The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999/10/20 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1 st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. October 20, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Bob Dutton, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 477-2700 City Council Agenda October 20, 1999 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander Biane Curatalo__., Dutton , and Williams__ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation by Gwenn Norton-Perry, Project Coordinator, on the P.A.C.T. Smoking Survey conducted by the University of San Bernardino. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring October 23 - 31, 1999, as Red Ribbon Week in Rancho Cucamonga. Presentation of Certificates to Red Ribbon Button Design Winner and Honorable Mention Recipients. Presentation of a Proclamation proclaiming "Make A Difference Day," "Second Chance Week," and "America Recycles Day," to promote the importance of volunteerism and recycling efforts in our community. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Council Member or member of the audience for discussion. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 9/29/99 and 10/6/99, and Payroll ending 9/30/99 for the total amount of $2,833,449.17. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of September 30, 1999. 12 City Council Agenda October 20, 1999 Approval to contract (CO 99-094) with Calcom for a Feasibility and Cost Study in preparation for the installation of Citywide Metropolitan Area Optical Fiber Network. The amount of $62,000 from Account 72- 4225-7044 as approved in FY 99/2000 budget. Approval to rescind the following resolutions: Resolution Nos. 87-531, 87-587, 89-033, Resolution No. 89-574, and Resolution No. 90-051 relating to the In-Lieu Fee for Median Construction and Landscaping on Haven Avenue, Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road. RESOLUTION NO. 99-222 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 87-531,87-587, 89-033 FOR THE HAVEN AVENUE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLAND, RESOLUTION NO. 89-574 FOR THE MILLIKEN AVENUE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLAND BETWEEN 4TM AND 6TM STREETS AND RESOLUTION NO. 90-051 FOR BASE LINE ROAD MEDIAN AND WIDENING BETWEEN VICTORIA PARK LANE AND INTERSTATE 15 Approval to award and authorization for execution of the contract (CO 99-095) for the Vineyard Avenue Bus Bays to the apparent low bidder, H & H Contractors, in the amount of $87,214.60 ($79,286.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from the Measure I Funds, Account Mo. 32-4637-9926 6. Approval to declare surplus miscellaneous City-owned equipment.. 7. Approval to Adopt Annual Statement of Investment Policy. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for installation of Park Walkway Lighting in Church Street Park to be funded from Fund 20. RESOLUTION NO. 99-223 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATIONOF PARK WALKWAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK FOR THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract Map No. 15970, located on the north side of Pepperidge Court and West of Hellman Avenue, submitted by Reiny Schneider. 17 18 20 31 39 46 47 48 53 City Council Agenda October 20, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99-224 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 15970 AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY 54 RESOLUTION NO. 99-225 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT MAP NUMBER 15970 10. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and ordering the Annexation of Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Conditional Use Permit 98-13, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street, submitted by Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 99-226 59 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVMEENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-13 RESOLUTION NO. 99-227 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-13 11. Approval of a Resolution ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, for CUP 97-03, located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club, submitted by Ralph Olivas. 65 City Council Agenda October 20, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99-228 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 97-03 12. Approval to authorize the purchase of Cisco Network Routers and Adtran CSU/TSU Equipment to provide voice and data connection to remote sites, from GET, in the amount of $80,400 from Account No. 01-4171-3900 in approved FY 1999/2000 budget. 66 69-1 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any items can be removed for discussion. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM©NGA - A request to require wireless communication providers to install facilities that would not interfere with the City's 800 MHZ public safety radio communications system. (Continued from October 6, 1999 meeting) ORDINANCE NO. 609 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A SECTION TO CHAPTER 17.26, ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN - The appeal of the design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald 70 73 City Council Agenda October 20, 1999 Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074- 021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. RESOLUTION NO. 99-229 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13316, THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW OF DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR PREVIOIUSLY RECORDED TENTATIVE TRACT 13316, CONSISTING OF 123 LOTS ON 84 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY-LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, NORTH OF CARRARI COURT- APN: 1074- 061-15 THROUGH 27, 1074-041-08 THROUGH 21, 1074-591-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-461-04 THROUGH 21, 1074-601-01 THROUGH 14, 1074-611-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-021-02 THROUGH 26, AND 1074-051-09 THROUGH 16 344 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following requirements. testimony. items have not legal publication or posting The Chair will open the meeting to receive public No items submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No items submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearings items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. City Council Agenda October 20, 1999 1. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE A. PARK AND FACILITIES UPDATE 1. Central Park 2. Windrows Park 3. Lions Park 4. Church Street Park 5. Golden Oak Park 6. Lions West Community Center 7. Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park 8. Heritage Park 9. Red Hill Park 10. Etiwanda Creek Park B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1. Seniors 2. Teens 3. Youth Activities 4. Youth Sports 5. RC Family Sports Center 6. Adults Sports 7. Trips and Tours 8. Human Services 9. Facilities 10. Contract Classes 11. Community Wide Special Events 12. Rancho Cucamonga Performing Arts Academy 13. Park and Recreation Commission 14. R.C. Community Foundation 15. Epicenter 348 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the city Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. City Council Agenda October 20, 1999 L. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 14, 1999, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. CITY OF RANCHO CUCA#ONGA LIST OF NARRANTS FOR PERZOO~ 09--29-99 ¢99/00) RUN DATE: 09/29/99 PAGE: 1 VENDOR NANE ZTEN DESCRIPTION WARR NO NARR. ANT. 31383 LARKFORDt BETTY 11TZ8 RUIZt HAX 1826 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 31934 HABITAT FOR HUNANZTY 6088 SUBWAY SANDWICH g SALADS 4671 3T EQUIPMENT COHPANY, INC. 4635 A g K PHOTOGRAPHY 5347 A W DIRECT I AA EQUIPRENT RENTALS CO.j INC. 21610 AACT 2732 AAC LOCKSMITHS 4373 ACO SANZTATZON 21601 ADAR TNSURANCE & FINANCIAL SVC. tINC 1826 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 1430 A#ERZCAN BUSINESS FORNS 21607 ANDER$ONt DIANNA 4417 APG COHPANY 21603 ARLETt SHANNON 4805 ASCE NEHBERSHZP 21605 BARNETT, CAROLYN 6067 BE~RY#AN & HENIGAR 41 BISHOP CORPANY 4369 BROOART BOOKS 1166 BRUNSNXCK DEER CREEK LANES 21606 BURDELASt TERESA Z440 BUR~USOt LISA 6310 CADET UNIFOR# SERVICE 4735 CALOLY#PIC SAFETY 21608 CALPELRA 21608 CALPELRA 1223 CALSENSE 5881 CARTE GRAPH SYSTEHS 21609 CATELLUS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 21604 CAUGHHANt JENNIFER 21583 CENTURY 21 KING REALTORS 73 CITRUS ROTORS ONTARIOt INC. 74 CITY RENTALS 6Z15 C# SCHOOL SUPPLY 2470 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 4301 CORPUSAt INC. 85 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 239 D & K CONCRETE CO 284 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON COt INC 6145 DAVZSt SAN 3698 DEALERS AUTO TRI# RECREATION RECREATION REFUNDS CELLULAR PHONE BILLINGS NEETING REFRESHRENTS (c¢ 144225 - OFFZCE E~UIPNENT PHOTO DEVELOPING & SUPPLIES RAINTENANCE SUPPLIES VEHICLE RAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES MEHBERSH~P DUES RAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO ¢CC 144235 - CELLULAR PHONE BILLINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND PROFESSZONAL SERVICE # RECREATION REFUND STDRNWATER PERNIT COMPLIANCE RECREATION REFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES LIBRARY SUPPLIES INSTRUCTOR PAYRENT RECREATION REFUND INSTRUCTOR PAYRENT UNZFORH SERVICES NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ANNUAL HERBERSNIP ANNUAL NERBERSNIP OFFICE/NAZNTENANCE EQUIPHENT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES DVERPAYRENT/PERNZT #99-6732 RECREATION REFUND BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND VEHICLE NAZNTENANCE/SUPPLIES EQUIP#ENT RENTAL/SUPPLIES RECREATION SUPPLIES VEHICLE HAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES RAINTENANCE SUPPLIES NONTHLY HATER BILLINGS STREET HAZNTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES CONTRACT SERVICES VEHICLE MAINTENANCE o~ CHECK~ OVERLAP 138416~ 15.00- 138417 - 142965 142966~ 130o00- 142967 - 143950 J 143951~ lt161.03- 143952 - 144222 ~ 1442230 IZO.00 144224~ 144226 144227 870089 144228 36.08 144229 462°24 144230 494.27 144231 40000 144232 130.78 144233 131-67 144Z34 12o00 144235 144236 lt185061 144237 144238 48000 144239 144240 400O0 144241 170.00 144242 40000 144243 ?t800oO0 144244 339.95 ~ 144245 192o40 144246 15000 ~ 144247 30.00 144248 16020 # 144249 134042 # 144250 603°54 144251 160000 144252 325°00 144253 1,150o95 144254 295000 144255 20t350o00 e 144256 30.00 144257 90.00 # 144258 4t740o08 144259 145.00 144260 25083 # 144261 203o55 ~ 144262 920000 144263 - 144267 B 144268 52~904o67 144269 592063 144270 211.31 164271 600.00 144272 140000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LXST OF WARRANTS FOR PERZOD: 09-2~99 (99/00) RUN DATE: 09/29/99 PAGE: VENDOR NAmE ZTEN DESCRZPTXON VARR NO WARM. A~. 6064 DEPART~NT ZSSUE 5534 DZAL COMMUNXCATZONS 3876 DZVERSIFXED AOVERTZSZNG NOVELTZES 3364 EZGMTH AVENUE GRAPHZCS 5767 ELZTE PERSONNEL SERVXCES, ZNC. 229 EWZNG ZRRZGATXON P~OUCTS 5917 FASTENAL COMPANY 123 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 41045 FEAREZRA, CORRXE 41046 FZRST ZNTERSTATE BANK OF CALZF. 4879 FLEET GLASS 4098 FORBES 2840 FORD OF UPLAND, ZNC. 1002 FRANKLZN COVEY CO. 31932 G S NERY m.D., XNC. 6070 GALE GROUP, THE 41047 GARCZA. CARLOS 41048 GEORGE 5780 GZANT ZNLAND EMPZRE R.Vo CENTER 3388 GOLDEN BEAR ARBORZSTS. XNCo 1870 GOMEZ, RZCK 41049 GONZALEZ, HARZA 3827 GREEN ROCK POgER EQUIPMENT 137 GTE CALZFORNZA 6277 GUZMAN. LESLZE 31926 H20MB. ZNC. 146 HAZNES & COMPANY. ZNCo 1055 HARRZNGTON ZNCo~ R.Eo 2855 HAVEN WXNE & LZQUOR CO0 462 HCS-CUTLER STEEL CO. 31918 HERMAN. SANDRA 4845 HXLLSZOE COMMUNITY CHURCH 158 HOLLZDAY ROCK CO.. ZNCo 31931 HOME DEPOT. THE ~ 645 1234 HOSEMAN 31922 HOULTDN, TOm 6369 HUGHES, LASHDNDAE 495 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, ZNC 5882 ! C M A REZTREMENT TRUST - 401 103 ! C M A RETZREMENT TRUST-457 3276 ZCZ DULUX PAZNT CENTERS 1218 ZNDUSTRXAL DZSTRZBUTZON GROUP 6370 ZNLAND ENPZRE BUSZNESS dOURNAL 3736 ZNLAND ENPZRE SOCCER REFEREE ASSN. 4718 ZNLAND TOP SOZL #ZXES 3452 ZNTRAVAXA ROCK & SAND 31930 J P CONSTRUCTZON CO. 31929 J R FREEMAN 1941 JACOBSEN DIVZS~ON OF TEXTRON. XNCo 612 JAESCHKE ~NCo, SUPPLZES PROFESSZONAL SERVZCES OFFZCE SUPPLZES OFFXCE SUPPLZES PERSONNEL SERVXCES ZRRZGATZON SUPPLZES MAZNTENANCE SUPPLZES DELZVERY SERVXCE RECREATZON REFUNO DEVELOPER REZMBURSEMENTS LABOR & SUPPLZES SUBSCRZPTZON VEHZCLE MAZNTENANCE OFFZCE SUPPLZES BUSZNESS LZCENSE LZBRARY BOOKS RECREATZON REFUND SUBSCRZPTZON ZNSTALLATZON SERVZCE/SUPPLZES PROFESSZONAL SERVZCES REZMBURSEMENT RECREATZON REFUND MAZNTENANCE SUPPLZES CHECKt OVERLAP 144273 T6SoOZ 144274 66.19 144Z75 6,091.25 144276 315.92 144277 3,221.79 144278 405.93 144279 552052 144280 SO.SO 144281 50.00 144282 6,529.78 144283 179oS0 144284 29o98 144285 1~573o20 144286 32.71 144287 46o00 144288 84099 144289 13o50 144290 15.94 144291 337.3S 144292 16t440o00 144293 207.14 144294 53000 144295 104014 144296 - 144296 >)> MONTHLY TELEPHONE BXLLXNGS CONTRACT SERVZCE BUSXNESS LZCENSE 12 MONTH LEASE SERVZCE UNEmPLOYmENT COMPENSATZON SVCS SUB-COMMZTTEE MEETZNGS EQUXPMENT MAINTENANCE RECREATZON MONTHLY RENT NAZNTENANCE SUPPLZES BUS~NESS L~CENSE NAXNTENANCE SUPPLZES RECREATZON RECREATZON REFUND LANDSCAPE MAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES 01 DEFERRED COMP MAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES NAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES RECREATZON REFUND MEN°S SOCCER PROGRAm MAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES MAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES 8USXNESS LXCENSE 8USXNESS LXCENSE MAZNT SUPPLXES VEHZCLE MAXNTENANCE 144297 30285074 144298 7ZoSO 144299 11oSO 144300 232.62 144301 600.00 144302 362.24 144303 519.87 144304 42.00 144305 1.000.00 144306 1,174o73 144307 98.00 144308 10.78 144309 24000 144310 243.00 144311 1o145o41 144312 50767.68 144313 871.00 144314 591044 144315 593.75 144316 24.00 144317 1.157.00 144318 150.85 144319 135.00 144320 45.00 144321 30oS9 144322 40.42 144323 171074 ! I I I 1 I t ! ! ! I' ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! 1 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA LIST OF NARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 09-29-99 ¢99/00) RUN DATE: 09/29/99 PAGE: 3 VENDOR NA#E ITEH DESCRIPTION NARR NO WARRo AHT. O0 CHECKI OVERLAP 5654 KAPCO LIBRARY SUPPLIES 144324 135.72 31917 KEZLTYt EILEEN RECREATION 144325 60.00 4128 KELLY EQUIPRENT VEHICLE SUPPLIES J 144326 131.46 1024 KOCH NATERZALS COHPANY NAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES 14432T 239.04 6090 KONGe SOPHAK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 144320 360°00 518 KUHNt NARY HAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 144329 132o90 31914 LAAPA GENERAL NE#BERSHIP NEETZNG 144330 193 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 144331 115e641.45 ((( 144332 - 144332 321 LANDSCAPE WEST, INC. LANDSCAPE NAZNTENANCE # 144333 111~029.20 6326 LA$ZCO BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 8 144334 1~Y81oll 4447 LASTING ~#PRESSZDNS PRINTING CO. HAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES 144335 693.91 849 LAWSON PRODUCTS~ Z N Co NAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES 8 144336 10373o27 31920 LAWSON~ dENNZFER RECREATION 144337 40.00 315 LEAGUE OF CALZF C/TIES INLAND E#PZRE DZV. NEETING 144338 25°00 197 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL DUES 144339 100o00 6045 LEGAL DEFENSE FUND RECREATION REFUND 144340 204°00 1455 LONG'S DRUGS FZL# PROCESSING 144341 39.31 31916 LOPEZ~ CHR/STZNA RECREATION 144342 39.00 31904 LOPEZt GRACE RECREATION 144343 200°00 3156 LU°S LZGHTHOUSE~ IN Co OIL ANALYSIS 144344 54.95 386 LYON CDo, WlLLZAH REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS 144345 55.00 6257 NANESS ZNDUSTRZES~ FERRY RECREATION REFUND e 144346 39~928.94 549 NARZPOSA HDRTZCULTURAL ENT. ZNCo LANDSCAPE HAZNTENANCE ~ 144347 42e530o04 250 NARTZNEZ TOWING AND AUTONOTZVE TOMZNG SERVICES 144348 45.00 31925 NCCABE~ SHERYL RECREATION 244349 75.00 31927 RCDONALDS RESTAURANTS OF CAo#4242 BUSINESS LICENSE 144350 46o01 5852 HIDWEST TAPE LIBRARY SUPPLIES 144351 119o96 4374 ROBILE STORAGE GROUP~ INC. EGUZPHENT RENTAL 1443S2 140.13 31913 NORTON~ EVONNE REFUND OF OVERPAYRENT 144353 55°00 5755 HDUNTAZN VIEW INLAND POOL #AZNYENANCE SUPPLIES 144354 44°07 21602 #UNZ~ 8HAVESH RECREATION 144355 31.00 2248 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE NAZNTENANCE J 144356 459.38 744 NATIONAL DEFERRED DEFERRED CORP 144357 2.267°00 31915 NATZ¥ZDAD, DAN RECREATION 144356 4Z81 NZCASSZO, TRZFONE ~ ZNSTRUCTOR-C.E.R.T 144359 67.00 5473 NIGHTLINE SECURITY PATROL SECURITY SERVICE 144360 740.00 31921 NIXON, LAURA RECREATION 144361 ToO0 433 NZXON-EGLZ EQUZPNENT VEHICLE RAZNTENANCE 144362 581o91 31912 NOLDSCO, NZGUEL REFUND DEPOSIT 144363 309 0 C B REPROGRAPHZCSt INC HETROLINK 144364 34°00 31924 OFFERMAN~ LINDA RECREATION 144365 3T.50 ¢¢( 144366 - 144366 513 OFFICE DEPOT OFFZCE SUPPLIES ~ 14436T 5403 OFFICE NAX OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 144366 597°40 31685 ORTNOPAEDZC SURGERY PROFESSIONAL SER¥ZCE 144369 750.00 6368 OSORZO~ JUAN RECREATION REFUND 144370 100o00 31933 OVERLAND CO. BUSINESS LICENSE 144371 389°50 235 ONEN ELECTRIC HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES g 144371 3682 PACHON, ANDREW REZRBURSENENT-SUPPLZES 1443T3 26°40 1813 PAGENET PAGZNG SERVICE 144374 267°62 C2TY OF RANCHO CUCA#ONGA &1ST OF WARRANTS FOR PERZOO: 09-29-99 ¢99/00) RUN DATE: 09/29/99 PAGE: 4 VENDOR NANE 2TEH DESCR2PTZON UARR NO UARR. AHTo 21538 31923 31928 157 6089 255 3952 693 3907 31879 264 6334 6058 6329 5513 5618 11790 626 11791 16 11728 5745 5538 303 581 581 301 279 132 1432 11792 902 6225 5410 4445 2344 2344 836 836 5980 5141 4448 11793 4738 4673 6316 PAR POOLS PAREt dUDY PAYLESS SHOWSOURCE J 6062 PEP BOYS PXTTSt LXSA PMX/DELTA CARE PO#A DXSTRXBUTXNG CO POMONA ZNL VALLEY CNCL OF CHURCHES POWERSTRXDE BATTERY CO., XNC. PRAXAXR OXSTRXBUTXONt 2NC. PRESORT PARTNERS PROULXt RXCHARD PRUDENTZAL OVERALL SUPPLY RALPHS GROCERY COHPANY RANAZON CONSTRUCTXDN RANCHO SCREEN PRXNT & EMBRDXDERY RANCHO TRANSMXSSXON SERVXCE RANDOM HOUSE0 2NC. RXCHARDS. gATSONo & GERSHON ROBXNSONBJAMES H.t CXTY HANAGER ROBLESt RAUL P-t SR. RODRXGUEZo ELENA ROTARY CORPORATXON RUXZt MAX SAFELXTE GLASS CORP. SAN ANTONXO MATERXALS SAN BERN COUNTY SAN BERN COUNTY SAN BERN COUNTY SAN BERN COUNTY SHERZFFS SAN BERN COUNTY SUN SAN D2EGO ROTARY BROOM COt XNC SOUTHERN CALXFORNXA EDXSON STANDARD PACXFZC STATE OF CAtDEPARTMENT OF TRANS SYMCAS-TSGt XNC. T L D XNSTALLATZONS T & G ROOFZNG TARGET TARGET TARGET SPECXALTY PRODUCTS TARGET SPECXALTY PRODUCTS TEN SPEED PRESS THORAS BROS. HAPS TR EADWAY GRAPHZCS TR! MARK PACZFZC TRXNZTY OXVERSXFXEDt XNC. TROPHY CENTER OF ALTA LDHA TURF PARTNERS O~ CHECKB OVERLAP RELEASE OF DEPOSZT RECREATZON BUSXNE$S LZCENSE VEHXCLE HAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES RECREATZON REFUND NEOZCAL XNSURANCE VEHZCLE MAXNTENANCE & SUPPLXES WEST END HUNGER PROGRAH VEHZCLE HAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES NAXNT/RECREATZON SUPPLXES PRESORT NAXL SERVXCES RELEASE OF DEPOSXT MAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES RECREAT20N SUPPLZES RECREATZON REFUND RECREATZON REFUND BOND FUND2NG LXBRARY SUPPLXES LEGAL SERVZCES REZHBo ORAL BOARD TXRE REPAZR RECREATZON REFUNDS HAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES RECREATXON REFUNDS SERVZCE AND SUPPLZES NAXNTENANCE SUPPLXES ENGXNEERZNG OFFXCE SUPPLXES CAL-ZD PROGRAH CAL-ZD PROGRAH CONTRACT SHERXFFS SERVXCE SUBSCRZPTXON MAXNT SUPPLXES MONTHLY ELECTRZC BXLLS TEMP UTXLXTY OVERPAYNENT TRAFFZC SXGNAL HAZNTENANCE 8USXNESS LXCENSE REFUND SUPPLXES SERVZCE & SUPPLZES YOUTH PROGRAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL YOUTH PROGRAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL HAXNT SUPPLXES MAXNT SUPPLXES VARXOUS LXBRARY SUPPLXES COMPUTER SERVXCES & SUPPLXES POLXCE DEPT SUPPLZES OVERPAYHENT OF UNXFORM APPL! SUPPLXES RECREAT20N SUPPLZES RECREATZON REFUND # 144375 129000 J 144376 53000 144377 46.00 144378 5.34 144379 186.00 144380 10167.75 # 144381 7,129.69 144382 823.50 144 383 92.98 d 144384 i37o75 144385 93.77 144386 500.00 R 144387 7.42 144388 22o67 ~ 144389 500000.00 144390 140.13 144391 168003 144392 19.97 144393 - 144393 ))> # 144394 35o630.98 144395 ZZoO0 144396 67.50 144397 30000 # 144398 56.41 144399 130000 144400 1t701002 # 144401 117.84 144402 200.00 144403 1,668.80 144404 36.35 g 144405 836tZ84.4Z 144406 IZToI7 # 144407 713031 144408 - 144409 # 144410 65,812023 144411 420.00 144412 3t982.41 144413 It200.00 144414 72o45 144415 Zt700.00 g 144416 91.60 144417 4.29 ~ 144418 614062 144419 327000 144420 17.45 $ 144421 135064 144422 93.00 144423 Z5.00 144424 Z01.71 144425 20198.69 e 144426 4t968.35 C]:TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LZST OF HARRANTS FOR PERTOD: 09-~9-99 (99/00) RUN DATE: 09129/99 PAGE: 5 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRZPTZON MARR NO ~ARR. AHT. 2737 U C REGENTS 1226 UNZTED PARCEL SERVZCE 2682 ONZTEO STATES POSTAL SERVZCE 474 VERNEER-CALZFORNZA 5285 VZKZNG TZRE 11794 VILLALODOZ, CHRZSTY 5870 VLSYSTEMSt ZNCo 478 WARREN & COo, CARL 212 WZLLOAN ASSOCZATES 11795 WZNDSt JERRY 509 XEROX CORPORATZON 2021 YORK ZNDUSTRZES 348 ZEP MANUFACTURZNG CONPANT 6283 ZOLEZZO, MZCKEY t~c CHECKP OVERLAP POCKET GUZDE UPS SERVZCE POSTAGE NETER HONTHLY SERVZCES NAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES VEHZCLE $UPPLZES RECREATZON REFUNDS COHPUTER HARDYARE LZABILITY CLAINS PROFESSZONAL SERVZCES RECREATION REFUNDS COPT HACHZNE SUPPLZES/SERVZCE GRAFFITI REHOVER VEHZCLE NAINT $UPPLZE$ ROCHESTER/LARK DR RIGHT-OF-WAY 144427 288.00 ~ 144428 82o91 144429 40500000 144430 12o49 144431 941007 # 144432 50000 144433 500o00 J 144434 277.28 144435 1,425o73 144436 24o00 144437 - 144437 # 144438 27,063038 144439 596063 14444O 812021 144441 390.00 TOTAL VENDOR NAME CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 10-06-99 (99/00) ITEM DESCRIPTION RUN DATE: 10/06/99 PAOE: 1 ~ WARR NO WARR, AMT. 5937 EMPIRE FLOOR COVERINg 31905 PORTLAND HILTON 73 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INC. 31913 MORTON, EVONNE 881 VANCE CORPORATION 21525 ABBONA, ARLENE 2732 ABC LOCKSMITHS 21619 ABD-ALLAH, SHAMEL 4347 ACCURATE SMOg, AUTO, TRUCK ~ 4373 ACO SANITATION 4207 ALERT COMMUNICATIONS CD 21627 ALLE-CORLISS, RANDY 5743 ALLEN COLLISION CENTER, dAMES &172 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 5650 ALTA LOMA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 21514 ALTON BEAN TRUCKINg, INC. 492 AMERICAN PLANNINg ASSOCIATION 5304 AMERICAN VIDEO PHONICS 21612 AMERICAN WILDERNESS ZOO & AQUARIUM 5318 APPLE ONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 24 ARBOR NURSERY INC. 5754 ARM TECH, INC. 2299 ARROW TRAILER SUPPLIES 3957 ARTCRAFT, INC. 4102 B & K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 21526 BALDWIN, SCOTT d. 21632 BARRA, NOREEN 47 BELL & HOWELL 4441 BEST BUY CO., INC. 4454 BIANE, PAUL 21611 BLIMPIE'S 21617 BRADFORD, PAUL 21516 BRADFORD, TANYA 21530 BYARS, LYNNE 2559 C A L B 0 6310 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 4735 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY 21620 CAMACHO, WENDY dOE 21621 CASILLA8, SYLVIA 21&31 CASTANEDA, ROSE 4251 CATERINg, dOHN 3001 CENTEX HOMES 21&22 CESENA, MARIA 69 CHAF~EY JOINT UNION H.S. DISTRICT 73 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INC. 74 CITY RENTALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES {.~<: ICMA MEETINg {,~.{ VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT BASELINE ROAD WIDENINg RECREATION REFUND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT RENTAL INSTALLATION/SERVICE RECREATION REFUND BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND DEPOSIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUS~NESS LICENSE REFUND APA MEMBERSHIP DUES REPAIR SERVICES DEPOSIT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES RECREATION SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE 'SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES CASH ADVANCE SUPPLIES/HEALTH FAIR RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND CALBO ABM MEETINg UNIFORM SERVICES MAINTENANCE 8UPPLIES RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OVERPAYMENT REFUND RECREATION REFUND RENTAL - AUDITORIUM R.C.H.S. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT RENTAL/SUPPLIES ~ CHECK# OVERLAP 143768* 3,447.00- 143769 - 144139 144140~ 415.2~- 144141 - 144257 # 144258~ 4,740.08- 144259 - 144352 144353* 55.00- 144354 - 144441 # 144442- 293~436.74 144443 - 144444 # 144445 45.00 # 144446 127.25 144447 62.00 # 144448 744.84 144449 131.67 # 144450 1,332.00 144451 50.00 144452 1,263.46 144453 1,040.00 144454 1,850.00 144455 9.14 # 144456 1,108.00 144457 20000 144458 75.00 # 144459 1,13284 # 144460 1,161.55 144461 1,070.00 144462 14.98 144463 482.21 # 144464 1,172.08 144455 50. O0 144455 30.00 1444~7 235.00 144468 959.74 14446~ 200.00 144470 177.~3 144471 200.00 144472 144473 90.00 144474 790.00 # 144475 130.~2 # 144476 180.80 144477 31.00 144478 40.00 144479 50.00 144480 70.00 144481 100.00 144482 30.00 144483 11,000.00 # 144484 94.47 # 144485 327.~5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONgA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 10-06-99 (99/00) VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION RUN DATE: 10/06/99 PAOE: ~ WARR NO WARR, AMT. 21624 CLOUSTON, DIANE 2470 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 21618 COMBE~ LINDA 4301 COMPUSA, INC. 21615 COMPUTER SMARTS 643 COMPUTERLAND &105 CORDURA, ALDO ~1629 CORNELISON, DENISE 5349 CREATIVE MANAQEMENT SOLUTIONS 21623 CROSBY, APRIL 21613 CROWNE PLAZA 21613 CROWNE PLAZA 21613 CROWNE PLAZA 21613 CROWNE PLAZA 85 CUCAMONQA CO WATER DIST 21628 CUNNINQHAM, RHONDA 239 D & K CONCRETE CO 6145 DAVIS, SAM 347 DAY-TIMERS~ INC. 5121 DE VOOQHT, SCOTT J. 41050 DEMIN, MAgQIE 839 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 41051 DINgLO, DORIS 4105~ ECONOMICS PRESS INC. ,THE 41006 EDWARDS, COLLEEN 41053 E~ERT, LUCINDA 41054 ELLIOT, CLIFF 41055 EMBLETON, ANNETTE 5~37 EMPIRE FLOOR COVERINQ 41056 EVANS, PRESTON 229 EWINQ IRRIQATION PRODUCTS 41057 FACHNER, JULIE 5917 FASTENAL COMPANY 41058 FERNANDES, CINDY 666 FILAMENT PRO AUDIO 4371 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 41060 FUSCIARDI, KATHERINE 2168 gALL'S INC. 41062 QARCIA, JOE 41063 GARCIA, TERESA 41061 gARICA, JIMMY 41064 QHUMMAN, RAQUEL 41065 GILBERT, QINA 41066 gIOELI~ ADRIENNE 3388 OOLDEN BEAR ARBORISTS~ INC. 410~7 ORANVILLE, ROBIN 38~7 GREEN ROCK POWER E~UIPMENT 137 gTE CALIFORNIA 6277 ~UZMAN~ LESLIE CHECK# OVERLAP RECREATION REFUND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND COMPUTER MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RECREATION REFUND REGISTRATION REGISTRATION REQISTRATION REQISTRATION MONTHLY WATER BILLINGS RECREATION REFUND STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES PRO~ESSIONAL SERVICES RECREATION REFUND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE RECREATION REFUND SUBSCRIPTION RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RECREATION REFUND IRRI~ATION SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND RECREATION SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND OFFICE SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RECREATION REFUND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES MONTHLY TELEPHONE BILLINGS CONTRACT SERVICE 144486 30.00 144487 14.35 144488 36.00 144489 334.01 144490 30.09 144491 40.~5 144492 20.15 144493 35.00 # 144494 3,14500 1444~5 30.00 1444~6 130.00 1444~7 ~&5.00 144498 395.00 144499 261.80 144500 - 14450~ }>3. # 144503 40,399. 16 1445O4 50.00 144505 413.76 14450& 600.00 144507 44.15 144508 360.00 14450~ 50.00 # 144510 71.2~ 144511 35.00 144512 47.58 144513 65.00 144514 75.00 144515 220.00 144516 40.00 144517 3,447.00 # 144518 25.00 # 144519 1,376.81 144520 84.00 144521 44.77 144522 44.0O 144523 11206 144524 7,90 144525 50.00 # 144526 412.65 # 144527 49.00 144528 37.50 144529 ~0.00 144530 35.00 144531 ~5.00 144532 40.50 # 144533 ~2,298.00 144534 50.00 # 144535 340. l& 144536 - 144536 >}} # 144537 3,48~.85 144538 145.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 10-06-99 (99/00) ~ RUN DATE: 10/06/99 PAGE: 3 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ~ CHECK# OVERLAP 41068 GYPSY SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES 144539 200.00 31950 HAQEY~ VERONICA RECREATION 144540 31.00 31947 HAMILTON~ SONNI RECREATION 144541 72.00 5699 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY RECREATION SUPPLIES 144542 84.75 31940 HARTMAN~ TAMMY RECREATION 144543 35.00 31971 HAYNES~ BOBBI RECREATION 144544 60.00 31953 HERRERA, IVETTE RECREATION 144545 10.00 158 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 144546 2,340.34 2~55 HOLT'S AUTO ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 144547 172~40 5577 HOOPS, RODNEY R. MEETING 144548 125~00 6369 HUGHES, LASHONDAE RECREATION REFUND # 144549 486.00 4188 I D BURR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 144550 220.72 1~18 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION GROUP MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 144551 10.24 4718 INLAND TOP SOIL MIXES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 144552 146. 54 2315 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 144553 34.48 6031 INTEQRATED Q.I.S TECHNOLOGIES RECREATION REFUND 144554 9~400.00 3989 INTOXIMETERS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 144555 255.~1 5616 ISA MEMBERSHIP 144556 75.00 31935 JACKSON, ROBIN RECREATION # 144557 42.50 612 JAESCHKE INC. ~ C.R. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 144558 198.42 31955 JAMIESON, MARLA RECREATION 144559 7.50 31976 dONES, ROSEMARY RECREATION 144560 155.00 31946 JONES, ROUAL RECREATION 144561 16.00 31975 JULLIARD, PATRICIA RECREATION 144562 ~5.00 6381 dUMP FOR FUN RECREATION REFUND 144563 500.00 179 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN MEDICAL INSURANCE 144564 30,003.62 5654 KAPCO LIBRARY SUPPLIES 144565 363.69 31954 KAUFMAN, WILLIAM RECREATION 144566 74.25 31964 KELBER, AUSTIN RECREATION # 144567 25.00 31966 KELLER, LISA RECREATION 144568 50.00 31~48 KELM, NADIA RECREATION 144569 130.00 31973 KENNEDY~ JANE RECREATION 144570 37.50 31941 KHAN, LENA RECREATION 144571 40.00 1024 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 144572 303.07 6090 KONG, SOPHAK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 144573 480.00 518 KUHN~ MARY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 144574 40.00 5545 L S A ASSOCIATES~ INC~ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 144575 20~010~4 31952 LACH~ SHERI RECREATION 14457~ 31.00 31943 LACLAIRE, LISA RECREATION # 144577 55.00 339 LAM, JACK LEAGUE MEETING 144578 ~00.00 849 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 144579 331.95 315 LEAQUE OF CALIF CITIES INLAND EMPIRE DIV. MEETINQ # 144580 45.00 197 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL DUES 144581 2~5.00 367 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FINANCIAL M~MT. MEETING 144582 31937 LEE, MERIBEL RECREATION 144583 35.00 31977 LEON FEARS HOUSE PAINTIN~ BUSINESS LICENSE # 144584 21.30 5026 LERN RECREATION SUPPLIES 144585 125.00 6327 LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION RECREATION REFUND 144586 8.50 31~59 LIgHTFOOT, DAVID RECREATION 144587 37.50 31~39 LOE, SRI RECREATION 144588 ~6.00 5662 LOS ANQELES COCA COLA BTL. CO. RECREATION SUPPLIES 144589 168.53 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD~ 10-06-99 <99/00) RUN DATE: 10/06/99 PA~E: 4 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ** CHECK# OVERLAP 2448 LUBRICATION ENOINEERS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 144590 1,049.92 600 LYNCH, dANIE RECREATION SUPPLIES 144591 24. 18 1062 M C I TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SERVICES # 144592 1,694.30 31949 MARINO, LILIANA RECREATION 144593 79.00 31951 MASON, LISA RECREATION 144594 31.00 31965 MAXWELL, SHARON RECREATION 144595 3500 31961 MAYS, SUSAN RECREATION 14459& 40.00 31936 MCCARTHY, LINDA RECREATION 144597 50.00 31978 MCKINLEY EGUIPMENT CORP. BUSINESS LICENSE 144598 18.00 31972 MERKLEY, BARBARA RECREATION 144599 37.50 31974 MEYER, MICHELLE RECREATION 144&00 30.00 31970 MILLARD, ~WEN RECREATION 144601 25.00 31957 MIRANDA, GRACE RECREATION 144602 48~00 31938 MOCK, KAREN RECREATION 144603 36.00 31944 MOLINA, JOHN RECREATION # 144604 89.00 6331 MORENO VALLEY, CITY OF BOND FUNDINQ 144605 675.00 5885 MORITA, DUANE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 144606 4,776.00 31962 MORTIMER, COLLEEN RECREATION 144607 3500 31913 MORTON~ EVONNE REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT 144608 55~ 00 1020 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS & MIRROR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 144609 98.61 30072 MT BALDY UNITED WAY RECREATION 144610 15.00 3978 MUNIFINANCIAL, INC~ ARBITRAGE REBATE SERVICES 144~11 35.00 31958 MURATALLA, LAURIE RECREATION 144612 30~00 31969 MURRAY, CAROL MCLENNAN RECREATION # 144613 50.00 31979 NADELMAN & NAD£LMAN ATTY'S AT LAW BUSINESS LICENSE 144614 ~'C'C 144615 - 144615 2248 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 144616 1,026.70 2789 NATIONAL TRUST HISTORIC MEMBERSHIP DUES 144~17 ~0.00 4'~<: 144618 - 144~18 523 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES # 144619 2,284.57 31968 OLMSTEAD, EILEEN RECREATION 144620 90.00 4904 OTT, LAURA INSTRUCTOR SNR. EXERCISE CLASS # 144621 333.00 235 OWEN ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 1446~2 56.86 1~41 PACIFIC BELL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 144623 31963 PARRAVICINI, DAYNA RECREATION 144624 46.00 31960 PATRONITE, AMBER RECREATION 144625 37.50 31942 PERRY, LILLIAN RECREATION 144626 45.00 2987 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS MONTHLY SERVICE 144627 440.12 6089 PITTS, LISA RECREATION REFUND 144~28 150.00 255 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES # 144629 11,284.63 693 POWERSTRIDE BATTERY CO., INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 144630 134.46 758 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC. MAINT/RECREATION SUPPLIES 144631 10.44 31956 PRESTON, AMANDA RECREATION # 14463~ 75.00 3286 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL MEDICAL/DISABILITY INSURANCE 144633 73~088. 55 583 PROTECTION SERVICE INDUSTRIES PROTECTION SERVICES-LIONS CNTR # 144634 93.70 11797 RADO~NA, JUANITA RECREATION REFUNDS 144635 78.00 117~ RAHMAN, WASIM RECREATION REFUND 144636 13. 50 11824 RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY SUBSCRIPTION 144637 18.00 ~4 RALPHS OROCERY COMPANY RECREATION SUPPLIES 1~4&38 75.02 117~8 RAMOS, MARILYN RECREATION REFUNDS # 144~3~ 89.00 545 RED WINO SHOE STORE SAFETY BOOTS # 144~40 1,102.41 VENDOR NAME 11800 5914 276 626 6171 1292 4438 3092 301 132 11801 11802 1105 3896 1829 11804 11803 11805 11806 1327 11823 319 11807 1432 11808 11809 2847 11822 11810 4733 11811 2344 11812 11813 11814 1262 209 6230 11815 4873 4873 3651 2958 3437 919 11816 5285 499 478 213 RETANA, ILEANA REXEL CALCON ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT ROBLES, RAUL P. , SR. S & K ENGINEERS S ~. S ARTS AND CRAFTS S C A C E 0 SAN BERN COUNTY SAN BERN COUNTY SHERIFFS SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO, INC SCHLEIF, ISABEL SCHWAN, JEFF SEAL FURNITURE & SYSTEMS INC. SENECHAL, CAL SHARED TECH. FAIRCHILD TELECOM, SHEPHARD, SANDRA SHEPHERD, REBECCA SIAGIAN, ANNA SKOK, SHARON SMART & FINAL SMI DERLE, RICHARD SO CALIF GAS COMPANY SOTO PROVISION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON STAMM, MARJORIE STANLEY STEEMER CARPET CLEANER STATE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. , INC. STEWART, SUSAN STURQIS, TOM SUNRISE FORD TACO FACTORY TARGET TAVERNESE, VALERIE TAYLOR, DIANTHE TEAGARDEN, MARY TELEGUESTIONS THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP TITAN INDUSTRIAL FOOTWEAR CORP. TOOLE, RON TROPHY CENTER OF ALTA LOMA TROPHY CENTER OF ALTA LOMA U S TOY CO, INC. UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE UNITED WAY VASGUEZ, RITA VI½INQ TIRE VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) WARREN & CO., CARL WAXIE, KLEEN-LINE CORP INC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 10-06-99 (99/00) ITEM DESCRIPTION RECREATION REFUNDS ELECTRICAL. SUPPLIES PRINTS TIRE REPAIR RECREATION REFUND RECREATION SUPPLIES ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES DOCUMENTARY HANDLING FEE CONTRACT SHERIFFS SERVICE MAINT SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS OFFICE SUPPLIES INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT TELEPHONE SERVICES RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS DAY CAMP SUPPLIES EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT MONTHLY GAS BILLS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS RECREATION REFUND BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS SERVICE AND SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS AUTO 8ERVICE ~ SUPPLIES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS YOUTH PROGRAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS EVALUATION TEEECOMM EGUIPMENT SUBSCRIPTION RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION SUPPLIES RECREATION SUPPLIES DISASTER PREP SUPPLIES UMP SERVICES UNIFORM SERVICES MEETINGS RECREATION REFUNDS VEHICLE SUPPLIES MONTHLY VISION SERVICE BILLING LIABILITY CLAIM8 MAINT SUPPLIES RUN DATE: WARR NO WARR. AMT. ~* CHECK# OVERLAP 144641 # 144642 # 144643 # 144644 144645 144646 144647 # 144648 # 144649 144650 144651 144652 # 144653 # 144654 # 144655 144656 144657 144658 # 144659 144660 144661 144662 144663 144664 - 144669 # 144670 144671 144672 144673 144674 144675 # 144676 144677 # 144678 # 144679 144680 # 144681 144682 144683 # 144684 144685 # 144686 144687 144688 # 144689 # 144690 # 144691 14469~ # 144693 144694 14469~ # 144696 10/06/99 PAGE: 5 ~,~ t 32,528.72 16,00 21.72 5,690.00 50.00 31.00 190.44 23.00 247.13 45.00 37.50 42. 50 10,000.00 353.50 674.81 20.00 119.33 30.00 322.77 ~,500.00 60.53 20.00 33.00 2,595.39 8,191.80 2,441.43 31.00 2,235.99 190.59 186.00 11.91 141.38 100,00 4~0.00 8,859.~4 191.80 44.00 35.00 2,328.43 148.50 1,555.33 30.00 31.00 200.00 45.00 38.06 56.00 548.59 21.84 · 0 VENDOR NAME CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 10-06-~ (~/00) RUN DATE: 10/06/~ PACE: ITEM DESCRIPTION mmmmmm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11817 11818 1181~ 31~67 675 11820 6283 11821 WE THE PEOPLE FORMS & SERVICE CNTR WESTERN ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC WIDYAATMEDdA, MULIATI WORSHAM, LINDA WYNN'S FROSTEMP/MAXAIR ZELEDON, BONNIE ZOLEZIO, MICKEY ZUNIOA, VALERIE WARR NO BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS CHECK# OVERLAP 144697 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS RECREATION REFUNDS RECREATION REFUND VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUNDS ROCHESTER/LARK DR RIOHT-OF-WAY EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT 144698 1446~ 144700 # 144701 144702 144703 144704 TOTAL WARR. AMT. 9.34 114.~ 30.00 50.00 153.87 45.00 385.00 106.72 644,~07.63 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary September 30, 1999 Par Marke~ Book Investmenta Value Value Value Cer~te~ of Deposit - Bank 5,310,532.20 5,310,532.20 5,310,532.20 Local Agency Investment Funds 14,025,370.16 14,025,370.16 14,025,370.16 Certificates of De~eg. - Bank 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 72,000,000.00 70,734,375.00 71,970,781.25 Treasury Securities - Coupon 6,000,000.00 5,976,250.00 5,973,750.00 Mortgage Backed Sec~Jdties 68,082.24 70,50638 64,060.39 Total Investmerds and Averages 98,918,984.60 97,632,033.74 98,859,494.00 Cash Passbook/Checking 2,051,797.93 2,051,797.93 2,051,797.93 (not Included in ~ calculations) Accrued Interest at Purchase 5,813.93 5,813.93 Total Cash and Purchase Interest 2,o57,611.86 2,057,611.86 Total Cash and Investmenta 100,970,782.53 99,689,945.60 100,917,105.86 Total Eamlngs September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 479,345.63 1,464,024.15 Average Dally Balance 99,879,230.46 101,192,768.34 Date Treasurer %of Days to Y'FM 360 YTM 365 Portfolk) Term Maturity Equiv. Equiv. 5.37 368 188 5.102 5.173 14.19 1 1 5.107 5.178 1.53 365 306 5.730 5.810 72.80 1,721 1,344 5.721 5.801 6.04 724 506 5.452 5.527 0.06 7,596 3,107 9.614 9.747 100.00% 1,327 1,026 5.587 5.665 1 I 1 973 2.000 1,327 1,026 5.587 5.665 I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comformity with the investment policy adopted October 7, 1998. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated expenditures. The month-end market values were obtained from (IDC)-Interactive Data Corporation pricing service. Run Date: 10/12/1999 - 12:28 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept V5.01 Report Ve~. 5.00 CUSIP Investment # Ce~Jficates of Deposit - Bank 6385X1KVV9 01040 6385X1NC0 01048 6509-28649 #35 01 041 luuer NATIONSBANK NA NATIONSBANK NA SANWA Subtotal and Average Local Agency Investment Funds 0O0O5 SubSoil and Average Certificates of Deposit/Neg.. Bank 06056EAR6 01055 NATIONSBANK NA Subtotal and Average Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331RAA3 00988 31331RDX0 0O996 31331RMS1 01002 3133IRMA0 01004 31331RUG8 01022 31331RQ65 O1036 31331R2Y0 01042 31331R3Q6 01 045 31331R4R3 01 046 31331R7E9 01052 3133M2US4 01003 3133M6NE4 01035 31331V175D4 O1O38 3133M86L3 01043 3133MSB78 01044 3133M94J8 O1O50 3133M95QI 01051 3133M96K3 O1O53 31331VlgCG5 01054 3154AILB4 00994 3134A1H45 O1000 3154A2PN2 01030 5,310,532.20 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 13,452,036.83 1,515,000.00 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments September 30, 1999 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. Run Date: 10/12/1999 - 12:28 Average Purchase Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book VMue 03/11/1999 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 00/0111999 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 03/16/1999 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 5,3t0,532.20 5,310,532.20 5,310,532.20 14,025,370.16 14,025,370.t6 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 14,025,370.16 14,025,370.t6 1,515,000.00 t,515,000.00 06/03/1999 14,025,370.16 t4,025,370.16 1,515,000.00 t,5t8,000.00 03/27/1997 2,000,000.00 1,997,500.00 2,000,000.00 07/17/1997 2,000,000.00 1,998,125.00 1,999,375.00 01/0711998 1,000,000.00 989,375.00 1,000,000.00 01/0611998 2,000,000.00 1,976,875.00 2,000,000.00 05/2711998 2,000,000.00 1,975,625.00 1,999,375.00 12/1511998 2,000,000.00 1,933,125.00 2,000,000.00 03/16/1999 3,000,000.00 2,919,375.00 3,000,000.00 04/07/1999 2,000,000.00 1,956,250.00 1,997,500.00 04/28/1999 4,000,000.00 3,877,500.00 3,997,500.00 06/2111999 2,000,000.00 1,987,500.00 2,000,000.00 01106/1998 1,000,000.00 990,625.00 1,000,000.00 12/08/1998 2,000,000.00 1,929,375.00 2,000,000.00 01/2111999 1,000,000.00 962,500.00 1,000,000.00 03/23/1999 3,000,000.00 2,951,250.00 3,000,000.00 04/06/1999 2,000,000.00 1,934,375.00 2.000,000.00 06/1711999 3,000,000.00 2,976,562.50 2,984,531.25 06/2111999 2,000,000.00 1,991,250.00 1,999,375.00 06/26/1999 2,000,000.00 1,956,250.00 1,996,875.00 07/13/1999 1,000,000.00 997,187.50 1,000,000.00 06/2511997 3,000,000.00 3,002,812.50 3,000,000.00 10/22/1997 2,000,000.00 1,990,000.00 2,000,000.00 08/20/1998 2,000,000.00 1,003,125.00 2,000,000.00 Stated Rate 5.100 5.350 4.900 5.178 5.730 6.620 6.240 6.350 6.220 6.290 5.660 5.930 5.850 5.850 6.375 6.230 5.530 5.510 5.755 5.700 6.230 6.156 6.480 6.040 6.630 6.320 6.050 Page 2 Y'rM 360 Day~ to Meturlty Moody'. Equiv. Maturity Date 5.100 164 03/13/2000 5.350 248 06/06/20~0 4.900 166 03/15/2000 5. t02 188 5.107 1 S.107 I 5.730 306 08/02/2000 5.730 6.529 908 03/27/2002 6.162 1,020 07117/2002 6.243 1,104 01/07/2003 6.135 1,193 01/06/2003 6.211 1,334 05/27/2003 5.582 1,536 12/15/2003 5.849 1,628 03/16/2004 5.805 1,284 04/07/2003 5.754 1,670 04/27/2004 6.288 994 06/21/2002 6.145 1,193 01/06/2003 5.454 1,529 12/08/2003 5.435 1,573 01/21/2004 5.676 1,088 09/23/2002 5.622 1,649 04/06/2004 0.000 1,721 06/17/2004 6.077 994 06/21/2002 6.428 1,732 06/28/2004 5.957 651 07113/2001 6.537 846 01/24/2002 6.233 1,117 10/22/2002 5.967 1,419 08/20/2003 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl V5.01 Reporl Vet 5 00 CUSIP Investment # Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3134A2XJ2 01033 3134A2N20 01037 3154A3N$1 01047 31364CRP5 0O981 31394CJ58 OO992 31364FC33 01016 31364FG96 01018 31364GBE8 01032 31584GJM2 01034 31364GTJ8 01039 Treasury SecuHUes - Coupon 9126274M1 01026 9128275H1 01049 Mortgage Backed Securities 313401WW7 00O71 31380BJ21 OO2O3 3~215WX74 00002 36215XZS4 OO069 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments September 30, 1999 Average Purchase Issuer Balance Date Par Value FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN SuMotel and Average 71,970,78t.25 5,973,758.00 TREASURY NOTE TREASURY NOTE Subtotel&ndAverage FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN Subtotal and Average 64,965.58 98,287,065.86 Total Inve~tmente and Average Market Value Book Value 1112411998 2,000,OO0.OO 1,945,000.00 2,OO0,000.00 0111411999 2,OO0,OO0.OO 1,963,7OO.00 2,000,000.00 05/0411999 5,000,000.00 4,502,500.00 5,000,000.00 11/29/1996 2,000,000.OO 1,998,750.00 2,000,000.00 05/05/1997 2,000,OOO.00 2,006,250.00 2,000.000.00 05/0411998 3,OOO,000.00 2,963,437.50 3,000,000.00 05/19/1998 2,OO0,0OO.OO 1,968,750.00 2,OO0,000.OO 10/06/1998 2,000,000.00 1,938,750.00 2,000,000.00 12/0111998 2,OOO,OOO.00 1,928,125.00 2,OOO,000.OO 02/11/1999 4.OOO,OOO.00 3,682,500.00 3,996,250.00 72,000,000.00 70,734,375.00 7t,970,781.25 09/03/1998 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,996,250.00 06/09/1999 4,000,000.00 3,976,250.00 3,977,500.00 6,000,000.00 6,976,250.00 6,973,750.00 02/23/1987 7,951.17 8,104.39 7,893.99 09/1 5/1987 50,792.44 52,826.17 46,919.52 06/23/1986 8,252.61 8,457.18 8,139.14 05/23/1986 1.086.02 1,118.83 1,107.74 68,082.24 70,506.58 64,060.39 97,632,033.74 58,9t 8,984.60 58,858,464.00 Page 3 Stated Y'rM 360 Days to Maturity Rate Moody's Equiv. Maturity Date 5.790 5.600 5.900 6.230 7.070 6.280 6.125 5.670 5.520 5.860 5.375 5.250 8.000 8.500 8.500 9.000 5.711 1,515 11/24/2003 5.523 1,201 01114/2003 5.819 1.677 05/04/2004 6.145 790 11/29/2001 6.973 950 05/08/2002 6.194 1,312 05/05/2003 6.041 1,326 05/19/2003 5.592 1,466 10/06/2003 5.444 1,522 12/01/2003 5.801 1,504 02/11/2004 5.721 1,344 5.4OO 3O4 07/31/2000 5.478 608 05/31/2001 5.452 506 8.219 823 01/01/2002 10.018 3,988 09/01/2010 8.778 592 05/15/2001 8.547 531 03/15/2001 9.614 3,t07 5.587 1,026 Ruft Date: 10/12/1999 - 12:28 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V5.01 CUSIP Investment # I~suer CheckingJSavings Accounts 00180 BANK OF AMERICA Cash Subtotal and Average Accrued Intersat at Purchase Totel C~h and Purcl~se Intemet Total Cash and Investments City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash September 30, 1999 Average Purchase B~l~nc~ Date Par Value 1,592,164.60 99,879,230.46 100,970,782.53 Market Value 2,051,797.93 99,689,645.60 Book Value 2,051,797.93 2,05t ,797.93 5,813.93 2,057,611.86 100,917,t05.86 StatmJ Rate 2.000 Page 4 YTM 36O Days to Moody's Equiv. M~turity 1.973 I 5.587 1,026 Run Date: 10/12/1999 - 12:28 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRep{ V5.01 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Investment Activity By Type September 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999 CUSIP Investment # Issuer Certificates of Deposit - Bank Subtotal 5,3t0,532.20 Local Agency Investment Funds (Monthly Summary) 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND Subtotal Checking/Savings Accounts (Monthly Summary) 00180 BANK OF AMERICA Subtotal Certificates of Deposit/Nag. - Bank Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Treasury Securities - Coupon Beginning Stated Tran~action Pumheses Balance Rate Date or DeposEs 14,425,370.16 1,277,797.93 Subtotal 1,51 $,500.00 Subtotal 71,970,781.25 Subtotal 5,973,750.50 Mortgage Backed Securities 313401vwv7 00071 31360BJ21 00203 36215WX74 00002 36215XZS4 0OO69 5.178 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 8.000 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 8500 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 9.000 Subtotal 65,572.50 Total 100,538,804.04 6,777,000.00 6,777,000.00 0W1~1999 09/27/1999 0~16/1999 0W16/1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 9,777,000.00 3,400,000.00 3,400,000.00 6,003,000.00 6,003,000.00 488.36 451.14 508.52 64.09 1,512.11 9,404,$12.11 Page 5 Ending Balance 5,310,532.20 14,025,370.16 2,051,797.93 t,515,000.00 71,970,761.25 5,973,750.00 64,060.39 100,911,29t.93 Run Date: 10/12/1999 - 12:28 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM3) $ymRept V5 01 Report Ver 5 00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1999 TO: Mayor, Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Robert Bowery, Information Systems Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH CALCOM FOR A FEASIBILITY AND COST STUDY IN PREPERATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CITY-WIDE METROPALITAN AREA OPTICAL FIBER NETWORK. THE AMOUNT OF $62,000 FROM ACCOUNT 72-4225-7044 AS APPROVED IN FY 99/2000 BUDGET. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize a feasibility and cost study in preparation for the installation of a citywide metropolitan area optical fiber network from Calcom in the amount of $62,000 from account 74-4225-7044 as approved in the FY 1999/2000 budget. Background/Analysis: In the FY 1999/2000 Budget, City Council approved the installation of a city-wide optical fiber network to carry voice, data communications and video tele-conferencing capability over one line. The Information Systems Division solicited Calcom for the assistance in developing a feasibility and cost study in preparation for the installation of a city-wide metropolitan area optical fiber network. The study will be the first phase of the project to determine the economic feasibility of installing a fiber optic network within the city. The study's results help determine the feasibility of proceeding with the implementation immediately or potentially scheduling the project in future phases. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director /7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL TO RESCIND THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS: RESOLUTIONS 87-531, 87-587, 89-033, RESOLUTION 89-574, AND RESOLUTION 90-051 RELATING TO THE IN-LIEU FEE FOR MEDIAN CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING ON HAVEN AVENUE, MILLIKEN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution rescinding the previously adopted resolutions for the establishment of the in-lieu amounts to be paid back to the City, by developers, in-lieu of construction for the three Capital Improvement Projects providing for the construction of the landscaped median islands. The median projects have been constructed, completed and are maintained by the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts. Therefore the collected and future fees are not needed for construction or maintenance purposes. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The in-lieu fees were required by Conditions of Approval for development of properties fronting and benefiting from the median installations which have been funded and completed for several years. The fees were based on the construction cost, per linear foot of property frontage. The amounts were adjusted annually based on the Prime Rate. The current amounts required are as follows: 1. Haven Avenue Medians; Resolutions 87-531, 87-587 and 89-033 a/c 21-3901-7782 Phase 1 Haven Avenue from Arrow Route to 19t~ Street $127.00/1f Phase 2 Haven Avenue from 4th Street to Arrow Route $124.00/1f Phase 3 Haven Avenue from north of Highland to north of Wilson Avenue $298.00/If CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RESCIND MEDIAN ISLAND/LANDSCAPING CONTRIBUTIONS October 20, 1999 Page 2 o Milliken Avenue Median; Resolution 89-574 Milliken Avenue from 4th Street to 6th Street a/c 21-3901-7782 $144.00/lf o Base Line Road Widening and Median; Resolution 90-051 Base Line Road west of Interstate 15 to Victoria Park lane Etiwanda Avenue from 300/n/o 600' s/o Base Line Road aYc 22-3901-7501 $218.00/lf $157.00/1f Respectfully submitted, Willia~n~. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:DJ:sd Attachments A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 87-531, 87-587, 89-033 FOR THE HAVEN AVENUE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLAND, RESOLUTION 89-574 FOR THE MILLIKEN AVENUE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLAND BETWEEN 4TM AND 6TM STREETS AND RESOLUTION 90-051 FOR BASE LINE ROAD MEDIAN AND WIDENING BETWEEN VICTORIA PARK LANE AND INTERSTATE 15 WHEREAS, the construction of the above described landscaped medians were provided by the City's previous years' Capital Improvement Project funding and/or construction accounts; and WHEREAS, the above described landscaped medians have been constructed, completed and accepted by the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts, the in-lieu fee collections are no longer required. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE the attached Resolutions 87-531, 87-587, 89-033, for Haven Avenue, Resolution 89-574 for Milliken Avenue and Resolution 90-051 for the Base Line Road Median and Widening are hereby rescinded. RESOLUTION NO. 87-531 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIT~ COUNCIL OF THE CI%~f OF OJCA~NCA, CALIFORNIA. ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING A FEE SCMEDULE PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HA?EN AVENUE MEDIAN FROM ARROW ROUTE TO I9TH STREET WITHIN THE CIT~f OF RANCHO C~CAMONGA WF~EAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is constructing a landscaped median within Haven Avenu~ from Arro~ Route to 19th Street; and WHEREAS, the City CouncL1 has determined by Resolution No. 87-491 that future development shall contribute tc~ard the cost of said median; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that it is necessary to establish methods to equitably share said cost among those benefited by said improvements. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, that staff, Committees and Co-uni~ sions requ/re, as a condition of approwal of any development, a contribution in lieu of the construction for said landscaped median and such contribution shall be an amount equal to $57.00 per linear foot of property fronting on Haven Avenue. Corner property frontages shall be measursd to the prolongation of the ultimate right-of-way of the side street. Payment of said contribution shall b~ made prior to building permit issuance or recordation of the Tract or Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. The unit contribution amount shall automatically be increased on a fiscal year basis by the Prime Interest Rate as determined at the beginning of each fiscal year. PASSED, APFROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October. 1987. Brown, Buquet, Stout. King, Wright AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: None Dennis L. Stout:. ~yor Resolution No. 87-53I Page 2 ATTEST: Beverly ~. ~uthelet. City Clerk I. BEVERLY A. AUTHELET. CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution vaa duly passed. approved. and adopted by the City Co,,-cil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California. at a regular meeting of 'said City Co,,-cil held on the 7th day of October. 1987. ~ecuted this 8th day of October. California. 987 at Rancho Cucamonga. Beverly A. ~uthelet. City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 87-5 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRHCTION OF THE HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN FROM 4TH STREET TO ARRC~ ROUTE WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WH~P3.AS. the City of Rancho Cucamonga ia constructinS a landscaped median withh Haven Avenu~ fro~ 4th Street to Arrc,~ Route: and WKEREAS. the City Council has determined by Resolution No. 87-491 that future development ,hall contribute tovard the cost of said median: and WHEREAS. the City Council recognizes that i~ is necessary to establish methods to equitably share said cost among those benefited by said improvements. NO~. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California. that staff. Committees and Conlesions require. aea condition of approval of any development. a contribution in lieu of the construction for said landscaped median and such contribution shall be an amount equal to $55.00 per linear foot of properry fronting on Haven Avenue. Corner properry frontages shall be measured to the prolongation of the ultimate right-of-way of the side street. Payment of said contribution shall be made prior to building permi: issuance or recordation of the Tract or Parcel Map. whichever occurs first. The unit contribution amount shall automatically be increased on a fiscal year basis by the Prime Interest Rate as determined at the beginning of each fiscal year. PASSED. APPROVED. and ADOPTED this 4th day of November. 1987. Brown. Buquet. Stout. King. $;right ATES: NOES: None ABSENT: None Dennis L. Stout. Mayor Resolution No. 87-587 Page 2 ATTEST: Beverly ~. Authelet. City Clerk I. BEVERLY A. AUTMRLgT. CIT~f CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California. do hereby certify chat tb, foregoing Reaolutioo waa duly paaaed. approved. and adopted by the City Council of the City of Raacbo Cucamonga. California. at a regular meetimg of aaid City Council be_ld on the 4th day of November. 1987. ~ecuted thia 5th day of Novemb.r. 1987 at California. R~mcho Cucamonga. RESOLLFi~CkN NO. 89-033 A RESOLZ71~Clq OF TKE CITY ~ OF T~E ~ OF RANCHO ~NGA, CALIFORNIA, ES~AR~.rSHING AND ADOPTING A CI~FZ~2~3TION AJ~XJNT P~IR/NING TO THE CIkN~ON OF THE HAVEN AV~N~JE M~DIANS FRC~ SOUI~ OF LE~2~ AVENUE TO NC~TH OF WTT.qCN AVENt/E IN THE CITY OF ~ ~ ~t]~REAS, the City has collect~ fr~, properti~ fromti~q Haven Avenue, fees in lieu of ~iom., bcr~s for participation in ___~structiom arC/or lien agreements to participate in the c~L~uctio~ of Haven Avenue Medians; and ~ttREkS, the City of Rancho O~~ is constructL-q a landscaped median within Haven Avenue ~£~,, south of Lemo~ Averse to north of Wilsc~ Avenue; WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that it is n~o~,~ry to es*~hlLsh methods to equitably share said cost arnorag those benefi~ by said improv~_nts. N~4, THtlREFORE, the City Cka=~il of the City of Rancho O~-~-~ja does hereby resolv~ as follows: All fees collected in-lieu of c~=,t~uctic~ for Maven Average Medians be deposited in a c~m~-~uction __a~--c, unt All bcr~s r~ceived fr~= developers guarantee~ participatin~ in the c~t~uctic~ of Hav~n Avenue Medians be called in cr otherwise ccrm~_rt~J to a liquid All lien ~ pez~AL~Lmg to the o_-_~t~uction of Maven Aw~e M-d~ans be ~ to mak~ pay~rfc to a City f~r the C~nstruction thereof. e ~t '~ ~ ~,~cUI'e~' ~I~ ~ ~rolc~gatic~ of the ultimate right-of-~ay of the side street. Resol~ion No. 89-033 P~ge 2 Payment of said curfcributio~ shall be ~ ~ri~r to build/r~ ~_rmit L~unr~e ar r~o~H~ of th. Tract of Paroel Map, whi~ ac=urs first. ~ne unit co~cr~c~ n-~unt shall aut=matically be incr~c~d c~ a fiscal year basis by the Prime ~ Rate as de~ at the beqinnin~ of each fiscal year. PASSED, ~, and ADOPTED ~ 18th day of Jar-~y, 1989. I, BEVERLY A. AUIb%~, CITY ~ of the City of Rancho ~, Califo=,,ia, do hereby certify that the farecjoir~ Resolutic~ was duly pn~se~, Califu~,~a, at a r~ meet/rig of said City Council held c~ the 18th day of January, 1989. Ex~cut~ th~ 19th day of January, 1989 at Rancho C1~ .... ,~j~, Calif~[a. RESOLUTION NO. 89-574 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING A CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION ON MEDIAN ISLAND LANDSCAPING ON MILLIKEN AVENUE BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND 6TH STREET IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WHEREAS, the City has collected From properties Fronting Milliken Avenue, fees in lieu of construction, bonds for participation construction and/or lien agreements to participate in the construction of Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is cunstructing a landscaped median within Milliker, Avenue From 4th Street to 6th Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that it is necessary to establish methods to equitably share said cost among those benefited by said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC, A DOES HEREBY RESOLVE that: 1. All fees collected in-lieu of construction for Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping be deposited in a construction account or fund to be used for the pending Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping construction. 2. All bonds received From developers guaranteeing participating in the construction of Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping be called Jn or otherwise converted to a liquid asset and deposited in a construction account or Fund to be used for the pending Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping construction. 3. All 1 ien agreements pertaining to the construction of Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping be amended to make payment to a construction account or fund to be used for the pending Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping construction or to reimburse the City for the construction thereof. 4. All remaining undeveloped properties fronting onto Milliken Avenue shall be required by Condition of Development to reimburse the City for the cost for their proportionate frontage of the Milliken Avenue Median Landscaping construction. A contribution in lieu of the construction for said landscaped median shall be an amount equal to $72.00 per linear foot of property fronting on Milliken Avenue. Corner property frontages shall be measured to the prolongation of the ultimate right-of-way of the side street. Payment of said contribution shall be made prior to building permit issuance or recording of the Tract of Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. The unit contribution amount shall automatically be increased on a Fiscal year basis by the Prime Interest Rate as determined at the beginning of each fiscal year. Resolution No. 89-574 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and-ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 1989. Alexander, Buquet, Brown, Stout, Wright AYES: NOES: None ABSENTi None Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATTEST: ebra J. A~a/ms, City Clerk. I, DEBRA J. ADAMS,. CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of December, 1989. Executed this 7th day of December, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, Cal ifornia. Debra J. Akh~ms, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 90-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING A CONTRIBUTION AMOtlNT PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BASE LINE ROAD WIDENING FROM WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 TO VICTORIA PARK LAJ~E IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC~A WHEREAS, the City has collected from properties fronting Base Line Road, fees in lieu of construction, bonds for participation in construction and/or lien agreements to participate tn the construction of Base Line Road; and UHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is purchasing rights-of-way and constructing street widening and median islands on Base Line Road from west of Interstate 15 to Victoria Park Lane; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that it is necessary to establish methods to equitably share incurred costs among those benefited by said improvements, as is provided on other major divided streets such as 14aven Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: All fees collected in-lieu of construction for Base Line Road Street Widening and Metdans be deposited in a construction account or fund to be used for the pending Base Line Road Widening and Median construction. All bonds received from developers guaranteeing participating in the construction of Base Line Road Widening and Medians be called in or otherwise converted to a liquid asset and deposited in a cotnstruction account or fund to be used for the pending Base Line Road Widening and Median construction. All lien agreements pertaining to the construction of Base Line Road Widening and Medians be amended to make payment to a construction account or fund to be used for the pending Base Line Road Widening and Median construction or to reimburse the City for the Construction thereof and purchase of rights-of-way therefore. All remaining undeveloped properties fronting onto Base Line Road shall be required by condition of Development to reimburse the City for the cost for their proportionate frontage of the Base Line Road Widening and Median construction and rights-of- way purchase. A contribution in lieu of said construction and purchase for said widening and median shall be an amount equal to $109.00 per linear foot .of property fronting on Base Line Road. Corner property frontages shall be measured to the prolongation of the ultimate right-of-way of the side streets; and shall include the particular improvements constructed with Resolution No. 90-OSi Page 2 this project which are unique to the frontages along Etiwanda Avenue which said street frontage cost is $79.00 per front foot of said street from Base Line Road to 300 feet north and 600 feet south thereof. Payment of said contributions shall be made prior to building permit issuance or recording of the Tract or Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. The unit contribution amount shall automatically be increased on a fiscal year basis by the Prime Interest Rate as determined at the beginning of each fiscal year. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 1990. Alexander, Brown, Buquet, Stout, Wright AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: a J. A(~'ms, City C~~erk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify.that the foregoing. Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the. City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting ef said City Council held on the 7th day of February, lggo. Executed this 8th day of February, lggO at Rancho Cucamonga, Ca I t fornta. , City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer f lnspector/~~ Michael D. Long, Supervising Pub~/c Works SUBJECT: WAIVE AN INCONSEQUENTIAL IRREGULARITY IN THE BIDS RECEIVED, AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE VINEYARD AVENUE BUS BAYS TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, H & H CONTRACTORS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,214.60 ($79,286.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO BE FUNDED FROM MEASURE I FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 32-4637-9926 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council waive an inconsequential irregularity in the bids received, award and authorization for execution of the contract for the Vineyard Avenue Bus Bays to the apparent low bidder, H & H Contractors, in the amount of $87,214.60 ($79,286.00 plus I0% contingency) to be funded from Measure [ Funds, Account No. 32-4637-9926. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on September 28, 1999, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $82,000.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with one inconsequential irregularity. Three bidders failed to return an executed Addendum No. 1. The addendum related to clarification of one minor aspect of the work and didn't effect the dollar cost for the work bid. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents with the exception of the previously stated irregularity. Respectfully submitted, Wilham~J. ~,Nei~ i~-~ City Engineer WJO:JAD/MDL Attachment EXHIBIT "A" N.T.& VACANT- FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IFUTURE BUS BAY Foothill Boulevard GAS STATION CONDOS CONDOS A~owRoute BUS BAY LOCATION GAS STATION PUBLIC STORAGE 9th Street SEARING INDUSTRIES ~ BUS BAY LOCATION sE^~,~ INDUSTRIES ABANDONED BLDG J VACANTLOT Vineyard Avenue Bus Bays- 4 Locations VICINITY MAP DATE: October 6, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS VINEYARD AVENUE BUS BAYS (4 LOCATIONS) ENGINEERS'S ESTIMATE Item No. H & H General Contractors Item Unit of Estimated Unit Bid Description Measure Quantity Prices Amount PLAN 900 I Sawcut 2 Remove A.C. Pavement 3 Remove P.C.C. Curb & Gutter 4 Relocate Sign 5 Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk 6 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 7 Construct PCC Sidewalk 8 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 9 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 10 Paint Traffic Stripe 11 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 900 PLAN 910 12 Sawcut 13 Remove A.C. Pavement 14 Remove Curb & Cross Gutter 15 Relocate Sign 16 Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk 17 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 18 Construct PCC Sidewalk 19 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 20 Install Rebar Tiebars 21 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 22 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 910 LF SF SF EA SF SF SF SF LS LF LS LF SF SF EA SF SF SF SF EA LS LS 207 1,890 429 2 610 1,890 790 978 1 172 1 59 500 216 1 470 32 726 703 33 1 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.00 $ 414.00 2.20 $ 4,158.00 5.00 $ 2,145.00 100.00 $ 200.00 1.50 $ 915.00 3.00 $ 5,670.00 4.10 $ 3,239.00 5.50 $ 5,379.00 550.00 $ 550.00 5.50 $ 946.00 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 26,316.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5.00 $ 295.00 4.50 $ 2,250.00 4.50 $ 972.00 100.00 $ 100.00 4.50 $ 2,115.00 4.OO $ 128.00 4.00 $ 2,904.00 5.00 $ 3,515.00 35.00 $ 1,155.00 550.00 $ 550.00 550.00 $ 550.00 $ 14,534.00 Los Angeles Eng., Inc. Unit Bid Prices Amount 4.00 $ 828.00 1.00 $ 1,890.00 1.40 $ 600.60 255.00 $ 510.00 1.00 $ 610.00 7.00 $ 13,230.00 2.60 $ 2,054.00 8.00 $ 7,824.00 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 2.30 $ 395.60 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 31,742.20 4.00 $ 236.00 1.00 $ 500.00 1.40 $ 302.40 255.00 $ 255.00 1.00 $ 470.00 7.00 $ 224.00 2.60 $ 1,887.60 8.00 $ 5,624.00 6.00 $ 198.00 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 13,497.00 All American Asphalt Unit Bid Pdces Amount 3.40 $ 703.80 1.00 $ 1,890.00 1.70 $ 729.30 142.00 $ 284.00 0.65 $ 396.50 4.27 $ 8,070.30 2.60 $ 2,054.00 9.00 $ 8,802.00 540.00 $ 540,00 2.19 $ 376.68 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 26,546.58 $ 3.40 $ 200.60 $ 1.67 $ 835.00 $ 3.30 $ 712.80 $ 142.00 $ 142.00 $ 0.89 $ 418.30 $ 30.80 $ 985.60 $ 4.30 $ 3,121.80 $ 12.80 $ 8,998.40 $ 86.00 $ 2,838.00 $ 545.00 $ 545.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 20,597.50 Item Item No. Description PLAN 1001 23 Sawcut 24 Remove A.C. Pavement 25 Remove Curb & Gutter 26 Relocate Bench 27 Relocate Sign 28 Remove Tree 29 Remove Sidewalk 30 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 31 Construct PCC Sidewalk 32 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 33 Plant 15 gallon trees 34 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 35 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 1001 PLAN 1616 36 Sawcut 37 Remove A.C. Pavement 38 Remove Curb & Gutter 39 Relocate Sign 40 Remove Tree 41 Remove Sidewalk 42 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 43 Construct PCC Sidewalk 44 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 45 Plant 15 gallon trees 46 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 47 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 1616 Total Bid all Plan Sheets Unit of Measure LF SF SF SF SF SF SF LS LS LF SF SF EA EA SF SF SF SF EA LS LS Estimated Quantity 175 160 4OO 1 2 2 64O 160 1,040 1,116 2 1 1 182 170 425 2 8 77O 170 955 1,592 8 1 1 H & H General Contractors Unit Bid Pdces Amount 1.00 $ 175.00 4.50 $ 720.00 4.50 $ 1,800.00 200.00 $ 200.00 100.00 $ 200.00 75.00 $ 150.00 4.50 $ 2,880.00 4.0O $ 640.00 4.50 $ 4,680.00 5.00 $ 5,580.00 250.00 $ 500.00 500.00 $ 500.00 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 18,525.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.00 $ 182.00 4.00 $ 680.00 3.00 $ 1,275.00 100.00 $ 200.00 75.00 $ 600.00 3.00 $ 2,310.00 4.OO $ 68O.OO 4.00 $ 3,820.00 4.50 $ 7,164.00 250.00 $ 2,000.00 500.00 $ 500.00 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 19,911.00 79,286.00 Los Angeles Eng., Inc. Unit Bid Prices Amount 4.00 $ 700.00 1.00 $ 160.00 1.40 $ 560.00 220.00 $ 220.00 255.00 $ 510.00 230.00 $ 460.00 1.00 $ 640.00 7.00 $ 1,120.00 2.60 $ 2,704.00 8.00 $ 8,928.00 300.00 $ 600.00 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 20,402.00 4.0O $ 728.0O 1.00 $ 170.00 1.40 $ 595.00 255.00 $ 510.00 100.00 $ 800.00 1.00 $ 770.00 7.00 $ 1,190.00 2.60 $ 2,483.00 8.00 $ 12,736.00 300.00 $ 2,400.00 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 Odginal bid $ 26,182.00 $ 92,078.20 $ 91,823.2O All American Asphalt Unit Bid Pdces Amount 3.40 $ 595.00 1.45 $ 232.00 1.38 $ 552.00 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 142.00 $ 284.00 219.00 $ 438.00 0.65 $ 416.00 13.00 $ 2,080.00 3.00 $ 3,120.00 9.40 $ 10,490.40 328.00 $ 656.00 545.00 $ 545.00 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 22,858.40 $ 3.40 $ 618.80 $ 0.96$ 163.20 $ 1.00$ 425.00 $ 142.00$ 284.00 $ 93.00$ 744.00 $ 0.65$ 500.50 $ 12.50$ 2,125.00 $ 2.70$ 2,578.50 $ 8.20$ 13,054.40 $ 328.00$ 2,624.00 $ 545.00$ 545.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 25,912.40 $ 95,914.88 Item Item Unit of No. Description Measure PLAN 900 I Sawcut 2 Remove A.C. Pavement 3 Remove P.C.C. Curb & Gutter 4 Relocate Sign 5 Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk 6 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 7 Construct PCC Sidewalk 8 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 9 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 10 Paint Traffic Stripe 11 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 900 PLAN 910 12 Sawcut 13 Remove A.C. Pavement 14 Remove Curb & Cross Gutter 15 Relocate Sign 16 Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk 17 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 18 Construct PCC Sidewalk 19 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 20 Install Rebar Tiebars 21 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 22 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 910 PLAN 1001 23 Sawcut 24 Remove A.C. Pavement 25 Remove Curb & Gutter 26 Relocaie Bench 27 Relocate Sign LF SF SF EA SF SF SF SF LS LF LS LF SF SF EA SF SF SF SF EA LS LS LF SF SF EA EA Estimated Quantity 207 1,890 429 2 610 1,890 790 978 1 172 1 59 500 216 1 470 32 726 703 33 1 1 175 160 400 1 2 E.G.N. Construction, Inc. Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. Unit Bid Unit Bid Prices Amount Prices Amount 3.00 $ 621.00 1.75 $ 3,307.50 2.50 $ 1,072.50 150.00 $ 300.00 1.50 $ 915.00 3.50 $ 6,615.00 3.95 $ 3,120.50 9.35 $ 9,144.30 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 10.00 $ 1,720.00 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 29,315.80 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3.00 $ 177.00 1.75 $ 875.00 2.50 $ 540.00 150.00 $ 150.00 1.50 $ 705.00 5.00 $ 160.00 3.95 $ 2,867.70 9.35 $ 6,573.05 23.50 $ 775.50 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 15,323.25 3.60 $ 745.20 1.45 $ 2,740.50 2.40 $ 1,029.60 150.00 $ 300.00 0.72 $ 439.20 5.30 $ 10,017.00 4.00 $ 3,160.00 8.50 $ 8,313.00 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 5.00 $ 860.00 830.00 $ 830.00 $ 32,434.50 3.60 $ 212.40 1.45 $ 725.00 2.40 $ 518.40 150.00 $ 150.00 0.72 $ 338.40 6.00 $ 192.00 4.00 $ 2,904.00 8.50 $ 5,975.50 24.00 $ 792.00 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 830.00 $ 830.00 $ 15,237.70 3.00 $ 525.00 $ 3.60 $ 630.00 1.75 $ 280.00 $ 1.45 $ 232.00 2.50 $ 1,000.00 $ 2.40 $ 960.00 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 150.00 $ 300.00 Laird Construct, Co. Inc. Unit Bid Pdces Amount 1.00 $ 207.00 2.00 $ 3,780.00 5.00 $ 2,145.00 150.00 $ 300.00 2.00 $ 1,220.00 5.00 $ 9,450.00 4.00 $ 3,160.00 7.25 $ 7,090.50 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 2.00 $ 344.00 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 31,696.50 1.00 $ 59~00 5.00 $ 2,500.00 5.00 $ 1,080.00 150.00 $ 150.00 2.00 $ 940.00 25.00 $ 800.00 4.00 $ 2,904.00 7.25 $ 5,096.75 5.00 $ 165.00 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 17,694.75 $ 1.00 $ 175.00 $ 5.00 $ 800.00 $ 5.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 150.00 $ 300.00 E.G.N. Construction, Inc. Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit No. Description Measure Quantity Prices 28 Remove Tree EA 2 $ 1,000.00 29 Remove Sidewalk SF 640 $ 1.50 30 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB SF 160 $ 5.00 31 Construct PCC Sidewalk SF 1,040 $ 3.95 32 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB SF 1,116 $ 9.35 33 Plant 15 gallon trees EA 2 $ 250.00 34 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation LS I $ 1,500.00 35 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,000.00 Subtotal Plan 1001 PLAN 1616 36 Sawcut LF 182 $ 3.00 $ 37 Remove A.C. Pavement SF 170 $ 1.75 $ 38 Remove Curb & Gutter SF 425 $ 2.50 $ 39 Relocate Sign EA 2 $ 150.00 $ 40 Remove Tree EA 8 $ 100.00 $ 41 Remove Sidewalk SF 770 $ 1.50 $ 42 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB SF 170 $ 5.00 $ 43 Construct PCC Sidewalk SF 955 $ 3.95 $ 44 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB SF 1,592 $ 9.35 $ 45 Plant 15 gallon trees EA 8 $ 250.00 $ 46 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 47 Traffic Control LS I $ 1,000.00 $ Subtotal Plan 1616 $ Total Bid all Plan Sheets Bid Amount $ 2,000.00 $ 960.00 $ 800.00 $ 4,108.00 $ 10,434.60 $ 500.00 $ 1,50O.OO $ 1,000.00 23,657.60 Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. Laird Construct. Co. Inc. Unit Bid Unit Prices Amount Pdces $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.72 $ 460.80 $ 2.00 $ 6.00 $ 960.00 $ 10.00 $ 4.00 $ 4,160.00 $ 4.00 $ 8.50 $ 9,486.00 $ 7.25 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,100.00 $ 4,100.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 830.00 $ 830.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 23,218.80 546.00 $ 3.60$ 655.20$ 1.00 297.50 $ 1.45$ 246.50$ 5.00 1,062.50 $ 2.40$ 1,020.00$ 5.00 300.00 $ 150.00$ 300.00$ 150.00 800.00 $ 120.00$ 960.00$ 500.00 1,155.00 $ 0.72$ 554.40$ 2.00 850.00 $ 6.00$ 1,020.00$ 10.00 3,772.25 $ 4.00$ 3,820.00$ 4.00 14,885.20 $ 8.50$ 13,532.00$ 7.25 2,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,600.00$ 200.00 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00$ 1,500.00 1,000.00 $ 830.00 $ 830.00 $ 2,500.00 30,168.45 $ 31,538.10 $ 102,429.10 $ 98,465.10 Bid Amount 1,000.00 1,28O.OO 1,6OO.OO 4,160.00 8,091.00 4O0.OO 1,500.00 2,5OO.OO $ 24,306.00 $ 182.00 $ 850.00 $ 2,125.00 $ 300,00 $ 4,000~00 $ 1,540.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 3,820.00 $ 11,542.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 31,659.00 $ 105,356.25 Item Item Unit of No. Description Measure PLAN 900 1 Sawcut 2 Remove A.C. Pavement 3 Remove P.C.C. Curb & Gutter 4 Relocate Sign 5 Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk 6 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 7 Construct PCC Sidewalk 8 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 9 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 10 Paint Traffic Stripe 11 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 900 PLAN 910 12 Sawcut 13 Remove A.C. Pavement 14 Remove Curb & Cross Gutter 15 Relocate Sign 16 Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk 17 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB 18 Construct PCC Sidewalk 19 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB 20 Install Rebar Tiebars 21 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation 22 Traffic Control Subtotal Plan 910 PLAN 1001 23 Sawcut 24 Remove A.C. Pavement 25 Remove Curb & Gutter 26 Relocate Bench 27 Relocate Sign LF SF SF EA SF SF SF SF LS LF LS LF SF SF EA SF SF SF SF EA LS LS LF SF SF EA EA Mallcraft, Incorporated Estimated Unit Bid Quantity Pdces Amount 207 1,890 429 2 610 1,890 790 978 1 172 1 59 500 216 1 470 32 726 703 33 1 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.50 $ 310.50 1.50 $ 2,835.00 2.00 $ 858.00 200.00 $ 400.00 1.25 $ 762.50 5.00 $ 9,450.00 5.00 $ 3,950.00 7.90 $ 7,726.20 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 12.00 $ 2,064.00 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 32,356.20 KAS Equipment & Rental Unit Bid Prices Amount 1.50 $ 310.50 2.25 $ 4,252.50 5.25 $ 2,252.25 150.00 $ 300.00 1.25 $ 762.50 8.50 $ 16,065.00 2.25 $ 1,777.50 12.50 $ 12,225.00 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 4.00 $ 688.00 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 3.00 $ 177.00 $ 1.50 2.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2.25 2.00 $ 432.00 $ 5.00 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 1.75 $ 822.50 $ 1.25 20.00 $ 640.00 $ 8.50 5.00 $ 3,630.00 $ 2.25 7.90 $ 5,553.70 $ 12.50 6.00 $ 198.00 $ 2.50 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,000.00 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 16,653.20 $ 175 $ 2.00 $ 350.00 $ 1.25 $ 160 $ 4.00 $ 640.00 $ 2.25 $ 400 $ 3.50$ 1,400.00 $ 5.00 $ 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 200.00 $ 2 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 150.00 $ $ 44,633.25 88.50 1,125.00 1,080.00 150.00 587.50 272.00 1,633.50 8,787.50 82.50 3,000.00 3,000.00 19,806.50 218.75 360.00 2,000.00 200.00 300.00 JDC, Inc. Unit Bid Pdces Amount $ 2.00 $ 414.00 $ 2.50 $ 4,725.00 $ 5.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 125.00 $ 250.00 $ 1.25 $ 762.50 $ 5.00 $ 9,450.00 $ 3.00 $ 2,370.00 $ 12.65 $ 12,371.70 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 7.00 $ 1,204.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 37,192.20 $ 2.00 $ 118.00 $ 2.50 $ 1,250.00 $ 5.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 125.00 $ 125.00 $ 1.25 $ 587.50 $ 15.00 $ 480.00 $ 3.00 $ 2,178.00 $ 15.75 $ 11,072.25 $ 40.00 $ 1,320.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 22,210.75 $ 2.00 $ 350.00 $ 2.50 $ 400.00 $ 5.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 125.00 $ 250.00 Mallcraft, Incorporated Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit No. Description Measure Quantity Pdces 28 Remove Tree EA 2 $ 250.00 29 Remove Sidewalk SF 640 $ 1.75 30 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB SF 160 $ 20.00 31 Construct PCC Sidewalk SF 1,040 $ 5.00 32 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB SF 1,116 $ 9.80 33 Plant 15 gallon trees EA 2 $ 500.00 34 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation LS I $ 2,500.00 35 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,800.00 Subtotal Plan 1001 PLAN 1616 36 Sawcut LF 182 $ 2.00 37 Remove A.C. Pavement SF 170 $ 4.00 38 Remove Curb & Gutter SF 425 $ 2.75 39 Relocate Sign EA 2 $ 200.00 40 Remove Tree EA 8 $ 250.00 41 Remove Sidewalk SF 770 $ 1.75 42 Construct 5" AC over 4" CAB SF 170 $ 20.00 43 Construct PCC Sidewalk $F 955 $ 5.00 44 Construct PCC Busbay, Inc. CAB SF 1,592 $ 9.80 45 Plant 15 gallon trees EA 8 $ 500.00 46 Restore Landscaping and Irrigation LS 1 $ 2,500.00 47 Traffic Control LS I $ 1,500.00 Subtotal Plan 1616 Total Bid all Plan Sheets Bid Amount $ 500.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 10,936.80 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 29,296.80 Odginal Bid 364.00 680.00 1,168.75 400.00 2,000.00 1,347.50 3,400.00 4,775.00 5,601.60 4,000.00 2,500.00 1,500.00 $ 37,736.85 $ 105,485.95 $ 116,043.05 KAS Equipment & Rental Unit Bid Pdces Amount $ 250.00 $ 500.00 $ 1.25 $ 800.00 $ 8.50 $ 1,360.00 $ 2.25 $ 2,340.00 $ 12.50 $ 13,950.00 $ 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 28,328.75 1.25 $ 227.50 2.25 $ 382.50 5.25 $ 2,231.25 150.00 $ 300.00 150.00 $ 1,200.00 1.25 $ 962.50 8.50 $ 1,445.00 2.25 $ 2,148.75 12.50 $ 19,900.00 150.00 $ 1,200.00 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Odginal Bid $ 35,997.50 $ 128,466.00 $ 128,766.00 JDC, Inc. Unit Pdces 200.00 1.25 15.00 3.00 15.75 175.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 Bid Amount 400.00 800.00 2,400.00 3,120.00 17,577.00 350.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 $ 31,347.00 2.00 2.50 5.00 125.00 150.00 1.25 15.00 3.00 14.60 175.00 5,000.00 1,500.00 364.00 425.00 2,125.00 250.00 1,20~00 962:50 2,550:00 2,865.0O 23,243.2O 1,400.00 5,OOO.OO 1,500.00 $ 41,884.70 $ 132,634.65 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT October 20, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager, Jack Lam, AICP Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Dawn Haddon, Jr. Buyer APPROVAL TO DECLARE SURPLUS MISCELLANEOUS CITY- OWNED EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION That the City Council gives approval to surplus the City owned equipment on the attached listing, which is no longer needed, obsolete or unusable. BACKGROUND The City's purchasing manual identifies two major categories of surplus property: materials and supplies, and capital equipment. It is the policy of the City to request that the City Council provide authorization to the Purchasing Agent to dispose of City property by declaring such items surplus. Methods of disposition can be transferred to another department, trade-in, sale by bid or auction, sale as scrap, donation, or simply trashing. As the replacement of various pieces of equipment has occurred, the miscellaneous items listed are surplus to the City's need and should be disposed of. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Attachment (6) Surplus List ASSET # 0765 0963 0978 1156 1159 1251 1255 VIN i FTHF25MOJPA41777 2FAPP36X7KB 146211 1GNCTI 8ZOK8164163 1GNCS 18Z7M8131277 2FAPP36XXKB234167 l FMCU22X4MUC04740 1G 1JC54G5MJ 185073 ID 513 326 2O8 223 327 aa4 330 LICENSE 076003 208636 208567 289593 267260 286888 343003 MAKE Ford Ford Chevrolet Chevrolet Ford Ford Chevrolet MODEL F-250 Pickup Tempo B lazer Blazer Tempo Explorer Cavalier YEAR 1989 1989 1989 1991 1990 1991 1991 Panasonic VHS Recorder Sharp Copier Xerox Copier Model #NV9100 Model 7370 Model 5021 Asset tag # E-256 Serial # 46607098 Serial # OMW104894 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL FUND SURPLUSED HARDWARE PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SYSTEM DEPT. HARDWARE 1 COMPAQ MONITOR 2 COMPAQ CPU "~VlAL;IN I O~l--! ~1- 3 MONITOR SERIAL NO. 33442601U201 4032HAN20189 F8458em5011 4 APPLE COLOR MONITOR 5428160 5 APPLE COLOR MONITOR 7044283 6 TOSHIBA EXP. WRITER 7 MACINTOSH II 8 EPSON DX8000 9 HP ERGO MONITOR 10 APPLE DUO DOCK II 11 CALCOMP 2500 12 APPLE CD 600E 200810710 F1045LSJC53 OVZ0036472 KR43505208 TF35100W15H Fl1513 PA54958Y47Q 13 TEKTRONIX PHASER 240 JP5343Q 14 COMPUDYNE CPU 15 COMPUDYNE MONITOR 16 HP VECTRA CPU 17 HP MONITOR 18 COMPAQ MONITOR 19 COMPAQ CPU 286 20 HP VECTRA CPU 21 HP VECTRA CPU 22 HP VECTRA CPU CUE20017471 0261010035 US8201637 KR81862074 80414544A054 4816AM3B1312 3434A04029 3434A4203 US74602495 FIXED ASSET NO. BOX # 00691 01121 000193 000036 00676 01413 001151 01853 565 207 1349 3OO DATE: 10/13/99 COMMENTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL FUND SURPLUSED HARDWARE PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SYSTEM DEPT. 23 HP VECTRA CPU 24 MACHINTOSH IISI 25 MACINTOSH IISI 26 HP MONITOR 27 HP MONITOR US61952358 F1045LSKC53 F1157E0714 KR43808590 MY73150623 21939 DATE: 10/13/99 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL FUND SURPLUSED HARDWARE PREPARED BY: INFORMATION SYSTEM DEPT. HARDWARE 1 HP MONITOR 2 HP VECTRA 486 3 COMPAQ MONITOR 4 HP VECTRA 486 5 HP VECTRA 486 6 HP VECTRA 486 7 HP VECTRA 486 8 HP VECTRA 486 9 HP VECTRA 486 10 HP VECTRA 486 11 HP VECTRA 486 12 HP VECTRA 486 13 APPLE MONITOR 14 MAC II CPU 15 CANNON CPU 16 TOSHIBA 3N1 PRINTER 17 TOSHIBA 3N1 PRINTER 18 ZENITH DATA SYSTEM 19 APPLE MONITOR 20 APPLE LASER WRITER II 21 HP MONITOR FIXED ASSET SERIAL NO. NO. BOX # KR60188621 3424A0948 01314 02029816N597 3424A04954 3424A05868 01267 3424A04917 01319 3424A04855 01333 3424A05050 000114 3419A00349 01207 3424A04866 000140 3424A05671 3424A05005 01304 CY41049M1S2 F747677M5030 00551 805153 E-207 ZA16750 00509 ZY14514 8351225602 00526 5055644 CA043X2G%M6000 00848 KR42355295 1 DATE: 10/13/99 COMMENTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL FUND SURPLUSED HARDWARE PREPARED BY.' INFORMATION SYSTEM DEPT. 22 HP VECTRA 486 23 HP MONITOR 24 HP MONITOR 25 HP VECTRA 486 26 HP VECTRA 486 27 ARCUS MONITOR 28 HP MONITOR 29 HP MONITOR 30 HP MONITOR 31 HP MONITOR 32 MDI SCSI CDR4 33 CODEX MOTOROLA 3500 34 COMPAQ CPU 35 HP MONITOR 36 HP PRINTER LASER JET 37 HP MONITOR 38 HP VECTRA 486 39 HP VECTRA 40 HP VECTRA 41 BINARY CPU 42 COMPAQ CPU 43 HP LASER JET lid 44 HP VECTRA 3419A00335 01296 KR33813075 KR42355296 US55057248 02005 3424A04772 0324 167916788 KR33813092 KR54267199 KR60190461 KR42355177 H024589 9527298 A339HER31046 01158 KR42354991 3022J16447 00870 KR42051511 3424A04824 01247 US61952346 01438 US72707310 01666 926419 A339HER31375 01153 2830J10321 00694 US54852818 02003 DATE: 10/13/99 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL FUND SURPLUSED HARDWARE PREPARED BY.' INFORMATION SYSTEM DEPT. 45 COMPAQ CPU 46 DICONIX PRINTER 47 DICONIX PRINTER 48 KENTROX DATA SMART 49 50 51 52 4026HAN 10618 PAC6ZQI684 PAC6ZQI682 K0592972290 00857 53 DATE: 10/13/99 ~ H E C I T Y 0 F DATE: TO: BY: SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager James C. Frost, City Treasur ~,~ Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director APPROVAL TO ADOPT ANNUAL STATEMENT POLICY OF INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATION Annually the City Council reviews the Statement of Investment Policy. It is recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the attached Statement of Investment Policy for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a Statement of Investment Policy in July 1987. California Government Code, Section 53646, requires the City Treasurer to annually render to the City Council a Statement of Investment Policy, which shall be considered at a public meeting. Further, the City Council must also consider any modifications to the investment policy at a public meeting. Staff recommends the policy be amended and the following provisions added; Prudence/Evaluation of Investment Officer Actions, Ethics and Conflicts of Interest, and Investment Pools. The City's investment policy and practices are govemed by State law. The primary goal of the City's policy is to enhance the economic standards of the City, to protect its pooled assets and to invest public funds prudently. These funds are accounted for in the Rancho Cucamonga Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Council receives a monthly Portfolio Management Summary of investment earnings (please see attached investment policy for details). The City Treasurer and staff continue to monitor legislation, government code amendments, and practices pertaining to investing of public funds, and ensuring changes are reflected in the City's policy as required by local policy and state law. The City continues to maintain an investment strategy even more conservative than required under State law. Respectfully submitted, James~ City Treasurer JCF/LIT/sgr Attachments 15ADMIN~TREASURY~City Staff Report 99.doc -2- STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTRODUCTION The investment policy and practices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is based upon state law, prudent money management and the "prudent person" standards. This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's temporary idle cash, and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The primary goal of this policy is to enhance the economic status of the City by protecting its pooled cash and to invest public funds to: 1. Meet the daily cash flow needs of the City. 2. Comply with all laws of the State of California regarding investment of public funds. o Achieve a reasonable rate of return while minimizing the potential for capital losses arising from market changes or issuer default. SCOPE The investment policy applies to all investment activities of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. These funds are accounted for in the Rancho Cucamonga Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include: General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds, Trust and Agency Funds. Bond proceeds shall be invested in accordance with the requirements and restrictions outlined in bond documents as approved by the City Council. PRUDENCE/EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT OFFICER ACTIONS The actions of the City Treasurer and/or his appointed designee in the performance of their duties as managers of public funds shall be evaluated using the following "prudent person" standard applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio: Investments shall be made with judgement and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the professional management of their business affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. Rev: 10/99 Statement of Investment Policy Page 2 The City Treasurer and/or his appointed designee acting in accordance with the investment policy and the "prudent person" standard and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided that substantial deviations from expectations are reported in a timely manner and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments whenever possible. OBJECTIVE The City of Rancho Cucamonga operates its temporary pooled idle cash investment under the "Prudent Person" standard. This affords the City a broad spectrum of investment opportunities as long as the investment is deemed prudent and is allowable under current legislation of the State of California (Government Code Section 53600, et. seq.) and other legal restrictions as the City may impose from time to time. The objective of the investment portfolio is to meet the short and long term cash flow demands of the City. To achieve this objective, the portfolio will be structured to provide Safety of Principal and Liquidity, while then providing a reasonable return on investments. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES Security purchases and holdings will be maintained within statutory limits imposed by Government Code. City policy has been to limit investments more stringently than required under state law. Criteria for selecting investments and the order of priority are: Safety - The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of principal, interest, or combination thereof. The City only operates in those investments that are considered safe. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure that capital losses resulting from institution default, broker/dealer default, or the erosion of market value are avoided. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating the two types of risk: credit risk and market risk. Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be mitigated by investing in only high quality securities and by diversifying the investment portfolio so that the failure of any one issuer would not unduly harm City cash flow. Rev: 10/99 Statement of Investment Policy Page 3 Market risk, defined as the risk of market value fluctuations due to overall changes in the general level of interest rates, shall be mitigated by structuring the portfolio. It is explicitly recognized, however, that in a diversified portfolio, occasional measured loses may occur, and must be considered within the context of overall investment return. Liquidity - This refers to the ability to "cash in" at any moment in time with minimal chance of losing some portion of principal or interest. Liquidity is an important investment quality especially when the need for unexpected funds occasionally occurs. The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements which might be masonably anticipated. Yield - The City's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a reasonable market rate of return throughout economic cycles, as long as it does not diminish the objectives of Safety and Liquidity. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Treasurer/Deputy Treasurer and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officers shall disclose any material financial interest in financial institutions that conduct business within this jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City's portfolio, particularly with regard to the time of purchases and sales. The Treasurer/Deputy Treasurer or investment employees are required to file annual disclosure statements as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). AUTHORIZED BROKER/DEALERS The City will transact business only with approved investment securities broker/dealers that are approved as an authorized broker/dealer in compliance with the City selection process. The Treasurer shall request all broker/dealers which wish to do business with the City to provide proof of capitalization to meet the City's needs, and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in this Investment Policy. All broker/dealers who want to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must have offices in the State of California and provide a current audited financial statement and complete the appropriate City Broker Dealer Questionnaire and Certification. The Treasurer will maintain a list of approved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness who are authorized to provide investment services to the City. Rev: 10/99 Statement of Investment Policy Page 4 The City shall at least annually send a copy of the current investment policy to authorized broker/dealers approved to do business with the City. Confirmation of receipt of this policy shall be considered evidence that the broker/dealer has read and understands the City' s investment policy and will recommend and execute only transactions suitable for and in compliance with the City's investment policy. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS The City is authorized by California Government Code Section 53600, et. seq. to invest in specific types of securities. The City has further limited the types of securities in which it may invest. Any security not listed is not a valid investment for the City. The concise list of approved securities is as follows: MAXIMUM INVESTMENTS/DEPOSITS PERCENTAGES MATURITY (See Government Code Section 53601) Securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies Unlimited Certificates of Deposit (or Time Deposits) Unlimited (placed with commercial banks and/or savings and loan companies) Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Banker's Acceptances 40% Commercial Paper 30% 5 years* 5 years* 5 years* 270 days 180 days (Must be of "prime" quality of the highest rating or of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided for by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Standard and Poor's Corporation. "A " or higher rating i.e. AI/P1) Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits 30 MM** n/a Deposit of Funds (See Government Code - n/a Section 53630 - Ref. C) Repurchase Agreements (Repos) 20% 1 year The market value of the securities that underlay the repurchase agreement must be valued at 102% or greater of the funds borrowed against the securities and the value must be adjusted no less than quarterly. INVESTMENT POOLS The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is a voluntary investment alternative for California's local governments and special districts authorized by the California Government Code. LAIF is managed by the State Treasurer's Office with oversight by the Local Agency Investment Advisory Board. Rev: 10/99 Statement of Investment Policy Page 5 The City's participation in LAIF was approved by City Council with other authorized investments on July, 1997. It is a permitted investment with the knowledge that the fund may invest in some vehicles allowed by statute but not otherwise authorized under the City's authorized investments. All securities in LAIF are purchased under the authority of Government Code Sections 16430 and 16480. All investments are purchased at market, and market valuation is conducted monthly. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES Securities purchased from broker/dealers shall be held by third party bank or other designated third party trust department acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and City. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery-versus- payment (DVP) procedures. Certificate of Deposit securities are held in the City's vault. No outside broker/dealer or advisor may have access to City funds, accounts or investments, and any transfer of funds to or through an outside broker/dealer must be approved by the City Treasurer/Deputy Treasurer. The City strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100% as possible, through daily and projected cash flow determinations. Idle cash management and investment transactions are the responsibility of the City Treasurer and/or his appointed designee. DIVERSIFICATION The City will diversify its investments by security type, issuers, and maturities. The purpose of diversifying is to reduce overall portfolio risks while attaining an average market rate of return; therefore, it needs to be conceptualized in terms of maturity, instrument types and issuer. REPORTING Pursuant to Section 53464 (b) of the Government Code, the Treasurer shall render a quarterly report to the City Council and City Manager, containing detailed information on all securities, investments, and moneys of the City. The report must be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. This report shall include the following: The type of investment, name of the issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested in all securities. Rev: 10/99 Statement of Investment Policy Page 6 The weighted average maturity of the investments. Any funds, investments, or programs including loans that are under the management of contracted parties. The current market value and source of the valuation. A description of the compliance with the Statement of Investment Policy. A statement of the City's ability to meet its pooled expenditure requirements for the next six months or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may not be available. The City Treasurer shall report whatever additional information or data may be required by the City Council. The City Council may elect to require the report to be made monthly instead of quarterly. The City Treasurer shall be responsible for reviewing and modifying investment guidelines as conditions warrant and is required to submit same for re-approval to the City Council annually. However, the City Treasurer may, at any time, further restrict the items approved for purchase as deemed appropriate. The basic premise underlying the City's investment philosophy is, and will continue to be, to ensure that money is always safe and available when needed. *Maximum term unless expressly authorized by Governing Body and within the prescribed time frame for said approval. **Limit set by L.A.I.F. Governing Board, not Government Code. City of Rancho Cucamonga Date I:\ADM IN~S ANDY~TREASURY~INVPO98,WPD Rev: 10/99 GLOSSARY ACCRUED INTEREST: The accrued interest accumulated on a security since the issue date or the last coupon payment. The buyer of the security pays the market price plus accrued interest. AGENCIES: Federal agency securities. ASK/OFFER: The price at which an owner offers to sell. BANKERS' ACCEPTANCE (BA): A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company. The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as, the issuer. BASIS POINT: 1/100 of 1% BID: The price offered by a buyer of securities. (When you are selling securities, you ask for a bid). See Offer. BEAR MARKET: A period of generally pessimistic attitudes and declining market prices. BOOK VALUE: The amount at which a security is carried on the books of the holder or issuer. BOND EQUIVALENT YIELD: The basis on which yields on notes and bonds are · quoted. BROKER: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission. BULL MARKET: optimistic attitudes prices. A period of generally and increasing market BUYER'S MARKET: A market where supply is greater than demand, giving buyers an advantage in purchase price and terms. CALLABLES-N/C: Securities that the issuer has the right to redeem prior to maturity. CASH SETTLEMENTS: Today. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Large denomination CD's are typically negotiable. CMT: Constant Maturity Treasury. COLLATERAL: Securities, evidence of deposit or other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies. COMMERCIAL PAPER: Short-term, unsecured, negotiable promissory notes issued by businesses. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR): The official annual report for the It includes five combined statements for each individual fund and account group prepared in conformity with Government Accounting Accepted Practices (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section. City of Rancho Cucamonga COUPON: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond's issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond's face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date. COVER: Spread between the winning bid (or offer) and the next highest bid (or offer). CREDIT RISK: Credit of the underlying security. CUSIP: Committee of Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. DEALER: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account or inventory. DEBENTURE: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer. DELIVERY VERSUS PAYMENT: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of signed receipt for the securities. DERIVATIVES: Financial products that are dependent for their value on (or "derived" from) an underlying financial instrument, a commodity, or an index representing values of groups of such instruments or assets. DISCOUNT: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale is considered to be at a discount. DISCOUNT SECURITIES: Non-interest bearing money market instruments that are issued at discount and redeemed at maturity for full face value, e.g.U.S. Treasury Bills. DIVERSIFICATION: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns. EASE: To assist the economy in growing faster, Fed supplies more credit, lowering reserve requirements or discount rates. EXTENSION TRADES: Selling short term, buying further out in the yield curve. (usually affected in a bull market) FACE VALUE: The principal amount owed on a debt instrument. It is the amount on which interest is computed and represents the amount that the issuer promises to pay at maturity. FEDERAL CREDIT AGENCIES: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g., S & L's small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exports. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $100,000 per deposit. FEDERAL FUNDS RATE: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations. City of Rancho Cucamonga FEDERAI, HOME LOAN BANKS (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLBS is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA or Fannie Mae): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation's purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages. FNMA's securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system. FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve Bank Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money. FRN: Floating Rate Note. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT: The unconditional guarantee of the United States Government backing a debt for repayment. GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA, or FMHM mortgages. The term "passthroughs" is often used to describe Ginnie Maes. INTEREST RATE RISK: The risk that rising interest rates will cause bond prices to fall. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO: A collection of securities held by a bank, individual, institution or government agency for investment purposes. INVESTOR: A person who purchases securities with the intention of holding them to make a profit. ISSUE: A group of identical securities or the marketing and selling of such securities. ISSUE PRICE: The price at which a new issue of securities is put on the market. LIQUIDITY: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. City of Rancho Cucamonga LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are placed in the custody of the State Treasurer for investment and reinvestment. LOCAL: Refers to the ability to sell securities one owns. LIBID: London Interbank bid rate. LIBOR: London Interbank offered rate. MARKET VALUE: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold. NONCALLABLE: Security that does not contain a call provision. OFFER: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See Asked and Bid. OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS: Federal reserve activity, Fed entering the market place to initiate repos, reverses, bill or coupon pass. Under the Federal Reserve Act., Fed uses purchases and sales of Govt. & Fed Agency securities to add to or subtract from commercial bank reserves. Goals are to sustain economic growth, high employment and reasonable price stability. MARK TO MARKET: Current value of securities at today's market price. OPTION: The right to trade a security during a certain period of time. MARKET RISK: The risk that the security will be difficult to sell. MASTER REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party's rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyer-lender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller-borrower. MATURITY: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable. MONEY MARKET INSTRUMENTS: Private and government obligations of one year or less (flexible in some arenas; under five years would still be considered a money market). ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT/OID: Security priced at a discount at time of issuance. OVERBOUGHT: Refers to the price level of a security or market which has undergone a sharp rise due to vigorous buying. OVERSOLD: Refers to the price level of a security or market which has undergone a sharp fall due to selling. These conditions indicate that buying/selling may have left prices temporarily too high/low, given all other market conditions. PAPER GAIN OR LOSS: Term used for unrealized gain or loss on securities being held in a portfolio based on comparison of current market quotes and their original cost. This situation exists as long as the security is held while there is a difference between market value and the purchase price. MTN: Medium Term Note. NEW ISSUE: The first offering of a security. City of Rancho Cucamonga PAR VALUE: The stated or face value of a security expressed as a specific dollar amount marked on the face of the security; the amount of money due at maturity ....not to be confused with market value. PAYDOWN: A net reduction in debt that occurs when the amount of a new issue is less than the maturing issue. PREMIUM: The amount by which the price paid for a security exceeds the par value. Also, the amount that must be paid over the par value to call an issue before maturity. PRICE RISK: Volatility. PRIMARY DEALER: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers include Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms. PRIMARY MARKET: The demand for first issues of securities. PRUDENT PERSON RULE: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state--the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security. if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital. QUALIFIED PUBLIC DEPOSITORIES: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the Public Deposit Protection Commission to hold public deposits. RALLY: A brisk rise or recovery in the price of a security or the market. RATE OF RETURN: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond; the current income return. RATING: The designation used by investor's services to rate the quality of a security's creditworthiness. REGULAR: Next business day. REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: Repo - a holder of securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security "buyer" in effect lends the "seller" money for the period of the agreement, and the terms are structured to compensate him for this. When the FED does R.P., it is lending money, thus increasing bank reserves. RICH/EXPENSIVE TO THE YIELD CURVE: An expression applied to a security price when current market quotes appear to be in comparison with past price records of securities or current prices of comparable securities. ROLL OVER: Reinvesting funds received from a mature security in a new issue of the same or similar security. City of Rancho Cucamonga SAFEKEEPING: A service banks offer to customers for a fee, where securities are held in the bank's vaults for protection. SALLIE MAE: Trade name for the Student Loan Marketing Association. SECONDARY MARKET: 1) A market for the repurchase and resale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution. 2) The purchase or sale of securities in a special offering or through a means other than the regular channel of trading. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation. SEC RULE 153C-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule. SHORT/SELL SHORT: Sale of securities without ownership. SKIP DAY: Next business day after tomorrow. SPREAD: Difference between the bid and the ask, or offer. STRUCTURED NOTES: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve. SUPPORT: A price level at which a security tends to stop falling because there is more demand than supply. TIGHTEN: If the economy is growing too fast, and inflation is increasing, FED withdraws money from the banking system, by raising reserves or the discount rate. Ultimately, putting the brakes on economic growth. TREASURY BILLS: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year. TREASURY BOND: Long-term coupon bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligation of the U.S. Government having initial maturities of more than 10 years. TREASURY NOTES: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to 10 years. UNIFORM NET CAPITAL RULE: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio. Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among members of underwriting sypdicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash. VALUE OF 1/32 PER MILLION: $312.50 City of Rancho Cucamonga WI-IEN ISSUED BASIS-WIB-WI: A term applied to securities that are traded before they are actually issued, with the stipulation that transactions are null and void if securities are not issued. YIELD: The annual rate of return on an investment expressed as a percentage of the investment. Income yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. YIELD CURVE: Yield calculations of various maturities at a given time to observe spread differences. YIELD TO MATURITY/NET YIELD: The current income yield minus any premium above par, or plus any discount from par in the purchase price with the adjustment spread over the period from date of purchase to maturity. I:SANDY~TREASURY\GLOSSARY98 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Jeff Barnes, Parks and Landscape Maintenance Superintendent APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR INSTALLATION OF PARK WALKWAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK TO BE FUNDED FROM FUND 20. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve plans and specifications for Installation of Park Walkway Lighting in Church Street Park and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Church Street Park is the last of the older city parks without walkway lighting. Church Street Park currently has building-mounted security lights only. Last fiscal year, Council authorized security lighting upgrades to Windrows Park and the adjoining paseos. Staff has developed plans and specifications for the Church Street Park walkway lighting upgrades and is now ready to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:ju A~achment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF PARK WALKWAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council to maintain buildings in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council has prepared specifications for the maintenance of buildings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the" INSTALLATION OF PARK WALKWAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council will receive at the OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN THE OFFICES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ON OR BEFORE THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 10, 1999, sealed bids or proposals for the "INSTALLATION OF PARK WALKWAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Califomia, marked, "INSTALLATION OF PARK WALKWAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK". A Pre-Bid Job Walk is scheduled for Monday, November 8, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at Church Street Park, 10190 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, 91730, where bidders may present questions regarding the Bid Documents: Proposals and Specifications. RESOLUTION NO. October 20, 1999 Page 2 PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provision of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: 1.When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or 2.When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or 3.When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or 4.When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. RESOLUTION NO. October 20, 1999 Page 3 The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees RESOLUTION NO. October 20, 1999 Page 4 upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered fi'om a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including but not limited to a Class "A" or Class "C-10" (Electrical, General) license in accordance with the provisions of the Contraetor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) And rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the uCalifomia Business and Professions Code", Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number if required, on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non- reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). RESOLUTION NO. October 20, 1999 Page 5 The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for INSTALLATION WALKWAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK may be directed to: Jeff Barnes, Parks and Landscape Superintendent 9153 Ninth Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 484-2637 at extension 328 or FAX (909) 9894131 By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 20th day of October 1999. ADVERTISE ON: October 26, 1999 and November 2, 1999 OF PARK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15970, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PEPPERIDGE COURT AND WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY REINY SCHNEIDER RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract Map Number 15970, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map No. 15970, located on the north side of Pepperidge Court west of Hellman Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999, for a residential subdivision division of five single family lots on 9.96 acres of land in the Low Residential District. The Developer, Reiny Schneider, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond Labor and Material Bond: Monumentation Bond $15,000 $ 7,500 $ 2,650 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from Cucamonga County Water District. C.C. & R.'s have also been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectively submitted, Wlffiam J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:HM:sd Attachments RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 15970 AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 15970, submitted by Reiny Schneider, located on the north side of Pepperidge Court, west of Hellman Avenue, being a division of five single- family lots on 1.96 acres of land in the Residential District, was approved by the Planning Commision of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on April 28, 1999, and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 15970 is the final 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 of said Tract by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Reiny Schneider, as developer. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and said Tentative Tract Map No. 15798 be and the same is hereby approved, and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT MAP NUMBER 15970 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENT AND WAIVER TO ANNEXATION FOR TRACT 15970 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WILLIAM J. O'NEIL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows: That I am the duly CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. That on the 14th day of October, 1999, I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexation pertaining to the annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District. That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22608.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. EXECUTED this 14th day of October, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY ENGIN(EE//R CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXIIIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: TRACT 15970 STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF LAMPS Dist. S1 S2 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L1 Tuff Non-Tuff S.F. S.F. Trees Ea. 10 * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: DU or Parcel Acres N/A 5 Assessment Units By District S1 S2 L1 5 Annexation Date: October 20, 1999 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 14, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager William J. O~Neil, City Engineer Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, SUBMITTED BY MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving and accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-13, located at the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and Church Street in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission of September 9, 1998 for the construction of a 135-unit, three-story senior assisted living facility. The Developer, Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc., is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts. Faithful Performance Bond: Labor and Material Bond: $13,000.00 $ 6,500.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O~leil City Engineer WJO: PV:dlw Attachments PM 11030 FOOTHILL 8LVO II VICINITY MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION CUP 98- IS' ~TAFF REPORT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-13 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as Conditional Use Permit No. 98-13; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO S. 1 AND 4 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-13 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 4, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional ten/tory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the propemy described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENT AND WAIVER TO ANNEXATION FOR C.U.P. 98-13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WILLIAM J. O~q'glL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows: That I am the duly CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. That on the 13th day of October, 1999, I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexation pertaining to the annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District. That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22608.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. EXECUTED this 13th day of October, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, Caiifomia. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE' DISTRICT NO. 4 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 4 ~ ~ "~. !. 1o~ . ~ ~ ,' ,' _~1/ / , -u~ ~~Z- ,'- ~~b~/~'' .-/~.,~, ".i ~ ~'- ,'~-~ ~"~ L~" /~-//~7 ~ / ! ~ / . ~--Z '/~/sc~L~: ,':~oo' o ) ~/~~, / ~-' ~. ~T~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~-~i ' . . , ' ~ C~ ~'10' ~.~' ~14.47' ~ ~'~' 24.~' ~.7~' NO. BE, V6NG DISTANCE L1 Sag'52'40'v/ 40.00' 1.2 S0~'0720"E 92.94' L~ . S25'02'46'W; 34.16' LEGEND --- o ---- ~,- - Area of parkway trees, landscape, and streetlights --,-- ~ ~ Existing landscaped medians Description: Parc=l "A", as described in the Certificate of Complianco No. 428, a lot !inc adjustment, recorded as Document No. 19990114777 on 03/23/99 in Official Records, County of San Bernardino, State of California .-. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN,.Ocu;, STATE OF CALIFORNIA r:xm.,cc EXItlBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-13 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 -- S4 -- NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L * 3 * 2 .... LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L4 -- Turf Non-Turf S.F. S.F. -- * 21.500 * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S1 S4 L4 1 5 10 10 10 Trees Ea. 17 *53 Annexation Date: October 20, 1999 Form Date 11/16/94 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6, FOR CUP 97-03, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB, SUBMITTED BY RALPH OLIVAS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the annexation of certain territory to Landscape Maintenance District 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, for CUP 97-03. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-03, generally located at the southwest comer of San Bernardino Road and Red Hill Country Club, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 9, 1997, for a request to construct 7011 square feet of Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses on 1.13 acres of land in subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in the Medium Residential District. The City Council approved the improvement agreement and improvement security on September 15, 1999. Respectfully submitted, WilI~am J. O~qeil City Engineer WJO:HM:sd Attachment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 97-03 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance d~stnct pursuant to the terms of the Landscaping and Lighting A.ct of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, stud special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. I:.XHIIzll I A N PItOI'OSED SITE ~.~ BERNARDINO .... ...-, ,,. . ~ ........ "~. ,.'~" l" I I %, ,® ® ,,~. . :-' P.&~HE~!A · .,/..,CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOHGA ... ~..."~.~ . ':~/.. ?~ ~ou.~., o~ ~,,. .~~.,:~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~? CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENT AND WAIVER TO ANNEXATION FOR CUP 97-03 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WILLIAM J. O'NEIL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows: That I am the duly CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. That on the 14th day of October, 1999, I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexation pertaining to the annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District. That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22608.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. EXECUTED this 14th day of October, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: CUP 97-03 STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF LAMPS Dist. 5800L 9500L S1 2 S6 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L3B Turf S.F. * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S1 S2 L3B 1.13 1.13 1.13 Non-Turf S.F. Trees Ea. 11 Annexation Date: October 20, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: By: SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 Mayor, City Council, City Manager Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Robert Bowery, Info Systems Manager AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF CISCO NETWORK ROUTERS AND ADTRAN CSU/TSU EQUIPMENT TO PROVIDE VOICE AND DATA CONNECTION TO REMOTE SITES, FROM GTE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,400 FROM ACCOUNT 01-4161-3900 IN APPROVED FY 1999/2000 BUDGET. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the purchase of Cisco network routers and Adtan csu/dsu equipment to provide voice and data connection to remote sites, from GTE, in the amount of $80,400 from account 01-4161-3900 in approved FY 1999/2000 budget. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In the FY 1999/2000 Budget, City Council approved the installation of a citywide Telephone system to carry voice communications to all city facilities. This system uses dedicated (T1) telephone lines to each location. The T 1 line has the capability of carrying both voice and data communications over one line. By utilizing the same line for both voice and data the city will no longer require the existing data communication line and will reduce the cost of this service by $30,000 annually. The Information Systems Division solicited GTE for the assistance in developing a combined voice and data connection using the dedicated (T 1) line. The equipment needed to converge both voice and data is manufactured by Cisco Systems and Adtran inc. and GTE will install the equipment. Respectfully submitted. Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director ORDINANCE NO. 609 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-03, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A SECTION TO CHAPTER 17.26, ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. A. RECITALS. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is a partner in the 800 MHz radio system operated by the West End Communication Authority that provides essential public safety communications during or after emergencies or natural disasters. The West End Communication Authority has requested participating cities to incorporate language into the permitting process to ensure that wireless communication networks within the City would not interfere with the 800 MHz radio system. The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on July 28, 1999, as required by law, with respect to adoption of this Ordinance and following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No.99-76 and has recommended adoption of this Ordinance as set forth below. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 1999, as required by law, with respect to adoption of this Ordinance. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred. ORDINANCE, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061, (b)(3) of Chapter 3 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Ordinance 609 Page 2 SECTION 3: The modifications to Title 17, as set forth herein, are in conformance with the City's General Plan. SECTION 4: Section 17.26.075 is hereby added to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: 17.26.075- Performance Standards No wireless communication facility shall interfere with the public safety radio communications system, including, but not limited to, the 800 MHz trunking system. If such facility is found to interfere with the public safety radio system, it shall immediately cease operations until such time as the problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk 7/ Ordinance 610 Page 3 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 15th day of September, 1999, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 20th day of October, 1999. Executed this 21st day of October, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk RANC HO PLANNING C U C A M O N G A DEPArTmENT Staff DATE: October 20, 1999 TO: Mayor andMembers of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The appeal of the design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tentative Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 though 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 though 16. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals filed in opposition to the project and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving the development review application. BACKGROUND The subdivision of Tentative Tract 13316 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1987, and the final map was recorded to create legal lots on June 4, 1990. The Planning Commission approved a Development Review for a site grading concept on July 6,1995, and that approval has since expired. Barraft American filed the current Development Review application on April 29, 1998, and has since that time, worked diligently with the City to resolve a variety of site design and environmental issues. Barraft conducted a neighborhood meeting in May of 1999, inviting all surrounding property owners within 600 feet of the site. Barratt showed the Site Plan, Grading Plan, and Elevations to the neighbors. Major concerns included view blockage (addressed by sensitive plotting of two-story homes and terraced grading scheme), dust control, and drainage. The Planning Commission held public hearings for the project on June 9, July 14, and July 28, 1999. On September 8, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 98-10 for the development of the 123 lots within Tentative Tract 13316. A chronology of events related to this project is part of the July 28, 1999, staff report to the Planning Commission (attached). CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN October 20, 1999 Page 2 Following Planning Commission approval of Development Review 98-10, two separate appeals were filed contesting the project approval. The first appeal was filed by Cindy Shannon, a resident on Hidden Farm Road, west of the project site. The second appeal was filed by Matthew Rees, who resides south of the project site on London Avenue. ANALYSIS Cindy Shannon poses the following points in her appeal: Opposed to the "continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald Avenue for child safety reasons." Response: The Final Tract Map, which included street alignment, was recorded in 1990. Therefore, the issue of street alignment has already been resolved and is not part of Barratt's application nor was it included in the Planning Commission approval. Ms. Shannon is therefore appealing an aspect not included in the Planning Commission's decision. For public safety reasons, City policy requires that streets intersecting with residential major streets and collector streets, like Archibald Avenue, align to minimize conflicts between left turning traffic. Furthermore, by Ms. Shannon's rather accurate observation to the Planning Commission, Hidden Farm Road on the west side of Archibald is a cul-de-sac, it does not go anywhere and will not therefore function as a through street connection between the Barratt project and any other destination. Traffic on the existing portion of Hidden Farm Road will not increase as a result of the Barraft project. Objects to "the deviation from the original single story home plan and the proposed grading done by Barraft American, which deviates from the previously approved project" and requests that 'the new housing be one-story only homes and/or fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance." Response: The Planning Commission determined that the project is in conformance with all applicable sections of the Development Code, including Hillside Development Standards. The homes are designed within a maximum 30- foot high building envelope, and the terrain is proposed to be graded with variable, undulating slopes, consistent with Hillside standards. The previous Development Review approval was for a grading concept for single-story homes only; however, did not include home design. A condition of approval required a new Development Review application for any changes in the home product. The previous Development Review approval expired and no longer has bearing on the site. Two-story homes are common to the surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant's project includes two-story homes and the applicant has filed a new Development Review application accordingly. In fact, Barratt's grading design is based upon the previously approved grading scheme. The only deviation involves enhancements to the grading design such as terraced retaining walls to reduce slope area consistent with objectives of the Hillside Development Standards. A Pre- Application Review workshop was held by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1998, and it was determined that two-story homes would be appropriate so long as CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN October 20, 1999 Page 3 they are sensitively planned. The applicant has plotted two-story homes in such a way as to minimize view blockage to existing homes. Ms. Shannon is concerned about "the three exits proposed on Archibald Avenue, with only one exit on Hermosa Avenue that mentions impact on emergency access." Response: As noted above, the street alignment has already been approved and recorded with the Final Tract Map and is not part of the current project. City policy requires two means of access for residential tracts. The street layout and alignment for the tract are in conformance with City policy. 4. Ms. Shannon is concerned for "the local wildlife." Response: Planning Division staff and Barraft American have worked diligently to assess any potential environmental impacts associated with the project. Biological assessments and protocol surveys have been prepared in accordance with State and federal guidelines. The site does contain a small amount of Coastal Sage Scrub, a plant community known to be diminished by development pressures and which supports some endangered or threatened species such as the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher. The biological studies concluded that the site does not contain any threatened or endangered species. The Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval which requires the applicant to mitigate the removal of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat by purchasing land in a mitigation bank. All evidence of record cleady indicates that the project will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. Matthew Rees resides south of the Barratt site and has concerns related to off-site drainage improvements associated with the project, (see Exhibit "B"). A City drainage easement exists through a ravine, which is a natural drainage course that crosses through the back of Mr. Rees's property, to accommodate drainage. Mr. Rees makes eleven unsubstantiated claims regarding the drainage easement such as, "a drainage easement does not permit the City to build a flood control project in my backyard" and, "the proposed project's drainage plan constitutes an immediate threat to the health and safety of the residents residing on my property." The City Attorney has responded to these items in detail, (see Exhibit "C"). Response: Drainage is not part of this development/design review application before the City Council. Tentative Tract 13316 was approved in 1987 with conditions of approval, which include constructing a debris basin, storm drain system, and overflow protection for Lots 9 and 10, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. During the review process for the design of these drainage facilities, vadous property owners to the south voiced concerns regarding the portion of the facility, which extends 107 feet south of the south tract boundary, within a City drainage easement dedicated to Tract 9590. Staff met with these property owners, discussed several options and concluded that while the outlet channel could be extended further south, there was little additional benefit and the developer had met all the requirements of the tentative map. With a time extension in 1989, the Planning Commission directed that the channel be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN October 20, 1999 Page 4 Drainage design was concluded and the map recorded in 1990. In a 100-year storm, the debris basin will direct about 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) into a storm drain, which will outlet into an open channel between Lots 9 and 10. Site flows will bring the total outflow to about 380 cfs. The channel has been designed with energy dissipaters and a stilling pond to reduce outlet velocities. Even if the storm drain were extended or relocated, a channel would still be needed to accommodate the emergency spillway for the debris basin. CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the project site. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bulle~ City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Letter of Appeal, dated September 9, 1999 Exhibit "B" - Letter of Appeal, dated September 20, 1999 Exhibit "C" - City Attorney Response Letter to Matt Rees Exhibit "D"- Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 8, 1999 Exhibit "E" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-88 Exhibit "F"- Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 8, 1999 Exhibit "G"-Transcript of Planning Commission meeting, September 8, 1999 Resolution of Denial To: City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear City Clerk, September 9, 1999 I am requesting an appeal to the city council regarding the planning commission's approval for the development at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I addressed the planning commission, at the planning commission meeting on June 9th and Sept. 8, 1999. The reasons for this appeal include a petition signed by 23 residents. The petition opposes the con- tinuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald into the new Barratt Development for child safety reasons. The petition also requests the new housing be one story only homes and/or fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. I also object to the devia- tion from the original single story home plan and the proposed grading to be done by Barratt American, which deviates from the previously approved project. Also of concern are the 3 exits proposed on Archibald, with only 1 exit on Hermosa that mentions impact on emergency access, and a concern for the local wildlife. Enclosed is a check for the appropriate filing fee. If there is anything further I should know, I can be reached at (909) 594-5611 ext. 4551. ncerely, · Cindy Shannon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner RECEtVEO 9587 Arrow Route, Ste. "D" Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 The Law Office of Matthew Dee Rees Attorney at law (909) 945-2225 Telephone (909) 945-2227 Fax September 20, 1999 Rancho Cucamonga City Council The Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 BY BARRATT AMERICAN: TRACT 13316 Notice is Hereby Given, that Matthew Dee Rees, resident at 5217 London Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby appeals the September 8, 1999 decision of the Planning Commission approving Development Review 98-10 submitted by Barrett American in re Tract 13316, on the following grounds: 1. The project will overburden the drainage easement across my property. 2. A drainage easement does not permit the City to build a flood control project in my backyard. 3. Barrett and the City cannot plan and build a project to collect all the drainage across the entire hill above my house and direct it into my backyard. 4. The proposed project's drainage plan constitutes an immediate threat to the health and safety of the residents residing on my property. 5. The project will dramatically increase the risk of flooding and erosion on my property. 6. The project will dramatically increase the depositing of waste, offal and debris from throughout the Barrett project into my backyard. 7. The project will require the construction of a buried pipeline, 5 to 6 feet in diameter!!, terminating in Diana Santini's backyard, the yard immediately above my property, which will then require an unknown amount of construction in her backyard and possibly mine, laying cement, boulders, quarter ton "rip-rap", fences and other possible maintenance facilities. This will destroy our backyards, create an eyesore, and present an attractive nuisance to the local children to climb over this fence and investigate the project, requiring the immediate landowners to police the project on behalf of the City as well. This is unconscionable. 8. Nobody has yet bothered to show this landowner a picture of the proposed project upon completion. 9. The project fully destroys the natural drainage across the hillside. 10. No explanation has been given as to why the Barrett portion of the project is buried (and constitutes no flooding threat) and why our portion of the project is an open gaping eyesore which were it to be buried would suddenly present an increase threat for flooding. This is ridiculous. The whole length of the drainage easement should be buried down to the next catch basin, 1/8 mile, and buried in gravel matrix to permit maximum permeability in the event the pipeline were ever unable to accommodate the entire flow of water upon presentation. 10. Upper easement holders are required to be reasonable at all times, and not overburden the lower easement holders; this project and the proposed scope of this project is unreasonable, and the attitude of the City thus far has been to ignore the landowners being burdened and to otherwise advise us to stay out of your way, i.e. don't interfere with your proposed use of ~your" easement. It's time the City gets a little more reasonable. In reviewing the water law pertaining to this situation, it is apparent some confusion exists as to the nature of this "drainage", however, it is not a watercourse, it is not a stream, and this property is not subject to flooding. Should flooding now occur on my property, with the concomitant flooding, it would be because this City brought the flood to my property, and I predict that day will occur if this project. is built as proposed. This City is incorporating my property into something much larger, a regional flood control project, which is something far different than the natural drainage easement dedicated to the City in this case. This project requires changes and modifications, and if they do not occur this City will be liable for the damage. M_ a.tt e~iee~s' ~ 1 o , Attorney%at Law and Objecting Local Resident Legal Authorities: (Drainage Easements) 1 Albers rs. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250 2 Inns rs. San Juan U.S.D. (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 174 3 Frustruck rs. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 Burrows rs. State of California (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 29 5 Sheffet rs. County of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 720 6 Weaver rs. Bishop (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 7 Yue vs. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751 8 Belair rs. Riverside County Flood Control District (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550 9. Locklin vs. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 367 LAW OFFICE OF 4974 MA'R'HEW DEE REES 9587 ARROW RT STE D , ,,-,~ .~./.\~ ~':,~t'iC '~ ~ -' ,~..~) - ~:~ ~ 16-66/1220 · ~L RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA '91730' ' pt ~'~"~ (~.E~I~'% 207 ~1!1t v Bank of America STEVEN R ORR MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO B, TILDEN KIM K~YSER O. SUME BRENDA L. DIEDERICH$ JAM~ L MARKMAN RUBIN D. WEINER RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A"I-rORNEYS AT LAW THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469 (213) 626-8484 FACSIMILE (213) 626-0078 October 13, 1999 RICHARD RICHARDS (1916-1988} BAN FRANCISCO OFFICE SUITE 960 FORTY-FOUR MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4611 (415) 421-8484 FACSIMILE (415) 421-8486 ORANGE COUN'T~ OFFICE NUMBER ONE CiViC CENTER CIRCLE 8RE. A, CALJFORNtA 92821 (714) 99o-O9Ol FACSIMILE (714) E~-6230 OF COUNSEL VVlLLJAM ~. K]:a. AMER ] 684080. ] OUR FILE NUMBER 11231-00001 Michael Dee R~es, Esq. 9587 Arrow Route, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Reference: Additional Responses to Your Correspondence and Questions Regarding the City's Proposed Use of Drainage Easement in Connection with Development Review 98-10 (Barratt American, Tract 13316) Dear Mr. Rees: This letter provides additional responses to issues you raised about the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission's approval of Development Review 98-10 (Barratt American). Your particular concerns relate to the City's proposed use of the drainage easement across your property at 5217 London Avenue in connection with the development of the Barratt American tract located to the north of your property. By our prior letter to you dated August 23, 1999, we responded to your earlier letter on this subject of July 28, 1999. In a telephone call to me on September 17, 1999 and then in your appeal letter dated September 20, 1999, you reiterated your concerns and asked several questions. This letter responds to those issues not previously addressed in our earlier letter to you and reiterates a few points already made. A. City's Acceptance of Dedication of Drainage Easement. You mentioned that the City had initially rejected an offer of dedication for the drainage easement across your property when the City approved the final map for the subdivision in which your lot is located (Tract No. 9590). You therefore questioned the City's authority to later accept the dedication without a renewal of the offer of dedication. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66477.1 and by notation on Final Map 9590, the City rejected the offer to dedicate the drainage easement that crosses your property. However, pursuant to Government Code Section 66477.2, rejected offers of dedication remain open and RICHARDS, WATSON & GiERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. October 13, 1999 Page 2 the City may by resolution and without further action by the subdivider accept the dedication. See also Galeb v. Cupertino Sanitary Dist., 227 Cal. App.2d 294, 301-302 (1964) (reversing judgment for property owner, held an initial rejection of an offer of dedication, subsequently accepted as confirmed in a formal resolution, vests the Sanitary District with the right to use the easement: "The supervisors' previous rejection of [plaintiff's] offer of dedication does not render this resolution ineffective. The provisions of the Subdivision Map Act clearly indicate that such a rejection is not final, that the offers remain open, and the board is authorized to accept them at any later date." (emphasis added) In accordance with Section 66477.2, the City accepted the offer of dedication on February 15, 1989 by Resolution No. 89-066. A copy of that Rdsoluti0.n was recorded in the official records of the County Recorder as Document No. 89-098461 (Ma~ch 20, 1989). A copy of the recorded version of that resolution is attached to this letter for your information. Based on these state law provisions and Resolution No. 89-066, the City obtained and holds a valid easement for drainage purposes across your property. You referred to MikeIs v. Rager, 232 Cal. App.3d 334 (1991), in connection with your assertion that the City did not have a valid dr'ainage easement by virtue of its earlier rejection of the offer of dedication. The Mikels case does not support your position. That case involved an appeal of grant of summary judgment in favor of property owners who claimed that they were the legal owners of an easement by implication over their neighbors' property, or that the contested property was subject to a public easement for a street because of an offer of dedication on a parcel map that was accepted subject to improvements that were never made. There was no resolution accepting the contested property into its system of streets and no recorded document of any kind granting or reserving an easement over the disputed property in favor of the owners or the public. Id. at 352-353. Likewise, the Parcel Map did not depict any private easement for streets. Id. The only easements were for utilities and drainage. Id. at 348. The city's "acceptance" of the offer of dedication was by an approval and acceptance certificate by the county surveyor, found on sheet one of the Parcel Map, stating "that the surveyor, on behalf of the city council of Rancho Cucamonga, 'hereby approves the annexed map and accepts, subject to their improvement in accordance with the county standards, the foregoing offers of dedication as shown on the annexed map.'" Id. at 345. In reversing summary judgment, the court of appeal held as a matter of law that the city's qualified acceptance of the offer of dedication did not result in a completed dedication of a public easement. "[A]n offer of dedication which is accepted on the condition that the proffered property be improved does not result in a completed dedication .... "Id. at 354. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. October 13, 1999 Page 3 The MikeIs case is entirely distinguishable. Unlike the facts in the MikeIs case, the City's acceptance of the offer of dedication of the drainage easement was not conditional nor qualified. Rather, it was unconditionally accepted by formal action of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council when it adopted Resolution 89-066. That resolution was then duly recorded in the County Recorder's office. The Resolution unqualifiedly provides: "The offer to dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, the property herein described for drainage purposes, is hereby accepted." [Attachment 1] In addi(ion, the easement at issue in MikeIs was for street, not drainage, purposes. Special statutory provisions applicable to street dedications apply in such ~ases, but do not apply here. See, e.g. Streets & Highways Code § 1806 ("No public or private street or road shall become a city street or road until and unless the governing body, by resolution, has caused said street or road to be accepted into the city street system. ") Thus, Mikels provides no support for your position that the City's acceptance in this matter was somehow legally deficient. B. Notice of Existence of Drainage Easement. You indicate that when you purchased your property, you did not have notice of the existence of a drainage easement across your property because, at that time, you believed that it had been rejected by the City. As noted above, on February 15, 1989, and pursuant to Government Code Section 66477.2, the City accepted the dedication of the drainage easement. On March 20, 1989, the City's resolution by which the easement was accepted was recorded in the County Recorder's Office. We are informed that you purchased your property on November 21, 1991. Thus, at the time you obtained title to your property, notice of the City's acceptance of the easement existed for more than two years and was readily available for review by your title insurance company. C. Location of Drainage Easement. You questioned whether the drainage easement only covered the eastern-most edge of your property since the words "City of Rancho Cucamonga Drainage Easement" were placed on that edge of Tract Map 9590. The recorded map for Tract 9590 unmistakably shows by arrows, precise boundary lines and measurements the full scope of the drainage easement area. In addition, Resolution No. 89- 066 includes a legal description of the boundaries of that easement. Thus, all documents (which RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. October 13, 1999 Page 4 were duly recorded) show that the easement is not limited to just the eastern-most edge of your property. D. Scope of Drainage Easement. You assert that the City has the right to use the drainage easement only for natural drainage purposes and that the City's intended use of the easemere is for a flood control project outside the scope of the City's easemere rights. As we previously explained to you, the easemere for drainage purposes was a general gram of easement, without limitations or restrictions. As such; the .City's easemere rights include the rights to use the easemere in any reasonable manner to furtlaer the purpose of the easement (drainage). See Laux v. Freed, 53 Cal.2d 512, 525 (1960); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Abar, 275 Cal. App.2xl 456, 464 (1969). This may include, by way of example, emering the serviem tenemem to install pipes or other devices necessary for the City's enjoymere of the easement in a reasonable manner and to further the purpose and character of the easemere. Construction of a drainage channel, "tip-rap" at the end of the channel to slow the water flow in the dominam tenement, and the erection of a fence around those facilities to protect people from injuring themselves on the facilities or in the easemere area, are both reasonable and consistera with the broad scope of the drainage easemere over your property. E. Burden on Your Property Rights. You indicate that the City's proposed use of the drainage facility will overburden your rights as a servient tenement. It is well settled that even in the absence of a dedicated drainage easement, and applying only the merged principles of the natural watercourse rule, the common enemy doctrine, and general principles of reasonableness, an upper riparian owner has the tight to make improvements in the natural drainage area including constructing dykes, channels, or embankments, and installing pipes, riprap and other improvements with the specific intent of facilitating development of upstream property. Loeklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327, 349- 355 (1994). Otherwise, the impact of being precluded from installing such improvements would be to "destroy the possibility of making the land available for improvement or settlement and condemn it to sterility and vacancy.'" Id. at 351 (emphasis added, citations omitted). Thus: "The purpose of both the civil law role creating immunity for damage caused by surface water runoff onto adjacent property and the natural watercourse rule which imposed the burden of damage caused by upstream developmere on the downstream owner was to ensure that development of property would not be foreclosed by imposition of liability for damage caused by changes in the treatment of surface water occasioned by that development." Id. at 360. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. October 13, 1999 Page 5 Thus, even under the reasonableness rule articulated in the Locklin case, the upstream riparian owners and the City are not limited to just maintaining the existing flows across your property. Rather, the right to construct improvements and increase the burden or flow through the natural drainage area are expressly recognized. Here, the City's rights as a the holder of a dedicated drainage easement are broader than the rights of an up-slope property owner as described above. Thus, in the implied easement context, the scope and extent of the easement are inferred from the circumstances in existence at the time of the conveyance. By contrast, in an express grant of easement as occurred here with the accepCnce by the City of the offer of dedication, the easement holder is expressly permitted to make changes in the manner of use of the easement, lirhited 0nly by the requirement that the use be reasonable and consistent with the purpose for which ii was dedicated. See Atchison, supra, and Laux, supra. In short, by obtaining a dedicated easement for drainage purposes, as noted above, the City may use the easement for any purpose reasonably within the scope of providing drainage to upstream properties, including but not limited to, channeling greater volumes of flow than previously existed, constructing facilities including detention basins in the easement, and carrying regional flows through the boundaries of the easement. F. Risks to Your Property. You assert that the project will increase the risk of flooding and erosion of your property. You also indicate that the project will deposit waste, offal and debris onto your property. The City is aware of your concerns about flooding to your property which you believe could be caused by the project and the City's intended use of the drainage easement. However, the City has received no engineering or technical data from you to support those fears and hence, has no basis upon which to conclude those fears are justified. On the contrary, the City Engineer informed us that, based upon the available technical information which he has carefully reviewed, the project will substantially decrease the risk of flooding to that portion of your property that lies outside the drainage easement. This is because the facility will collect upstream flows that would otherwise potentially flow downstream across the portion of your property outside the drainage easement, and ensure that they will flow into the drainage easement area. In addition, in its unimproved state, no public agency has responsibility for nor involvement in maintaining the drainage facilities in the area. By contrast, an additional benefit of the proposed drainage facilities and project is the assumption by the City of regular maintenance of both the drainage facilities and the ravine. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. October 13, 1999 Page 6 Thus, the combined effect of the sound engineering design of the proposed project and the maintenance work which the City will undertake are designed to promote the public health and safety, and to minimize the risk of flooding in the area, including that portion of your property that is outside the drainage easement. In short, based upon the City Engineer's review of all available engineering and technical information, the design of the proposed drainage facilities meet or exceed applicable codes, and is specifically designed and intended to implement and accomplish the purposes of the approved and accepted dedication of the drainage easement. With respect to erosion, the City Engineer understands that the. existing walls of the natural drainage channel have accommodated drainage flows in varying volumes for many years and that those walls will be more than sufficient to accommodate any increased flows from the project. The City will obviously monitor the issue and will take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that the portion of your property outside the drainage easement will not be affected by erosion from the drainage easement area. This is, indeed, an integral aspect of the maintenance responsibilities which the City will be assuming in connection with the proposed project. With respect to the potential for waste, offal and debris flowing into the easement from the proposed up-slope project, that potential is part of the natural use of the easement for drainage and thus does not constitute an unreasonable use or overuse of the easement. Regular maintenance should mitigate any inconvenience or. problem, including within the drainage easement area, that may result from such potential flows. It should be noted that the potential for such waste and debris exists equally in the area's present state. Ge Allowing Surface Flows Across that Portion of the Easement that Crosses your Property. You suggest that the City is legally obligated to construct an underground pipe across your property to take all drainage flows from the proposed project to a site further downstream from your property. In sum, you suggest that an underground pipe is the only method of · transporting drainage flows across the easement that is reasonable and legally allowed. Again, you have not provided the City with any engineering or technical data to support your position. Accordingly, the City has no basis upon which to conclude that there is any merit to your suggestion from a legal or engineering perspective. All of the information available to the City's Senior Civil Engineer, Mr. Dan James, supports a contrary conclusion. Specifically, according to Mr. James, the drainage system to be constructed within Tract 13316 and then downstream and within the drainage easement across your property has a two- RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. October 13, 1999 Page 7 fold purpose. First, site drainage from Tract 13316 is collected in an underground pipe system and is discharged towards the drainage easement. In addition, drainage from the undeveloped area to the north of Tract 13316 will flow into a debris basin at the north end of that tract before entering the underground pipe system. The debris basin has a spillway to accommodate flow in the event the inlet of the debris basin plugs up (an occurrence which must be anticipated, and preventive measures incorporated to perform, during flood conditions). The flows drain south within a public street towards a concrete channel. This channel acts as a spillway from the site to the existing ravine downstream. :The spillway is specifically designed to dissipate the flows and to thereby minimize the risk of flooding. Therefore, the spillway is essenti~ to the proper design of the drainage facility. It basically consists of a concrete 12' by 9' channel extending from the southerly boundary of Tract 13316 across lot 14 of Tract 9590. The spillway outlets to the northerly portion of your lot (Lot 13 of Tract 9590) where quarter ton "rip rap" will be constructed to dissipate the flow and further reduce the risk of flooding. These flows then enter the existing ravine and continue south. It is Mr. James' position that the underground pipe system and spillway, and the other improvements described above, will better accommodate anticipated flows than if only an underground pipe were utilized through Tract 13316 and then across your property. As Mr. James explains, if the inlet for that pipe were to plug up and no above-ground channel existed to take the flow, both Tract 13316 and your lot would likely be flooded, with a greater likelihood that the flooding would n6t be contained within the drainage easement area. The proposed drainage system was designed by a reputable engineering fu-xn hired by the project developer in accordance with accepted, standard engineering principles. The plan.~ have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. Based upon this review, Mr. James has concluded that the above-described drainage system meets or exceeds applicable codes, and that the drainage facilities are specifically designed and intended to implement and accomplish the purposes of the drainage easement. From a legal perspective, your suggestion is also unsupported. Construction of a lengthy underground pipe (leaving aside the risks associated with such a design) could be a legal option if the grant of the drainage easement were limited to the construction and maintenance of underground pipes, thereby foreclosing other safer alternatives. However, as discussed above, the easement is not so limited. Once again, we trust that this letter provides you with additional information necessary to alleviate the concerns you have expressed. If you have any additional questions or concerns, RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. October 13, 1999 Page 8 please feel free to submit them to the attention of the undersigned and we will endeavor to respond promptly. Attachment KGE:kge 1684080 Very truly yours, Kevin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney CC: Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, Associate Planner Saskia T. Asamura, Esq. Diana Santini (5207 London Avenue) SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 9-30-99 8:44AM; 9094772847 => WHEN .RECORDEd MAIL TO: City of Rancho Cucamonga, City Clerk P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ~.ESOLUTZO~ ~o. 89-066 89 098461 467; .... ...~;~ ' CU~NGA~ ~[~ZA, AC~P~NG A DEDICATION O, T~CT NO. 9590 L~D EAST or ~CHIB~D q~p "'~%. A~NUE ~O SOUTH OF ~O~ A~ The City Council of ~he City of Rancho Cuc~nga does hereby resolve ae follows: SECTION 1: The offer to dedicate to the C£ty of Rancho Cucam~nga, County of San Bernardino, state of Californ£a, ~he property herein described fo~ drainage purposes, le hereby aCCel~ed. saLd property is described as follo~0= Those por~£ons of the easement al offered to ded£ca=e to the City of ~ancho cucamonga Der Trac~ No. 9590 as recorded in Hap Book 138, PAge 47-48. c Commencing at the southeast corner of Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Hap Book 138, Page 47-48, Official Records of said County, recorded January 6, 1978~ thence north 0 23'01' east, 6.18 feet to the ~rue point of beg£~ning~ thence north S1 11'19# west, 290.09 feet; thence north 56 37'07' ~est, 154.49 feet& thence north 18 S0'18' west, 89.81 ~e=~ thence north 10 39'37' west, 86.49 ~eet; thence north 38 14'47' wes=, 108.23 feet~ thence north 20 15'23# west, 89.54 feet~ [hence north 28 58'28' east, 46.26 feet to a po£n= in =he north line of said Tract! thence north 80 33'14" east, 480.00 ,. fee~ to ~ho noaheast corner of laid Tractl.thence south 0 23'01' :wee=,'6~6.04 feet along the ~as~.l[ne o6'said Tract =o ~he true point of beginning. SECTION 2= The City Clerk £1 hereby authorized and directed to cause a car[[fLed co~y of this resolution to be filed ~or record in the office of =he County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of Californ£a. PASSED, ~PPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 1989. Alexander, Brown, Buquet, Stout~ wright None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Beverly A{Authele=, Cit~ Clerk SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COU DEV; Paqe 2 9-30-9g 8:45AU; 9094772847 => 467; #3/9 1, BEVEPJ-¥ A..&UTEEr. ET, CITY CLERK O£ the C£ty of Rancho Cucamo~ga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutio~t was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a ragurat meeting of said Clty CounW£[ held on the 1Sth day of February, 1989. Executed this 16th day of February, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. BeyarthUR. A~thelet, City ¢.l. erk E 89 09846~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad Court APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. BACKGROUND: At it's July 28, 1999, meeting, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project to September 9, 1999, to allow time for the applicant and Planning staff to meet with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The intent of the meeting was to discuss the July 28, 1999, USFWS letter commenting on the project. In the letter, USFWS acknowledged the applicant's San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Protocol surveys and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly survey which show no signs of any of the species on site. However, USFWS opined that the site contains approximately 80 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub and recommended that it be mitigated through off-site replacement at a ratio of 3:1 (3 acres of replacement for every acre removed or 240 acres of replacement). Planning Division staff met with the applicant and representatives of USFWS on August 31, 1999, the earliest date USFWS was able to meet. At the August 31, 1999, meeting, USFWS clarified that the 3:1 Coastal Sage Scrub replacement ratio is a recommendation based upon current desires of USFWS relating to the regional loss of Coastal Sage Scrub as opposed to a project specific recommendation. Coastal Sage Scrub is a type of plant community which provides habitat for threatened and endangered species such as the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and the California Gnatcatcher. As development occurs in the foothills, Coastal Sage Scrub is being diminished. The applicant's biological surveys indicate that the site actually contains 5.04 acres of undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub and 77.6 acres of very disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub. It does not appear necessary or reasonable to require the developer to mitigate the removal of very disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub and there is no clear justification for requiring more than the 1:1 replacement for the undisturbed habitat as recommended by the project biologist. Copies of the July 28, 1999, and June 9, 1999, Planning Commission staff reports are attached for reference. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff recommends the following mitigation measure be adopted to ensure that the potentially significant environmental impacts related to Coastal Sage Scrub are mitigated to a level of less than significant: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 September 8, 1999 Page 2 The developer shall mitigate removal of the on-site undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (5.04 acres) at a ratio of 1:1 by establishing 2.5 acres of native shrub land on the detention basin slopes and through the purchase and preservation in perpetuity of a minimum of 2.54 acres of off-site lands in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed all other issues relative to potential environmental impacts associated with the project. It has been demonstrated that the site does not contain sensitive or endangered species. Based on this information, including the above new mitigation measure, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. OFF SITE DRAINAGE: A letter was received from Dianna Santini, homeowner at 5207 London Avenue expressing concern related to off site drainage improvements associated with the project. A letter was received from Matt Rees, homeowner at 5217 London Avenue, expressing similar concerns. Tentative Tract 13316 was approved in 1987 with conditions of approval which include constructing a debris basin, storm drain system, and overflow protection for Lots 9 and 10 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. During the review process for the design of these drainage facilities, various property owners to the south voiced concerns regarding the portion of the facility which extends 107 feet south of the south tract boundary, within a City drainage easement dedicated to Tract 9590. Staff met with these property owners, discussed several options and concluded that while the outlet channel could be extended further south,there was little additional benefit and the developer had met all the requirements of the tentative map. With a time extension in 1989, the Planning Commission directed that the channel be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Design was concluded and the map recorded in 1990. In a 100-year storm; the debris basin will direct about 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) into a storm drain which will outlet into an open channel between Lots 9 and 10. Site flows will bring the total outflow to about 380 cfs. The channel has been designed with energy dissipaters and a stilling pond to reduce outlet velocities. The channel extends the entire width of Ms. Santini's property, the northernmost lot fronting London Avenue, thereby diverting all off-site flows which currently reach her north property line. Even if the storm drain were extended or relocated, a channel would still be needed to accommodate the emergency spillway for the debris basin. The City Attorney has responded directly to both of these letters (see copies attached). OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT: Several of the surrounding property owners have submitted letters since the first Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 1999. The one letter that seems to summarize the concerns is from Cindy Shannon, a homeowner at 9574 Hidden Farm Road (west of the project site). Her concerns are as follows: Hidden Farm Road should not be continued across Archibald Avenue because of the difference in age of the existing tract to the west and Tract 13316, danger to children who ride their bikes and skateboards on the street and might try to cross Archibald, and Hidden Farm Road is a cul-de-sac which doesn't go anywhere. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 September 8, 1999 Page 3 =. Response: The Final Tract Map, which included street alignment, was recorded in 1990. Therefore, the issue of street alignment has already been resolved and is not currently before the Planning Commission nor part of the applicant's request. For public safety reasons, City policy requires that streets intersecting with residential major streets and collector streets, like Archibald Avenue, align to minimize conflicts between left tuming traffic. Furthermore, by Ms. Shannon's rather accurate observation, Hidden Farm Road on the west side of Archibald is a cul-de-sac, it does not go anywhere and will not therefor function as a thru street connection between the Barratt project and any other destination. Traffic on the existing portion of Hidden Farm Road will not increase as a result of the Barraft project. There are three exits from the tract onto Archibald Avenue and only one onto Hermosa Avenue. This would make emergency exiting dangerous. Response: As noted above, the street alignment has already been approved and recorded with the Final Tract Map and is not part of the current project. City policy requires two means of access for residential tracts. The street layout and alignment for the tract are in conformance with City policy. The proposed project does not meet the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and the previous Development Review had a condition requiring only one- story homes. Response: The project is in conformance with all applicable sections of the Development Code, including Hillside Development Standards. The homes are designed within a maximum 30-foot high building envelope, and the terrain is proposed to be graded with variable, undulating slopes, consistent with Hillside standards. The previous Development Review approval was for a grading concept for single-story homes only, but it did not include home design. A condition of approval required a new Development Review application for any change in the home product. The previous Development Review approval has expired and no longer has bearing on the site. The applicant's project includes two-story homes and the applicant has filed a new Development Review application accordingly. A Pre-Application Review workshop was held by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1998, and it was determined that two -story homes would be appropriate so long as they are sensitively planned. The applicant has plotted two-story homes in such a way as to minimize view blockage to existing homes. Barratt graded the site without City approval on June 7 through 9, 1999. Response: It is true that Barratt performed brush clearance work on the site and did so without any approvals from the City. The City issued a stop work order and Barratt did stop work. A dust control substance has been applied to the scrubbed portion of the site and the site has been secured with chain link fencing. While it is not the ideal situation, the fact that Barratt cleared brush from a portion of the site does not prevent the Planning Commission from making all necessary findings in support of approval of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 September 8, 1999 Page 4 The Spirit of the Sage Council has also issued correspondence regarding the project. The Council is of the opinion that the project would "diminish and destroy the pursuits and abilities of the Sage Council [to enjoy the uniqueness of the site's habitat]." The Council also asserts that no mitigation is being required for the Coastal Sage Scrub on-site and therefore the project should either be denied or the City should require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Response: The Environmental Assessment indicates that the project will have an impact to on-site Coastal Sage Scrub, and identifies replacement mitigation accordingly. The applicant has agreed to the mitigation. All other potentially significant impacts have been addressed and can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Therefore, no"Statement of Overriding Considerations" need be made and an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. Staff has received two letters in support of the project. One from an individual interested in purchasing a home in the project who is frustrated by the continuances to date. The other letter in support is from Don Blunk, a homeowner at 9745 Carrari Street. Mr. Blunk and his neighbors along Carrari Street are perhaps those most affected by the project since Carrari Street lies along the south boundary of the tract. Mr. Blunk welcomes the project and feels it will enhance the area. CORRESPONDENCE: While not required by City Ordinance or State Law, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site notifying them of the September 8, 1999 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and attached standard conditions, and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation for the debds basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. B~ Bl:111-er City Planner BB:BL:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Correspondence not included with previous staff reports Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, and June 9, 1999 Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Reports dated July 28, and June 9,1999 Resolution of Approval with Conditions To: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 RECEIVED JUL !/999 July 17, 1999 Dear Mr. Le Count, CityofRancho Cucamonga Planning Division I am sending my concerns in writing for the proposed develop- ment at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914)~. ' I find this necessary since the date for this public hearing has been changed three times now. (It was originally scheduled on July 14th, then Aug. 11th and now July 28th.) Myself and many of my neighbors have tried to schedule around these constant changes in the hearing date. This last date is impossible for me to schedule around. I ask once more for a hearing date in Septem- ber, when more residents can attend. Although moving up the hearing date clearly benefits the developer, please consider the residents wishes as well. I would to reiterate several points made at the planning commission meeting on June 9th for your consideration. On this date, I presented you with a petition si~ned by 23 residents. The petition opposes the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald into the new Barratt Development and requests the new housing be one story only homes and/or fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Twelve out of sixteen homes on Hidden Farm are represented, with the remaining signatures from residents on the development peri- meter--including Almond St. and Jadeire Ave. to the west, Archi- bald to the north and Carrari to the south. The reasons for opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road into the new tract are: 1. The difference in age between the tracts is approximately 20 years. When originally planned there would only have been a few years difference. 2. Most importantly, the danger to children in both tracts. Currently kids ride their bikes and roller skate on our street, if the road continues across Archibald, kids would be more likely to try to cross this 50 mph, downhill road. And as one resident said, "lowering the speed limit will not make it safe." 3. Hidden Farm road is a cul-de-sac, it doesn't go anywhere, so why connect it into the new tract? I suggest off setting the streets, as most already are in the area. So children would not be tempted to try to cross Archi- bald. Hillside ordinance issue The Planning commission workshop minutes from June 10, 1998 state: 1. "Previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes" This was intended to minimize visual impact .and 2 story homes would have more impact. · cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning Corm~ission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager TO: The Planning Couuuission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 Dear Planning Commission, RECEIVED JUL 11999 City of Rancho Cucar~ 17, 1999 Planning Division I am sending my concerns in writing for the proposed develop- ment at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I find this necessary since the date for this public hearing has been changed three times now. (It was originally scheduled on July 14th, then Aug. 11th and now July 28th.) Myself and many of my neighbors have tried to schedule around these constant changes in the hearing date. This last date is impossible for me to schedule around. I ask once more for a hearing date in Septem- ber, when more residents can attend. Although moving up the hearing date clearly benefits the developer, please consider the residents wishes as well. I would to reiterate several points made at the planning commission meeting on June 9th for your consideration. On this date, I presented you with a petition signed by 23 residents. The petition opposes the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald into the new Barratt Development and requests the new housing be one story only homes-and/or fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Twelve out of sixteen homes on Hidden Farm are represented, with the remaining signatures from residents on the development peri- meter--including Almond St. and Jadeire Ave. to the west, Archi- bald to the north and Carrari to the south. The reasons for opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road into the new tract are: 1. The difference in age between the tracts-is approximately 20 years. When originally planned there would only have been a few years difference. 2. Most importantly, the danger to children in both tracts. Currently kids ride their bikes and roller skate on our street, if the road continues across Archibald, kids would be more likely to try to cross this 50 mph, downhill road. And as one resident said, "lowering the speed limit will not make it safe." 3. Hidden Farm road is a cul-de-sac, it doesn't go anywhere, so why connect it into the new tract? I suggest off setting the streets, as most already are in the area. So children would not be tempted to try to cross Archi- bald. H~lls~de ordinance ~ssue The Planning couu~ission workshop minutes from June 10, 1998 state: 1. "Previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes" This was intended to minimize visual impact and 2 story homes would have more impact. J'UL--28--99 02 :~i4 P!'I 901',! BLUNK 909 988 !'997 P.82 PROII~C'T 1111'.' 11¢)MEOI4'NPARB WIIO LJi.'~ N~R 171E PROI'~¢Y, A~INST ~TLDI,~;S. 1~N ~I~7' WOU~ ~' IMI.Z' (L~NED ... Tile MITU~L lih~ I~T... 01,' COUPE.. Blff ,%~' PEOP~' ~7~ bTl~. IMtZ' TilE' AIJ. 77!E 7'!~S.¢H 't7l ~7' GETS'DUfiOq"D IN !IrE FIELD, AIJ. ;'lie lZl~ ~ ~f'TCEI~' ~TbII'C~ME I~W 111E IN 06~ ~INI)F 77M~, YI~%' dND ,~)ME PEOPIg ~1~ ~II.L I~4~Z' 7711,~E FIE~, ~11E PI.;OPI. E ~1t0 ~; NOT DI~LTIT. y ~:~IED itY 7'IlIS 71bl(.Tf OU~II)E OK 71IE TI~I,t,?( ~ A~ A LB'ILK MO~' NOIST;. DX 71ME ~DR 71tE CO,~[,fi~ON 70 ,g~?)i' I'~ }7NG a712f Tills t~INO OR WE WILl, ~' ~ING TIllSAGAIN INAN~IIIfR ~ YI<,IR.V WlIEN SOAfi( DE~LOPIO¢ 84L~TS' ~ IRY AND BLTLD. ~71A7' ~7~ BE 7lIE ~lTI~' CRY T!IEN. AS YOU (.HN TELL I AM POR ~IIS TRA( 7. ~ ~N ONLY I1 ,~ TO KNIL,1NCE MINE AND TftE SURRONDING WIIAT IF,~IME D!,:VP:I, OP~{ MIGIf7' ONLY WAN'I'?O P~' S7'IiEKlX ~AND S~ IIIE MNI) [,OR CU~2~ HOMES 1 UNI)ERS1)I.gD TiiA'[' 1II~' ARI( t)IFF~NT PROUEED(OiES'FOR ~I1S'AND T!lE~E BE R~:ED I'DR A PUBtJC MEE7ING. IT G~ ME ,~iMEYtHNG ~0 Tt~' ABO~' II~T I WOUIJ) NOT ~' t~q'Y WITII., WORK I~'TIH ~11E P.'Pt'~3'~) PEOP~ ON LONI~.~:57. A,VD I?IE~V P~SE At'PRO~Z 1IIE 1~(7~',~t4P AS't) LE?:~ ,~!0!.~~ ON. DON BLUNK 9745 CARRARI S'L RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Brent LeCount Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91727 Re: JUL 2 8 1999 Proposed Residential Development by Barratt American on Tentative Tracts 13316 and 15914, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. LeCount: This letter responds to your July 20, 1999, facsimile request for comments on two reports involving a proposed residential development by Barratt American on Tentative Tracts 13316_and 15914 in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. One report was a habitat assessment for the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino, "Quino"), while the other report described live-trapping surveys for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriarniparvus, "kangaroo rat") on the subject tracts. Because the proposed development may impact federally listed species and their habitats, we are commenting pursuant to our responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, and a Federal agency under section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The protocol survey for the kangaroo rat on Tentative Tract 13316 appears adequate, based on the preliminary July 18, 1999, report summarizing these surveys, and conversations with biologists from Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. No kangaroo rats were captured during the 5-night live-trapping survey. However, several acres of potential habitat for kangaroo rats on the western portion of this site were grubbed prior to this survey and without the approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). As a result, we recommend that Barratt American offset impacts to grubbed sage scrub by preserving sage scrub at an appropriate ratio (e.g., 3 to 1). The habitat assessment for Quino appears to be adequate if this effort focused on detecting Plantago and Castilleja plants on the site. If the survey botanist was not specifically searching for these Quino host plants, then we recommend an appropriate habitat assessment be conducted next spring. The survey botanist should clarify the focus and rigor of these surveys with regards to Quino host plants. Recent sightings have provided insights into the distribution of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatcher") on the Eftwanda alluvial fan complex, and the importance of this area for the recovery of this subspecies in San Bernardino County. Although protocol surveys conducted during 1998 did not detect the gnatcatcher on the proposed project site, the habitat is suitable and contiguous with areas where gnatcatchers recently have been sighted. For example, a gnatcatcher was observed during the 1999 nesting season near the earthen levees along Etiwanda Creek, which is approximately 5 miles from Tentative Tract 13316. In Brent LeCount 2 addition, a gnatcatcher pair was observed in February 1998 immediately across Highland Avenue from the proposed University development, within habitat similar to that on Tentative Tract 13316. Given that gnatcatchers can pass through or reoccupy the project area at any time and that protocol surveys are valid for only 1 year, another protocol survey for gnatcatchers should be conducted before any areas of suitable habitat are directly or indirectly impacted by the project. The proposed project highlights several problems regarding the impacts of continuing development along the Etiwanda fan. First, the continued loss of habitats to development may hinder ongoing, regional multi-species planning efforts. Coastal sage scrub has been categorized as an endangered ecosystem (85-98 percent decline) by the National Biological Service, U.S. Department of Interior (Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of £oss and Degradation, Biological Report 28, February 1995). These ecosystems support several endangered and threatened species, and numerous species that are proposed to be covered in the San Bernardino Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), including the greenest tiger beetle (Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima), coastal western whiptail ( Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus), San Bernardino ring-necked snake (Diadophispunctatus modestus), coastal rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus). Hence, protecting coastal sage scrub is an obvious way to promote the conservation of listed species that depend on these ecosystems for their long-term survival. The establishment of a viable regional preserve system is vital to the survival and recovery of the federally listed and sensitive species mentioned above, and is a central goal of the MSHCP that is now in the planning stage. As a result, the protection of remaining coastal sage scrub will be a high priority in the MSHCP, and continued unmitigated losses of blocks of sage scrub may affect the County's ability to develop a viable preserve system in the future. To assist in the MSHCP effort, the City, a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the development of the MSHCP, should minimize and mitigate further losses of this ecosystem type. Although the project site was cleared of native vegetation prior to 1972, coastal sage scrub has re-grown over much of the site and it appears to be recovering rapidly. The diversity and quality of this habitat will likely continue to improve if it is left undeveloped because it is contiguous with one of the largest remaining blocks of this habitat type. Second, the conservation measures proposed by the applicant are not sufficient to offset the impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed project. Specifically, the mitigation proposed by Barratt American is inadequate to offset impacts to sage scrub, and will contribute to a net loss of this endangered ecosystem. Barratt American has proposed to mitigate for impacts to 0.3 acres of jurisdictional stream habitats (i.e., "remnant" sage scrub) at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 2 acres of preserved habitat for each acre of permanently lost habitat). In addition, they have committed to creating approximately 2.5 acres of shrub and wetland habitat on the slopes of a proposed detention basin. However, no compensation for the loss of "recovering" sage scrub was offered, even though a large portion (approximately 75 acres) of the proposed project site supports "large patches of buckwheat, white sage, and coastal sagebrush" and "provide suitable habitat for the California Gnatcatcher" (December 18, 1999, letter from R. Mitchel Beauchamp, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, to Brent LeCount, City of Rancho Cucamonga). Barratt American's rationale for not compensating for recovering sage scrub was that the project was the subject of a negative declaration in 1989 that did not require such mitigation. If all projects impacting coastal sage scrub were to mitigate only for relatively-undisturbed sage scrub, and to do so at low ratios of preserved sage scrub to permanently lost sage scrub, then the regional distribution of this ecosystem type will continue to be reduced and Brent LeCount 3 fragmented. Due to the imperiled status of coastal sage scrub throughout southern California, and its importance for the survival and recovery of listed species and species that are proposed to be covered in the MSHCP, we recommend that mitigation be required for any impacts to coastal sage scrub, even if it has been previously disturbed and is now recovering. As mentioned above, the diversity and quality of these areas would likely continue to improve if they were not permanently disturbed, as evidenced by the recovery of Tentative Tract 13316 following prior disturbance. An appropriate replacement rate for impacts to coastal sage scrub would be, minimally, 3 acres of preserved sage scrub for each acre lost or degraded, although somewhat lower ratios may be applicable for highly disturbed areas or monotypic patches of scrub. In addition, we recommend that impacts from this project to sage scrub be offset by the acquisition and protection of alluvial fan sage scrub on the Etiwanda fan. An endowment for the management of the acquired land in perpetuity should be established and, prior to any transfer and dedication of mitigation lands, the title and related documents must be reviewed for conflicting easements and prior dedications for the purposes of natural open space. Finally, multi-year delays between the approval of development projects and their implementation may constitute significant, changed circumstances under CEQA owing to changes in habitat conditions, use of the site by listed species, and species listing status. Hence, the use of outdated environmental reports to approve development projects and mitigation requirements for impacts to biological resources raises questions regarding the adequacy of CEQA compliance. CEQA guidelines require that impacts to sensitive and listed species and their habitats be addressed in an environmental document and mitigated. If multi-year delays occur between the approval of development projects and their implementation, then site occupancy and species listing status may change substantially in the interim. As a result, unmitigated losses of habitats and sensitive or listed species may occur. As mentioned above, environmental clearance and mitigation requirements for the development of Tract 13316 was based on the adoption of a negative declaration in 1989. Since that time, additional species have been listed under the Act, including the gnatcatcher and kangaroo rat, and the sage scrub on the site has recovered to the point where it now provides suitable habitat for these species. We recommend that the City review pending development applications to identify those that rely on biological information in CEQA documents that are several years old, or fail to address species that have been federally listed since their application was received. The City can then notify the applicant and us of the potential need to reassess the possible impacts to biological resources owing to their proposed projects. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed project, and your conscientious consideration of this issue. We look forward to further involvement in this project and regional planning for species and habitat conservation in general. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact P.J. White of this office at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Assistant Field Supervisor 1-6-99-HC-294 CC.' Glenn Black, California Department of Fish and Game CI'I~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMItION July 28, 1999 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTF. K COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, C^I,IFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN Material presented by: Diana Santini 5207 London Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Diana Santini 5207 London Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 June 9,1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive RanchoCucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissioners: As a follow-up to my letter of June 3, 1999 addressed to Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer (ATTACHMENT A), I am expressing specific concerns and requests to be considered prior to approval of the housing project identified as Tract 13316. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the comer of London and Carrari Avenue. It is my understanding that the drainage project consists of an underground pipe which will surface above Carrad and empty into a cement storm drain which will be in my immediate backyard and will be directed towards the existing natural drainaae flow. When I purchased my home in 1993, I was informed by the City that I was not allowed to interrupt the natural drainage of water, therefore, not allowed to interrupt or permanently construct on my property. I am therefore requesting the following issues be taken into consideration: 1. On February 15, 1989, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed, approved and adopted Resolution No. 89-066 which in part required construction of a Master Plan Storm Drain line through the site which will dewater the system into an existing open channel. It appears that the current Drainage Plan does not extend the storm drain line to the existing open channel but allows the water to be directed onto dry land which may impair the integrity & stability of existing slopes pdvate property. (ATTACHEMENT B) 2. Verify that the drainage easement includes drainage construction. It may be limited to allowing for the natural drainage flow vs. directed drainage which will now be directed to empty into a channel and onto natural surface property. Planning Commission 6/9/99 Page 2 GeoSoils Engineering Inc., conducted a limited Geotechnical Evaluation of my property in 1992 (ATTACHMENT C). Issues of concern include: Drainage of adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnicel consultant should be contacted. A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify stability. Since the approval of the resolution in 1989, I have constructed a suspended wooden deck which overhangs the existing natural drainage area and an in ground pool has been installed. I therefore request a copy of the geographical evaluation of the property and proposed development & drainage system plan conducted after 1992. If one has not been conducted after 1992, that such evaluation be performed and reviewed prior to approval for commencing construction. If a drainage plan is approved, that it consist of a buded pipe emptying into the existing storm drain as per the City's approval in 1989. If an open channel is considered, that it be located on the East portion of the property which will essentially extend the existing channel southerly of my property. This was identified as a viable concept by Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer in 1990 which would extend the channel 250 feet south. (ATTACHMENT D). Planning Commission 6~9~99 Page 3 6. If an open channel is approved as currently planned, that a crossover bddge be provided to reach the East portion of my property without having to exit into the Community Trail as was decided on June 22, 1989 by the Design Review Committee meeting. (A'!-FCHMENT E) 7. Request that no two-story homes be built immediately adjacent to my property in order to preserve pdvacy. _ J""7~ i.....~. i~b~-'~"~ (~ ~___~L~~'[~'- 8. All debris left in the existing street in front of my property be cleared daily. . ~C~v,5~ Sincerely, Diana Santini Diana Santini 5207 London Ave. Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 945-9840 June 3, 1999 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Tract 13316 Dear Mr. James: I am writing regarding concerns over the housing project identified as Tract 13316 which apparently was approved 10 years ago. I recently attended a meeting at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center held by the developer of this project. I also met with Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, on June 2, 1999. Both of these sources have described the drainage system planned for this housing tract. It is my understanding that included in the planned drainage system will be a pipe that will be placed underground for the new homes being built. The pipe will then surface just above Carrari and empty into a "dp wrap" which will be fenced. My home is the first lot immediately south of the project on the comer of Carrari and London Avenue. It has been described that the "rip wrap" will be in my immediate back yard with the gutter and drainage water directed to empty onto my property. When I purchased my home in 1993, it was my understanding that the city had an easement on my property for Natural Drainage Flow that prohibits any construction on the east portion of my lot. I am not aware of an existing construction easement the city may hold on my property. My objection is that the drainage will no longer be a natural drainage but a permanent interruption and deliberate direction of water flow into my property and permanent construction related to this redirection. This plan for a fenced "rip wrap" in my backyard will be an unsightly eyesore and may violate the existing drainage easement dghts. In addition, a Geotechnical Evaluation conducted on my property in 1992 made several observations and recommendations regarding water drainage. A portion of this report specifically states that "... off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site and water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. Measures should be taken to prevent the undercutting and erosion at the toe of the slopes that descent into the ephemeral drainage." My request is that the underground pipe be extended to reach and empty into the existing storm drain system. I plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 9, 1999 to address my concerns. Should this topic not' be appropriate at that meeting, I request that a meeting with the appropriate individuals be scheduled to expeditiously address this issue. Co: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer DAT~. FRgM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CIIGAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 15, 1989 City Council and Acting City Manager Russell H. Magutre, City Engineer Gary H. Sheu, A~ststant Civil Enffineer Approval of a Resolution accepting an offer of dedication of a drainage eas~m. ent offered to the City of Rancho Cucamon~4 on Tract No. 9590 located east of Archibald Avenue and south o'? Almond Avenue Staff r¢comm. end~ that City Council approve the attached resolution accepting the drainage easement as sho~n on the map of Tract No. 9590 and described on the attached resolution. Backoreund/Analysis The proposed development e~ Tract 13316 (Fric~n Home. s) is required to construct a Master Plan Storm Drain line through the site which will dewater the system into an existing open channel.. City previously had an offer of dedication for drainage purposes within this open channel as a p~rt of development of Tract 95g0. To facilitate the draining of the storm drain syst.?~. for Tract 13316, it i= necessary to accept this offer of dedication. An exhtbtt is enclosed to show the proposed Tract 13316 and l¢cation of the offer of dedication. ~;,1~/ of Rancho Cucamonga, C~ty C ~'.0. Box 807 I-lancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 k RESOLUTION NO. 89-066 as follows: A PJ~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A DRAINAGE EASEM/~NT ,'~' DEDICATION ON TRACT NO. 9590 LOCATED EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND SOUTH OF ALMOND AVENUE The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby SECTION 1: The offer to dedicate to the City of Ranch6 Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, the property herein described for drainage purposes, is hereby accepted. Said property is described as follows: Those portions of the easement as offered to dedicate to the City of Rancho Cuca~nonga per Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48. Commencing at the southeast corner of Tract No. 9590 as recorded in Map Book 138, Page 47-48, Official Records of said County, recorded January 6, I978; thence north 0 23'01" east, 6.18 feet to the tru~ point of beginning; thence north 51 11'19" west, '290.09 feet; thence north 56 37'07" west, 154.49 feet; thence north 18 50'18" west, 89.81 feet; thence north 10 39'37" west, 86.49 feet; thence north 38 14'47" west, 108.23 feet; thence north 20 15'23" west, 89.54 feet; thence north 28 5B'28" east, '46.26 feet to a point in the north line of said Tract; thence north 80 33'14" east, 480.00 fe~ to '.t. he northeast corner of said Tract; thence south 0 23'01" .wesq:, '64~.04 feet along the east line of said Tract to the true point of beginning. SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th d'ay of February, 1989. AYES: Alexander, Brown, Buquet, Stout, Wright NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Beverly AKAuthelet' City Clerk I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of February, 1989.' Executed this 16th day of February, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Beverly/A. Authelet, City Clerk E 89-098461 RECORDED i~',t OFPiCML R':-',"r,-~ GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering · Engineering Geology 24890Jefferson Avenue · P.O. Box 490 · Murriela, CaJifomia 92564 · (714} 677-9651 · FAX(714} 677-930Z September 3, 1992 W.O. 562-A-RC Better Homes and Gardens Realty 6642 Camellia Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Attention: Ms. Heidi Burns Sub3 ect: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation of 5207 London Avenue, Alta Loma Area of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Reference: "Approved Standards," 1980, by Home Owners Warranty Corporation. Dear Ms. Burns: In accordance with your request and authorization, this report Dresents the findings of our limited geotechnical evaluation of the subject property. Inasmuch as this study was performed without the benefit of site-specific subsurface information, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are limited and should be considered preliminary in nature. In addition, our observations were performed on the exterior of the residence only. BACKGROUND The subject site is currently under ownership of a financial institution. The following is our understanding from the client, Ms. Heidi Burns, the real estate representative for the owner. 1. The residence is an approximately 14-year-old home. e The home recently has been refurbished in preparation for sale. During this refurbishment, Ms. Burns noticed evidence of surface water run-off during recent rains from the adjacent, northerly property. The client has expressed concerns regarding drainage on the site and drainage from adjacent properties affecting the site; therefore, the client requested this evaluation of site conditions Los Angeles Co. [8181785-2158 · Orange Co. [7141647-0277 · San Diego Co. (619} 438-3155 Better Homes and Gardens Realty 5207 London Rancho Cucamonga, California W.O. 562-A-RC September 3, 1992 Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: Review and reconnaissance of general site conditions from a geotechnical viewpoint with an emphasis on site drainage conditions. 2. Geotechnical analysis of the data collected. 3. Preparation of this report. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot, consisting of about 1.17 acres. The property fronts on London Avenue in the Alta Loma area of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The site is bounded by adjacent residential property on the south, London Avenue on the north, and vacant property on the north and west. The west half of the lot has been developed for the residential structure, while the east half of the lot remains in an essentially natural condition. A slope, about 10 feet high, descends from the south property line to the adjacent property at a gradient of about 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). A natural, ephemeral drainage transects the subject lot and drains to the south. This ephemeral drainage is about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep. Slopes descend into the ephemeral drainage at a gradient of about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Block walls exist on the western portions of the north and south property boundaries. In the front yard, the walls are about 2 feet high and serves as a retaining wall between the site and adjacent properties. The remainder of each block wall is about 6 feet high and serves as divider between properties. A two-story, wood-frame residence with stucco and wood siding occupies the central portion of the lot. ~t appears that the residence is founded on continuous perimeter footings with concrete slab-on-grade floors. OBSERVATIONS OF DRAINAGE FEATURES Our observations of the drainage conditions indicate: Gutters and downspouts are not present on the residence. Drainage devices have not been constructed on any of the slopes on the site or slopes adjacent to the site. GeoSoiis, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty 5207 London Rancho Cucamonga, California W.O. 562-A-RC September 3, 1992 Page 3 An ephemeral drainage, about 50 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep, transects the subject lot and drains toward the south. Drainage on the front (west) portion of the site generally is toward the southwest corner of the lot, to the street. Drainage on the south side of the house is generally toward the south. Drainage on the north side of the house is generally to the south, toward the north wall of the house. Drainage on the rear (east) portion of the site is generally directed from the rear of the residence to the east, toward the ephemeral drainage and from the rear of the property to the west, toward the ephemeral drainage. 7'. Natural drainage on the vacant property, located north of and adjacent to the site, is g~nerally to the southeast toward the subject site and the ephemeral drainage. This mph~eral drainage has caused a rill to be eroded in the slope as it drains into the ephemeral drainage on the subject property. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The drainage features observed on the site at the time of our site reconnaissance indicate that the current drainage patterns generally direct water runoff away from the residence and toward the rear of the property or to the street. However, surface gradients on the north side of the residence directs drainage toward the residence. In addition, drainage of the adjacent, northly property appears to direct drainage toward the subject property and to the ephemeral drainage. If allowed to continue, this runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope where it descends into the ephemeral drainage. Additional erosion of this nature could undermine the block wall on the north property boundary near the ephemeral drainage or undermine portions of the residence. The following preliminary recommendations are presented: Positive drainage should be established and maintained on the property. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a gradient of at least 4 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from the residence. Accumulated surface drainage should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by GeoSoiis, Inc. Better Homes and Gardens Realty 5207 London Rancho Cucamonga, California W.O. 562-A-RC September 3, 1992 Page 4 e providing a graded swale with a minimum gradient of 2 percent or an appropriate surface collection device with nonperforated pipe to an outlet at the street or other suitable location. Off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. Eave gutters should be installed where appropriate and connected to downspouts. Downspout discharge should be directed to a nonperforated drain system that outlets to an appropriate location. Water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. A grade stabilization structure or drainage device should be installed at the north property line on the slope to carry concentrated water runoff from the adjacent, northerly property down the slope an~tnto the ephemeral drainage and reduce erosion of the slope. Drought-tolerant vegetation should be planted on the slope into the ephemeral drainage to reduce erosion of the slope. Irrigation should be reduced to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunit· ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage systems should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. Animal burrows should be filled, because they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil failures. Any open bottom planters adjacent to settlement-sensitive structures should be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. GeoSotis, Inc. DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 16, 1990 City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Lucinda E. Hackett, Contract Engineer Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. I and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes RECOI~4ENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. i and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANAL Y S I S/BACKGROUND Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, in the Very Low Density Residential District, was approved by tile Planning Commission on March 25, 1987, for the division of 84.5 acres into 123 lots. During the review process, various property owners to the south of the tract have voiced their concern regarding the proposed storm drain facility that extends southerly of the tract boundary approximately 107 feet. This facility is an emergency spillway channel and is part of the debris basin system. Staff has met extensively with these property owners over the past few years to listen to their concerns and desires. First, they wanted to underground the system in a pipe and fill in the canyon to enlarge their backyards. This is not possible due to the fact that this is part of a debris basin system and must be an open channel with a service road to maintain the outlet' structure. Their second desire was to terminate the channel at the southerly boundary of Tract 13316. This also cannot be done because the channel has to pass under the Community Trail and then be directed towards the existing natural drainage channel. Their third choice is to 'extend the channel southerly of their properties. This is a viable concept and the channel could be extended approximately 250 feet south, but it is not needed for development and there is little or no benefit for the abutting properties. Friedman Homes have met all the requirements of their tract and state law requires that administrative action be taken to approve tile map. If the channel is to be extended, it will have to be conditioned upon future developments in the area. CITY COUI,ICIL STAFF REYORT TRACT 13315 - FRIEDMAN HOMES MAY 16, 1990 PAGE 2 Tile Developer, Friedman Homes, guarantee the construction of amounts: Street Improvements is submitting an agreement and security to the off-site improvements in the following Storm Utility Drain Landscaping Undergrounding Faithful Performance Bond: $2,100,000 $1,300,000 $380,000 $435,000 Labor and Material Bond: $1,050,000 $ 650,000 $190,000 $217,000 Copies of the agreement, security and offer of dedication are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts. C.C. & R.'s have been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in · the City Clerk's office. Attachments DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 29, 1990 City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer · Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil Engineer Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, acceptance of offer of dedication and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. I and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. i and 2 for Tract 13316, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Avenues, submitted by Friedman Homes {Continued from 5-14-90) ' RECO~4ENDATION It is reconmlended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13316, accepting the subject agreement, security, offer of dedication, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. i and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYS IS/BACKGROUND The above referenced project was continued from the City Council meeting of May 16, 1990. At that meeting, local residences expressed concern regarding tile development, particularly the storm drain facilities. Due to the massiveness of the project, the Council requested additional time to visit the site and directed staff to provide more detail background analysis. The Planning Commission unanimously approved Tentative Tract 13316 at the March 25, 1987 meeting. Two main issues were brought out by surrounding property owners. They are: 1) orientation of the homes backing onto Carrari Street and 2) requirements of local Equestrian trails and keeping of horses'. No records were found of the property owners voicing any concerns about the proposed storm drain facilities. Although the tentative map shows the storm drain going to the east, the Conditions of Approval for the tract ~pecifically state that the debris basin and the entire storm drain system shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that lots 9 and 10 which are located at the southerly extension of the main north/south street and adjacent to the southerly tract boundary shall contain a flood protection wall or other overflow protection device to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The conditions combined required the storm drain facility as it is now designed. CITY COUNCIL STAFF Rh 1T TR 13316 ;'4AY 29, 1990 PAGE 2 At the May 6, 1987 City Council meeting an appeal of Tentative Tract 13316 with regards to Planning Commission's decision of orientations of homes on Carrari Street along with the requirements of local equestrian trails and keeping of horses was heard. City Council modified the Planning Commmissions' decision relative to Carrari Street to provide increased landscape area and placement of walls along the top of the slope. The City Council upheld the General Plan policies and Development Code standards regarding equestrian trails and keeping of horses. Once again, no conerns were raised with regards to drainage. Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13316 went before the Planning Commission on April 26, 1989. The Planni'ng Division received letters from several homeowners along London Avenue expressing their concern of tile proposed drainage facilities. The time extension was approved to May 6, 1990, but Planning Coifmission discussed the issue of storm drain spillway and requested that the Planning Department review the storm drain plans to be sure the channel was as aesthetically pleasing as possible as it crossed over the affected properties. At the June 22, 1989 Design Review meeting, the comittee stated that the final design of the spillway should be reviewed by the committee for aesthetics, after the technicial part of the design is tentatively approved. An access should be provided to the homeowner to get to the rear of the lot east of the spillway. Planning requested that Friedman Homes submit revised plans for additional co~nittee review. The Design Review Committee on February 8, 1990 recommended at tile request of Engineering that the foot bridge be deleted due to the fact that the foot bridge is only 40' away from the proposed Community Trail bridge with an access road on the east side of the bridge which is available to allow access to the easterly side of the homeowners property. In addition landscaping surrounding the spillway will require tile final approval of the Design Review Committee prior to the final approval of the improvement plans by the City Engineer Attachments Staff Report 5-16-90 Vcra Rocha, Co-Founder Shoshone-Gabn'elino Notion Cultural Affairs Director Leeona Klippstein, Co-Founder Conservation Programs Director Douglas Doepk¢, Treasurer Policy Programs Coordina tar Steven Fisher, Ecologist Science Programs Coordinator Kathy Knight, Public Affairs Coastal Wetlands Coordinator Elizabeth Francis, Public Affairs Arroyo Seco Coordinator Ann Belis, Public Affairs Forest Coordinator Tcmff Burke, Communications Ar~ Oirector/Webmasrer spirit of the Sage C0uneil Protecting and Conserving Biological Diversi~, Native Plants, Native Animals and Native Lands A non-profit project of Social and Environmental Entrepmnems ISEE, Inc.), Mal~u, CA July 28, 1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: "Barratt American Development Project. Environmental Assessment Development Review 98-10. unincorporated non-profit environmental project and association with offic headquarters in the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County. The Sage Counclti supporting members, including indigenous Native Americans, scientists, :!:.i!i:i! educators and citizens, some of whom reside in the City of Rancho Cueare and County of San Bernardino, have a strong interest in the conservation of.~ regions rare flora and fauna (including threatened and endangered species),!. ~ natural resources, ecosystems, open spaces, and quality of life through wis~ planning and stewardship. The Sage Council enjoys and has a strong inter_e~.~m~, preserving the integrity of, among other things, the preservation of natural and contiguous coastal sage scrub associated habitats and the natural communities which supports a diverse assemblage of species and their needs. More specifically, the Sage Council has focused conservation efforts on the prote of the State's most "very threatened" association of Coastal Sage Scrub (CS~;) natural communities, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS), of w .~h~ white sage is often dominate and known to be additionally of Native American cultural concern as well as biologically sensitive. Sage Council members ha been active in this region of City and County in the enforcement of laws anc[' plans which are designed to protect said habitats and species which are kno,)vn to be of special concern to the State and/or federally listed as threatened and" endangered. ,,t- The decision of City to approve the reference project will have· detrimental impacts on the Sage Council, its members, and agents, who res and outside of the City and visit the area of the Project, enjoying the unique~ of the habitat area through passive recreation, outdoor education, scientifi~.-~ pursuits, nature photography and overall general welfare of enjoying Nature s--'; beauty and wonders for spiritual renewal. The Project if approved would take l, way, diminish and destroy such pursuits and abilities The Sage Council hi~' 30 North Raymond Avenue · Suite 302 * Pasaden~ CA 91103 .U.S~. ...... i~~r~' Tele: 626-744-9932 - www. sagecouncil.com · FAX: 626-744-9931 ? ,,,, ~:. ': B~R', ~ . ::.:,~ ~ ~-.~. ,,~, ~ $11 ~ ,; ,~ ' '.":,,~1~i~'.= .L';';:""-1.......;;-;.~ "~ ~ ll~ ~- .~ ~" City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 2 includes its members, agents and individuals who reside in the project neighborhood and have protested the project at previous public hearing and by signing a neighborhood petition. The Sage Council, as well as individual member, has also provided comments and wrote letters objecting to the proposed action of a City staff recommended negative declaration in a timely fashion. Since 1991, Sage Council members have actively defended Southern Califomia CSS natural communities, through public and government education as well as enforcement of environmental regulations. Related to such environmental concerns, in 1993 new innovative federal and state conservation programs and laws were created to give specific protection to Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) natural communities, including the habitat of certain targeted umbrella plants and animals that share the natural community with the so-called "indicator" species, the California Coastal Gnatcatcher (Gnatcatcher). The State of California Resources Agency entitled the referenced new program Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program for Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) and Governor Pete Wilson enacted the program into law under the NCCP Act. Such new Califomia Public Resource Codes encouraged the U.S. Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the Gnatcatcher as "threatened," rather than endangered, under the ESA. Before a species may receive protection under the ESA, it must be listed by one of the Services as "endangered" or "threatened." An "endangered" species is one "which is in daneer of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range ...."16 U.S.C. § 1532(6) (emphasis added). A "threatened" species is one "which is likely to become an endangered species with- in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Id...~ at § 1532(20). Once a species is listed, it receives critical protections under various provisions of the ESA. One of the primary reasons the FWS adopted the State NCCP program and Act was that it was meant to conserve not only the Gnatcatcher but CSS natural communities as defined in the adopted Conservation and Process Guidelines, including maps of the NCCP subregional planning areas throughout Southern California, including San Bernardino County (NCCP subregion 13.0) (Sage Council has provided the City with related documents in November 1998 -- see pg. 18, Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas "Subregional CSS NCCP Planning Unit Map" of the State NCCP Conservation Guidelines, November 9, 1993. NOTE NCCP subregion 13.0 is identified by the State as "Contain[ing] functional biological units of high conservation value" and should be planned as a whole rather than subdivided). Therefore, the Coastal California Gnatcatcher became federally listed with a section 4(d) special rule on December 10, 1993, under the ESA (16 U.S.C. §1533(d)), as applied by the Title 50, Sec. 17.41(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations and the rules expressly referenced and promulgated thereto. (see attached 50 CFR 17.4 l(b) and in City files the "Californian Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines.") Two years after the new State and federal laws went into effect to conserve CSS natural communities, for the Gnatcatcher and other target species, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 3 "In 1995, the County, 12 of the 15 cities [including City of Rancho Cucamonga} within the San Bemardino Valley, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and several utility companies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to prepare a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the San Bernardino Valley." (see Dec 9, 1997 letter from County, Supervisor Jerry Eaves to William Tippets, CDFG) The County, acting as lead local agency for the participating cities, requested approval from the State CDFG on December 9, 1997, that the 1995 MSHCP MOU, which expired on December 31, 1997, to be revised and extended to December 31, 2000. In response CDFG and FWS approved the request. In addition to the MSHCP MOU, on August 8, 1995 the County as lead agency for valleywide conservation planning, entered into another MOU with CDFG "regarding Natural Community Conservation Planning" for the period of October 5, 1996, through September 30, 1997 ("NCCP MOU" or "Contract No. 95-731") and that was also extended to the year 2000 so that the County would be eligible to receive funds appropriated through Congress for Southern California counties participating in the NCCP program. (see attached NCCP MOU). "The Fiscal Year 1998 Department of the Interior Appropriations bill approved by the President contains $2 million dollars for planning purposes as part of the Natural Communities Conservation Program for southern California. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will jointly oversee the allocation of the $2 million dollars and ensure the match of non- Federal dollars as intended by Congress... We are in receipt of the suggested allocation of funds by region/jurisdiction dated November 5, 1997, from the Five county Planning Group:... 3. San Bemardino County $450,000.00... ". (Nov 19, 1997 letter from CDFG'8~ FWS to County) .... Such NCCP funding for 1998 was in addition to the previous years, including the $100,000 that the County was eligible for at the signing of the NCCP MOU in 1997. The Sage Council has previously noticed the City Council and on or about November 18, 1998 reminded the City once again of their contractual obligations under the NCCP Act and Gnatcatcher 4(d) rule, submitting associated documentation for the administrative record that, absent of evidence, had not been previously considered or analyzed for project compliance. The Sage Council, through oral and written comments on the project, including project design, has presented and made available to the City "new information" regarding the Project' noncompliance with State NCCP for CSS and the new federal special rule under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Gnatcatcher, as well as a newly published scientific literature on the status of the Gnatcatcher in San Bernardino County, that was not previously in the Project's administrative record and in which the City failed to consider and adequately address prior to final project approval. This is considered "new" significant information is consideration of the City's previous review of this project and in which it is obvious, by the Staff report and recommendations, that the City has not made or provided the public with a comparative analysis for NCCP/MSHCP compliance. Nor is it reported anywhere that the City Staff has utilized the CSS NCCP Evaluation Logic Flow Chart in their decision making process. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 4 Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the City Planning Commission has previously not had the opportunity to review the referenced "new information" that the Sage Council has submitted for consideration and resolve in relationship to our alleged violations of the NCCP Act and related CEQA concerns. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, even though certain laws and protective mechanisms, as referenced, have been put in place, the pressures of development and actions of the City continue to compromise conservation measures and serve to permanently thwart the above NCCP conservation planning efforts. The County contracted biologists for the MSHCP/NCCP at the County. Natural History Museum have also informed the City that approval of projects, such as Barratt Homes, during the interim planning stages for the MSHCP/NCCP are precluded the future creation of viable reserves. The City has been made aware of these laws and regulations but continually ignore them and fail to apply them to this Project and others. These changes in environmental laws require that the CEQA process be re-opened up and that mitigation for CSS losses "shall be" imposed. There is no "substantial evidence" which allows City to deny and ignore that (1) that Project site falls within the State's delineated NCCP subregional 13.0 zone and has been identified as "of high conservation value" and of regional significance (2) that CSS natural communities associations exists at the site, (3) mitigation is required, (4) the Project is likely to preclude connectivity and future viable reserve design, and (5) the negative declaration offered no in-kind mitigation for CSS losses (6) that the project and project design is "controversial" and strongly opposed. By opening the Project to discretionary action, the City has failed to impose mandatory CSS mitigation and therefore is abusing its "public trust" discretion and failed to proceed in a manner required by law. As a matter of law, the CEQA process should be continued and the City Planning Commission deny staff recommendation, requiring an EIR rather than a negative declaration. The following facts and procedural events are pertinent to the referenced Project and proposed action by the City: In 1970, the State Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. (hereafter "CEQA") in order to prevent environmental damage "while providing a decent home and satisfying living conditions for every Californian." Pub. Res. Code § 21000(g). The California Supreme Court has stated that CEQA is "to be interpreted...to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247, 259 (1972); Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553,563 (1990). · On or about September 17, 1991 the Coastal California Gnatcatcher was proposed for Federal endangered status (56 FR 47053). City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Connell Page 4 On or about December 4, 1991 a "Memorandum Of Understanding By And Between The California Department Of Fish And Game And The United States Fish And Wildlife Service Regarding Coastal sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning In Southern California" was entered into. · In 1991 the NCCP Act was established by the State of California through enactment of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (CA Fish and Game Code 2800 et seq.). In August of 1992 the California Department of Fish and Game published the "Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Guidelines," including a technical report by the Scientific Review Panel entitled "Subregionalization For Natural Communities Conservation Planning." · On or about March 25, 1993 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gnatcatcher as a threatened species (58 FR 16742) and proposed a special rule. "Under: the special role, incidental take of the gnatcatcher by land-use activities addressed in an approved NCCP would not be considered a violation of section 9 of the [Endangered Species} Act, provided that the Service meets the issuance criteria for the "incidental take" permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 50 CFR 17.32 (b)(2).", and "Under the special role, a limited amount of incidental take of the gnatcatcher within the subregions actively engaged in preparing a NCCP would also not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, provided that such take results from activities conducted consistent with the State's NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines." (see on file with the City the Final EA of the proposed section 4(d) role to define the conditions under which incidental take of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher would not be in violation of section 9 of the ESA. November 1993) On or about November 9, 1993 the State of California, Department of Fish and Game published the amended "Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natreal Community Conservation Planning Process Guidelines." On or about December 10, 1993 the Coastal California Gnatcatcher became federally listed with a section 4(d) special rule, under the ESA (16 U.S.C. §1533(d)), as applied by the Title 50, Sec. 17.41 (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations and the rules expressly referenced and promulgated thereto. Thus, creating obligatory mitigation measures to ensure the protection of CSS natural communities in Southern California, as well as the Gnatcatcher itself. ~ In 1995 the City of Rancho Cucamonga was one of fifteen Cities in Southwestern San Bernardino County that entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the County, CDFG and the Service "For the purpose of developing and implementing a habitat conservation plan to conserve wildlife and plant species of concern in the San Bernardino Valley. Such participation by the City in the MOU also gave away its local lead agency authority to the County and identified Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga as the designated Point of Contact. (See MSHCP MOU Revised 8-4-95 Section 4.0 et seq., pg6) /c7~3 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 6 On or around February 11, 1997, the County, acting on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other "signatory members" of the MSHCP MOU, entered into a NCCP MOU (a.k.a. Contract No. 95-731 and 97-93) to ensure that "The County and its constituent members participating in the San Bernardino Valley MSHCP concur with the goals of the NCCP Act..." and is "[i]ntended to supplement, not replace, any existing written agreement between the parties." In addition, the County's Minutes of the Board of Supervisors made clear that although the County was not enrolling in the NCCP "The approach that the County has taken on the San Bernardino Valley MSHCP has been to develop a plan that is "consistent with the goals" of the NCCP..." The FWS has defined the "goals" of the NCCP in the 1993 Biological Opinion for the Section 4(d) special rule for the listing of the Gnatcatcher, as follows; "The ultimate goal of a NCCP Program is to provide for the establishment and management of permanent multi-species preserves. This establishment of preserves under the NCCP includes the incorporation of biological corridors and linkages with other natural lands. Local governments, environmental groups, land owners, land developers, the CDFG and Service will be collaborating on the development of such plans. There are two important features of the special rule. The first aspect of the special rule defines the conditions under which a limited amount of incidental take of coastal California gnatcatchers would not violate Section 9 of the Act, prior to the development of an approved conservation plan pursuant to the NCCP. This loss of coastal sage scrub habitat and coastal California gnatcatchers could only occur within areas that were participating in, and preparing conservation plans under the NCCP. The amount of interim loss permitted would be that which the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) has found acceptable (i.e. no more than 5% of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat) and which occurred in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game's Conservation Guidelines. The area included in the NCCP Planning Area includes portions of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties." (See Figure 1 of the Conservation Guidelines where the SRP has identified CSS in San Bernardino and Project area as having "high" conservation value.) The SRP recommended during the interim when long-term plans are being drafted that no more than 5% of coastal sage scrub should be lost to prevent foreclosure of future conservation planning options. "It was recommended that these short-term losses of habitat occur in areas of low conservation value." (See on file with the City USFWS Nov 19, 1993 Biological Opinion on the Proposed Special Rule) The City's decision not to prepare an EIR is to be upheld if its decision is supported by "substantial evidence" in the administrative record. Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162 ("CEQA Guidelines"); Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467. California case law interpreting Pub. Res. Code § 21166 and CEQA Guideline § 15162 have concluded that the law and regulations requiring further CEQA environmental review have been created to balance the finality of CEQA review (having fully reviewed the project in the context of a prior EIR or mitigated negative declaration) with the need to provide the fullest protection of the environment within the meaning of CEQA. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 7 The general presumption and understanding is that Pub. Res. Code § 21166 is meant to "provide a degree of certainty and finality" in the absence of changed circumstances. Kostka and Zischke, Practice under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 19.37; Bowman v. Cite of Petaluma, (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065. This case involves the mere preparation of a 1990 Negative Declaration, for which the environmental analysis and conclusions merely have every single box checked "no impacts." Not a single mitigation measure is offered notwithstanding the obvious pristine location of undisturbed sage scrub habitat filled with sensitive species. This "box checking" is only a "preliminary analysis" by comparison with an environmental impact report which is a much more substantial document. The City's Failure to Proceed in a Manner Required by Law is a Prejudicial Abuse of Discretion. An agency has abused its discretion if it has not complied with procedures required by law, or if its determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Laurel Hei~lats Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Universite of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 393 (1988). "As a result of this standard, '[t]he court does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR's environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document' [citation]," and any reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of the administrative finding and decision. Id.. An adequate EIR provides enough analysis and information to enable decision makers to account for environmental consequences and an agency abuses its discretion when it fails to include relevant information that precludes informed decision making and public participation, which are the stated goals of CEQA. Laurel Heights, supra at 403, 405; CEQA Guidelines § 15151. A court presumes prejudice when an agency fails to obtain information necessary to a meaningfid assessment of potentially significant environmental impacts, the development of mitigation measures, and project alternatives. In regards to the referenced project, the City's failure to follow federal and state mandates to re- open the CEQA process and provide adequate mitigation "consistent with the goal of the NCCP" creates the automatic situation where non-compliance with CEQA and the NCCP Act exists such that the decision makers and the public did not have all of the information they needed and were required to have to fully understand the ramifications and impacts arising from this Project. As a matter of law, the City and must recognize that the changes in environmental conservation laws, as applied to this Project, amounts to "substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project us undertaken" and "new information." Pub. Res Code § 21166(b) & (c). Earlier consideration of these environmental constraints could not have been done earlier as part of the Project's environmental review because such laws and planning efforts became "new information" in 1993 and therefore, due to the fact of their non-existence, could not be considered, reviewed or presented by the City, Sage Council (or any other person for that matter) in the exercise of reasonable diligence. In 1993, the State and Federal governments, adopted rules and criteria for development of the Project site. Specifically, review under CEQA would analyze planning efforts to conserve of large blocks of contiguous and analyze the impacts to coastal sage scrub (CSS) and determine the amount and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 8 type of mandatory mitigation for any loss of CSS. As a result of the 1993 changes in laws and regional planning efforts, the Project is now being undertaken under circumstances for which substantial changes in the impacts - and the importance of those impacts - cannot be questioned as a matter of law. Substantial changes to the checked boxes of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration are necessary so that the decision makers can review and be accountable for their decisions to not require mitigation and to ignore State and Federal regional conservation planning efforts. The requirement of CEQA, within the context of this Project, mandates that (1) the City must avoid or reduce all environmental harm by adopting feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, and (2) decision maker and an apathetic public must be informed on the environmental consequences of proposed projects. Based on the CEQA Negative Declaration/Initial Study for this Project, there is no possible way the decision makers and the public can be informed. The failure to proceed in a manner required by law in order to disclose impacts arising from the Project further impairs the City's challenged decisions such that they must be overturned via a writ. The only way a Court could find that the 1993 changes in law are not substantial and will not require major revisions of the 1990 negative declaration, is to ignore them. Changes in Circumstances and New Information under Pub. Res. Code § 21166 The Project is now subject to supplemental CEQA environmental review based on the threshold conditions for such further analysis. Cal Public Resources Code § 21166(b)-(c) provides that; When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplement environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:... (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known, and could not have been known at the time of the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. Cal Public Res. Code § 21166 [emphasis added] Under subsection (b), supplemental environmental review will only be required where "major revisions in the environmental impacts report" is required. This is not the case with subsection (c) which requires that "new information," arising since the time of prior CEQA environmental review, must be considered within the context of CEQA. And as will be proven below, the specific 1993 ("new information") laws specifically reference this supplemental environmental review. (See discussion below) City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 9 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) parallels the Code that an SEIR shall be prepared when, based on the substantial evidence: (2) "substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration"; (3) "new information of substantial importance, which was not known, and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerable different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the environment... CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) [emphasis added] Because the there has not been a single disclosure of an environmental impact in the previous Negative Declaration/Initial Study, the changes in laws creating the impacts easily invokes the threshold for further environmental review under Section 15162(aX3)(A) & (aX3)(D). It Laws and NCCP Planning Efforts Adopted Since 1990 CEQA Review Expressly Require Further CEQA Analysis and Mitigation. The federal listing of the Califomia Coastal Gnatcatcher as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.) requires the conservation and preservation of the alluvial fan and coastal sage Gnatcatcher habitat where this Project is located pursuant to the ESA. 50 C.F.R § 17.41(b) [special rule under Section 4(d) of ESA]. The 1993 State and Federal rules and laws adopted to ensure the protection of the Gnatcatcher created binding rules to protect coastal sage scrub habitat. The protection of CSS habitat was expressly to be "implemented through the Southem California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP ("Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP"). Id., 50 C.F.R § 17.41(b)(2)(i) & (ii). Pursuant to that codified adoption, not greater than 5% of the CSS loss would be allowed in the "interim" period while the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP is being prepared. The 1993 State and Federal rules and laws to protect CSS habitat require jurisdictions, such as the City, participating ("contracted" or "enrolled") in the NCCP to follow specific procedures (through "Process Guidelines") which requires specific analysis and mitigation for CSS losses during the interim period while the CSS NCCP is being prepared. 50 C.F.R § 17.41(b)(2). See, CSS NCCP Conservation Guidelines and Process Guidelines respectively. In accordance with the State-adopted CSS NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, there are procedures set forth to satisfy the Federal govemment's ESA 4(d) requiring the mitigation of all interim CSS habitat losses. The purpose of the City's participation (or "enrollment") in this NCCP plan is to: 1) protect "enrolled" coastal sage scrub habitat during the interim planning period, and 2) to initiate the collaborative planning process which will result in long-term habitat protection through a NCCP. (Process Guidelines § 1.5) The Process Guidelines specifically set forth the mandatory process for CSS mitigation and NCCP planning considerations to be followed: Project design must be consistent with the Conservation Guidelines...and must, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize habitat loss. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat and the target species must be mitigated to insignificant level as required by the Califomia Environmental Quality Act...[a]ppropriate mitigation must be identified in a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant. Process Guidelines § 4.3, !~ [emphasis added] Furthermore, with continuing relevance to this Project, the Process Guidelines require "Interim Habitat Loss Approvals" where an application must be processed and approval pursuant to CEQA whether or not prior CEQA review has already been conducted: The application for interim habitat loss must be submitted to the local jurisdiction with the entitlement responsibility for the associated project. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, consistent with applicable requirements of state law, will be undertaken by the local agency to provide an appropriate level of analysis in order to make the required findings. (1) If the project proposed for interim habitat loss has already obtained final CEQA approval, the local government will determine whether the CEQA document addressed potential CSS impacts and potential impacts on gnatcatcher populations and minimized and mitigated the impacts to the gnatcatcher. If the local jurisdiction determines that the project impacts have not been mitigated consistent to the above standards then the project must meet mitigation requirements of 4.3. (2) If no CEQA review has previously been undertaken, then CEQA review shall be necessary, consistent wi_'_th current la~w, and the project must meet the mitigation requirements of 4.3. (Process Guidelines § 4.2, ~ _ -5 ...... [emphasis added] Therefore mitigation of CSS habitat through the CEQA process is required for this Project. Because the City is contracted in the CSS NCCP, enabling it to benefit from the from the interim take provisions of the ESA 4(d) rule, the compliance with the NCCP Guideline mitigation requirements are mandatory. Even if the City were not specifically participating (not "enrolled") in the CSS NCCP, the Federal ESA 4(d) Gnatcatcher rule and the State's agreement to implement it through the CSS NCCP, still requires CEQA analysis and mitigation for lands within the CSS NCCP program area based on the ESA Section 9 prohibition against destroying "taking" Gnatcatcher habitat as admitted and recognized by the City.; See also, Process Guidelines § 3.4 [discussing non-enrolled jurisdictions].. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissioners RE: Barratt American 7/28/99 PER: Spirit of the Sage Council Page 1~. For these reasons and others, the Sage Council requests that the City Planning Commission reject the Planning staff recommendations and request that an EIR be prepared to ensure adequate mitigation measures for biological resources have been met, as well as to adequately address other concerns by residents regarding design height of structures and road safety (project ingress and egress) for children. If you should have any questions please contact Leeona Klippstein, Conservation Programs Director at (626) 744-9932. Thank you. For the wild Earth, Leeona Klippstein, Co-founder Conservation Programs Director Spirit of the Sage Council Craig Sherman, Legal Counsel Glenn Black, CDFG Ken Berg, USFWS uf uf muu tnu 5UPERVlE~OR. FIFTH DI~rRICT December 9, 1997 Wllllem E. TiltPets California Departmen~ of Fish and Game 4949 Vtaw, idge Ave. San Diego, aA 92123 Dear Mr. Til::~i~: In 1.995, the County, 12 of the 15 cities. within ~ .~,-,t._Beman:lino Valley, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Departme~ of Fish and Game, and several utility oompant~ Ngned a Memorandum of Underatartding (MOU) to prepare a Multi-8~ Habl~t Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the San B®mardlno Valley. As you know, the plan ha~ not gone forward due to a lack of funds. However, the County has recently received $400,000 from the National Fish and IMIdlife Foundation and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Even though this amount is nol armugh to oomlalel~ the. eallm_ldan, it will allow u~ to proceed with the biological and land u~e data collection work that needs to be done. The current version of the MOU terminates as of December 31, 1997. I am requesting that your department approve a revised MOU that idt.,dili.e; Decam~ 31, 2000 as the new target date for final approval of the plan and the new tanneretlon date of the MOU. Please process and sign the revised MOU as soon as possible and return it to Randy 8oott, Planning Manager, Land Use Services Department, 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182. Thank you for your interest and ooopemtion. JE:JS cc: Liam H. Davis, Assoc. Wildlife Biologist Sen Bernardino Cour~ty Gov~nmefit Center · 385 North Arrowhead Avenue * Sen Bernerclmo. CA 92415-0110 ' 1909! 387-45~/5~6 §1741 identification or other re~onn consist- ent with the conservation of ~he en~ ~). ~en i~ h~ ~n ~b!leh~ by ~he ~!~. in consulSties with ~. ~ an ~l~ In quition no~ · Florld~ ~her (Fel~ c~) or ~ e~ ~ (Fe~ c~col~ ~u~), such ~mov~ f~m ~e wild. ~e ~lMon of ~1~1~ so ~ken ~1 ~ ~ ~he di~ ~on of ~e ~o~d~ W~r Fish Corn~l°n, wi~h ~e (4) T~ke for ~ of ~) of ~ ~lon m~ in w~ ~ ~e U~- ~ ~ Wildlife ]~in 5 ~- ~e s~~n ~ on~ ~ ~, ~n~ of, ~ ~ in ~ wt~ ~Mo~ ~m the 50 CFR Ch. I (10-1.-'96 Edition) fic~tion or withdrawal if the Servic~ determines that this provision fails t0 further the connervalise of the Louisi- ana black be~r. (j) Arcall (Ov/s amass) Kyrgy~st~n, Mongolia, T~jlkishtn--(1) Except ~s noted pe. ragr~ph (iX2) of this section, all bibtripes of ~ 17.31 of this p~rt and eruptions of §17.32 of this pat% apply to this species in Kyrglr~st:~, Mongolia, and TaJikist~n (l/eTa--In all other parts of tt~ range 9xg~lJ is classified u endangered and cOVe*',J (2) Upon receiving from the govern- menl~ of Klrrg~s~, Mongolia, 4~Jikist~n properly documented verifiable certAfic~tion that (i) ~ nomfiatJon~ tn these countries a~. ~!' ~ontAY !axge to mmt~in sport !mn~ inc, (it) regulating authorities have tM co;p~lty to obtain sound dat~ on tht~ polmlations, (lid regulating authorltie~ t~mogliLmm the populations as a ~h. able r~ourc~ and have the legal U.S. Fish ond Wildlgo Sefv., Intmdo~ shall apply to any threatened bald eagle, except ~hat any permit issued under {21.22 or part ~ of tJfis clmptor shall be deemed to satisfy all require- monte of §§ 17,31 and 17.32 for that au- Umrized activity, and & eccoml permit #hal} not bo required under §1~.32. i~rmlt Is ~qulred under §17.32 for any activity not covered by any permit sued under ~21.22 or imrt ~ of this chapter. (2) iRenerved] (b) Coutal Galiforuia gnatcatcher (Poltoptila caliComica ca/tlormca). (1) Ex- cel~ an noted in Imra41~phs (bX2) and 13) of thin neetion, all prohibitions of {l{21(a) and (b) shall apply to the co~tal (~tlifornia gnat~ttoher. (~) Iucidentai take of tJ~ ~onstal Callferule IOutte~toh~r will not b~ con- sidereal a violation of section 9 of the gndan~red 8pecans ~n0nded (Act), if it r~ultm from uctivi- t~ conducted pure.st to the State of Califorui&*s N&tor~ ~ommunity Con- Mrwtlon Planning Apt of 1S91 (NCCP), ~d in aaoord~ne~ with & NCOP plan pr~tlcai cap~city to mattake the_m...~_ for the protestion of oommt~ ~ ecrub fi~es' bear (f~sus ...... l&tlnf a~,' _hah{ .t~t. i~epared ~t ~ the (l) ~?. ~~~ ~' (iv) the ~l~ or th~ w~ ~MbiM~of~ _-. ~k ~ ~ ~m ~e ~i~e%r~~ ~: ~v~, .~ Im~.~ ~M~k~ (~' ~~ ~!y ~ ~-. ....... ~,~. . ffi) ~ F~ ~ Wildlife MP~)' ~IRI) ~ J17.31 ~8MnL wtbn ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~' b ~ C. ) ~t~n ~ncu~ (2) ~tion t ~ .~n~ M ~ of the Ac~ ~u~ofi~.~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~p ~n ~U ~e For ~ ~U~ ~ ~ ".~ yield of timer ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h~ ~- ..... ~tion ~ni~ in ~the~ ~lfo~ tat. For purposes of this special rule, candidate den trees ~re eonnidet~l to be I~ld cyprmm and tupelo gum with visible cavitiml, laving a minimum di- mester at bre~t !mlwht (DBH) of 36 inch~. a~d occurring in or along Hv- er~. lakes, streams, bayous, 01ouwtm, or ~urmm, u, ~ p'or t*som~..~ tb MOU m'e amihLble from the U.8. Se~ttorm Affected in the Findlnf Aids u~ ,: ~ and Wildlife Service. G~rlsb~i Uon of tMs volume. j NeM Office, 2730 tmker Avenue West, J 19.41 ~ t~les~btrd~ ~: C4rbbad, CA 9~08.) The Service shall w~tlter the implementation of the (a) Bald engle9 (Haifa~m~i :~ ~SCCI' plan and rrmy rovoke lie concur- feucocep~zfus) wherever lintel ~u0e under this ptraeTaph (bX2Xil) if other w~ter bodied. ~ (3)Thisexpre~exemPti°n lernermat threatened under §l~.ll(h)' / !::. ~ N~P plan, as implemented, fails forest m~nngement activities provided (1) Applicable provisions. All ~*Mh~ to the atandlFds ~ot forth in by this special ruin In sub,oct to modl- lions and measures of ~17.31 ~l l{ 0Fit 1~.32/bX2). § 17.42 (3) During the period that. a NCCP plan referred to in paragraph (i,~<2~ of thin section 18 being prepared, b~,:idon- tel take of the coutal Califocula gnatcatcher will not be a.violat/on of ~ection 9 of the Act if such' t:~ ks within an area umh,,,' the juri,,dic: i.. of a local govern,sent agency tital, i~ rolled and actively engaged in the peepsration of ~uch a plan and such take result2 from activities conducted in accordance with the NC~P Con.,:erva- ties Outdolines and Process Guidelin,,s. (~) The Service will monitor the ira- plementation of the NCOP Conserva- tion and Proseta Ouideliues as a whole, and will conduct a review every 6 months to determine whether the guidelines. es implemented, are live in l~eOgressing toward or mee~ittg regional and subregional connervati.n obJ~ctives during the interim planning p~riod. If the Service determines that the guid®lines are not effectleg ade- quate program toward or meeting re- gional and subregional conservation objectives. the Service will consult with tam Oalifornia Department of Fish and ({me pursuant to the MOU to appeopeiatm modification of the guido- !i!!~ or limit application az defined thais. If appropriate modification the {~tid~linmi or their application d~fined therein do~ not o~ur, the /{~t*vies rfiay revoke the interim take provisions of this special rule on a sub- regiseel or subarea basis. The tlervlee will Imbliah the findings for revocation in the F~ulm.qL R~OLSTKit sad provide for a {O-day public comment p~riod prior to the effective date for revoking tim peoviMons of the special rule in particular area. Revocation would re- suit in th~ reinstatement of the take i~ohibitionm set forth under 50 OFR 1{.31(a) and (b) in the affected NCCP [43 Fit ~m.Fmb. 14, 1~/8. a~ amended at p~, _____m~m~'~,. 10, 19{9; 60 FP, M0i0, July IZ. 1~1 tiv~ 8peehi rube--reptile~ (a) American alltheater (Alligator m/s~/ss/pp/en~).-(l) Defmit/o.$. For purpose of this par~fraph (a): "Arnor- ican alligator" shah mean any member of the apeelco Alligator mississipptensis, whether alive or dead, a~d any part, 171 I MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISHAND GAME REGARDING NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNING Thb Memorandum of Undemmnd]ng (MOU).is n~cle by and L stv.,e ,:t San · .." WHEREAS, the C~ldifomla Legislature autt~,eJ m NMuml Community hahliars for mulliple ,pec, ie~, Including. th~ end endangered ~pc:l,a. and WHEREAS, the goab of the NCCP proce~ c~nplemant and support the U.S. Fish ~ ~~ ~ (~~ ~ '~~ ~~ ~~n p~ '* ~~, ~t ~ s~ d~ of ~ U.S. ~rm, ~ ~ $1.5 m~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ur ~ ~ ~ ~ NCCP P~ ~ ~ ~ p~~ ~ ~E~, ~ $1.5 m~on, ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ a~l ~up~ $1~,000. Ch~e ~~ Is =~in~ ~ ~e ~~ ~gh · grant ~~~ ~~ N~onM F~h and ~ Foun~n ~m~er ~ 'Fo~~, WHEREAS, the county rand the NCCP Program are committed t= efi~=tJng regiormi i~t~ and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing c~,,,t,.~t,~le and appropriate development and growth, and_wish ~ ensure the .. _.cooperdive.. of developmm~t, monitoring, and reporting of the count~s program act~v~es by means ~ MOU, NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed and understood m follows: the NCCP Act ~ h~ve .d~ed thnt the NCCP Act n'my provide Itm Iq~pra~ roeerie for the County emd Im ~ merebern to fumi~ mlmpm~ ixolmllon for i1~ ,Auguwt 8, 1006, (ColTb'act No. 96-731)... The County ~Klmee to provide docmme~d~lion of i,¢,,/o,,,mnoe for ti~ MSHOP tmdm idenfflbd belchv md claUdled in County Attach,,. a~ 1 Of this agnmnmr4 and h'K:kKIIng n fiecnl cl~pi~y of ..expenditures to dnte:. be e. Pubi~ Outremch P~tJcJp~n Ttm Dep~rtment mus( be informed In writing ~ ~ny budg~ m:lju~mm~ belween component t~das 30 d~y~ pm~r to ~!ng ~ oc.,~ trak. q The County agrees to furnish to the Depa, b.e,~t a final report of pe~f3ffr, ance within 60 days from the term of the grant agra m:tx~nt and, upon mqumt, to provide oopkm of all eupporting documentation ingludb~ copiae of alii contmc~ and wo~. programs erRered Into by !~® ~. Upon sigrmtm'es of this MOU, the ~ agrees M nalify ~he Fou, ~, to ra!? tee $100,000 to the County as provided for trodrathe tmrm m~d ccmdiUons of the grant agreement. The term of this agreement may be extended by mutual co~ment of both partk~ through an arr~J~tt aa apedfled In paragraph E of thll au,~&fnenL . Payment Obligerlotto The Department will not Incur fbeal obligation under thi~ MOU. The Department's designated Project Manager fo~ thb MOU Ron Rm~pel, NCCP Program Manager 1416 Ninth Street ~acramento, California 95614 (ele) e~eeao FAX 01~- 653-2588 The County'$ deaigrmted Project Manager for this MOU is: Randy ScotL Planning Manager County of 8an Bmmedlno Pub~ Sewlo~ ~p P]~mning Del~rtment 386 N. Anewfreed Avenue, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA g2415-0182 (g0O) 387-4148 FAX 909-3873223 · Amendment and Termination Thi~ MOU may be amended with the written approval of both si~ of the MOU. Amendments may be proposed by ellher party and will be submitted for · wry (so) day pered of reaew eah.r party. The County or the Dep~ may terminate its pafl~=ipalJon ~ ~ MOU upon thirty (30) day prim' written notice to the olher party. F. Signatures . . 8an Bomardino Gounty Departrnont of Fbh find Oimo ' · Title: Approved ms b:2 Form: Ti~: 6. Pbn Ade~ 1 ~ W.a D.I COI~E~IVA TiON GUIOEUNE$ Attachment C. Evaluation Logic Flow.Chart P41ef' to ~x~ ~ ~ Emlu.don !~l_h.~,dl for ..~1~I:,'1~ RESULT LM P,~tl A~ I V~!ue Nove'm~:mr 9. 1993 02057 NCCP Region http://ceres.ca. gov/cra/NCCP/cssreg. h! Southern Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Region r""l NcoP Region Subregional Planning Areas Camp Pendleton Resource Management Plan Coastal/Central Orange County NCCP Northern Orange County Subregion Palos Verdes Peninsula NCCP San Bernardino Valley-wide M ultI-Species Habitat Conservation Plan San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation and OI0en Space Program (MHCOSP) San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program ~SCP) San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) San Diego Northern MSCP Subarea Southern Orange County NCCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Search I Comment I DFG I Resources Aeencv I !~--~ This file last modified on: Friday, September 26, 1997. i ~.~-~.] I:)o~um~t URL: http://oe~s.ca.sov/CRA/NCCP/cssrc~.htm ~t*~.~ Copyright © 1997 California R~sout~s Agea~c'y. All rights ~ 1 ofl ? ~6/99 8:16 PM RICHARDS, WATSON &~ GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT tAW THIRTY-EIGHTH .FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ~X)71-1469 (2 ~ 3) 62~-4B484 FACSIMILE (213) 620-0078 August 23, 1999 ONm= CIVIC C:EN'rER ClRC~.E ("z ~m 4) eeo-oeo 1 ! 143i l?.kgc 1231-00001 Michael Dee Rees, Esq. 9587 Arrow Route, Suite D Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Reference: City's Proposed Use of Drainage Easement in Connection with Development Review 98-10 (Barratt American, Tract 13316) Dear Mr. Rees: Our office serves as the City Attorneys' Office for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In my capacity of Assistant City Attorney, I am responding to your letter dated July 28, 1999 addressed to the members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. In your letter, you raised several policy and legal objections to the proposed drainage facility improvements planned to be constructed in the City's drainage easement that lies across the rear of your property in connection with the City's approval of the Barratt American project (Tract 13316) that lies north of your property. This letter responds to, and hopefully allays, both areas of concern expressed in your letter. By way of background, the properties along and east of London Avenue, including your lot, were created through a subdivision (Tract Map No. 9590), the final map for which was recorded on January 6, 1978. The final map contained an offer of dedication of a drainage easement to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose for which the dedication was required, as set forth in the conditions for Tract 9590, is to construct adequate improvements, together with the necessary offsite easements to convey drainage from Tract 9590 to the natural drainage swale existing offsitc at the tract boundary. Further, the conditions specify that flowage or County drainage casements would be required to convey runoff where flow alewaters onto private property. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23, 1999 Page 2 In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council accepted the drainage easement offered by Tract 9590 per Resolution No. 89-066, adopted on February 15, 1989. On May 29, 1990, the City Council approved Tract 13316 and the Improvement Agreement securing the drainage facilities. The recorded drainage easement duly appears in pertinent title reports, including the title report for your property located at 5217 London Avenue. Accordingly, you were provided actual notice of the existing drainage easement upon your purchase of the property in 1991. The City's Senior Civil Engineer, Mr. Dan James, has reviewed your objections to the drainage facilities that are under review for the Barratt American project and has concluded that your assertions regarding the purpose, design and operation of those facilities are incorrect in several significant respects. In addition, he has concluded that the modifications you have proposed are not required by the terms of the easement, would increase the risk of flooding, including flooding of your property, and would be contrary to accepted engineering principles. According to Mr. James, the drainage system to be constructed within Tract 13316 and then downstream and within the drainage easement across your property has a two-fold purpose. First, site drainage from Tract 13316 is collected in an underground pipe system and is discharged towards the drainage easement. In addition, drainage from the undeveloped area to the north of Tract 13316 will flow into a debris basin at the north end of that tract before entering the underground pipe system. The debris basin has a spillway to accommodate flow in the event the inlet of the debris basin plugs up (an occurrence which must be anticipated, and preventive measures incorporated to perform, during flood conditions). The flows drain south within a public street towards a concrete channel. This channel acts as a spiIlway from the site to the existing ravine downstream. The spillway is specifically designed to dissipate the flows and to thereby minimize the risk of flooding. Therefore, the spillway is essential to the proper design of the drainage facility. It basically consists of a concrete 12' by 9' channel extending from the southerly boundary of Tract 13316 across lot 14 of Tract 9590. The spillway outlets to the northerly portion of your lot (Lot 13 of Tract 9590) where quarter ton "rip rap" will be constructed to dissipate the flow and further reduce the risk of flooding. These flows then enter the existing ravine and continue south. It is Mr. James' position that the underground pipe system and spillway, and the other improvements described above, will better accommodate anticipated flows than if only an underground pipe were utilized through Tract 13316 and then across your property. As Mr. James explains, if the inlet for that pipe were to plug up and no above-ground channel existed to take the flow, both Tract 13316 and your lot would likely be flooded, with a greater likelihood that the flooding would not be contained within the drainage easement area. The proposed drainage system was designed by a reputable engineering firm hired by the project developer in accordance with accepted, standard engineering principles. The plans have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. Based upon this review, Mr. James has RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23, 1999 Page 3 concluded that the above-described drainage system meets or exceeds applicable codes, and that the drainage facilities are specifically designed and intended to implement and accomplish the purposes of the drainage easement. In your letter, you assert that the drainage facilities will destroy all the natural drainage, shunt everything into an impervious pipeline, and aim it at your backyard. This misstates the design and effect of the improvements. As explained above, the drainage system contains both above and below ground features which, together, are designed to accommodate the flow of surface and flood waters, channel them through the existing natural drainage pattern, dissipate them to reduce flood risk, and remove them from the area downstream, and southerly, from your property and the adjacent residences. The planned facilities follow the natural watercourse for the subject watershed area and channel the surface flow into the natural drainage pattern. While some increased flow may be anticipated with the proposed development, the protection afforded by the planned drainage facilities should increase from the current level of protection existing in the natural and unimproved state. You also suggest that the underground pipe should be "buried" to the point of a drainage pond existing in an unspecified location. This proposal is not required by the terms of the easement and would be unreasonable and imprudent from an engineering standpoint. An above- ground spillway and debris basin are integral aspects of the flood protection afforded by the drainage facilities, removal of which would jeopardize its integrity. The City is not aware of any cost issue (which you alluded to as being a concern of the developer's) in connection with undergrounding the pipe. Simply, from a public safety standpoint, the City could not approve the undergrounding you suggest for the reasons stated. In addition, the above design is entirely consistent with applicable legal principles. The citations you provided, with one exception, pre-date two leading cases by the California Supreme Court that caused a significant evolution in this area of law. See Locklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327, 367 (1994); Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District, 47 Cal.3d 550 (1988). The Locklin Court explains as follows: "A natural watercourse 'is a channel with defined bed and banks made and habitually used by water passing down as a collected body or stream in those seasons of the year and at those times when the streams in the region are accustomed to flow.' . . . A natural watercourse includes 'all channels through which, in the existing conditions of the country, the water naturally flows,' and may include new channels created in the course of urban development through which waters presently flow." Locklin, 7 Cal.4th at 334 (emphasis added). "[T]he natural watercourse rule has two aspects. The first permits the riparian landowner to gather surface waters and discharge them into the watercourse at a location other than that at which natural drainage would occur. The second RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23, 1999 Page 4 permits the owner to make improvements in the bed of the stream to improve drainage and to protect the land from erosion by constructing dikes or embankments even though the result may be increased flow and velocity which might damage the property of lower riparian owners. Both aspects of the rule have as their purpose facilitating the development of upstream properties." Locklin, 7 Cal.4th at 351. The proposed drainage facilities conform expressly to the principles enunciated in the natural watercourse rule. Those facilities were reasonably and prudently designed in conformance with applicable technical principles and codes, and in accordance with the express purpose of the drainage easement for the area. The City is unaware of any available alternative or mitigating measures which could decrease the risk of flooding or damage due to storm water runoff or increased surface flow. The cases you cite, and specifically the Yue decision which you attached to your letter, provide no basis for any legal challenge to the Barratt American project. The Yue. decision, in particular, involved reversal of a demurrer in a situation where the city allegedly failed to require the developer to mitigate the storm water runoff and failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water caused by the subdivision. Here, by contrast, your objections are directed at the developer's mitigation efforts and to the design of the upgrading of the drainage facilities which are intended to accommodate the increased flow anticipated from the proposed project. Moreover, unlike the Yue situation, the existing drainage system downstream of the proposed facilities has ample capacity to handle any increased flow created by construction of the development. You also raise certain objections at page two of your letter to improvements at the end of the proposed channel on your property, the proposed level of maintenance of the facilities, and to putting up a fence around the facility. You are correct that the City has no fee title interest in your property including your backyard. However, the City has an easement for drainage purposes over most of your lot, including the area of your lot where the facility is to be constructed. As noted above, you purchased the property with notice of, and subject to, this large drainage easement. These City's easement rights include the rights to use the easement in a reasonable manner to further the purpose of the easement; to enter the servient tenement to install pipes or other devices necessary for the City's enjoyment of the easement in a reasonable matter and to further the purpose and character of the easement. See Laux v. Freed, 53 Cal.2d 512, 525 (1960); Atchison, Tor~eka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Abar, 275 Cal.App.2d 456, 464 (1969). These easement rights are reasonably construed to include the right to construct a drainage channel, "rip-rap" at the end of the channel to slow the water flow in the dominant tenement, and the erection of a fence around those facilities to protect people from injuring themselves on the facilities or in the easement area. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Michael Dee Rees, Esq. August 23, 1999 Page 5 Likewise, the City is entitled to use and enjoy the easement without undue or unreasonable interference by the owner of the servient tenement. See Herzog v. Grosso, 41 Cal.2d 219, 228 (1953). This may include such reasonable measures as entering the property to conduct maintenance on the facilities. Indeed, an additional benefit of the proposed drainage facilities and project is the assumption by the City of regular maintenance of both the drainage facilities and the ravine. Currently, in its unimproved state, no public agency has responsibility for nor involvement in maintenance of the drainage facilities in the area. The City is committed to ensuring reasonable use of the drainage easement including conditioning and/or approval for the public safety of any and all plans for reasonably and prudently designed drainage facilities in accordance with applicable laws, and conditioning of approval upon reasonable measures to the public's aesthetic concerns. The City welcomes input from residents, such as yourself, and will consider any reasonable and feasible sugg~:stions or alternatives in connection with the Barratt American (and any other) project. We trust that this letter provides you with additional information necessary to alleviate the concerns you have expressed. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to submit them to the attention of the undersigned and we will endeavor to respond promptly. Very truly yours, Kevin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney STA:KGE:sta I t43117.kgc CC: Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Brad Buller, City Planner Saskia T. Asamura, Esq. Diana Santini (5207 London Avenue) 9587 Arrow Route, Ste. "D" Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 The Law Office of Matthew Dee Rees Attorney at law (909) 945-2225 Telephone (909) 945-2227 Fax July 28, 1999 The Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 OBJECTION TO APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 BY BARRATT AMERICAN: TRACT 13316 Dear Planning Commission Members, My name is Matthew Rees, residing at 5217 London Avenue, Alta Loma, California, just south of the planned development, with my wife and child. It has come to my attention that today is a hearing upon the approval of the proposed development plan, which I have objected to more than once in the past few months. Though I am impressed by the scope of the development, and the design of the planned homes, it would appear that little or no thought has been given to the impact of this proposed development upon the lower easement land owners. Our property backs up against a dry creek bed which drains the development area during adverse weather conditions. My property is impressed with an "easement for natural drainage" The proposed development intends to drain about half the proposed plan area into my backyard, collecting all the storm waters from the entire hillside above my home, and dumping them into my back yard and the yard of Diane, immediately north of my property. This plan is unlawful, ill advised, a clear eye sore for the immediate property owners, a danger to children, and an unlawful taking of my property without compensation. I oppose this plan vociferously. I have suggested in the past that I would be amenable to a continuation of this 5-6 pipe down the hill to the lower drainage pond. The pipe needs to be buried. This is expensive and this is why it is opposed by the developer. I'm sorry, but we will have a buried pipeline or we will have a lawsuit. the City is about to accept the dedication of this drainage pipe, therefore the City is hereby placed on notice that I will take whatever action is necessary to prevent this abomination from appearing in my backyard. The Commission is hereby advised to have the City Attorney take a close look at this law before approving this plan. The proposal is a clear burden upon the lower easement holders. Do not buy into this proposal. When I met with the Planning Department (which occurred after a recent public hearing hosted by Barrett) I was told the city planned to decorate the end of this pipe, put in some debris catchers, clean the pipe out once in a while, and pour a little cement in my backyard, and put up a fence to keep the kids out. Well this all sounds fine and dandy except the City doesn't own my backyard, and the City will not be puring cement in my backyard and the City will not be putting up any fencing in my backyard. Remember this pipe is 5 to 6 feet in diameter. Kids will be walking up this pipe unless it is fenced off, and the city does not own any property. This is a ~natural drainage" easement. It should remain a natural drainage easement. When the developer lays miles of impervious roads and gutters, and collects all the water off this system of streets, and destroys all the natural drainage, and shunts everything into an impervious pipelene and aims it at my backyard, threatening to erode my property and destroy my patio and backyard, I get a little angry. Fix the problem, do not let this get any worse. I have attached a little case law as an attorney is apt to do in the event somebody would like to actually read what the law has to say about my right and the rights of my family. Do not concentrate the entire drainage of this mountain into my backyard. Concentrating the entire drainage of the mountain in time and space, and discharging it into my backyard is not ~natural drainage". Believe me, I have done the research, this cannot be happening, but it just might tonight, nevertheless, unless some thoughtfull action is taken immediately. I thank you for your time, and should anyone wish to discuss this matter I am easy to get ahold of. ~t ~-~ee s~ s~ s~~~-~ - _~ A_tt. orne. y a_~ L~w and Objecting Local Resident P.S.: If it makes any difference "environmentally", there are also desert tortoises in my backyard. One has walked into my backyard, been fed lettuce for lunch, and directed back into the desert for dinner. And we have pictures to prove it. Legal Authorities: (Drainage Easements) 1. Albers rs. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inns vs. San Juan U.S.D. (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 174 Frustruck vsl City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 Burrows rs. State of California (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 29 Sheffet rs. County of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 720 Weaver rs. Bishop )1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 Yue rs. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751 Yue v. City of Auburn (1992) 3 CaLApp.4th 751, 4 Cal. Rptr.2d 653 View This Case Only · Cases Citing This Case [No. C009412. Third Dist. Jan 31, 1992.] WILBERT J. YUE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF AUBURN, Defendant and Respondent. SUMMARY An individual on behalf of a corporation doing business as a restaurant and bar, filed a complaint against a city, alleging a taking by inverse condemnation, and seeking damages for loss in value to the real property and for loss in value to the corporation's business and leasehold interest in the property, based on several incidents of flooding. Plaintiffs alleged that the construction of a subdivision increased impervious surfaces which in turn substantially increased storm water runoff onto plaintiff;' property, and that the city had failed to require the developer of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runoff; and had failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water. The city demurred to an amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead that the city~s flood control project failed to work as intended and that the failure was the result of some ~mreasonable conduct on the part of the city. The trial court entered judgment dismissing the complaint. (Superior Court of Placer County, No. 76821, Richard L. Gilbert, Judge.) The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment dismissing plaintiffs' co~laint, and ordered the trial court to overrule the general demurrer to the complaint. The court held that plaintiffs' complaint was sufficient, since it alleged that plaintifi~ had a private property interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by the project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the harm, and that the harm was substantially caused by the project. Inasmuch as the case involved surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, the court held that plaintiffs need not have alleged that defendant's drainage system failed to fimction as intended. The allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not previously subject to flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the repeated incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffg dated from the time the upland subdivision was developed. (Opinion by Marlet, J., with Blease, Acting P. J., and Simn, J., concurring.) [page 752] HEADNOTES (1) Pleading §23 Demurrer to Complaint--Demurrer as Admission--Application of Rule on Appeal, , Standard of Review.--On appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a general demurrer, the appellate court treats the demurrer as admitting aH material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which reasonably arise by implication, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. Further, the appellate court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. When a demurrer is sustained, the court determines whether the complaint states facts s~fficient to constitute a cause of action on any theory. Moreover, the allegations of the co--mplaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs ability to prove those allegations. (2a-2d) Waters §98 Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and RemediesmParties and Pleadings--Inverse Condemnation---Sufficiency of Complaint.--In an inverse condemnation action, in which plaintiffs alleged that their restaurant and bar had been damaged by flooding and excessive water caused by the city'. s failure to require a subdivision developer to mitigate storm runoff water, and by the citafs failure to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased water flow, the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's general demurrer, where the complaint alleged that plaintiffs had a private property interest in the damaged property, that damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by the project as designed and built, that it was a public project that caused the harm, and that the harm was substantially caused by the project. Inasmuch as the case involved surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, plaintiffs need not have alleged that the city's drainage system failed to function as intended. Further, the allegations allowed the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not subject to historical flooding, and the complaint also expressly alleged that the repeated incidents of inundations suffered by plaintiffs dated from the time the subdivision was developed. (3) Waters §89~Surface and Flood Waters--Protection Against Surface Watersmlnverse Liability of Public Agencies: Eminent Domain §131--Remedies of Owner--Inverse Condemnation--Inverse Liability of Public Agencies--Water Damage.--Inverse ]page 753] liability of public agencies due to water damage is determined primarily by private law rules governing interference with surface waters, flood waters, and stream waters. First, one has no fight to obstruct the flow onto his or her land of what are technically known as surface waters. Second. one has the right to protect oneself against flood waters, and for that purpose to obstruct their flow onto his or her land, even though such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of another. Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a natural watercourse. (4) Waters §9E Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and P!eadings--lnverse CondemnationmForeseeability and Substantial Cause.--A cause of action for inverse condemnation based on surface water damage must conform to general inverse condemnation principles and must be grounded in the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to the owner ( Cal. Const., art. I, § 14). An owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where actual physical damage is caused to his or her property by a public improvement as deliberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable, and a governmental agency may be held strictly liable, with or without fault, if the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even if only one of several concurrent causes. [Damage to private property caused by negligence of governmental agents as "taking," "damage," or "use" for public purposes, in constitutional sense, note, 2 A.L.R.2d 677. See also Cai.Jur.3d (Rev), Eminent Domain, § 307; 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, § 1057 et seq.] (5) Waters §98 Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings--Protection Against Surface Waters--Inverse Condemnation--Rule of Reasonableness.--An inverse condemnation cause of action based on damage by surface water is governed by a rule of reasonableness peculiar to that genre. If the upper owner is reasonable and the lower owner is tinreasonable, the upper owner wins. If the upper owner is unreasonable and the lower owner is reasonable, the lower owner wins. ffboth the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins. However, this reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be deterrn/ned in each case upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. A plaintiff need not plead the defendant's unreasonableness to state a cause of [page 754] action. Instead, the defendant must answer and raise the issue of the plaintiffs unreasonableness to prevail. Further, there is no incentive to try to plead and prove that the upper owner's diversion of surface water has been unreasonable, since the lower owner may prevail, regardless of the nature of the upper owner's conduct. (6) Waters §89--Surface and Flood Waters-Protection Against Surface Waters--lnverse Condemnation--Utility of Project Versus Harm to Landowner.--Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condeini~ation cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plainfifE The gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity, and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an unreasonable method of disposing of such water when weighed against the seriousaess of the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result. (7) Waters §9o° Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Parties and Pleadings~Surface Water and Flood Control Inverse Condemnation--Governing Policies.--The policies governing surface water and flood control inverse condemnation cases are different. In flood cases, the purpose of requiring allegations of both substantial causation and unreasonableness on the part of the government entity defendant is to prevent discouraging construction of flood protection facilities. However, no such concern is involved in surface water cases, since surface water damage typically follows alteration of natural drainage panems by a party who has developed a piece of property for profit, instituting improvements which are later incorporated into a governmental infrastructure. While this type of development is socially beneficial, there is no reason why the economic cost incident to the expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the adjoining landowners, rather than by those undertaking such projects for profit. (8) Waters §97--Surface and Flood Waters--Actions and Remedies--Inverse Condemnation--Duty to Upgrade Drainage Systems--Surface Waters Versus Flood ControL--In an action against a city for inverse condemnation, in which plaintiffs alleged that their property was damaged by flooding and excessive water caused by a poorly engineered drainage system, the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's general demurrer, even if defendant did not have a duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by any and all future storms. Where the evidence discloses that flood control projects [page 7551 undertaken by the defendant decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise naturally have occurred on the plaintiffs land, the defendant is not liable. However, plaintiffs were not alleging that defendant h, ad ,a dusty to build or upgrade a flood control system to prevent naturally OcC~un~fio'~'~,~'i~e~r~ ~i~i~~' ~g~nto plaintiffs' land: rather, they were claiming that defendant approved a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, and then built a culvert emptying into an inadequate drainage system, inevitably causing plaintiffs' !and to be flooded. COUNSEL Daniel P. Patterson, Curran & Alschuler and Donald W. Curran for Plaintiffq and Appellants. Stumbos, Mason & Thomas and Douglas W. Brown for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION MARLER, J.-- This appeal is taken from an order and judgment of dismissal entered by the trial court after sustaining the general demurrer to plaintiff~' second amended complaint for inverse condemnation without leave to amend. We shall reverse. Facts and Procedural History On May 23, 1986, Richard Yue, on behalf of RHKH, Inc. (doing business as the Shanghai Restaurant and Bar) filed a claim against the city of Auburn alleging that his restaurant and bar, located in the old city portion of Auburn, was damaged on February 18, 1986, by flooding and excessive water "caused by [a] poorly engineered drainage system." This claim was rejected by the city on June 12, 1986. On December 3, 1986, plaintiffs filed a complaint in superior court alleging a taking by inverse condemnation and a second cause of action for negligence. After a succession of amendments and demurrers, plaintiffs abandoned their negligence cause of action because of their failure to meet the filing requirements of the Government Tort Claim~ Act ( Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.), and ultimately filed a second amended complaint based solely on inverse condemnation. This complaint sought money damages for loss in [page 756! value to plaintiff Wilbert Yue's ownership interest in the real property and for loss in value of KHRH's business and leasehold interest in the property based on several separate incidents of flooding. The gravamen of the complaint is as follows: A development known as the Skyline Subdivision Project was built above plaintiffs' property. Defendant "planned, approved, designed .... constructed, ... and otherwise substantially participated in activities for the public use or benefit including the exercise of dominion and control over drainage courses which included offsite storm drainage facilities both man-made and natural dedicated for public use as a condition for the development of the upstream Skyline Subdivision Project. ..." The subdivision is in the Brewery Lane drainage basin and plaintiffs' land is below, in the Old Town area. The construction of the subdivision substantially increased impervious surfaces which in turn substantially increased storm water runoff.. The maximum inflow from the Brewery basin culvert is 105 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the capacity of the preexisting drainage structure below is 75 cfs. Defendant failed to require the developer of the subdivision to mitigate the storm water runoff and defendant failed to upgrade its drainage facilities to accommodate the increased flow of water. Defendant's drainage facilities are inadequate to handle the increased storm water runoff and plaintiffs' land has been inundated with water repeatedly as a consequence. On April 11. 1990, the city demurred to the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on May 23, 1990, due to plaintiffs' failure to plead that the city's "flood control project failed to work as intended and that the failure was the result of some unreasonable conduct on the part of the public agency." Thereafter, the judgment dismissing the complaint was entered, from which plaintiffs timely appealed. Discussion I (1) The standard of review on an appeal from judgment of dismissal following sustl~ining of a general demurrer is guided by long settled rules. We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, as well as those which reasonably arise by implication, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3 d 311, 318 [216 Cal. Rptr. 718, 703 P. 2 d 58]; Douglas v. E. & d. Gallo Winery (1977) 69 Cal. App.3d 103, 114 [137 Cal. Rptr. 797];Beason v. Gr/ff (1954) 127 Cal. App.2d 382, 386-387 [274 P.2d 47].) "Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their [page 7571 context." (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sa~fficient to constitute a cause of action on any theory. (Ibid.; Beason, supra, 127 Cal. App.2d at pp. 386-387.) Moreover, "'the allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.'" (Heckendorn v. City of San Marino (1986) 42 Cal.3d 481, 486 [229 Cal. Rptr. 324, 723 P. 2d 64], quoting Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal. 2d 240, 244-245 [74 CakRptr. 398, 449 P.2d 462].) A demurrer challenges only the legal sa~fflciency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiffs ability to prove those allegations. (Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 913,922 [216 Cal. Rptr. 345, 702 P. 2d 503].) II The dispute on appeal centers on the requirements for pleading an inverse condemnation cause of action based on water damage. That a dispute exists is understandable as there is considerable confusion in the law regarding the requirements for such a cause of action. 1(1) (2a) Defendant contends that the trial court was correct in ruling that the second amended complaint is defective because it fails to plead the conjunction of substantial causation and unreasonableness as set forth in Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist. (1988) 47 Cak3d 550 [253 Cal. Rptr. 693, 764 P. 2d 1070]. Defendant argues we should follow the trial court's lead and apply the specific holding of Belair that "when a public flood control improvement fails to function as intended and properties historically subject to flooding are damaged as a proximate result thereof; plaintiffs' recovery in inverse condemnation requires proof that the failure was attn3utable to some unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant public entities." (Id. at p. 567, italics added.) Plaintiffs, on the other hand, n~aintain that they have adequately pleaded a cause of action in inverse condemnation under the requirements applicable to the facts of this case. For reasons which follow, we conclude that Belair does not apply to the case at bar and that plaintiffs have stated a cause of action in inverse condemnation. [page 758] ffI There are causes of action for inverse condemnation due to water damage which differ according to the type of water involved. (Van Alstyne, Inverse Condemnation: Unintended Physical Damage (1969) 20 Hastings L.J. 431,448-465; 4 Witkin~ Summary of Cal. Law (3d ed. 1985) Real Property, §§ 797-806, pp. 975-983; Condemnation Practice in Cal., supra, Inverse Condemnation, §§ 13.13-13.17, pp. 348-354; 5 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate Law 2d (1989) Adjoining Landowners, §§ 14.20-14.23, pp. 343-357; 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain (3d ed. 1990) Taking and Damage, § 6.08[3], pp. 6-50 - 6-51.) The policy considerations and pleading requirements vary considerably with each type. Thus, the determination of whether there is a cause of action in inverse condemnation for water damage begins with the traditional analytical approach of finding what type of water caused the damage. This categorization process originated in tort cases and is followed in inverse condemnation lawsuits as well. (3) "[I]nverse liability of public agencies is determined in the main by the peculiarities of private law rules governing interference with" 'surface waters,' 'flood waters,' and 'stream waters.'[-]" (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 448-449.) The legal rights and consequences following such categorization of water types have recently been summarized as follows: "' "'First, one has no right to obstruct the flow onto his land of what are technically known as surface waters .... Second, one has the right to protect himself against fiood waters ... and for that purpose to obstruct their flow onto his land, and this even though such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of another .... Third, one may not obstruct or divert the flow of a natural watercourse. [Citations.]' "'" (Weaver v. Bishop (1988) 206 Cal. App.3d 1351, 1353-1354 [254 Cal. Rptr. 425] [private litigants], italics added.) In the present case, the complaint permits the inference, appropriate on general demurrer, that the water which inundated plaintiffs' property was surface water. The complaint describes increased "impervious surfaces," increased "storm water runorE" "storm waters," and a culvert, built upland from plaintiffs land to collect "runoff." In Keys v. Romley (1967) 64 Cal. 2d 396 [50 Cal. Rptr. 273, 412 P.2d 529], the Supreme Court described surface water as being "[w]ater diffused over the surface ot land, or contained in depressions therein, and resultmgfi'om rain, snow, or which rises to the surface in springs .... It is ... distinguishable from... water collected in an identifiable body, such as a river or lake. The extraordinary overflow of rivers and streams is known as 'flood water.'" (Id. at p. 400, italics added.) The facts alleged in the complaint are very similar to those in other inverse condemnation cases involving property damage caused by the diversion or obstruction of surface waters. For example, in Sheffet v. County of[page 759! Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal. App.3d 720 [84 Cal. Rptr. 11] the plaintiff recovered for damages caused by reduction in the natural absorption surface in a new development which created an increased and different pattern of surface flow from the upland tract and concentrated runoff to plaintiffs property. Burrows v. State of California (1968) 260 Cal. App.2d 29 [66 Cal. Rptr. 868] was a case in which defendant's road resurfacing and widening project eliminated a drainage ditch, thus changing drainage patterns of surface water and causing flooding of plaintiffs land. Frustuck v, City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal. App.2d 345 [28 Cal. Rptr. 357] involved damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land adjoining plaintiffs property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiffs existing ditch. The court noted the basis of the cit3?s liability was its failure to appreciate the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Frustuck property, functioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the diversion of waters fi-om their normal channels, would result in some damage to private property. (Id at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, sub divider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency." (Id. at pp. 362-363.) Finally, in Inns v. San Juan Unified School Dist. (1963)222 Cal. App.2d 174 [34 Cal. Rptr. 903] a school altered its properry's natural surface drainage pattern through a wide. vegetation- covered swale to direct water through a 28-inch culvert onto plaintiffs property. Although the plaintiff had always been subject to a "servitude" for the water from the school's land, this court held the increase in volume and velocity of water released into the swale created inverse condenmafion liability. (Id. at p. 177, citing LeBrun v. Richards (1930) 210 Cal. 308 [291 P. 825, 72 A.L.IL 336].) (4) A cause of action for inverse condemnation based on surface water damage must conform to 'the general inverse condemnation principles set forth in .dlbers v. County oJ Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250 [42 Cal.Rptr. 89, 398 P.2d 129], and grounded in Califomia's Constitution. 2(2) (Shefret, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at pp. 731-732.) In certain circumstances, an owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where !page 7601 actual physical damage is caused to his property by a public improvement as deliberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable. (Albers. supra, 62 Cal.2d at pp. 262, 263-264; contra Belair v. Riverside County Flood ControlDist., supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 567 [re Flood Waters]; Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 296, 306-307 [90 Cal. Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441].) In certain circumstances, a governmental agency may be held stricfiy liable, with or without fatfit, if the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even if oxfly one of several concurrent causes. (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 165, 171 [210 Cal. Rptr. 146]; accord, Belair, supra, atpp. 559- 560.) (2b) The complaint alleges that plaintiff. q are owners in fee of certain described real property in the Old Town portion of the City of Auburn, and are lessees of a restaurant sited on that property. Thus, the requirement that plaintiffq have a private property ownership interest in the damaged property- i~ satJailed. The complaint further alleges that "as a direct and proximate result of [city's design and operation] of the improvements ... and exercise of dominion over man-made and natural watercourses... for the management and control of storm waters, plainrifle' ... real properties have since development of upstream properties repeatedly been subject to inundation and invasion by storm waters and suffered damage ... because of the unreasonable activities and conduct of [city]." This satisfies the requirement of alleging damage to plaintiffs' property caused by the project as designed and built. The complaint alleges that the city "dedicated for public use" the drainage facilities located above plaintiffs' property, thus satisfying the necessity of alleging a public project caused the harm. Finally, the complaint alleges, albeit somewhat unclearly, that defendant constructed the Brewery basin culvert, with a capacity of 105 cfs, and sent water from the surface runoff of the subdivision through it into a preexisting 75 cfs drainage fac'fiity adjacent to plaintiffs' property, and that defendant's "failure to recognize" the existing storm "drainage facilities [were] inadequate" to collect the increased storm water runoff from Skyline Subdivision "proximately and substantially caused" damage to plaintiff. q' property. Thus, the Albers requirement of pleading substantial causation is satJailed. (5) An inverse condemnation cause of action based on damage by surface water is governed by a rule of reasonableness that is peculiar to that genre. (Burrows v. State oJ Cal~fornia, supra, 260 Cal.2d at pp. 32-33.) lpage 7611 Burrows, which first applied the reasonableness rule of private surface water law to an inverse condemnation case, succinctly summarized this rule as follows: "1. If the upper owner is reasonable and the lower owner [is] unreasonable, the upper owner wins; 2. [i]fthe upper owner is unreasonable and the lower owner [is] reasonable, the lower owner wins;... 3. [i]fboth the upper and lower owners are reasonable, the lower owner wins." (Burrows, supra, at pp. 32-33; accord Sheller v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at p. 728.) However, this reasonableness doctrine simply presents a question of fact to be determined in each case upon a consideration of all the relevant circum~ances. (Keys v. Romley, supra, 64 Cal. 2d at p. 410.) Plaintiffs need not plead defendant's unreasonableness to state a cause of action. (Burrows, supra, 260 Cal. App.2d at p. 33.) Instead, defendant must answer and raise the issue ofplaintiffq' unreasonableness to prevail in this case. As the Burrows court wryly notes, there is no incentive "to try to plead and prove that the upper owner's diversion of surface water has been unreasonable. He prevails, whatever the nature of the upper owners conduct. Why should he undertake the burden of proving the upper owner's diversion to be unreasonable? (6)(See fn. 3.) The reasonable diverter's money spends just as nicely." (Ibid.)3(3) (2c) Inasmuch as the case involves surface waters inundating property that was not subject to historical flooding, defendant's reliance on Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., supra, 47 CaL3d 550 is misplaced and plaintiffs need not allege defendant's drainage system failed to function as intended. First, as the Belair case deals with flood water (id. at pp. 554-555), another body of law altogether, it is inapposite. Second, the Belair court's use of the phrase "failed to fimction as intended" was a means offleshing out the requirement for pleading substantial causation (id. at p. 560) based upon the particular factual underpinnings of the case. In Belair the subject water had escaped from a dike constructed to protect a site that had been historically subject to flooding. (Id. at p. 556.) Therefore, to show that defendant's facility was a substantial cause of injury to that site, it was necessary for the plaintiff in Belair to eliminate the other probable causes ot damage, i.e., natural flooding. This in turn required focusing on the functional capability of the failed public project: if the dike had overflowed after [page 7621 it reached its design capacity, instead of when it was still below capacity, the cause of flooding might have been nature alone. (It/. at pp. 558-560.) Although nature had a hand in the injury produced in Belair, the dike there failed to protect plaintiff even when it was not operating at capacity, thus it failed to function as intended, presenting a substantial cause of the injury. (Id. at p. 560.) The facts of the case at bench present no similar obstacle. The allegations allow the reasonable inference that plaintiffs' property was not subject to historical flooding; the complaint also expressly alleges that the repeated incidents of inundation suffered by plaintiffs dates from the time the upland subdivision was developed. (7) Third, we note that the policies governing surface water and flood control inverse condemnation cases are different. In flood cases, as Belair states, the purpose of requiring allegations of both substantial causation and unreasonableness on the part of the government entity defendant is to prevent discouraging construction of flood protection facilities. (47 Cal. 3d at p. 558.) However, no such concern is involved in surface water cases. If anything, the opposite is true: surface water damage typically follows alteration of natural drainage patterns by a party who has developed a piece of property for profit, in this case a land subdivider, instituting improvements which are later incorporated into a governmental infrastructure. (See, e.g., Frustuck v. City of Fairfax, supra, 212 Cal. App.2d at pp. 362-363.) The courts have held that while this type of development "[is] socially beneficial, there [is] no reason why the economic cost incident to the expulsion of surface waters should be borne by the adjoining landowners, rather than by those undertaking such projects for profit." (Sheffet, supra, 3 Cal. App.3d at p. 731, citing Armstrong v. Francis Corp. (1956) 20 N.J. 320 [120 A.2d 4, 59, A.L.R. 2d 413].) Finally, we note that Belair is inapposite because it deals with unintended damage resulting from breach of a dike and the flooding that occurred thereafter. (Belair, supra, 47 Cal. 3d at p. 554.) As Burrows noted, "in ... surface water cases we do not usually deal with unintended, though foreseeable consequences of acts or omissions, but rather with intended restfits which may or may not be reasonable, depending on all of the circumstances." (Burrows v. State of California, supra, 260 CaLApp.2d at p. 34.) (2d) The trial court erred in applying Belair's pleading standards to a complaint alleging surface water invasions. [page 763] (8) Plaintiffs allege that the city's unreasonable "failure to rcco~tmi?g" the obvious problem in design, and its corresponding unreasonable "failure to upgrade" the existing drainage system, resulted in d~moge to their property. Defendant contends these allegations undermine plaintiffs' cause of action for inverse condemnation because defendant is under no duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by any and all future storms. But defendant is relying on inapposit~'flood control cases)for authority. (E.g., Tri-Chem. Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1976) 60 Cal. App.3d_.3,,,06 [132 Cal. Rptr. 142]; S~haeffer v. State of Cal.ifornia (1972) 22 Cal. App.3d 1017 [99 Cal. Rptr. 861] (overruled on other grounds in County of San Diego v. Miller (1975) I3 Cal. 3d 684, 693 [119 Cal. Rptr. 491, 532 P.2d 139]).) The cited cases did not involve a failure to plead a cause of action for inverse condenmation under any possible theory. Instead, they concerned the plaintiffs' failure to prove the defendants' flood control projects caused flood waters to inundate plaint/ff~' properties. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 CaLApp.3d at pp. 310-312; Shaeffer, supra, 22 CaLApp.3d at pp. 1019-1021.) The defendants were not liable because the evidence disclosed the flood control projects decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise have occurred naturally on the the plaintiffs' lands. (Tri-Chem, supra, at p. 310; Shaef_/kr, supra, at p. 1019.) Unlike the cited cases, plaintiffs are not alleging defendant had a duty to build or upgrade a flood control system to prevent naturally occurring flood waters from flowing onto plaintiffs' land. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal. App.3d at pp. 308-312; ShaeJfer, supra, 22 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1019-1021.) Instead, they are contending defendant approved the development of a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, then built a culvert to divert these surface waters even though defendant knew, or should have known, the new culvert would empty into an existing drainage system with a significantly smaller capacity, inevitably causing plaintiff;' land to be flooded. In other words, plaintiffs are alleging defendant had a duty to prevent harm to plaintiffq' land caused by conditions defendant approved or created. Since the cited cases do not hold that a defendant has no duty to upgrade an existing drainage system to accommodate an increase in and diversion of surface waters caused by the defendant, defendant's reliance on these cases is unavailing. [page 7641 Disposition The judgment dismissing plaintiffs' second amended co~laint should be reversed and the trial court ordered to overrule the general demurrer to the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs should recover their costs on appeal. Blease, Acting P. J., and Sims, J., concurred. [page 765] FOOTNOTE 1. A practitioner's manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should recognize that each case is decided on its particular factual situation, with little reliance on precedent. The characterization of inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddied and disorderbf [citation] is particularly descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal. (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.) FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shah not be taken or damaged for public use withore just compensation having first been made to ... the owner .... "( Cal. Const., art. I, former § 14.) FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff. "[T]he gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity and concentration of water. and thus may constitute an unreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness the resuking harm to lower landowners whose propert3.' is damaged as a result." (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, fn. omitted.) Endnotes I (Popup) FOOTNOTE 1. A practitioner's manual warns that "[d]ecisions in water damage cases defy logical synthesis. The practitioner should reco~tmize that each case is decided on its particular factual situation, with little reliance on precedent. The characterization ot inverse condemnation decisional law as 'muddled and disorderly' [citation] is particularly descriptive of water cases." (Condemnation Practice in Cal, (Cont. Ed. Bar 1973) Inverse Condemnation, § 13.14, p. 350.) 2 (Popup) FOOTNOTE 2. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to ... the owner .... "( Cal. Coast., art. I, former § 14.) 3 (Popup) FOOTNOTE 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff. "[T]he gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an unreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness of the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result." (Van Adstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, fn. omitted.) RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT lAW THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469 (213) (~2G-8484 FACSIMILE (213) 626~:X378 August 23, 1999 ~UCHARO ~CHARD$ NUMOER ONE C~C CE~R ClRC~ FAC~IMI~ ~14) 9H~230 ~ K ~MER 1143124 11231-0~01 Diana Santini 5207 London Avenue Alta Loma, California 91737 Reference: City Consideration of Plans by Barraft American (Tract 13316) Dear Ms. Santini: Our office serves as the City Attorneys' Office for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In my capacity of Assistant City Attorney, I am enclosing for your information a letter that is being sent to your neighbor, Mr. Michael Dee Roes, responding to certain questions and objections he raised regarding use of the Rancho Cucamonga Drainage -Easement and the proposed Bartart American project. It is my understanding you previously wrote to the City (attention Mr. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer) raising similar concerns and issues, and that you have met with City staff to further address those issues. The enclosed letter should provide you with some additional information which may be of interest. As stated in our letter to Mr. Rees, the City is committed to ensuring reasonable use of the drainage easement including conditioning and/or approval for the public safety of any and all plans for reasonably and prudently designed drainage facilities in accordance with applicable laws, and conditioning of approval upon reasonable measures to the punic's aesthetic concerns. The City welcomes input from residents, such as yourself, and will consider any reasonable and feasible suggestions or alternatives in connection with the Bartart American (and any other) project. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Diana Santini August 23, 1999 Page 2 If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to submit them to the attention of the undersigned and we will endeavor to respond promptly. Very truly yours, Kevin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney STA:KGE:sta 1143124 CC: Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Brad Buller, City Planner Saskia T. Asamura, Esq. August 30, 1999 Brent Le Count, AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1999 City of Rancho Cucamork-g P~anning Division Re: Barratt Development 98-10 Dear Mr. Le Count: I am writing to express my support for the Barratt development known as tract 98-10. My wife and I have rented a home in the community for over six years. We have wanted to purchase a new home for some time now, but there is no new housing which meets our criteria. Although there has been a tremendous amount of construction in this city, there are virtually no new homes being built that qualify as "very-low residential", i.e., less than two homes per acre. Given the reputation of the builder, the size of the homes and anticipated quality, we have been on Barratt's "interest list" since October of 1998. My wife and I have attended the last two Planning Commission meetings regarding this project. We have also requested and reviewed the materials, including the environmental checklist. We are fi'ustrated by the contin- ued delay over red herring issues which are typically raised at the eleventh hour. From what we have re- viewed we believe Barratt should be permitted to proceed with this project without any further delays. Overall, this neighborhood would be a welcome addition to our community. We look forward to the opportu- nity to voice our support at the upcoming meeting on September 8, 1999. Sincerely, Curtis L. Metzgar 10699 Champagne Rd. Alta Loma, CA 91737 909-948-1903 cc: Barratt American CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 28, 1999 McNi~ gular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho ;ivic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman egiance. ROLL COMMISSIONEF John Mannedno, Larry McNiel, Pain Stewart, Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: ANNOUNCEMENTS Dan Jan Sanchez, There were no announcements. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Deputy City Attorney; Larry J. Henderson, Principal Planner; Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Gail . qning Commission Secretary; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner VACATION OF A PORTION OF VICTORIA STREET - ~/;'3ODSIDE HOMES- A request to vacate the southed'y portion of Victoria Street west of Etiwano Avenue fronting Tentative Tract 15915 - APN: 207-101-04. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - CENTEX HOMES - A review of the'"detailed site plan and building elevations for consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the northeast of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues - APN: 225-451-01 through 35. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), Consent Calendar. dopt the PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, and indicated the Commissioners had additional information in front of them including a letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service which was received today. He said staff had concerns regarding the comments related to the amount of on-site coastal sage scrub, how much needs to be mitigated, and at what rate. He stated staff had not had time to address this new information and staff recommended an additional continuance of six weeks to allow the applicant time to resolve the matter with Fish and Wildlife. Chairman McNiel noted that the public hearing was still open. Ronald Rouse, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, stated the law firm is counsel for Barrett American on the project. He said they have conducted all of the surveys and all requirements and have written proof of satisfaction of all the requirements. He stated they would not consent to a further continuance of the hearing. He asked to go on record that there was more than adequate compliance with all elements that are relevant for the Commission's consideration on the Design Review. He felt the federal government was playing games with local government by submitting an incomprehensible letter at the last minute and said they wished to proceed forward. He commented that the matter had been before the Commission on June 9, 1999, following earlier meetings regarding the project. He asserted that the matter before the Commission was design review for a project which has a final map which was recorded in 1990. He said the matter was continued from June 9 to answer three issues: 1) whether the California Coastal Gnatcatcher, a threatened species, is present; 2) whether the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or the host plants associated with them are present; and 3) whether the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, an endangered species, is present. He indicated earlier studies conducted last year and a letter from the United States Wildlife Service approved the survey for the California Gnatcatcher which indicated it was not present. He said that letter asked that there be further trapping and surveying for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and that study was conducted between June 9, 1999, and tonight's hearing and the letter received today from Fish and Wildlife indicates the protocol survey for the Kangaroo Rat appears adequate. He stated the City has a biological report by a certified and licensed biologist indicating that a specific focused survey was conducted for the two host plants for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and neither were found. He felt they have answered those three issues satisfactorily and the applicant is entitled to proceed forward. He thought there may be larger issues about the California and Federal Endangered Species Act and the loss of habitat in California but he believed the applicant is entitled to a decision on the merits of this project insofar as its satisfaction with the uniformly applied principals and standards applicable to the right of a property owner to develop homes consistent with the neighborhood. He felt the letter from Fish and Wildlife raises irrelevant issues. Commissioner Mannerino questioned if Fish and Wildlife has jurisdiction to stop the project. He observed that the letter from Fish and Wildlife talks of insignificant mitigations and the applicant's attorney differs with that interpretation, making it difficult for the Commission to reach a decision. Mr. Rouse stated that the blanket statements made in the letter could be true of any project within Southern California because potential habitat is lost any time there is development of raw land. He asserted that the federal and state Endangered Species Act do not protect habitat per se, but only threatened and endangered species and there are no protected or endangered species on site. He Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 28, 1999 (//c,~:~ reported Fish and Wildlife has the authority to cite the applicant if the habitat is pretected. He said the matter before the Commission is the Development Review and the kind of evidence relied upon by reasonable people in making important decisions as to specific investigations as to the presence of the three types of endangered and threatened species and those species were not found. He asserted the other issues raised by Fish and Wildlife are outside the current matter. He felt they had been asked to preve there is no needle in a haystack and that there is no way to prove that those species may not return in the future but he believed they were entitled to go forward and make reasonable use of the preperty. He thought the applicant had presented facts that the project does not interfere with the survival and continued replenishment of any threatened or endangered species. Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney, stated he agreed in part with the speaker's comments regarding the letter from Fish and Wildlife but he was treubled by the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 2 which states that the conservation measures preposed by the applicant are not sufficient, specifically with respect to the sage scrub and recovering sage scrub. Mr. Rouse stated the project has mitigation measures requiring them to acquire a certain amount of acreage of offsite habitat in addition to some on-site preservation in the northern portion of the site. He thought the letter infers there was an unauthorized additional taking and is asking for additional mitigation. He suggested Fish and Wildlife could bdng an enforcement action against the applicant if that is the case and said the applicant believed they only performed brush management actions in accordance with the City's ordinance and that does not constitute a taking. He said the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to the applicant after consulting with Fish and Wildlife and the additional surveys were conducted to answer the remaining questions. Mr. Estrada referred to Fish and Wildlife's letter indicating "we recommend that mitigation be required for any impacts to coastal sage scrub, even if it has been previously disturbed and is now recovering" and suggesting an appropriate ratio. He asked if it was the applicant's position that they are willing to take their chances and Fish and Wildlife should bring an enforcement action against the applicant if they feel the mitigation is insufficient. Mr. Rouse responded that the City has imposed mitigations for 5.9 acres of coastal sage. Mr. Estrada asked if that includes the recovering sage referred to in the letter. Mr. Rouse replied the recovering sage is not protected by the Endangered Species laws. Mr. Estrada questioned if Mr. Rouse was disputing the claim that there should be mitigation for previously disturbed sage. Mr. Rouse said the City has already imposed mitigation in accordance with uniformly applied federal and state mitigation standards for both on-site preservation and off-site acquisition. He thought the references in the letter from Fish and Wildlife pertain to something unrelated and not called for either by local ordinances or by the breadest and most expansive reading of the Endangered Species laws. He acknowledged that if threatened orendangered species are present, their critical habitat is subject to protection, but he asserted recovering sage or grasslands are not endangered species and are not protected by any law. He said they have fully mitigated any environmental impacts associated with the project. Chairman McNiel questioned what the Commission must do and whether the City Attorney agreed or disagreed with the applicant's attorney. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 28, 1999 Mr. Estrada stated the Commission has the authority to continue the hearing irrespective of the applicant's consent. He felt the paragraph he had just referred to is the critical paragraph. He said it was his understanding that there is no protection for recovering sage; however, he had just received the letter and had no opportunity to adequately review it or conduct any research to verify his belief. He suggested the Commission could continue the matter to allow time for research and verification, approve the project with a condition that the matter be mitigated to the satisfaction of Fish and Wildlife, or approve the project with proposed mitigation measures in the resolution. He thought that Fish and Wildlife would bring an enforcement action and stop the project if they felt mitigation is not sufficient. He said it would be better to know the answers ahead of time; however. He felt the letter is not clear cut and concluded it would be hard at this stage to answer the question regarding the need to mitigate the loss of recovering sage scrub. He did not think that is a requirement, but could not give a clear cut answer without time to research the matter. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City should take a closer look at the matter because there is doubt about the letter and the City has only had it for a couple of hours, He noted the City had also received several other letters which he had not had time to review. He thought there are a lot of unsolved problems. Commissioner Stewart concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy that there was too much new material for her to make an informed decision. Chairman McNiel noted the matter will not become less complex. He observed that the public hearing was open and two Commissioners had suggested the matter be continued. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested asking staff what time frame would be desired to address the matter. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated that at least 30 to 45 days would be required if the goal was to have a three-way meeting with staff, the applicant, and Fish and Wildlife. He thought the Fish and Wildlife letter raises a lot of legal questions and interpretations. He noted that the California Environmental Quality Act indicates that the proper mitigation is what the deciding body determines is reasonable and sufficient. He thought the Commission would have a hard time determining if Environmental Mitigation Condition No. 11, regarding acquisition of equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank 1 is adequate. He also noted that Fish and Wildlife is a responsible agency and must also determine it is adequate. He said it was staffs desire there would be enough time for the studies to be done, Fish and Wildlife could comment, and the applicant could work out a mutually agreeable solution to the problem. Mr. Rouse reported that meetings have previously been scheduled and Fish and Wildlife personnel do not show up. He pointed out the City called a meeting in June and Barratt, City staff, and members of the public were there; however, Fish and Wildlife did not show up. He felt Fish and Wildlife have been unresponsive. He stated that the applicant is entitled to a decision under CEQA based on the facts in the record before the Commission and those facts are that there are no Quino Checkerspot Butterflies, California Gnatcatchers, or San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats present and the other areas are outside the scope of the Commission's appropriate deliberations. He encouraged the Commission to go ahead and take action at this time. Chairman McNiel stated the original Negative Declaration was issued on the project a little more than a decade ago and he did not feel that six weeks would make that much of a difference. He asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment if they could not attend on September 8, 1999. There were no comments. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 28, 1999 Motion: Moved by Stewart to continue Development Review 98-10 to September 8, 1999. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to ensure that staff will do everything possible to ensure that Fish and Wildlife will attend the meeting and he wanted documentation of when they are contacted and who is spoken to and their response if they do not attend. Mr. Estrada observed that Mr. Rouse was correct regarding the previous efforts to contact Fish and Wildlife. He said it is not as critical for the City as it is for Barratt to accommodate Fish and Wildlife. He said it is critical for the City to make sure that all potential environmental impacts are adequately mitigated. He thought staff and the City Attorney could respond to the letter sooner than the six weeks but the ideal situation would be accommodation with Fish and Wildlife. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded Commissioner's motion to continue Development Review 98-10 to September 8, 1999. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NONE MACIAS - carried Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that a three-way telephone conference be utilized if necessary since the office of Fish and Wildlife office is in Carlsbad. Do ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1,~ :",~2 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map, design review, for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side at the western City limit - APN: 202-021-37. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and property owner had submitted a letter indicating that the a regarding removing and replacing a block wall but that the developer to replace the wall to the satisfaction of the ad Commissioner Tolstoy questioned why the wall is being that an adjoining failed to contact her of approval require the )perty owner. Mr. Le Count responded that some property is be result of the vacation of an unneeded road eas, make other landscaping improvements on to the adjacent property owner as a and the developer is to replace the wall and property. Chairman McNiel opened the public Peter Fan, 3223 East Garvey stated he visited the Droll's e suggested that the status quo and the wal West Covina, requested approval of the time extension. He in the day and the Drolls do not want the wall knocked down. He be incorporated into the project and leave the Droll's property Maria Droll, 680 does not want meters are Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her wall is a retaining wall. She said she additional property and just wants to keep what she has. She observed that utility on the other side of the wall and the utilities have frequently dug up the area. Plann/Commission Minutes -5- July 28, 1999 AYES: MACI~L, STEWART, TOLSTOY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Chairman McNiel commented that new information had been received regarding this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the did not have a chance to review the information received. He requested the item be continued. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that several letters had been received earlier in the day from the Department of Community and Cultural Resources, Spirit of the Sage, Diana Santini, and Cynthia Shannon. In light of that, he suggested a 30-day continuance. Kazem Zommorodian, Atlantic Engineering 5505 Avenida Encinas, Suite 230 Carlsbad, requested that the item not be continued because the delay would be costly. Commissioner McNiel invited public comment. Matthew Rees, 5217 London Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he also had not seen the new material being presented, but expressed his joint concern with his neighbors about the drainage, hydrology, and the overburdened easements on the project site and asked the Commissioners to "take a longer look" before approving this project. Commissioner Mannerino expressed his concern that the item was not noticed as a public headng and therefore everyone that would like to comment might not be in attendance. Mr. Buller pointed out that this item is a Development Review and would not necessarily be noticed as a public hearing. He also noted that the residents are aware of this issue and that staff has been in contact with the residents as well as the residents being in contact with staff. He said staff is also aware of the drainage issues and was prepared to address that issue this evening. He indicated the concerns raised at this time were environmental issues as opposed to the actual Development Review. Commissioner Mannerino expressed that enough impact from this project had occurred on the project and therefore he moved to continue the item for 30 days. Chairman McNiel suggested that if there were interested parties present that were unable to attend the suggested meeting date of July 14, 1999, that they be allowed to speak on the item now. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 9,1999 Cynthia Shannon, 9574 Hidden Farm Road, presented a petition signed by 23 neighbors opposing the continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald as well as requesting the new housing development have one-story homes and fully comply with the Hillside Ordinance. Ms. Shannon mentioned that most of the neighbors were not completely opposed to the project, but suggested "we do it right." She cited issues of safety for children crossing the street and questioned why it was necessary to continue Hidden Farm Road across Archibald. She also suggested the road be offset to lessen the danger. She expressed concern that the pads for the homes were not stepped pads and therefore may not be in compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. She also asked what was being done to minimize the visual impact to the neighborhood already in place. She cited the following concerns about the initial study: emergency access and the threat of wildfires, impact on the migration of animals living in the area, a lack of public education about how to live with the wildlife, the grading and whether it had been properly approved to be done pdor to mitigation, and the extension of the horse trail. She indicated that she would not be in favor of allowing the developer to get away with grading prior to approval. Robert Lang, Barratt American, 2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160, Carlsbad, noted that the bulldozing the residents had observed was to clear the site for weed abatement/brush fire purposes and that it was not their intention to "jump the gun." Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carded 5-0, to pull the item from the Consent Calendar and notice the item as a public hearing for the July 14, 1999, meeting and direct that notices be sent to all parties within 300 feet of the project. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-03 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - The of detailed site plan and building elevations for Phases 3 and 4 of Tract ~g of 38 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling u acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue of Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-461-05 to 42. Chairman McNiel asked the public if there' Seeing a response from the audience present that needed to address this issue. McNiel invited the public to address the issue. Donna Mayer, 12661 Ridgec Rancho Cucamonga, presented to the Commissioners photographs taken of the earthmoving trucks and equipment. Ms. Mayer stated that she had documented 78 ,ads of dirt per day had been added to the site over the course of the last three weeks she had not been notified of the second phase going in, and that many feet of dirt..~.i mported from another site and subsequently had increased the elevation of the She continued by stating her concern that the soil had not been properly co~pa~;te~ that it would be unsafe to build upon. She added that she had expressed her the project planner, Tom Grahn, and that he had changed what he had told her from a p discussion. She indicated that Mr. Buller, the City Planner, had admitted he saw dirt site moved over to the Masterpiece site. She added that Tom said the plans were approved in 1988 and that they do not have to conform to current regulations. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June9,1999 /~? CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRA'I-r AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Cartad Court APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. BACKGROUND: At it's July 14, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project to the July 28, 1999 meeting to allow the applicant time to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the project will not adversely impact the environment. The site is indicated as potential habitat for threatened and endangered species; the California Gnatcatcher, the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, and the Quino Checkerspot Bufferfly. The applicant has provided documentation that the site is not adequate habitat for any of these species, nor are any of the species present. The following is a chronology of events that have transpired thus far: March 25, 1987 Tentative Tract 13316 was approved by the Planning Commission. June 4, 1990 Final map was recorded to create legal lots on June 4, 1990. May 24, 1993 Planning Division notified the previous owner, Chino Valley Bank, that the subject property is within a habitat which may be affected by federally listed endangered or threatened species. The certified letter explained that "taking" of habitat by "grading, mowing, discing, trenching, and other construction activities" is subject to stringent regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The applicant was encouraged to contact USFWS for further information. April 29, 1998 Application submitted by Barratt American for Development Review 98-10. May 26, 1998 Application deemed incomplete for processing. June 10, 1998 Due to significance of grading design issues, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 98-06. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 2 June 25,1998 August27,1998 October20,1998 March 23,1999 May 13, 1999 June 9,1999 June 22,1999 July14,1999 July19,1999 A copy of the June 9, Consultation meeting with applicant and Califomia Dept. of Fish and Game (USFWS did not attend). Gnatcatcher Surveys submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants (June 8, 1998). Biological report submitted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (Oct. 16, 1998). Application deemed complete for processing. Neighborhood meeting. Planning Commission continues item and directs staff to advertize as a public hearing. Continuance was to allow staff and the applicant time to respond to issues raised regarding the adequacy of the biological studies relied upon for preparation of the Initial Study. The same week, prior to Commission meeting, the applicant clears vegetation from westerly half of site for weed abatement. Staff met with the applicant, the applicant's biologist, and biologists from the San Bernardino County Museum to discuss the matter. Staff also consulted with the USFWS and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game. Staff indicated that the site is potential San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) and that a USFWS protocol survey is necessary. Staff also determined that a habitat assessment is necessary to determine if the site is adequate Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat. The Planning Commission continues the item for a second time to allow time for biological surveys to be completed. Reports submitted by Tierra Madre Consultants regarding protocol trapping survey for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and by Pacific Southwest Biological Services regarding a habitat assessment for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report is attached for reference. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Since the Tentative Tract Map was approved in 1987, substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. Three species have been listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, two of which are associated with the coastal sage scrub habitat present on the site. Following is a summary of the affected species. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 3 SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT (endangered~ species, 1/27/98) -Latest correspondence from USFWS and County Museum biologist recommend protocol "trapping" surveys. Although surveys may be done year-round, this is the ideal time of the year. The applicant has conducted a protocol trapping survey and no San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats were captured, nor were any other species of Kangaroo Rat. CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER (threatened2 species, 3/30/93) - Protocol surveys were performed from March 17, 1998 through April 28, 1998, and no Gnatcatchers were found on the site. Tierra Madre Consultants concluded that only 5 acres of the site is coastal sage scrub habitat which is located within the ravines. The habitat is identified by the California Department of Fish and Game as "very threatened communities" which is important to the long term protection of the species, particularly of value to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan effort. A recommended environmental mitigation measure requires approximately 2.5 acres of coastal sage scrub mitigation on site within the basin and any remaining mitigation to be accomplished off site within the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank located in Cajon Wash. QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY (endangered species, 1/16/97) - Maps published by USFWS indicate that the alluvial fans along these foothills are potential habitat areas which require study. The applicant has provided a habitat assessment for the Butterfly and found that the site is so disturbed by past activities that neither the Butterfly nor adequate Butterfly habitat are present. The plants needed to support the Butterfly were not found in surveys of the site. Staff has forwarded a copy of the report to Fish and Wildlife for their comment. Pending acceptance by USFWS of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat protocol trapping survey and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly habitat assessment, it is staffs opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed all outstanding issues relative to potential environmental impacts associated with the project. It has been demonstrated that the site does not support adequate habitat for sensitive or endangered species and no such species were detected on site. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. OFF SITE DRAINAGE: A letter was received from Dianna Santini, homeowner at 5207 London Avenue expressing concern related to off site drainage improvements associated with the project. ~The term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 2The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (Endangered Species Act of 1973) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 July 28, 1999 Page 4 Also, during the Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 1999, Matt Rees, homeowner at 5217 London Avenue expressed similar concern. Tentative Tract 13315 was approved in 1987 with conditions of approval which included constructing a debds basin, storm drain system, and overflow protection for lots 9 and 10 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Dudng the review process for the design of these drainage facilities, vadous property owners to the south voiced concerns regarding the portion of the facility which extends 107 feet south of the south tract boundary, within a City drainage easement dedicated with Tract 9590. Staff met with these property owners, discussed several options and concluded that while the outlet channel could be extended further south, there was little additional benefit and the developer had met all the requirements of the tentative map. With a time extension in 1989, the Planning Commission directed that the channel be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Design was concluded and the map recorded in 1990. In a 100-year storm the debris basin will direct about 280 cubic feet per second (cfs) into a storm drain which will outlet into an open channel between lots 9 and 10. Site flows will bring the total outflow to about 380 cfs. The channel has been designed with energy dissipaters and a stilling pond to reduce outlet velocities. The channel extends the entire width of Ms. Santini's property, the northernmost lot fronting London Avenue, thereby diverting all off site flows which currently reach her north property line. Even if the storm drain were extended or relocated, a channel is still needed to accommodate the emergency spillway for the debds basin. CORRESPONDENCE: VVhile not required by City Ordinance or State Law, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site notifying them of the July 28, 1999 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation for the debris basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. City Planner BB:BL:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Staff Report from June 9, 1999 Meeting Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Assessment dated July 18, 1999 Kangaroo Rat Protocol Survey date July 18, 1999 Resolution of Approval /7/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 9,1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Site Characteristics: The site slopes from the northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north, through the site, to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44). ANALYSIS: Background: The subdivision was approved prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance and the map has been recorded. Since then, a Design Review application was approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a mass grading concept, had undulating and vadable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as much as possible. Also, a condition of approval limited the developer to one-story homes. That Design Review has since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously approved grading design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on June 10, 1998, regarding the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the two-story proposal. The Commission provided the following direction (Exhibit "H"): /7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 2 Go The site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by existing single family neighborhoods with mass graded, fiat pads and two-story homes. The project has a significant history of resolving design issues pdor to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading scheme is acceptable so long as two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual impacts. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two story high walls without one-story elements. 3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture. 4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrad Street, is believed to be the most affected by the project. Special attention should be paid to how the project impacts this neighborhood. General: Six home plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Three of the home plans are single-story, three are two-story. Each home plan has four elevation styles: Early Californian, Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch. While the homes are not proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain, they are designed within the 30-foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development standards. It is proposed to have 20-foot by 20-foot horse corrals on several of the lots, each with access to a horse trail. Califomia Sycamore trees are proposed for slope planting. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Henderson), reviewed the project on April 20, 1999, and recommend approval with conditions. See the attached Design Review Action Agenda for further details. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains several Eucalyptus trees and an Oak tree. The applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit for Commission consideration for removal of the Eucalyptus trees. The Oak tree will be required to be preserved in place. Eucalyptus trees may be removed per the Tree Preservation Ordinance subject to replacement at a ratio of 1 to 1. Environmental Assessment: On March 27, 1987, the Planning Commission issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tract 13316. Since that time, the California Gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat have been added to the list of threatened and endangered species, respectively; therefore, the site is identified as potential habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, the original Mitigated Negative Declaration is now over twelve years old. Staff has completed a new Initial Study for the project. Habitat assessment PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 3 and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine potential habitat value and any potential impacts. The results of the surveys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The surveys also indicate that the site is not suitable habitat for the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84-acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. No other potential impacts were identified beyond those addressed with the original Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Commission in 1987. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting at City Hall on May 13, 1999. Several homeowners in the vicinity were present. The pdmary issues included the drainage outlet south of the tract east of London Avenue, construction phasing, view preservation, inconvenience due to sewer line installation on Archibald Avenue, and dust control. The detention basin/storm drainage system for the tract was designed consistent with the conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map. According to the developer, construction will be divided into 15 phases beginning at the southeast comer of the site. The homes have been designed and plotted to maximize views to the degree possible. The City has not adopted a view preservation ordinance. A Standard Condition of Approval requires the developer to provide special street posting and dust control for construction. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headng in theInland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Staff has received several letters from area residents opposing the project. The pdmary issues are increased traffic, why Hidden Farm Road on the east side of Archibald Avenue is approved to be aligned with the existing intersection on the west side, drainage, impacts upon sage scrub and other vegetation and wildlife, noise, crime, view preservation, and preservation of a "quiet, peaceful, friendly" atmosphere. See attached copies of letters (Exhibit "J"). The Final Tract Map was recorded in 1990; hence, the street alignment and lots are already approved. The increase in traffic and storm water drainage does not exceed that anticipated by the General Plan and the street and storm drain system has been designed to accommodate the project. For public safety reasons, City policy requires that streets intersecting with residential major streets and collector streets, like Archibald Avenue, align to minimize conflicts between left turning traffic. Impacts to sage scrub and other vegetation/wildlife were addressed by the Initial Study Part II based upon detailed biological surveys of the site. The studies concluded that there are no sensitive animal species on-site and there is only a small area of actual Coastal Sage Scrub; the removal of which is being mitigated by purchasing off site habitat. The increase in noise due to the project is not in excess of that anticipated by the General Plan. No uses or activities are proposed beyond that permitted by the Development Code. The developer anticipates selling prices for the homes to start in the low $500,000's. Such high pdced homes are not typically associated with increased crime. The homes are designed to preserve views to the degree possible. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has not adopted a view preservation ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-10 June 9, 1999 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 98-10 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the General Plan Update Task Force to consider changing the Land Use Designation for the debds basin from Very-Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Open Space by minute action. City Planner BB:BL:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "G" - Exhibit "H" - Exhibit "1" - Exhibit "J" - Site Utilization Map Site Plan Grading Plan Phasing Plan Walls and Fence Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Minutes of Planning Commission Workshop Dated June 10, 1998 Design Review Action Agenda - April 20, 1999 Letters from Homeowners Exhibit "K" - Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval .... ~ DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR TMCT NO 13316 I SHEET21 ' I ~ ~~/~ . . ~-- - -~' '.',~.~ ,~ ~'- ~ ,t .7/,._~.__~- ~ ~'~ IN~X ~P ~ / - ] ~i) ~ .~~' l"" .... .....~""' ~ .~s ova. ~'"~'' CITY OF ~ANCHB CUCANDNGA~ ' ' - .... ,~ ' '~='~"-- ' , ~ ~ ~]T~ ]~ FOR { I Q ~- -~ ~ T~, (7~) 431 ~ I 114 LIMIT OF $CAL[ 4 J LANTEC IrNGJNEF. IlING INC, (j)ca~smucT ~ ~v 14 SCALE 1#=40' 111 I 114 . i LIMIT OF I 1 SCALE JTRACT tJJt! J~ ~E'rAILE~ J111 PI. AII_L~.,. I: .. "*[ ,. _j~_,, CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN .. · i -'{4~ .........." ..........r.d~-" ""p%TRACT NO 13316 *~' ~ ~ .........~--~ ....'--~:;-:_1~-~ ~r ~ , · I =-- --~.~-~i :: ~-- - ~"-'.~.,,.-,-.,,- "-: ,-, -~ ~,~.-~t 'l-l-I. I{1{ u----~ . . ~,, .!.,.....-,. ~.~,~~. ![ . . , ,.. m..m.._ i -'- iml----._~m=iom,m~ m:]~m~.~.-rt; 3\ ~ /-. "'k. ;;/./,--,.,,,--.-,..,..., · ..___,.,~.. :., ~ .,m.=,.,--...-.., - ;~- T~ \_~ .~.'"..:.57 , <D .,, ~ Ilmmmmmmm. 'n 1 p_~.:'; .~',. ~//· -------,--.-. I_.l.l l.&,-r'" -'P-"''""-' ~.~,. . ,, ,- ,.:._..,,I..l:,. ·.. ,,~ --:.., .,. ~: ,. . :.. -. -.,....__ i ..... ..'. ! ........ "'-- ,,~ ---- · - · ' ' " '- ., x "'"""'~' * .,, -_ ~__ -,.,.~__ .--- P':I, ~',J ,r,,.~'~I- r'~~,~--,.,.-- .,,-- ~.--~ ......----.---;_-...:_~~. -~,,,~.__,'__ 'r L.~,.-!""._ I' ~., 'I., ~.' "' ,~,.,,. ..... - -~' {__" ~,- -~ ~ i...t,,....~ ......_,:),.,~J ~ ~_:.._ ..'~./'{C . _ -...~ "' '"' ............'~'"~,,7~T'~ ;~c~ {"' l_~J %. I .- t"'~'1.:."-, _,~/a.,, .T, , CUC^"&~,^! ., ,, CONCI:'PTU,~. GRADING ,PLAN ,T~ -',.nr- )~:~_¢mm.~~-.m~ "'" ~ "'~'""lf TRA~:T 1331, ' ' ' ' ' F'DR ' SCALE 1 "=40' u k, M / lCllliO lil~ N IN Ill N IA'T 7 ]8 .t/ SCALE I '~40' 1tl SECTIDN 'A-A' SECTION 'B- B' SECTIDN 'C-C· SECTION (~DETAIL 'A' DRAINAGE CHANNEL ,CS:._'*'"' SECTION H - H me.c. ILOa( g'!LLVA¥ VALL ~'CT~Ii~s g ~ g DETAIL 'B' SECTION J - J (~111,~I IIIMI~ 111,~INA~4~ ~,I~N~NI~L m e~, r~ Ill]RS[ TRAIL SECTIDN E - E i~ LA~TEC [NGII~L*Rlt~ IhqC, TYPICAL PRIVATE DI~IVEV&Y IrTAIL SCALE 1"=100' m I II m~ ~ I I I ! I! --- J ol C) !DEC. Ole. rgETAL FENC:IN~ NOTE L__ m i J _ !1 PLA~ITII~ P~S --" i i I ~J PLANTIN~ PLANS I ® P~TING PLANS I("I II~! I III i I II i I !I ® PLANTIN(~ PLANS ../ I m I .ram Imm, I ! I II I I II i JI [~) I JUTE NETTIN~ $TAE~,ILIZEII~ ~' I TII~E (:~ $LO/'=E I I II I I II I I II I. I II I I II L.:_'_- ~J l~ft Right BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Craftsman Roo£ P1au Plan 1 2,869 sq. ft. Rancho Cucamonga 3c111:. 114" I 1~ Materials Key F ~ '~ ~. I -- 12 Cultured S~one ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~n~e Flat Tile 13 Shu~ ~-~ ~ ~' f4 ~ ~ ~ . .~,~ ..t~ ~ ~ ~T~ ;1r II~F',f!r r ir'r" r-q,. ~ .... ~~am~~a · ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ , · · ]p~ -' ~ ~ · -- ~ ~,i~.~ ~*~~.~,~ ' .~".~ ~'~b. ~.. ~. ~-"~~~~,~' ~ ~. ~m . ~. ,,,,,,,,,,,, ~ -- ,~'-~ ",,~o/ ~'' 2,8~9 sq.f. ~ BARRATT AMERICAN, INC.Rancho Cucalnonga ' Le£t Note: Trim to m~t¢lrfmat elev~tiotl Early Californian BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Roof Plan Plan 1 2,869 sq. ft. Left III ! I 1I' ~ll ! ! ! II ~g~t lgo~' ~ t~ maWh'fro~t ~ California Ranch BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Roof Plum Plan 1 2,869 sq. ft. 3-27'-98 7-9-98 ~t Roof Platt Bungalow Plan 1 2,869 sq. ft. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Roo£ Plsn Early CMiforai~m Plan 2 3,124 sq. ft. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga 10 Materials Key ~ b'~~ ¢ ~ ~ ~.'¢, -' ~ ~B' '" · · --- :T , r ..~ ~.. · · ~ ~ . , . .. "-'---~ '~.....~ '.'~ ~,,~ sq. ~t. Bu~o~ ~ ~~~ ~mc~, ~c. R~ncao C~c~mo~ga ' BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. L¢£~ Roof Plan Note: ~ to matc.~ fro~t elcv~iOl~ Craftsman Plan 2 3,124 sq. ft. Rancho Cucamonga Left R~.~t Roof PI~ California Rznch Plan 2 3,124 sq. fl. · ~1~11114' - 1~0' BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga I Roof PI~ Bungalow Plan 2 3,124 sq. fl. BARRA'I'I' AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga 12 Le~ II I Roof Plsn Craftsman Plan 3 3,145 sq. fl. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Craftman =~ '__='. -"-*,:~ -- Plan 3 ~ 'qf ~.~o. 3,145 sq. ft. BARRATT AMF, RIC~, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Left Rear BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Note: Trim to m~tch fro~t elevatioo Early Californian Rancho Cucamonga iI Roof Plan Plan 3 3,145 sq. fl. ?-9-96 Le£t BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Na~' ~ ~o matc~ h~at California Ranch Rancho Cucamonga Roof Pla= Plan 3 3,145 sq. ft. Left ,1 , Roof Plnn Bungalow Plan 3 3,145 sq. fl. · iI 8(~Je:114 I~.Q" BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga il 'lml Le[t ' Ri~t Roof Plan Craftsman Plan 4 3,392 sq. ft. BARRETT AMEmCAN,' INC. Rancho Cucamonga Plan 4 3,392 sq. fl. Bungalow BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga ' R~t Roof Plan Early Californian Plan 4 3,392 sq. ft. Rancho Cucamonga Right BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. R oo£ Plan California Ranch Plan 4 3,392 sq. ft. Rancho Cucamonga 84~INc 1/4' ~ 1'-0" 23 Left Roo£ ?lan No~: Tri~ to match fro~t Bungalow Plan 4 3,392 sq. ft. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga 3,-27,-~8 7-9-98 24 R~ Ri~t Roof Plan Plan 5 3,435 sq. fl. Rancho Cucamonga ~ 114~ ~ 1,-0~ 2-18-~ 7-9-98 3-2-98 3-27-88 27 2 Cotwrett ~' ~le 14 &x~t~n~l Gal'~t 3 ~X ~ F~ia/~e 15 SMi~ ~ - 5 4'x ~ ~e~ 17 Tde ~1 ~ 10 Optio~M Cult~ Sto~e or M~o~ ~e~ 22~te~ .~-.'~ ~ . -,~,,.(.~ ........ . .. ......~_-L__~,~,~._~--~ . ~ ~ ............., ,.--~-~--~d-'~.. .... ~~~" ~! :1 ~'~'~~" '~' ' .... ~ ~1:...~- ,..,,.~~ , _ .... ...... _ .... ..;.. ,....~ ~ ... ~.~ ~ Plan 5 3,435 sq. fl. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Ill I I Roof Plan E~rly CMiforni~ Plan 3,435 sq. ft. Rigl~t 114 1',-0' BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga Left I Roof Plan California Ranch Plan 5 3,435 sq. ft. Right BARRATT .AMERIC~,'INC. Rancho Cttcamonga 3-27-98 Left , I Real' R/ght BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Note.' Tn~m ~ match fto~t eleva~io~ Bungalow Rancho Cucamonga Roof Platt Plan 5 3,435 sq. fl. 3-2-98 3-27-98 I I I I R oo£ Plan Craft~m~n Plan 6 3, 600 sq. ft. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamo1~ga .p'~O-O? Materials Key t com~Futri/~ ~ s~CU'~st°"e Bung~ow e~~ ~mc~, ~c. Rancho C~camonga ' I I I I I <31> I I I Early Californian I R oo£ Pl~m Plan 6 3,600 sq. fl. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga 3,4 L¢£t m-IRI IEil ~ I Roof Plan California Ranch Plan 6 3,600 sq. ft. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamonga 3-27-98 7 -9-98 U U U U U U .U ff~ .-tT----r- Bungalow Roof Pl~u~ Plan 6 3, 600 sq. ft. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC. Rancho Cucamo1~ga CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 10, 1998 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Larry McNiel ABSENT: Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner NEW BUSINESS PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-06 - BARRATT - A request for Design Review for Tract 13316, a previously approved tract consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less that 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street - APN: 210-071-14, 37, and 45. Brad Buller, City PIanner, explained the purpose and goals of the Pre-Application Review process. David Jacinto, representative from Barratt, indicated that this is a previously approved project which his group has inherited. He said the project will have fiat pads per the previous approval but Bartart is proposing two story homes designed to meet the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Ordinance. Bart Crandell, project architect, indicated that the pads are wide and fiat and the homes would be built within the building envelope. He said there are 3 one-story and 3 two-story home plans proposed. He commented the proposal is diverse because there are six overall plan types, each with four elevations with color variation. He said substantial setbacks are proposed. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, indicated that the reason for holding the Pre-Application Review is that the previous approval included a condition limiting development to one-story homes with a caveat that any two-story home proposal would require an entirely new design consistent with the Hillside Ordinance. He said the applicant is attempting to utilize the previously approved grading, a mass grading concept with ~at pads, and add two-story homes. He observed applicant's justification is that the homes, whether one- or two-story, meet the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Ordinance even though they are proposed on fiat pads instead of being designed to fit the terrain. He indicated the Commission is being asked its opinion as to whether this is an appropriate direction to take. Commissioner McNiel asked what the existing grade of the site is. Mr. Jacinto indicated that the grade is approximately 12 percent. Commissioner McNiel asked how much grading is proposed. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, indicated that the proposal involves significant grading and that the site is more like 16 percent natural average grade. Commissioner McNiet questioned what kind of precedent this type of development would set. Mr. Buller indicated that surrounding home developments to the west and south have typical mass graded flat pads with flat land style homes, and to the east the Woods development also has fiat graded pads with homes nestled in amongst Eucalyptus Trees. He pointed out that other large tracts have been built that don't technically meet the Hillside Ordinance so this would not be the first. He commented this project has a significant history of resolving design issues which happened before the Hillside Ordinance went into effect. He noted there is a recorded map and an approved conceptual grading plan. He said the design issue before the Commission was whether to allow two- story homes without stepping the pads. He believed the project's history is unique enough that it would not be precedent setting to look at various design options. Chairman Barker indicated that there are really two issues at hand; one is whether a fiat pad grading concept is acceptable and the other is whether two-story homes are appropriate. He raised the question of what the impact of two-story homes would be given the type of terrain involved. Mr. Jacinto said that the homes are designed to meet the building envelope. Mr. Buller indicated that the odginal requirement for one-story only homes was intended to minimize the visual impact of the project and obviously, two-story homes would have that much more of a visual impact. Commissioner McNiel remarked he is not sure what the proper mix of one-story and two-story homes would be, but that the site is surrounded by developments of similar style and the front elevations look good. He did not necessarily have a problem with the applicant's proposal but stated side and rear elevations should have as much quality of design as the front. Chairman Barker stressed the importance of 360-degree architecture, with all elevations of the best possible quality. He felt that is especially true for this type of development where an up-slope neighbor has views of a down-slope neighbor's rear elevation. He expressed concern about the impact of two-stow homes and said the applicant will have to demonstrate that views to the valley and views to the mountains will not be degraded by the project. He voiced concern about drainage issues. He felt the focus should be on the total environment created by the project rather than home-to-home details. If the project does not negatively impact existing surrounding properties, he was not opposed to two-stow development. He commended the project architect for the hidden garage design, and said he hopes to see more of such quality design. Mr. Jacinto asked the Commission to elaborate on how to demonstrate that the project will not have negative visual impacts. Chairman Barker said that the project should not just be looked at in terms of street scape but also in terms of flow from east to west and north to south, flow of terrain. He felt it will be difficult to add two-stow homes to the projec¢'without increasing visual impacts and said the homes must be propedy plotted to avoid these impacts. Mr. Jacinto claimed that mixing one- and two-stow home provides more visual variety because of the variation in roof lines. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- June 10, 1998 '- ~ --- "' Mr. Buller observed that the Hillside Ordinance requires homes to be designed to fit the terrain. He ~...~' felt the argument of providing vadety by mixing one- and two-stow homes is really a fiat land design :.~:¢ method and does not necessarily apply in this case. Commissioner Bethel did not support the two-story proposal. He voiced concerns about two-story homes without stepping the pads. He was not convinced that adding various tack-on elements such as shutters and different architectural styles, such as Mediterranean and Craftsman, can be developed using the same overall home massing from home to home. He felt the project should be designed in full conformance with the Hillside Ordinance. He feared that by allowing the project to proceed, the City is allowing a dangerous precedent for future hillside development. Commissioner McNiel thought the overall concept is well founded. Given the surrounding development, he did not feel the terraced grading concept with two-stow homes will have a negative visual impact. He recommends focusing on preserving views between homes rather than over homes. He felt homes should not have repetitive roof lines. He reminded the group that the City does not have any legislation designed to protect views. Mr. Buller summarized the Commissioner's comments. He stated the Commission appears reluctant to allow two-stow homes without very careful attention to plotting and design to minimize visual impacts. He commented that staff can work with the applicant to plot homes based upon the three-dimensional building envelope volume to maximize view corridor opportunities and minimize visual impacts. He said two-stow high walls, without one-stow elements such as side and rear elevations presented tonight, should have one-stow elements so that the mass of homes flows with the terrain. Mr. Buller reminded the Commissioners that when the tract was originally processed, neighbors living along Carrari Street were very concerned about having two-stow homes along the south project boundary and that the tract to the south is the most vulnerable to potential visual impacts from the subject project. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'Brad Bulle~ Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -3- June 10, 1998 8:30 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Brent Le Count April 20, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRA'I-!' AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded Tract Map (Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074- 051-09 through 16. Backaround: The subdivision was approved prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Since then, a Design Review application was approved. The grading scheme, while based upon a mass grading concept, had undulating and variable slopes to soften the appearance of the slopes as much as possible. Also, a condition of approval limited the developer to one-story only homes. That Design Review has since expired. The applicant is now attempting to resurrect the previously approved grading design but with two-story homes. A Planning Commission workshop was held on the current grading scheme to determine whether it is acceptable given the two-story proposal. The Commission provided the following direction: 1. The site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by existing single family neighborhoods with mass graded, fiat pads and two-story homes. The project has a significant history of resolving design issues, prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Therefore, the grading scheme is acceptable so long as two-story homes are sensitively plotted to minimize visual impacts. 2. Home massing should flow with the terrain. Avoid two-story high walls without one-story elements. 3. Provide quality, 360 degree architecture. 4. Establish view corridors between homes as much as possible. 5. The existing neighborhood to the south of the project, especially along Carrari Street, is believed to be the most vulnerable to the project. Special attention should be paid to how the project impacts this neighborhood. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has very steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north, through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature Oak tree. Proposal: Six home plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,869 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Three of the home plans are single story, three are two-story. Each home plan has four elevation styles; Eady Californian, Bungalow, Craftsman, and California Ranch. While the homes are not proposed to have split level foundations to accommodate the terrain, they are designed within the 30- foot high building envelope per the Hillside Development standards. Twenty foot by twenty foot horse corrals are proposed for several of the lots, each with access to a horse trail. Califomia Sycamore trees are proposed for slope planting. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN April 20, 1999 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks. In some cases this may require re-plotting of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas given slopes. 2. Plot one-story homes along the south and west sides of Almond Street, on Lots 55 through 61 on Saddlewood Place, and on comer lots wherever possible. Secondarv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: For the most part, the side and rear elevations have upgraded treatment consistent with the front elevations. Provide further details, such as corbels, shutters, and belly bands. o Provide either decorative masonry walls or decorative wrought iron fencing for interior yard fences that are visible from surrounding streets, either due to grade differences or proximity to horse trails (such as along north side of Carrari Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall. 4. Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope. 5. Provide a more naturalized rip rap treatment for storm drain outlet south of tract. o Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within terraces between retaining walls to create a more natural appearance and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be continued around side and rear elevations as well. The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected in place according to the requirements of Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall. o All perimeter walls, between home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be decorative masonry with pilasters on freestanding walls. Provide either decorative masonry walls or decorative wrought iron fencing for interior yard fences that are visible from surrounding streets, either due to grade differences or proximity to horse trails (such as along north side of Carrari Street). Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN Apdl 20, 1999 Page 3 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval subject to staff's comments and the following additional comments: 1. Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to the north. No other re- plotting of homes is necessary. 2. Eliminate the PVC fencing on the north side of the Community Trail on the north side of Carrari Street and replace with concrete curb/mow strip. 3. Gates shall be wrought iron instead of wood. 4. Provide wrought iron fencing for fences at top of slopes instead of solid masonry walls. 5. Provide a color coded Site Plan showing plotting of one- and two-story homes for Planning Commission review. Provide a perspective rendering of a typical trail and surrounding landscaping. Suggest a view of the southwest corner of the site showing the Community and Local Feeder trails on the north side of Carrari Street and associated slope landscaping. TO: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga', Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, RECEIVED City ot Rancho Cucamonga P~anning Division I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the.north end of Archlbald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of R~cho C~can~, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this. development threatens the (~ality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. ! am concerned about proper drainage downArchibald %-d the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the · area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the~ommunity identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by -neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. ! understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to. mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open s~ace." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We. also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's ~1 Nino). I request to be notified of a ~ublic hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council * · Paul Biane, City Council To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by ,,neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of ,,neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as ,'open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, cc: The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council November 23, 1998 Mr. Brad Butler City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear ,Mr. Buller: RECEIVED NOV 25 City o! Rancho Cucamonga , Planning Division I own property north ofthc proposcd dev~lopm~at of tracts //13316 and 15914. When I purchascd the property three years ago, I was told there is a city ordinance which prohits building in such a way. to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I am not against development, but 123 homes on the east sid~ of the end of Archibald Avenue is not conduciv~ to this conununity's identity. It is gr~d. It affects the quail, bob cats, deer, rattlesnakes, coyotes, owl, mic~, pos~mns, raccoons and an entire myriad of insects that make this area home. Also, the notice of proposed dmndopment was not posted. Quite conveniently, the sign still li~s in the field, out of sight, while the notice of "estate sites" stands with barme~ waving. I have ridden my horse through the middle of the field for three years and I have friends that have ridden there well over ~ years. Hang gliders land in the field, children scout prize treasures, and it provides a landscape of a peaceful habitat for all residents. There is so much more that would be beneficial instead of 123 homes (unbelievable). Signs posted for horse riders' safety, slower speeds on Archibald Averam, and horse trml, or walking paths to name a few. I am r~questing notification of dates and times of public hearings as wen as a cory of the studies and plam~g for the development of this area to include I23 new homes. I would also like proof that the view will not be obatructed as a resxdt of the development, and the facts upon which the decision to build 123 strtmtm~ would be conducive to this eommurdty and the lifestyle. 123 tra~ homes simply are not. Thank you for your immediate attention. Mx. and ~onald D. Bennett 4849 Archibald Avenue Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 481-7161 Home (909) 4684203 Work To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am.concerned that this development threatens the quality of lif~ we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Con~nission include; protecting the natural environment and the co,~,unity identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to. mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality Df our.~eighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area a§ "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. cc: The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James .Curatalo, City Council '' Bob Dutton, .City Council .. Paul Biane, City Council..~ RECEIVED NOV ,~ ,& 1998 City of Rancho Cucamonga -,, Planning Division November 23, 1998 Mr. Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RECEIVED NOV ~ 1998 City of Rancho Cucarnonga P~anning Division Dear Mr. Buller: I own property north of the proposed development of tracts #13316 and 15914. When I purchased the property three years ago, I was told there is a city ordinance which prohits building in such a way to obstruct the view, which is a major part of life in Alta Loma. I am not against development, but 123 homes on the east side of the end of Archibald Avenue is not conducive to this community's identity. It is greed. It affects the quail, bob cats, deer, rattlesnakes, coyotes, owl, mice, posseurns, raccoons and an entire myriad of insects that make this area home. Also, the notice of proposed development was not posted. Quite conveniently, the sign still lies in the field, out of sight, while the notice of "estate sites" stands with banners waving. I have ridden my horse through the middle of the field for three years and I have friends that have ridden there well over seven years. Hang gliders land in the field, children scout prize treasures, and it provides a landscape of a peaceful habitat for all residents. There is so much more that would be beneficial instead of 123 houses (unbelievable). Signs posted for horse riders' safety, slower speeds on Archibald Avenue, and horse trails or walking paths to name a few. I am toquesting notification of dates and times of public hearings as well as a copy of the studies and planning for the development of this area to include 123 new homes. I would also like proof that the view will not be obstructed as a result of the development, and the facts upon which the decision to build 123 structures would be conducive to this community and the lifestyle. 123 tract homes simply are not. Thank you for your immediate attention. 4849 Archibald Avenue Alta Loma, CA 91737 (909) 481-7161 Home (909) 468-4203 Work To: Brent Le Count Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Le Count, RECEIVED APR 2 0 1999 C~~pril 17, 1999 0! I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). I have talked to you several times on the phone, and I thank you for you courtesy and time to research questions myself and my neighbors have had. The last time I spoke to you, I found out that in the plan Hidden Farm Road is to be extended across Archibald into the new housing development. I must ex- press my dee~ concern over this part of the plan. My understand- ing is the original plan was made in the early 1980's. At this time it made sense to connect the two tracts of homes, since our home was only built a couple of years before that. However, it is now 19 years later! I cannot believe this has not been reas- sessed for its feasibility. The situation is very different now. Allow me to point out just a few concerns I have. First, since these homes are being built 19 years apart, these are two very d~fferent tracts of homes. Second, it is likely to result in a danger to the children who live in these two areas. Kids love to ride their bikes, roller skate, etc. Having Hidden Farm continue across Archibald makes it more likely children will be trying to cross this busy street which currently has a 50 mph speed limit. Third, having three exits onto Archibald from the new tract will definitely effect the traffic on this busy road. I don't understand why new traffic studies are not required 19 years later. Quite a bit can change in 19 years. Aren't there new tracts built since then that are not included in the traffic study from the 1980's? Fourth, the quality of life for those used to this area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is quiet, friendly and peaceful. As a resident, I am concerned that this development threatens this quality of life we have all come to appreciate. I am concerned for more traffic coming down our street (Hidden Farm). This a street that is a c~] de mac, it doesn't go anywhere! It is obviously not necessary for emergency evacuation. What is the reasoning behind joining these streets together? In order to try to compromise, I have a few suggestions. Why couldn't the new Hidden Farm Road be offset from the old Hidden Farm Road, as the other new streets are from the existing ones. Or could the new Hidden Farm Road be made into a cul de sac also? Either one of these would make it much less likely for people to continue across. I also request current studies on traffic be done to access impacts.and that the new homes be single story. Lastly, I request that Barratt be asked to educate the new home buyers on the wildlife in the area. As a Biology and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San Antonio College, I have a great appreciation for the wildlife in this area, as do many of my non-science oriented neighbors. We know to keep our trash covered and not to leave dog and cat food out at night, so as not to attract the wildlife into the neighborhood. There are many tips that could help avoid future conflicts between the new residents and the wonderful Rancho Cucamonga wildlife. In summary, I feel that in order to establish the safest environment for children, maintain the quality of life and pursue the most logical living situation, Hidden Farm Road should not continue across Archibald from the new tract into our old one. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission and I assume the planning divi- sion include; protecting the natural environment and the communi- ty identity. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it. Therefore, I hope you will consider some of these points. I also again, thank you for your help in the past and look forward to talking to you in the fu- ture. Thank you for your time. ncerely, ~ /~ Cynthia J. Shannon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. As a resident, I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. As a Biology and Environmental Science Professor at Mount San Antonio College, I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. I have witnessed numerous native Cali- fornia species utilizing this area in a variety of ways. The larger predators, such as coyotes (which are so important for balancing an ecosystem) use this area as a corridor and a resi- dence. I have seen such species as red-tailed hawks, Cooper's hawks, red-shouldered hawks, American kestrels and great horned owl hunting and nesting in this habitat. These are just a fraction of the wildlife using this area. So much of our South- ern California wildlife is already gone, since this area was abandoned for development in the early 1980's, it has developed a diverse and balanced ecosystem worth saving. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. In my opinion, the development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by ,,neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of ,,neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their project. I have been informed by the planning department that since this area was approved for development in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1950's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, ~ ~/' Cynthia JJ Shannon 9574 Hidden Fam Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: The Planning Commission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of R~ncho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. ~owever, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, cc: The Planning Co,~ission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council RECEIVED NOV City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 ~"~ Kalhy Hunler 9575 Hidden Farm Rd Alta Loma CA 91737-1619 Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review co~,ittees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. Mowever, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, cc: The Planning Comission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council RECEIVED N0V24 1998 City ol Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 RECEIVED 140V t998 Dear Mr. Buller, C~yo~RanCh0 0u~sm0n§a I am sending this letter over concern for the pro~~ opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the qtzality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to. mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1980's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. ,Sincerely, ~ cc:' The Planning CommiSsion Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council To: Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Buller, RECEIVED City ot Rancho CucarnongS, Planning Division I am sending this letter over concern for the proposed devel- opment for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). This area of Rancho Cucamonga, known as "Alta Loma" is a quiet, friendly and peaceful area. I am concerned that this development threatens the quality of life we now enjoy due to increase traffic, noise levels and crime. I am concerned about proper drainage down Archibald and the fact that current studies on these matters are not being used to access impacts. I am also concerned about the wildlife that is established in the area. On the City of Rancho Cucamonga Web Site, it says the goals of the Planning Commission include; protecting the natural environment and the community identity. The development of this area will directly oppose these goals. It also says the review committees value public participation and encourages it by "neighborhood meetings" to receive input from the residents and posting public hearing notices. We have not had any type of "neighborhood meeting" for the applicant to explain their pro- ject. I understand that since this area was approved for devel- opment in the early 1980's, the city is not required to mail notices or even post the date of a public hearing. However, this area has changed drastically since the early 1950's when this plan was approved. In order to preserve the quality of our neighborhood, I am requesting the city leave this area as "open space." This would allow it to continue to serve as a buffer for noise, traffic and drainage between neighborhoods, and a habitat for wildlife. We also urge up to date studies on traffic, noise, crime and drain- age (especially in high rain years, such as last year's E1 Nino). I request to be notified of a public hearing, and that the other surrounding residents be notified as well. Sincerely, Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, City Council James Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council RECEIVED Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 N0V24 1998 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Dear Mr. Buller, I am sending this letter in regards to the proposed development for the area at the north end of Archibald Avenue, (File No. DR-98-10, Tentative Tracts 13316, 15914). This development will result in the removal of a si~tmificant amount of sage scrub habitat, a threatened natural community. As a resident of San Bernardino County it concerns me that little attention is being given to the San Bernardino County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. If the biological integrity of threatened habitats is to be maintained in San Bernardino County Politicians and planners are going to have do more to provide for open space, willlife corridors, and wildlife habitat. Residential developments necessitate the removal of large areas of natural vegetation and are incompatible with the goals of the San Bernardino County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The proponents of this development project need to come up with a creative way to initiate of study of sage scrub habitat. The components of this study should include: The ecological status of sage scrub habitat in San Bernardino County 1. Its current ecological health. 2. What management practices can be done to impr~ ove its ecological health. 3. The cumulative impacts of existing development. 4. All proposed development and its cumulative impacts. B Studies should include the effects of development on the: 2. 3. 4. Riparian Systems Water Quality Raptor Nesting Sites Botanical Community. Habitat maps need to be developed using G.I.S. methodology. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to publish on its web site that the goals of the planning commission include protecting the natural environment and the community identity, the city needs to show the public that they stand behind their statements. Sincerely, ~ ~ Sh~~~ Sch mid/~ dt/~t ~ Instructor, Biological Sciences Mount San Antonio College MR. & MRS.STEPHEN M. ALEXANDER 4939 ARCHIBALD AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 909/466-0086 FAX:909/484-0447 April 6, 1999 Mr. Brad Bullet City Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 /:i' E C E'i V E O City of Rancho Cuearno, P~anning Division Re: File No. DR-98-10 tentalive tracts 13316,15914 Dear Mr. Buller: Our property is immediately adjacent to tim above tract and we have many concerns about this development. We have never been included in any discussion, though we have lived here since 1994. At the time of purchase, we were told single story homes were approved and would not interfere with our line of sight. We only learned of the intentions to build after seeing a sign posted, at the site. We looked at drawings, but details that have an impact on our home were missing. Brent Le Count, of your office referred us to Mr. Robert Laing, the architect for the project. Mr. Lamg was courteous, but unable to give us timher details. The major problems are: I) losing our view and lowering the value of our property 2) eliminating our privacy with second story windows looking into our pool 3) proximity of noise 4) horse trails ending at our lawn, inviting Irespassing 5) $40,000 worth of new fencing that will now be inadequate (installed during the last 15 months) We would appreciate some reasonable modifications: 1) flip flop lots 60 & 61 making a lot line adjustment to allow a single story 2) require the design behind us to move upstairs windows to the East instead of West side 3) have the builder raise our fence a minimum of 24" and include landscaping to absorb noise. 4) Extend existing wall 20' to the curb to redirect horse trail 5) Remove rod iron and increase south wall height. Many of our neighbors are against the entire development. We, too, are concerned the increased population will affect the quality of life. However, it is not our intention to oppose progress. We live and work in this city and believed this was a city that valued public opiniorL If this is true, please lake ours into consideration. Sincerely, HERMAN AND GUNVOR VALENTIJN 5237 LONDON AVENUE ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P.O.BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729 RECEIVED JUL ! City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Alta Loma, July 8,1999. In response to the letter of June 24, 1999,issued by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, we like to express our concerns regarding the impact of the proposed solution to the runoff from the 84 acres of new buildings and streets. We have already reviewed the proposed drainage project at the City Planning Division and found that water and debris clearly are channeled through the easement located on the east side of our house. Aware as the city of Cucamonga is about the erosive potential of the proposed runoff, the city relies on an engineering report to make sure that erosion practically is eliminated. With this in mind, the undersigned wish to be informed in detail what kind and how much construction is going to take place on the easement of their property. The information we need to receive from you should address itself to several aspects of the expected impact on above mentioned easement, such as proposed reinforcement of the present natural ~ulley on the easement. More in particular we want to know what form your construction activities foresee with respect to the shape and lining of the runoff channel (U-shaped or large tubing) without impeding our access to our property to the east of the easement and without endangering playing children. In short,please submit in writing a detailed plan concerning the impact of the project on the specific easement of our property before August 11,1999. Yours truly, To: Brent Le Count Associate Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Mr. Le Count, RECEIVED JUL 1 J99 Cily of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Oivisio~uly 1, 1999 I am sending this letter over concern for the change in the public hearing date concerning the proposed development for the area at the north end of Archibald avenue on the east side of the street (File No. DR-98-10, tentative tracts 13316, 15914). Myself and many of my neighbors were at the planning commission meeting on June 9th. I presented the planning commission with a petition signed by 23 residents of the area. Most of us marked our calendar, and rearranged our schedules for the July 14th hearing date. Now, there are signs posted which change the date from the original July 14th date to August 11th. If the date must be changed, why not change it to one in September after school has started and everyone is more likely to be in town? Many residents would like to be present for this hearing and ask for your consideration in this matter. Thank you for your time. SiDcerely, / Cindy 'Shannon 9574 Hidden Farm Road Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 cc: Brad Buller, City Planner The Planning CoL~,ission Bill Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Curatalo, City Council Bob Dutton, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-10 2. Related Files: Tentative Tract 13316, Development Review for Tract 13316 (expired) 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously recorded Tract Map (Tract 13316) consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrad Court-APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041- 08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. m Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barratt American David Jacinto 2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 431-0800 5. General Plan Designation: Very-Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land and single family homes Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: United States Army Corps of Engineers (Streambed Alteration) and California Department of Fish and Game (also Streambed Alteration) Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing (v') Geological Problems (¢') Water Air Quality (v') Transportation/Circulation (v') Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v') Hazards (v') Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance (v') Public Services (v') Utilities and Service Systems (v') Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (,/) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitiga,~jo~, measures that are imp. osed L pon the proposed project. Signed: (f' ,~';7 ~,~-3t .=,~..--- ~ Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner May 18, 1999 Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: LAND a) b) c) d) Potentially s~n~cent Impact Le~ Potentially Unless Than Slgnificent Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomorated Impact Impact USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') t Issues and Supporting Information Sources: POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? S~n~ce~t Impact Less Potantially Unle~ ~n ~ ~ $~t No Im~ I~ Im~ Im~ () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Issues and Supporting Information Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? Significant Impact Less Potentially [ktteal Thin Sig~ficant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inoorm~atecl Impact Imlcect () (~) () () () (~) () () Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sourcas: c) d) e) O g) h) i) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Signifycent Impact () () () Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated (v') () () Than Significant No Impact Impact () () () (v') ( ) () () (~) () () () () (~) () () (~) () () () () (~) Comments: a,b,c) The northern portion of the site falls within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone of the Cucamonga Fault. A geologic investigation was conducted during the processing of Tentative Tract 13316 to determine if geologic hazards were present that may affect development of the site. The investigation revealed that no evidence of previous fault or subsurface rupture within the property was present. However, as an added precautionary measure, the report recommended a 100-foot building setback from the north property line. The geologic study was reviewed by the City's geologist and was determined to be complete and adequate. A condition of approval was placed on Tentative Tract 13316 requiring the 100- foot building setback and same shall be included for the subject Development Review. The project design is in conformance with this requirement. With mitigation the impact is not considered significant. The project will cause changes in topography because the site is currently vacant. A soils report will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit and grading will be supervised by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. The impact is not considered significant. h) A portion of the site is indicated to have "Tujunga-Delhi" soil type per the General Plan which states that this soil type "may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development." A soils report will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure soil bearing capacities are adequate to accommodate the project. The impact is not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Potentially Significent Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigatio~ Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact () () (~) () Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially s~gmr.=ant Iml:mct Po~emially Significant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Signitrmant Inco~orated Imoact No Impact () (~) () () () () () (~) () () () (v) () (~) () () () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (~,) Comments: a) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. The impact is not considered significant. b) There are two special flood hazard areas (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract boundary and the other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. These improvements will require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Homes along the east tract boundary are more than 50 feet from the stream bed and therefore outside the flood hazard area. e) Both the stream which bisects Tract 13316 and the one along the east tract boundary are also USGS Blue Line Streams. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. United States Army Corps of Engineers and California Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 Department of Fish and Game permits are required to alter a blue line stream, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AIR QUALITY. a) b) c) d) Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco~orated Impact Imoact Would the proposal.' Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The South Coast Air Quality Management Districrs Air Quality Management Plan accounts for the existing land use designations in its programs. The proposed Development Review proposes construction of 123 single family homes consistent with the existing land use designation for the property, Very-Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre.) Also, according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, dated November 1993, the threshold of single family homes that could cause a potential air quality impact is 166 homes. Therefore, no increase in air quality impacts is expected from the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Signifmant Mitigatmn Signif're. am No Impact Incoroorated Impact ImPact TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (V') ( ) ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Comments: a) The project will not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion in excess of projections for the adopted land use, for which the street widths were evaluated at a build out condition. The project will be required to install frontage street improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance, and to pay Transportation Development Fees. The impact is not considered significant. c) The project will be required to install one through street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. The impact is not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. result in impacts to: a) b) c) d) e) Would the proposal Potentially SignE~mt Impact Less Po~'~J~lly Unfe~s Th~n S~n~ M'~ S~t No Im~ I~ Im~ Imp~ Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) (v') ( ) Locally designated species (e.g., hedtage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) (v') ( ) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) (v') ( ) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) (v') ( ) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) () () () () (,/) Comments: a and d) The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Also, staff received a letter from Gerald Braden, a biologist with the San Bernardino County Museum, indicating habitat value of the subject site. Habitat assessment and biological surveys were required to determine potential habitat value and any potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed threatened Califomia Gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and VVildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the site does not contain suitable habitat for the Gnatcatcher and no Gnatcatchers were detected on site. The surveys also indicate that the site is not suitable habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and no signs of the rat were present. Based on this information, the proposed development of the 84 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to rare, sensitive, or endangered animal species. ,,,~:~ Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 8 The site contains Blue Line Streams which are devoid of wetland vegetation. The site also contains Sage Scrub vegetation along the stream banks. A mitigation agreement has been established with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to 1603, 401, and 404 permits. Mitigation is accomplished via design of the project which includes establishing 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes and acquisition of land in an Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in the Cajon Wash. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. b and c) The project will cause the removal of several Eucalyptus trees. A condition of approval for Tentative Tract 13316 required the developer to obtain a Tree Removal Permit prior to removal of the trees. The current applicant has filed a Tree Removal Permit for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires replacement of on site Eucalyptus trees on a 1:~1 ratio. There is also an Oak tree on the site (lot 44) and a condition of approval required the tree to be preserved in place. The same requirement shall be placed on the subject Development Review. The impact is not considered significant. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. proposal: a) b) c) Would the Potentially Signif'~,ent Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificentMitigation SignificentNo Impact IncorooratedImpact Impact Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Issues and Supporting Information Sources: HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Signit'~cent Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significent Mitigation Signirmant No Impact Incorporated Iml~act Impact () () () (~) () (~) () () Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Issues and Supporting Infocmat~n Sources: c) d) e) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Impe(~ Potergially S'~nificant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Inco~x~ated Impact No Impect () () () (~) () () () (~) () (~) () () Comments: b) The project will be required to install a through street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first development phase to assure adequate emergency access. W"~h mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. e) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to fire hazard mitigation requirements such as vegetation management, specialized home construction methods, and other requirements. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire District requirements. With such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant 10. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Pot~nt~ Signit'~..ant Impact Less Potentially Unle~ Than Sigr~,-,~.~ Mitigation Significant No Impact Inooroorated Irareact Impact () () (~) () () () () (¢) Comments: a) The project will increase existing noise levels since the site is currently vacant. The project is not expected to increase noise levels beyond anticipated limits. The impact is not considered significant. 11. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? Pot~ S~nir,=ant Impact Potentially Unlees Th-n Significant Mitigation S~t Im~ ~ Im~ Im~ () (v) () () Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 Issues and Supporting information Sources: b) c) d) e) Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? Potentially Significant Impsot Less Potentially Unless Than Signifment Mitigation Significant No Impac~ Incor~oorated Impact Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Comments: a) The site falls within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and is therefore subject to fire hazard mitigation requirements such as vegetation management, specialized home construction methods, and other requirements. A condition of approval requires compliance with Fire District requirements. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. 12. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) e) g) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Signirmant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact () () () (v) () () () (~) () () () (v) () () () (v) () (v) () () () () () (v) () () () (~) Comments: e) There are two special flood hazard areas (Zone "A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) within the project area. One is located along the east tract boundary and the other bisects the tract, about 500 feet east of Archibald Avenue. Per the conditions of approval for Tract 13316, the westerly stream will be diverted into a basin which outlets to a storm drain in Huntswood Place and discharges to its original stream bed south of Carrari Court. These improvements will require Federal Emergency Management Agency approval prior to grading permit issuance, thereby mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. ~? Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 13. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Pot~w~Jatly Im~ Potm~mlly Un~ Th~ Mitigatioa Significant Incorperated Impact Iml3acl () () () (v) () (v) () () () () () (~) Comments: b) The project includes a large retention basin along the northern tract boundary. The basin will have a spillway leading down to the northem end of the Huntswood Place cul-de-sac and will be quite visible. Provision of landscaping and river rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway. With mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. 14. Issues and Supporting Informatk~ Sources: CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) b) c) d) Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Pot~nfmlly s'~nir=ant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Miligation Significant No Impact Incorporated Imoact Impact () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) 15. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Sigr~r.:ant Impact Less Pot~latiy Unlees Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inoomema~d Impact Impact () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 12 16, Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pment~/ Significant Imlpact MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) Potentially S~if~_.mnt Impact LeN Unless Then M'~=~on S~n~c~nt Incomm'ated Impact No () () () () () () (v) () () ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES Geological Problems: No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property line of lots 44, 57, 58, and 59. The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective home buyer of lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, written notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the written notice shall be submitted and filed with the City. Initial Study for Development Review 98-10 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 13 Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Water: Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to issuance of grading permits. Streambed alteration of USGS identified Blue Line Streams shall be subject to review and approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game. Transportation: The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development Fees. A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. Biological Resources: All non-fruit bearing trees in excess of 15 feet in height and 15 inches in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same species as those removed as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.100. The existing Oak tree on lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The tree shall be enclosed by an appropriate construction barrier, such as chain link fencing, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits and prior to commencement of work. The developer shall ensure the establishment of 2.5 acres of native shrub land and wetland habitat on the detention basin slopes as required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The developer shall mitigate removal of on-site sage scrub through acquisition of equivalent habitat in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. Hazards: A through street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. RECETVED: 5-18-gg; 15:37; 760 9298433 => R CUCAUONGA COM DEV; ~2 05--1~--~;04:47~,~;~.~TT ~C.~J ;760 92~43~ ~ 2/ 2 tribal S~udy foe :lty of Rancho Cucamonga ,Oeveio!~mem Review 98-10 Page 14 2, Art proviaiort$ of the 8an i~rnardJno County Fire Safe.,, Overlay DiMrice shall apply. A Fuel Modifioafion/Management Plan al~J! be sub.'itted for Fire Chief and City Planner review and approval prior to the i~an~e of ~m¢ling permits. 1. Provision of ~an¢l~.aping and river r~k c. obi31e shall be u~ad to vlluafiy enhance the spillway at the northern end of Hunt~wood Place te the $etlifi~tion of the City Planner, EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyse~ may be useel where, pumuant to {M tearing, program EIR, or o~er CEQA erie or more effects have been adequately analyaM in an earilar EIR or Ne~lifive De¢laratlort per Section 15063(=)(3}(0). The elfeats i¢ten~lfted above for thhr pro~e¢~ ~ v~hfn the aoal3e adequately analyawl in the following eattier document(a) pumuant te a~leabte legal a~ndan:ls. and such effec[s were addressed by mlUgatlen ~a ba~ed on the e.'mdler analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilb~l In ¢om~e{Ing this Inli~ Study and are availa131e for revle~ in lhe City of Ran~o Cucamonga, Pia~nin~l DiviNon oflle~, 10B30 Civio Center Drive (clle~ all that General Plan EIR (Cer~ia~l April 6, 1981) Ma~er Environmental A~e~u'nent for the 1989 Gem~ral Plan Update (SCH ~88020115. =ertlfled January 4, 1989) Negative De~aration for Tentative Trllct 1331~, Adopted by the Planning Commition on Mar~ 25, 1987 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant f=r the project deluibed in this Initira, Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial $tud~ and the mOl;~;;~ed miti~gn mea~uree. Further, I I~ave revised the effe~s or mitigat~ the eff~-ts to a point where dea.dy no significant environmental effect~ OCCUr, F'dntNameandTitie: ~O/~f~.-A/' Z./Y7AX4 / QUINO ~~POT Bkra-,-].]UrLY TENTATIVE TRACI~ 1~1~ ,~ 1.~14~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA. SAN B~NAEDEqO CO[~ITY, CALIFORNIA A f~cused h~hitaX ..m.m.~t for the ~s~ plato of~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ u o~ ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~91~ T~ T~ 13316 11.29~ Tmfi~ T~ 15914 ~ ~ ~ ~~ O~~ ~ ~ ~ ~B,I~ ~~6~: ~~o~ S~o S~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W~. N~ me ~o ~ ~ p~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ INTRODUCTION Psci~ Southwest BiolosJcal Ser~ Inc (PSBS) ~t tl~ ~ cd'Rmmtt Ammica~ c~nducied & fooused ~ for Quino 83.91 and 11.29-acre proj~ot sil~s oa th~ ~ ~ ofth~ ur~;'--~ emd of~ Av~u~ h~ the City oftCancho C-'uc~onsa. 19~ ~ ~d-t~5-- was listed u m ~d-~ species on Jsmmry 16, 1997 (62FR2313)byth~Unimd StsmsPbhandWlk[[~ S~:~(~). Th~ ~pat~ ~ ~ ~on ~ the ~oj~ ~ t~ S~ ~d d for~ ~ ~o~~~~. LOCATION Tho proj~=t ~ ar~ 1ocat~ in tho ~ part ~Sh~ T~ map location ofth~ pmj~ sit~ isin u~ milmesma ~ oi'~m 23, ~ ! Nm, th, P. anae 7 West of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian, US0~ 7.5' QK'~VK'qI~ Peak, California Quad.-==~!= O..TTM 1 l-S: 445,500mE; ~,?SO,O~OmN). T!~ ~ ~ E~. ~. ,.u.. _., .:-.s. ~f.+.~_ north cnd of Archibald Avenue. L# .~A~3 ~ YONOIN¥Of'IO Y <- Yt,991*g;.806 SURVEY METHODS The habitat ass~asment survey consist~ of walking slowly over th~ proje~'t sites, searching, identifying, recording and mapping if present, habim eomlxmm~(~ larval food don~ in conjunction with the ~e ~:es~mem' ~ other m:udu've plant taxa. L~. Plummer's Mariposa ( Cal~chon~ plu~er~). The survey was gcnaally performed in aooordance with anticipated protocol _m_et.hodolo~, On 6 May 1998, Pacific $outhwest's senior biologist, P,. ~ neauOu,mp, cond~cted the ~usccl botanical field review o~the project sltc~ IVlr. ~uc~mp is fbniliar with the Quino Checkerspot Buttcdly, its hsbitat requireme~ ~1 food phnt~ The 199~ y~' w~ one of optimal ntln~a~ and in other areas o~the region host plants grew to optimal size, s,~pes~ng that bad the host plants been M'ese~t onth~ ~ they would have been evidmL LIMITATIONS AND DEFINITIONS Survey Limitations It must be noted that due to the se~.~onal !;m_.L~ of the ~ not all species ixuent would be observed on the site. Quino iarva~ bav~ the ability to undet~ q~uss for seerend years or re-enter dinpause if food plants are not su~icnt to co,-q~e ~rowth durin$ a ~iven year. Diapausc ~ a state of strapended animation. Drought or low wint~a- rainfidl may inhibit th~ $rowth of the larva/food plant, P/antago ovcta. This, ~, was not tl~ cas~ for tim 1995 s~son, Vegetation Communities Vegetation habitat or communities on the site have been subjected to past disturban~ by prior use of the sites an orchn~ds. Successio-aJ Sage Scrub Successional Sage Scrub commtmitics mount to 5.04 acres ofth~ ~ sit~. Tho habitat lacks cryptoga?.-;~ .,,a. due to the pa~ '~,+,,,~,*.,~' C~--,..ra~c~.,~L~ California Sngebru~ (d. rtemi~ c. alff'ornic~), Flat-top ]3uckwhoal Black Sase (,Va/pia reellifts) and White Sage (,.~dvia _apima). The opon mm witida tht Sage Scrub are dominated by non-native grasses end no Quino hrvd hod m plmm were ottoerred during the survey. Annuftl Grassland An,-.u~ Grassla~ and Ruderal A~eas are ~ by a dense to sparse cover o~ annual grasses or _~i. mply bare m-eas due to vehiclo activity or past fire .bateme~t ~. This habitat, totalling RR 96 acres o£both in old fields, or openinp in native scurb habitat. No Quino larva] food these weedy habitats during the survey. Spocies occurring within tho Gnmshnd ~de, but are not limited to, W'dd Oat (Arena barbara). ~rcrai sp~ies ofBrom, ~ ~ B. z_.0 ~C~q ~__~__3I/ LP9g.~SL606 guc&lyptuf Woodhnd The southc~ portion ofthe northern parcel find eastern portion of the southern parcel have a Euca]yptus Woodland mociat_~_ ..~.'~ that com,~n ~ T~,, uz2derztory is ~ of vegetation and is not a poss/ble haletat for tim buttm-~. This ]mbi~ totals 1.2 acres. CONCLUSION The pas~ distudm~ ofthe size has amerally ~ the pr~_~e of makiw plm mci Pacific SoUdnvest-~ioiogimi ~,,ies, inc. Post Office B~ ~ N~on~ Ci~ ~ 9 ! 95 ! 800 838 7727 ~0 Z# ,~A:::IO RO0 *~NO~¥orlo B <= £~.99t*~£600 !:~t*16 -~60-6t-/- :03AIB~3B RECETVED: ?-19-99; 7:50; 9097845647 => R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; #2 07/i911999 08: 5G 9897845647 Ti~A ~ADRE PAGE 02 1*-~m Mad~ C~ltant~, li-~,. En¥1ronmen~at Analysis ~n~ ~urc~ ~n~in~ Endangled Spies ~eys · Mi~a~on Design · Ecolog~al ~ Iowa Ave.. Su,e D · ~emOe. CA ~7 · (~) ~-7081 · (F~) 784-~7 tlerromdre~.c~ * ~: mem~rs aol.com/fie~amdre Mr. Brent LeCount P~ ~ivision 10SO0 Civic Ceat~ ~ P~~~~ ~cho Oacam~ ~ 91~7 Ke: San Bermrdi~o Kangaroo Rat Survey, Tentative Tract 13316 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nccepted survey protocol for this Endangered ~ubspecies invoiws a live trapph~ study conducted for fivu cons~utive nigh~. TMC be!~ th~ study on Monday, 12 luly. No San Bernardino Kansaroo Rats (SBKR) were captured durin~ the five- n~t trapping su,wey. Eight species orsmall mammals were captured. Trapping was ~ by Stephen I. Myers, who holds Federal Fish and W'ddlife Permit No. TE- 804203-2. He was assisted by other TMC empkgrees. Trapping w-~_.s _con_ _.dL~. _ed according to protocols establi~:l for the SBKR, which call for five consecutive nigiRs oftrapping, between dugk and dawn. A total of 180 12' Sh&-iiian live tt~ps were set and baited with a combination of mlled-oa~s and bird seed, The traps were set at dusk, checked at midnight and checked and clos~ · t d~wn. Traps ware plae~t in ~table habitat areas. Four sites w~e selected u auitable for trapping: 2. 3. 4. North between the two drainages consisting of 60 traps total. Directly betworn the two drainagra con~ting of 50 traps. Northern edge of the ea.~em drainage consisting of 20 traps. ga~t of#:~ c. onWt~ of 20 traps. Southeast of the ,nst drainage consisting of 20 traps, RECETVED: 7-19-g9; 7:51; 9097845647 => R CUCAldONGA COld DE"V; #3 07/~.971999 0~: 5F~ 9097845~47 ~.L~.r~,~-~ The results of the tr~ survey_ are shown in Tables I and :2 below. Table 1. Tentative Tract D$16 (Rancho Cummomm): Small mammal h.opirm mux~ vadablea. DF = David Fleimer TO= Tyler Ooodro Table 2. Auduban'a ~ 1 Nc~lh.,~ ~o~~ 1 ~~w~ 14 ~V~ - Tentative Tract 13316 (Ranelto Cucamonlpt): Small mammal trapping results. 13-14.fuly 14-15.ruly 1~-16 J'uly 16-17 JMy TOTALS . I . 2 3 2 4 2 12 - I 5 t2 12 23 2 ! 2 2 7 13 17 I~ 27 2 2 I I 6 2 RECETVED: 7-19-99; 7:51; 9097845647 => R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; #4 07/19/1999 08:56 9897845647 TTERRA HADRE PAGE 84 No Sm~ Bernardino lumlgaroo rats we~ Calmtaxi, nor ~ ther~ captures oFany species ofkangaroo rat. Based on ~ resu~s, the e~ rod~ms ar~ juclge~ to be absem from this location. I~you have shy q'aest[o,~, pl-~ co,~'~ct me or R. Mitchel Beaucharap at 619 477-5333. Sincerely, Trm~ MADI~ CON~T~, INC. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 FOR TRACT 13316 CONSISTING OF 123 LOTS ON 84 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY-LOW RESIDENTIAL QISTRICT (!~ESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, NORTH OF CARRARI COURT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-061-15 THROUGH 27, 1074-041-08 THROUGH 21, 1074-591-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-461-04 THROUGH 21, 1074-601-01 THROUGH 14, 1074-611-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-021-02 THROUGH 26, AND 1074-051-09 THROUGH 16. A. Recitals. 1. Barratt Homes has filed an application for the Development Review 98-10 for Tract No. 13316, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 9, 1999, and continued to July 28, and September 9, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on September 8, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street with a street frontage of 1,800 feet on Archibald Avenue and 700 feet on Carrari Street and is presently vacant. The site sits at the base of the foothills and slopes from the northwest to the southea[;t ,~[ a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northern end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site includes three communities, successional sage scrub, annual grassland/ruderal areas, and Eucalyptus woodland. There is a cluster of three mature eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree (on Lot 44); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant or developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east is vacant and developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is developed with single family homes; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRAT-i' AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 2 c. The application involves design review of detailed site plan, building elevations, grading, and landscaping for a recorded tract; and d. The project will not increase traffic in the vicinity beyond that anticipated by the General Plan and the streets have been designed to accommodate the traffic demand; and e. The project is designed to minimize view obstruction to the degree possible; and f. The project site is potential habitat for threatened or endangered species (i.e., California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Merriam Kangaroo Rat, respectively) and biological surveys were conducted by a permitted biologist in accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. The protocol surveys concluded that the project site was not suitable habitat and the species were not found; and g. The project site is potential habitat for an endangered species, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and a habitat assessment was conducted and determined that, because of a lack of host plants and past disturbances from agricultural use, the site does not support adequate habitat and the species is not present; and h. The project has a valid Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the applicant has obtained Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the California Department of Fish and Game; and i. The project site contains 5.04 acres of undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub, the removal of which will be mitigated both on site and in an off-site mitigation land bank in the Cajon Wash; and j. The project site is located within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudrig the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: and That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 3 project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared; therefore, reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division: 1) Plot one-story home on Lot 60 to preserve views for existing home to the north. 2) All final home plotting shall be per the conceptually approved plans. 3) All drainage channels on individual lots shall be "v" gutter type rather than trapezoidal channels unless expected flows necessitate otherwise. 4) Provide bridge over equestrian-tf~-'-dralri'a'g~'~wales at trail intersections between, but not limited to, Lots 69 and 70. 5) Gates between homes fronting the street shall be wrought iron instead of wood. 6) Locate fence walls at top of slope rather than at toe of slope except along Archibald Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 4 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) Provide wrought iron fencing for side and rear yard fences at top of slopes instead of solid masonry walls. All between-home connecting walls, and retaining walls shall be split- face block with pilasters. Wood fencing is only acceptable in interior yard areas not visible from surrounding streets. Provide terraced retaining walls in corner side yard slope areas to maximize useable yard area. Provide intensified landscaping, including cascading vines, within terraces between retaining walls to create a more natural appearanqe and reduce visual impact of walls and slopes. Use low maintenance and native plant materials for slope landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. All splash walls shall be split-faced block and incorporated with walls as much as possible. Equestrian trail splash wall footings and reinforcing steel shall be designed to accommodate 6-foot high walls. Install the perimeter slump stone block walls for the tract with the installation of public improvements. Provide architectural details, such as corbels, shutters, and belly bands on side and rear elevations to match that shown on front elevations. Provide substantial variation in front yard setbacks. This may require re-plotting of home plans to accommodate useable rear yard areas given slopes. Where wood siding is used on the front elevation, it must be continued around side and rear elevations as well. Provide at least a 5-foot landscape strip between the back of sidewalk and any wall. Provide 15-foot deep useable rear yard areas either through grading or decks and patios. The spillway at the south end of the tract shall be designed to have a more natural appearance. The retaining walls along the sides of the basin spillway at Lot A and screen walls for the drainage channel between Lots 9 and 10 shall be split faced block subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 5 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) Provide dver rock treatment for the concrete basin spillway at Lot A for native aesthetics and to prevent the spillway from being used as a skateboard ramp, subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval. Provide low maintenance landscaping such as, but not limited to, drought/heat tolerant trees, shrubs, ground cover, and rip-rap on the inside and outside slopes of the debris basin, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. Debris basin fencing shall be decorative rather than chain link. Provide a standard handicapped ramp at curb at end of local trail at the northeast corner of Lot 31 and a step-through rather than a vehicle gate. Stepped footpaths shall be provided for all slopes in excess of 3:1. The front, visible edge of terrace drains shall be naturalized cobble. Incorporate boulders found on site during grading into design. Notify the property owners for Lots 13 and 14 of Tract 9590 pdor to commencement of any work for the drainage channel and spillway. Submit a copy of the notice to the City Planner prior to commencement of work. The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a- statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season, (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ride sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 6 a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 34) The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. 35) The developer shall make a good faith effort to notify and obtain permission from adjacent property owners for all off-site clearing of vegetation for fire protection/wildland interface requirements pdor to issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Enqineerinq Division:- 1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the south side of Carrari Street to the first pole south of the north tract boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded at the same time. Reimbursement of one-half the adopted cost of undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street is not feasible because the property is currently developed. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 7 2) 3) 4) 5) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the opposite side of Almond Street shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. All lot line adjustments shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. At a minimum, process a lot line adjustment between Lots 37 and 40 so the property line will follow the perimeter wall. All public improvement plans for streets, trails, and the storm drainage system shall be completed and signed by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. a) A complete plan check resubmittal shall be made, including plan check fees. b) Street grades greater than 12 percent are subject to approval of the City Engineer. c) Provide curb adjacent sidewalk along Almond Street, transitioning to property line adjacent across the drive approach for Lot 40. All access ramps shall be per Standard Drawing 102 (no modifications). d) Public maintenance of Lot A (debris basin) shall not extend into Lots 57, 58, and 59. Landscape Maintenance District plans previously submitted shall be revised. e) Show the property line between Lot C (City owned) and the landscape easement (City maintenance across multiple private lots) on the north side of Carrari Street on the Landscape Maintenance District plans. Improvement Phasing: a) The debris"basin and all related storm drainage improvements, including Huntswood Place street improvements, shall be installed prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I development. b) One through-street connection from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street shall be installed full width, including street lights and related storm drains, with Phase I development. c) Erosion protection measures for rough graded phases shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for proper channelization to the storm drain system. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 8 7) 8) 6) Community Trail Design: a) Install drive approaches and provide vehicle gates with side access, per Standard Drawing 1006-A, for Lot C at Carrari Street and Birdsong Place and for Lot B at Almond Street and Birdsong Place. At the Carrari Street trail entrance, the drive approach shall be located far enough south that a 12-foot DG path can be maintained. b) The equestrian bridge within Lot C, which crosses the channel south of Huntswood Place between Lots 9 and 10, shall be designed to accommodate City maintenance vehicles, including a concrete slab. c) Provide gated access to the Community Trail on Lot C from Lot 14 of Tract 9590 to the south on both sides of the channel which crosses that parcel. City maintenance vehicle access to the channel facility shall be secured. d) Gates from lots onto Community Trails shall accommodate horses and pedestrians, but not vehicular traffic. Gates shall be shown on the Community Trail improvement plans, including Lots 60 through 64 which back onto Archibald Avenue (Standard Drawing 1008) and Lots 9 through 30 which back onto Lots B and C (Standard Drawing 1009-B). Provide step-through barriers (Standard Drawing 1007)at intersections with local feeder trails. e) Trail fencing for the Archibald Community Trail shall not block the lines-of-sight for the four Archibald Avenue intersections. r) Where trail gradients exceed 4 percent, drainage diversion devices shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. g) h) Concentrated drainage shall cross the trail in underground facilities. Manhole covers shall be designed to accommodate equestrian traffic. Manholes located in Community Trails shall have non- skid Polymer covers (only 30-inch diameter available). i) Eliminate the PVC rail fencing on the north side of the Community Trail on the north side of Carrari Street and replace with concrete curb/mow strip. Dedicate additional easement rights-of-way to accommodate vehicular access where the Community Trail crosses Lot 14. Drive approaches on Lots 1, 65, and 88 shall be located as far from the intersection BCR for Archibald Avenue as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 9 9) The grade break between a standard residential drive approach ramp and the on-site driveway shall not exceed 14 percent on any lot. 10) Aesthetic treatment of storm drain spillways shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) All off-site easements necessary for the installation of storm drainage facilities and slopes adjacent to street or public trail improvements shall be recorded pdor to the issuance of grading permits: a) A drainage acceptance agreement shall be obtained from the property owner downstream of the Birdsong Place terminus and interim measures installed to accommodate concentrated runoff which may bypass the catch basins, so as to not damage private property or the Community Trail, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) The project proposes to discharge rear lot and Community Trail drainage at the south comer of Lot 18 across up to three adjacent properties before it reaches the San Bernardino County Flood Control District basin. This will require drainage acceptance from the affected property owners or a storm drain easement and SBCFCD permit. Drainage acceptance and measures to accommodate runoff downstream shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. The preferred option is installation of a local storm drain from the south corner of Lot 18 to Alta Loma Basin No. 3. The expanded Community Trail easement off site south of Lot 15 shall be recorded prior to grading permit issuance. If the improvement agreement and bonds for Tract 13316 do not reflect the current owner/developer, bond substitutions shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. Developer shall obtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to altering the blue line stream(s) for storm drainage improvements.-- All improvements within public rights-of-way, including public trails and the basin, shall be constructed per the public improvement plans. A note to this effect shall be placed on related pdvate plans for walls/fences, grading, etc. To accommodate City maintenance, the basin access road shall extend to the proposed slope bench on the north side of the basin. Road surface to be to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. Provide a minimum 3-foot clearance for flow line between building/chimneys and property line walls. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 10 Environmental Mitigation Measures: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) No structures shall be permitted within 100 feet of the north property line of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59. 9) The developedapplicant, or his agent, shall provide each prospective home buyer of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59, written notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the written notice shall be submitted and filed with the City. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Storm drain improvements related to flood hazard areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to issuance of grading permits. The developer shall comply with the terms and conditions of their Nationwide 'Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the California Department of Fish and Game. The developer shall install frontage street improvements to their ultimate configuration per City ordinance and pay applicable Transportation Development Fees. A through-street connection shall be installed from Archibald Avenue to Almond Street with the first phase of development to assure adequate emergency access. Tree Removal Permit 98-26 is approved subject to replacement of trees at a 1: 't ratio. All non-fruit bearing trees in excess of 15 feet in height and 15 inches in trunk circumference that are removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the same species as those removed, as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.100. The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and protected as required by Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. The tree shall be enclosed by an appropriate construction barrier, such as chain link fencing, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits and prior to commencement of work. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN September 8, 1999 Page 11 lo) The developer shall ensure the establishment of native shrub land and wetland habitat as required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 11) The developer shall mitigate removal of the on-site, undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (5.04 acres) at a ratio of 1:1 by establishing 2.5 acres of native shrub land on the detention basin slopes and through the purchase and preservation in perpetuity of a minimum of 2.54 acres off-site lands in the Alluvial Fan Scrub Mitigation Bank in Cajon Wash. 12) All provisions of the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Oveday District shall apply. A Fuel Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire Chief and City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 13) Provision of landscaping and river rock cobble shall be used to visually enhance the spillway at the northern end of Huntswood Place to the satisfaction of the City Planner. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: arry~a rma~'~ 0 i ATTEST: B~~'~~. JBrad I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of September 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Development Review 98-10 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the odginal authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mitigation Monitoring Program Development Review 98-10 Page 2 o Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate wdtten approvals to the project planner. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Development Review 98-10 New Single Family Homes Barratt American E/S Archibald Avenue, N/O Carrari Street ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. Completion Date / / A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planne¢s letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. / / B. Time Limits Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. / / C. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. / / Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / / SC - 4119/99 Project No. DR 98-10 Completion Date All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. / / Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. / / All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. / / The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's. / / All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved pdor to the issuance of building permits. / / The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. / / Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. / / 10. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Y~-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. / / 11. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. / / / / / / / / 12. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 13. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 14. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real dver rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Building Design SC - 4119/99 All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. / / Project No. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of 30% of trees in front yards shall be - 24- inch box or larger. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All pdvate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required within and around the basin slopes and spillway. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. DR 98-10 ComDleUon Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 4119/99 Project No. 11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These cdteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer wdtten notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. G. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. DR 98-10 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-27'10, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., DR 98-10). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Pdor to issuance of'bUitding permits'for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees atthe established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. / / / / SC - 4119/99 4 Project No. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A final geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 5. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070. DR 98-10 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. Dedication and Vehicular Access Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. L. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for Almond Street and Almond Court. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / / / / / / / / / / SC - 4/19/99 5 Pro~ect No. Di~ 98-10 Completion Date Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Stree~ Comm Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Ughts Trees Trail Archibald Ave. Carrari Court / Almond Street Almond Court Median Bike Other Island Trail Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Maintenance vehicle access to Community Trail. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and. approved by the City Engineer. Secudty shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street improvements, pdor to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 4119/99 6 Project No. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. M. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Basin, Archibald Avenue, Carrari Street, Almond Street except Lot 30 and the interior Community Trail. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Archibald Avenue. N. Drainage and Flood Control The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. O. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. SC - 4119199 7 DR 98-10 Coml~lefion Date / / / / I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Project No. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water Distdct (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water distdct within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covedng the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. DR 98-10 GomDl~tion Dat~ / / / / / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909)477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. General Fire Protection Conditions Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1250 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch dser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 4119199 Projec~ No. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Distdct's fire lane standards, as noted: a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 8. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 9. $132.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. ** A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. **Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. 10. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. A SEPARATE SET OF PLANS IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE FIRE PREVENTION NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT AT TIME OF PLAN SUBMITTAL TO BUILDING AND SAFETY. Contact the Fire Prevention New Construction Unit located in the Building and Safety Division. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. Ifwindows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. S. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. T. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. DR 98-10 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 4/19/99 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 8, 1999 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannedno, Larry McNiel, Pain Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer;, Brent Le Count, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Senior Civil Engineer Dan James had been selected the City's Employee of the Month for September 1999 by the other employees. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Stewart, caned 4-0-0-1 (Macias abstain), to approve the minutes of August 25, 1999. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 - BARRATT AMERICAN - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84'acres ofland in the Very-Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1074-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16. . _. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, gave a brief history of the project, and suggested a revision to clarify wording of Environmental Mitigation Measure Condition 10 regarding the establishment of native shrub land and wetland habitat. He also indicated that a fax from Leeona Klippstein of Spirt of the Sage Council was in front of the Commissioners. He reported the fax had been received less than an hour earlier and requested denial of the project until a full Environmental Impact Report is completed. Chairman McNiel indicated the public headng was open. Jeff Chine, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, stated his firm is the legal counsel for Barratt American. He thanked staff for an excellent job in processing the application. He felt they had worked through all the issues. He observed the matter had been continued on several occasions, most recently as a result of a late letter submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). He felt Barratt understands the position of USFWS is that they would like to preserve as much land as possible. He said Barratt feels that the mitigation requested by staff is adequate and meets all City standards. He indicated that Robert Liang from Barrett was also available in the audience to answer any questions. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant concurred with all recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Chine indicated acceptance. Diana Santini, 5207 London Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated the Commission had received two separate correspondences from her. She said she met with Engineering staff. She stated that when she purchased the property in 1983, there was an easement for natural drainage flow which did not specifically state anything about construction of additional drainage. She was concerned that a large concrete channel will be viewed from the deck she suspended on the east side of her property. She reiterated concerns voiced in her June 9, 1999, letter about the planned drainage system. Curtis Metzgar, 10699 Champagne Road, Rancho Cucamonga, spoke in favor of the project indicating he is on an interest list to purchase a home from the developer. He felt the development will be good for the community. He said he and his wife currently rent and are looking for a home to buy on a 1/2 acre lot in that area. He thought the issues that have been raised had been addressed and requested that the Commission approve the project. Cindy Shannon, 9574 Hidden Farm Road, stated she saw a letter distributed by Barrett American indicating that residents are opposed to new construction. She said an article in The Grapevine Press indicated 113 development projects are planned west of Eftwanda Street with 38,652 new homes planned for the area. She noted she had submitted a petition signed by 23 residents opposing the extension of Hidden Farm Road. She acknowledged that the extension of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald Avenue was not a consideration for the Commission at this time, but she showed a picture showing the downhill grade of Archibald Avenue and said people typically speed when going downhill. She feared for children crossing the street. She pointed out that there will be three exits to Archibald Avenue and one on Hermosa Avenue and she feared it will be difficult for residents to evacuate the area in the event of a wildfire. She observed that Barrett had indicated in its letter that they were sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors. She felt that their bulldozing over a fourth of the area as shrub removal for fire prevention was not necessary because removing the shrubs along the perimeter should have been sufficient. She thought the area is a unique place and she felt that chopping it up will destroy it. She said there is currently a chain link fence with barbed wire across the top and that is unsightly and blocks the wildlife corridor. She asked that the Commission consider the natural environment, community identity, and safety of children in the area. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 8, 1999 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public headng. He asked that staff respond to questions raised dudng public testimony. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the GeoSoils, Inc. report from September 1992 referenced by Ms. Santini was a limited geotechnical evaluation which appeared to have been a walk-through of the area. He said the geologists' comments are common sense comments that should be heeded by a homeowner purchasing a house in the area. With regard to the report's recommendation that anything done within the ravine should have geotechnical expertise, Mr. James indicated that the City is requiring that the construction being facilitated by the developer will be overseen by a geotechnical soils engineer so proper compaction of the slopes will be obtained. Chairman McNiel asked if that requirement should be added to the resolution of approval. Mr. James responded that it will be required at the time of plan check and processing of the improvement plans. Chairman McNiel felt that was acceptable. Mr. James stated that once the City accepts the drainage easements, maintenance of the ravine will be the responsibility of the City with regards to drainage purposes. With respect to Ms. Santini's question that the easement was only for natural drainage, and not a drainage facility, he said he recalled that he had told Ms. Santini that the project was approved to offer an easement, but when the map recorded the easement was rejected by the City Council. He said that means the offer is in perpetuity which would allow the City Council to accept it in the future and utilize it. He said he informed her the City does not accept an easement until it is improved and public waters drain into it. He stated this development will drain public waters into the easement; therefore the City accepted it. He indicated the final map says "drainage easement" and he did not see the word "natural" in any of the records he researched. He said staff had discussed the drainage easement with the City Attorney. Mr. James observed that one of the concerns raised was with regard to continued drainage over slopes and the water coming onto her property from the north. He pointed out that natural drainage should no longer hit her north property line because this development will redirect the drainage into the channel via draining into a pipe and then into an open channel with dissipaters to slow the water down and then discharge it into the natural ravine at the bottom of the channel. He said the water will no longer flow over the side of the slopes. He stated Ms. Santini requested a copy of a geotechnical evaluation; however, the City does not have one because it is a drainage facility designed by a civil engineer within acceptable standards, and a geotechnical soils engineer will be on site dudng construction to be sure the compaction and re-establishment of the slopes are obtained. He noted that Ms. Santini requested that a pipe be extended to take the development flow totally within a buded pipe emptying into the existing storm drain. Mr. James stated that the Engineering Division does not consider this a viable option because of the debds basin being installed at the north end of the site which has a surface overflow facility in case the inlet facility gets plugged up with debds. He indicated the overflow will flow south within a public street towards the channel at the south end which is constructed on Ms. Santini's property and discharged onto Mr. Reese's property. He said it must be an open channel for secondary emergency overflow. Mr. James noted that Ms. Santini requested that if an open channel is used, that it be relocated to the ravine on the eastern side of her property. He stated that Ms. Santini's property has two natural ravines. He said that it would be necessary to realign the street map in order to redirect the drainage as she requested and the subdivision map has already been recorded and the Army Corps of Engineers has already issued 404 permits with regard to the blue line stream. He noted that all of the improvements Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 8, 1999 have been bonded for. Mr. James noted that Ms. Santini had requested a crossover bddge be provided on her property if the open channel is approved as currently planned. He said that at one time the developer was supposed to put in a pedestrian crossing. He noted there is an equestrian facility within the Barraft development which has a bridge crossing which will accommodate City vehicles to allow for maintenance of the channel, so she will have an access road available to her as well as the pedestrian access. He observed that the concerns raised by Ms. Shannon regarding the street alignment were addressed within the staff report. He said the street design is an acceptable street design to the Engineering Division. Commissioner Mannerino felt the homeowner objections fall into three general categories with the first being concerns regarding natural drainage, with "natural" being the key. He said drainage easements exist because of an intent to change the natural drainage and there would be no need for an easement for natural drainage because it is already there. He thought the second objection is the demise of the cul-de-sac and traffic and hazzards created thereby. He said that unfortunately the City is populated by streets that go through and children are on all streets. He stated that while it would be wonderful if every neighborhood were a cul-de-sac, it would not be possible to cross the City. He considered the third objection to be the demise of the natural habitat. He suspected there was substantial natural habitat where the existing homeowners now live and it was destroyed when their houses were built. He remembered when there was nothing on the land where City Hall now sits. He said that it is an unfortunate fact of modem life that civilization destroys the natural habitat of what was there before. He stated that it has to be done responsibly and he noted there are substantial mitigation measures with respect to the creation of other habitat. He thought the project is a good one. He felt there are adequate checks within the project to ensure proper drainage and noted the staff has a reputation for being meticulous. He observed that the project map was recorded in 1990 which creates vested land rights. He said that Barraft has a right to build so long as they do it responsibly in accordance with our ordinances and regulations of the county and the federal government with regard to natural habitat modifications. He supported the project. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the project has a long history with the project first being submitted by a previous developer prior to adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance. He observed the City was aware of the fact that hillsides are hard to develop and a requirement was placed on the original project that grading would not disturb much of the land and houses were to be built with split levels and stem walls. He noted the original project expired and when Barratt came in, he felt the City made a mistake in allowing them to mass grade. He noted that if the project had been developed as first approved, it would not have been mass graded, but rather each lot would have been graded for split level houses with a minimum of grading. He noted this project has a lot of grading which will create slopes which are not usable. He did not support the project for that reason. He felt the drainage situation can be addressed and the street assignment is moot because the map has already been filed and he thought the environmental impacts have been adequately addressed. He supported a project on the property, but not as presently proposed. Commissioner Macias concurred with Commissioner Mannerino. He thought the project is similar to most of the other projects in that area. He thought staff had done an excellent job of addressing the issues, identifying the impacts, and developing substantial mitigations to offset the impacts to levels of insignificance. He supported the project. Commissioner Stewart indicated support for the project. She said she had read over 400 pages of documentation and had read every letter which had been sent and sorted through legal opinions by City attorneys and other attorneys. She indicated she had gone to the area Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 8, 1999 repeatedly and tried to take everything into account. She said she was on the Design Review Committee and the Committee had carefully reviewed the project home sites and the design of the homes to try to ensure view corridors and get trails and fencing dght. She said she made extensive notes and considered both the positive and negative aspects and felt the positives outweigh the negatives and the negatives are being dealt with through mitigations or have been resolved. She noted there is a comprehensive resolution with a multitude of requirements for the development. Chairman McNiel felt the project had been thoroughly considered. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review 98-10. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASS ESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15320- MWH REALTY, LTD. - A subdivision of 6.99 acres of land i0to 2 parcels in the Industrial Park Development Distdct (Subarea 6) and Haven Avenue Oveday District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northeast comer of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN: 209-401-01. Chairman McNiel observed that the applicant requested a continuance to October 13, 1999. Motion: Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Parcel Map 15320 to October 13, 1999. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR THREE PARCELS IN CONNECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-05A - A request to change the land use and zoning designation from Industrial Park to Low. Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for land totaling 18.5 acres in size located between 4th and 6th Streets on the west side of Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-062-31. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked the designations of the surrounding parcels. Mr. Buller responded that Parcel 17 is Commercial and Parcel 42 is Industrial Park. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to authorize staff to file two additional General Plan Amendments to consider the two referenced parcels in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 99-05A. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 8, 1999 CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PL3LNNiNG COP[MiSSION MEETING AND PUBLIC HEA/~ING TRA_NSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS LOCATION: THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~MONGA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCA_MONGA, CA 91729 DATE ~ND TitlE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 7:00 P.M. TO 7:55 P.M. JOB NO.: 9516VA REPORTED BY: VICTORIA A. AVILES, C.S.R. (NO. 10328) younger ReportmS Sery. ice 6772 Magnolia Avenue Riverside, CA 9,..06 ,909, 276-I333 Fax (909)276-1788 30~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES PLANNING COMMISSION: I.J~RRY MC NIEL, CHAIRMAN RICHARD MACIAS, VICE CHAIRI~ JOHN D. MANNERINO, COMMISSIONER PETER TOLSTOY, COMMISSIONER PAM STEWART, COMMISSIONER' BRA/D BULLER, CITY ATTORNEY KEVIN ENNIS STAFF MEMBERS: BRENT LE COUNT DAN JAMES GAIL SANCHEZ YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) REPRESENTATIVE(S) .FOR THE APPLICANT: JEFFREY A. CHINE Luce, Forward Hamilton & Scripps REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOR THE OPPOSITION: (NONE) MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: DIANA SANTINI CURTIS METZGER CINDY SHANNON 3 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPEAKERS NAME CHAIRMAN MC NIEL MR. LE COUNT MR. CHINE MS. SANTINI MR. METZGER MS. S HA/qNON MR. JAMES COMMISSIONER MANNERINO COMMISSIONER TOLSTOY COMMISSIONER MAC IAS COMMISSIONER STEWART MS. SANCHEZ PAGE 5 5 10 12 17 19 23 31 33 34 35 36 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Project 98-10 Barratt American. The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for previously recorded Tract 13316, consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than two dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court. Let's see. We also have a negative declaration of environmental impacts with this. This item has been continued from July 28th, 1999. Can we have a Staff report, please. MR. LE COUNT: Chairman McNiel, members of the Commission, as you indicated in your description, this case was continued from your July 28th meeting. The reason for that was earlier in the day, on July 28th, staff had received a fax from The U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. The letter acknowledged the biological surveys done by the Applicant's biologist at that time to date acknowledging that protocol surveys for the California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat indicated that neither species was present on site, and that the Quino checkerspot butterfly, another endangered species, was not indicated to be on site. However, there was one item that was listed in YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that letter that had not been addressed thoroughly enough at that point. That was a recommendation by the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate something on the order of 80 acres of on-site coastal sage scrub at a ratio of three to one. That was so different from the direction that Staff had taken with the project and with the recommendations and conclusions of the biological surveys rendered thus far that, again, the Commission continued the item and directed Staff and Applicant to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve exactly what that meant by this 80 acres at three-to-One mitigation. Staff drove down to the Carlsbad office of Fish and Wildlife last week with the developer and met with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it was clarified at the meeting that the three-to-one mitigation request was just that, a recommendation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acting as an expert on the project. That really applies to sort of a wish list or a goal that the Service has for mitigation of coastal sage scrub, in general, throughout the Inland Empire, not specifically to this project. Given that and given the evidence that has been provided by the Applicant's biologist, it is Staff's opinion that reasonable mitigation would call for mitigation of only the high-quality, on-site coastal sage YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 scrub, which accounts to approximately 5.04 acres. The remaining 74 or so acres are disturbed and what's called monotypic, meaning that there's only one plant species, as opposed to several plant species, within the coastal sage scrub present. Staff is recommending that only the high-quality five acres or so of on-site coastal sage scrub be mitigated, and that it be mitigated at a ratio of one to one. Simply, it doesn't appear reasonable to expect the developer to go beyond that. To that end, Staff has recommended an additional mitigation measure. It's on page A-200 of your Staff report. I'll just read it into the record. "The developer shall mitigate removal of on-site, undisturbed coastal sage scrub, that being 5.04 acres, at a ratio of one to one by establishing 2.5 acres of native shrubland and the detention basin slopes and through the purchase and preservation and perpetuity of a minimum of 2.54 acres of off-site lands in the alluvial fan scrub mitigation bank in the Cajon Wash." That is a mitigation measure that was not before you previously at your other meetings and that Staff is recommending be added now. While I'm on page A-200, let me bring your attention to mitigation measure No. 10. With the inclusion of No. 11, Staff feels that there is some modification that should be done to 10 so that it will read, "The developer 7 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shall insure the establishment of native shrubland and wetland habitat as required by 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement and Nationwide 26 Permit of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Delete on the detention slopes? MR. LE COUNT: That's correct. It's Staff's opinion, in looking at the evidence on record regarding biological and environmental issues, that the project will not have a substantial adverse effect on the environment with the environmental mitigation measures proposed. Staff is recomr~ending that the Commission issue a mitigated negative declaration for the project. For the benefit of the Commission and the audience, I want to go over what this application involves briefly. In 1987, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract ~13316, which established 123 single-family lots. It didoinclude home design. It also included street layout and a lettered lot detention basin at the northern end of the tract to handle storm water flows from the canyon to the north of the site. In 1990, that tentative plan was recorded as a final map, which.legally recorded those 123 lots and that street layout. What is before you tonight is a design review of grading, landscaping, and home design. It is not a street layout. It does not 8 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 involve the number of lots, the lot c~nfiguration, that lot layout, et cetera. All that is already in place. It is Staff's opinion that the Applicant has done the best job possible at combining a tract that was recorded and exists prior to the hillside development standard going into effect and the current hillside standards to create a development with sensitive contour grading with homes that fit the 30-foot-high building envelope with grading that fits into the natural terrain, as well as possible, even though pads are created and step foundations are not being complied with. The Applicant conducted a Planning Commission workshop with the Commission in June of 1998, and the Commission came to the conclusion that even though step pads were not being utilized in the development, the existing development in the area is basically just mass-graded flat pads with flatland-style homes instead of terraced homes and that the development sensitively plotted the one- and two-story homes to mitigate visual impacts to the degree possible and that it was okay, essentially, to go in a direction that did not involve the stepping of pads. Staff has received significant correspondence regarding this project, most of which is included in your Staff report packet -- some of it in opposition from YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 3 4 5 9 13 14 15 l? 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 neighbors in the area; some of it in support. One le~ter -- actually, a series of letters Staff has received from the Spirit of the Sage Council regarding the project, because it does contain coastal sage scrub, one of which Staff just received today as a fax and we've placed in front of you indicating the Spirit of the Sage Council's opposition to the project and request for an EIR. Other than that, the project has received favorable review from the committees, and Staff is recommending approval of the project with issuance of a mitigated negative declaration. This concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Any questions of the Staff report? (NONE) present? CHAIRMAN MC N'IEL: Thank you, Brent. The public hearing is open. Is the Applicant MR. CHINE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of Commission. My name is Jeff Chine. I'm with Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, legal counsel for Barratt American. We are here this evening to support the staff recommendation and to commend the Staff and thank them for 10 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES· 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 doing an excellent job on working this project up, dealing with Fish and Wildlife and other issues that have arisen. We have nothing substantive to add to Staff's comments tonight, other than to say we think we've worked through all the issues. We don't think there are any new issues remaining. This matter has been continued on several occasions, most recently as a result of a late letter submitted by Fish and Wildlife. As a result of the meeting with Fish and Wildlife, we think we fully understand their position. Their position being they would like as much land preserved as possible. It's our view that the mitigation recommended by Staff is adequate; that it meets all City standards; and that, in fact, the rest of the project complies with all the applicable City standards. We are available to answer any questions that you might have and would appreciate the opportunity to respond to any issues that come up. Mr. Robert Lang from Barratt is here, also, and available to answer any specific questions that you have. So with that, we thank you and ask that you please support the project and approve it this evening. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Mr. Chine, have you read all of the conditions and approvals and are in concurrence with those? 11 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 (NONE) MR. CHINE: We have, and we are. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Okay. Any other questions set for the Applicant? CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Thank you. MR. CHINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Please sign in. The public hearinglis open. Would anybody else care to speak to this issue? MS. SANTINI: Good evening. My name is Diana Santini. I'm a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and have been for most of my life. You've received two separate correspondences from me. The latest one was given to you prior to your previous meeting, and it's in the form of a packet, if you have it in your possession. It started out with a letter referencing the original letter that I sent on June 3rd voicing my concerns regarding the project as it affects my current property and the drainage that's going to be caused from the new development site. I had an opportunity to meet with some of the Staff from the engineers. Betty Miller, I met with, and your employee of the month. I had the pleasure of meeting with him, as well. When I initially purchased the home in '93, the easement for the property was for a natural drainage 12 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 flow. It did not specifically state anything about a construction of additional drainage. And at the time that I met with -- with Dan, he wasn't sure what the interpretation of that easement actually included. Again, the interruption of deliberate direction of water flow onto my property, permanent construction related to the redirection of this water onto my property will end up with a pretty large constructed channel -- cemented channel directly in my back yard, which is going to be viewed from the deck I have suspended right on the east side of my property. Also, my concern is regarding a geotechnical evaluation and whether or not that has been conducted in relation to the construction of the water channel flow. On February 15th, 1989, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed and approved a resolution, which, in part, required construction of a master plan storm drain through the site, which would direct the water into the existing open channel. It appears that the current drainage plan does not extend the storm drain line into the existing storm drain channel, but allows the water to be directed onto dry land, which may impair the integrity and stability of the existing slopes. That,. you have in your packet under Tab "B," and that is the report of the City Council of that date. Also, I would like to request that it be 13 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 verified that the drainage easement does include drainage construction. It may be limited to allowing for the natural drainage flow versus directed drainage, which will now be directed to empty into a channel and onto a natural surface property. That is the portion of the easement that was up to interpretation and could not be clearly defined for me at the time I met with Mr. James. Also, Tab "C" of the packet I provided to you is a partial report -- or a partial geotechnical evaluation of the property. Areas of c6ncern were related to the drainage of the adjacent northerly property that appeared to be directed toward the subject property, which is my area, and to the drainage. If allowed to continue, the runoff could degrade the integrity of the slope, which is immediately behind my existing residence. Accu/nulative surface drainage should not be --.should be directed to an appropriate location for disposal by providing for a graded soil within minimum gradient of two percent.~ The off-site runoff should not be allowed to pond on the water site. Water should not be allowed to flow over any slopes. Those were some of the assessments that were done when the geotechnical evaluation was performed. That was in 1992. It also revealed that water should not be allowed to discharge adjacent to the residence. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. 14 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 I don't know if the Planning Commission is aware whether any expert consultations have been performed in regards to the adjacent drainage of the property as part of the approval of this development. It also identified that slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever the homeowner plans a topographical modification of the slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. Again, I'm not aware of any such report. A stability analysis should be performed on the existing slopes to verify the stability. Therefore, I'm requesting a copy of any geographical evaluation of the property that was conducted and proposed development of the drainage system that was performed after 1992, which would be dated after the date of the geotechnical evaluation. If a drainage plan is approved, I ask that it consist of as much cf a buried pipe as possible in order to avoid an obvious eyesore that would be in my direct back yard view. If an open channel is considered, that it be located at the east portion of the property, which is essentially extending the existing channel. There is an existing channel on the southerly part of the property. It was identified as the Bible concept by a Mr. Russell McGuire, the City Engineer in 1990. That would extend that existing channel 250 feet south, and that 15 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES . 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 information you have in Tab "D" of your packet. If an open channel is approved as currently planned, I request that a crossover bridge be provided in order to reach the east portion of my property without having to exit into the community trails, as was decided back on June 22nd of 1989 by the Design Review Committee, and that report you have in Tab "E" of your packet. I also request that no two-story homes be built immediately adjacent to my property in order to preserve privacy. On the northern part, I have an in-ground swimming pool and spa and would request that there not be two-story homes overlooking that area. And that all of the debris left in the existing street in front of the property of those homes adjacent to Carrari be cleared on a daily basis as rocks and dirt and debris are sometimes left in the street. That did happen on one occasion, but then it was cleaned by the Development -- or somebody was asked to come, and it did get cleaned after that. Do you have any questions for me? CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Any questions for Ms. Santini? NONE) CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Thank you. Please sign in. Anyone else care to speak to this issue? Go right ahead, sir. 16 YOUNGER REPORTINGSERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. METZGER: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Curtis Metzger. My wife Karen and I and our two small children live at 10699 Champagne Road in Alta Loma, and I appreciate the opportunity to come speak to you. Back in October of last year, my wife was reading an L.A. Times article saying Barratt was putting in a housing project in the area of Alta Loma. For lack of a better phrase, it was the answer to our prayers because we've lived here in our little rented house in Alta Loma for six years, and we have been waiting for a project to be built by a reputable builder like Barratt with nice, half-acre lots, homes built somewhat far apart from each other, nice-looking plans. We've been waiting for something like this. Literally, in the last six years, we know of only two developments like this. There's one on Barrel and one at the top of Wilson with these sized lots, and -- but, you know, one has an association and one is just a little too far to the east and doesn't have the views and so forth. This is really a beautiful project, and we fully support it. We think it would be good for the community. Literally 123 homes going in in a beautiful area of town with beautiful views. 123 families can move in and make 17 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 their lives there. We like this area. We like Alta Loma. We moved here not being sure we were going to stay here, and we've really grown to like the community. We don't want to have to look in Upland or, you know, another community like Claremont. We'd like to stay here. This is really a great thing for the community. It gives people a choice. There's so much development going in to the south fn Rancho with the smaller lots and up in Etiwanda and North Rancho, but nothing actually in Alta Loma. This is really the first, and we were so happy to hear about it. I've been to the Planning Commission office several times. I've spoken with Brent here, and he's been very helpful. The whole City's been very helpful. I really enjoyed participating in this project, looking at the plans. We've literally been interested in this project -- we are the first people on the interest list for this development, and we fully support it and would really like to see all the delays stopped and let this project go forward. Let them put their trailer up just like Lewis has their trailers up all over the city. Let them tell us what the plans are going to look like, what the prices are going to be. Let's have this project move forward. It seems to me, in this day and age, we can solve problems like drainage and grading. There's 18 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 engineers and people that can solve those kinds of problems. I think the developer, from what I can see here, has spent a decade on these issues. I really believe that this is in the interest of the community at large, and it seems like all the problems that have been raised over the years have been solved, and it's time for this development to go forward. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Thank you, Mr. Metzger. Any questions for Mr. Metzger? (NONE) CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Would you sign in, please. MR. METZGER: I sure will. Thanks. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Thank' you. Anybody else care to speak to this issue? MS. SHANNON: My name is Cindy Shannon. I addressed you at the June 9th meeting, and I was wondering if it was possible to address you again. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Do I remember correctly? You said you weren't going to be able to be here? MS. SHANNON: That was when the public hearing was on July 14th, and then it was continued. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Go ahead, Ms. Shannon. But we took your testimony last time. Be as brief and concise as you can be, if you will. Thank you. MS. SHANNON: I will. Thanks. 19 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 One of the reasons why I wanted to address~you was because -- I live on Hidden Farm Road, by the way, Rancho Cucamonga resident. One of the reasons I wanted to address you was because I happened to see a letter sent out by Barratt American recently, within the last couple weeks, saying local residents are opposed to the provision of needed housing. That made me think of this Grapevine Press article that I saw, which has a map of -- and I don't know if I can pass it up there for you to see -- but it has a map of all the housing being planned, and there's 113 development projects on there west of the street Etiwanda. There are 38,652 new homes. Okay. I don't know how clear that is if there's a way to focus it or anything. There are 38,652 new homes. That's not counting any of the shopping centers and things like that planned for the area just west of Etiwanda. The letter goes on to say that the focus of the opposition, of residents, I'm assuming, has been the Endangered Species Act, I'm assuming it's supposed to say. It said "At" in the letter. I wanted to point out that I had submitted a petition to you from 23 residents -- many of them couldn't be here that night or tonight -- that petitioned the extension of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald. I know that's'not an issue of this Committee tonight. I do have a picture to show the steepness of the downhill grade on 20 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 that. Okay. There we go. Hidden Farm Road comes out right about where this car is parked. The speed limit on this road is 50 miles an hour right now, which, going down a downhill grade, people usually pick up more speed than 50 miles an hour. I feel compelled to point out that this scares me. It gives me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when I think about a child trying to ride across that street. The other thing I wanted to bring up was the original approval of the single-family homes. If the original traffic and noise reports are being accepted, then why are they still single-family homes? There's going to be a large amount of traffic going down the street with 123 new homes and especially with three exits on Archibald with only one exit on Hermosa. If we have a wildfire in that area, which there have been wildfires in the past, it's going to be really difficult for people to get out of that area, especially with Archibald narrowing to one lane. All of the residential roads above hillside are offsets This will be the only one above hillside on Archibald that goes across Archibald. The last thing I wanted to address was in the same letter, Barratt said to have been sensitive to the concerns of their neighbors. In June they bulldozered over a fourth of the area, which you can also see partly in this 21 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 picture and in some of these pictures. It was under the guise of shrub removal. Fire prevention in that area, since I've lived there for the last five or six years, has been around the perimeter, not across the center. This is all across the center of the property. This is a very unique place. That's why a lot of us like to live there. I think -- I just want to ask that you think about how we're chopping it up and if it's going to be the same place that all of us like to live in. We've also had to look at a chain link fence with barbed wire across the top, which is an unsightly thing to look at in the beautiful neighborhood we live in, and it also blocks the natural wildlife corridor. So I'd like to ask you to consider the natural environment, the community identity, and the safety of the children in this area in both tracts, the new Barratt development and the existing tracts. (NONE) CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Thank you, Ms. Shannon. Any questions for Ms. Shannon? CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Thank you. Anybody else care to speak to this issue? (NONE) CHAIRMJ~N MC NIEL: closed. Okay. The public hearing is 22 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 Any comments or any questions? First of all, I'd like to -- Dan, there were a couple things Ms. Santini raised with respect to geotechnical surveys, evaluations, drainage channel, so on. Would you enlighten us on those, please. MR. JAMES: Yes. First of all, her Geosoils, Incorporated, report back in September of '92 -- the subject is, it is a limited geotechnical evaluation, and I believe it was at her request. Basically, it appears to have been like a walk-through of the area. And a lot of these comments are good, common-sense comments and are comments that should be heeded by a homeowner in purchasing of a house in that area. In regards to his specific comments stating that anything done within that ravine should have some geotechnical expertise, basically, we are, on the improvement plans, requiring a note to be added because of her inquiries that the construction being facilitated by this developer will be overseen by a geotechnical soils engineer. That is going to be added to the improvement plans. So during the course of construction, it will be reviewed by that and proper compaction with the slopes will be obtained. I don't see the need to have a geotechnical ahead of time to take evaluations prior to because the 23 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 construction of the channel is designed by a civil engineer, and the grading operations out there are being prepared by a civil engineer and signed off by a civil engineer, themselves. We already went one step further to make sure the actual physical compaction, you know, where it's critical -- it's the construction aspect. That's the critical one -- is going to be overseen. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Is that part of our resolution, Dan, or need it be? MR. JAMES: I did not'add ~.t as a condition of approval on the design review list. It's a plan check comment on processing of the improvement plans. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: So there is a fail-safe condition that will run into downstream; is that what I understand? I mean, it's not something that's going to get skipped? MR. JAMES: Right. It won't get skipped. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Okay. MR. JAMES: The city engineer is responsible for the plans. The other issue is if something does happen with those slopes after construction a year from now, by us accepting the drainage easements and allowing these facilities, that ravine is the maintenance responsibility of the City in regards to drainage purposes. We're not responsible for maintenance of weed control, but issues 24 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that arise over the upcoming years is going to be the City's responsibility for maintenance of not only the improvements that Barratt is installing on-site and the concrete channel, but the existing ravine south down to the Alta Loma basin because we have accepted the easement -- the drainage easement that was offered to the City. In regards to that drainage easement and her concern about the word "natural drainage," at the time that I met with her, I -- you know, it was a while ago, but to the best of my recollection, I explained the fact that our normal course of actions in these situations where the project was approved to offer an easement and when the map-recorded easement was rejected by the City Council, that there means that the offer is, in perpetuity, there in case some day in the future the City desires to accept it and utilize it. What I informed her of was that our natural direction that we go in is the direction this development went in. When I've had inquiries in other locations about offers rejected by either the County or the City and they're then offers that the City could accept in the future, we've informed people we don't accept the easement until it gets improved -- until there's public water draining into it. This development is going to drain public~ waters into it. Therefore, that's why we accepted it. 25 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I did make the statement that I had never been questioned legally in the process the City normally takes. So that may have led to what she saw as uncertainty on my part just because no one ever questioned the City on the legal basis, on the legal terminology of the offer of the drainage easement. The final map -- I've just said "drainage easement." I did not see the word "natural" in any of my records that I researched, and we did have discussions with our City Attorney's office in regards to the drainage easement. One of her -- back to the soils report, one of her concerns was that it commented about continued drainage over slopes and drainage from the north at her property -- that there's a concern about all the water coming at her from the north, that she needs to be aware of that and make sure she channelizes it around her property. But with this development, she will no longer have natural drainage hitting her north property line because this development will get it all into the channel. They won't get it into the channel by draining over the slopes of the channel. They'll get. it into the channel by draining directly into the pipe and then into the open channel. Then the open channel has dissipators to slow the water down and then discharge it into the natural ravine down at the bottom of the channel. It won't flow over the~ of the slopes. 2~ YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 She requested a copy of a geotechnical evaluation. We don't have one. As I stated earlier, we felt this was a due process. It's a drainage easement. The drainage facility is designed by a civil engineer all within acceptable standards, but we will, during the course of construction, make sure that the compaction and the re-establishment of the slopes are obtained. She requested that a pipe be extended. The thought about taking the development flow all within pipe from the development site all the way through the natural ravine to the basins at the south end, this is not an option in the engineering division's mind. Because of the debris basin that this project is installing at the north end of the site, because the mountain flow is coming at it, that debris basin has a surface overflow facility in case its inlet gets plugged up full of debris, and it will flow south within a public street towards this channel at the south end, which then is constructed on Ms. Santini's property and then is discharged onto Mr. Reese's property. It has to be there for secondary emergency overflow of the debris facility. A~d if it was all in a pipe, then we would not have that secondary emergency overflow. She asked in regards to relocating it over to the east end. I'm -- if -- I believe there's two -- I know there's two channels up there. I'm not sure -- page A-91. 27 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It does not really show the two channels, but if I could use the overhead. CHAIRMA/~ MC NIEL: Go right ahead. MR. JAMES: This is -- this is rather small, but here is the overall project. Again, here is the debris basin at the north end. There's a street right down here that then, through these two lots, there is an open channel which could receive flows. Then .right here is Ms. Sa~tini's property. That's where the open channel continues and discharges onto Mr. Reese's property. This section here, Ms. Santini's property, there's two natural ravines. One is on this side of her property. Then the other one is here. That goes this way. Okay. This is, again, the south end of the Barratt development. This is Ms. Santini's property.' You can see where the -- this is page A-101. You can see where the discharge of the channel crosses Ms. Santini's property entirely and it discharges on Mr. Reese's property. Her question is, Why couldn't we take this channel and place it over here in this existing ravine? Apparently, as she stated, the previous city engineer, Russ McGuire, said that would have been'an option. I didn't research that history on what he did or did not say. But in order to do that, you basically, within the whole site development, would have to realign the street 28 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all the way up to the debris basin. The subdivision map is already recorded. Army Corps 404 permits both of these lines are -- streams are blue line streams. The developer has dealings with the Army Corps 404. In regards to this stream here being a blue line or whether or not that could be completely cut off, that would be quite complicated to have that cut off completely by the 404. I don't know if it's called Fish and Game or Wildlife, but they are blue line streams. That's their request. Basically, engiheering's view is the map is recorded, the streets are basically legal streets. All the improvements are bonded for, and this developer is going forward with this in this direction, and it's an acceptable direction to the engineering division. Again, on this map here, one of her other concerns was the channel that crosses her property completely. At one point in time, the developer was supposed to put in a bridge pedestrian crossing across that so she can get to her rear portion. There is an equestrian facility within the Barratt development that has a bridge crossing that actually allows for a vehicular crossing so that the city forces can come across that and get down and maintain this. She not only has a pedestrian way, but she also has a -- it's not a recorded easement of such~ but she has a way of getting back there to her property with this, 29 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and then an access road that goes down this way. This being on her property, she has the right to use that even though it's there for our drainage maintenance access. If there are no questions on that, I'll go back to my desk, check my notes, and see if there's anything else that she had. I believe that's the extent of her concerns, in summary. And then Ms. Shannon had some concerns regarding the street alignment. Again, the street -- Staff's report actually addressed that within the written report by Mr. LeCount. I think he addressed it quite adequately. It's an acceptable alignment. We don't see the -- as far as kids, if they're going to cross -- a through location, if it's offset, they're going to shoot across anyways. I mean -- you know, I have three kids of my own, and I'm concerned, as well, but we feel the street design is an acceptable standard street design. And as far as access on Archibald, again, you know, it's an acceptable street design. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Okay. Thank you, Dan. Okay. Any other questions or comments? (NONE) 'CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: go first. John, why don't you go ahead and YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMM. MANNERINO: As I perceive the objection of the homeowners, Larry, I think they're generally categorized into three. The first is that there are concerns with regard to natural drainage, the word "natural" being the key. That is the purpose, as I understand drainage easements, and I have some understanding of drainage easements -- of their existence because you intend to change the, quote, "natural" drainage, and that's why those easements exist, and that's why they were dedicated, and that's why they were accepted by the City. There's no such -- and there would be no necessity for an easement for natural drainage because it's already there. The second objection, as I understand the general category of objections, is the demise of the cul-de-sac and the traffic and hazard created thereby. Unfortunately, the city is populated with streets that go through, and there are kids on them everywhere. It would be wonderful if every neighborhood were a cul-de-sac, but then we couldn't get across the city. So that's just not a possibility. The third general categorization of impact and objection that I understand is the demise of the natural habitat created by this land. I suspect that there was substantial natural habitat on the houses where the existing homeowners now are and that that was destroyed 31 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when they built their houses. I think every -- I don't know how long they were there. I know I remember when there was nothing there. I mean nothing there. I remember when there was nothing here. Unfortunately, there is a phenomenon that occurs, which, by definition, destroys natural habitat. It's called civilization. Wherever we are, we destroy the natural habitat of what was there before. We have to do it responsibly, and there are mitigation factors, as I understand it -- substantial mitigation factors to the creation of other habitat. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that development destroys habitat. If we are to criticize development because it destroys habitat, then we must look in the mirror because where we are living destroyed some habitat, and where we are sitting at this moment destroyed some habitat. I think that the project is a good one. I know the Staff and Barratt Homes has spent probably -- certainly hundreds and, perhaps, thousands of ho~rs in total between the two -- Staff, on the one, and the developer. There are, I'm sure, adequate checks in the project as it develops to ensure the property drainage. Our staff has a 'reputation'of-being-'meticulous. ~-I don't'~ imagine they will vary from that in this project. Frankly, it was a project the map for which 32 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was was recorded in 1987, which creates vested land rights, and Barratt has the right to build as long as they do it responsibly and in accord with the ordinances of our city and those of the county and those of the United States Government with regard to natural habitat modification. So I am in favor of the project for those reasons. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Peter. COMM. TOLSTOY: Well, this project has a Staff report of 209 pages. What does that mean? That means it's got a long history. There's only two of us sitting on the Commission now that can go back as far as this project does. The project that came in under the Freedman homes banner came in before we had hillside ordinance, and those of us on the Commission at that time were a little -- we are aware of the fact that hillsides are hard to develop, and one of the requirements that we had of the Freedman project was that they -- the grading that would take place would be of a nature that it would not disturb much of the land. We asked them to build houses with split levels. We asked them to build houses with stem walls. And a stem wall usually makes a house taller than Ordinary, so we said they could only use houses with one story so they would not be too high. This project expired. It has belonged to two, 33 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think, other owners, Bank and Freedman. And when this developer that we now have came in, I think there was a mistake made because we allowed them to mass grade. If the project had come in under the Freedman Homes, they wouldn't have mass-graded. They would have graded each lot so there would be split-level houses with a minimum of grading. This project has a lot of grading, and it's going to create some slopes that are not usable, and I think that I have a problem with support of this project because of that. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: OkRy. COMM. TOLSTOY: I think that the drainage situation can be taken care of easily. I think the street assignment is moot because the lots are already -- the map has already been filed, and the streets are there now. The sage problem has been taken care of. I'm all for a project on that piece of property, but not the way that it is proposed at this time. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Macias. COMM. MACIAS: Mr. Chairman, I would -- my comments would basically echo those of Commissioner Mannerino. I support the project. I think that in the total scheme of things, this project is not all that different or unusual to most of the projects in that area that we've dealt with. I think, overall, Staff has done an excellent job of 34 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 addressing the issues, identifying the impacts. I think St~ff has done a more than adequate job of developing mitigation -- substantial mitigation to offset the impacts to levels of insignificance. With that, I support the project. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Okay. Ms. Stewart. COM~4. STEWART: I, too, support this project. You know, I, with my colleagues here on this panel, have probably read over 400 pages of documentation. This Staff report alone is 209 pages. I've read, I think, every letter that's been sent. I've sorted through legal opinions by city attorneys, by attorneys who have sent us other things, Spirit of the Sage Council. I've tried to read every document. I've gone to that area repeatedly. I tried to see the easements and really take a lot of things into account and give this project careful assessment. I sat On design review with Staff. We carefully went through the project home sites, the design of the homes, and it was quite an extensive design review. We tried to assure view corridors, get the trails right, get the fencing right, allow for everything that everybody, we thought, wanted into consideration. I made notes of -- Commissioner Mannerino highlighted three areas. I added a multitude -- I went through everything. These are my notes -- handwritten 35 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 notes I made out of what's positive and negative.· I have more positive than negative because the negative issues, I feel, are being dealt with through mitigation and/or can be resolved, and Staff has resolved them. We have a comprehensive resolution with a multitude of mitigated efforts and requirements that Barratt's going to be required to do. I think with that said, I don't need to repeat what the rest of my colleagues have said. I do support this project. I'm confident it will be a good project, and it will be an enhancement to that area. CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Okay. Very good. Common.sense tells me that we have beat this sucker to death. With that, I would entertain a motion. COMM. STEWART: Move approval. COMM. MANNERINO: CHAIRMAN MC NIEL: Second Mr. Mannerino. Second. Motion Ms. Stewart. Please indicate your votes electronically~ MS. SANCHEZ: The motion passes 4, 1. Tolstoy no. (End of proceedings on Environmental Assessment and Development Review 98-10 - Barratt American, 7:55 p.m.) 36 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES 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 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE The undersigned certified Shorthand Reporter does hereby declare: That the foregoing was taken before me at the time and place therein set forth and was recorded stenographically by me and was thereafter transcribed, said transcript being a true copy of my shorthand notes thereof. In witness whereof, I have subscribed my name this 20th day of September, 1999. VICTORIA A. AVILES Certified Shorthand Reporter Certificate No. 10328 37 YOUNGER REPORTING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-10 FOR TENTATIVETRACT 13316, THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW OF DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY RECORDED TENTATIVE TRACT 13316, CONSISTING OF 123 LOTS ON 84 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY-LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, NORTH OF CARRARI COURT - APN: 1074-061-15 THROUGH 27, 1074-041-08 THROUGH 21, 1074-591- 01 THROUGH 16, 1074-461-04 THOUGH 21, 1074-601-01 THROUGH 14, 1074-611-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-021-02 THROUGH 26, AND 1074-051-09 THOUGH 16. A. Recitals. 1. Barratt Amedcan has filed an application for Development Review 98-10, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 8, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public headng, reviewed the application and, following the conclusion of the headng and of their review, adopted Resolution No. 99-88 thereby approving said application. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. · 4. On October 20, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council dudng the above- referenced public hearing on October 20, 1999, including, but not limited to, wdtten and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-88, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street with a street frontage of 1,800 feet on Archibald Avenue and 700 feet on Carrad Street and is presently vacant. The site sits at the base of the foothills. and slopes from the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN October 20, 1999 Page 2 northwest to the southeast at a 10 to 15 percent grade. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269 feet. There are two natural streams that cross the site from north to south. The stream channel has steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent. The two streams carry drainage from the north through the site to the south. This drainage is proposed to be controlled by constructing a retention basin at the northem end of the site with a storm drain which outlets south of the site. Vegetation on the site includes three communities, successional sage scrub, annual grass and ruderal areas, and Eucalyptus woodland. There is a cluster of three mature Eucalyptus trees and one mature Oak tree (on Lot 44); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant or developed with single family homes, the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east is vacant and developed with single family homes, and the property to the west is developed with single family homes; and c. The application involves design review of a detailed Site Plan, building elevations, grading, and landscaping for an existing subdivision of 123 lots for which the final map was recorded on June 4, 1990; and d. The project will not increase traffic in the vicinity beyond that anticipated by the General Plan and the streets have been designed to accommodate the traffic demand; and e. The project is designed to minimize view obstruction to the degree possible; and f. The project site is potential habitat for threatened or endangered species (i.e., California Gnatcatcher and San Bemardino Merdam Kangaroo Rat, respectively) and biological surveys were conducted by a permitted biologist in accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. The protocol surveys concluded that the project site was not suitable habitat and the species were not found; and g. The project site is potential habitat for an endangered species, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and a habitat assessment was conducted and determined that, because of a lack of host plants and past disturbances from agricultural use, the site does not support adequate habitat and the species is not present; and h. The project has a valid Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the applicant has obtained Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-070-98 from the Califomia Department of Fish and Game; and i. The project site contains 5.04 acres of undisturbed Coastal Sage Scrub, the removal of which will be mitigated both on-site and in an off-site mitigation land bank in the Cajon Wash; and j. The project site is located within the "Wildland/Urban Interface" zone and San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District; and k. The application is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and complies with all development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN October 20, 1999 Page 3 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council dudng the above- referenced public headng on October 20, 1999, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-88, and together with public testimony, this Coundl hereby specifically finds as follows with reference to points raised by the appellants: a. With respect to continuation of Hidden Farm Road across Archibald Avenue, the City Council finds that Final Tract Map No. 13316, which included lot layout and street alignment, was recorded in 1990 and that the issue of street alignment is therefore not part of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the approval of the subject application; b. The readway alignment associated with Tract 13316 is found to be safe and consistent with City standards; c. The grading design associated with the subject application is consistent with applicable City standards and incorporates desirable design features such as contour grading and vadable slopes; d. The two-story homes have been plotted in such a way as to preserve views to a reasonable extent for existing and future home owners; e. With respect to drainage issues, the City Council finds that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has obtained and holds a valid easement for drainage proposed across off-site properties to the south of the Tract and that the design of the proposed drainage facilities meets or exceeds applicable codes and will promote health and safety and minimize the dsk of flooding in the area. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council dudng the above- referenced public headng on October 20, 1999, and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan in that it includes high quality residential design appropriate to hillside areas, is designed to be sensitive to views, includes appropriate use of plant materials to simulate a natural integration of structures into the landscape, and will minimize potential hazards; b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located in that it is responsive to the environmental resources of the site, promotes development compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and minimizes the impact of slopes on adjacent development; c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code including the Hillside Development building envelope, contour grading, softened pad configurations via vadable slopes, and provision of architectural enhancements on all sides of homes; d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that it minimizes potential tire, seismic, and flood related hazards. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-10 BARRATT AMERICAN October 20, 1999 Page 4 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies the appeals, upholds the action of the Planning Commission, and approves the application subject to all conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-88, attached hereto. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, retum-receipt requested, to Robert Laing from Barrett American; Cindy Shannon, and Matlhew Rees, at the addresses identified in City records. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE BACKGROUND In accordance with the City Council's request to become more informed of park and recreation facility issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent issues, projects and programs occurring in both the Community Services Department and the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Central Park: · A Task Force meeting was held on September 21 st. Items of discussion included incorporating a dog park in the open space plan, as well as a tentative schedule for the special election. The next scheduled Task Force meeting is October 19th. Windrows Park: · The Security Lighting Project is complete. · Removal of the play equipment began the week of October 4th, and installation of the new equipment and surfacing followed. The next park scheduled for renovation is Church Street Park. Lions Park: · Park Specialties, the play equipment installers, installed a playhouse structure in the playground, at no cost to the city. Church Street Park: · Church Street Park Lighting Project plans and specifications are completed and will be on the October 20th Council agenda for approval to advertise. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 2 Golden Oak Park: · Construction of the 5 acre park, located on 6t~ Street, west of Archibald, has begun and is well under way. Anticipate completion of the park in early 2000. Lions West Community Center: · Per the Community Service Department's request, the existing vinyl flooring in the Filippi Room will be replaced with carpeting. Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park: · Sports Complex Soccer field renovations began this month and are on schedule, they are approximately 50% completed. Heritage Park: · Architerra Design Group has begun the renovation design project for the tot lot to provide accessibility, as well as replace worn and damaged equipment. · A member of the Alta Loma Riding Club has been working with Engineering Staff to improve surface conditions in the riding arenas at Heritage Park. Staff will be sending letters to the various user groups asking that they designate one individual per group as the liaison to the City when matters of arena conditions come up. Red Hill Park: · Installation of the ADA drinking fountains began on September 21st, at Red Hill Park Etiwanda Creek Park: · The "RC Spot" volunteer dog park supporters have met with the maintenance staff to discuss the location of the dog park site, as well as coordinate the installation of the fencing material. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Seniors: The Autumn Leaves Fashion Show was held at the Senior Center on Saturday, September 25th. This spectacular event, co-sponsored by the V.I.P. Club, helped raise funds for new bingo equipment and supplies. The program was highlighted by new Fall and Winter fashions modeled by 6 of the Center's seniors, a light salad lunch, and entertainment was provided. One hundred fifty (150) community members attended this fun-filled special event. · The Senior Advisory Committee will hold its next meeting on October 25th. The Committee is now at full strength of eighteen (18) members with the selection of nine (9) new appointees. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 3 · The V.I.P. Club will hold a Spaghetti Dinner on Saturday, October 16th , at 5:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. This is an annual fund raising event for the Club. A flee 10-week theater program, Prestigious Players, for seniors will be introduced at the Performing Arts Academy in October. Participants in the class will produce and perform a one- act play at the end of class. The Senior Chorale resumed Fall rehearsals for their upcoming season. The twenty-five (25) member group performs all over the Inland Empire throughout the year. This splendid group, under the volunteer direction of Elbert Wilkerson, performed at eighteen (18) events this past year. With their numerous appearances this dedicated group of seniors represents the City as superb ambassadors. The Senior Citizen Halloween Spooktacular will be held at the Senior Center on October 28th at 10:00 a.m.. Seniors are invited to come in costume. There will be prizes and games for the mature ghosts and goblins. The Gypsy Folk Ensemble, who will perform an authentic Halloween program in traditional costume, will provide Spooktacular entertainment. This scary event is co- sponsored by the V.I.P. Club. A special Veteran's Day Tribute will be offered at the Senior Center on Wednesday, November l0th, at 10:30 a.m.. This event will honor those brave men and women who have served in our country's armed forces. There will be special WWII entertainment and the Armed Forces Medley performed by an outstanding ensemble group. Refreshments will be available Teens: The Youth/Teen Program Division is proud to announce the appointment of Patricia Meyer to the newly created Teen Coordinator position. Patricia has been with the City on a contract or part time basis for 15 years and has worked the last 10 years in teen programs. Patricia is responsible for creating many of the teen programs including teen camps/trips, TRAC and was instrumental in the setting up of the City's teen center in 1998. Patricia will be assigned to oversee existing programs, plus expand the programs to include a second teen center site and work closely with the youth at the Skate Park. · The Teen Center is hosting a Monster Bash Halloween Party and Dance on October 29~ at Lions Center West. Over 200 teens are expected to attend. · The Teen Trip Program journeyed to Knotts Scary Farm in early October. Traditionally one of the most popular teens trips of the year over 70 teens participated in this delightful scary event. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 4 The Teen Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) is holding the Night on the Town Babysitting Program twice per month at Lions Center East. From 6:00 p.m. to mid night, staff and teens offer an evening of crafts, games, movies and fun. Approximately twenty-five (25) children attend each evening. The Teen Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) will be very actively involved with the upcoming Founders Day Parade and Celebration on November 13th . TRAC will provide volunteers to carry the opening parade banner and will host a busy snack bar at the Celebration. In addition, TRAC members will provide a give-away of free cotton candy at their booth. TRAC volunteers will also hand out coupons during the parade, to be redeemed at their booth at the celebration. The 3rd Annual College Fair will be held on October 21 st at a Lewis Retail Centers donated space in the Terra Vista Town Center. The College Fair will feature over eighty (80) colleges and universities. It is anticipated that the event will attract over two thousand (2,000) teens and parents from the community. The College Fair Committee is lead by City staff and includes representatives from each of the three area high schools. The College Fair Committee in September agreed to stay together year round and plan a spring Career Fair. The Career Fair would feature the many career and trade schools not included in the College Fair. The Committee will meet monthly during the school year to plan both events. It is anticipated that the first Career Fair will be held in April or May of 2000. A Financial Aid Workshop is planned for November 6th from 10:00 a.m. until 12 noon at Lions West Community Center. Teens and their parents will find out how to apply for college grants, student loans and scholarships in this two hour program. Research is continuing for the formation of a second teen center at Vineyard Junior High School. Staff is researching costs for a portable building, building and fire codes and utility hook up costs. Once these costs are established, a formal proposal will be developed. Youth Activities: Playschool, began in mid-September and serves over four hundred fifty (450) children. Classes are being added in the 4 and 5-year old age group, where there is heavy demand. In addition, late afternoon and early evening classes are being added as an alternative for busy parents. The Fall Playschool Book Fair was held at the Civic Center on September 30th. This bi-annual event provides approximately eight hundred dollars ($800.00) in revenue to the program and provides City employees with the opportunity to purchase wonderful books and novelties at a discount price. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 5 Youth Sports: · Fall Youth Roller Hockey has one hundred forty (140) boys and girls ages 6-15 registered. Practices begin on October 25t~, and games begin on November 15, 1999. Fall Pee Wee Soccer has over three hundred fifty (350+) boys and girls ages 3-5 participating this season. The program takes place at Red Hill Community Park. The last week of the program is November 8th. The Sports Advisory Committee met on October 13th . The Committee reviewed the Sports Advisory sub-committee's recommendation for future field needs. It is anticipated that this item will be forwarded to Park and Recreation Commission for review/discussion at their October meeting. The staff field allocation proposal will be reviewed for the Spring/Summer (February 1 - July 31, 2000) at the subsequent meeting of the Sport Advisory Committee which is scheduled for November 10th. RC Family Sports Center: · One hundred (100) men and women are participating on ten (10) teams in the Fall Adult Volleyball League. Twelve (12) teams with one hundred forty-four (144) men are participating in the Fall Adult Basketball Full Court Leagues. · Adult racquetball has twelve (12) men participating in two Fall Racquetball Leagues. · One hundred and twenty-eight (128) boys and girls ages 6-15 are participating on sixteen (16) teams in the Fall Youth Indoor Soccer League. · Youth Indoor Volleyball has thirty-three (33) girls ages 10-12 participating on three (3) teams. · Ninety-six (96) boys and girls ages 6-12 are participating in the Youth Organized Play Basketball Classes at the Center. The facility continues to be busy. During the month of September, 1999, facility usage for open/drop-in play was as follows: Adult Basketball - 317; Youth Basketball - 232; Adult Racquetball - 417; Youth Racquetball - 63; Adult Volleyball - 96; and Youth Volleyball - 148. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 6 Adult Sports: · The Adult Softball Leagues have two thousand five hundred ninety-two (2,592) men and women participating on one hundred and sixty-two (162) teams. Registration is currently being accepted for Adult Soccer and Adult Flag Football while the soccer fields at the Epicenter are being renovated. The leagues will begin playing in November, 1999. Trips and Tours: The following trips are scheduled during the reporting period: J Paul Getty Museum- Friday, October 29, 1999. Visit this world famous museam and gardens featuring spectacular architecture and views of the historic Sepulveda Pass. At the museum you'll see paintings by many of the most familiar masters - Rembrandt, Goya, Monet, and Crzanne, to name a few. A very special dayto remember. (Sorry, trip sold out.) Palm Springs Follies - Tuesday, November 2,1999. Step back to the 30's and 40's for a fabulous musical revue in the tradition of the Ziegfeld Follies! You will have time prior to the show to enjoy a lunch on your own. Cost is $48 per person. (Sorry, trip is sold out.) Universal Amphitheater - "Ro.ckettes" - Tuesday, December 21, 1999. The Universal Amphitheater will showcase the famed Rockettes performing special holiday dances. These 1ong-limbed beauties from Radio City' Music Hall show off the intricate routines and eye- catching kicks that has made them a legend in the world of dance. (Seats available.) Metrolink to the Rose Parade - Saturday, January 1, 2000. The world famous Rose Parade will be even bigger and better in the new millennium. We'll ride the Metrolink train to Arcadia and then board buses that will take us to our grandstand seats on Colorado Blvd. Cost is $75 per person and includes the train ride, grandstand tickets, and a box lunch. (Sorry, trip is sold out.) · Multi Day Tours. Over forty (40) new tours and cruises have been selected for the first half of 2000. A list of new trips will be available at the Senior Center by the end of October. Human Services: No Senior Crime in "99", offered through the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department held its kick off crime prevention workshop at the Senior Center in September. The initial lecture on Schemes, Scarns & Flirn-Flarns was well received by over forty (40) seniors. The second lecture CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 7 in the series was offered on October 18th at 9:30a.m.. The topic presented was Personal Safety For Seniors at Home and Away. The annual Senior Health Fair, Expo and Flu Shot Clinic was held at the Senior Center on Saturday, October 9th, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.. Over eight hundred (800+) community members attended the event with six hundred (600) flu shots administered. The Health Fair featured forty (40) agencies with display booths to inform the public on various senior health and social service issues. Heritage Hospital administered the Flu Clinic. A Bereavement Support Group has been formed at the Senior Center through Pacific Hospice International. This widows and widowers resource support group will meet on the first and third Thursdays each month at 1:00 p.m.. Braille Institutes Mobile Solutions visited the Senior Center in late September. Because of the high volume response, Braille Institute will revisit us in December. Mobile Solutions is a specialized van equipped to bring Braille Institute's programs and services to people who are not able to travel to one of their regional centers: The Doctor Is In - During the month of October, 1999, Dr. Harvey D. Cohen, M.D. presented a free afternoon lecture on Estrogen Therapy at the Senior Center. Dr. Cohen also presented an evening lecture at the Center on Wednesday, October 20th. The topic of this presentation was Kidney and Bladder Infections. Dr. Anita Kundi will provide a free Women's Wellness Lecture at the Senior Center on Tuesday, October 26th, at 1:00 p.m.. The topic is Fibromialgia. Fitness For the Ages. Mike O'Malley of Heritage Hospital will present a free lecture at the Senior Center on Friday, October 22nd, at 1:00 p.m.. His topic will be Alternative Health Care in the New Millennium. Facilities: Lions Center West was proud to host the California Parks and Recreation Region 4 Fall Forum Workshop in late September. Professionals from the Inland area, as well as those fi'om the foothill communities out to the Burbank area attended. It was a chance to showcase to other cities the renovation of our facilities. Contract Classes: The Fall session of contract classes began on September 11th. Total enrollment, to date, for the session is two thousand sixty-five (2,065) registrants. Over two hundred fifty (250) different class opportunities, from aerobics to yoga, were offered to community members. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ' PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 8 Community Wide Special Events: Founders Day Parade and Celebration. The Community Services Department formed a comprehensive special event team to coordinate and revamp the Founders Day Parade and Celebration, scheduled for November 13th. The parade changes include: marching the parade on Base Line Road from East to West, replacement ofjudging and announcing stands. More parade marshals, more novelties and a City float. In addition, an invitation was extended to State and Federal dignitaries to participate in the parade this year. The Celebration changes included a change of venue from the Epicenter to Red Hill Park, plus the addition of more youth and family activities including a Kids Zone with rides and activities, family games and contests, and a wider variety of food. The Parade Award Ceremony will also be held at the Celebration. Approximately forty (40) children are expected to participate in the annual Pumpkin Carving Workshop on Saturday, October 30th at Red Hill Community Park. This workshop is a great time for parents to work with their children to create a family pumpkin that can be silly, elaborate, or Deck the Halls Holiday Craft Fair - This event is will take place on Friday December 10th from 5:00 until 9:00 p.m. and Saturday, December 11th from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. at Lions East and West Community Centers. On Friday there will be a free "Taste of the Town" featuring local restaurants and on Saturday a snack bar will be provided by the City's TRAC. This event will feature unique, quality crafts, live musical entertainment and strolling carolers. City staff will provide supervised activities for children in a no-cost fun zone that will provide youngsters with the oppommity to create a hands-on-craft, or listen to stories. Carriage rides with Santa will also be available. Rancho Cucamonga Performing Arts Academy: Due to the success of the Summer Performing Arts Academy and the willingness and generosity of Lewis Retail Centers, the partnership for the for the Academy will continue for the Fall and Winter. This will allow the City the opportunity to offer a new series of classes, workshops, performances and special events through February, 2000. On Thursday, December 2, 1999, a Holiday Extravaganza will be held at the Terra Vista Town Center from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The event will include a tree lighting ceremony, a holiday reception including caroling, pictures with Santa, a preview of"Ebenezer" a holiday musical, and a holiday puppet show. The Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation will host an informational booth to let the community know about their organization. Ebenezer, a Starlight Production, will have performances on December 3-5, 10-12 and December 17-19, 1999. Performances at the Terra Vista Town Center Performing Arts Academy will be at 7:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and 2:00 p.m. on Sunday. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ~ PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 9 Amusing Children's Theater will feature King's Arthur's Court with songs, stories, magic and puppets by Ken Frawley and Johlin the Wizard and"Dave Kinnoin", presenting interactive songs by this Disney and Muppets songwriter. These performances will be held on Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.. On Saturday, February 5, 2000, The American Cowboy and Native Dancer's Show will offer songs, stories, trick roping, bull whipping, Native dances, historical information and lots of inter-active participation. Both of these programs will take place at the Academy. · A comedy night is scheduled for Saturday, January 29, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at the Academy. A New Orleans Casino Night will be held at the Academy in February, 2000. This event will be sponsored by the Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation with support of the Community Services Department. Grapevine: The Winter Issue of The Grapevine began production in early October. The Winter issue will take a look at Rancho Cucarnonga as it enters the 21st Century. This issue will be distributed to residents in early December. Park and Recreation Commission: The following items were discussed/acted upon at the Commission's September 16, 1999 meeting: · Update regarding development of an off-leash dog area at Etiwanda Creek Park. · Senior Advisory Committee candidates recommendation to fill existing vacancies. · Discussion of possible rescheduling of October 21, 1999, Commission meeting due to NRPA Conference (meeting rescheduled to October 28th). · Update on Epicenter bookings and discussion of proposed uses for the facility. · Update Central Park Task Force. · Update General Plan Task Force. · Update and establishment of agenda items for Senior Advisory Committee. · Update and establishment of agenda items for Sports Advisory Committee. Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation: The following items were discussed/acted upon at the Foundation's September 14th and October 12th meetings: Discussion relating to Foundation goals and possible establishment of objectives and an action plan. Discussion regarding possible Foundation Signature Fund-raising event(s). Discussion regarding Foundation' s relationship to and coordination with community non-profit groups. ~ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 10 · Update and discussion regarding the 1999 Founder's Day Parade and Celebration to be held November 13, 1999. · Discussion regarding the Foundation's Founder's Circle Ebenezer event. · Discussion regarding the Foundation's participation in the New Orleans Casino Night. · Consideration of approving Foundation affiliate status for the RC SPOT community organization. · Consideration of proposed wording clarification to the Foundation goals. · Consideration of recommended adjustments to the Foundation's associate levels. · Consideration of a proposed updated information brochure regarding the Community Foundation. · Discussion regarding possible membership in the Foundation's Founder's Circle. · Update and discussion regarding the 1999 Founder's Day Parade and Celebration. Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter: The following activities took place at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter during the reporting period: · Enterprise Car Sales - Used car sale Expanded Parking Lot - September 17 & 18, 1999. · Dr. Robert J. Houchin - Claremont McKenna College Girls Softball vs King and His Court - Stadium - September 28, 1999. · Rancho Cucamonga Professional Firefighters Association - Celebrity Softball Game - October 10, 1999. Staff is working with the following representatives for future events at the Epicenter: · Community Services Department - Children's Musical Concert (April, 2000) · Calvary Chapel Rancho Cucamonga - Easter Sunrise Service (April, 2000) · San Bernardino County Sheriff's West Valley Search and Rescue Team - Fun Run and Safety Fair (April, 2000) · Byways Entertainment - Concert (Summer, 2000) · Rancho Cucamonga High School - Graduation (June, 2000) · Etiwanda High School - Graduation (June, 2000) · Police/Fire Year 2000 Softball and Football Games (June-July, 2000) Staff is unable to inform applicants of the Epicenter's availability for the year 2000 events pending the release of the year 2000 Ouakes game schedule. We have been notified that the schedule should be available by October 18th. Staff met with representatives from Volume Services to discuss options available between the City and Volume Services in regard to providing concessionaire services for non-Ouake game events at the Epicenter. Volume Services was unaware that exclusive right for providing concessions for non-baseball special events had been removed in the amended and restated lease between the City and Valley Baseball Club, Inc. Staff is in the process of developing a proposal CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE October 20, 1999 Page 11 for consideration by Volume Services that would allow for their first right to negotiate for concessionaire services on an individual event basis. In the meantime, Volume Services has continued to provide concession services to our rental applicants (King and His Court rental and the Firefighter's Celebrity Softball game) using the Epicenter. Staff has instructed Volume Services to secure any funds in a trust account for any non-Quake game event concession sales from this point forward until such time as the City and Volume Services enters into an agreement for the provision of such services'. CPRS Conference: With approximately 6 months until the California and Pacific Southwest Recreation and Training Conference staff is entering into a more and more active role. As a co-host City, Community Services staff have major involvement in the following areas: Local Host Chair (overseeing all conference logistics and activities), Spouse and Children Activities, and Chair Volunteer Coordinator. Individual staff members will also be volunteering on one of the over 20 conference committees. The Conference is scheduled for March 15 - 18, 2000 in Ontario. Volunteers: Volunteer recruitment has begun for filling over one hundred (100+) positions for the Founders Day Parade and Celebration. There will also be recruitment for twenty-five (25) positions for the Pumpkin Carving Workshop in late October. Departmental volunteer statistics: Since January, 1999, the Community Services Department has utilized over six hundred fifty (650+) volunteers, who have provided over sixteen thousand (16,000+) hours of assistance, at a value of $225,000. · During the month of October, 1999 a Department team will be developed that will address all aspects of the volunteer program, and will seek ways to improve the program. Respectfully submitted, ,]- o ~o....~lm~'unity Development Director Community Services Director 1: ~COMMSER V1C1TYCOUN~update I O. 99. wpd