perpendicular to the fault. The most significant fault in the site vicinity from both a ground rupture and seismic shaking standpoint is the Cueamonga fault, the eastward extension of the Sierra Madre fault zone. Three major strands of the Cueamonga fault have been mapped in the vicinity of the site as described below under "Faults." The results of the subsurface investigation by Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates indicate that the Cueamonga fat, It zone is a complex zone consisting of multiple traces with wide shear zones. Other faults in the region include the northwest-trending, active San Jacinto fault zone, located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the site. The San Jacinto fault zone is generally considered to be the most active fault in Southern California. The main, acl:ive trace of the San Andreas fault is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the site, as evidenced by vegetation lineaments, fault scarps, springs, linear ridges, and offset drainages. The buried and postulated trace of the northeast- trending ]Red Hill fault is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. A summary of significant faults and their distances from the site is presented in Table 5-1: TABLE 5-1 MAJOR FAULT8 IN PROXIMITY TO THe. PROJECT SITE Fault Distance (miles) Direction Cueamonga Red Hill San Jacinto San Andreas Source: Richard Mills Associates 1981. ohsire 1/2 1/2 Southeast Northeast Northeast JBX/052-0012 5-2 Faults Several different segments of tl.~e potentially active Cucamonga fault strike across the project site, as illustrated in Exhibit 5-1. These are divided into three groups based on the type and reliability of the data used to define the fault: (1)definite, (2) probable, and (3) possible. In addition, each fault is given a number to facilitate discussion (see Exhibit 5-1). Definite Faults - faults delineated by well-defined surface scarps in combination with data from geophysical (mainly seismic) survey or bulldozer trenches. These include all of fault 1, nearly all of faults 2 and 3, and about half of fault 4. ,, Probable Faults -faults that show low, irregular or poorly defined scarps. These either coincide with anomalous lineaments, are projections between definite faults, are suggested by geophysical information (mostly seismic), or are ps,,allel to adjacent definite faults. They include segments of fault 2, the east end of fault 2B, the northeast end of fault 3, and segments of fault 4. e Possible Faults - faults delineated on the basis of (a) possible surface anomalies (possible fault scarps: fault 2B, western part of fault 2C, segments parallel to l:he west end of fault 2, faults 3A, 4A, 4B and 5) and (b) alignments formed by projections between a definite ohsitc fault and an offsite lineament observed on air photos (east end of fault 2). According to the subsurface investigation on the northwest portion of the project site, significant faulting was encountered within the southern portion of the trench. See Exhibit 5-2 for the boundaries of the northwest study area and location of trenching activities. The northerly-most faulting encountered within the trench (at Station 760) was marked with a flagged wooden lath and labeled as Lath 1-A. Two other fault laths (Laths 1-B and l-C) within the overall fault zone were also surveyed.. Fault Lath 1-A is used to determine the northern limits of the recommended restricted use zone as outlined in the impact section of this report. (See Subsurface Investigation Report in Appendix G for Lath locations). 8eismie S~aking ,Seismic shaking is expected to be unusually high during an earthquake because of the onsite Cucamonga fault segments. A maximum probable earthquake of Richter magnitude 6.5 along the Cucamonga fault should be expected. Large earthquakes could occur on other faults in thE: general area, but because of their greater distance and/or lower probability of occurrence, they are considered less significant to the site from a seismic shaking standpoint. Seismicity factors for earthquakes most likely to affect the proposed construction are given in Table 5-2 below. JBX/052-0012 5"3 Documented evidence for large earthquakes s/ong the Cucamonga fault has only recently been found. This fault is part of the Sierra Madre-Cueamonga fault system, moved in the 197! 8an Fernamfo em, thquake with a Richter magnitude of 6.4. Subsurface investigations by the U.8. Geologies/ 8m'vey have uncovered evidence of Holocene activity along the Cueamonga fault (Matti, et S/. 1982). TABLE 5-:2 MA~MUM CREDIBLE SEISMIC EVE~ Max. Credible Distance From Fault Magnitude Site (mi.) Expected Peak Bedrock Acceleration (g) San Andreas 8.5 8 0.5 San Jacin'to 7.5 5 0.5 Cueamonga 6.5 Onsite 0.7 Source: Richard Mills Associates ].981 The San Jacinto fault has been the most seismically active fault in southern California (Allen, et al. 1965). Between 1899 and 1987, seven earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.0 or greater have oecurred somewhere along the San Jacinto fault between the San Gabriel Mountains and Mexico (Lamar, el al. 1973). The San Andreas fault has been seismically quiet in the southern California area in recent time. The last significant earthquake along it in this area was the earthquake of 1857 (Richter magnitude greater than 8.0), which was centered at Fort Tejon, north of Gorman. This fault has a pattern of s/most no movement for long periods of time (avel,-age of 145 years, Sieh 1978), followed by a sudden release of energy. SeLsmieally Induced Failre'es Liquefaction was a potential concern in the marsh areas located in the northwesterly part of the site. The occurrence and extent of liquefaction would depend upon the degree of saturation and the soil ~types. Cobble gravels noted in trenches dug at the south end of the marsh areas d~ing the subsurface investigation in 1981 are not conducive to liquefaction. The materials found in the northwest subsurface investigation performed in 1987 were also relatively dense and very coarse-grained. These materis/s are not considered to be highly susceptible to liquefaction and therefore the potentis/ for liquefaction in this portion of the site is determined to be low. The remainder of the site is not considered to have a potential for liquefaction because of the extremely coarse~, granular nature of the material and the depth to the water table. JBX/052-0012 5-4 T F<'~ i' i ~111 .... $ :.,.~...~..z q...~.o ... ,~,,~,~. a,.,,.~i:.:l ....... - IN THE CI:t'v ~:~ ~"~ ........ t~'.~ ........ -" - .... -'"r""~ BEING A SUBOiV~~"~N ,a ; ~+'i~,~ ........ ' "., ' '" ~ ..... ~ ........:.. '-" FOURTHS OF SEC1~N .~4. I.-~-';-"~;7~- .~.~'~';'M ,., COUNT~ OF SAN BR,:,:~,,,~,,,-, o.,,,v ur. ~au~A:~ ........ .. --'--~ ..T"- ' ....~.':'" ~. .............. i .~..:...-~- ' ..~' ::..,'.:~: 3: ...... :, :X., [',.. 1" . ..... '2. ...... r,-,:,: .;. .. II, ~ .I '" ~ BOUNDARY ' a .......... ',u~ ~u~'. ~' ' ....... ::,qJ '" -:"' [~"~ ..... ~ ......... ql:: ..... ' "-1 ............ ., ........,, -,... - ., ;; ~-~.:.,,::~ , . ~':~.~. ~ ...... - .......... . . ~. .;.-. ....... _~ ~ :~ .. ;..T~.,~" ' ' I ..... . '~T "..,.; L' ...: ..~