The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003/03/05 - Agenda Packet City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 1 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. CALLTO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander ,.Gutierrez Howdyshell , Kurth , and Williams__ B._=. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of a Proclamation to John Mannerino for his years of dedicated service to the City as Planning Commissioner. C.~. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits thexCity Council from addressing any on the issue not previously included ~ Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D._:. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: February 5, 2003 February t 9, 2003 2. Approval of Warrants, Register February11 through February 25, 2003, and Payroll ending February 25, 2003, for the total amount of $3,026,180.52. 3. Approval to adopt Annual Statement of investment Policy. 30 4. Approval for annual product support and subscription renewal from the sole-source provider, Oracle, in the amount of $55,524, to be funded 48 from General Fund, Administrative Services Department, Information Systems Division Acct. No. 1001-209-5300. 5. Approval for the purchase of Microsoft licenses for Exchange 2000, Windows 2000, SQL 2000, and Office XP Professional from Comark 52 Insight in the amount of $62,267.73, funded from Accts. 1001-103-5152 ($502.68); 1001-209-5152 ($21,331.35); 1001-209-5300 ($39,428.14); 3281-501-5152 ($502.68); and 3281-527-5152 ($502.68). City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 2 6. Approval to purchase ten (10) miscellaneous Ford vehicles from 5:3 Raceway Ford of Riverside in the amount of $244,882.40 funded: $7,665.09 from Fund 1139-303-5604; $17,885.20 from fund 1140-303- 5604; and $219,332.11 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 1712-001- 5604, and the purchase of two (2) Ford ranger trucks from Claremont Ford of Claremont, in the amount of $26,270.77, funded from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 1712-001-5604, and the purchase of three (3) miscellaneous Ford vehicles from Sunrise Ford of Fontana in the amount of $78,799.57 funded from the Vehicle Replacement Fund 1712-001-5604. 7. Approval of an application for a Used Oil Recycling Block Grant Funds 54 from the Used Oil Recycling Fund under the Used Oil Recycling Enhancement Act. RESOLUTION NO. 03-044 56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR A USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FROM THE USED OIL RECYCLING FUND UNDER THE USED OIL RECYCLING GRANT 8. Approval of a Resolution to accept control and maintenance over 5'/ portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from 19th Street to the south Freeway right-of-way, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue, to be relinquished by the State of California. RESOLUTION NO. 03-045 59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTING CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND AVENUE/19TM STREET BETWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE FROM 19TM STREET TO THE SOUTH FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO WAIVE THE STANDARD 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 3 9. Approval of a Resolution approving the application for California 70 Beverage Container Recycling Container and Litter Reduction annual payment by the California Department of Conservation Division of Recycling. RESOLUTION NO. 03-046 72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING CONTAINER AND LITTER REDUCTION ANNUAL PAYMENT BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF RECYCLING 10. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, 73 Monurnentaion Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Tract Map 15724, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, east of Coyote Canyon Park, submitted by KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 03-047 76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT 15724, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT RESOLUTION NO. 03-048 77 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 TRACT 15724 11. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security 85 for Parcel Map Number 15630, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue, submitted by Catellus Development Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 03-049 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15730, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 4 12. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Dan Guerra and 88 Associates (CO 03-011 ) to provide Construction Survey Services for the proposed East Avenue Street Improvement in the amount of $21,500.00, to be funded from Acct. No. 1176303565011446176-0. 13. Approval to authorize the execution of an amendment to the 90 Professional Services Agreement (CO 00-044) for engineering design services for the Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Widening Project, from Base Line Road to south of Route 210 Freeway to Dan Guerre and Associates to increase the contract amount from $315,400 to $415,400, to be funded from Acct. No. 11763035650/1124176-0, and approval of an appropriation of an additional $100,000 to Acct. No. 11763035650/1124176-0, Measure "1" fund balance. 14. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with RMA Group (CO 03-012) to provide Geotechnical and Material Testing Services for the 94 proposed East Avenue Street Improvements in the amount of $12,814.00 to be funded from Acct. No. 11763035650/1446176-0. 15. Approval cfa Professional Services Agreement with Urban Crossroads (CO 03-013) in the amount of $36,950.00 (plus 10% contingency) to 96 provide sound and noise studies along the Route 210 Freeway, to be funded from Account No. 1016-301-5300, Community Development Technical Services Funds, and approve an appropriation of $40,645.00 to Account No. 1016-301-5300. 16. Approval to release a Drainage Acceptance Agreement located from 5th 98 Street onto Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 14647, submitted by General Dynamics Propedies. RESOLUTION NO. 03-050 '~ 00 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT FROM GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES, INC. 17. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Parcel Map 15170 submitted by Hillside Cove Associates, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 03-051 '~ 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15170 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 5 18. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 15797-1 104 located on the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane, submitted by Tava Development, dba Citation Homes. 19. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance 106 Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tract 15798, submitted by Ryland Homes, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of East Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 03-052 108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 15798 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 20. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance '109 Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for the Improvements for Tract 16021, submitted by Crestwood Corporation, a California Corporation, located at the northeast corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way. RESOLUTION NO. 03-053 '1 '1 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 16021 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 21. Approval to accept the construction of the Traffic Signal and Safety 112 Lighting at Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive, Contract No. 01-077, as complete, retain the Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $170,638.19. RESOLUTION NO. 03-054 114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, CONTRACT NO. 01-077, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 6 22. Approval to accept the construction of the Hermosa Avenue Storm 115 Drain and Street Improvements from 400' north of Church Street to 500' north of Base Line Road, Contract No. 02-013 as complete, approval to appropriate $238,980.32 to Acct. No. 11763035650/1301176-0 from Measure 'T' fund balance, release the bonds, accept a Maintenance Bond, release the Labor and Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $2,510,502.32. RESOLUTION NO. 03-055 118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE HERMOSA AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM 400' NORTH OF CHURCH STREET TO 500' NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, CONTRACT NO. 02-013 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 23. Approval to release Faithful Performance Bond No. 83SB 103463488 119 BCM in the amount of $113,983.34 for the Marine Avenue (Humboldt Avenue to 26th Street) and 26th Street (Center Avenue to Haven Avenue) Pavement Rehabilitation, Contract No. 01-088. 24. Approval to release a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien 121 Agreement for 7954 Etiwanda Avenue (CO 03-014), located north of Foothill Boulevard, submitted by Frontier Land Company, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. RESOLUTION NO. 03-056 '123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING A REAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM DONALD J. GLOVER AND TRACY L. GLOVER 25. Approval to release a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien 124 Agreement for 12820 Chervil Street, located west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Frontier Land Co., LLC, a California Limited Liability Co. RESOLUTION NO. 03-057 126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING A REAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM GENEVIEVE A. IVES 26. Approval of a Request from Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball for a '126-1 Waiver of Rental Fees for their Opening Ceremonies at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on March 8, 2003 (rain date: 3/15/03). City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 7 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. The Council will act upon them at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 ORDINANCE NO. 699 (second reading) 127 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN iTS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF SUCH DISTRICT 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. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL 131 ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON - An appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request to construct a 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash, and pump island on 1-acre of land in Subarea 2, Community Commemial District of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-012 and 13. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RESOLUTION NO. 03-058 337 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUPO0-17, REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A 2,945 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION WITH CONVENIENCE MARKET, DRIVE THRU CARWASH, AND PUMP ISLAND ON 1-ACRE OF LAND IN THE City Council Agenda March 5, 2003 8 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, APN: 207-211-12 AND 13 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No Items Submitted. I_. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Oral) J.~ IDI~NTIFICATION 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 March 5, 2003 9 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 February 27, 2003, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. February 5, 2003 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES A. CALLTO ORDER The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager and James Markman, City Attorney. B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM Mayor Alexander announced the closed session item. B1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ON THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING TITLED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. INTEX PROPERTIES INLAND EMPIRE, L.P., ET AL., SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. RCV 058755. - CITY C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM No one was present to comment on the closed session item. D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Closed session began at 5:35 p.m. E. RECESS The closed session recessed at 6:40 p.m. with no action taken. City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, February 5, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Aisc present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Sid Siphomsay, Information Systems Analyst; Sam Davis, Information Systems Specialist; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Trang Huynh, Building Official; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Francie Madindale, Marketing Manager; Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS No announcements/presentations were made. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Leslie Grimes stated she had received a letter today regarding the Caltrans Workshop. She hoped that the landscaping along the sides of the freeway would not be forgotten and felt this was a safety issue. She also commented on the flooding on Vineyard/Carnelian after the last rain and felt it was extreme. She stated that further down past Base Line, at the bridge there is a lot of flooding in this area. She hoped the wash area at this location will not be changed too much so that there is still a place for the excess water [o go. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated Caltrans is going ahead with the landscaping along the freeway to prevent erosion. He stated there is an agenda item to approve an agreement with SANBAG to complete the storm drain on Carnelian from 19th to San Bernardino Road. ~ Ms. Grimes also commented on a flooding issue around Carnelian School. Mayor Alexander suggested she talk with staff at City Hall if she has concerns, but welcomed her to also come to the Council meetings if she wanted to. C2. Tom Benson, representing the Hawthorne Development Homeowner's Association, which includes 430 homes, felt the City Council has a philosophy against homeowner's associations, but added they do pay taxes and that they should be recognized like other areas of the City. He felt their development is ignored. He commented on a police incident that he did not feel was handled correctly. He did not feel graffiti in his area was being taken care of. City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 3 Mayor Alexander asked if someone from the City came to their development and gave a presentation. Mr. Benson stated yes, but that they didn't get the questions answered to their satisfaction. He wanted the Council to recognize them so they will get responded to. Mayor Alexander suggested the Police Chief and staff meet with the neighborhood to address their concerns. Jack Lam, City Manager, told him to contact Duane Baker to set something up. C3. Corey Adams, Hawthorne Development Homeowner's Association, felt the police representative that came to their neighborhood had a real attitude and that they were not told in advance that someone would be at their meeting. He mentioned AB930 was past last year and that he would like more information about this. Mayor Alexander stated that the City would meet with them to address their concerns. C4. Brenda Adams, Hawthorne Development, stated they came to a Council meeting last September regarding some concerns they had in their community. She also informed the Council that the Police were told about a possible gang member in their neighborhood and added they want patrols and traffic laws enforced there. Mayor Alexander suggested they let the Police Department help them, but if they did not, they can come back to the Council. C5. Steve Jennings stated he is with the Rancho Recall Committee to recall Diane Williams, Rex Gutierrez, Robert Howdyshell and Donald Kurth. He stated they have a website (www.ranchorecall.com). He commented on how the recent appointments were made and stated the Fire District is not supporting them. He commented on the campaign contributions taken by Councilmembers Gutierrez and Williams. He stated it will come out what the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga want. C6. John Lyons, Etiwanda, wanted to talk about Rancho Recall stating it is going strong. He talked about the next Route 30 Task Force meeting that is coming up and added he felt the developers were at fault for not building the homes as good as they should have. He stated the address for Rancho Recall is P.O. Box 2461, Rancho Cucamonga 91729. The hotline number is (909) 980-0935. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Jack Lam, City Manager, stated items D5 and D8 need to be removed from the agenda and that they would return at a later date. D1. Approval of Minutes: January 1, 2003 January 6, 2003 (Special Joint Meeting) January 15, 2003 January 16, 2003 (Special Meeting) D2. Approval of Warrants, Register January 8, 2003 through January 24, 2003, and Payroll ending January 24, 2003, for the total amount of $2,462,502.75. D3. Approval of a Resolution authorizing the destruction of City Records pursuant to California Government Code Section 34090, the City's Records Retention Schedule and other applicable legal citations. City Council Minutes February 5,2003 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 03-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 AND OTHER APPLICABLE LEGAL REFERENCES D4. Approval of a Resolution urging the California Legislature to reject the Governor's proposed shift of local Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenues and honor their 1998 commitment to keep cities and counties whole by "backfilling" VLF revenues. RESOLUTION NO. 03-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO REJECT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED SHIFT OF LOCAL VLF REVENUES D5. Approval of a single source vendor selection, Delta Microlmaging, Inc., for the purpose of converting microfilm to digital images and scanning Building and Safety Division plans in the amount not to exceed $50,000.00 from Acct. No. 1016301-5300. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA. D6. Approval of a piggyback contract for the purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel for Fleet Maintenance and the Police Department from Poma Distributing Company, Inc., of San Bernardino, in an annual amount not to exceed $169,000.00, funded from Funds 1001-317-5255 and 1001-317-5256 and an annual amount not to exceed $143,000.00, funded from Fund 1001-701-5255. D7. Approval of annual agreement with NEC, BNS Company (CO 03-002) to provide a Citywide Telephone Maintenance Agreement, piggybacking off of a competitively bid, fast open contracts utilization services (FOCUS) from the County of Merced, California, for the first annual amount of $65,000, plus an estimated 10% annual increase from Acct. No. 1001-205-5300, ending Fiscal Year 2007/2008. D8. Approval of a Resolution to accept control and maintenance over portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue, to be relinquished by the State of California. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA. RESOLUTION NO. 03-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTING CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND AVENUE/19TM STREET BETWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND WAIVE THE STANDARD 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 5 D9. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for DRC2001-00772 (Tract 10246), located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Hillside Road, submitted by Prestige Homes, L.P., and release of previously-submitted Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Monumentation Cash Deposit accepted by the City Council on October 18, 1989, from J.C.R. Development Company Partnership. RESOLUTION NO. 03-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR DRC2001-00772 (TRACT 10246) AND RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 18, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 03-019 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 DRC2001-00772 (TRACT 10246) D10. Approval of Map and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 15732, located at the southeast corner of Center Avenue and Dorset Street, submitted by W.F. Construction, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 03-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 15732 RESOLUTION NO. 03-021 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 PARCEL MAP 15732 D11. Approval of Map for Parcel Map 15790, located on the east side of the southern terminus of Hyssop Drive, east of the 1-15 Freeway, submitted by Erin Madison, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 03-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15790 D12. Approval of a Cooperative Agreement between the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority/San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the City of Rancho Cucamonga (CO 03-003) for the Carnelian Street Storm Drain Improvements, authorization to appropriate $3,200,000 from Fund Balance into Acct. No. 1112303-5650/1450112-0 and authorization to receive the related reimbursement into Acct. No. 1112000-4745 (Intergovernmental Reimbursement). City Council Minutes February 5,2003 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 03-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR THE CARNELIAN STREET STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS D13. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DRC2001-00345, submitted by The Gardens, located at 7576 Etiwanda Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 03-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2001-00345 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D14. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 13759, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, submitted by Forecast Group, L.P. D15. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 14207, located on Wilson Avenue, west of Beryl and south of Heritage Park, submitted by H & W Concordia R-28, LLC. D16. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Parcel Map 15155, located on the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and White Oak Avenue, submitted by Master Development Corporation. D17. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Parcel Map 15282, submitted by S & D Rancho Cucamonga California, LTD, a Texas Limited Partnership, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Streets. RESOLUTION NO. 03-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15282 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D18. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 15526, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Mountain View, submitted by Lewis Development Company. D19. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 15726, located on the south side of Lemon Avenue at Phillips Way, submitted by DPCD Rancho 45/Ltd. D20. Approvals to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Playground Sand Replacement at Various City Parks. RESOLUTION NO. 03-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PLAYGROUND SAND REPLACEMENT AT VARIOUS CITY PARKS AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 7 D21. Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bond No. 441-000-470 in the amount of $163,600.00 for the Wilson Avenue Landscape Improvements from San Sevaine Road to Cherry Avenue, Contract No. 01-048. D22. Approval to accept the Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at the intersection of Banyan Street and Fredericksburg Avenue, Contract No. 02-032 as complete, retain the Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $24,245.00. RESOLUTION NO. 03-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BANYAN STREET AND FREDERICKSBURG AVENUE, CONTRACT NO. 02-032 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D23. Approval to accept the Modification of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at Carnelian Street and La Vine/La Grande Streets, Contract No. 02-033 as complete, retain the Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $34,333.08. RESOLUTION NO. 03-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT CARNELIAN STREET AND LA VINE/LA GRANDE STREETS, CONTRACT NO. 02-033 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D24. Approval to accept the Adult Sports Park and Parking Lot Improvements Project as complete, authorize release of the Faithful Performance Bond, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, authorize the City Engineer to release the Labor and Material Bond and release the 10% retention 35 days after recording of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder, approve the final contract amount of $202,460.00, less 10% retention, and approve change order no. 1 to International Pavement Solutions, to be funded from Acct. No. 1120305-5650/1209-190-0 ($10,000.00) and Acct. No. 1025001-5602 ($18,000.00) and authorize final payment after 30 days. RESOLUTION NO. 03-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ADULT SPORTS PARK AND PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS (CONTRACT NO. 02-100) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Kurth to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar with the exception of items D5 and D8. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 8 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2002-00875 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Mixed Use Public Storage as a conditionally permitted use within the Regional Related Commercial District, Subarea 4, of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Foothill Boulevard Districts). Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 697. ORDINANCE NO. 697 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2002-00875 TO ADD MIXED USE PUBLIC STORAGE AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE REGIONAL RELATED COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS SUBAREA 4, AS LISTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.32, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 697. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. E2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2002-00533 - KB HOME OF GREATER LOS ANGELES AND LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION - A proposed amendment to the Terra Vista Community Plan to 1) realign the Trail Type D between Malaga Drive and West Greenway Corridor to a Trail Type E along Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street, and 2) change the land use designation from Elementary School (E) to Low-Medium Residential for a 9-acre parcel, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway east of Coyote Canyon Park. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT15724 and SUB~I-16157. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 698. ORDINANCE NO. 698 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2002-00533, A REQUEST TO REALIGN THE TRAIL TYPE "D" BETWEEN MALAGA DRIVE AND WEST GREENWAY CORRIDOR, TO A TRAIL TYPE "E ALONG TERRA VISTA PARKVVAY AND CHURCH STREET; AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (E) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (LM) FOR A 9.05-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TERRA VISTA PARKSNAY EAST OF COYOTE CANYON PARK, WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 698. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes February 5,2003 Page 9 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS BY MODIFYING CERTAIN FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION 02-023 Staff report presented by Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director. Councilmember Williams commented that the fees charged are the actual cost to the City and that there is no overhead added into the established fees. Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director, stated that was correct and that the City surveys other cities and does not try to make a profit, only pass on the actual cost to the public. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 03-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS BY MODIFYING CERTAIN FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION 02-023 MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Howdyshell to approve Ordinance No. 03-030. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. F2. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 (TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 19, 2003) Jack Lam, City Manager, stated it is requested that this item be continued to February 19. He asked that the public hearing be opened in case someone could not be present at the February 19th meeting. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 03-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01, ESTABLISHING TWO IMPROVEMENT AREA THEREIN, ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH IMPROVEMENT AREA, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION WITH EACH IMPROVEMENT AREA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 03-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 DECLARING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR A BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 AND ORDERING SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF EACH IMPROVEMENT AREA WITHIN THE DISTRICT PROPOSITIONS RELATING TO THE RESPECTIVE IMPROVEMENT AREA RESOLUTION NO. 03-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01, CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 2003 SPECIAL TAX AND BOND ELECTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 699 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF SUCH DISTRICT MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to continue the public hearing to February 19, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gl. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 700. ORDINANCE NO. 700 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 11 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. '700 for the February 19, 2003 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. G2. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING GRAFFITI PROHIBITION AND REMOVAL Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager. Councilmember Gutierrez inquired if you had to catch someone in the act in order to arrest them. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated it depends on the evidence. Councilmember Kurth stated he suppods this and hates to see property destroyed. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public input. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 701. ORDINANCE NO. 701 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING GRAFFITI PROHIBITION AND REMOVAL MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 701 for the February 19, 2003 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1. CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FOUR NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE FOUNDATION Staff report presented by Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III. MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the recommended appointments suggested by the Community Foundation (Bruce Bowne, Jo Dutton, David Parker and Stan Phelps). Motion carried unanimously 5-0. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. UPDATE REGARDING MOUNTAIN LION INCIDENTS (Oral) Staff report presented by Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst Ill. She referred to a map indicating where the mountain lion had been seen. She advised what the City is doing to alert people about this issue and told about the process the trapper uses to catch the mountain lion. She told about the process to get a permit to shoot a mountain lion. She stated staff will come back in 30 days to advise the Council what has been accomplished. Councilmember Kurth asked when was the last time it had killed something. City Council Minutes February 5, 2003 Page 12 Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III, stated it was December 17, 2002. Mayor Alexander added there is still uncertainty if all of the animals killed were by a mountain lion. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated hopefully the 30-day contract with the trapper will help this situation. ACTION: Report received and filed. 12. UPDATE ON TREE PRESERVATION Staff report presented by Dan Coleman, Principal Planner. Councilmember Gutierrez stated the reason he put this on the agenda is because some people in Etiwanda wanted a report. He stated his questions have been answered in the report. He stated he hoped that the policy had not changed since he was previously on the Council and felt the trees should be preserved. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated when the Blue Gum trees have to be replaced, they are replaced with a more resilient tree. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he has changed his thoughts since he was last on the Council, and added he appreciates open space. ACTION: Report received and filed. 13. REPORT ON ILLEGAL DUMPING Staff report presented by Trang Huynh, Building Official. Councilmember Gutierrez asked where the boundary line is where the County takes over. Trang Huynh, Building Official, stated the County takes over at the end of Etiwanda where the paved road ends. ACTION: Report received and filed. 14. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Oral) Councilmember Williams reported that Julie Bornstein of Housing and Community Development came to tour Rancho Cucamonga. She added that Mayor Alexander was also on the tour. She stated Ms. Bornstein was very impressed with what she saw in Rancho Cucamonga and that she especially liked Vi~la del Node. She reported she had told Ms. Bornstein about the possibility of the State taking away some of the City's housing funds and stated the City wouldn't be able to meet its housing obligation if they have no money to do it with. She stated there will be a reception for Congressman David Dreier prior to the February 19~h meeting. She reported the state's budget deficit continues to get worse and that they are threatening to take away the Vehicle License Fees from the City and also some Redevelopment Agency funding. She stated she and Jack Lam will be going to Sacramento next week regarding these issues. 15. PRESENTATION OF A LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES "LOCAL COALITION" PROGRAM AND CONSIDERATION OF A RELATED RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT/LABOR MISSION STATEMENT The item was introduced by Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III. Councilmember Williams had a video shown and also narrated a power point presentation. City Council Minutes February 5,2003 Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. 03-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING AND ENDORSING THE PROPOSED MISSION STATEMENT OF A COALITION BETWEEN ORGANIZED LABOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BEING CREATED AS PART OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES GRASSROOTS NETWORK MOTION: Moved by Kudh, seconded by Williams to app~ve Resolution No. 03-034. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. Aubrey Campbell commented on all of the advertising phone calls he receives at home. He felt these calls should be stopped. K2. Lois May Smith, League of Women Voters, stated she will be attending Council meetings to observe. K3. John Lyons commented on the mountain lion issue and felt it was very dangerous and that a child could be killed. K4. Chris Wright felt possibly the new homes being built in the foothills were intruding into the mountain lion's territory and that this was causing them to come down into the residential areas. Mayor Alexander stated he understands his point, but that people do have the right to build on their own property. Councilmember Williams stated she agreed and that we have created the problem. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he felt the Council should discuss about making more space for the wild. He felt some of the land should be preserved. K5. Julie Vega felt her civil rights had been violated by the Police Department. She felt the Council should help them. She did not think she was getting any help from the Police Department and that she and her daughter's lives had been put in jeopardy. Mayor Alexander commented on the admirable job done by the Police and Fire Depadments during the plane crash in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated the City is saddened by Mr. Cable's death due to the plane crash and felt people should be considerate of the neighbors around that area and stay away. Councilmember Williams commented on how wonderful the mutual aid was from other cities. City Council Minutes Februa~ 5,2003 Page 14 L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitte~ Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * February 19, 2003 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reqular Meetinq A. CALLTO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, February 19, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; James C. Frost, City Treasurer; Joe Kamrani, Sr. Information Systems Analyst; Shelly Munson; Systems Specialist; Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Mike TenEyck, Management Analyst III; Brad Buller, City Planner; Trang Huynh, Building Official; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk; Shirr'l Griffin, Office Specialist I1 - City Clerk's Office and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a "Key to the City" to Congressman David Dreier welcoming him to Rancho Cucamonga as our City is now officially part of Congressman Dreier s 26 Congressional District. Mayor Alexander presented Congressman Dreier with a "Key to the City", Proclamation and a framed 25th Anniversary Plaque, and thanked him for his assistance with the needs of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Congressman Dreier talked about serving the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. He felt as a nation, the citizens of the United States of America can get through all of the situations facing us today. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation in recognition of current San Bernardino County Board Supervisor (Second District) and former Rancho Cucamonga Council Member Paul Biane for his years of dedicated service to our community. th Mayor Alexander presented Supervisor Biane with a Proclamation, City tile and a framed 25 Anniversary Plaque thanking him for his service to the people of Rancho Cucamonga while serving on the City Council. Supervisor Biane thanked the Councilmembers he has worked with, and thanked staff for their support and for helping him through his career as a Councilmember. B3. Presentation of Proclamation in recognition of the Month of February 2003 as "YMCA Month." Mayor Alexander presented a Proclamation to Dianna Lee Mitchell and staff. City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 2 B4. Presentation of Donations in the amount of $5,000 each to the Community Foundation and Library Foundation from General Dynamics. Charles Beecher made the presentation to Tony Mize, Chair of the Community Foundation, and Paula Pachon, President of the Library Foundation. Both Tony Mize and Paula Pachon thanked Mr. Beecher for the check. B5. Presentation of Plaques in recognition of Chaffey College Staff for their continued support of the City's Annual Fourth of July Fireworks Show. Mayor Alexander and Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent, presented plaques to the Chaffey College staff. Representatives from Chaffey College thanked the City and felt this was a wonderful cooperative effort. B6. ADDED ITEM - Presentation of Proclamation in recognition of the Etiwanda High School Marching Eagle Regiment for their first place victory at the 25th Annual Fiesta Bowl National Band Championship. Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Band Directors Don Jaramillo and Scott Nelson, student staff leaders and Booster President Catherine Eichstedt. Mr. Jaramillo thanked the City for its support and for the Proclamation. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Dawn Signor of Alta Loma, felt her vote does not count. She felt what the Council has done is unconstitutional. She stated she needed $50,000 -- $20,000 for a special election and the rest for a recall. C2. Jim Frost mentioned the resignations of John Mannerino and Peter Tolstoy from the Planning Commission. He commented on the Planning Commission being formed in January 1978 and commended them for all of their work. He talked about the moratorium that was in place in 1978. He talked about Jack Lam's work as Community Development Director during the early days of the City's incorporation. He commented on the increased costs for Workers' Compensation Insurance, layoffs and the cutting of salaries that is occurring in his company due to the economy. C3. Brenda Facio talked about the abuse of the police department towards the community and ~ow they have assaulted and threatened citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. She asked that the Council look for new law enforcement because of this abuse. She asked that the Council put on the next agenda an item to rid our community of the contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Depadment and begin to bring steps to obtain our own City police department before it becomes another L.A. Rampart disaster. C4. John Lyons stated he wanted to address the Council on the recall. He also asked that everyone support our troops over seas. He talked about Councilmember Gutierrez's campaign pledges. He commented on the two recent appointments made to the City Council, which Councilmember Gutierrez voted for. He asked everyone to support the recall stating they can be reached at ranchorecall.org or at 980-0935, P.O. Box 2641, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729. He stated they need volunteers and contributions for this recall. Councilmember Gutierrez commented he had said he would not take contributions of $250 or more during the campaign and that he did not take any contribution larger than $250 until one month after the election. He stated what Mr. Lyons is reporting is not accurate. City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 3 C5. Julie Vega stated she was offended the last time she spoke to the Council because she got no comment about being in fear of her life and her safety as well as her family and friends. She stated there have been about 18 incidents she has witnessed in the last three months. She stated she would like to emphasize again that that it took 4 incidents, 8 phone calls to get response from the Sheriff's Department. She said a temporary restraining order was active the whole time. She said her life as well as her daughter's has been threatened and abused. She said statistics on police brutality are rarely collected and when they are, they are kept secret. She asked if there was a process to request help. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Captain Pete Ortiz will be happy to meet with her. He added she could file a complaint if she would like to, that there is a process that has to be followed. Captain Ortiz stated there is an internal investigation being done at this time based on the allegations that have been made, but that he cannot comment about it at this time. C6. Jim Frost stated he spoke to a father of a man whose son was sent to the Middle East and that they are looking for DVD's to be shipped to the troops. He felt this could be handled through the City Clerk's office. C7. Leslie Grimes stated she is upset, disappointed and dismayed. She commented on the $3,000 loan that Councilmember Gutierrez took from Dan Richards and felt this was a mistake. She continued to talk about the contributions he took. She asked the Council to quit taking contributions from people doing business in the City. She stated the recall effort is being done because the Council has denied them the right to vote. C8. Melanie Ingram stated she is representing Steve Jennings, who is Chairman of the Recall Committee, who couldn't be here tonight. She reiterated the information how to reach the Recall Committee. She stated they are getting ready for the recall process and that they are planning to recall Diane Williams, Rex Gutierrez, Robert Howdyshell and Donald Kurth. She continued to comment about how the appointments of Howdyshell and Kurth were made. She pointed out to the Council that perception is everything. She stated she is interested in seeing what conflicts Councilmember Gutierrez now has. James Markman, City Attorney, commented on the 1997 letter that was written and stated it was released of the Attorney Client Privilege, but that the current letter cannot be given out because it has not been released of the Attorney Client Privilege. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: January 24, 2003 (Special Meeting) D2. Approval of Warrants, Register January 25 through February 10, 2003, and Payroll January 25 through February 10, 2003, for the total amount of $3,760,444.08. D3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of January 31,2003. D4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Construction of Lemon Avenue Street Rehabilitation from Beryl Street to Amethyst Street, from Acct. No. 11763035650 (Measure "1" Funds). City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 03-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEMON AVENUE STREET REHABILITATION FROM BERYL STREET TO AMETHYST AVENUE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D5. Approval for authorization to purchase one (1) Ford E-150XL eight-passenger van from Fairview Ford of San Bernardino, in the amount of $16,110.65, funded from the Youth Enrichment Services Grant, Fund No. 1252-401-5604. D6. Approval of $300,000.00 for the purpose of funding the Citywide Concrete Repair, Tree Removal and Tree Planting Annual Maintenance Agreement for repair of City sidewalks, curb and gutters, to be funded from Acct. 11763035300, and approval of a $300,000.00 appropriation to Acct. No. 1763035300 from the Measure I Fund balance. D7. Approval of a request from the Skamnes/Hocking Family for a Waiver of Rental Fees for use of the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Adult Sports Complex for a Memorial Softball Tournament in the memory of Stephanie Skamnes Hocking on February 22, 2003. D8. Approval of a Resolution authorizing an advancement of funds and approving an Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (CO 03- 004) for re- imbursement of costs related to Community Facilities District 2003-01. RESOLUTION NO. 03-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHQ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADVANCE BY THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF PART OF THE COST OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY D9. Approval of a Public Parking Facilities Ground Lease and Public Parking Facility Operating Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Victoria Gardens Mall, LLC, (CO 03-005) for property generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, west of 1-15 Freeway. D10. Approval to enter into a Lease Hold Agreement at the City Yard between Cingular Wireless (CO 03-006) and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the purpose of installing a Wireless Communication facility for Cingular Wireless Personal Communication Service. Dll. Approval to release an Agreement for Reimbursement of Public Improvements for Undergrounding of Overhead Utilities (URA-003) by DR 85-48, located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Seventh Street for Golden West Equities Properties, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 03-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING AN AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES URA-003) FOR DR 85-48, GOLDEN WEST EQUITIES PROPERTIES, INC. City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 5 D12. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for CUP 99-24, submitted by Rancho Technology, LLC, located on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Ninth Street. RESOLUTION NO. 03-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALtFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 99-24, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D13. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DRC2001-00493, submitted by Lindsay- Ontario, LLC, located on the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Fifth Street. RESOLUTION NO. 03-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2001-00493 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D14. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DRCDR01-03, submitted by Fullmer Construction, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, north of Sharon Court. RESOLUTION NO. 03-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRCDR 01-03 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D15. Approval to amend Tract Map No. 14875, located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street, submitted by Archibald Garden Villas Partnership, a Limited Partnership. RESOLUTION NO. 03-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDING TRACT MAP NO. 14875 D16. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Tract 16128, submitted by D.R. Horton, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court RESOLUTION NO. 03-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 16128 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 6 D17. Approval to release Faithful Performance Bond No. 929203528 in the amount of $65,259.00 for the Access Ramp Improvements, generally located along Hermosa Avenue and Lemon Avenue, Contract No. 01-078. D18. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 3419309 in the amount of $8,374.00 for the Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting at Rochester Avenue and lark Drive, Contract No. 01-025. MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 700. ORDINANCE NO. 700 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Kurth to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 700. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. E2. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODF REGARDING GRAFFITI PROHIBITION AND REMOVAL Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 701. ORDINANCE NO. 701 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING GRAFFITI PROHIBITION AND REMOVAL MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Kurth to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 701. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 5, 2003) Jack Lam, City Manager, introduced the item stating the public hearing was continued from February 5, 2003. City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 7 Mayor Alexander stated this is the time and place for the public hearing on the establishment of City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 and Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 therein, the proposed rates and methods of apportionment of a special tax to be levied within the improvement areas ad the proposed issuance of debt on behalf of the district. He asked the City Clerk if she could report on the notice given of this hearing. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, stated the notice of this hearing was given for February 5, 2003 by publication on January 24, 2003 in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and by mail on January 14, 2003 to each property owner within the proposed district. On February 5, 2003, the City Council opened the hearing, and then continued it to tonight. She stated she has received no written communications regarding the proposed district. Staff report presented by Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing stating all interested persons or taxpayers may testify for or against the establishment of the district or the improvement areas, the extent of the district or the improvement areas, the furnishing of specified types of public facilities, or any matters material to the questions set forth in Resolution No. 02-328 and proposed Resolution 03-032. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Alexander asked the City Clerk if the City has received written protests from the owners of one-half or more of '~he property within the district or the owners of one-half or more of the property within either improvement area that is not exempt from the special tax? Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, stated it has not. Mayor Alexander stated in the absence of a majority protest, the City Council may consider the adoption of Resolution Nos. 03-035, 03-031 and 03-032. RESOLUTION NO. 03-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FORMS OF JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES FINANCING AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND EACH OF THE CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, THE ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THE CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Kurth to approve Resolution No. 03-035. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 03-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01, ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT, ESTABLISHING TWO IMPROVEMENT AREAS THEREIN, ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH IMPROVEMENT AREA, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN EACH IMPROVEMENT AREA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 8 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Kurth to approve Resolution No. 03-031. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 03-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN I:TS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 DECLARING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR A BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. I AND 2 OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 AND ORDERING SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF EACH IMPROVEMENT AREA WITHIN THE DISTRICT PROPOSITIONS RELATING TO THE RESPECTIVE IMPROVEMENT AREA MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Kurth to approve Resolution No. 03-032 Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The City Clerk conducted the special election called for February 19, 2003 in connection with City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 and the Improvement Areas therein. The City Council recessed at 8:34 p.m. Mayor Alexander called the meeting back to order at 8:48 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. Mayor Alexander asked the City Clerk to make a report in Connection with tonight's special election. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, stated after receiving ballots from each of the qualified electors of Community Facilities District No. 2003-01, she closed the election and the canvassing board, consisting of herself, Linda Daniels and Mark Mandel, canvassed the vote. With respect to Improvement Area No. 1 of the district, with one ballot returned, Proposition A has passed with a vote of 147 acres in favor and 0 acres opposed, representing a 100% vote in favor. Proposition B has passed with a vote of 147 acres in favor and 0 acres opposed, representing a 100% vote in favor. With respect to Improvement Area No. 2 of the district, with two ballots returned, Proposition C has passed with a vote of 83 acres in favor and 0 acres opposed, representing a 100% vote in favor. Proposition D has passed with a vote of 83 acres in favor and 0 acres opposed, representing a 100% vote in favor. Therefore, Propositions A, B, C, and D have each passed. Mayor Alexander thanked the City Clerk for her report. RESOLUTION NO. 03-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01, CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 2003 SPECIAL TAX AND BOND ELECTIONS MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to approve ReSOlution No. 03-033. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 699. City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 9 ORDINANCE NO. 699 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF SUCH DISTRICT MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 699 for the March 5, 2003 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS ~1. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE ACTION: Report received and filed. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Mayor Alexander stated he would like a report at the next meeting on the police issues previously brought up with any information that is not confidential. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY NICOLE MYERCHIN TO CHANGE THE CITY'S ANIMAL SHELTER TO A "NO KILL" SHELTER AND TO BAN THE DECLAWlNG OF CATS Report presented by Nicole Myerchin who said she had previously met with the Mayor regarding this issue. She stated she has distributed information for the Council to consider and asked for the Council to help her regarding this matter. Councilmember Gutierrez asked if animals taken to our facility are only from Rancho Cucamonga. Nicole Myerchin stated yes. City Council Minutes February 19, 2003 Page 10 Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like to see an analysis done on what this would cost. He stated he is in favor of this idea. He felt the City should do what it can to help get the animals adopted. Nicole Myerchin stated if the Council can come up with a figure, she will help to meet the goal in order to make this work. David Dykstra stated he supported the Council's concern about this. Councilmember Williams commented on the cost to adopt a pet. She felt somehow this should get sponsored, She felt there should be a way to get the animals spade and neutered at a lower cost. She felt some veterinarians should step up to the plate and do some of the spading and neutering for free. Nicole Myerchin felt the spading and neutering should be worked into a program with the obtaining of dog tags. Councilmember Kurth thanked her for taking the initiative to pursue this. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * l~^N C H 0 CU CAM 0 N G^ Memoran han DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: R e x G u t~llrre~m e m b e r FROM: Pam Ea~l~puty City Manager SUBJEC'r: Warrant~ F ~eview for Council Meeting--March 5, 2003 The City Attorney has reviewed the Summary of Warrants for the March 5, 2003, Council meeting and has found no conflict of interest. If you have any questions, please give me a call at extension 2003. c: Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Jim Mad(man, City Attorney Debbie Adams, City Clerk Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Tamara Layne, Finance Officer Ann Haworth, Accounting Services Supervisor CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Cheek Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193529 2/11/2003 LAM, JACK 100.00 AP- 00193530 2/11/2003 PVCASSOCIATION 50.00 AP- 00193530 2/11/2003 PVCASSOCIATION 50.00 AP- 00193532 2/12/2003 3 D CARPET AND DRAPERIES 1,750.00 AP 00193533 2/12/2003 A 1 SMOG AND REPAIR 458.32 AP 00193533 2/12/2003 A 1 SMOG AND REPAIR 332.89 AP 00193535 2/12/2003 AANDK30MINPHOTOLABINC 44.96 AP 00193535 2/12/2003 AAND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 18.22 AP 00193535 2/12/2003 A AND K.30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 5.95 AP 00193535 2/12/2003 AANDK30MINPHOTOLABINC 37.70 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 AAND RTIRE SERVICE 11.00 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND RTIRE SERVICE 57.16 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND RTIRE SERVICE 86.10 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 AANDRTIRE SERVICE 53.26 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 AANDRTIRE SERVICE 26.68 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 AANDRTIRE SERVICE 202.03 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 AANDRTIRE SERVICE 26.68 AP 00193536 2/12/2003 AANDRTIRE SERVICE 830.30 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 76.89 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 49.95 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 11.00 AP- 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 347.28 AP ~ 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 522.00 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 81.55 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 29.48 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 15.80 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 690.47 AP- 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 574.54 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 165.33 AP- 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 15.80 AP- 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 74.08 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 31.60 AP - 00193536 2/12/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 523.98 AP - 00193537 2/12/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO [NC 352.02 AP - 00193537 2/12/'2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO [NC 127.97 AP - 00193537 2/12/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO [NC 58.08 AP- 00193538 2/12/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO [NC 215.50 AP-00193539 2/12/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 25.43 AP- 00193539 2/12/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 79.86 AP- 00193539 2/12/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 600.00 AP- 00193539 2/12/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 23.86 AP- 00193540 2/12/2003 ABLAC 294.06 AP-00193541 2/12/2003 ABLETRONICS 5.02 AP- 00193542 2/12/2003 ACT GIS [NC 8,456.95 AP- 00193543 2/12/2003 ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY 447.00 AP-00193544 2/12/2003 ADAMSON, RONALD 992.00 AP - 00193545 2/12/2003 ADT SECURITY SERVICES [NC 278.64 AP- 00193546 2/12/2003 AIR CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS 3,834.64 AP- 00193547 2/I2/2003 ALBERTSONS INC 2,707.00 AP - 00193548 2/12/2003 ALEXANDER, WILLIAM J 146.75 AP- 00193549 2/12/2003 ALPHAGRAPHICS 64.53 AP- 00193550 2/12/2003 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 469.17 AP- 00193551 2/12/2003 AMERICAN PIPE AND SUPPLY 212.70 AP- 00193551 2/12/2003 AMERICAN PIPE AND SUPPLY 207.05 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 1 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:0 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193551 2/12/2003 AMERICAN PIPE AND SUPPLY 124.54 AP - 00193552 2/12/2003 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 146.31 AP- 00193552 2/12/2003 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 187.00 AP - 00193552 2/12/2003 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 535.00 AP- 00193553 2/12/2003 ARCH WIRELESS 957.66 AP 00193553 2/12/2003 ARCH WIRELESS 337.34 AP 00193554 2/12/2003 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 16,560.00 AP 00193556 2/12/2003 ASIAN GROCERY AND SPICES 110.00 AP 00193557 2/12/2003 ASPHALT MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS 1,000.00 AP 00193558 2/12/2003 ASSI SECURITY 539.25 AP 00193558 2/12/2003 ASSI SECURITY 355.75 AP 00193559 2/12/2003 ASSOCIATED GROUP 60.00 AP 00193559 2/12/2003 ASSOCIATED GROUP 1,970.75 AP 00193560 2/12/2003 AUTORESTORATORSINC 835.58 AP 00193560 2/12/2003 AUTO RESTORATORS INC 835.58 AP 00193560 2/12/2003 AUTORESTORATORSINC 680.11 AP 00193560 2/12/2003 AUTORESTORATORSINC 850.55 AP 00193561 2/12/2003 BEARDPROVENCHERANDASSOC 1,245.00 AP 00193562 2/12/2003 BERMUDEZ, JOSEPH 30.00 AP 00193563 2/12/2003 BILLBRUGMAN 1,000.00 AP-00193564 2/12/2003 BISHOP COMPANY 306.70 AP - 00193565 2/12/2003 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORP 25.75 AP - 00193565 2/12/2003 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORP 31.57 AP- 00193565 2/12/2003 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORP 507.34 AP - 00193566 2/12/2003 BOMA INLAND EMPIRE 100.00 AP- 00193566 2/12/2003 BOMA INLAND EMPIRE 550.00 AP - 00193567 2/12/2003 BOYLE ENGINEERING 5,902.44 AP- 00193568 2/12/2003 BRAITHWAITE, ANNETTE 5,000.00 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.44 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 11.53 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 52.58 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 27.37 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 52.58 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 27.75 AP ~ 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 18.75 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 69.55 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 34.96 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 16.22 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 104.14 User: chart- Carole Hart Page: 2 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 27.75 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 27.75 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 25.59 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 29.90 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 25.59 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.44 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 154.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 309.35 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.07 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 37.50 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 46.88 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 18.75 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 57.65 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 25.21 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.06 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 3 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 20.53 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.68 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 18.38 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.07 AP 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 27.75 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 16.22 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 16.22 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 18.38 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 27.75 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.44 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 18.75 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 41.81 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 46.12 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 32.06 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 120.73 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 13.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 39.27 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 18.38 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 .User: chart- Carole Hart Page: 4 Current Date: 02/26/3 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time :~.~ 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 28.12 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.07 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 20.53 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 42.19 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 78.17 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 20.90 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 79.95 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 12.25 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 38.49 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 186.85 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 29.45 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 59.47 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 12.25 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 48.42 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 35.80 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 69.03 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.10 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 15.32 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 69.94 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 67.82 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 11.62 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 12.57 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 43.55 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 41.91 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 45.97 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.20 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 19.35 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 77.58 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 16.55 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 89.70 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 15.93 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 58.17 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 31.88 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.10 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.17 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 12.57 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 39.81 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 37.42 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 16.44 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 54.22 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 18.43 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 17.20 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 76.85 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 12.57 User: chart - Carolc Hart Page: 5 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:,.,, 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 76.00 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 29.00 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 16.55 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 16.55 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 24.19 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 61.42 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 48.49 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 15.97 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 178.09 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.13 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 32.31 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 101.37 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 31.26 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 16.22 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 76.02 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP w00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 18.75 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.07 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 18.75 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 11.53 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.68 AP - 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 50.43 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP-00193575 2/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00193576 2/12/2003 BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYSTEMS 800.20 AP - 00193579 2/12/2003 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 259.38 AP- 00193581 2/12/2003 CENTRAL DIVISION 359.72 AP- 00193581 2/12/2003 CENTRAL DIVISION 167.66 AP- 00193582 2/12/2003 CHEEKS, CARLA 200.00 AP - 00193583 2/12/2003 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 201.91 AP - 00193583 2/12/2003 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 109.60 AP- 00193583 2/12/2003 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 2,237.27 AP - 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 133.87 AP - 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 305.82 AP- 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 27.39 AP- 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 124.47 AP- 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 6.84 AP - 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 130.03 AP- 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 8.81 AP - 00193584 2/12/2003 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 93.44 AP-00193585 2/12/2003 CONCANNON, SHARI 149.50 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 6 Current Date: 02/26/3 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Porlxait Layout Time:/ 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193586 2/12/2003 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ] 173.15 AP- 00193586 2/12/2003 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ! 136.75 AP- 00193587 2/12/2003 CORONA CLAY COMPANY 1,000.00 AP - 00193587 2/12/2003 CORONA CLAY COMPANY 996.69 AP- 00193587 2/12/2003 CORONA CLAY COMPANY 409.45 AP - 00193587 2/12/2003 CORONA CLAY COMPANY 1,993.38 AP 00193587 2/12/2003 CORONA CLAY COMPANY 10.16 AP 00193589 2/12/2003 COUNTS UNLIMITED 1,800.00 AP 00193590 2/12/2003 COURT TRUSTEE 118.50 AP 00193590 2/12/2003 COURT TRUSTEE 200.00 AP 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATERDIST 96.01 AP 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 118.46 AP 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGACOWATERDIST 177.53 AP 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGACOWATERDIST 70.05 AP 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGACOWATERDIST 104.04 AP 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGACOWATERDIST 143.54 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 135.97 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 7~.60 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 597.77 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 65.93 AP ~ 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATERDIST 207.40 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 65.11 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 85.50 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 24.05 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 87.56 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 79.32 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 85.50 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 105.43 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 197.10 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 135.30 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 262.66 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 107.13 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 394.50 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 428.79 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 74.72 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 226.61 AP- 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATERDIST 241.39 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 100.86 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 77.26 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 90.65 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 374.17 AP - 00193591 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 47.60 AP - 00193592 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 1,190.00 AP - 00193592 2/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 945.00 AP- 00193593 2/12/2003 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 2,100.00 AP - 00193593 2/12/2003 CYBERCOM RESOURCES/NC 875.00 AP - 00193593 2/12/2003 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 1,925.00 AP - 00193594 2/12/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 28,640.00 AP - 00193595 2/12/2003 DAPPER TIRE CO 91.99 AP- 00193595 2/12/2003 DAPPERT1RE CO 3,565.32 AP - 00193596 2/12/2003 DATA QUICK 91.17 AP - 00193598 2/12/2003 DESTINY POOLS 284.50 AP- 00193599 2/12/2003 DIETERICH 1NTERNATIONALTRUCK 247.58 AP- 00193599 2/12/2003 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 567.70 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 7 Current Date: 02/26/2 Report:CK_AGENDA REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:,~/ 17:0 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193599 2/12/2003 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 179.30 AP- 00193600 2/12/2003 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 81.78 AP- 00193600 2/12/2003 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 23.79 AP - 00193600 2/12/2003 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 225.19 AP- 00193602 2/12/2003 EMBEETECHNOLOGIES 1,010.68 AP- 00193603 2/12/2003 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 3,312.30 AP 00193604 2/12/2003 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1,393.64 AP 00193605 2/12/2003 EMPLOYMENT SYSTEMS INC. 2,728.67 AP 00193605 2/12/2003 EMPLOYMENT SYSTEMS INC. 2,871.61 AP 00193606 2/12/2003 ESP1NO'S COP SHOPINC 16.16 AP 00193606 2/12/2003 ESPINO'S COP SHOP INC 112.50 AP 00193606 2/12/2003 ESPINO'SCOP SHOP INC 112.50 AP 00193606 2/12/2003 ESPINO'SCOP SHOP 1NC 179.05 AP 00193607 2/12/2003 EW1NG IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 96.58 AP 00193607 2/12/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 623.65 AP 00193607 2/12/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 629.00 AP 00193607 2/12/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 205.90 AP 00193607 2/12/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 256.45 AP 00193607 2/12/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 52.46 AP - 00193607 2/12/2003 EWlNG IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 119.99 AP-00193608 2/12/2003 EXCLUSIVEEMAGES 14.00 AP- 00193609 2/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.53 AP- 00193609 2/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 14.76 AP- 00193609 2/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 21.78 AP - 00193609 2/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.53 AP - 00193610 2/12/2003 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND INC 53.44 AP - 00193611 2/12/2003 FIFTEEN FREEWAY LLC 1,000.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,800.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 652.50 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 F1NESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 574.20 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 165.75 AP - 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,440.00 AP - 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 510.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 306.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 870.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 184.00 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP - 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 364.50 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 652.50 AP- 00193612 2/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 78.00 AP- 00193614 2/12/2003 FITNESS REPAIR SHOP 687.35 AP - 00193615 2/12/2003 FLORES, ARTURO AND DIANA 17,093.25 AP - 00193616 2/12/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 82.48 AP- 00193616 2/12/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 25.84 AP - 00193617 2/12/2003 FORECAST COMM R/E SVC INC 697.59 AP - 00193618 2/12/2003 FILAIJO, RAY 35.00 AP- 00193618 2/12/2003 FRAIJO, RAY 500.00 AP - 00193621 2/12/2003 GIANT INLAND EMPIRE RV CENTER 57.08 AP - 00193621 2/12/2003 GIANT INLAND EMPIRE RV CENTER 344.65 AP - 00193622 2/12/2003 GONSALVES AND SON,JOE A 2,500.00 AP- 00193623 2/12/2003 ORAINGER, WW 29.76 AP- 00193623 2/12/2003 GRAINGER, WW 16.59 User: chart- Carole Hart Page: 8 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~ 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193623 2/12/2003 GKA1NGER, WW 471.96 AP - 00193623 2/12/2003 GRAINGER, WW 102.57 AP - 00193624 2/12/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 65.43 AP - 00193624 2/12/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 98.17 AP - 00193624 2/12/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 182.50 AP - 00193625 2/12/2003 HALF CITY PRODUCTIONS 2,228.92 AP- 00193626 2/12/2003 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY 436.86 AP-00193627 2/12/2003 HARDY, BRADLEY 260.50 AP-00193628 2/12/2003 HEAGSTEDT, JASON 183.58 AP- 00193630 2/12/2003 HOCKWALD, CLARK 70.00 AP- 00193632 2/12/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 45.00 AP - 00193633 2/12/2003 HOLT'S AUTO ELECTRIC INC 344.80 AP- 00193635 2/12/2003 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 233.08 AP- 00193635 2/12/2003 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 419.36 AP - 00193636 2/12/2003 HULS ENVIRONMENTAL MGT LLC 6,518.75 AP-00193637 2/12/2003 HURST, CHERYL 288.50 AP- 00193638 2/12/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS [NC 121.35 AP - 00193640 2/12/2003 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION GROUP 77.24 AP ~ 00193640 2/12/2003 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION GROUP 114.94 AP - 00193642 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 160.80 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 537.60 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 200.55 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 1,500.45 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 325.50 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 327.60 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 198.45 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 3,445.05 AP - 00193643 - 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 308.70 AP - 00193643 2/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 86.10 AP - 00193644 2/12/2003 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 41.28 AP- 00193645 2/12/2003 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 662.13 AP - 00193646 2/12/2003 INSIGHT 573.52 AP-00193646 2/12/2003 INSIGHT 286.76 AP - 00193647 2/12/2003 INTERNATIONAL PAVEMENT SOLUTIONS 18,000.00 AP - 00193647 2/12/2003 INTERNATIONAL PAVEMENT SOLUTIONS 115,454.65 AP-00193648 2/12/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 194.40 AP-00193648 2/12/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 31.19 AP-00193648 2/12/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 41.97 AP- 00193648 2/12/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 31.19 AP - 00193648 2/12/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 64.13 AP- 00193648 2/12/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 79.68 AP - 00193649 2/12/2003 KAUFMAN AND BROAD 2,500.00 AP- 00193650 2/12/2003 KAUFMAN AND BROAD 628.00 AP- 00193651 2/12/2003 KAUFMAN AND BROAD 628.00 AP - 00193652 2/12/2003 KC PRINTING & GKAPHICS [NC 1,173.40 AP - 00193655 2/12/2003 KOBAYASHI AND ASSOCIATES 13,892.50 AP - 00193656 2/12/2003 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 550.00 AP - 00193657 2/12/2003 LAM, JACK 24.75 AP - 00193658 2/12/2003 LANCE SOLL AND LUNGHARD 3,417.57 AP- 00193659 2/12/2003 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 41.68 AP - 00193659 2/12/2003 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 209.12 AP - 00193660 2/12/2003 LEFF, ROY A 35.00 AP - 00193661 2/12/2003 LENNAR HOMES/US HOME CORP 500.00 AP - 00193662 2/12/2003 LENNAR HOMES/US HOME CORP 2,500.00 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 9 Current Date: 02/26/2 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRA1T_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portxait Layout Time:/~ 17:0 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193663 2/12/2003 LEWIS OPERATING CORP 210.00 AP - 00193665 2/12/2003 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA BTL CO 704.08 AP- 00193666 2/12/2003 LOWER, DARLENE 251.00 AP- 00193667 2/12/2003 LU'S LIGHTHOUSE INC 52.01 AP- 00193668 2/12/2003 LUSK COMPANY, THE 2,500.00 AP- 00193669 2/12/2003 M S A 30.00 AP ~ 00193669 2/12/2003 M $ A 55.00 AP- 00193670 2/12/2003 MARK CHRIS INC 154.09 AP- 00193670 2/12/2003 MARK CHRIS INC 143.88 AP-00193671 2/12/2003 MARKIII 500.00 AP - 00193672 2/12/2003 MARK III 500.00 AP- 00193673 2/12/2003 MARKIII 1,000.00 AP - 00193674 2/12/2003 MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 160.00 AP - 00193675 2/12/2003 MATT'S HARDWARE 14.43 AP - 00193675 2/12/2003 MATT'S HARDWARE 59.11 AP - 00193676 2/12/2003 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 309.64 AP- 00193677 2/12/2003 MEGA WAY ENTERPRISES 101,277.34 AP - 00193678 2/12/2003 MEYER, RICHARD 73.00 AP- 00193679 2/12/2003 MIDDLESEX OFFICE SUPPLY INC 76.80 AP- 00193680 2/12/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 231.84 AP- 00193680 2/12/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 120.93 AP-00193680 2/12/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 173.92 AP-00193680 2/12/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 324.84 AP-00193680 2/12/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 155.93 AP-00193680 2/12/2003 M1DWESTTAPE 27.98 AP- 00193681 2/12/2003 MOBILE STORAGE GROUP INC 144.68 AP- 00193682 2/12/2003 MORA, FELIX 73.00 AP- 00193683 2/12/2003 MORALES, MICHAEL 43.09 AP- 00193684 2/12/2003 MOTIVATIONAL SYSTEMS INC 628.00 AP - 00193685 2/12/2003 MOUNTAIN VIEW INLAND POOL 40.84 AP - 00193687 2/12/2003 N M A DUES C/O NAOMI ROBERTS 13.85 AP - 00193688 2/12/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 15.16 AP- 00193688 2/12/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 22.76 AP- 00193688 2/12/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 40.20 AP- 00193688 2/12/2003 NAPAAUTO PARTS 101.03 AP- 00193688 2/12/2003 NAPAAUTO PARTS 80.40 AP- 00193688 2/12/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 7.41 AP - 00193689 2/12/2003 NATIONAL ASSOC OF TOWN WATCH 25.00 AP - 00193690 2/12/2003 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS INC 128.45 AP- 00193691 2/12/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 24,689.07 AP-00193691 2/12/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 47.68 AP - 00193692 2/12/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 115.51 AP - 00193693 2/12/2003 NEC BusINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 200.00 AP - 00193693 2/12/2003 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC -155.00 AP - 00193693 2/I2/2003 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00193693 2/12/2003 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS 1NC 155.00 AP - 00193693 2/12/2003 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP- 00193694 2/12/2003 NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES 425.00 AP-00193695 2/12/2003 NG, FENG 44.00 AP - 00193696 2/12/2003 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 170.00 AP- 00193697 2/12/2003 NJUGUNA, SAMMY 40.00 AP - 00193698 2/12/2003 OAKLEY, ERYKA 41.00 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 1,252.87 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 414.98 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 10 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~., 17:0 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 94.36 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 209.04 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 167.40 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 6.06 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 290.84 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 381.60 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 7.76 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 247.05 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 7.18 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 64.09 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 268.23 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 23.91 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 2.63 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 18.32 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 13.54 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 18.52 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 3.49 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -13.54 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -23.91 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -18.53 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 3.49 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 23.35 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 57.39 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 12.97 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 147.10 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 49.26 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 4.11 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 2.22 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 272.95 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 189.75 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 44.32 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -28.78 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 38.08 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 53.61 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 2.65 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 79.02 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 25.28 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 18.83 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 130.38 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 266.62 AP 00193700 2/t2/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 87.06 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 33.90 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 381.12 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 18.99 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 2t.17 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 130.93 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 195.87 AP 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 170.15 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 70.25 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 186.19 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -18.43 AP - 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 144.39 AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 8.62 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -72.20 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 11 Current Date: 02/26/5 Repot t:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout TimeT/ 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP-00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -18.84 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 91.61 AP- 00193700 2/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 197.84 AP- 00193701 2/12/2003 OHIO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTILAL 77.35 AP- 00193702 2/12/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 333.94 AP - 00193703 2/12/2003 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION ][NC 219.23 AP- 00193704 2/12/2003 PACIFIC RAIN GUTTER INC 594.00 AP- 00193705 2/12/2003 PARS PHASE II SYSTEMS 3,500.00 AP - 00193708 2/12/2003 PEP BOYS 52.53 AP-00193708 2/12/2003 PEPBOYS 40.79 AP - 00193709 2/12/2003 PEP, DUE, ROBERT SHEA REAL ESTATE APPRAI: 3,800.00 AP- 00193710 2/12/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 185.80 AP- 00193710 2/12/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 517.05 AP-00193712 2/12/2003 PIMENTAL, FRANCES 70.00 AP-00193713 2/12/2003 PMI 897.02 AP- 00193714 2/12/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 4,605.12 AP- 00193714 2/12/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 7,202.87 AP- 00193715 2/12/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 513.74 AP - 00193715 2/12/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 122.30 AP- 00193715 2/12/2003 POMONA VALLEYKAWASAKI 3,986.82 AP - 00193715 2/12/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 858.29 AP- 00193715 2/12/2003 POMONA VALLEYKAWASAKI 397.71 AP - 00193715 2/12/2003 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 652.36 AP- 00193716 2/12/2003 POURHASSANIAN, ABBY 35.00 AP- 00193717 2/12/2003 POWELL, LEE 100.00 AP- 00193718 2/12/2003 PRAXAIRDISTRIBUTION INC 10.12 AP- 00193719 2/12/2003 PROSHOTPRODUCTS 15.92 AP - 00193720 2/12/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00193720 2/12/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00193720 2/12/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00193720 2/12/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00193721 2/12/2003 QUALITY ONE ENGRAVING 34.48 AP- 00193721 2/12/2003 QUALITY ONE ENGRAVING 34.48 AP - 00193722 2/12/2003 QUINTANA, ZITA 193.00 AP- 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 261.71 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 744.69 AP- 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND RAUTOMOTIVE 502.84 AP- 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 40.38 AP- 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND RAUTOMOTIVE 492.48 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 260.65 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 556.32 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 43.41 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 329.00 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 106.67 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 31.92 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 41.87 AP- 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 28.95 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 731.00 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 245.30 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 RAND R AUTOMOTIVE 30.95 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 30.00 AP- 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 43.41 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 28.95 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 53.64 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 12 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 28.95 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 30.89 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 29.92 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 162.59 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 174.02 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 43.81 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 31.92 AP - 00193723 2/12/2003 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 142.77 AP- 00193724 2/12/2003 R H F INC 123.31 AP - 00193725 2/12/2003 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC 2,500.00 AP - 00193726 2/12/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESERVE UNIT 134 2,583.00 AP - 00193727 2/12/2003 RANCHO TECH LLC 1,000.00 AP - 00193728 2/12/2003 RAULS AUTO TRIM INC 226.94 AP - 00193728 2/12/2003 RAULS AUTO TRIM 1NC 146.94 AP - 00193730 2/12/2003 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 11.91 AP - 00193730 2/12/2003 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 64.65 AP - 00193730 2/12/2003 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 67.33 AP - 00193730 2/12/2003 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 54.40 AP- 00193732 2/12/2003 REINHARDTSEN, DEBRA 282.50 AP - 00193733 2/12/2003 REXEL CALCON ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 9.25 AP - 00193734 2/12/2003 RI-I TECHNOLOGY 792.00 AP-00193734 2/12/2003 ICH TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP-00193734 2/12/2003 RH TECHNOLOGY 1,024.00 AP-00193735 2/12/2003 RIVAS, MIGUEL 100.00 AP- 00193736 2/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 328.03 AP - 00193737 2/12/2003 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 226.00 AP- 00193738 2/12/2003 ROBLES SR, PAUL P 57.50 AP- 00193738 2/12/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 85.00 AP- 00193738 2/12/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 235.00 AP - 00193740 2/12/2003 ROTARY CORPORATION 278.34 AP - 00193741 2/12/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 299.20 AP - 00193741 2/12/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 299.20 AP - 00193741 2/12/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 299.20 AP - 00193741 2/12/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 429.67 AP- 00193741 2/12/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 286.43 AP- 00193741 2/12/2003 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC 299.20 AP - 00193742 2/12/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMEN' 289.68 AP - 00193743 2/12/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMEN' 220.00 AP - 00193744 2/12/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRIC 550.00 AP - 00193745 2/12/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY SHERIFFS 122.00 AP - 00193746 2/12/2003 SAN BEILNARDINO COUNTY 27,489.73 AP- 00193747 2/12/2003 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 24,040.00 AP - 00193748 2/12/2003 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 66.81 AP - 00193748 2/12/2003 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 193.95 AP - 00193750 2/12/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 54.37 AP-00193750 2/12/2003 SBC/PACIFICBELL 54.37 AP - 00193752 2/12/2003 SCHNEIDER ENTERPRISES 500.00 AP - 00193755 2/12/2003 SIMS, DIANA LAURIE 218.50 AP - 00193755 2/12/2003 SIMS, DIANA LAURIE 250.00 AP-00193756 2/12/2003 SIR SPEEDY 37.93 AP - 00193760 2/12/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 2,443.88 AP - 00193760 2/12/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 358.84 AP - 00193760 2/12/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 395.97 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,000.90 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 13 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portxait Layout Tim~: A 17:0 /.3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 188.81 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.47 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 64.35 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.17 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 8.08 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 333.97 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 224.25 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 168.83 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4.74 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29,900.15 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.39 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.23 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 212.15 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 536.82 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFOKNIA EDISON 50.31 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 453.14 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 111.75 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 853.59 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 438.44 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 90.71 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.27 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.93 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 46.89 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.29 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFOILNIA EDISON 28.56 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 343.04 AP - 00193764 . 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 290.41 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 211.93 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 410.72 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 326.83 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.43 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 470.38 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.25 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.38 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.90 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 68.33 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.90 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 196.71 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 362.37 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERNCALIFOKNIA EDISON 22.00 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.57 AP-00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.59 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 70.54 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.53 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFO1LNIA EDISON 40.53 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.25 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.33 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 164.66 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.52 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.31 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 14 Current Date: 02/26/5 Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~ / 17:0 /'7' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.52 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.17 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.33 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.84 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.67 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.17 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.76 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ED1SON 12.53 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.99 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.78 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.33 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.52 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.33 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.13 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.77 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.67 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.47 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 68.61 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.73 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.47 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.52 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.52 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44.63 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.25 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.87 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.64 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.89 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.14 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.98 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.53 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.84 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.03 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 53.84 AP 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.61 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 78.77 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 213.55 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.05 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.53 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.91 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.66 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.39 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.78 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 182.01 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.91 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.59 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 127.60 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.17 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 15 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTKAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:. ~., 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.20 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.68 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 262.86 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 412.60 AP - 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 359.13 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.76 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,851.87 AP- 00193764 2/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 822.80 AP - 00193766 2/12/2003 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP 1NC 1,662.46 AP- 00193767 2/12/2003 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 1,134.00 AP- 00193768 2/12/2003 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 791.97 AP - 00193769 2/12/2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOAR 71.37 AP-00193770 2/12/2003 STERICYCLEiNC 490.00 AP- 00193771 2/12/2003 STETKEVICH, OREST 113.00 AP-00193772 2/12/2003 STOFA, JOSEPH 21.00 AP - 00193773 2/12/2003 SURE SHRED DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION 20.00 AP - 00193774 2/12/2003 T AND D INSTALLATIONS 103.61 AP - 00193775 2/12/2003 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 470.09 AP - 00193776 2/12/2003 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 218.00 AP-00193777 2/12/2003 TCSA SOUTH 35.00 AP- 00193779 2/12/2003 TETRA TECH ASL INC 8,795.00 AP- 00193780 2/12/2003 TOMARK SPORTS INC 137.77 AP- 00193781 2/12/2003 TRIVINO, GUILLERMO M 100.00 AP - 00193782 2/12/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 2,043.00 AP - 00193782 2/12/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 2,500.00 AP- 00193782 2/12/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 12,858.50 AP- 00193782 2/12/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 18,194.75 AP- 00193783 2/12/2003 U S BANK TRUST 49,577.50 AP- 00193783 2/12/2003 U S BANK TRUST 79,461.05 AP - 00193784 2/12/2003 U S BANK TRUST 133,663.35 AP - 00193784 2/12/2003 U S BANK TRUST 100,073.67 AP - 00193784 2/12/2003 U S BANK TRUST 106,661.88 AP - 00193784 2/12/2003 U S BANK TRUST 11,302.87 AP- 00193784 2/12/2003 U S BANK TRUST 77,636.52 AP- 00193785 2/12/2003 U T I 163.85 AP- 00193785 2/12/2003 U T I 114.31 AP- 00193786 2/12/2003 UNIQUE CREATIONS 49.17 AP- 00193787 2/12/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 20.23 AP- 00193787 2/12/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 30.59 AP- 00193787 2/12/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 37.84 AP- 00193787 2/12/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 64.00 AP- 00193787 2/12/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 31.58 AP-00193788 2/12/2003 UNITEDWAY 598.32 AP-00193789 2/12/2003 US POSTMASTER 150.00 AP- 00193790 2/12/2003 US POSTMASTER 824.00 AP- 00193791 2/12/2003 VERBERA, PHIL 2,000.00 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 27.86 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 177.53 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.86 AP ~ 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 166.53 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 73.75 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 16 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pom:ait Layout Tim~ 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 .Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.85 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.91 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 62.12 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.34 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 90.04 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 90.04 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERiZON 88.20 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 374.25 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 27.48 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 90.04 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 81.65 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 42.01 AP ~00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 76.45 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 202.72 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 563.11 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 458.13 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 458.13 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 46.45 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 47.18 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 23.15 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 54.40 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 26.78 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.77 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 100.32 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.51 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 21.04 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 89.71 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VEPdZON 385.76 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 31.89 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 463.67 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 213.14 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 60.59 AP ~ 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 53.37 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 32.38 AP-00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 22.40 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.85 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 27.86 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 17 Current Date: 02/26/.~ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Timej ~,~ 17:0 / -/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 311.20 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 57.85 AP- 00193793 2/12/2003 VERIZON 120.70 AP- 00193794 2/12/2003 VERIZON 1,650.00 AP- 00193795 2/12/2003 VIANNI, SIDNEY 54.00 AP- 00193796 2/12/2003 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 600.00 AP - 00193797 2/12/2003 VILLAGOMEZ, CHAP, LEI 30.24 AP - 00193797 2/12/2003 VILLAGOMEZ, CHARLEI 8.76 AP-00193798 2/12/2003 VISTA PAINT 241.28 AP- 00193798 2/12/2003 VISTAPAINT 48.33 AP- 00193798 2/12/2003 VISTAPAINT -9.70 AP- 00193799 2/12/2003 VOLM, LIZA 112.50 AP - 00193800 2/12/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 22.92 AP- 00193800 2/12/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 64.14 AP - 00193800 2/12/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 258.60 AP-00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 751.62 AP - 00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 398.24 AP- 00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 321.20 AP- 00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 49.55 AP-00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 352.61 AP-00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 477.85 AP- 00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 549.65 AP- 00193801 2/12/2003 WAXIE 370.08 AP - 00193803 2/12/2003 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS INC 356.70 AP - 00193804 2/12/2003 WILLIAM LYON COMPANY,THE 500.00 AP- 00193804 2/12/2003 WILLIAM LYON COMPANY,THE 1,256.00 AP - 00193804 2/12/2003 WILLIAM LYON COMPANY,THE 500.00 AP-00193805 2/12/2003 WORLDCOM 721.28 AP-00193806 2/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 199.82 AP - 00193806 2/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 150.53 AP-00193806 2/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 1,794.04 AP- 00193806 2/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 150.53 AP- 00193807 2/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 32.94 AP-00193808 2/12/2003 YEE, LARRY 85.00 AP - 00193809 2/12/2003 ZEP MANUFACT~JRING COMPANY 614.23 AP- 00193810 2/12/2003 ZWISSLER, JAMES 140.00 AP- 00193811 2/13/2003 WELLS FARGO BANK 32,507.26 AP- 00193811 2/13/2003 WELLS FARGO BANK 36,969.56 AP- 00193811 2/13/2003 WELLS FARGO BANK 188,969.21 AP - 00193812 2/13/2003 ALLEN, SYLVESTER R 147.81 AP - 00193813 2/18/2003 USPS/PITNEY BOWES 10,000.00 AP- 00193814 2/19/2003 A 1 SMOG AND REPAIR 98.25 AP - 00193815 2/19/2003 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 35.02 AP - 00193815 2/19/2003 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 24.73 AP - 00193815 2/19/2003 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB [NC 37.16 AP- 00193816 2/19/2003 A JONTUE, ROSEANN 3,717.90 AP- 00193817 2/19/2003 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 36.25 AP-00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 32.33 AP-00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 493.67 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 18 Current Date: 02/26/2 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Tim~g 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 71.57 AP- 00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 30.12 AP 00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 21.55 AP 00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 59.00 AP 00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 166.33 AP 00193818 2/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 102.97 AP 00193819 2/19/2003 ABLAC 16.39 AP 00193820 2/19/2003 ABLETRONICS 10.51 AP 00193821 2/19/2003 ABRAMS MAIl AND KAHN REPORTING SERVIC 511.40 AP 00193822 2/19/2003 ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY 367.00 AP 00193823 2/19/2003 ADDAI, MAISHA 122.25 AP 00193825 2/19/2003 A1RGAS WEST 11.65 AP 00193829 2/19/2003 ALPERTS PRINTING 556.22 AP 00193830 2/19/2003 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 469.17 AP 00193831 2/19/2003 ALVAREZ, MANUEL 40.00 AP 00193832 2/19/2003 AMERICAN RED CROSS 80.00 AP 00193832 2/19/2003 AMERICAN RED CROSS 60.00 AP - 00193834 2/19/2003 AMONES, LAUREN 23.00 AP- 00193835 2/19/2003 ARBOR NURSERY INC 641.88 AP - 00193835 2/19/2003 ARBOR NURSERY 1NC 641.88 AP- 00193835 2/19/2003 ARBOR NURSERY INC 405.76 AP- 00193836 2/19/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 417.00 AP- 00193836 2/19/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 1,216.08 AP - 00193836 2/19/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 1,216.64 AP-00193837 2/19/2003 ASSI SECURITY 105.00 AP- 00193838 2/19/2003 AUDIO EDITIONS 8.58 AP - 00193839 2/19/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 381.36 AP- 00193840 2/19/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 221.73 AP- 00193841 2/19/2003 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 3,759.00 AP- 00193841 2/19/2003 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 3,091.00 AP- 00193841 2/19/2003 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 1,425.00 AP-00193842 2/19/2003 BEAUMONT, LISA 51.00 AP-00193843 2/19/2003 BIASC 149.00 AP- 00193844 2/19/2003 BODYSHOTS 654.50 AP-00193844 2/19/2003 BODYSHOTS 693.00 AP- 00193845 2/19/2003 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 19.40 AP- 00193845 2/19/2003 BOOKS ON TAPE 1NC 32.33 AP- 00193845 2/19/2003 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 6.47 AP- 00193845 2/19/2003 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 19.40 AP - 00193846 2/19/2003 BORDNER, MARGIE 80.00 AP - 00193846 2/19/2003 BORDNER, MARGIE 45.00 AP- 00193846 2/19/2003 BORDNER, MARGIE 144.00 AP- 00193846 2/19/2003 BORDNER, MARGIE 134.40 AP- 00193846 2/19/2003 BORDNER, MARGIE 153.60 AP- 00193846 2/19/2003 BORDNER, MARGIE 115.20 AP- 00193847 2/19/2003 BOYLE ENGINEERING 4,077.73 AP - 00193848 2/19/2003 BRIANNA BALLAY AND HER ATTORNEYS 5,000.00 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 323.41 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 131.24 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 107.75 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 36.66 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 61.13 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.29 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 19 Current Date: 02/26E: Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:.,n 17:0 /¥ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.13 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.89 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.68 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 23.66 AP-00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 379.52 AP-00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 763.28 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 1,009.30 AP - 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 234.36 AP-00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 9.37 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 206.23 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 28.12 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00193850 2/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 820.25 AP - 00193851 2/19/2003 BRUNSWICK DEER CREEK LANES 588.00 AP- 00193852 2/19/2003 BURKE, KAREN 135.60 AP- 00193855 2/19/2003 CANABER, NONETTE 62.00 AP- 00193856 2/19/2003 CARDIN, SALLY 350.00 AP- 00193856 2/19/2003 CARDIN, SALLY 140.00 AP- 00193856 2/19/2003 CARDIN, SALLY 280.00 AP-00193856 2/19/2003 CARDIN, SALLY 140.00 AP- 00193857 2/19/2003 CCRC 30 LLC 7,800.00 AP-00193858 2/19/2003 CHARTER MEDIA 1,241.60 AP - 00193858 2/19/2003 CHARTER MEDIA 540.80 AP - 00193859 2/19/2003 CIRCLE SOLUTIONS INC. 330.60 AP - 00193860 2/19/2003 CLABBY, SANDKA 1,000.00 AP - 00193861 2/19/2003 CLARK, KAREN 259.20 AP-00193861 2/19/2003 CLARK, KAREN 324.80 AP-00193862 2/19/2003 CLEMONS, BEVERLY 34.00 AP- 00193863 2/19/2003 COAST RECREATION INC 879.33 AP- 00193863 2/19/2003 COAST RECREATION INC 800.00 AP- 00193863 2/19/2003 COAST RECREATION INC 9,276.32 AP - 00193864 2/19/2003 COASTAL BUILDING SERVICES 1NC 15,773.00 AP- 00193865 2/19/2003 COBB, SUSAN 36.00 AP - 00193866 2/19/2003 COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE INC 158.40 AP- 00193866 2/19/2003 COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE INC 277.20 AP- 00193866 2/19/2003 COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE INC 574.20 AP - 00193866 2/19/2003 COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE INC 138.60 AP - 00193866 2/19/2003 COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE INC 594.00 AP - 00193867 2/19/2003 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ] 1,169.16 AP- 00193868 2/19/2003 COPP CRUSHING CORP, DAN 10.00 AP - 00193868 2/19/2003 COPP CRUSHING CORP, DAN 10.00 AP- 00193868 2/19/2003 COPP CRUSHING COP, P, DAN 20.00 AP-00193869 2/19/2003 CORBETT-WOOD, YONETTE 28.00 AP- 00193870 2/19/2003 COSTA, WENDY 60.00 AP- 00193871 2/19/2003 COVIS, MELANIE 200.00 AP - 00193872 2/19/2003 COX, JACQUIE 24.84 AP - 00193873 2/19/2003 CRRA 25.00 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 106.01 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 133.15 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATERDIST 134.27 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 99.10 User: chart- Carole Hart Page: 20 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG PORTRAIT RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 335.12 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 478.29 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 69.23 AP- 00193875 2/I9/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 52.89 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 140.45 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 159.66 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 41.42 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 146.63 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 291.86 AP - 00193875 2/I9/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 86.19 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 86.19 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 60.99 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 75.20 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 617.01 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 73.14 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,787.37 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 95.80 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 247.57 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 57.90 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 59.96 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 114.70 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 80.56 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 208.07 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 142.51 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 70.26 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 177.53 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 123.97 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 210.49 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 109.19 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 284.29 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,048.91 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 93.95 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 109.55 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 283.47 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 287.59 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 129.12 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 264.72 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 83.65 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 156.93 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 211.52 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 131.85 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 138.03 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 197.77 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 178.20 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATERDIST 157.60 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 335.56 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 512.13 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 176.35 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 122.94 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 84.13 AP ~ 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 84.13 AP ~ 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 131.85 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 166.87 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 135.97 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 21 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTKAIT_RC- CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:_ 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 86.53 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATERDIST 163.78 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 312.46 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 255.81 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 206.01 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 170.23 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 152.81 AP - 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 171.26 AP- 00193875 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 240.36 AP - 00193876 2/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 1,015.00 AP - 00193877 2/19/2003 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 471.95 AP - 00193877 2/19/2003 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 107.75 AP-00193878 2/19/2003 DAGHDEVIR]AN, KATHY 145.80 AP- 00193878 2/19/2003 DAGHDEVIR]AN, KATHY 455.63 AP- 00193879 2/19/2003 DALY, JASON 58.87 AP- 00193880 2/19/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 5,041.25 AP - 00193880 2/19/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 34,445.00 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 19.25 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 82.50 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 105.00 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 300.00 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 330.00 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 313.50 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 150.00 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 132.00 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 115.50 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 198.00 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 198.00 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 115.50 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 38.50 AP-00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 66.00 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 16.50 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 247.50 AP- 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERRIFIC 264.00 AP - 00193881 2/19/2003 DANCE TERPdFIC 70.00 AP- 00193882 2/19/2003 DAZALLA, CHERYL 68.00 AP- 00193883 2/19/2003 DE LEISE, JENAE 519.24 AP- 00193884 2/19/2003 DE LEON, STEPHANIE 88.00 AP - 00193885 2/19/2003 DELTA MICROIMAG[NG [NC 1,711.78 AP- 00193886 2/19/2003 DICK, ERIC 50.00 AP- 00193886 2/19/2003 DICK, ERIC 50.00 AP- 00193887 2/19/2003 DIETER]CH POST COMPANY 446.68 AP - 00193888 2/19/2003 DIRECTV 27.99 AP- 00193889 2/19/2003 DUFFY, RICK 472.50 AP- 00193890 2/19/2003 DYAN [NC, DIANE 126.00 AP- 00193890 2/19/2003 DYAN [NC, DIANE 252.00 AP- 00193890 2/19/2003 DYAN [NC, DIANE 54.00 AP- 00193890 2/19/2003 DYAN INC, DIANE 162.00 AP-00193892 2/19/2003 EMPIRE HOMES 4,960.28 AP- 00193894 2/19/2003 EMPLOYMENT SYSTEMS 1NC. 4,847.82 AP- 00193895 2/19/2003 ESGIL CORPORATION 43,625.94 AP-00193895 2/19/2003 ESGILCORPORATION 13,609.04 AP- 00193896 2/19/2003 EW1NG IRKIGATION PRODUCTS 417.64 AP- 00193896 2/19/2003 EW1NG IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 233.13 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 22 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Tiln~e:~. 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193896 2/19/2003 EWING IRPdGATION PRODUCTS 43.04 AP - 00193896 2/19/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 80.10 AP- 00193896 2/19/2003 EW1NG IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 62.03 AP - 00193896 2/19/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 256.45 AP- 00193896 2/19/2003 EW1NG IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 256.45 AP- 00193897 2/19/2003 FELIX, ADRIAN 40.00 AP - 00193898 2/19/2003 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND INC 120.68 AP - 00193898 2/19/2003 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND INC 1,771.35 AP - 00193899 2/19/2003 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 1,500:00 AP- 00193899 2/19/2003 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 1,500.00 AP - 00193899 2/19/2003 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 1,500.00 AP - 00193900 2/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 341.25 AP - 00193900 2/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 761.25 AP- 00193900 2/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP- 00193900 2/19/2003 F1NESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP- 00193900 2/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 736.00 AP- 00193900 2/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,440.00 AP-00193902 2/19/2003 FISHERSCIENT1FIC 965.73 AP - 00193903 2/19/2003 FURNARE, CHARLES 30.00 AP- 00193904 2/19/2003 GAILMATERIALS 1,522.30 AP - 00193905 2/19/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 57.06 AP-00193905 2/19/2003 GALEGROUP,THE 148.43 AP - 00193905 2/19/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 148.43 AP-00193905 2/19/2003 GALEGROUP,THE 149.24 AP - 00193905 2/19/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 54.14 AP - 00193906 2/19/2003 GARCIA, V1VIAN 32.40 AP - 00193907 2/19/2003 GARRETT CONCRETE CORING AND SAWING 13 864.00 AP - 00193908 2/19/2003 GIORDANO, MARIANNA 81.00 AP ~ 00193908 2/19/2003 GIORDANO, MARIANNA 36.00 AP- 00193909 2/19/2003 GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING 85.92 AP-00193910 2/19/2003 GRAINGER, WW 80.35 AP - 00193911 2/19/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 119.71 AP - 00193911 2/19/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 78.47 AP - 00193911 2/19/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 78.47 AP - 00193911 2/19/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 61.78 AP - 00193912 2/19/2003 GREG, JOHNSON 27.00 AP- 00193913 2/19/2003 HAMBELTON, JIMME 73.00 AP- 00193914 , 2/19/2003 HANGER 18, LLC 112.00 AP - 00193914 2/19/2003 HANGER 18, LLC 70.00 AP - 00193915 2/19/2003 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY 295.95 AP - 00193917 2/19/2003 HCS CUTLER STEEL CO 566.40 AP-00193918 2/19/2003 HEILIG, KELLY 156.60 AP- 00193918 2/19/2003 HEILIO, KELLY 255.00 AP- 00193918 2/19/2003 HEILIG, KELLY 165.30 AP- 00193918 2/19/2003 HEILIG, KELLY 226.20 AP- 00193919 2/19/2003 HERRERA, ANDREA 55.00 AP - 00193920 2/19/2003 HOCKEY WEST 1,215.11 AP - 00193921 2/19/2003 HOCKWALD, CLARK 35.00 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 380.63 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 188.29 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO 1NC 198.36 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO 1NC 48.44 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 289.31 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 452.85 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 23 ~ Current Date: 02/26/2 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portxait Layout Ti~3 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO [NC 188.57 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 45.00 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO [NC 175.09 AP - 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO [NC 378.48 AP- 00193922 2/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO [NC 45.00 AP- 00193924 2/19/2003 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 33.92 AP-00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 168.00 AP-00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 48.00 AP-00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 73.50 AP - 00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 42.00 AP-00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 216.00 AP-00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 108.00 AP-00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 120.00 AP - 00193926 2/19/2003 HOYT RAYMOND 72.00 AP-00193927 2/19/2003 HSU, iTEVE 486.00 AP- 00193928 2/19/2003 HUANG, PRUDENCE 2,025.00 AP - 00193929 2/19/2003 HUBBARD, JOSEPH 5.00 AP - 00193929 2/19/2003 HUBBARD, JOSEPH 111.00 AP-00193930 2/19/2003 HUDDLESTON, PRISCILLA 120.00 AP- 00193931 2/19/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS [NC 255.31 AP - 00193931 2/19/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS [NC 32.88 AP- 00193931 2/19/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS [NC 41.44 AP - 00193931 2/19/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 310.10 AP- 00193931 2/19/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS [NC 67.03 AP - 00193931 2/19/2003 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS liNC 252.96 AP - 00193932 2/19/2003 INLAND INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL GROUP 57.80 AP - 00193932 2/19/2003 INLAND INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL GROUP 113.80 AP - 00193932 2/19/2003 INLAND INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL GROUP 35.70 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 191.10 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 552.30 AP- 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 552.30 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 57.75 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 93.45 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 91.35 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 240.45 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 205.80 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 470.40 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 397.95 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 454.65 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 139.65 AP - 00193933 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 695.10 AP- 00193934 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY 396.90 AP- 00193934 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY 242.55 AP- 00193934 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY 198.45 AP - 00193934 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY 176.40 AP - 00193934 2/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY 308.70 AP- 00193935 2/19/2003 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 102.35 AP - 00193935 2/19/2003 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 62.06 AP- 00193935 2/19/2003 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 35.01 AP - 00193935 2/19/2003 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 387.90 AP - 00193935 2/19/2003 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 92.07 AP - 00193937 2/19/2003 INT'L ASSOC. OF FIREFIGHTERS HEALTH & SA] 2,380.00 AP ~ 00193938 2/19/2003 INTRAVAIA ROCK AND SAND 298.53 AP- 00193938 2/19/2003 1NTRAVAIA ROCKAND SAND 210.00 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 24 Current Date: 02/26/2 Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC ~ CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time.'_,/17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 thr6ugh 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00193939 2/19/2003 IRON AGE CORPORATION 75.00 AP 00193940 2/19/2003 IRON MOUNTAIN OSDP 401.75 AP 00193941 2/19/2003 JANECK, LINDA 16.57 AP 00193941 2/19/2003 JANECK, LINDA 19.65 AP 00193941 2/19/2003 JANECK, L1NDA 9.50 AP 00193942 2/19/2003 JOHNSON, TASHA 113.00 AP 00193943 2/19/2003 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 6,418.75 AP 00193944 2/19/2003 JONES, JAMES 240.00 AP 00193945 2/19/2003 ICAMAL, MOHAMMED 4.60 AP 00193946 2/19/2003 KELLEY BLUE BOOK 53.63 AP 00193947 2/19/2003 KIIARINA, KIRK 60.00 AP 00193948 2/19/2003 KIEHLKATHY 62.00 AP 00193950 2/19/2003 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY 132.33 AP 00193951 2/19/2003 KORANDACONSTRUCTION 3,800.00 AP 00193952 2/19/2003 KOZLOVICH, DEBBIE 2,214.00 AP 00193954 2/19/2003 LANCE, BRETT 30.00 AP 00193955 2/19/2003 LAU, NANCY 113.00 AP 00193956 2/19/2003 LAWSON PRODUCTS [NC 306.29 AP-00193957 2/19/2003 LAYTON, TERRI 55.00 AP - 00193958 2/19/2003 LEHIGH SAFETY SHOE COMPANY 75.00 AP - 00193958 2/19/2003 LEHIGH SAFETY SHOE COMPANY 150.00 AP- 00193958 2/19/2003 LEHIGH SAFETY SHOE COMPANY 75.00 AP- 00193959 2/19/2003 LEMUS, SUSANNA 67.00 AP - 001~3960 2/19/2003 LEWIS AND LEWIS 21.45 AP- 00193961 2/19/2003 LEXIS NEXIS MATTHEW BENDER 3,630.39 AP- 00193963 2/19/2003 LIM, HEATHER 1,313.00 AP - 00193964 2/19/2003 LIVE OAK DOG OBEDIENCE 408.00 AP- 00193966 2/19/2003 LONG, JULIE 114.10 AP- 00193967 2/19/2003 LOPEZ, LUPITA 200.00 AP - 00193968 2/19/2003 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA BTL CO 192.97 AP-00193969 2/19/2003 LOZOYA, GINA 63.00 AP- 00193970 2/19/2003 MACDONALD, KAREN 77.00 AP - 00193971 2/19/2003 MAHMOND, MOHAMED 54.00 AP - 00193973 2/19/2003 MANGUNSONG, BONAR 2.50 AP - 00193974 2/19/2003 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,342.87 AP-00193975 2/19/2003 MARSHALL PLUMBING 303.12 AP-00193975 2/19/2003 MARSHALL PLUMBING 169.06 AP-00193976 2/19/2003 MARSHALL, SYLVIA 993.90 AP - 00193978 2/19/2003 MDM T SHIRT AND PROMO 3,604.41 AP- 00193979 2/19/2003 MEYER, RICHARD 100.00 AP-00193980 2/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 108.96 AP-00193980 2/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 120.94 AP-00193980 2/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 225.93 AP - 00193980 2/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 54.96 AP- 00193980 2/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 143.95 AP- 00193981 2/19/2003 MIGLORINI, ERNIE 46.00 AP- 00193983 2/19/2003 MILLS, CAREY 470.40 AP- 00193984 2/19/2003 MISSION REPORGRAPHICS 5.39 AP-00193984 2/19/2003 MISSIONREPORGRAPHICS 5.39 AP- 00193985 2/19/2003 MITCHELL, WALTERZ 728.00 AP - 00193986 2/19/2003 MMASC 20.00 AP- 00193988 2/19/2003 MOE, JOHN 282.00 AP- 00193989 2/19/2003 MONARCH COIN & SECURITY 1,140.00 AP-00193990 2/19/2003 MOREAU, CHADD 699.00 - User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 25 Current Date: 02/26/~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Tim~ ,,* 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00193991 2/19/2003 MT BALDY UNITED WAY 51.00 AP 00193992 2/19/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 8,508.19 AP 00193993 2/19/2003 NATIONAL GRAPHIC SUPPLY 106.89 AP 00193993 2/19/2003 NATIONAL GRAPHIC SUPPLY 12T37 AP 00193994 2/19/2003 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION 59.85 AP 00193995 2/19/2003 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION 77.00 AP 00193996 2/19/2003 NATIONS RENT 59.27 AP 00193996 2/19/2003 NATIONS RENT 89.82 AP 00193998 2/19/2003 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 105.00 AP 00193999 2/19/2003 NJUGUNA, SAMMY 70.00 AP 00194000 2/19/2003 NOLO PRESS 55.55 AP 00194000 2/19/2003 NOLOPRESS 116.90 AP - 00194001 2/19/2003 NORIEGA, CAZANDRA 200.00 AP - 00194002 2/19/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 50.75 AP - 00194002 2/19/2003 O C B REPROGRAPHICS I'NC 92.05 AP- 00194003 2/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 22.62 AP-00194003 2/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 33.86 AP-00194003 2/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 27.76 AP - 00194004 2/19/2003 OMNITRANS 355.00 AP - 00194005 2/19/2003 ONTARIO ICE SKATING CENTER 1,885.80 AP - 00194006 2/19/2003 OTSUKA, DENNIS 21.60 AP - 00194007 2/19/2003 OTT, LAURA 84.00 AP - 00194007 2/19/2003 OTT, LAURA 63.00 AP-00194007 2/19/2003 OTT, LAURA 216.00 AP - 00194008 2/19/2003 OTT, SHARON 70.00 AP-00194008 2/19/2003 OTT, SHARON 87.50 AP - 00194009 2/19/2003 P.M. PRODUCTIONS MOBILE MUSIC 225.00 AP- 00194010 2/19/2003 PACIFIC VIDEO PRODUCTS 31.00 AP- 00194010 2/19/2003 PACIFIC VIDEO PRODUCTS 3,363.13 AP - 00194011 2/19/2003 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 45,647.25 AP- 00194012 2/19/2003 PAPER DIRECT INC 52.92 AP- 00194013 2/19/2003 PARKER DIRECTORY 75.86 AP - 00194014 2/19/2003 PARKER, SHANNON 672.00 AP- 00194015 2/19/2003 PATTON SALES CORP 57.20 AP - 00194016 2/19/2003 PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 75.00 AP - 00194016 2/19/2003 PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 75.00 AP-00194017 2/19/2003 PEKEZ, HECTOR 73.00 AP - 00194018 2/19/2003 PINHEIRO, RAFAEL LEON 110.00 AP-00194020 2/19/2003 PORTOSAN 44.08 AP- 00194021 2/19/2003 POURHASSANIAN, ABBY 165.00 AP- 00194022 2/19/2003 PRAXAIRDISTRIBUTION INC 139.89 AP-00194023 2/19/2003 PRECISION GYMNASTICS 921.20 AP - 00194024 2/19/2003 RADEMAKER, CHARLOTTE 62.00 AP - 00194026 2/19/2003 RCPFA 4,101.68 AP- 00194027 2/19/2003 RECORDED BOOKS LLC 6.42 AP ~ 00194028 2/19/2003 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES 188.13 AP - 00194029 2/19/2003 RIGSBY, RUTH 40.00 AP- 00194032 2/19/2003 ROAD WORKS INC 720.00 AP - 00194033 2/19/2003 RODRIGUEZ, ERMA 30.00 AP- 00194034 2/19/2003 RODRIQUEZ, SUSAN 77.00 AP - 00194035 2/19/2003 ROJAS, KATIE 60.00 AP - 00194036 2/19/2003 ROTARY CORPORATION 279.07 AP - 00194037 2/19/2003 RUBIO, MICHELLE 23.00 AP - 00194038 2/19/2003 SAFELITE GLASS CORP 309.36 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 26 Current Date: 02/26/5 Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC- CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~, 17:0 .2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00194039 2/19/2003 SAMS CLUB MEMBERSHIP 60.00 AP 00194040 2/19/2003 SAN ANTONIO MATERIALS 12T31 AP 00194042 2/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 25.00 AP 00194043 2/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 19,625.00 AP 00194044 2/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 300.00 AP 00194045 2/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 11.00 AP 00194046 2/19/2003 SBCSS 30.00 AP 00194048 2/19/2003 SECRETARY OF STATE 40.00 AP 00194049 2/19/2003 SENCHAL, CAL 69.00 AP 00194049 2/19/2003 SENCHAL, CAL 73.50 AP 00194049 2/19/2003 SENCHAL, CAL 168.00 AP 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 2,956.09 AP 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 1,584.40 AP 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 6,236.22 AP- 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 67.50 AP - 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 58.00 AP - 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 66.32 AP - 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 51.15 AP - 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 55.16 AP- 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 59.73 AP - 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 489.78 AP- 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 49.55 AP- 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 2,826.63 AP- 00194051 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 28.87 AP- 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 40,378.22 AP - 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 4,212.90 AP - 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 14,992.80 AP- 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CAL1F EDISON CO 19,429.89 AP - 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 12,120.96 AP- 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 2,868.67 AP- 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 181.47 AP- 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 44.24 AP - 00194052 2/19/2003 SO CALIF EDISON CO 2,727.75 AP- 00194053 2/t9/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 379.75 AP- 00194053 2/19/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 244.95 AP-00194054 2/19/2003 SORCINI, EMMA 385.50 AP- 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 253.72 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.23 AP- 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 195.51 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 488.25 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.90 AP ~ 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.23 AP- 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.80 AP- 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 191.65 AP- 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP- 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,947.15 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.80 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.85 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.25 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 271.94 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 173.81 AP - 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.10 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 27 Current Date: 02/26/7: Report:CK_AGENDA_REG PORTRAIT RC- CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Timeg,.~ 17:0 .2/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through'2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 141.19 AP 00194055 2/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.02 AP 00194056 2/19/2003 STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 232.78 AP 00194057 2/19/2003 STETKEVICH, OREST 100.00 AP 00194058 2/19/2003 STORYTELLERS& TROUABADOURSUNLMTD 225.00 AP 00194059 2/19/2003 SUNRISE FORD 40.78 AP 00194061 2/19/2003 TECHNOLOGY GRANT NEWS 85.00 AP 00194062 2/19/2003 TERRY, DONNA 820.80 AP 00194063 2/19/2003 TOLLBROS 1NC 150.00 AP 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 3,049.60 AP 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 945.04 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 47.73 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 751.35 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 289.77 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 10,378.50 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 20,653.20 AP- 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREENLANDCARE REGIONAL 56,757.83 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 14,601.98 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 47.93 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 14,261.29 AP- 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 12,421.74 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 474.66 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 74.32 AP - 00194065 2/19/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 894.08 AP - 00194066 2/19/2003 TUNNICLIFF, JAN 73.00 AP- 00194067 2/19/2003 TUTORWHIZ 1NC 1,304.10 AP - 00194068 2/19/2003 U T ! 177.54 AP- 00194068 2/19/2003 UT I 222.93 AP - 00194069 2/19/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 2,254.00 AP - 00194069 2/19/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 280.00 AP- 00194069 2/19/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 480.00 AP - 00194069 2/19/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 1,840.00 AP - 00194069 2/19/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 280.00 AP - 00194072 2/19/2003 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P, 47,276.83 AP - 00194073 2/19/2003 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 563.25 AP- 00194075 2/19/2003 UPLAND TENNIS CLUB 1,051.20 AP - 00194078 2/19/2003 VAN BOXTEL, JENNIFER 55.00 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 85.16 AP-00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP-00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.28 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 27.86 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 83.93 AP-00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 40.42 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 27.48 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VE1LIZON 1,347.25 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VEPdZON 144.27 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 96.22 AP - 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 27.91 AP - 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 176.86 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 27.66 AP - 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 89.61 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 28 Current Date: 02/26/2 Report:CK AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Tim_e:~,~ 17:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 2/11/2003 through 2/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 28.86 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 129.17 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 35.61 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 179.37 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.06 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 28.86 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP - 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP-00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 66.33 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 27.86 AP-00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP- 00194080 2/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP - 00194081 2/19/2003 VERIZON 32.45 AP - 00194082 2/19/2003 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANANGER VPM 500.00 AP-00194083 2/19/2003 VISTAPAINT 53.70 AP - 00194084 2/19/2003 VULCAN CALMAT ASPHALT 836.79 AP - 00194085 2/19/2003 WALKER, KENNETH A 27.00 AP- 00194086 2/19/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 58.19 AP - 00194086 2/19/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 364.65 AP-00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 795.35 AP- 00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 48.96 AP-00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 441.83 AP- 00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 214.93 AP-00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 230.39 AP- 00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 460.55 AP-00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 207.07 AP- 00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 64.11 AP-00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 293.92 AP- 00194087 2/19/2003 WAXIE 29.80 AP- 00194088 2/19/2003 WELLS, NIKKI 55.00 AP-00194089 2/19/2003 WHITECAP 338.91 AP - 00194089 2/19/2003 ' WHITE CAP 471.68 AP- 00194089 2/19/2003 WHITE CAP 276.12 AP-00194090 2/19/2003 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 1,163.70 AP - 00194092 2/19/2003 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 39,902.50 AP-00194094 2/19/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 22.40 AP- 00194094 2/19/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 929.35 AP- 00194095 2/19/2003 YARBROUGH, MICHELLE 5.00 AP - 00194095 2/19/2003 YARBROUGH, MICHELLE 62.00 AP- 00194096 2/19/2003 YEE, LARRY 84.00 AP- 00194097 2/19/2003 ZAILO, ROBERT 43.20 AP - 00194097 2/19/2003 ZAILO, ROBERT 115.20 AP- 00194098 2/19/2003 ZWISSLER, JAMES 135.00 AP - 00194103 2/24/2003 CCWD 40.00 AP- 00194105 2/25/2003 HAKIM/, SUSAN 255.82 Total for Check ID AP: 2,290,097.25 Total for Entity: 2,290,097.25 User: chart - Carole Hart Page: 29 Current Date: 02/26/,~ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: T H E CITY OF I~AN C H O CIICAI~I O N CA Staff Report DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager .~ FROM: James C. Frost, City Treas~r~ BY: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director ~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO ADOPT ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY 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. The proposed investment policy remains unchanged. The City's investment policy and practices are governed 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 Summary of investment earnings provided to the City Council at scheduled Council meetings. The City continues to maintain an investment strategy more conservative than required under State law. The City Treasurer and staff continue to monitor legislation, government code amendments, and professional practices pertaining to investing of public funds, ensuring amendments are reflected in the City's policy as required by local policy and state law and maintaining the most prudent investment policy as prescribed by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, JCF/LIT/sgr Attachments City StaffReport 03.doc -2- J/ CITY OF RAN(HO C[.CAMONGA STA I'EMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY 2003 STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTRODUCTION The investment policy and practices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga are 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 prima~ 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 w~th all laws of the State of California regarding investment of public funds. 3. Achieve a reasonable rate of return while min'unizing 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 Financ/al Report and include: General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds, Trust and Agency Funds. Any new fund established by the City Council shall automatically be reflected in the Investment Policy. 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 ofthelr duties as managers of public funds shall be evaluated using the following "prudent person" standard applied in the context of managing the OVe~dll portfolio: Rev: 2/2003 I 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 safeO, of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. The City Treasurer and/or his appointed designee acting in accordance with the inve~i~s,eat policy and the "prudent person" standard and exercising due diligence shall be relieved ofpersonalresponsa3ttity for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided that substantial deviations from expectations are reported in a timely m~mner and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments whenever poss~le. OBJECTIVE The City of Rancho Cucamonga operates its t~mporary pooled idle cash investment under the "Prudent Person" standard. This affords the City abroad spectrum of investment opportunities as long as the investment is deemed prudem and is allowable under current legislation of the State of California (Government Code Section 53600, ct. 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 andlong t*~m 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 investn~mts. 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: 1. 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, orthe erosion ofmarkct 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 toss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shallbe 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: 2/2003 2 * 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. 2. 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 that might be reasonably anticipated. 3. 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 dimims' h 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 inveshnent program, or which could h,~oair their ability to make iu~artial investment decisions. E,~,loyees 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 that wish to do business with the City to provide woof 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: 2/2003 3 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 thc U.S. Gov~w~nent, or its agencies Unlimited $ years* Certificates of Deposit (or Time Deposits) Unlimited 5 years* (placed with commercial banks and/or savings and loan companies) Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% 5 years* Banker's Acceptances 40% 270 days Commercial Paper 30% 180 days (~nvestments in C~mmercia~ Paper mnst be ~nly with c~rp~rati~ns with at least $5~~ milli~n in assets. Must be of "prime" quality of the highest rating or of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided for by Moody's Investment Service Inc. or Standard & Poor's Corporation. Short term raiing of at least 'A 'or '.4 l/P1 ' and a long- term rating of '.4' is required~) Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits 40 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 mast be valued at 102% or greater of the funds borrowed against the securities and the value mast be adjusted no less than quarterly. .4n executed Master Repurchase A~reement must be on [~le~ * Maximumtermunle`~sexpre~slyauth~rizedbyG~verningB~dyandwithintheprescribedtimeframef~rsaidappr~vaL **Limit set by L.A.L[4 Governing Board, not Government Code. Rev: 2/2003 4 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. The City's participation in LAIF was approved by City Council with other authorized investments on July 1987. It is a permitted inveatment 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 Goverrenent 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 nmst be approved by the City Treasurer/Deputy Treasurer. The City strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100% as poss~le, through daily and projected cash flow determinations. Idle cash management and investment transactions are the respons~ility of the City Treasurer. 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. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Outside, independent auditors are required to perform an annual review of the City's Inve~tn~mt Policy, process, and internal controls. The review process is performed as part of the City's annual external audit. Rev: 2/2003 5 .:17 REPORTING Pursuant to Section 53464 (b) of the Government Code, the Treasurer shall render a quarterly report to the City Council and City Manager, comaining 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. · The weighted average maturity of the investments. · Any funds, inve~m~ents, or programs including loans that are under the management of contracted parties. · The currem market value and source of the valuation. · A description of the compliance with the Statement of Investment Policy. · A statemem 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. In addition to the reporting requirements of Section 53646 of the Government Code, which requires the Treasurer to render a quarterly investment report to the City Council and City Manager containing detailed investment information. Effective January 1, 2001 Assembly Bill 943 hs~oses additional investment reporting requirements to cities and counties. This bill additionally requires each city to submit copies of its second and fourth quarter calendar year investment portfolio reports and copies of armual investment polices to the California Debt and Advisory Cona~sion (CDIAC). This bill requires the Commission to collect, maintain, and provide information on local agency investments of public funds and to receive local government investor portfolio information. Rev: 2/2003 6 The City Treasurer shall be respons~le 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. Date City of Rancho Cucamonga I:~ADM1N~SANDY~TREASURY~nnual Invesameat Polic/es 03~INVFO03.doe Rev.. 2/2003 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of Investment Policy 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: A period of generally optimistic attitudes and increasing market prices. 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. 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of Investment Policy COMMERCIAL PAPER: Short-term, unsecured, negotiable promissory notes issued by businesses. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR): The official annual report for the City. 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. 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 Identificaiion 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 ora 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. DURATION: A measure of the timing of the cash flows to be received from a given fixed income security. The duration of a security is a useful indicator of its price volatility for given changes in interest rates. 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of Investment Policy 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. FEDERAL 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 FHLB 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. City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of Investment Policy 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. 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. MARK TO MARKET: Current value of securities at today's market price. 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. 4 City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of Investment Policy 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). MTN: Medium Term Note. NEW ISSUE: The first offering of a security. 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. OPTION: The right to trade a security during a certain period of time. 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. 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. City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of Investment Policy 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)-registemd 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. SAFEKEEPING: A service banks offer to customers for a fee, where securities are held in the bank's vaults for protection. 6 City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of Investment Policy 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 that 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. Govemment 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 syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash. VALUE OF 1/32 PER MILLION: $312.50 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Statement of lnvestment Policy WHEN 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 MATURITYfNET 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:~ADMI/'&SANDY\TREASURYXAnnual Investment Policies 03\ GLOSSARY 03 City.doc 8 T H E G I ~' Y O F [' 1 I~AN CI]O CLICAHONGA Memomndum DATE: March 5, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Robert Bowery, Information Systems Manager /~',~' StJBJECT: APPROVAL FOR ANNUAL PRODUCT suPpORT ,AND SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE RENEWAL FROM THE SOLE-SOURCE pROVIDER, ORACLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $$$,524 TO BE FUNDED FROM GENERAL FUND, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION tlXH-2~9-531X) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the annual product support and subscription service renewal between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the sole- source provider, Oracle in the amount of $55,524 to be funded from General Fund, Administrative Services Department, Information Systems Division 1001-209-5300. BACKGROUND In 2001, City Council approved the purchase of Oracle, which is a very specialized software which manages the City data for the following applications: IFAS, Tidemark, Class Registration, and Geographic Information Systems (GIB). Each year, the software maintenance and subscription service must be renewed with Oracle for a pedod of 12 months. Staff recommends approving renewal for the ongoing maintenance support effective May 23, 2003 through May 23, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director Ordering Document Customer Name: City of Rancho Cucamonga Customer Contact: Lorraine Phong Customer Location: 10500 Civic Center Drive Phone: 909 477 2700 x2565 Rancho Cucamonga, CA Fax: ORACLE CONTRACT INFORMATION Agreement: Oracle License Agreement, Version 28 This Ordering Document is placed in accordance with the agreement specified above ("Agreement"). A. PROGRAMS You have ordered the Program licenses described herein for use in the U.S., unless other~vise specified. Net Update List Less Net Net Product Subscription Description Quantity License Type - License Fee Discount License Fee Support Fee Service Fee Oracle Database Enterprise Edition 140 Named user Multi Server 105,000 30% 73,500 5,145 11,025 Oracle Database Enterprise Edition 1,000 Universal Power Unit 100,000 30% 70,000 4,900 10,500 CD Media Packs: No-Ship License Migration: Program Existing Quantity & License Type CSI Number Order Date Migrated Quantity & License Type OracleSi Enterprise Edition 60 Concurrent 666902 August 98 120 Named User Multi Server Oracle Database Enterprise Edition Programmer $ Named 666902 August 98 $ Named User Multi Server Programmer Net License Fees: 143,500.00 CD Pack Fees: 39.95 First Year Product Support Fee: 10,045.00 First Year Product Support Fee for Migrated Licenses: 6,774.00 First Year Update Subscription Service Fee: 21,525.00 First Year Update Subscription Service Fee for Migrated Licenses: 14,396.00 Total Fees: $196,279.95 B. GENERAL TERMS 1. Technical Support. Fees for Technical Support Services are due and payable annually in advance. Technical Support Services are effective upon shipment or upon the Effective Date of this Order Form if shipment is not required. 2. Miscellaneous. The Shipment Summary included with this Ordering'Document specifies the CD Pack and/or programs on the particular computer operating system requested by you, which have been shipped or currently are being shipped to You. Where shipment is required, Oracle shall deliver to the your Location I copy of the software media and 1 set of Documentation (in the form generally available) for each program currently available in production release as of the Effective Date below. You shall be responsible for installation of the software. All fees due under this Ordering Document shall be non-cancelable and the sums paid nonrefundable. You agree to pay applicable media and shipping charges. Provided you continuously maintain Updates Subscription Service, additional CD Packs for the programs provided under this Ordering Document may be ordered through the Oracle Store at the standard CD Pack price. If you lose or damage the media containing a Program licensed hereunder, upon your written notice Oracle will provide a replacement copy thereof, under our then-current Technical Support policies, for a media and shipping charge. The following shipping terms shall apply: FOB Shipping Point, Prepaid, and Add. These terms shall also apply to any options exercised by you~ 3. License Migration. You agree to migrate licenses previously acquired to new license types. The existing number of licenses and license types to be migrated are specified in the Existing Licenses column above. These licenses shall be converted into the number of licenses and license types specified in the Migrated Licenses column above and all existing licenses and license types shall be terminated. We agree that the terms and pricing of this Ordering Document shall not be disclosed without the prior written consent of the other party. This quote is valid through 23 February 2001 and shall become binding upon execution by you and acceptance by us. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORACLE CORPORATION Signature: /~'~'~'-r ~-..,~-g.~'ta,--4v..~,,,.~ Signature: Name: Rol:~_rt Bowo_x"y Name: Title: Informat.ton Sys'c~ras lvlanaq'or Title: Effective Date: I~ay 23, 2001 SHIPMENT SUMMARY: CD PACK PROGRAMS R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A AD~IINISTRATIVE SERVICES Staff Report DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Robert Bowery, Information Systems Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF MICROSOFT LICENSES FOR EXCHANGE 20001 WINDOWS 2000~ SQL 2000~ and OFFICE XP PROFESSIONAL FROM COMARK INSIGHT IN THE AMOUNT OF ~62~267.53 FUNDED FROM ACCOUNTS 10011035152 (~;502.68)~ 10012095152 (~;21,331.35), 10012095300 ($39,428.14)~ 32815015152 (~;502.68), AND 32815275152 (~502.68) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of Microsoft Licenses for Exchange 2000, Windows 2000, SQL 2000, and Office XP Professional from Comark Insight in the amount of $62,267.73 funded from accounts 1001-103-5152 (502.68), 1001-209-5152 ($21,331.35), 1001-209-5300 (38,428.14), 3281-501-5152 ($502.68). BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Cucamonga uses the enterprise versions of various Microsoft products rather than purchasing individual copies of the applications. Previously, the City was not in compliance with-Microsoft Licensing in that 150 users were not covered to operate. This amendment will add the City users and also comply with the Microsoft Licensing Requirements. This will ensure the City continues to comply with its licensing agreement with Microsoft. This covers the following: Microsoft Exchange 2000 server client access (123 licenses), Windows 2000 server client access (117 licenses), SQL 2000 server client access (60 licenses), and Office ×P Professional (105 licenses). This expenditure is funded under the current budget. Respectfully submitted, Administrative Services Director TH E CITY OF I~AN C 11 0 C 1J CAM 0 N GA S ff:f Report TO: Mayor, Members of the City Council and Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager DATE: March 5, 2003 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF TEN (10) MISCELLANEOUS FORD VEHICLES FROM RACEWAY FORD~ OF RIVERSIDE, IN TI-IF~ AMOUNT OF $244~882.40, FUNDED: $7,665.09 FROM FUND 1139-303-5604; $17~885.20 FROM FUND 1140-303-5604; AND $219,332.11 FROM THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 1712-001- 5604~ AND THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) FORD RANGER TRUCKS FROM CLAREMONT FORD, OF CLAREMONT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,270.77, FUNDED FROM THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 1712-001-5604~ AND THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) MISCELLANEOUS FORD VEHICLES FROM SUNRISE FORD, OF FONTANA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,799.57~ FUNDED FROM THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 1712-001-5604 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the pumhase of ten (10) miscellaneous Ford vehicles from Raceway Ford, of Riverside, in the amount of $244,882.40, funded: $7,665.09 from fund 1139-303-5604; $17,885.20 from fund 1140-303-5604; and $219,332.11 from the vehicle replacement fund 1712-001-5604, and the purchase of two (2) Ford Ranger trucks from Claremont Ford, of Claremont, in the amount of $26,270.77, funded from the vehicle replacement fund 1712- 001-5604, and the pumhase of three (3) miscellaneous Ford vehicles from Sunrise Ford, of Fontana, in the amount of $78,799.57, funded from the vehicle replacement fund 1712-001-5604. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS City Council approved the purchase of thirteen (13) vehicles in the vehicle replacement fund 1712- 001-5604 in the fiscal year 2002/2003 budget document. The actual number should have been fourteen (14) vehicles. Tamara Layne, Finance Officer, has found a typographical error in the budget document that combined two vehicles, a Ford Ranger and a Ford Explorer, into one line item. This error will be corrected in the mid-year budget. The Fleet Division has also requested that the line item to Replace Asset #915 S-10 Pickup be changed to a Ford Ranger Pickup which will fall within the same budgeted cost that has been approved. The purchase of these fourteen (14) vehicles will have no impact on the General Fund. The City Council also approved the purchase of one (1) new vehicle as identified in the fiscal year 2002/2003 budget document under accounts 1139-303-5604 and 1140-303-5604. Page2 Marctt 5, 2003 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF TEN ~10} MISCELLANEOUS FORD VEHICLES FROM RACEWAY FORD. OF RIVERSIDE. IN THE AMOUNT OF $244,882.40. FUNDED: $7.665.09 FROM FUND t139-303-5604:$t7.885.20 FROM FUND tt4~- 303-5604: AND $2t9,332,t t FROM THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND t7t2-00t-5604. AND THE PURCHASE OF I~NO ~2} FORD RANGER TRUCKS FROM CLAREMONT FORD~ OF CLAREMONT~ IN THE AMOUNT OF ~26~270.77~ FUNDED FROM THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND t712-001-5604. AND THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3~ MISCELLANEOUS FORD VEHICLES FROM SUNRISE FORD. OF FONTANA. IN THE AMOUNT OF $78.799.57 FUNDED FROM THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND t712-001-5604 Fleet Maintenance provided specifications to Purchasing for the vehicles. Purchasing prepared a formal Request for Bid and sent it to eleven (11) vendors. Seven (7) responses were received. After analysis of the bid responses by the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor and Purchasing Staff, it has been determined that Raceway Ford, Claremont Ford, and Sundse Ford are the lowest responsible bidders that meets the specifications required by the Engineering Department, Fleet Division, for the vehicles as highlighted in the attached copy of the abstract of the bid. The City realized a cost avoidance of $79,047.27, from the budgeted amount for these vehicles, (which is an average of $5,269.82 per vehicle) due to sending them all out to bid in one formal Request for Bid. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director ClT~ OF RANCHO CUC,e~IONGA REMARKS: 1 ) Unit Cost highlighted in yellow is the Iow bid for each vehicle PURCHASING DltflSION 2) Iterlls highlighted in red need special note ~-~52_._H _V_ _T.~_c~_w_._.~_.~_ _._a~_ .............. .3_ ...................... ~_0_,_49_ 3_:~ ............ S_!..4_~._ .0q. ...................... ~!,§..99....~ ....... ~Z~.0.:~ '~.@~. q ........................................ q~q~ .................................................... _0..0~ ~-_~_~_H.D__T__r~k__.w__~__n~£~._S.~_k_~__[~_... ._....~_ ..................... 22_j.4__3._~ ............... ~J..4_3..~ .................. .2.~.4.~=f~q ..._._~,_4.~9~.~.9! ~o. sJ~ ................................................ q~qq .................................................. ~nj~..._.T_~ ................................. ~ ................... ~_t ,_~._(~ ........... J.!.,~-.~ ................. ~j ,_4.~._09_ ...._..~_1.~_,~.. ~ .................... !_~2.?. 7.._5_~ ..... ~_[.?_7._7.._52 ........................................................... ~r_~_~.~ .T_T.~.~ ............... _~ .............. t_3....a0~_ ..q¢ ......... j.3_~g~ ...... ~_3,. _mO~ .00 .... ~_3,§~.~ ................ ~_3_~,,~.~ ........... ~_3..~..~ ..................................................... ~_-3.5~_~DR~W.~p.C~re~.~.b_~S_~.ke__~B~d~ ~._ ...__1 ........ 28,2.~_..qC ......... ~_8;~3~...~ ................ _2_~4__~.:._00 .......... ~f~..~{ '~_SJp. ............................................... o_..0q ........................................................ i:.S.~.,S_D_..T.~_~. ~_ _~u_~_ .a~.. .................. _~ ............ ~3_53__~..q¢ .......... ~.~7.._~. ........... _3J ~4~ ~ ~ ...... 3~__,4_~.. F !~.SJp_ ................................................ ~..(~ .................................................... !.~_o_~ _4. _ _O~_ ...T. ........................... _~ ................~S_,.2~__,.~ ............ _2.~,_.2.~=~ ................ ?.~,_3_~:._09_ ......... _2~_,~..~X ...................... _2_5:0_~3.?. ....... -~.S-,(~?'~92 ..................................................... ~..m. ,~_~ _b. ~, .V.e_~_o_r ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ~_~_on_s..ma_ _d e_ on_ .bi_d; ................................................................................... _v~s~ .N_O. ~[O_-~ ~p!.L _o~_ o..n_ ~ _n ~ ?~_._~ ~_es- ..................................................... ,.'.,u~_'[o_=.[ ........................................... ~.3.,_3S3._.~ ..................... ~_~s~2_5~.~...................................... _S~,_ _e~44_~ ......................................... T~ ......................................................................................... ~,_60~.._~ ................................ .2_S~_ .~4.~ ................................ .~,_4_).2_~94 ............................................... _0..,0p~ .~_~L~_" ~_~_ ~n d~J ~n.g ........................................... P._~...................................... .0.:~........................................... 0_~ .......................................... T H E C I T Y OF I~AN CH O C U CAH ON GA COHHIIN1TY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTHENT/ENGINEED1NG DIVISION/ INTEGRATED WASTE/NPDES SECTION DA~: M~ch 5, 2003 Mayor ~d Members of the City Co~cil Jack Lin, AICP, City M~ager ~OM: Willi~ J. O~eil, City En~neer By: Bob ZeRerberg, Mte~ated Waste~DES Coordinator S~: ~PROV~ OF A ~L~ON ~PRO~G ~ ~P~CA~ON ~R ~ ~ ~R A US~ O~ ~G B~ ~ ~ ~OM ~ U~ O~ ~G~ ~~ U~ O~ ~G~ ~~A~ON R ~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~u~ a ~ ~ a U~ ~ ~ B~ ~ BA~O~ ~1,1~ ~~a~~~'~l~"~ Bl~~~lahle~ ~ ~e Ci~ BI~ ~ ~ ~ ~of~e ~, ~ a~ of$032~p~ a ~.~ ~ ~ fg ~ U~ ~ ~BI~ ~ ~ fg~F~ Y~ ~o~ C~ fl~ ~~ ~ ~ The City of Ranc, ho Cucamonga h~ bern using Block Grant funds ~flx:e Fkscal Ye,a' 1994/95 to support lhe ope~licvt of the Peam,ment Household Hazado~ Waste Collection Facility (PHHWCF), provide used oil and filtff recseling conl~fin~ and ANALYSIS There am dght Slale Ceded Collection drop offsites withinthe City ofRaw_~ Cucmxa~ A certified collectien program or a CUlbside oil/filta' collection program is a ~palt oflhe Waste Oil Block Grarl Program Wiltxxt at least one oflhe two preceding itm~ lhe City is not eligtble for grant fun~ PROGRAM ANALYSIS The following ~e hhe pmgn~ns staffv~ propose to lhe CIWMB for use oflhe Block Grant funds: . · ~ funding lhe Usai Oil R~cseling potion oflhe PHHWCF. · Dism'bute a Do It Youmelf(D1Y) Used 011Collecfion/Recy:ling Kit at the PHI-1WCF, C~ shows anti m ~m m~ ~ (WEIWgG)ofSanBemau no County. Attachm~t -2- SOLVr ON No. 3- q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR A USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FROM THE USED OIL RECYCLING FUND UNDER THE USED OIL RECYCLING GRANT WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act that provides funds to cities and counties for establishing and maintaining local used oil collection programs that encourage recycling or appropriate disposal of used oil; and WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted Assembly Bill 1220 (Eastin, 1993) that provides grants to local governments to establish and implement waste diversion and separation programs to prevent disposal of hazardous waste, including household hazardous waste, in solid waste landfills; and WHEREAS, the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of these programs within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing application by cities and counties under these programs; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for development of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA authorizes the submittal of grant application t6 the California Integrated Waste Management board for all available grants under the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act and all available HHW grants under the California Integrated Waste Management Act for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Engineer, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Cucamonga all necessary applications, contracts, payment requests, agreements and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. T H E C I T Y 0 F I~AN CH 0 C U CA M 0 N GA Memorandum DATE: Mamh 5, 2003 Mayor and Members of the Cit~,e~il TO: Jack Lam, ~ICP, City Mana~-r FROM: William J. O Nell, City Enginee"r' ~,,~'[ BY: Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ITEM D-8 - APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND AVENUF_J19TM STREET BETWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE FROM 19TM STREET TO THE SOUTH FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA After reviewing the City's resolution to accept relinquishment of the above streets from Caltrans, Caltrans wants the resolution re-worded to be more detailed regarding the relinquishment of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenue from San Benito Avenue to Fairmont Way as follows: Haven Avenue from 19TM Street to the south freeway ri.qht-of-way - Caltrans wants our resolution to say the relinquishment is to be from the north right-of- way line of 19th Street to the most southerly access control shown on Haven Avenue, a distance of 620.15 feet from the north right-of-way line of 19th Street. Hiqhland Avenue from San Benito Avenue to Fairmont Way - Caltrans considers this reach to be a non-motorized transportation facility since it is completely fenced off and is not currently being used as a motorized transportation facility. Therefore they are unable to relinquish it to the City as a "street relinquishment." According to Caltrans, it could be conveyed to the City as "excess properly"; however, this method of transfer is lengthy and complicated. After Caltrans relinquishes the street to the City, the City can use it as we desire. 3-5-03 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AGENDA ITEM D-8 March 5, 2003 Page 2 To expedite the street relinquishments, staff has changed the staff report and resolution to comply with Caltrans' desires. Therefore a revised staff report, resolution and Map Request Nos. 437-5, sheets one through five are attached. Also, for Caltrans to make the agenda for the next CTC meeting on April 2 and 3, 2003, they would like a certified resolution by the City Clerk by Thursday, March 6. It is requested that our Mayor sign the resolution after the City Council meeting tonight. W JO:MO:sc Attachments THE C I T Y 0 F I~AN ell 0 C U C^H 0 N GA Staff Report DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND AVENUE/19TM STREET BE:IWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 19TM STREET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY ACCESS CONTROL SHOWN ON HAVEN AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 620.15 FEET FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 19TM STREET, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, approve accepting control and maintenance over portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from the north right-of-way line of 19th Street to the most southerly access control shown on Haven Avenue, a distance of 620.15 feet from the north right-of-way line of 19th Street, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue, to be relinquished by the State of California, and waive the standard 90-day notice requirement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Anticipating construction and/or reconstruction of streets within the City by Caltrans due to freeway construction, the City and Caltrans entered into an agreement on March 4, 1998, whereby the City agreed to accept title to these roads upon relinquishment thereof to the City by Caltrans, provided the roads were constructed according to approved plans. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT STREET RELINQUISHMENTS March 5, 2003 Page 2 These street relinquishments are shown on the attached State of California Right-of- Way Maps numbered Request No. 437-S, sheets 1 through 5, No. 440-S, sheets 1 and 2, and No. 432-S, sheets 1 through 3. Map 437-S covers Highland/19th Street from the City's west city limits to Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from the north right-of-way line of 19th Street to the most southerly access control shown on Haven Avenue, a distance of 620.! 5 feet from the north right-of-way line of 19th Street, the reconstructed intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, and Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue. Alta Loma Drive was constructed as an extension of Highland Avenue from Revere to Haven leading into the shopping center on the north side of the freeway. Map 432-S shows a portion of Summit Avenue reconstructed during the freeway work east of Cherry Avenue, and a portion of Cherry Avenue reconstructed south of Summit Avenue. Map 440-S shows reconstructed portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue at their intersection. Caltrans has agreed to relinquish to the City these portions of streets within the City if we accept control and maintenance of said roads in the present condition and state of repair that they are in, and that portion numbered segment 5, Highland Avenue from San Benito Avenue to Fairmont Way, as being a non-motorized transportation facility, pedestrian parkway. Caltrans' reasoning on this is that since Highland Avenue from San Benito Avenue to Fairmont Way is completely fenced off and is not currently being used as a motorized transportation facility, they cannot convey it to the City as a "street relinquishment." According to Caltrans, it could be conveyed to the City as '!excess property"; however, this method of transfer is lengthy and complicated. After Caltrans relinquishes it to the City, the City can use it as it desires, it is recommended they be accepted by the City and to expedite these relinquishments, it is recommended the 90-day notice be waived. If Council approves this .resolution, Caltrans will make every effort to agendize these relinquishments for the next California Transportation Commission on April 2 and 3, 2003. Respectfully submitted, W~N ~ ell City Engineer WHO:MO:sc Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 03-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTING CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND AVENUE/19TM STREET BETWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 19TM STREET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY ACCESS CONTROL SHOWN ON HAVEN AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 620.15 FEET FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 19TM STREET, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND WAIVE THE STANDARD 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT WHEREAS, by Freeway Agreement No. 98-010, dated March 4, 1998, between the City of Rancho Cucamonga (CITY) and the State of California, Department of Transportation (STATE), and by Resolution No. 98-039, dated March 4, 1998, the City agreed to accept title to frontage roads and reconstructed City streets upon relinquishment thereof to said City by the State of California; and WHEREAS, STATE desires to relinquish portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from the north right-of- way line of 19th Street to the most southerly access control shown on Haven Avenue, a distance of 620.15 feet from the north right-of-way line of 19t' Street, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue; and WHEREAS, said relinquishments are as shown on State of California Right-of- Way Maps numbered 437-S, sheets 1 through 5; 432-S, sheets 1 through 3; and 440-S, sheets 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to accept control and maintenance of said roads in the present condition and state of repair that they are in, and that portion numbered segment 5 as being a non-motorized transportation facility, pedestrian parkway; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to waive its 90-day notice requirement and agrees to accept title to said roads upon relinquishment thereof to said City by the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approve by resolution acceptance of control; and maintenance of portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from the north right-of-way line of 19th Street to the most southerly access control shown on Haven Avenue, a distance of 620.15 feet from the north right-of-way line of 19th Street, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue Resolution No. 03-045 Page 2 of 12 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign said Resolution and direct the City Clerk to attest the same. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of March 2003. AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Kurth, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: Howdyshell ABSTAINED: None William J. Alexander, Mayor Al-rEST: Kathryn L. Scott, CMC, Deputy City Clerk I, KATHRYN L. ScoTr, DEPUTY 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 5th day of March 2003. Executed this 6th day of March 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Kathryn L. Scott, CMC, Deputy City Clerk i '"'~': '--- STATE HIGHWAY - ''~" IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ALONG HIGHLANO AVENUE AND ~gTH STREET. ~w~ ' BETWEEN RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, ~ ALONG ALTA LOMA DRIVE BETWEEN REVERE AVENUE AND H~VEN AVENUE AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARBELLA DRIVE AND LEMON AVENUE. ~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SEE CITY ~ RANC~sEE CUC~A OETAILSEE "C" DETAIL "D"~ n~*~. ,,~,, , T. ) N.m R. 7 W. ~.e.~ ~HEET.3 ~, SHEET. 2 ~ ~S EET 2 ~ FSEB DETAIL ;"A" s[c*~ i i SECTOr26 ~ . . ~CY]~25 ~ ~' ~ ~CTiONaO J ~ / SHEET , ~ SEE =~= , ~ ~ N SHEET 4 t 1 VICINITY MAP OF PROPOSED RELINGUISHMENT TO THE CITY OF RANC~O CUCAMONGA "\. COUNTY Of SAN BERNARD INO '\.. ~*e,~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDI NO COUNTY OF SAN BERNaRD}NO ,ETA I L "B" RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF' RANCHO OUCAMONGA . PROPOSED RELINOUISHMENT FOR THE CITY OF ~TH S~T RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD INO ClT~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ///~//Z///~ 5 ~ ~ - DETA I L "E PROPO8ED RELINQUISHIIENT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . , · ..... ~,, ~ DE. TAIL' "F" ,"-, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO .............. ~ .... ~ ~ .,~ .~ ~.~ ~/~ ~ ' DETAIL "F" PROPOSED RELINQUISHMENT FOg THE OlTY OF RANCHO CUCABONGA Page 1 of 2 Adams, Debbie From: Scott, Kathy Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:52 PM To: Richardson, Katrina; Adams, Debbie Subj~ ' ~ ..... Original Hessage ..... From: Whyte, Diane Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:06 PM To: Scott, Kathy Subject: D-8 correct titles CH, qNGES TO ITEM D8 ON COUNCIL ./tGEND/I. Kathy, the titles.for the staJf report and Resolution are cha~ging, rhe body of the stqff report will also reflect lhe changes. Mike Oliver is redoing lhe sta. i[f report and resolnlion along with the attachnwnls. The changes were per Caltrans. I am leaving at ~:30 this afternoon, I hope I can get this up to you if?tot Sue will have to bring it up. lFill you need lO copies qf the new stqfff report & Resolntion?? I will also have a meo to Jack regarding the changes. I am attaching the correct verbagefor the titles so whenyoufinal the action agenda it will reflect lhe change, ztlso, Mike Oliver will need a sz~zed cop), qf lhe Resolutio~g certified, Thursda); $-~-0:~ so he can take to Caltrans. /lny questions, please call me. Diane cotor shows the changes Approva[t of a resolution to accept contro[ and ma[tntenance over portions of High[and Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city [timits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from the north right-of-way [tine of 19th Street to the most southerly access control, shown on Haven Avenue, a distance of 620.15 feet from the north right-of-way tine of 19th street, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbetl. a Drive, A[tta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue, to be relinquished by the State of Ca[tifornia RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE TITLE(S): A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTING CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND 3/5/2003 Nature~ Page 2 of 2 AVENUE/19TM STREET BETWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 19TM STREET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY ACCESS CONTROL SHOWN ON HAVEN AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 620.15 FEET FROM THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 19TM STREET, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND WAIVE THE STANDARD 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT 3/5/2003 THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND AVENUE/19TM STREET BETWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE FROM 19TM STREET TO THE SOUTH FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, approve accepting control and maintenance over portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from 19th Street to the south freeway right-of-way, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue, to be relinquished by the State of California, and waive the standard 90-day notice requirement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Anticipating construction and/or reconstruction of streets within the City by Caltrans due to freeway construction, the City and Caltrans entered into an agreement on March 4, 1998, whereby the City agreed to accept title to these roads upon relinquishment thereof to the City by Caltrans, provided the roads were constructed according to approved plans. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT STREET RELINQUISHMENTS March 5, 2003 Page 2 These street relinquishments are shown on the attached State of California Right-of- Way Maps numbered Request No. 437-S, sheets 1 through 5, No. 440-S, sheets 1 and 2, and No. 432-S, sheets 1 through 3. Map 437-S covers Highland/19th Street from the City's west city limits to Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from 19th Street to the south freeway right-of-way, the reconstructed intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, and Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue. Alta Loma Drive was constructed as an extension of Highland Avenue from Revere to Haven leading into the shopping center on the north side of the freeway. Map 432-S shows a portion of Summit Avenue reconstructed during the freeway work east of Cherry Avenue, and a portion of Cherry Avenue reconstructed south of Summit Avenue. Map 440-S shows reconstructed portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue at their intersection. Caitrans has agreed to relinquish to the City these portions of streets within the City if we accept control and maintenance thereof. Since these roadways are in "the state of good repair", it is recommended they be accepted by the City and to expedite these relinquishments, it is recommended the 90-day notice be waived. If Council approves this resolution, Caltrans will make every effort to agendize these relinquishments for the next California Transportation Commission on April 2 and 3, 2003. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WHO:MO:sc Attachment RESOLUTION NO. ~) ~ - D/"/5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTING CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OVER PORTIONS OF HIGHLAND AVENUE/19TM STREET BETWEEN THE CITY'S WEST CITY LIMITS AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, HAVEN AVENUE FROM 19TM STREET TO THE SOUTH FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE INTERSECTION OF LEMON AVENUE AND MARBELLA DRIVE, ALTA LOMA DRIVE FROM REVERE AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, PORTIONS OF CHICKASAW ROAD AND EAST AVENUE, AND PORTIONS OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, TO BE RELINQUISHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO WAIVE THE STANDARD 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT WHEREAS, by Freeway Agreement No. 98-010, dated March 4, 1998, between the City of Rancho Cucamonga (CITY) and the State of California, Department of Transportation (STATE), and by Resolution No. 98-039, dated March 4, 1998, the City agreed to accept title to frontage roads and reconstructed City streets upon relinquishment thereof to said City by the State of California; and WHEREAS, STATE desires to relinquish portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from 19th Street to the south Freeway right-of-way, the intemection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue; and WHEREAS, said relinquishments are as shown on State of California Right-of-Way Maps numbered 437-S, sheets 1 through 5; 432-S, sheets 1 through 3; and 440-S, sheets 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to accept control and maintenance of said roads; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to waive its 90-day notice requirement and agrees to accept title to said roads upon relinquishment thereof to said City by the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approve by resolution acceptance of control; and maintenance of portions of Highland Avenue/19th Street between the City's west city limits and Etiwanda Avenue, Haven Avenue from 19th Street to the south Freeway right-of-way, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Marbella Drive, Alta Loma Drive from Revere Avenue to Haven Avenue, portions of Chickasaw Road and East Avenue, and portions of Summit Avenue and Cherry Avenue 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign said Resolution and direct the City Clerk to attest the same. RIGHT OF WAY MAPS OF ......... STATE HIGHWAY ALONG ALTA LOMA DRIVE BETWEEN REVERE AVENUE AND HAVEN AVENUE ~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SEE SEE DETAIL DETAIL "D"~ DETAIL 'B"~ -SHEET 2 , T, ~ N~ R, ~ ~ s~,~. ~ SEE S;CT o. ~, ~ ~ ~.~t~ ~ ............ ~ ................ ~'-~ ...... ~-- =~---~- ] ~' ~ ...... ~o ~ : s~c~,o. ~ ~ S~EET 5 ~ ~ SHEET 2 ~ , ~~,, ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ -~ ~. ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ .............. /~ ; :, ~ ~ , . ~. , . ~, ~, m DETAIL~ G ~ z ~ -~T~O.S~ =. S~C~Oa~Z ' ; ~ ~ ~' ; DETAIL E - ~ ~ ' SHEET 4 VICINITY MAP OF PROPOSED RELINGUI$HMENT TO THE CITY OF ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA ~"~ ~ CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA e~ TRACT MAP NO I6~b ~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ ..... ~ ~' -~ CITY LIMITS ~RRDT MAP ~ HO. J3ggO- J / ~ ............... ~ ...... COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~_ ~ ~.~:~: ' DETAIL "C" ..................... ~%~7 ~~"~ PROPONED RELINQUIiHMENT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA D E T A J L "B" ~s, ~. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DETAIL "D" . PROPOSED RELINQUISHMENT FOR THE CITY OF ....... ¥(~,~, SmUT RANCHO CUCAMONGA DETA I L Ilo" ~ PORTe, ON TO BE RELINQUISHED CITY OF ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA _ ............ ~. .......... ~ DETAIL "E" PROPOSED. RELINQUISHMENT FOR THE OITI OF T, I NJ ~, ;' W. S~B,~, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO [ I1~a STATE ROUTE 210130 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF 5AN BERNARD INO '~1 PROPOSED RELINQUISHNENT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUOAIdONGA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTUENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' .,o.T o~ wAY .A~s o~ STATE HIGHWAY , PORTIONS OF SU~MIT AVENUE AND CHERRY AVENUE, I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SEE DETAIL "B" couNTY OF 5AN BERNARDINO SHEET 3 ~ CiTY OF ~ONTANA , VICINITY MAP OF PROPOSED ,~ P'" ii RELINQUISHMENT TO THE CITY SECTION 34 v i) is I OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD INO PROPOSED RELINQUISHIIENT TO TNB CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY .~/. RIGHT OF WAY MAPS OF · ' ...... STATE HIGHWAY B IN SAN BERNAROINO COUNTY ALONG CHICKASAW ROAD, WEST OF EAST AVENUE I stc*,~ =, i ctTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA { OR~c~ s~e ao ~' OF SAN ~ERNARDINO ~ ~ V,CT~'A S~[[T ._2 RELINGUISHMENT TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~,. DETAIL "A" -- ........ PHOPOBED HELIN~UI~HJENT ~ _. FOR THE OlTY OF ' RANCHO CUCAMONGA R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council Members Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O~Neil, City Engineer SUBYECT: California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Annual Payment RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga approve a resolution for California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Annual Payment by the California Department of Conservation. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Section 14581 (a)(4)(A) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling (Division) is required to distribute a total of $10,500,000 to eligible cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. Each city may receive a minimum of $5,000 or an amount calculated by the Division, is based upon the population o£the incorporated areas of the city, as stated in the Annual Demographic Report submitted to the Governor by the Department of Finance. The eligible participant must provide a description of an activity(les) that meet one or more of the £oUowing criteria do: · The activity has a primary emphasis on collection and recycling of beverage containers at large venues, public areas, residential communities or schools; · The activity has a primary emphasis on public education promoting beverage container recycling and/or litter prevention; or · The activity has a primary emphasis on beverage container litter prevention and/or abatement in public places including community clean-up projects or related activities involving the recycling o£ beverage containers. The City of Rancho of Rancho Cucamonga has been allocated $ 38,655.00 for FY 2003/2004 to do programs related to "Recycling and/or Litter Reduction Activities". We are proposing the following for these funds. Purchase recycling bins for parks and facilities that have vending machines and/or snack bar that sell beverage containers · Do public education on cable and in the newspaper with emphasis on recycling beverage containers in the recycle bin(s) at the curb or at city parks and facilities. · Do school outreach through assemblies and poster contests to encourage recycling at home and on the campus. Respectfully Submitted, r, William J. O~Neil, City Engineer WJO/bz Attachment RESOLUTION NO. (~),~- ~) ~//~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING AND LITTER REDUCTION ANNUAL PAYMENT BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF RECYCLING WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Califomia Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act that provides funds to cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures for cities and counties or their designees under the program; and WHEREAS, per Section 14581 (a) (4)(E) of the California Beverage Container and Litter Reduction Act, the eligible participant must submit the Funding Request Form by the due date and time in order to request funds fi.om the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA authorizes the submittal of the Funding Request Form to the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling. The City Engineer, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Cucamonga all necessary forms hereto for the purposes of securing payments and to implement and carry out the proposes specified in the Section 14581 (a) (4) (A) of the Califomia Beverage Container and Litter Reduction Act and provide information regarding this program to the Division upon request. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ]~ ~G I N E E I~ IN G D E PAI~ T H E N T Staff Report DATE: March 5, 2003 TO:, Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR TRACT MAP 15724, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TERRA VISTA PARK'VVAY, EAST OF COYOTE CANYON PARK, SUBMITTED BY KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract Map 15724, accepting the subject agreement and securities, monumentation cash deposit, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 4 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map 15724, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, east of Coyote Canyon Park, in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2002. This project is for a residential subdivision of one lot for condominium purposes and one lot for ingress/egress on 9.05 acres of land. The Developer, KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc., is submitting an agreement, securities and monumentation cash deposit to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $120,800.00 Labor and Material Bond: $ 60,400.00 Monumentation Cash Deposit: $ 2,450.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 15724 March 5, 2003 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer W JO:WV:sc Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINE, EIS, ING DIVISION .... RESOLUTION NO. 0,5-06/7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 15724, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 15724, submitted by KB HOME Greater Los Angeles, Inc., and consisting of a subdivision of 9.05 acres of land into 2 lots, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, east of Coyote Canyon Park, in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 Dwelling Units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on December 11, 2002; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 15724 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by posting the Improvement Securities and Monumentation Cash Deposit by KB HOME Greater Los Angeles, Inc., as developer; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Monumentation Cash Deposit 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 that said Tract Map No. 15724 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. RESOLUTION NO. ~'~Oq~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC1L 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 TRACT 15724 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. 4 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); 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 Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation resolutions, an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the 1972 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and RESOLUTION NO. TRACT 15724 March 5, 2003 Page 2 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act and/or Article XIIID applicable to the authorization to the levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization of levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all tree and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the Maintenance Districts, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. The legal description of the Property is: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 8842, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 96 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE(S) 52 AND 53, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, HYDROCARBONS AND KINDRED SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS GRANTED TO WESTERN SUPPLY CORP. BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 1979, IN BOOK 9772, PAGE 1262, OFFICIAL RECORDS. The above-described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. A-1 TR 15724 ~ EXHIBIT "A -2 ~/ ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. ! AND 4 I ~ .') '-,--~<< ~ i ' ~' ' ~. ~ .- , I ~ !. ~. ........... ~-_~_.___ ! /' ,z... ' CITY OF ~NCHO CUCAMO~GA ~O~H ~ COUNTY OF SAN BE~ARDINO : STATE OF CALIFO~IA ~ Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2002/2003 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (LMD #4) represents landscape sites throughout the Terra Vista Planned Community. These sites are considered to be associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in Terra Vista that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos and parks. The 36.23 acres of park consist of Coyote Canyon Park, Milliken Park, West Greenway Park, Spruce Park and Mountain View Park. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREE~ LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISIRICT NO. 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY): Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (SLD #4) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Generally, this area encompasses the residential area of the City east of Haven Avenue, south of Base Line Road, north of Foothill Boulevard and west of Rochester Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Terra Vista Planned Community. B-1 TR 15724 ~/ Exhibit "B" continued Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2002/2003) For Project: Tract 15724 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD# 1 ............... SLD # 4 *3 *2 ......... Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA L 4 ......... 10 + *25 *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel DU S 1 S 4 L 4 1 78 78 39 39 Annexation Date: March 5, 2003 B - 2 TR 15724 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2002/2003 LANDSCAPE MAENTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) will not be increased in fiscal year 2002/03. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community): # of Physical # of Rate Per Units Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 2652 1.0 2652 $252.50 $ 669,630.00 Multi-Family Unit 2769 1.0 2769 $222.00 $ 614,718.00 Commercial Acre 213.99 1.0 213.99 $382.99 $ 81,956.03 TOTAL $1,366,304.03 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 15724) is: 78 Units x 1 A.U. Factor x $222.00 Rate Per A.U. = $17,316.00 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2002/03. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District. No. 1 (A~erial Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use [)'nit Tvne l lnits Units Factor Units Unit Revenq~ Single Family Parcel 19,803 1.00 19,803 $17.77 $351,899.31 Multi- Family Unit 7,402 1.00 7,402 $17.77 $131,533.54 Commercial Acre 2,288.82 2.00 4,577.64 $17.77 $81,344.66 TOTAL $564,777.51 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 15724) is: 78 Units x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $1,386.06 Annual Assessment C-I TR 15724 Exhibit "C" continued STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $28.96 for the fiscal year 2002/03. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Tyne Units Units Factor [/nits Unit Revenue Multi- Family Unit 2769 .50 2769 $28.96 $40,095.12 Single Family Parcel 2650 1.00 2650 $28.96 76,744.00 Commercial Acre 213.99 2.00 427.98 $28.96 $12,394.30 TOTAL $129,233.42 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 15724) is: 78 Units x 0.50 A.U. Factor x $28.96 Rate Per A.U. = $1,129.44 Annual Assessment C - 2 TR 15724 ~/ R A N C H 0 C U C A M O N G A Ilrlll~ F, NGIN EEI~IN G D~ DAI~TM~ NT Staff Report DATE: Mamh 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Berry A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF. MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15630, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, SUBMI'I-rED BY CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map 15630, accepting the subject agreement and security and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and the City Engineer to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Parcel Map 15630, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2002, for the division of 25 acres into 11 parcels. The Developer, Catellus Development Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $93,900.00 Labor and Material Bond: $46,950.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, ~iam J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:BAM:sc Attachments ~ NORTH fl 1"=200' CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMON6A t~! TITLE: Parcel Map 15630 ENGINEERING DIVISION ~j~ EXHIBIT:' Vicinity Map RESOLUTION NO. ~),~" ~/'//'~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15630, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Pamel Map No. 15630, submitted by Hogle-lreland, Inc., and consisting of 11 pamels, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue, being a divisio[~ of 25 acres was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on February 13, 2003, and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Pamel Map No. 15630 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Catellus Development Corporation as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Parcel Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication, easements and the final map delineating the same for said Parcel Map No. 15630 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. R A N C H O C U C A M O N GA IHr ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SlaffReport DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer ~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES, TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED EAST AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,500.00, TO BE FUNDED FROM MEASURE I FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1446176-0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreement and an additional 10% contingency with Dan Guerra and Associates, to provide Construction Survey Services for the proposed East Avenue Street Improvements, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City requested and received a proposal to provide Construction Survey Services from Dan Guerra and Associates. Their proposal met all of the City's requirements for an estimated amount of $21,500.00 to be funded from Measure I Funds, Account No. 11763035650/1446176-0. Dan Guerra and Associates has provided services to the City in the past with favorable results. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments 24TM ~T DN~P 6TH ~T ~ ~ ~TH ~T Z ~TH ~T PkOJ ECT ONTARIO CITY LIMIT LOCATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~.~,T AVEhutt NORTH OF BANYAN VICINITY MAP I~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM:. William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Cindy HackeR, Associate Enginee ~r~''~- SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE HAVEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET ' WIDENING PROJECT, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO SOUTH OF ROUTE 210 FREEWAY, TO DAN GUERRA & ASSOCIATES TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $315,400 TO $415,400 TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1124176-0, AND APPROVAL OF AN APPROPRIATION OF AN ADDITIONAL $100,000 TO ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1124176-0, FROM THE MEASURE I FUND BALANCE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the execution of an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for the Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Widening Project, from Base Line Road to south of the Route 210 Freeway, to Dan Guerra & Associates to increase the contract amount from $315,400 to $415,400 to be funded by Measure 'T' funds, Account No. 11763035650/1124176-0. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On June 21, 2000 City Council awarded the subject agreement to Dan Guerra & Associates to provide Engineering Design Services for the Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Widening Project. This project will replace the trapezoidal channel on the west side of Haven Avenue with underground storm drain and widen the street to three lanes on the west side with curb, gutter sidewalk and street lights. In addition the intersection at Base Line Road will be improved with extended signal left turn lanes on Base Line and a right turn lane will be added for the southbound traffic on Haven. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Dan Guerra & Associates March 5, 2003 Page 2 Modifications to the previously approved agreement are necessary to reinstate the project, incorporate construction updates which have recently been completed (including the Route 210 Freeway improvements), and amend the project plans out of previously mandated Caltrans metric units into the industry accepted English units. The project was suspended due to lack of funds. Funds are now available for construction Ret~ully submitted, Willi~m/J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LEH Dan Siuerra & Associates CIVIL ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS '10271-B TRADEMARK SI'REEl*, RANCHO CUCAMONG~ CAUFORNIA 91750 PHONE: (909) 987-4506 - FAX: (90~)/941-1528 January30,2003 City ofRaucho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Haven Avenue Street/Storm Drain Project Base Line to ~19' Street Contract No. CC00-004 P.O. No. 35490.00 dated 6/28/2000 Attn: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Dear Joe: We have been requested to restart and complete the above noted project originally begun in June 2000, and pursue award of the construction contract prior to June 30, 2003. Our records indicate our original Agreement in the amount of $315,400 has an outstanding balance of $134,718.85. We believe an increase to the contract amount of $100,00 may be necessary to complete and update the project, which would include conversion to English units, resurvey of the'area north of 19;a Street and completion of the project plans and specifications. We have attached a copy of our current Standard Hourly Rates that we propose to use on the remaining portion of the project. Thank you very much for continuing to give us the opportunity to provide you with our services. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or comments, or should you require any additional information. Yours very truly DEG:hb cc: Cindy Hackett - Project Manager STANDARD HOURLY RATES PUBLIC PRINCIPAL ENGINEER $160.00 per hour PROJECT MANAGER $135.00 per hour DESIGNER/DESIGNER C_ADD $115.00 per hour DRAFTSMAN/DRAFTSMAN CADD $105.00 per hour TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES $110.00 per hour 1-MAN SURVEY CI~W* $160.00 per hour 2-MAN SURVEY CREW * $245.00 per hour 3-MAN SURVEY CREW * $315.00 per hour CLERICAL $ 70.00 per hour CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES $105.00 per hour Above rates include mileage, equipment and instruments (exclusive of rentals), use of office space and materials and supplies. Rates exclude use of ennsultants, equipment rental, blueprinting, photocopying, reproductions, etc., which will be charged at Engineer's cost plus 15% administration, if inenrrod. Overtime rates will be 50% greater than those rates listed. Overtime is defined as work in excess of eight (8) hours per day (twelve (12) hours maximum), 40 hours per we~k and Saturday. Rates for Sunday and Dan Guerra & Associates approved holidays and work in excess of twelve (12) hours per day will be 100% greater than those rates listed. · Rates exclude use of Global Positioning System Equipment. (}PS use rates will be added at $925/day. R A N C HO C U C A M O N G A ENGINI~EI~IN G DI~DAI~THI~N T Staff Report DATE: March 5, 2003 TO.' Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer /~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RMA GROUP, TO PROVIDE GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED EAST AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,814.00, TO BE FUNDED FROM MEASURE I FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO.: 11763035650/1446176-0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreement and an additional 10% contingency with RMA Group to provide Geotechnical and Material Testing Services for the proposed East Avenue Street Improvements, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City requested and received a proposal to provide Geotechnical and Material Testing Services from RMA Group. Their proposal met all of the City's requirements for an estimated amount of $12,814.00 to be funded from Measure I Funds, Account No. 11763035650/1446176-0. RMA Group has provided services to the City in the past with favorable results. ully submitted, O'Noil City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments ~4T~ ~T DN~ tu GTH ~T 4TH ~T F P-.OJ E CT ONTARIO C'~ LIMIT LOCATION i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~A.~I~ &V~S NORTH OF VICINITY ~P ~ANC~O CUCAMONGA StaffRel rt DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URBAN CROSSROAD INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,950.00 (PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO PROVIDE A NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE SECTION OF THE ROUTE 30/210 FREEWAY CORRIDOR LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1016-301-5300, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SERVICES FUNDS, AND APPROVE AN APPROPRIATION OF $40,645.00 TO ACCOUNT NO. 1016-301-5300 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a Professional Services Agreement with Urban Crossroads Inc. in the amount of $36,950.00 (plus 10% contingency) to provide a noise impact assessment for the section of the Route 30/210 Freeway corridor located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to be funded from Account No. 1016-301-5300, Community Development Technical Services Fund, and approve an appropriation of $40,645.00 to Account No. 1016-301-5300. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Soon after the Route 30/210 Freeway opened to traffic many residents of the City complained to the City and Caltrans. On February 11, 2003, the City hosted a workshop whereby Caltrans explained to residents of the City how sound from the freeway is collected, analyzed and mitigated, and the criterion used. Caltrans has agreed to conduct new sound studies based on sound/noise generated by actual freeway traffic and to analyze their findings to see if any mitigation is warranted. Concurrently with the Caltrans noise study, the City would like to conduct an independent study to verify Caltrans' work. We believe this will be to the benefit of the residents of the City. Since the freeway opened Caltrans and the City have received CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT URBAN CROSSROADS INC. PSA March 5, 2003 Page 2 many e-mails, phone calls and additional requests at the February 11 workshop from residents of the City asking the City/Caltrans to investigate noise levels in their specific locations. These locations will be incorporated for assessment in both studies. Urban Crossroads Inc. of Irvine, California, is the recommended firm to conduct this independent noise impact assessment 'throughout the freeway corridor in our city; mainly because they have done many sound studies throughout Southern California, and they are familiar with the freeway through our city since they recently completed a sound study along the south side of the freeway between Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue. The total fee for this work is $36,950.00 (plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Account No. 1016-301-5300, Community Development Technical Services Fund. Both the Caltrans and City studies should be completed in the next two to three months, weather permitting. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer W JO:MO:sc T HE C I T Y OF Staff Report DATE: March 5, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: RELEASE OF A DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT, LOCATED FROM 5TM STREET ONTO PARCELS 6 AND 7 OF PARCEL MAP 14647, SUBMITTED BY GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution releasing the subject Agreement and authorizing the Mayor to sign said release and the City Clerk to cause said release to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A Drainage Acceptance Agreement for accepting public drainage water discharged from 5th Street onto Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 14647 was approved by City Council on July 19, 2000, and recorded on August 2, 2000, as Document No. 20000277673, in the office of the County Recorder, San Bernardino, California. The required storm drain facilities have been installed and completed by the developer. Upon completion of said facilities, the City agrees to execute an agreement to evidence the termination of the previous recorded drainage agreement. The developer, General Dynamics Properties, Inc., is requesting that the Drainage Acceptance Agreement be released at this time. Respectfully submitted, Wi~-J. 0 Neil City Engineer W JO:WV:sc Attachment I - I 8th STREET 6th STREET. STREET CITY OF 1T~M~' ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA k'mI(~iNEEEING DIVISION RESOLUTION NO. l~),,~,'~ ' ~ *..~l~) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT FROM GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES, INC. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, adopted a resolution on July 19, 2000, accepting a Drainage Acceptance Agreement from General Dynamics Properties, Inc.; and WHEREAS, said Drainage Acceptance Agreement is for the acceptance of public drainage water discharged from 5th Street onto Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 14647; and WHEREAS, said Drainage Acceptance Agreement was recorded in Official Records of San Bernardino County, California, on August 2, 2000, as Document No. 20000277673; and WHEREAS, said Drainage Acceptance Agreement is no longer required due to the installation of the required storm drain facilities; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby release and terminate the Drainage Acceptance Agreement and that the City Clerk shall cause release of said agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. [~ a N C H O C U C A M O N G A r~N GIN E I:[~ I N G Staff Report DA'IE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECr: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15170 SUBMITTED BY HILLSIDE COVE ASSOCIATES, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE, NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Parcel Map 15170 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of Parcel Map 15170 located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond. Developer: Hillside Cove Associates 456 West San Jose, Suite B Claremont, CA 91711 Release: Faithful Performance Bond 3SM 916 804 00 $55,000.00 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ I I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15170 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Parcel Map 15170, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, cedifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. E A N C h O C U C a M O N G A ]~ ~Gl N EI~ ~l N G DE PA E~T~ E NT Staff Report DATE: Mamh 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND, FOR TRACT 15797-1, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VICTORIA PARK LANE, SUBMITTED BY TAVA DEVELOPMENT, DBA CITATION HOMES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond, for Tract 15797-1, located the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane, submitted by Tava Development, dba Citation Homes. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Developer: Tava Development, dba Citation Homes 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612-2510 R~y submitted, Wi{lia~ J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is HILLSIDE IJILLDIDE TR 1~;797~J _ WILSON ' BANYAN N HIDHLAND :TORIA UPLAND ~IADELINE FONTANA THG CITY OF B,h R~NCI~) CUCAMONC~ 4th ONTANIO R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A I~NGIN I~ED IN G 1~ E PAD T~I~N T St Report DA'I~: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer. SUBJECt': ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 15798, SUBMITTED BY RYLAND HOMES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, EAST OF EAST AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Tract 15798 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 15798, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of East Avenue, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Bond. Developer: Ryland Homes 5740 Fleet Street, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Release; Faithful Performance Bond B2962547 $995,600.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond 103615871-M $ 99,560.00 R~y submitte,~,~/ City Engineer VICINITY MAP .,,~:~.,~?,~, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .~,~~ COUHTY OF SAN B£.HARDIHO o · :~'::""~ /w RESOLUTION NO. ~ ' (~5~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 15798 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 15798, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying'the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R a N C h O C U C a M O N G A {~ N C. IN 1~ I~IN C. L) ~ P^ I~ TI~ll~ N T DALE: Mamh 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP,.City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 16021, SUBMITTED BY CRESTWOOD · CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Tract 16021 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 16021, located at the northeast comer of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Bond. Developer: Crestwood Corporation, a California Corporation 510 West Citrus Edge Street, Glendora, CA 91740 Release: Faithful Performance Bond 832338S $593,300.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond 832349S $ 59,330.00 ~u ~, ,lly submitted, Will.~am J. 0 Nell City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ Tract Map 16021 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 16021 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 16021, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. III R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ]~ ~ Cl~ E E E~IN C D E PAD T~ 1~ N T S rffReport March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: James T. Harris, Associate Engineer ~..~ ' ' Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician~ '~"~' SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, CONTRACT NO. 01-077 AS COMPLETE, RETAIN THE PERFORMANCE BOND AS A GUARANTEE BOND, RELEASE THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $170,638.19 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting at Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive, Contract No. 01-077, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, retain the Faithful Performance Bond as a guarantee bond for one year, authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $157,050.00 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $17,063.82, 35 days after acceptance. Aisc, approve the final contract amount of $170,638.19. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract amount, based on project documentation, is $170,638.19, which included four contract change orders resulting in a change in the original contract amount of 8.65%. The original amount approved by Council was $172,755.00 ($157,050.00 plus 10%). Respectfully submitted, WilEam J. O'Neil , City Engineer WJO:JTH/RO:Is //2_ HERMOSA AVENUE STORM. DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (FROM 400':i: N. OF CHURCH STREET TO 500'::I: N. OF BASE ~ ROAD) ~-"L ........... ~, i - -- ~~~ i ./ {, 2,. ~ ! ~ · ~ ~, ~ I ' o~' - ~ ~ ~ j-'" ' ~, 7~ ~_..7~.._~.C~ ,._~_. CI~ 0F R~CHO CUC~ONGA VICINITY MAP RESOLUTION NO. ~),.~' l~,~'~'/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VINTAGE DRIVE, CONTRACT NO. 01-077 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting at Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive, Contract No. 01-077, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Cindy Hackett, Associate Engineer~'~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician;~/~ SUBJECI': ACCEPT THE HERMOSA AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM 400' NORTH OF CHURCH STREET TO 500' NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, CONTRACT NO. 02-013 AS COMPLETE, APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $238,980.32 TO ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1301176-0 FROM MEASURE I FUND BALANCE, RELEASE THE BONDS, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND RELEASE THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $2,510,502.32 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Hermosa Avenue Storm Drain and Street Improvements from 400' north of Church Street to 500' north of Base Line Road, Contract No. 02-013, as complete, approval to appropriate $238,980.32 to Account No. 11763035650/1301176-0 from Measure I fund balance, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, accept a Maintenance Bond, release the Faithful Performance Bond, authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $2,065,020.00 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $103,251.00, 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $2,510,502.32. 115 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: HERMOSA AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS March 5, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract amount, based on project documentation, is $2,510,502.32, which included ten contract change orders resulting in a change in the original contract amount of 21.57%. The original amount approved by Council was $2,271,522.00 ($2,065,020.00 plus 10%). el~illy submitted, ~ O Neil City Engineer WJO:CH/RO:Is Attachments HERMOSA AVENUE STORM .DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (FEOM 400'+ N. OF CHUECH STREET TO 500'+ N. OF BASE LINE ROAD) _..1_..~.._ .................... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~//7 VICINITY MAP RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE HERMOSA AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM 400' NORTH OF CHURCH STREET TO 500' NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, CONTRACT NO. 02-013 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the Hermosa Avenue Storm Drain and Street Improvements from 400' north of Church Street to 500' north of Base Line Road, Contract No. 02-013, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPART~IEN T $ Repor DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda Hackett, Associate Engineer/~,~~) Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Techni~an~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO. 83 SB 103463488 BCM IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,983.34, FOR THE MARINE AVENUE (HUMBOLDT AVE. TO 26TM ST.) AND 26TM STREET (CENTER AVE. TO HAVEN AVE.) PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, CONTRACT NO. 01-088 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Faithful Performance Bond No. 83 SB 103463488 BCM in the amount of $113,983.34 for the Marine Avenue (Humboldt Ave. to 26th St.) and 26th Street (Center Ave. to Haven Ave.) Pavement Rehabilitation, Contract No. 01-088. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the landscape improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: R.J. Noble Company 15505 E. Lincoln Avenue Orange, CA 92865 R~..81~tfully submitted, _W. illi~ j. O'Neil CityEngineer WJO:LH/RO:Is Attachments 4TH 5T Pro ONTARIO CITY LIMIT THE CITY OF I~AN CH 0 C U CAH 0 N GA DATE: Mamh 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: RELEASE OF A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR 7954 ETIWANDA AVENUE, LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUBMI'I-FED BY FRONTIER LAND COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution releasing the Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor to sign said release and the City Clerk to record same. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement was approved by the City Council on February 18, 1982, and recorded on Mamh 5, 1982, as Document 82-043847 in the office of the County Recorder, San Bemardino County, California. The agreement was for the future construction of the missing public improvements fronting the property. The property was purchased by the developer, Frontier Land Company, LLC, a California Limited Liability and said property was incorporated into Tract Map No. 16347. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WV:sc Attachment CHURCH -ST. FOOTHILL ::_. : BOULEVARD .. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EN~G DIVISION : :' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING A REAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM DONALD J. GLOVER AND TRACY L. GLOVER WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, adopted Resolution No. 82-34 on February 18, 1982, accepting a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement from Donald J. Glover and Tracy L. Glover; and WHEREAS, said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement was recorded in Official Records of San Bernardino County, California on Mamh 5, 1982, as Document No. 82-043847; and WHEREAS, said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement is no longer required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby release said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for 7954 Etiwanda Avenue and that the City Clerk shall cause Release of Lien to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. T HE CITY OF I~A~qCHO CUCAH ON GA S Re rt DATE: Mamh 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: RELEASE OF A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR 12820 CHERVIL STREET, LOCATED WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY FRONTIER LAND COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution releasing the Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor to sign said release and the City Clerk to record same. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement was approved by the City Council on February 21, 1985 and recorded on Mamh 4, 1985 as Document 85-050291 in the office of the County Recorder, San Bernardino County, California. The agreement was for the future construction of the missing public improvements fronting 12820 Chervil Street. The property was purchased by the developer, Frontier Land Company, LLC, a California Limited Liability and said property was incorporated into Tract Map No. 16347. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer W JO:WV:sc Attachment CHURCH . T FOOTHILL BOULEVARD · ' ' ' ' :-~-'':-- ' ' ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVIgION RESOLUTION NO. ~)~'~- ~'7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING A REAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM GENEVIEVE A. IVES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, adopted Resolution No. 85-46 on February 21, 1985, accepting a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement from Genevieve A. Ives; and WHEREAS, said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement was recorded in Official Records of San Bernardino County, California on March 4, 1985 as Document No. 85-050291; and WHEREAS, said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement is no longer required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby release said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for 12820 Chervil Street and that the City Clerk shall cause Release of Lien to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. R A N C H O C U C a M O N G A COMMUNITY c~E RVICES TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III DATE: March 5, 2003 SUBJECT: Approval of a Request from Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball for a Waiver of Rental Fees for their Opening Ceremonies at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on March 8, 2003 (rain date: March 15, 2003). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a request from Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball for a waiver of rental fees for their Opening Ceremonies at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on March 8, 2003 (rain date: March 15, 2003). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Staff has recently received a letter of request from Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball for a waiver of rental fees for their Opening Ceremony at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on March 8, 2003, from 8:00 a.m. until 12-noon (rain date: March 15, 2003) and their closing ceremony on June 7, 2003.. As noted in their letter of request, Rancho Cucamonga Softball and ACE Youth Girls Softball have recently merged leagues and are now known as Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball. This merger has resulted in a larger membership and a challenge of how to facilitate their players and families during their opening ceremony. Due to an anticipated attendance of 2,500-3,000 individuals at this event the non-profit organization has requested to be able to hold their opening ceremony at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium and for the standard rental fee for the use of the facility to be waived. Because of the Quakes home game schedule, staff will not be able to accommodate their request to hold their closing ceremony on June 7th at the Epicenter Stadium. The CII'Y COUNCIL RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACE SOFTBALL'S REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF EPICENTER RENTAL FEES MARCH 5, 2003 league is reviewing other options for this event including locating another facility or changing their event date for their closing ceremony. We are able to accommodate Rancho Cucamonga's ACE Softball's request for use of the Epicenter Stadium for their opening ceremony on March 8, 2003 (rain date: March 15, 2003). In reviewing this request for fee waiver against Resolution Number 99-049, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Adopting Facility Rental Fee Waiver and City Service Fee Waiver Policies for the Epicenter, staff has determined that ACE Softball does meet the criteria required for a waiver of the facility rental fee but does not meet the criteria for a waiver of City service charges. The attached table illustrates the results of staff's review. FISCAL IMPACT Should the City Council approve Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball's request for waiver of rental fees for their Opening Ceremony for the 2003 year the total fiscal impact to the City of this action would be $2,000. According to Resolution Number 99-049, Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball would still be required to pay their direct service charges (public works personnel, facility materials and supplies, lights, etc.), a security damage deposit, any applicable taxes and provide the City comprehensive public liability insurance coverage in the amount of $2 million dollars. The exact cost of the direct services charges will be determined affer meeting with the applicant through our City Event Team process. Kevin McArdle Community Services Director Attachment ht~MM~ERv~unci~&B~ards~ity~unci~Sta~Rep~ts~2~3~R~A~ES~ba~F~e~aiver3~A~3~d~c -2- Evaluation Tool for Review of Requests for Waiver of Rental Fees and Direct Services Charges for the Epicenter* Requesting Organization: Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball Event Date(s): March 8, 2003 (rain date: Mamh 15, 2003) Requested Facility: Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium Criteria Applicable to Facility Rental Fee Waiver/Reduction Meets Does Not Criteria Meet Criteria Entity conducts substantial business activities within the City of X Rancho Cucamonga. Entity is a properly formed California non-profit organization X holding a current City business license. The event for which the facility is to be used and for fee waiver X is requested is: (1) not limited in attendance on the basis of any discriminatory criteria; (2) is not designed or intended to solicit, encourage, to persuade or induce membership into the sponsoring entity or financial support; and (3) is intended and planned to appeal to and benefit all residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Criteria Applicable to Waiver of Direct City Service Meets Does Not Charges for Community Special Events: Criteria Meet Criteria That all of the above criteria are met. X That the proposed Community Special Event will provide a X direct and tangible benefit to a program or service offered by the City. That the activity will not unreasonably subject the City to X foreseeable liability. That the sponsoring entity will positively identify and advertise X the event and the City of Rancho Cucamonga on a regional or greater scale and the Community Special Event is of a nature that'will convey a positive image for the City. That the event is designed, intended and organized in a X manner that will either result in the substantial patronage of a significant number of businesses located within the City and/or involve participation of numerous community organizations. That the event will offer the citizens of the City of Rancho X Cucamonga opportunities to participate in unique community activities and events that are not otherwise available within the City by or through the City or any other private party. That the event is not in conflict with or similar to any other X event that the City is participating in or assisting in any manner. That the event is not designed or intended to produce or result X in a profit for any involved entity. · Based upon City Resolution Number 99-049, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Adopting Facility Rental Fee Waiver and City Service Charge Waiver Policies for the Epicenter. hlCOMMSERViEpicente,~FeeWaviers~valutionTool2, doc ........ P.O. E$ox ;544. Alta Loma. CA 91701 Paula Pauchon City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Paula: Rancho Cucamonga ACE Youth Girls Softball is a non-profit organi?ation teaching the young girls in our community the sport of fast-pitch softball Our league represented 742 young girls of our community last year and we expect to have similar numbers this year. Last year, The city of Rancho Cucamonga allowed our league to use the Quakes stadium facility for our opening and closing ceremonies and waived the standard rental fee; We would like to have the same awax~ements this year and are respectfully requesting the use of the Quakes-Stadium for the same events with the same terms. There really is no other public facility we can use that would accommodate our players, their families, and the parking requirements these events generate. The dates need for these ceremonies are March 8t~, 2003 bom 8:00 AM to 11:00 AM and on June 7t~, 2003 bom 8:00 AM to 'I-lq00-AM. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (909) 214-8902. /.t tq0~,~ /~rely, President Telephone #: 909/941-5946 vavw.etearnz, com/ranchoacesoftball ORDINANCE NO. 699 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF SUCH DISTRICT RECITALS: A. The City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City"), has previously adopted Resolution No. 02-327 stating its intention to conduct proceedings to form City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (the "District") and to establish two imprevement areas, improvement Area No. I and Improvement Area No. 2 (each an "lmprevement Area" and collectively the "Improvement Areas") therein pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, commencing with Section 53311 of the California Government Code (the "Act") to finance certain public facilities. B. The City Council has previously adopted Resolution No. 02-328 stating the City Council's intention, acting as the legislative body of the District, to authorize the issuance and sale of a series of bonds for improvement Area No. 1 in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $1(~,000,000 and a series of bonds for Improvement Area No. 2 in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $4,000,000. C. Resolution Nos. 02-327 and 02-328 set February 5, 2003 as the date of a public hearing on the establishment of the District and the Improvement Areas therein, the extent of the District and each Improvement Area therein, the furnishing of specified types of public facilities within the District, the proposed rate and method of apportionment of the special tax within each Improvement Area, and the proposed debt issues (the "Hearing"). D. Notice of the Hearing was published and mailed to all landowners proposed to be included in the District in accordance with the Act. E. Prior to the Hearing there was filed with the City Council a report containing a description of the facilities necessary to adequately meet the needs of the District and an estimate of the cost of financing such facilities as required by Section 53321.5 of the Act. F. On February 5, 2003, the City Council opened the Hearing and continued the Hearing to February 19, 2003. J27 Ordinance No. 699 Page 2 of 4 G. At the Hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the establishment of the District and each proposed Improvement Area, the extent of the District and each proposed Improvement Area, the furnishing of specified types of public facilities within the District, the proposed rate and method of apportionment of the special tax, and the proposed debt issues were heard and a full and fair hearing was held. H. At the Hearing evidence was presented to the City Council on the matters before it and the City Council at the conclusion of the Hearing is fully advised as to all matters relating to the formation of the District and the establishment of the Improvement Areas therein, the levy of the special tax and the issuance of bonded indebtedness therein. I. On February 19, 2003, subsequent to the Hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-031, which established the District and the Improvement Areas and authorized the levy of a special tax within each Improvement Area. J. On February 19, 2003, subsequent to the Hearing, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 03-032 which determined the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum principal amount of $16,000,000 for Improvement Area No. 1 and a maximum principal amount of $4,000,000 for Improvement Area No. 2. K. On February 19, 2003, an election was held within each Improvement Area at which the qualified electors of each Improvement Area approved the establishment of an appropriations limit for the District, the incurrence of bonded indebtedness and the levy of a special tax within the respective Improvement Area. L. On February 19, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-033 which certified the results of the February 19, 2003 election conducted by the City Clerk, which results showed that more than two-thirds of the votes cast in each Improvement Area were in favor of the propositions to establish an appropriations limit for the District, incur bonded indebtedness and levy the special tax. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: Authorization of Levy of Special Tax. By passage of this Ordinance, the City Council authorizes the levy of a special tax within Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 of the District at the maximum rate and in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment set forth for each Improvement Area in Exhibit B to Resolution No. 03-031, (the "Rate and Method") which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. Ordinance No. 699 Page 3 of 4 SECTION 3: Annual Rate Determination. The City Council is hereby further authorized to determine on or before August 10 of each year, or such other date as is established by law or by the County Auditor- Controller of the County of San Bernardino, the specific special tax to be levied on each parcel of land in each of the Improvement Areas of the District, except that the special tax rate to be levied shall not exceed the maximum rates set forth in the Rate and Method, but the special tax may be levied at a lower rate. SECTION 4: Exemption of Government Property. Properties of entities of the state, federal, or other local governments shall be exempt from the above-referenced and approved special tax. SECTION 5: Use of Collections. All of the collections of the special tax shall be used only as provided for in the Act and in Resolution No. 03-031. The special tax shall be levied only so long as needed for its purpose as described in Resolution No. 03-031. SECTION 6: Collection. The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem property taxes. Provided, however, that the special tax may be collected in such other manner as may be provided by the City Council. SECTION 7: Foreclosure. As a cumulative remedy, if any amount levied as a special tax for payment of bond interest or principal, together with any penalties and other charges accruing under this Ordinance, are not paid when due, the City Council may, not later than four years after the due date of the last installment of principal on the Bonds, order that the same be collected by an action brought in the superior cour/to foreclose the lien of such special tax. SECTION 8: Authorization. The specific authorization for adoption of this Ordinance is the provisions of Section 53340 of the Act. SECTION 9: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with law. Ordinance No. 699 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of March 2003. AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Howdyshell, Kurth, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk 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 19th day of February 2003, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 5th day of March 2003. Executed this 6th day of March 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk T H'E CITY OF I~AN CI~ 0 CI~Cfl~ONGA DATE: March 5, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner · BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 - GOUGH - An appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a request to construct a 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash, and pump island on 1-acre of land in the Community Commemial District (Subarea 2), of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the subject appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission decision to approve Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 through adoption of the attached resolution with issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on September 25, 2002, and continued the hearing to October 23, 2002, in response to a letter received from the owners of the Mobil station at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Mobil station owners stated that the proposed Chevron station would result in competition for their existing service station and that the Initial Study prepared by staff pursuant to a Mitigated Negative Declaration was inadequate. After the September 25, 2002, meeting, the City's environmental consultant prepared a written response to the claims made against the Initial Study. Based upon this information, the Planning Commission concluded that a fair argument had not been presented to indicate that the Initial Study was inadequate or that would warrant preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Planning Commission therefore approved the subject Conditional Use Permit on October 23, 2002, and issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The appellant, Paul Gough (attorney representing Art and Diana Flores - Mobil Station owners) filed the subject appeal in a timely fashion on November 4, 2002. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON March 5, 2003 Page 2 The appellant states the following reasons for the appeal (reasons in "quotes" with staff responses below): 1. "The Mitigated Negative Declaration was not prepared in compliance with state CEQA Guidelines because it relies upon state CEQA Guideline 15064(h) which is invalid." Response: The Planning Commission's approval of the project and issuance of Mitigated Negative Declaration occurred on October 23, 2002. By the appellants own admission, the Court of Appeals had not issued it's opinion on the subject CEQA guideline until October 28, 2002. This was after the Commission's action and furthermore, neither the Commission nor staff, could have predicted when the Court of Appeals would issue it's opinion. Therefore, the Commission relied upon an Initial Study that was consistent with the guidelines in affect at the time of project approval. Regardless of the timing issue above, staff has requested that the City's environmental consultant revise the Initial Study for the project in light of the Court of Appeal opinion and resultant "new" CEQA guidelines (which do not allow reliance upon other agencies requirements as mitigation for potential impacts). The revised Initial Study and associated analysis continues to support a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. No "substantial evidence" (as referenced by CEQA and the appellant's letter) has been provided or discovered to necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. 2. "The attempt to exclude Art and Diana Flores from the process at the Planning Commission was improper." The Flores were given ample notice of the public hearings for the project before the Planning Commission meeting. The Flores' attorney, Paul Gough, was present at and testified at both Planning Commission hearings on the case. The claims made by the Flores regarding inadequacy of the Initial Study were clearly based upon opinion and conjecture rather than hard evidence but the Planning Commission accommodated their concern nevertheless by continuing the September 25, 2002, hearing to October 23, 2002. The City's consultant studied the claims made by the Flores and verified that in fact no substantial evidence was provided to indicate inadequacy of the Initial Study. That the Flores had not been able to provide sufficie, nt information to justify a second continuance does not constitute their exclusion from the process. The appeal filed on . November 4, 2002, contains no further evidence of substantial impacts though the Flores would surely have had adequate time between October 22, 2002, and November 4, 2002, to analyze the information. 3. "The City Council should conduct an independent review of the Environmental Audit report and the Lilburn Report." Response: There is no substantial evidence that has been provided or discovered to justify preparation of an independent review or an Environmental Impact Report. This type of claim, that an EIR is necessary, begs the question that an Initial Study pursuant to a Mitigated Negative Declaration is somehow an inferior process/method of environmental analysis. To the contrary, the process is essentially the same, with CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON March 5, 2003 Page 3 significant levels of analysis and public notice periods. The primary difference between an EIR and Negative Declaration is that the decision makers are able to make a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" via the EIR process. This is necessary when it is found that a project will have substantial environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant but that the project will have such an overall benefit to the community that it is worth whatever impact to the environment that is caused. In this case, all identified potential environmental impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated and therefore the appropriate mechanism for environmental clearance is indeed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. "The Planning Commission did not consider whether this intersection would support another service station." Response: Like most cities, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has no Ordinance requiring market studies for projects, nor does it have an Ordinance prohibiting competing businesses to be located near each other. The service station use is permitted in the Community Commercial District subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The Initial Study does have a "Land Use" section that discusses surrounding uses. The State requires municipalities to establish specific findings in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit. Of the findings, market fomes are not a part. There is no evidence that a third service station in this vicinity will be "materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." The matter of whether the market will support a third service station in the vicinity is up to the analysis and expertise of the applicant, in this case Chevron. Over the years, arguments contrary to those of the appellant have been made regarding service stations and other service type uses; namely that by locating in close proximity a sort of critical mass is achieved whereby customers know that if they want gasoline or other auto services, certain key locations are the place to go. A third service station near the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard simply provides the community and commuters on Foothill and Vineyard with a third choice for obtaining gasoline. Furthermore, Chevron is not known as a discount retailer of gasoline, it is unlikely that there will be any undemutting of gas prices. 5. "The preparation of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) would allow comment from the homeowners who live within several hundred feet of the Chevron car wash which will be operating from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week." Response: This appeal achieves the same goal. The residential development to the west of the service station site is under construction. At the time the Conditional Use Permit was initially advertised for the September 25, 2002, hearing, County Tax Assessor data and City data did not indicate ownership of any of the individual homes in the development. Since that time homes have been purchased. Therefore, staff prepared a revised list of addresses based upon County Tax Assessor data from December of 2002, and notices were sent to these addresses for the subject appeal. The recent Assessor's data still does not reflect the new homeowners to the west. Staff obtained the addresses to each home in the northern end of the development in reasonable proximity to the subject service station site through field checking and permit CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON March 5, 2003 Page 4 records. Whether or not the project is sent back to the Commission for reconsideration under an Environmental Impact Report will not change the source or adequacy of notification information. Further, the public hearing notices were posted on the subject property. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part 1 of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant. The City's environmental consultant completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist. The consultant determined, and staff concurred, that the project could have significant adverse environmental impacts to short-term air and water quality during site preparation and construction activities. Short-term impacts to air and water quality would result from grading, equipment exhaust, erosion, water runoff, and dispensing of gasoline. There are also potential impacts related to geological hazards, transportation, hazards, noise, and aesthetics. In response to the concerns raised by the appellant related to impacts upon the homes to the west, additional mitigation measures related to noise (restricting delivery truck times) and aesthetics (control of light and glare) have been added. Mitigation measures as listed in the Initial Study and attached recommended Resolution will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. If the City Council concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Furthermore, additional notices were sent to new residences to the west of the site beyond the 300-foot radius. Respectfully submitted, Bred~Buller City Planner BB:BLC\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appeal Request Form dated November 4, 2002 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 23, 2002 Exhibit"C" -Planning Commission Minutes dated September 25, and October 23, 2002 Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-101 Exhibit "E" - Initial Study Part II Resolution Denying Appeal ,~ ~' ~ ~C:~'IVED APPEAL REQUEST FORM RE~ ~m ~ ~11 Y UP H~C~ CuG~vm~ Pmje~and Location: Chevron station - Foothill Blvd. West of Vineyard. DRC~UP 00-17 Planning Comm. Res. 02-101 Appellant Art ~ DiRn~ ~ln~ A~d~: c/o Paul T. Gouqh~ Esq., 12304 S~n~ M~n~ ~'~ : ~1'~ qn9 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: ~10-826-7766 Fa~ 31~ E~nailAddres~:__Pgoughl@hotmail.com m ' that all of the a~ove informatiOt} Js true and correct. ~ate 3017 STRAW & GOUGH 12304 SANTA MONICA BLVD., STE. 300 USBANK (310) 826-7766 ' · ,'00 =,0 i,?," '-' i, ;~ ;~ ;~ ~l 5P, P i,'.' l,r=l~ 300 ciril. OO 5"' ,STRAW GOIJGH SUITE 300 November 4, 2002 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cueamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Appeal of Decision of Planning Commission - Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station - Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-101 Hon. Members of City Council: This office represents Art and Diana Flores who are the owners and operators of a Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. Mr. and Mrs. Flores built this station from the ground up at their own expense and have a supply contract with Mobil. My clients are appealing the October 23, 2002 action of the Planning Commission which approved the above captioned project in Resolution 02-101 on that date. I will set forth a brief procedural history of this matter and then set forth the reasons for this appeal. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 5, 2002, thc Planning Commission published a Notice of Public Hearing and Environmental Notice for the above captioned project. This Notice advised that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on September 25, 2002 to consider the project and further advised that "a complete environmental assessment" had been prepared, and invited comments by September 25, 2002. The City had prepared a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of anvironmental impacts for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). On September 23, 2002, I delivered objections to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Planning Commission. These objections consisted of a report from Environmental Audit, Inc. dated September 20, 2002, and a letter from me which s~t forth the authority why an EIR was required as a matter of law for the project, and other objections to the project. Thc £nvironmcntal Audit report of September 20, 2002 and my letter of September 23, 2002 are provided with this Appeal for convenience. The Environmental Audit report lists 21 different comments setting forth deficiencies in the Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study Part II for Conditional Usc Permit (CUP) 00~17 and each o£these arc incorporated into this Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-1'/ lqovember 4, 2002 Page 2 deficiencies noted by Enxdronmental Audit was that in justifying the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City relied o CEQA Guideline (14 CCR appeal. Prominent among the § 150640a)) which had been held invalid by the Sacramento S~°r Court and was the subject of a pending appeal in the Third District Court of Appeal. See, pages 2 and 4 of the Environmental Audit report. · qnued the matter over to October ' Commission corn On September 25, 2002, the Planning letter and to the points raised by the 23, 2002 to allow the City an oppommity to respond to my Environmental Audit report. Following the September 25, 2002 meeting, I did not recei've any communicatio.n from · · Late in since I had not received any response to our objecUons. the planning Division. On October 22, 2002, I called the Planning Division to find out if the · ~ ~nn9 I was advised by ..... ;ssion but mexp~ matter was be~m~,tooer ~, ~ ....... ~- planning ~.utm~ - ---'-o~ me · the morning o~-,~- -~--~ d delivered to m* .... ,._-~,~ Mr LeCoUm ^~.;,~tions had been prep~ _an_'_ontsl Audit or to my cn~'"7 ~n Rancho Cucnmonga. My ~oj,~- · a ~^ me to ]~nVlrollll~s~ our objections were public records and were available been provided ' des and Environmental Audit is located in plaeentia. Mr' e responses to be made available to me. A~om office is m West Los. .Ping .., ~ ~,~,w of the responses, c°.uld~_o~~ onV of the responSeS to our - ~j_.oheWOUlllseeltav"r~ ~ oan9 irecelveaa~'~c r~ thedateof then totum,. ,-~ ~n - ,,, nn October ~, ~ · ~-- at z'~u v.,~. ~- prepared by Lilburn Corporation and appear to bear hours tarot, ' I do not know why a courtesy coPY of the responses was not provided to me objections. These responses were of the Lilburn Report allowed no time for October 14, 2002. of the delivery r rly to it. Because of this attempt to or my clients. The lateness. _. '~-e Lilburn RepOrt o ep ~ _..__;~,, ,,rocess on this pro]ect, · and requested a continuance exclude my chants i~om xun~, P PlUming ConUnission meetmg ~ I submirted on October 23, 2002, I altonded theand reply to the Lilbum Report of October 14 . to allow my consultant to examine · · and verbally. +~.i, reauest both in wnung - -~ntinuance and went ahead ~ ....~ - - ~:~ ~-t address my request iora ~-~'-o~uest for a continuance. ~ onunlsslon cllu ~ . · in The PI g C ~ . - ~ ~a02 effecUVely denying and approved the project on ucxooer ~, ~ ' No member of the Planning Con~nission asked staff why we were denied the courtesy of a copy of the Lilbum Report and no explanation was forthcoming from staff. of October 23, 2002, I again expressed my concera Planning Colnruission meeting · · a CEQA Quideline which had ^tthe .... , -- ,oc' tionw relying ev advised (properly) that ,. xaiti~ateXtrqegauw~' .ara o o,4~rCourt' 'lne~tl ~..orn _ disputed CEQA regulation while the validity of the CEQA that *.lag ,,-: = .- _ .,_ OacrnmentO ~up~,,~ been held mvahd oy m~ o the City could choose to rely upon the regulation was still pending in the Court of Appeal. Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 3 Prior to the vote on the project by the Planning Commission on October 23rd, Mr. McNiel, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that my objections to the project were "absurd." On October 28, 2002, the Coart of Appeal issued its unanimous opinion that the CEQA Guideline (14 CCR 15064(h)) was indeed invalid. For convenience I am providing a copy of the opinion in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources .4gency, Case C038844, issued by the Third District Court of Appeal on October 28, 2002 and certified for publication. Page 3 of the Opinion provides: "We uphold the trial court's invalidation of the following Guidelines: section 15064, subsection (la) 0aerea~er Guidelines section 150640a) regulatory standards to determine slgmficant enva'onmental effect) .... Page 18 of the Opinion provides: "We conclude that the Guidelines section 150640a) is inconsistent with controlling CEQA law governing the fair argument approach, and therefore is invalid.". Planning Commission Resolution 02-101 apProved'the Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 23, 2002 and made'a finding that there was "no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment" (paragraph 4). Resolution 02-101 also provided: "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..." (paragraph 4(a). REASONS FOR APPEAL 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was not prepared in compliance with state CEQA Guidelines because it relies upon state CEQA Guideline 15064(h) which is invalid. The Lilbum Report of October 14, 2002 admits that "a number'of impacts which may cause a significant effect on the environment" were identified, but then argues that so long as permit requirements from agencies such as RWQCB and SCAQMD were met, then under CEQA Guideline 14 CCR 15064(h), no EIR was required and the Mitigated Negative Declaration is proper. See pages 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the Lilburn Report. This is the same argument which was soundly rejected by the Court of Appeal in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources.dgency. In that case the Court of Appeal first stated the purpose of CEQA: "The purpose of CEQA is to protect and maintain California's environmental quality. With certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to cany out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect; under this fair argument standard, and EIR must be prepared even if other substantial evidence Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 4 shows no significant environmental effect .... The EIR has been repeatedly recognized as the "heart of CEQA." Opinion at page 5. · was invalidating Guideline 15064(h) because the Court of Appeal stated.that ? ate standard (fxom RWQCB °r Ne~ .... -.~- ,.~; corn lies vath a regul ry effect is not that cimaelme, t~ ~ v-oJect "P ~-~ to make a finding that the environmental under agency is atrecteu SCAQIV[D) then the lead evidence which would support a fair significant, regardless of the existence of other substantial The Court of arg.rnent that the effect may be environmentally significant. (Opinion page 15.) case was the ,,application of an established regulatory Appeal stated that the real issue in the ' · :- a way the anY oth subs n al evidence sho g stanoam ~} ~ ~ o~nificant effect." (Optmon pag~ · ./ there may i~ a ~- · . · ' o erl relied oh"compliance w~.'th · , ~r~. o;~'s Mitigated NegaUv¢ Decl ,aratlo. n _m~_,p~r~o~p qtYon[ficant air and water enwlonmenmt ~ , .-,- .., raised in the Environmental Audit report, and the Ldbum Report of October regulatory standards to precmu~ .J e~IeCts wnlc;~ w~l'~ '' admitted this on pages 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9. Therefore, contrary to the findings of 14, 2002 readily 02-101, all significant environmental effects have not been Pla~ming Commission Resolution merely meeting a regulatory standard does not form a reduced to an acceptable level, because Moreover, the language of Resolution 02- legal basis under CEQA to support such asta. tcment. . ... in 101 which provides that the Mitigated Negattve Declarauon has "been prepared CEQA Guidelines" is no longer tree following the Court of Appeal compliance with thc State of law, the City Council must overrule the As a matter decision invalidating section 15064(h). - ~e re:ect, and remm this matter for the Planning Commission, disupprovc thc CUP Iix m p J preparation of an EIIL 2. The attempt to =xclnd¢ Art and Diana Flores from the proc~ss at the t'lanni~g Commission was improper. CEQA Ouideline 15201 provides as follows: CE A process. Each public agency should include provisions in its c~ P~"'~ . and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and environmental issues related to the agency's activities. Such evaluate public reactions to .~,_ ~oV;~o environmental information procedures should include, wbenev~r posslmg, ~-'~-= available in electronic format on the Interact, on a web site maintained or utilized by the pubhc agency. Inc. v. $2'~ District Agricultural Assoc. (1986) 42 In Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 5 Cal. 3d 929, 936, the California Supreme Court emphasized that the public holds a "privileged position" in the CEQA process "based on a belief that eitizeus can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making." The Supreme Court went on to quote from the case of County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 160 Cal. App. 3d 1178, 1185: "CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge fi'om the process." A~er M~. & Mrs. Flores retained an environmental consultant and submitted a report and a letter for the September 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the staff of the Planning Commission failed to extend the basic courtesy of providing them with a copy of the Lilbum Report of October 14, 2002, so that they could evaluate it and reply to it. The Lilbttm Report was provided on the afrernoon before the October 23~ hearing, and then only afrer a request to. the strut of the Planning Commission. The notice which the Planning Commission publishes states that "all interested paxties are invited to attend the public hearing and express opinions for. or agaln~ the proposal." Afrer we did so, the Planning Commission and its staff did its very best to prevent any further dialogue on the environmental issues. The Lilbum Report was kept quiet and the request for a short continuance to provide a reply to the Lilbum Report was never even taken under consideration by the Planning Commission. Even if the Court of Appeal had not provided City Council with a slam-dunk basis for rejecting the approval of the project, the City Council should still send this matter back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings because of the heavy-handed way it was handled by the Planning Commission and its staffin violation of the letter and spirit 0f CEQA Guideline 15201, as well as the clear language of the Supreme Court. 3. The City Council should conduct an independent review of the Environmental Audit report and the Lilburn Report. For all of the other reasons raised in the Environmental Audit report, the City Council should reject the approval of the project and return this matter to the Planning Commission with instructions to prepare an EIR. 4. The Planning Commission did not consider whether this intersection would support another service station. Besides the gasoline service station operated by the Flores at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard, the Albertson's supermarket directly across the intersection of Vineyard and Foothill Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 6 operates an A-Express with pump islands and a convenience store. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any consideration was given to whether this intersection would support a third service station other than an unsupported comment in. the Lilbum Report that another gas station seemed "logical" at this intersection. Besides saturating the immediate area with gasoline service stations, the conslruction of yet another service station would result in an increase in gasoline .,' . · · deliveries by gasoline tanker tracks, and an increase in traffic will be necessary to support the . · three opemtious.. My clients advise me that there are 9 other gasoline service stations within a . .' one-mile radius of the proposed site and two others have gone out of business recently. In addition, when Mr. and Mrs. Flores built their station in 1996 the City of Rancho Cucamonga required that they spend $595,000 for off site improvements including the . ~ · installation of new traftic lights, the widening and alignment of Foothill. Boulevard, the undergrounding utilities on Foothill, the relocation of an Edison light post, the dedication of 17 feet of the Orange Grove property on Foothill to CalTrans, and improvements for adjacent properties including a new driveway to serve Red Hill liquor store and In-and,Out Burger.' My · .. · clients spent an additional $60,000 for the civil engineer and permits.' Mr. and Mrs. Flores are . . still making payments on the loan which they obtained to pay for these improvements. It has become more difficult for them to meet their monthly payments because their volume of gasoline sales has decreased over 40% since the opening of the A-Expres& another sign that .this area may . not support yet another gasoline.service station. Saturation of this area with yet another.service · station may leave my clients unable to meet.their payments on the loan which it took to fund'.... these, improvements. ~ · The City Council should examine whether this intersection will support another gas station. My clients advise me that it will not and one of the three locations would likely not survive. 5. The preparation of an EIR would allow comment from the homeowners who · live within several hundred feet of the Chevron carwash which will be operating from 7:00 a..m to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. The proposed service station is W~thin several hundred feet of a new home development known as Cucamonga Ridge..The homes are being framed and sold, but most are not occupied yet, so the potential homeowners do not have the opportunity be heard on whether they favor a Chevron car wash operating every morning at 7:00 a.m. and every evening until 10:00 p.m. See .. page 3, item 6 of Resolution 02-101. The preparation of an EIR'would include these new .: . homeowners in the process, whereas now they are excluded from the process merely, by timing of . the approval of the project. Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 7 · CONCLUSION Because the City relied on an invalid CEQA Guideline, the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not comply with CEQA or its Guidelines. Significant environmental effects which are conceded to exist have been hidden under the cloak of.a since invalidated CEQA Guideline. For this reason alone, the City Council must disapprove the project and return this matter to the Planning Commission for the preparation of an EIR. As demonstrated above, there are numerous other reasons why this matter should be disapproved by the City Council. PTG:jk · . EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY ART & DIANA FLORES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 PROPOSED CHEVRON SERVICE STATION PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 1. Environmental Audit, Inc. Report dated September 20, 2002. 2. Letter from Paul T. Gough to Planning Commission dated September 23, 2002. ' 3. Letter from Paul T! Gough to Planning Commission dated October 23,' 2002. ' 4. Decision from Third District Court of Appeal in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, Case No. C038844 issued on October 28, 2002 and certified for publication. November 4, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC. MEMORANDUM Project No. 2175 DATE: September 20, 2002 TO: Paul Gough FROM: Debbie Bright Stevens RE: Gasoline Station in Rancho Cucam0nga Environmental Audit, Inc. (EAI) has reviewed the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) Environmental Checklist Form. Initial Study Part II for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-17. The · proposed project is for the construction ora gasoline station on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. We offer the following comments of the Intital Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The City used an out-dated environmental checklist form. Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was revised and updated in about 1998 and a new Environmental Checklist form was developed. While CEQA allows lead agencies to develop their own checklist forms (15063(0), the checklist forms still must comply with the CEQA guidelines. A number of issues should be included in the checklist form. Examples of differences between the checklist used by the City and the Checklist recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G include the following: · No agricultural resources were evaluated by the City. · The checklist for air quality resources has been substantially revised and include a consistency review of the proposed project with the Air Quality Management Plan, and a review of the project to consider if the project would "result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment..." These resources were not evaluated by the City. · The Hazard section is missing a number of review criteria including evaluation of 'transportation hazards, air emissions of hazardous pollutants, and whether the project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 2. The significance criteria used to identify whether or not impacts were considered to be "significant" or not was not provided for most of the environmental resources analyzed. P. Gough Septernbcr 19, 2002 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS Geology 1. The potential impacts of the proposed project on geology are potentially significant due to the potential impacts associated with an e~thquake. The Initial Study does not identify what the potential impacts would be in the event of an earthquake on the gasoline station. 2. The mitigation measures do not reduce the potential impacts of an earthquake on the gasoline station. The first mitigation measure only requires that the restricted use zone be incorporated into site plans. The preparation ora site plan does not reduce any potential significant geological impact. The second mitigation measure indicates that a "Geotecimical Investigation shall be prepared" but does not include any requirements of the investigation or what will be done with the results or recommendation of the investigation. The geotecimical investigation should be included as part of the CEQA document and the recommendations of the investigation should be included as mitigation measures. Without this information, the potential impacts of an earthquake must be considered significant and unmitigated, in which case an Environmental Impact Report is required. Water 3. At minimum a preliminary grading plan should be included as part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project. The City indicates that adequate site drainage will be assured but provides no details as to how this will occur. Therefore, no data has been provided to demonstrate that the site drainage will be less than significant. 4. The drainage study that indicates how storm water run-off will be conveyed during -. construction and operation should be included as part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project. 5. The City relies on the compliance with RWQCB requirements as an indication that the project impacts will be less than significant which is inappropriate. The courts stuck down the provision of the CEQA guidelines that allowed a lead agency to consider an impact "less than significant" if that impact is consistent with an adopted standard (CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)). According to the court, this provision of the Guidelines subverts the fair argument rule mandated by the statue and relevant case law (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. California Resources Agency). Leaking underground storage tanks have been a common problem resulting in soil and ground water contamination throughout the country. The Initial Study must describe the equipment that is in place to minimize or prevent a leak from an underground storage tank. Otherwise the project impacts on groundwater must be considered significant. P. 6ough September 19, 2002 Page 3 Air Quality 6. The Initial Study estimates the project emissions using an outdated air quality model, URBEMIS7G. EMFAC2000 is the more current and appropriate model for estimating emissions from mobile sources than URBEMIS7G. 7. Construction emissions are part of the air quality impacts and require analysis. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds roi conslxuction emissions. 8. The assumptions used in the URBEMIS7G model should be provided so that others can review the assumptions and calculations. Nonetheless, it appears that emissions from heavy construction equipment have not been aecuratelyestimated..Construction emission estimates have been provided in Table I for construction activities at a gasoline station which should be similar to the conslruction activities for the proposed project: Detailed emission calculations are included in Appendix A. The'emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management Dish-let CEQA Air Quality Guidelines which contain requirements for air emission calculations, including emission factors and assumptions f9r. construction activities. Based on the information in Table 1 and Appendix· A, the c0nslmction emissions associated with the proposed project are significant and an EIR must be prepared... TABLE; 1 PEAK DAY CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTIVITY CO VOC NOx SOx PMI0 Construction Equipment 56.2 8.5 113.6 17.7 8.3 · Mobile Source Emissions 12.3 0.6 4.3 - 0.1 Fugitive, DUSt/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads ...... ' -' 45.0 Fugitive Dust From Constructiunt.) ..... 85.0 Architectural Coatings -- 52.5 - - - Total Construction Emissions 68.5 61.6 117.9 17.7 138.4 SCAQMD Threshold Level " 550 75. 100 150 150 Significant? ' ' NO NO YES NO NO '" (1) Assumes application of water two times per day. 9. The air emissions from the operation of a gasoline station have not been eaieuiated correctly and are underestimated in the Initial Study. The emission estimates do not include accuraie estimates from mobile sources since an outdate mobile source model was used (URBEMIS7G). Fu~aher, the operational emissions do not include emission estimates for stationary equipment which, at minimum, include emissions from fuel dispensing and underground storage tanks. · ' ' P. Gough September 19, 2002 Page 4 10. Emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline station are provided in Table 2. The emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the SCAQMD Guidance for the preparation of annual emissions. Based on the information in Table 1 and Appendix A, the operational emissions associated with the proposed project are significant and an EIR must be prepared. TABLE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSION.ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTIVITY CO VOC NOx SOx [ PM10 Mobile Source Emissions 200.4 27.9 23.7 - ~ 0.9 Fugitive Dust/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads - - - - . 291.8 Fuel Dispensing and Underground' Tanks - 18 - - - Total Operational Emissions 200.4 45.9 23.7 - 292.7 SCAQMD Threshold Level 550 55 55 150 150 Significant? NO NO NO 'NO YES i 1. The City relies on the compliance with SCAQMD requirements as an indication that the project impacts will be less than significant whigh is inappropriate. The courts stuck down the provision of the CEQA guidelines that allowed a lead agency to consider an impact "less than significant" if that impact is consistent. with'an adopted standard (CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)). Aeearding to the court, this provision of the Guidelines subverts the fair argument role mandated by the statue and relevant ease law (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. California Resource~ Agency). As shown above and as is also common with a number of stationary sources within the jurisdiction of the. SCAQMD, air pemxits can comply with SCAQMD mles and regulations, but the emissions could still be considered "significant" under CEQA. 12. NO analysis has been completed for the impacts of toxic air contaminants associated with the proposed project. The proposed project will generate additional emissions 0fdiesel particulates, during enustmction a.nd operation (e.g., gasoline delivery trucks), which are toxic air contaminants. Further, the operation of the proposed project will generate additional emissions of benzene which is also a toxic air contaminant. The impacts of the toxic air contaminants must be addressed, considering the location of the proPosed gasoline station to nearby residential areas. Further, the cumulative air quality impacts of this P. Gough September 19, 2002 Page 5 gasoline station with the other two gasoline stations located nearby must also be addressed on the adjacent residential areas. 13. The current CEQA checklist (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) includes that'the following checklist item: · III.o) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ineresse of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (inclUde releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)'?. The City's checklist does not ifielude the above item in its checklist: Therefore, the project cumulative impacts on air quality have been ignored. This is inappropriate because the project area exceeds a number of the state and federal ambient air quality'standards. Transportation/Circulation .~ '. 14. The level of service (LOS) associated with the nearbY intersections must be conducted in order to determine if the project-generated traffic could have significant impacts on traffic. A minimal increase in traffic can have significant impacts if the existing (or ambient) waffle levels are already severe. No information is provided to determine if the proposed project could have significant impacts. The increase of 2,317 trips could easily haye a significant impact on traffic ifedjacent impacts are already operating at LOS D or worse. Hazards 15. The City's checklist does not evaluated the potential hazards associated with transportation of hazardous materials and substances. Gasoline is considered to be a ha?ardous material and the impacts associated with an accident should be provided. ' 16. The hazards associated with the operation of a gasoline station should be proVided. The potential hazard zones_associated with a fire or explosion should also be provided. ' 17.. No analYSis has been provided in 9.C) to make the determination that benzene will be below the CEQA thresholds. No where in the Initial Study were emissions from benzene · estimated, modeled and a cancer risk estimated provided to determine if the exposure to the · material would be considered sign!ficant. The Initial Study also did not analyze the · cumulative exposure to benzene associated with adding a new gasoline station in an ai'ca where two gasoline stations currently exist. The cumulative impacts associated with ' benzene exposure on residents near the three gasoline stations is expected to be significant. P. Gough September 19, 2002 Page 6 Noise 18. Construction 7- related noise impacts should have also been estimated and compared to the noise ordinances to determine ifa significant noise impacts could occur to the. construction phase. 19. The project generated noise estimates only considered equipment at the site. The Initial Study did not include noise levels from traffic and the project will result in a substantial increase in traffic within 1 O0 feet of residential areas. Utilities and Service Systems 20. The Initial Study should indicate the amount of electricity and natUral.gas that may be required for the gas station2 The Initial Studyshould indicate the amount of water and wastewater that will be generated by the gas station. Without this information, it is impossible to determine if the project will have a signifi~nt impact on various resources ' and utilities. Socioeconomic Impacts 21. The Initial Study did not pmx'ide any analysis of socioeconomic impacts associated with the installation of a new gas station. Economic impacts must be analyzed when there are physical impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). The proposed project will add a new gasoline station in close proximity to two other gasoline stations. The new gasoline station could draw business away from the other gasoline stations and alter the'existing traffic fl0w and LOS at the local intersections resulting in significant traffic impacts. More serious noise impacts than analyzed herein could also occur if additional traffic occurs at the new gasoline station, especially considering the fact that the new gasoline stationis located about 100 feet from a residential area. APPENDIX A EMISSION CALCULATIONS TABLE A-1 Construction Equipment Emissions Construction Equipment Equipraent Type Hours Emission Factors lb/hr ~ Dally Emissions (lbs/day) I ~'~f~!i~i~;~$~.~,~:i~!~,~-~',~i~ Number Per Da~, CO VOC NOx SOx PM10I CO VOC I NOx ] SOxI PM10 ~ir Compressor 130 CFM 0 8 0.20 0.04 0.32 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.0(: 0.00 0.00 0.0¢ ~ackhoe I 8 0.83 0.17 1.22 0.11 0.06 6.64 1.33 9.74 0.89 0. ~.-~ :)ozer I 8 .... 0.35 0.17 0.00 0.0¢ 0.00 2.80 1.32 ~la te Co~ ~,~,[u ~ { G asoltn e) 0 8 1.83 9.46 0.88 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.0C 0.00 0.00 0.06 .~ranee I 8 0.75 0.25 1.92 0.17 0.13 6.0t 2.0(~ 15.35 1.33 1.0(~ )ump Trucks · I 8 1.80 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 14.40 1.82 33.36 3.60 2.08 =latbecl Track I 8 1.80 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 14.40 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.08 =rant End Loader 0 8 0.57 0.23 1.90 0.1~ 0.17 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.0¢ 0.00 Vlanllfts (Boom an~ Scissor) 0 8 0.28 0.07 0.67 0.04' 0.03 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.0C 0.00 vlotor Grader I 8 0.68 0.04 0.05 0.4,; 0.06 5.40 0.31 0.43 3.6£ 0.49 =aver I 8 0.99 0.20 2.38 - 0.20~ 0.10 7.92 1.6(~ 19.04 1.60 0.80 =lie Driver 0 8 0.68 0.15 1.70 0.45 0.14 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.0C 0.00 French Machine 0 8 1.20 0.18 1.32 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.0¢ 0.00 -'orkllft 4000 lb. 0 8 0.52 0.17 1.54 0.14 0.09 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.0C 0.00 '~eneratore (Gasoline) 0 8 24.08 0.88 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0C 0.00 0.00~ 0.00 /Veld Machine 1 8 0.t7 0.03 0.28 0.03 0.02 1.39 0.25 2.27 0.25 0.13 ;~.~=~.~,~i~l~i~T~[i~ 56.15 8.53 113.55 17.67 0.34 · Emisslor~ I&clors Irom SCAQMD CEOA Air Quality Handbook, DBS:WORD:2175~Em sslonCalcs:Co n st r ucflon Equipment 9/;8/02 TABLE A-2 Construction Vehicle Emissions for Gas Station On Road Mobile Emission Factors from California ARB EMFAC2000 CO VOC NOx PM10 Exhaust Continuous Exhaust Continuous Hot Soak Diurmal & . Evap Exhaust Continuous Emission Emissions Start EF Emission Start EF Factor Resting Running Emissions Factor Factor Losses Losses Factor Start EF Factor Vehicle Type (D/mile) (g/trip) (~/mile) (g/trip) (g/trip) (~hr) (~mile) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) ;onstruction Workers ;ommutin~] 8.99 11.76 0.54 1.18 0.37 0.17 0.39 0.88 0.72 0.05 Light Duty Trucks 11.28 13.95 0.57 1.25 0.37 0.16 0.34 1.36 1.07 0.07 -leav~ Diesel Trucks 48.75 NA 1.39 2.55 0.09 NA 0.11 .19.06 1.57 0.61 Parameters Peak Day Emissions~ lbs/day CO VOC NOx PM10 Diurnal and Total Distance Continuous Exhaust & Resting Continuous Numberof Number of Traveled Exhaust Staff Running OtherVOC Loss Exhaust Start Soume Vehicles Trips In MIles Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emission Construction Workers Commuting 12 24 2 0.95 0.62 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.01 On-site Cars 0 0 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Light Duty Trucks 0 0 11,,5 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 ,Daily Delivery Trucks 1 2 50 10,75 NA 0.33 0.01 NA 4,20 0,00 0.13 Heavy Diesel Trucks 0 0 4 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0,00 0.00 0.00 Source Parameters CO VOC NOx PM10 Total Emissions for Construction Workers 12 24 1157 0;22 0.13 0.01 Total Emissions for Ught Duty Trucks 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tctal Emissions for Heavy Diesel Trucks I 2 10.75 0.34 4.21 0.13 Total Trip Emissions 12.32 0.56 4.34 0.14 Emission Inctora Ior li0hl duly Irucka Include tracks have non-calelyst/ge~ollne, cala~y~l/gasollne engfnse, and diesel engines Diurnal & Resting Ioseee vehicle ROG emission based on the vehicle being not being operated end lbs ambient lembaratura la rising Based on Carifomla ARB EMFAC2000 model years 1965-200r, state-wide annual simple averages EMFAC2000 was linallzod in May 2000 9/18/02 0BSWORD~ 175\Eml~elonCelce;Conel, Trips TABLE A-3 Vehicle Emission Factors from EMFAC2000 ~ LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT I.DT2*TOT HHDToTOI~ LTrlp' I0~ 711~01 13~71 2548g7761 20381~,~1 Total~ 4~ 03.4~ go~2 -- O,S~ ~ -- 0.~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~, 0.~ 0.~ 1~ / .S O.OO ~ 203.5~ 40.e~ ~.~' 2.4~ ..... 0.~ -- 0.~ .... 0,~ TABLE A-4 Fugitive Dust Construction Emission Estimates ~ From Trucks and Employee Vehicles I Peak Emission Peak .. Daily One-way Factor PM-10 Source Type Number Fuel Trips Distance (Ib/vmt) (lbs/day) Passenger Vehicle/ 3n Paved Roadways 12 Gasoline 2 11.5 0.01 ~ 4.97 IPickup' Trucks on Paved Roadways 0 Gasoline 2 11.5 0.4 0.00 trucks on paVed Roadwa;/s I Diesel 2 50 0.4 40.00 ]'otal 13 44.97 · Emission Calculatlons for travel on paved roads from EPA AP~I2 Section 13.2.1 DSS!WORD\217~:EmisslonCalcs:PM10 Veh, Emissions 9/18/02 TABLE A-5 Fugitive Constuction Emission Estimates · ~ERATIONS {Bacld~oe) ~ Da~/(tofls~ PerDa~ (rb~pn~ ' Facf~ Pour~dslda,[ Pounds/day, Pounds/day I Pounds~ay FaclorSo.;~: ' 44.16 · 85.59 I IIUnc~ntmlled EmIssIons) ' "' :~ 58.43 151 RR ' IMIl~led El~S sl°rla Ca'singes w~er 3 ~r~l~daY) ' I 26'661 51 r~! .: TABLE A-6 Paint Primer Architectural Coating Emissions Painting of Station IActivity Amount Notes Volume Applied (gallons/day) 15 VOC Content (lb/gallon) 3.5 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Limit VOC Emissions (lbs/day) 52.5 * Emission Calculations from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 DBS:WORD:2175\EmissionCalcs:Fugitive Paint 9/18/02 TABLE A-7 Operational Vehicle and Truck Emissions On Road Mobile Emission Factors from California ARB EMFAC2000 CO VOC NOx PM10 Exhaust Exhaust Emissions Continuou~ Emission Continuous Hoi Soak Diurmal & Evap Exhaust Resting Runnlng Emissions Conttnuou= Emission Factor Start EF .Factor Start EF Factor Losses Losses Factor Start EF Factor ~ (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mi~e) (g/trip) (g/trip) (g/hr) (g/mile) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) ~/orkers Commuting 8.9._=~.L_9 11;7~6 0,~ 1.18 · 0.3"=~'~ o. 1'~-"~ 0.39 0.8'-~'~ 0.7"~=~''- 0.0~ _l~ht Duty Trucks 11.28 13.95 0.57-- 1 .'~--- 0,3'-----~"-- O. 1'----"~ 0.34 1,36 1,07 0,07 'teav7 Diesel Trucks ~ 48.75 NA 1.39 2.55 0.09 NA 0.11 19.06 1.57 0.61 Pa~&,,~,[~rs Peak Day Emi~slons~ lbs/day CO VOC NOx PM10 Diurnal and Total Distance Continuous Exhaust 5 Resting Continuous Number of Number of Traveled Exhaust Start Running Other VOC Loss Exhaust Start So[~rce Vehicles Trlps In Miles Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emission~ Emission Emissions Emission Workers Commuting 8 16 11.5 3.65 0.41 0.38 0.05 0.02 0.36 0.03 0.02 Customer Cars 2317 2317 2.5 114.80 60.07 11.88 7.92 6.95 11.24 3.6,8 0.64 Light Duty Trucks 0 0 11.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DeINery Trucks 2 4 50 21.49 I~A 0.68 0.02 NA 8.40 0.01 0.27 Heavy Diesel Trucks 0 0 50 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 Source Parameters CO VOC NOx PM10 Emissions for Vehicles 2325 2333 178.93 27.20 15.30 0.66 Total Emissions for Light Duty Trucks 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Emissions for · . Heav~ Diesel Trucks 2 4 21.49 0.68 8.42 0.27 Total Trip Emissions 200.43 27.88 23.72 0.93 TABLE A-8 OperatiOnal Fugitive Dust Emissions From Vehicles Peak Emission Peak Daily .. One-way Factor PM-10 Source Type Number Fuel Trips Distance (Ib/vmt) (lbs/day) Passenger Vehicle/ On Paved Roadways . 8 Gasoline 2 11.5 0.0i6 3.312 Customer Vehicles 2317 'G aso_line 2 2.5 0.01~ 208.53 Trucks on Paved Roadways 0 Diesel 2 20 0.4 0 Trucks on Paved Roads 2 Diesel 2 50 0.4 80 Total 2327 291.842 * Emission Calculations from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 DBS:WORD:~175~EmisslonCalcs:Ops Fugitive Vehicle Emissions . 9/18/02 TABLE A-9 FUEL DISPENSING AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS E=EF*Q Where: E VOC Emissions (lbs) EF Emission factor (Ib/Mgal or 1,000 gallons) Q throughput (Mgal) Gasoline EF = 1.8 Ib/Mgal Soume: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Diesel EF = 0.028 Ib/Mgal Soume: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Gasoline Emissions: Gasoline EF 1.8 Ib/Mgal Throughput 10,000 gal/day Emissions 18 lbs of VOC/day Diesel Emissions: Gasoline EF 0.028 Ib/Mgal Throughput 5,000 gal/day Emissions 0,14 lbs of voC/day Benzene EmissionS: Benzene EF 1 pement of total gasoline VOC Emissions Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Emissions. 0.18 lbs/day DBS:WORD:/2175/Emlsslon Calcs:Dispensing STRAW GO UGH September 23, 2002 City of Rancho Cueamonga Planning Commission Arm: Brent Le Count 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Project File: CUP 00-17 Proposed Chevron Service Station, convenience market, car wash on Foothill Boulevard west of Vineyard Avenue To Members of the Planning Commission: .- This office rePresents Art and Diana Flores who are the oxvners and operators cfa Mobil ' gasoline service station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard at the '. intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. Mr. and Mrs. Flores built this station fron~ the grot}lid up at their own expense and have a supply contract with Mobil. ' THIS PROJECT REQUIRES AN EIR My clients object to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP for the above captioned project. With this letter I am enclosing a report prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. which sets forth in detail our objections to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the reasons why an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be required for this project. I will not repeat the findings of the Environmental Audit report here, but the report in its entirety is incorporated by reference for the record. We believe that the Environmental Audit report demonstrates that as a matter of law, an EIR is required for this particular project. Ifa lead agency is presented with a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68. The Environmental Audit report presents a number of issues and arguments which constitute a fair argument in favor of an EIR. The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is to require governmental agencies to look before they leap and consider any environmental conseqUences of City Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga September 23, 2002 Page 2 their actions before taking them. CEQA "generally requires a state or local public agency to prepare an EIR on any activity it undertakes or approves which may have a significant effect on the environment." Gentry v. City of Murietta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4t~ 1359, 1371; Pub. Res. ' Code §21151(a). A significant effect is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." Laurel Heights Improvement.dss~ v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4t~ 1112, 1123, quoting Pub. Res. Code § 21068. "Public Resources Code section 21151 "creates a low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." Silveria v. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Dist. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4~ 980, 986. We urge the Planning Commission to require an EIR for this project. " OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE PROJECT In addition to the reasons set forth in the Environmental Audit report, my clients also question the wisdom and propriety of constructing a third gasoline service station at this intersection. Besides the gasoline service station operated by my elieats at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard,. the Albertson's supermarket directly across the intersection of Vineyard and Foothill operates an .d-Express with pump islands and a convenience store. In terms of cit~ planning and providing useful and necessary services to the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, it does not seem that three gasoline service stations at an intersection where, until a few years ago, them were no gasoline stations is the most beneficial use of this site for Rancho Cucamonga~ Besides saturating the immediate area with gasoline service stations, the conslruction of yet another service station would result in an increase in gasoline deliveries by gasoline tanker tracks, and an increase in traffic to support the three operations. My clients advise me that there are 9 other gasoline service stations within a one-mile radius of the proposed site and two others have gone out of business recently. Cumulatively the construction of yet another gas station, convenience sto/e and car wash would cause more traffic congestion, delays and noise in an area which is immediately adjacent to the construction of new homes and condominiums. The addition of a car wash at the proposed Chevron location raises the likelihood of numerous and trucks either waiting either in the wash line or waiting for the wash to be completed, thereby causing further traffic delays, congestion, exhaust and noise. In addition, when Mr. and Mrs. Flores built their station in 1996 the City of Rancho Cucamonga required that they spend $595,000 for offsite improvements including the installation of new traffic lights, the widening and alignment of Foothill Boulevard, the undergrotmding utilities on Foothill, the relocation of an Edison light post, the dedication of 17 feet of the Orange Grove property on Foothill to CaiTnms, at~d improvements for adjacent properties including a new driveway to serve Red Hill liquor store and In-and-Out Burger. My CiW Pl.nnlng Commission Rancho Cueamonga September 23, 2002 Page 3 . clients spent an additional $60,000 for the civil engineer and pen'nits. Mr. and Mrs. Flores are still making payments on the loan which they obtained to pay for these improvements. It ha~ become more difficult for them to meet their monthly payments because their volume of gasoline sales has decreased over 40% since the opening of the A-Express, another sign that this area may not support yet another gasoline service station. Saturation of this area with y6t another service station may leave my client unable to meet its payments on the '10an which it took to fund these improvements. · For all of these reasons, and all of the reasons, stated in the Environmental Audit report which is submitted herewith, we request that this project be the subject of further review and consideration, including the legal requirement of preparing an Environmental Impact Report. t'aul T. Gough/' { : ' · PTG:jk E H!BIT 3. STRAW GOUGH October 23, 2002 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Project File: CUP 00-17 Proposed Chevron Station To Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents Art & Diana Flores who are the owners and operators ora Mobil gasoline sen,ice station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919'East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. On September 23, 2002, I submitted to the Planning Commission a report prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. and a letter which I prepared which set forth objections to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP for the above captioned location. I attended the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 2002 Where the Planning Division requested a continuance to evaluate and respond to the issues raised in our · submission of September 23, 2002. The matter was continued to October 23, 2002. Following the September 25, 2002 meeting, I did not receive any communication from the Planning Division. On October 22, 2002, I called the Planning Division to find out if this matter was being continued again since I had not received any response to our objections. Late in the morning of October 22, 2002, I was advised bY Brent LeCount that responses to our objections had been prepared and delivered to the Planning Commission. I asked ifa copy of the responses had been provided to me or to Environmental Audit. Mr. LeCount advised me that no copy of the responses had been provided to me or Environmental Audit, but that these documents were public records and were available in Rancho Cucamonga. My office is in West Los Angeles and Environmental Audit is located in Placentia. Mr. LeCount then told me he would see ifa copy of the responses could be made available to me. About three hours later, at 2:30 p.m. on October 22, 2002, I received a faxed copy of the responses to our objections. These responses were prepared by Lilbum Corporation and appear to bear the date of October 14, 2002. I do not know why a courtesy copy of the responses was not provided to me or my clients. The lateness of the delivery of the responses alloxved no time for our consultant to review the responses or reply to the responses. Therefore I am requesting a continuance of this matter to allow our consultant to examine the responses and deliver any further comments on this important project. Members of the Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga October 23, 2002 Page 2 My clients are a hard working couple who operate a service station in Rancho Cucamonga and they are disappointed that they were not provided a copy of the responses and that they have been shorted on the time to have any meaningful response prepared. It is of note that the responses admit that in analyzing the cumulative environmental effects which the project would have, they rely in several instances on a CEQA regulation which has been invalidaied by the Sacramento Superior Court and which is the subject of a pending appeal in the Third Disffict Court of Appeal. The oral arguments regarding the validity of this CEQA regulation were heard on September 20, 2002 and a decision is likely forthcoming shortly. We question whether the proponent of the project is attempting to obtain a quick approval of its Mitigated Negative Declaration before the..Court of Appeal can render its decision. If so, this would seem to undercut the spirit of CEQA which creates a low threshold for the preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor environmental review. In view of the all of the above facts, we request a continuance of this matter to allow sufficient time to address the responses of Lilburn Corporation dated. October 14, 2002. Paul.T. Oough PTO:jk. f STRAW GOUGH November 4, 2002 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cueamonga, CA 91730 Re: Appeal of Decision of Planning Commission - Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station - Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-101 Hon. Members of City CoUncil: This office represents Art and Diana Flores who are the owners and operators of a Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. Mr. and Mrs. Flores built this station fi:om the ground up at their own expense and have a supply contract with Mobil. My clients are appealing the October 23, 2002 action of the Planning Commission which approved the above captioned project in Resolution 02-101 on that date. I will set forth a brief precedural history of this mat~er and then set forth the reasons for this appeal. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 5, 2002, the Planning Commission published a Notice of Public Hearing and Environmental Notice for the above captioned project. This Notice advised that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on September 25, 2002 to consider the project and further advised that "a complete environmental assessment" had been prepared, and invited comments by September 2~5, 2002. The City had prepared a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). On September 23, 2002, I delivered objections to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Planning Commission. These objections consisted ora report fi:om Environmental Audit, Inc. dated September 20, 2002, and a letter fi:om me which set forth the authority why an EIR was required as a matter of law for the project, and other objections to the project. The Environmental Audit report of September 20, 2002 and my letter of Septomber 23, 2002 are provided with this Appeal for convenience. The Environmental Audit report lists 21 different comments setting forth deficiencies in the Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study Part II for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00~17 and each of these arc incorporated into this Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 3 Prior to the vote on the project by the Planning Commission on October 23rd, Mr. McNiel, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that my objections to the project were "absurd." On October 28, 2002, the Cou~ of Appeal issued its unanimous opinion that the CEQA Guideline (14 CCR 15064(h)) was indeed invalid. For convenience I am providing a copy of the opinion in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, Case C038844, issued by the Third District Court of Appeal on October 28, 2002 and certified for publication. Page 3 of the Opinion provides: "We uphold the trial court's invalidation of the following Guidelines: section 15064, subsection (h) (hereafter Guidelines section 150640a) regulatory standards to determine significant environmental effect)...". Page 18 of the Opinion provides: "We conclude that the Guidelines section 15064(h) is inconsistent with controlling CEQA law governing the fair argument approach, and therefore is invalid." Planning Commission Resolution 02-101 appr°vedthe Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 23, 2002 and made a finding that there was "no substantial eVidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment" (paragraph 4). Resolution 02-101 also provided: "The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of !970, as amended, and the state CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder..." (paragraph 4(a). REASONS FOR APPEAL 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was not prepared in compliance with state CEQA Guidelines because it relies upon state CEQA Guideline 15064(h) which is invalid. The Lilburn Report of October 14, 2002 admits that "a number of impacts which may cause a significant effect on the environment" were identified, but then argues that so long as permit requirements from agencies such as RWQCB and SCAQMD were met, then under CEQA Guideline 14 CCR 15064(h), no EIR was required and the Mitigated Negative Declaration is proper. See pages l, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the Lilburn Report. This is the same argument which was soundly rejected by the Court of Appeal in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency. In that ease the Court of Appeal first stated the purpose of CEQA: "The purpose of CEQA is to protect and maintain California's environmental quality. With certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may havea significant environmental effect; under this fair argument standard, and EIR must be prepared even if other substantial evidence Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 5 Cal. 3d 929, 936, the California Supreme Court emphasized that the public holds a "privileged position" in the CEQA proeasS "based on a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making." The Supreme Court went on to quote from the case of County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 160 Cal. App. 3d 1178, 1185:~ "CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process." After Mr. & Mrs. Flores retained an environmental consultant and submitted a report and a letter for the September 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the staff of the Planning Commission failed to extend the basic courtesy of providing them with a copy of the Lilbum Report of October 14, 2002, so that they could evaluate it and reply to it. The Lilburn Report was provided on the afternoon before the October 23~a hearing, and then ouly after a request to the staff of the Planning Commission. The notice which the Planning Commission publishes states that "all interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing andexpress opinions for or against the proposal." After we did so, the Planning Commission and its staff did its very best to prevent any further dialogue on.the environmental issues. The Lilburn Report was kept quiet and the request for a short continuance to provide a reply to the Lilbum Report was never even taken under consideration by the Planning Commission. Even if the Court of Appeal had not provided City Council with a slam-dunk basis for rejecting the approval of the project, the City Council should still send this matter back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings because of the heavy-handed way it was handled by the Planning Commission and its staffin violation of the letter and spirit 0f CEQA Guideline 15201, as well as the clear language of the Supreme Court. 3. The City Council should conduct an independent review of the Environmental Audit report and the Lilburn Report. For all of the other reasons raised in the Environmental Audit report, the City Council should reject the approval of the project and return this matter to the Planning Commission with instructions to prepare an EIR. 4. The Planning Commission did not consider whether this intersection would support another service station. Besides the gasoline service station operated by the Flores at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard, the Albertson's supermarket directly across the intersection of Vineyard and Foothill Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 7 CONCLUSION Because the City relied on an invalid CEQA Guideline, the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not comply with CEQA or its Guidelines. Significant enviromental effects which are conceded to exist have been hidden under the cloak of a since invalidated CEQA Guideline. For this reason alone, the City Council must disapprove the project and return this matter to the Planning Commission for the preparation of an EIR. As demonstrated above, there are numerous other reasons why this matter should be disapproved by the City Council. PTG:jk EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY ART & DIANA FLORES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 PROPOSED CHEVRON SERVICE STATION PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 1. Environmental Audit, Inc. Report dated September 20, 2002. . 2. Letter from Paul T. Gough to Planning Commission dated September 23, 2002. 3. Letter from Paul T. Gough to Planning Commission dated October 23,~ 2002. 4. Decision from Third District Court of Appeal in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, Case No. C038844 issued on October 28, 2002 and certified for publication. November 4, 2002 EXHIBIT ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC. MEMORANDUM Project No. 2175 DATE: September 20, 2002 TO: Paul Gough FROM: Debbie Bright Stevens RE: Gasoline Station in Rancho Cucam0nga Environmental Audit, inc. (EAI) has reviewed the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study Part II for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-17. The proposed project is for the construction of a gasoline station on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. We offer the following comments of the Intital Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. GENERAL COMMENTS ' 1. The City used an out-dated environmental checklist form. Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was revised and updated in about 1998 and a new Environmental Checklist form was developed. While CEQA allows lead agencies to develop their own checklist forms (15063(0), the checklist forms still must comply with the CEQA guidelines. A number of issues should be included in the checklist form. Examples of differences between the checklist used by the City and the Checklist recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G include the following: · No agricultural resources were evaluated by the City. · The checklist for air quality resources has been substantially revised and include a consistency review of the proposed project with the Air Quality Management Plan, and a review of the project to consider if the.project would "result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment..." These resources were not evaluated by the City. · The Hazard section is missing a number of review criteria including evaluation of transportation hazards, air emissions of hazardous pollutants, and whether the project site is included on a list of hazardons materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 2. The significance criteria used to identify whether or not impacts were considered to be "significant" or not was not provided for most of the environmental resources analyzed. P. 6ough September 19, 2002 Page 3 Air Quality 6. The Initial Study estimates the project emissions using an outdated air quality model, URBEMIS7G. EMFAC2000 is the more current and appropriate model for estimating emissions fi.om mobile sources than URBEMIS7G. 7. Construction emissions are part of the air quality impacts and require analysis. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for construction emissions. 8. The assumptions used in the URBEMIS7G model should be provided so that others can review the assumptions and calculations. Nonetheless, it appears that emissions fi.om heavy construction equipment have not been accurately estimated. Construction emission estimates have been provided in Table 1 for constmction activities at a gasoline station which should be similar to the construction activities for the proposed project. Detailed emission calculations are included in Appendix A. The emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines which contain requirements for air emission calculations, including emission factors and assumptions fgr. constmction activities. Based on the information in Table 1 and Appendix A, the construction emissions associated with the proposed project are significant and an EIR must be prepared.. TABLE 1 PEAK DAY CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTIVITY CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 Construction Equipment 56.2 8.5 113.6 · 17.7 8.3 Mobile Source Emissions 12.3 0.6 4.3 -- 0. I ' Fugitive DUSt/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads ....... · 45.0 Fugitive Dust From Constructionm .... 85.0 Architectural Coatings -- 52.5 - -- - Total Construction Emissions 68.5 61.6 117.9 17.7 138.4 SCAQMD Threshold Level 550 75. I00 150 150 ' Significant? NO NO YES NO NO · (1) Assumes application of water two times per day. 9. The air emissions fi.om the operation of a gasoline station have not bee~ calculated correctly and are underestimated in the Initial Study. The emission estimates do not include accurate estimates from mobile sources since an outdate mobile source model was used (URBEMIS7G). Further, the operational emissions do not include emission estimates for stationax~ equipment which, at minimum, include emissions from fuel dispensing and underground storage tanks. ' P. Gough Scpt~nnbor 19, 2002 Page 5 gasoline station with the other two gasoline stations located nearby must also be addressed on the adjacent residential areas. 13. The current CEQA checklist (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) includes that'the following checklist item: · III.c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (include releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The City's checklist does not iriclude the above item in its checklist: Therefore, the project Cumulative impacts on air quality have been ignored. This is inappropriate because the project area exceeds a number of the state and federal ambient air quality'standards. Transportation/Circulation : 14. The level of service (LOS) associated with the nearby intersections must ha conducted tn order to determine if the project-generated traffic could have significant impacts on traffic. A minimal increase in traffic can have significant impacts if the existing (or ambient) traffic levels are already severe. No information is provided to determine if the proposed project could have significant impacts. The increase of 2,317 trips co~d easily have a significant ' impact on traffic if adjacent impacts are already operating at LOS D or wolfe. Hazards 15. The City's checklist does not evaluated the potential hazards associated with transportation of hazardous materials and substances. Gasoline is considered to be a ha?ardous material and the impacts associated with an accident should be pr0x,ided. ' · 16. The hazards associated with the operation of a gasoline station should be provided. The potential hazard zones_associated with a fire or explosion should also be provided. ~ 17. No analysis has been provided in 9.C) to make the determination that benzene will be below the CEQA thresholds. No where in the Initial Study were emissions fi.om benzene estimated, modeled and a cancer risk estimated provided to determine if the exposure to the material would be considered significant. The Initial Study also did not analyze the cumulative exposure to benzene associated with adding a new gasoline station in an a~ea where two gasoline stations currently exist. The cumulative impacts associated with benzene exposure on residents near the three gasoline stations is expected to be significant. APPEI~DIX A EMISSION CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT 2 /~/ STRAW .,g GOUGH September 23, 2002 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Arm: Brent Le Count 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cueamonga, CA 91730 Re: Project File: CUP 00-17 Proposed Chevron Service Station, convenience market, car wash on Foothill Boulevard west of Vineyard Avenue To Members of thc Planning Commission: This office represents Art and Diana Flores who are the oxvners and operators ora Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. Mr. and Mrs. Flores built this station from. the ground up at their own expense and have a supply contract with Mobil. THIS PROJECT REQUIRES AN EIR My clients object to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP for the above captioned project. With this letter I am enclosing a report prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. which sets forth in detail our objections to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the reasons why an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be required for this project. I will not repeat the findings of the Environmental Audit report here, but the report in its entirety is incorporated by reference for the record. We believe that the Environmental Audit report demonstrates that as a matter of law, an EIR is required for this particular project. Ifa lead agency is presented with a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also bc presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68. The Environmental Audit report presents a number of issues and arguments which constitute a fair argument in favor of an EIR. The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') is to require governmental agencies to look before they leap and consider any environmental consequences of /$2. City. Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga September 23, 2002 Page 3 . . clients spent an additional $60,000 for the civil engineer and permits. Mr. and Mrs. Flo~s are still making payments on the loan which they obtained to pay for these improvements. It has become more difficult for them to meet their monthly payments because their volume of gasoline sales has decreased over 40% since the opening of the A-Express, another sign that this area may not support yet another gasoline service station. Saturation of this area with yet another service station may leave my client unable to meet its payments on the 'loan which it took to fund these improvements. · . For all of these reasons, and all of the reasons stated in the Environmental Audit'report which is submitted herewith, we request that this project be the subject of further review and consideration, including the legal requirement of preparing an Environmental Impact Report. tndy yo .)4rs, /~ PTG:jk Exm rr 3. /sC STRAW GOUGH October 23, 2002 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cueamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Project File: CIJP 00-17 Proposed Chevron Station To Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents Axt & Diana Flores who are the owners and operators ora Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919 'East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill ~and Vineyard. On September 23, 2002, I submitted to the Planning · Commission a report prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. and a letter which I prepared which set forth objections to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP for the above captioned location. I attended the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 2002 where the Planning Division requested a continuance to evaluate and respond to the issues raised in our · submission of September 23, 2002. The matter was continued to October 23, 2002. Following the September 25, 2002 meeting, I did not receive any communication from the Planning Division. On October 22, 2002, I called the Planning Division to find out if this matter was being continued again since I had not received any response to our objections. Late in the morning of October 22, 2002, I was advised by Brent LeCount that responses to our objections had been prepared and delivered to the Planning Commission. I asked ifa copy of the responses had been provided to me or to Environmental Audit. Mr. LeCount advised me that no copy of the responses had been provided to me or Environmental Audit, but that these documents ~ere public records and were available in Rancho Cucamonga. My office is in West Los Angeles and Environmental Audit is located in Placentia. Mr. LeCount then told me he would see ifa cop3' of the responses could be made available to me. About three hours later, at 2:30 p.m. on October 22, 2002, I received a faxed copy of the responses to our objections. These responses were prepared by Lilburn Corporation and appear to bear the date of October 14, 2002. I do nm know why a courtesy copy of the responses was not provided to me or my clients. The lateness of the delivery of the responses alloxved no time for our consultant to review the responses or reply to the responses. Therefore I am requesting a continuance of this matter to allow our consultant to examine the responses and deliver any further comments on this important project. 155 E'XHmlT 4 Filed 10/28/02 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT C038844 et al., (Super. Ct. No. 00CS00300) Plaintiffs and Appellants, CALIFORNIA .RESOURCES AGENCY, Defendant and Respondent. CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Intervener and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Ronald B. Robie, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in parT. Anne E. Simon for Plaintiff and Appellant Communities for a Better Environmenu. Law Offices of Sharon E. Duggan and Sharon E. Duggan for Plaintiff and Appellant Environmental Protection Information Center. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellison Folk and Marlena G. Byrne for Plaintiffs and Appellants Environmental Protection Information Center and Desert Citizens Against Pollution. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Mark D. Joseph and Mark R. Wolfe for State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard Mo Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, J. Matthew Rodriquez, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daniel L. Siegel and Marian E. Moe, Deputy Attorneys General for Defendant and Respondent. Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & Maccuish, Steven W. Weston and Edward J. Casey for Intervener and Appellant. Girard & Vinson, christian M. Keiner and William F. Schuetz, Jr., for California County Superintendents' Educational Services Association as Amicus Curiae on'behalf of Intervener and Appellant. M. Reed Hopper and Robin L. Rivett for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Intervener and Appellant. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes the Secretary of the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) to adopt ~'Guidelines" to implement CEQA.! The Guidelines are published in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.2 1 Public Resources Ccde section 21000 et seq., 21050, 21083, 21087. All further statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated. We will refer to the CEQA statutes in the format "CEQA section 2 California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq. We will refer to the CEQA Guidelines in the format "Guidelines section ." /$$ In 1998, the Resources Agency adopt~d··significant revisions to the Guidelines.3 Several of these revised Guidelines, as characterized by one ~reatise, ~dealt with many of the stickiest, 'and most controversial, issues in CEQA jurisprudence.''4 The present matter encompasses both an appeal and a cross- appeal. In the appeal, we uphold the trial court's invalidation of the following Guidelines: section 15064, subsection (h) (hereafter Guidelines section 15064(h)) (regulatory standards to determine significant environmental'·effect); sections 15064, subsection (i) (4) (hereafter Guidelines section 15064(i) (4)) and 15130, subsection (a) (4) (hereafter Guidelines section t5130(a)'(4)) (how "de minimis" effects in a cumulatively impacted environment affect environmental impact report (EIR) preparation and discussion); Guidelines section 1513.0, . . subsection (b) (1) (B)2 (hereafter Guidelines section 15130(b) (1) (B) 2) (the definiticn of "probable future projects" for EIR discussion of cumulative impacts); Guidelines section 15152, subsection (f) (3) (C) (hereafter Guidelines section 15152(f) (3) (C)) (whether significant environmental effects have 3 CEQA section 21087, subdivision·(a); see Remy, et al., ·Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (10th ed. 1999) page 11 and appendix VI, page 969 et seq.· (hereafter Remy, CEQA Guide). 4 Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 11, see also appendix VI, pages 969, 974. been adequately addressed in a prior EIR, and their relationship to a statement of overriding considerations); and section 15378,- subsection (b) (5) (hereafter Guidelines section 15378(b) (5)) (organizational activities which are political or which are not physical changes are not "projects" for EIR purposes). We part company, though, with the trial court's invalidation of Guidelines section 15064, subsection (i) (3) (hereafter Guidelines section 15064(i) (3)), so long as that section incorporates the fair argument trigger for EIR preparation (lead agency may determine no incremental cumulative effect if project meets cumulative mitigation plan's specific requirements). In the cross-appeal; we uphold the trial court's validation cf Guidelines section 15332 (categorical exemption for certain u'rban in-fill development projects). Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part. BACKGROUND At issue in this case is whether the subject Guidelines, which public agencies must follow to implement CEQA, facially violate CEQA statutes and case law.5 As such, the matter presents a concrete legal dispute ripe for our consideration. This matter s~ands in contrast to Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commission where the issues were not sufficiently concrete to allow judicial resolution in the absence of a specific factual context; there, the plaintiffs S See CEQA section 21083'; see also Guidelines section 15000. claimed essentially that administrative guidelines governing development dedications for beach access might in the future.be applied contrary to statutory or constitutional law.6 The purpose of CEQA is to protect and maintain California's environmental quality.? With certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental ef,fect; under this fair argument standard, an EIR must b~ prepared even if other isubstantial evidence shows no significant environmental effect.8 "'Significant effect, on the environment' means a substantial,' or potentially $.ubstantial, adverse change in the environment.''9 The EIR .has been repeatedly recognized as the "~hear% of CEQA.,,,10 ~ Pacific Legal-Foundation v. California coastal com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 167-174. .. 7 CEQA sections 21000, 21001. 8 CEQA sections 21100, 21151, 21080, subdivision (d), 21082~2, subdivision (a); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents_of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 (Laurel Heights II); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 84 (No Oil); Friends of "B" Street v. city of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 999, 1002 (Friends of "B" Street); Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of E1 Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 880 (Oro Fino). 9 cEQA section 21068. lo Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1123;' accord, Oro Fino, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at page 880.. CEQA requires that, before approving a project,~ the lead. public agency find either that the project, s significant environmental effects identified in the EIR have been avoided or mitigated, or that the unmitigated effects are outweighed by the project's benefits; if the public agency makes the latter finding, it must explain its reasoning ina statement of. overriding considerations.1! The EIR's purpose, then, "'is to inform the public and its responsible officials of.the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." [Citation.]~,,12 Pursuant to a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief, three environmental organizations-- Com~.unities For A Better Environment, Envi.r0nmental Protection. inform~tion Center, and Desert Citizens Against pollution (hereafter collectively referred to as CBE)--sued the Resources Agency, challenging several t998-re~ised Guidelines. The California Building Industry Association (BIA), a homebuilding trade association, was allowed to intervene in the action~ The trial court invalidated the following Guidelines sections: 15064(h), 15064(i) (4), 15130{a} (4), 15130(b) (.1) (B) 2, 15152(f) (3) {C), 15378(b) (5), 15064(i) (3), and 15152(f) (.2) 11 CEQA sections 21002,' 21002.1, 21081; Guidelines sections 15091-15093; Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1124. 12 Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1123, italics omitted. to the extent it incorporates 15064(i) (3) and 15064(i) (4). The Resources Agency did not appeal this judgment,' but the BIA did. Nevertheless, the Resources Agency attempted to file a respondent's brief requesting that Guidelines sections 15064(h), 15064(i) (3) and 15152(f) (2) (to the eXtent it incorporates 15064(i) (3)) be validated. We struck this brief as an improper attempt to appeal based on a respondent's brief.. In a follow-up brief, the .Resources Agency stated it has not taken any position on the validity of Guidelines sections 15064(i) (4),' 15130(a) (4), 15130(b) (1) (B) 2, 15152(f)(3)(C)and 15378(b) (5), because the Secretary of the Resources Agency is considering possible amendments to these sections. The trial court upheld the validity'df.the following Guidelines sections: 15064.7, 15041, 15330, and 15332~ ~CBE filed a cross-appeal, challenging only'the trial court's judgment as to the Validity of section 15332... DISCUSSION. 1. Standard of Review Government Code section 11342.2 provides the general' standard of review for determining the validity of administrative regulations.13 That section states that "[w]henever by the express or implied terms of anY statute a state agency has authority to adopt regulations to implement~ 13 Henning v. Division of Occupational Saf. '& Health (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 747, 757 (Henning); Physicians & Surgeons Laboratories, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 968, 982 (Physicians). '~ -7- interpret, make specific or otherwise carryout the'provisions of the statute, no regulation adopted~is va~id ~r effective unless [1] consistent and nut in conflict with the statute and [2] reasonably necessary to effectuate'the purpose of the statute." Under the first prong of this standard, the j6diciary independently reviews the administrative regulation for consistency with controlling law.14 The question is whether the regulation alters or amends the governing statute or case law, or enlarges or impairs its scope. In short, the' question is whether the regulation is within the scope-of'the authority conferred; if it is not, it is void.15 This is ~ question partigulariy suited for the judiciary as the final arbiter of" the law, and does not invade the technical expertise of the agency.l~ 14 Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. Of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 11 and footnote 4 (Yamaha); Henning, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pages 757-758; Physicians,. supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 982; Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (.1996) 43 Cal. App.4th 1011, 1022 (Environmental Protection). 15 Henning, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at page 758, citing Ontario Community Foundation, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1984) 35 Cal.3d 811, 816-817 (Ontario); Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at page !1 and footnote 4. 16 Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal.2d 733~ 748 (Morris); Henning, s~Dra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pages 757-758; Pulaski v. Occupational Safety & Health Stds. Bd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1332. By contrast, the second prong of this standard, reasonable necessity, generally does implicate the~agency's expertise; therefore, it receives a much more deferential standard of review.17 The question is whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or without reasonable or rational basis.18 There is One wrinkle in the standard of review's first prong, and th~ BIA.seeks to wrap itself within the crease. An administrative agency'.s view of its governing legal authority is entitled Ko great weight and will be followed unless'it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized.19 Our state SUpreme Court has applied this principle to the Guidelines. The high court has stated that, regardless of whether the Guideiines are Considered · to be quasi-legislative regulatory mandates or merely interpretive aids, "[a]t a minimum, courts'Should afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a provision is clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA.';20 From this, th~ BIA argues that the revised Guidelines are valid unless they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous, and therefore the standard 17 Henning, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at page 758; Physicians,. supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at page 982. 18 Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at page 11; Henning, supra, 219 Cal.App~3d at page 758. 19 Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 668. 20 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, foqtnote 2 (Laurel Hei'ghts I). of review is a deferential one. The BiA is mistaken. The· ~fly in this particular ointment," as one court has noted, rests with the word ~unauthorized.'"zl ~[E]ven quasi-legislative rules are reviewed independently for consistency with controlling law"; 'if they are inconsistent, they are considered unauthorized.22 This is because "[w]hatever the force of administrative construction final responsibility for the interpretation of the law· rests with the courts.''23 An agency has no authority t~ promulgate a regulation that ks inconsistent'with controlling law.24 In the end, "[t]he court, not the agency, has 'final responsibility for the interpretation of the law' u~der which the regulation was issued.''~5 Finally, the "foremost principle" in interpreting CEQA i~' that the Legislature intended the act t~ be read so~as to afford· 21 Environmental Protection, supra, 43 Cal]App.4th at page 1022; see Yamaha, supra, 191Cal.4th at page 11, footnote 4. 22 Yamaha, Supra, 19 Cal.4th at page 11, fgotnote 4.' 23 Ontario, supra, 35 Cal.3d at page 816, quoted in Hennlng, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at page 758; Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at page !1, footnote 4. 24 Ontario, supra, 35 Cal.3d at page 816, cited in Henning, supra, 219 'Cal.App.3d at pages 757-758; Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at page 11, footnote 4. 25 Yamaha,~ supra, 19 Cal.4th at page 1i, footnote 4~ citing,· inter alia, Environmental Protection, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at page 1022. the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.26 2. Guidelines Section 15064(h)--Thresholds of Significance: Use of Regulatory Standards To Determine Significant Environmental Effect As noted, several CEQA statutes specify that a lead public agency must prepare an EIR for any project the agency intends to carry out or-approve which "may have a significant effect on the environment.''27 Thus, ~determining whether a Project may have a ,,28 significant effect'plays a critical role in the CEQA progess. Because of this ~may have a significant-effect" language and the EIR's place at the heart of the CEQA scheme, an EIR is required ~whenever 'it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact[,]'" regardless· of whether other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion.29 Guidelines section 15064 guides lead agencies in determining the significance of a project's environmental 26 LaUrel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at page 390; Citizens of ~ Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (~990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 563- 564; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259. 27 CEQA sections 21151,. 21100, subdivision (a), 21080, subdivision (d), 21082.2, subdivision (a). 28 Guidelines section 15064, subsection (a). 29 Friends of "B" Street, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at page 1002, quoting No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d at page 75; accord, Laurel · · Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1123; Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316. effects. Guidelines section 15064(h) provides for thresholds of significance to be based on regulatory standards that meet certain criteria. A ~threshold of significance" for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant; the term may be defined as a quantitative or qualitative standard, or set of criteria, pursuant to which the significance of a given environmental effect may be determined.30 Adopting thresholds of significance promotes consistency, efficiency, and predictability in deciding whether to prepare an EIR.31 According.to the former general counsel of the Resources Agency .who played a central role in preparing the 1998 revisions to the Guidelines, a vast body of regulatory standards has been adopted over the past few decades establishing levels at which impacts to a particular resource align with the definition of a significant effect On the environment.32 3~ Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance p(Sept. 1994) CEQA Technical Advice Series, reprinted in Bass, et al., CEQA Deskbook (2d ed. 1999), appendix 10, page 393 et seq.; see id. at page 393 (hereafter Thresholds of Significance, reprinted in Bass, CEQA Deskbook, appen. 10). 31 Thresholds of Significance, reprinted in Bass, CEQA Deskbook, appendix 10, supra, page 394. 32 Maureen F~ Gorsen, The New and Improved CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Important Guidance for Controversial Issues (Oct. 1998) reprinted in Remy, CEQA Guide, appendix VI, page 969 et seq., see id. at page 970 (hereafter Gorsen, The New and Improved CEQA Guidelines Revisions, reprinted in.Remy, CEQA ~uide, appen. VI); see also Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 241, The trial court upheld the validity of.Guidelines section 15064.7 on the use of thresholds of significance, and this ruling has not been challenged on appeal. Guidelines section. 15064.7 specifies as relevant: "(a) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish threshclds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or perfcrmance level of a. particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally wil1 be determined to be less than significant." The trial court upheld this Guideline, observing that "a lead agency, s use of existing environmental standards in determining the s~gnificance of a project's environmental impacts is an effective means of promoting consistency in signif%ca~ce determinations and integrating CEQA environmental review activities with other environmental program planning and regulation." We agree. But the trial court invalidated Guidelines section 15064(h) as contrary to the fair .argument approach established in CEQA statutory and case law. .We agree with the trial court here as well. footnote 23; see also CEQA section 21068 (defining significant effect on the environment). Guidelines section 15064(h) states:· · "(1) (A) Except as otherwise required by [s]ection 15065 [mandatory findings of significance], a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the'change complies with a standard that meets the definition in subsection ·'(h) (3). "(B) If there ·is a conflict between standards, th~' lead agency shall determine which standard is appropriate ~or purposes of this subsection based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. · "(C) Notwithstanding subsection (h) (1) (A), if·the lead agency determines on the basis of substantial evidence in light of 5he whole record·that a standard is inappropriate to determine the significance of an effect for a particular prcject, the lead-agency shall determine whether the effect ·may be significant as otherwise required by this section, [s]ection 15C65, and the Guidelines. · "(2) In the absence of a standard that satisfies suksection (h) (1) (A), the lead agency shall determine whether the effect maybe significant as otherwise required by this section, [s]ection 15065, and the Guidelines. "(3) For the purposes of~this subsection a ~standard' means a standard of general application that is all of the fo21owing: "(A) a quantitative, qualitative·or performance requirement found in a statute, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general application; "(B) adopted for the purpose of environmental protection; "(C) adopted by a public agency through a public revi'ew process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or. administered by the'public agency; "(D) one that governs the same environmental effect which .the change in the environment is impacting; and, "(E) one that governs within the jurisdiction where the project is located. "(4) This definition includes thresholds of significance adopted by lead agencies which meet the requirements ~of this subsection." Th'e trial court recognized the fair'argument!problem with Guidelines section 15064(h). If a proposed project has an environmental effect that complies with a subsection (h) (3) regulatory standard, the lead agency is directed'under' subsection (h) (1)(A)(and implicitly under subsection (h) (2)) to determine Ghat the effect is not significant, regardless of whether other substantiai evidence would support a fair argument that the effect may be environmentally significant.' This direction relieves the agency of a duty it would have under the fair argument approach to look at evidence beyond the regulatory standard, or in contravention of the'standard, in deciding whether an EIR must be prepared. Under the fair argument approach, any substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental effect would trigger the preparation of an EIR. A well-known CEQA treatise recognized this dilemma as well, stating: "[S]ubdivision (h) appears to dispense with the traditional 'fair.argument' standard otherwise applicable to the decision whether to prepare a[n] EIR. Notably} where existing regulatory standards, as defined, address a particular category of impact, the lead agency need not treat the impact as potentially significant whenever any substantial evidence in the record supports such a conclusion,''33 Admittedly, Guidelines section 15064(h) contains some wiggle room regarding the regulatory standard approach Subsection (h) (1) (B) states that if there is a conflict between standards, the lead agency shall determine which standard .is appropriate. More importantly for our purposes, under subsection (h) (1) (C), a lead agency may determine on the basis of substantial evidence in light of thewhole record that a standard is inappropriate to determine the signilficance of-an effect for a particular project; if this happens, the' le'ad agency is to determine whether the effect may be significant as otherwise required. However, as one CEQA treatise observes with respect to these two subsections: "[A] lead agency'. decide[s] for itself whether or not to use a particular standard; it cannot be forced into such a decision simply because project opponents or skeptics can point to substantial evidence indicating that reliance on the standard is '. inappropriate or ineffective.''$4 In other words, the fair 33 Remy, .CEQA Guide, supra, page 174. 34 Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 175. 171-. argument approach is repudiated once again. In fact, subsections (h) (1) (C) and (h) (2) unwittingly sow the seeds of Guidelines section 15064(h)'s demise by recognizing that if the lead agency determines the regulatory standard is inappropriate to determine significant effect, or if there is no applicable regulatory standard, the agency is to determine whether the· effect may be significant "as otherwise required" (i.e., by using the fair argument approach).35 The BIA argues that the fair argument test is limited to one aspect of the CEQA review process (the decision whether to prepare an EIR), with all other aspects of the process· being governed by the substantial evidence test. The BIA maintains that since the fair argument test does not· apply to t~e · establishment of significance standards or thresholds, Guidelines section 15064(h) properly employs the substantial evidence test when addressing the local agency's de~ision to rely on a regulatory standard·as a CEQA significance threshold. The problem with this argument is that it focuses on the establishment of a regulatory standard as a threshold of significance; it ignores the real issue here--the application of an established regulatory standard in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial ~vidence showing there may be·a significant effect. 35 See Guidelines section 15064, subsection (f) (incorporating the fair argument· standard). We conclude that Guidelines section 15064(h)-is inconsistent with controlling CEQA law governing the fair argument approach, and therefore is invalid.. 3. Guidelines Section 15064(i)(3)--Cumulative Imt~acts: Incremental Cumulative Effect and · ~ Cumulative Mitigation Plan In addition to evaluating a project's direct and indirect environmental effects, a lead agency must also assess whether a cumulative effedt requires an EIR.36 This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083. That section requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if [t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. '[C]umulatively considerable' means that' the incremental effects of ah individual project are~considerable when'viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects bf other current projects, and the. effects of probable future projects.''37 Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project'cannot'be gauged in a vacuum.38 one of the most important environmental lessons tha~ has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small ~ources. 'These sources 36 CEQA section 21083, subdivision (b); Guidelines section 15064, subsection (i) (1); Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 240. 37 CEQA section 21083, subdivision (b). 3s Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408. appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considebed collectively wi~h other sources with which they interact.39 Although the assessment of cumulative effects plays an important'part in the CEQA review process, this requirement has proven to be a source of considerable confusion.40 In assessing whether & cumulative effect requires an EIR, Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) states that "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in'a previously approved planor mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid, or substantiall~ tessen, the~ cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air ~uatity plan, integrated waste management plan) within~ the geographic area in which the project is located.- Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with .jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency." we conelude this Guideline is consistent w~th controlling CEQA law, so long as it is read to incorporate the fair argument standard for EIR preparation. . 39 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City o~ Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025 (Los Angeles Unified). 40 See Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 240. 175 This section stands in contrast to Guidelines section 15064(h), which we just repudiated. Guidelines section 15064(h) directed the lead agency to determine that a project's environmental effect was not significant if the effect complied with a standard meeting certain criteria, regardless of whether it could be fairly argued on the basis of other substantial evidence that the project could still have a significant environmental effect. Guidelines section 15064(i) (3), in contrast, states that a lead agenQy may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if it complies with a standard meeting certain criteria. Guidelines-section 15064(i) (3) does not direct the lead agency to focus only on the standard to the exclusion of other substantial evidence from which it can'be fairly argued that an EIR is still required. In this way, Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) is more akin. to the validated Guidelines section 15064.7 (encouraging the use of thresholds of significance) than it is to the invalidated. Guidelines section 15064(h). The argument against Guidelines section 15064(i) (3)'s validity is that the section impermissibly allows an agency to find a cumulative effect insignificant based on a project's compliance with some generalized plan rather ~han on'the project's actual environmental impacts. 'That is, even if substantial evidence shows that a project's cumulative impact may be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant, the lead agency may nevertheless deem the impact insignificant,. and forego an EIR, simply because the impact complies with a plan or mitigation program. By incorporating the fair argument · approach'into Guidelines section 15064(i) (3)'s receptive "may determi, ne'~ language, however, this'argument'loses its punch. If there is substantial e~idence that the possible'effects' of a particular project are still cumulatively conSiderabl'e' notwithstanding that the project complies with the'specified plan or mitigation.program addressing the.cumulative problem, an' EIR must be prepared for the project. The trial court found that Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) contravenes CEQA case law which holds that a project ca~ have significant'cumulative impacts even though the project complies with thresholds of significance in an approved plan or mitigation p~ogram-41 There 'is no contravention, howeve'r, if Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) incorporates the fair ~rgument' standard; rather., the principle enunciated in these cases' provides the legal basis for a fair argument that a project has significant cumulative impacts notwithstanding that it complies' with an approved plan or mitigation program." We conclude that Guidelines section 15064'(i) (3) is consistent'with controlling' CEQA law'so long as the section '~s deemed to incorporate the fair argument standard in triggering EIR preparation. Guidelines section 15152(f) (2), which ih~olves 41 See City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Ca.l.App.3d 1325, 1332-1338; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) ~221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716-717 (Kings County). . I)'] EIR tiering, incorporates Guidelines section 15064(i) ' The trial court invalidated section 15152(f) (2) to the exteht it incorporates Guidelines section 150'64(i) (3). Section 15152(f) (2)'s incorporation of section !5064(i)(3)is · permissible in light of our validation cf section-15064(i) (3). 4. Guidelines Sections 15064(i)(4) and 15130(a) (4)--C~mulative Impacts:~ De Min~m~$ Incremental Contributions to 'Cumulative Impacts; Guidelines Section 15152 (£)(2).'s Incorporation of Section 15064 (i) (4) Guidelines sections 15064(i)(4) and 15130(a)(4) involve the subject of cumulative impacts in the EIR Process. As noted, CEQA section 21083 governs this subject; that section requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project's "possible effects are individually limited but cumulatively ccnsiderable. '[C]umulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. ,,42 The Guidelines define "cumulative impadts" as referring to "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. [9] [~I] . The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in 42 CEQA section 21083, subdivision (b). the environment which results from the incremental impact of~the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result~from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.'',43 Guidelines section 15064(i) (4) governs whether a cumulative ~f~ct r. equires an EIR to be prepared. It states: ~A lead agency may determine that the incremental impacts of'a project are not cumulatively considerable when they are so small that. they make only a de minimis contribution to a significant .. cumulative impact caused by other proje~cts, that~would exist in the absence of the proposed project. Such de minim~[i]s incremental impacts, by themselves, do no~ trigger the · obligation ko prepare an EIR. A de minim[i]s contribution means that. the environmental conditions would essentially be,the, same whether or not the proposed project is implemented., Guidelines section 15130(a)'(4) governs an EIR's discussion of cumulative impacts. It states: "(a) An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when t.he project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not ~cumulatively considerable,' a lead agency need not consider that effect significant., but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively 43 Guidelines section 15355. '~ ~ 177 considerable. [9] [9] (4) An EIR may.determine that a p~oject's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is de minim[i]s and thus is not significant, A de minim[i]s contribu'tion means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented." While these two Guidelines appear reasonable on their faCe, they contravene the very concept of cumulative impacts. Their application would turn cumulative impact analysis on its head by diminishing the need to do a cumulative impact analysis as the cumulative impact problem worsens. The reason for this incongruity is that the de minimis approach of Guidelines sections 15064(i) (4) and 15130(a) (4) compares the incremental effect of the proposed project against the collective cumulative impact of all relevant projects. ~ This comparative approach is contrary to CEQA section 21083 and to the Guidelines section 15.355 definition of cumUlative.impacts, set forth above; this approach also contravenes CEQA case law. The seminal decision is Kings County.44 There the court concluded that an EIR inadequately considered an air pollution (ozone) cumulative impact. The court said: "The []EtR concludes the project's contributions ~to ozone levels in the area would be immeasurable and, therefore, insignificant because the [cogeneration] plant would emit relatively minor amounts 44 Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3dat,page 718. of [ozone] precursors compared to the total, volume.of [ozone] precursors emitted in Kings County. The EIR's analysis uses the magnitude of the current ozone problem in the air basin in order to trivialize the project's impact.''45 The court concluded:, "The relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the. relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin.,,46 . · LOS Angeles Unified followed the Kings County approach. It found an EIR inadequate for concluding that a project's additional increase in noise level of another 2.8 to 3.3 dBA was insignificant given that the existing.noise level of 72 dBA already exceeded the regulatory recommended maximum of 70 dBA~47 The court concluded that this "ratio theory" trivialized the · project's noise impact by focusing on individual inputs rather than their collective significance.48 The re!evant issue'was not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from'the project when compared to existing traffic noise, but whether ' 45 Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d.at page.7!8. . 46 Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at page 718; · 47 Los ~=ugeles Unified, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at pages 1024- 1026. 48 Los Angeles Unified, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page'1025. . any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered significant given the nature of the existing traffic noise problem.49 From Kings County a~d Los Angeles Unified,..the guiding · criterion on the subject of cumulative impact is whether any additional effect caused.by the proposed project should be considered significant given the existing cumulative effect. In adopting Guidelines sections 15064(i) (4) and 15130(a) (4), the Resources Agency ~elied on language appearing in San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center ~. County of Stanisiaus, in which the court quoted from a CEQA treatise.S0· This language distinguished between the "cumulative impacts', analysis required in an EIR and the question 0f..whether a project's impacts'are "cumulatively~cons%der.able',.for purposes of determining whether an EIR must be prepared at all. If the two are treated as equivalent, said the language in San. Joaquin Raptor, ~"any contribution by a project, however small, to environmental conditions that are cumulatively adverse requires a finding that the project may have a significant cumulative impact. The'problem with this view is that it would make the need for an EIR turn on the impacts of other pro~ects, not on 49 Los Angeles Unified, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page 1025. 50 Gorsen, The New and Improved CEQA Guidelines Revisions, reprinted in Remy, CEQA Guide, appendix VI, supra, pages 970-971 and footnote 12; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608, 623-624 (San Joaquin Raptor). the impacts of the project under review. [9] [9]· EAn] ·agency [must] consider[] the effects of other projects, but only as a context for considering whether the incremental effects of the project at issue are considerable. In other words, the agency determines whether the incremental impacts of the project are "cumulatively considerable" by evaluating them against the backdrop Of the environmental · effects of other projects. The question is not whether there is a "significant' cumulative.impact" but whether the effect~S of the "individual project are considerable.'''''$1 In our view, this passage from San-Joaquin takes a step down the road of the "ratio theory/comparative approach" that was repudiated in Kings'county and Los Angeles ~Unified. The passage's premise--a premise relied on by the Resources Agency regarding Guidelines sections 15064(i).(4) and 15130(a)(4)~-is' that the need for an EIR turns on the impacts of the project under review, not on the impacts of other past, present, or future projects.52 However, under CEQA section 21083, under' the Guidelines section 15355 definition of cumulative,impacts, and Under· th~ Kings County/Los Angeles Unified approach·, the need for an EIR turns on the impacts of both the project under review 51 San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 42 Cal.App. 4th.at pages 623=624.' $2 Gorsen, The New and Improved CEQA Guidelines Revisions,' reprinted in Remy, CEQA Guide, appendix VI, ··supra, page 971; San Joaquin~ supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at page 623. and the relevant past, present and future projects. Under CEQA. section 21083, an EIR is required if the "possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable"; the incremental effects of an individual project are to be ~viewed in connection wi~h ~he effects of" past, current and probable future projects.53 Guidelines section 15355 defines "cumulative impacts" as refarring "to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase ~ther environmental impaCts" '(italics added); and states that the "cumulative impact from'several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project :.;hen added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future.projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but co~!ectively significant projects taking place, over a period of ~ime" (±talics added). And ~the relevant question" under the Kings Counzy/LDs Angeles Unified approach is not how the effect cf the project at issue compares to the preexisting cumulative effect, but whether "any additional amount" of effect should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative effect.54 "This does not mean, 53 CEQA section 21083, subdiv-'-sion (b), italics added. 54 Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at page 718; accord, Los Angeles Unified, supra, 58 Cai.App.4th at page 1025; see also Environmental Protection Information Center, Incl v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 624-625. however, that any additional effect in a nonattainment area for. that effect necessarily creates a significant cumulative impact; the "one [additional] molecule rule" is not the law.55 Moreover, the basic approach set forth in Guidelines section 15064, .subsection (i) (1) seems sound--that is, in assessing whether-a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency.~shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant aad whether the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. In the end, the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's. contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.56 But the language quoted in San Joaquin Raptor runs counter to this concept.and puts the cart before the horse. ~This is because tha% language would effectively adopt a higher threshold "comparative approach" for deciding whether to prepare an EIR, and a lower threshold "combined approach" for governing a cumulative impact discussion in an EIR. · Furthermore, the distinction drawn in the San Joaquin Raptor passage between ~IR preparation and EIR discussion regarding cumulativeimpacts finds little support in CEQA law. Case law states that "[.w]hile [CEQA] section 21083 governs the situations in which an agency must prepare an EIR, its 55 See Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, pages 476-4-78. 56 See Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 475. provisions .have also been applied to the.contents of an EIR once it is determined an EIR must be prepared.''57 Echoing this. theme, the discussion following Guidelines section 15065 on mandatory · findings of significance states that ~'[.~.]~hese mandatory findings [which include the ~cumulatively considerable' finding from CEQA section 21083] control not only the decision of whether to prepare~an EIR but also the identification of effects.to be analyzed in.depth.in the EIR . ,,58 Finally, the discussion. following Guidelines section 15355 remarks that~ %'[the] definition of the term 'cumulative impacts' is provided because the term is related to one of the mandatory findings of significant effect required by [CEQA] [s]ection 21083. A common understanding of the term is needed in order ~o implement the section ,,59 We conclude that. Guidelines sections 15064(i~(4) and 15130(a) (4)are inconsistent wi'th controlling CEQA law b~cause they measure a proposed project's de minimis incremental impact relative to the existing cumulative impact,, rather than focus on the combined effects of these impacts. A question arises as to whether these two sections can be saved by construing the de minimis effect in absolute rather than .relative terms. 57 Los Angeles Unified, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page 1024, footnote 6, citing Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at page 394. . 58 Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, appendix V, page 879. 59 Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, appendix V, page 933. We think not. Focusing on the de minimis effect in absolute terms, isolates the effect individually, and this runs counter to the combined approach that CEQA cumulative impact law requires.,. Moreover, a de minimis effect in absolute terms wou!~ be akin to no environmental effect; the Guidelines already cover, that concept, so Guidelines sections 15064(i) (4) and 15130(a) (4) would be unnecessary in this realm...Guidelines section !5130(a) (1) states that "[a]n EIR should not discus.s .i~Dacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR." And Guidelines section 15064(i) (5) adds that the "mere existence of significant.cumulative impacts caused bY other. projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable." .. ' .' Guidelines section 15152(f) (2) governs the assessment of whether there is a new significant cumulative.effect in.a tiered E. IR process (tiering refers, to incorporating the analysis from a general, broader EIR into a later, narrower EIR).60 Guidelines section 15152(f)(2) states, in part, that "[a]t ithis point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion on how to assess whether project impacts are cumulatively considerable, see .[Guidelines] [s]ection 15064(i)." We agree with the trial court that to 60 Guidelines section 15152~, subsection. (a). the extent that Guidelines section 15152(f) (2) incorporates Guidelines section 15064(i) (4), it is.inva!i~ to that extent. 5.. Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B)2~Cumulative Tmpacts: Defining "Probable Future Projects~ for C,~,~ative Impact Purposes This section defines "probable future projectS,'"'a term used in CEQA section 21083 on the subject of cumulative impacts. Under CEQA section 21083, an individual project's incremental effect must be viewed in combination with the effects of relevant past, present, and probable future projects to determine whether the individual effect is cumulatively considerable.61 .. Guidelines section 15130(b) (1) (B) 2 states: "'Probable future projects' may be limited to those projects requiring an agency approval-for an application which has been received at'the time the notice of preparation is released, unless abandoned by.the applicant; projects included in an adopted capitai'improvements program, general plan, regicnal transportation plan, or other similar plan; projects included in a summary of projections of projects (or development areas designated)' in a general plan or a similar plan; projects anticipated as later phase 'of a previously approved project (e.g. a subdivision); or those public agenc~ projects for which money has been-budgeted." (Italics added. 61 See also Guidelines section 15355. The categories of probable future projects set forth in Guidelines section 15130(b) (1) (B) 2 are drawn from controlling~ CEQA law.62 However, as the trial court found, to the extent 'this section lists these'categories disjunctively and a lead agency may.refer to only one of the categories in,analyzing cumulative impactS, the section is.inconsistent with.CEQA law and is invalid. 6.~" Guidelines Section 15152(£){3)(C}--Tiering:' When Significant Environmental Effects Have Been Adequatel~ Addressed for EIR Tiering purposes Guidelines section 15152(f) (3) (C) involves the subject Of' "tiering." As defined by CEQA section '21068.5, "tiering" means "the coverage of general matters and environmental effects an an [EIR] prepared for a policy, plan, program 0~ ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific [EIRs] which incorporate . the discussion in any prior [EIR] and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are ca~abie' of being mitigated, ' or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR]." On the concept of tiering, CEQA section 21094~ subdivision (a) adds as relevant: "Where a prior [EI~] has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance, the lead agency for a later project that meets the requirements of this section shall examine significant effects of the ~ater project upon 62 See' e.g., San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco {1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 72-77. the environment by using a tiered [EIR], except that the report on the later project need not'examine those effects which the lead agency determines were either (1) mitigated or avoided . as a result of the prior [EIR], or (2) examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior [EIR]. t.o enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project~" Guidelines section 15152(f) (3), including subsection (f) (3) (C) at issue here, states as relevant: "(f) A later EIR shall be required when the [pre-EIR] initial study or other analysis finds that the later project man cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR. . . [9] ? . . .[9] "(3) Significant environmental effects have been 'adequatel~ addressed' if the-lead agency determines.~hat: "(A)- they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of ~he prior [EIR] ; "(B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior [EIR] to enable~those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site[-]specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project; or "(C) they cannot be mitigated to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts despite the project proponent's willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures, and the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another [EIR] would be to put the agency·in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respeCt· to the effects." Guidelines section 15152, subsections (f) (3) (A) and (f) (3) (B), as just quoted, reiterate the two exceptions set forth in CEQA section 21094, ·subdivision (a); those two exceptions specify the circumstances under which a later EIR need not examine the effects Of a later project because · those effects have been the subject of a prior EIR. Subsection (f) (3) (C) of Guidelines section 15152 is not·based on a similar statutory exception, prompting CBE's argument that this subsection has no legal basis and is·invalid because·it does not explicitly require that an·earlier EIR have actually addressed the impacts of the later·project.· ' · Subsection (f) (3) (C) is phrased somewhat awkwardly; it would be clearer if it was prefaced, as is subsection (f) (3) (B), with a statement that the significant environmental effects "have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior [EIR]" (and'they cannot be mitigated, etc.). With this · clarification, the concept underlyingsubsectiOn· (f) (3) (C) appears to fall within the fundamental concept of tiering--a prior EIR has adequatelyaddressed the envir°nmental effects of a later project such that further analysis of thoseeffects·in the later EIR would be "duplicarive-''63 As one commentator has 63 CEQA section 21093, subdivision (a). remarked regarding subsection (f) (3) (C), the Resources Agency apparently reasoned that limited societal resources are not well expended in preparing later EIRs, when those EIRs almost certainly would not result in any additional mitigation or other enhanced environmental protection.64 Even assuming, however, that Guidelines section 15152(f) (3) (C) incorporates the fundamental concept of tiering, it suffers from another fundamental problem. The section appears to allow an agency, in approving a later project that has significant unavoidable impacts, to forego making a statement of overriding considerations specifically tied to that project. This is contrary to CEQA law. CEQA section 21094, subdivision (d) requires agencies that approve a later project to comply with CEQA section 21081. Under CEQA section 21081, an agency approving a project with significant environmental effects must find that each effec~ will be mitigated or avoided, or "that specific overriding economic, legal, social,.~technological, or. other benefits of the project outweigh the effect[] ,65 The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA's role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmentally detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other 64 Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 491. 65 CEQA section 21081, subdivision (b); see also Laurel Heights ii, supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1124. benefits, and to point, to substantial evidence. in s=pport-66. Under Guidelines section 15152(f) (3) (C), however, an agency.. apparently could adopt one statement of overriding considerations for a prior, more general EIR, and then avoid future political accountability by approving later, more specific projects with significant .unavoidable impa~ts pursuant to the prior EIR and statement of,overriding considerations. Even though a prior EIR's analysis of envircnmental effects may be subject to being incorporated in a later EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible public officials mu~t still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite ius significant unavoidable impacts. We conclude that Guidelines section 15'52(f).(3).(C) is inconsistent with controlling CEQA law and is thergfore invalid. 7. Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)--Definition of Project: Organizational Activities Which A~e Political or Not Physical Changes Excluded from Definition of "Project" As noted, with certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any "project" they intend to carry out or approve which may have a' signif'icant effect on' the environment-67 Under CEQA section 2!06~, ,',[p]roject' means 66 See city of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board uf Supervisors (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 84, 94-96; Village Laguna of Laguna 5each, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d i022, 1032-1035. 67 Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1123; Oro Fino, Supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at page 880. an activity which may cause either a'direct physical change'in the environment, or a reasonably.forese'eable indirect physical change in the environment" Guidelines section 15378(b) (5) excludes from the definit'ion of "project" the following: "Organizational or administrative activities of governments which are political or'which are not physical changes in the environment (such as the reorganizatio~ 0f a' school district o~ detachment of park land)." There are two problems with this Guideline, one g~ammatical and one substantive. The grammatical problem is with the Use Of the disjunctive "or." Under that disjunctive, governmental political activi.ties of an organizational or administrative nature are excluded from the definition of "project" for CEQA purposes'. This blanket exclusion cuts too broad a swath; in an'~lice%In-Wonderland kind of way, it could arguably be stretched to eqcompass the very approval of a project. Even the proponent of.this Guideline' recognizes the impermissibly broad nature of this measure, noting that'"[i]n order to qualify as'exempt under [it], the' organizational or administrative activities must be' both political and . not result in physical changes tO the environment." (Italics in original.) The substantive problem concerns the language, "which are not physical changes in the environment." Under the relevant CEQA statute, section 21065, a CEQA "prQject" encompasses an activity "which may cause either a' direct'physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment · " (Italics added.) But Guidelines section 15378(b) (5) flatly exempts from CEQA those qualifying activities "which are not physical changes in the environment," even if those activities may cause physical changes in the environment. Guidelines section 15378(b).(5) encompasses only activities ~which are not physical changes"; the section does'n~t say, activities which do not cause or result in direct or indirect physical changes. This has signif'icance because purely administrative or organizational activities of government, on their own, are seldom physical changes in the environment, but may lead to such changes-68 Even if Guidelines section 15378(b) (5)'s language concerning activities ~which are not physical changes in the environment" extends to activities which do not cause physical changes in the environment, the Guideline is still, troublesome. As the trial court noted, various political boundary changes and governmental organizational activities have been found~ ~ to cause.. direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.69 . Governmental organizational activities, such as annexation 68 See Fullerton Joint Union High School'Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 796-797 (Fullerton); Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975~ 13 Cal.3d 263, 277-281 (Bozung); People ex rel. Younger v. Local Agency Formation Com... (1978) 81 Cal. App.3d 464, 478-479 (Younger). 69 See Fullerton, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pages 796-797; Bozung, supra, 13 Cal.3d at pages 277-281; Younger, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at pages 478-479. apprgvals and school district reorganizations, which.constitute an essential step culminating in environmenta! effect are ~projects" within the scope of CEQA.70 Guidelines section 15378(b) (5)'s blanket exclusion of political organizational activities from the definition of project is thus contrary to the statutory definition of project and its application in case law. We conclude that Guidelines section 15378(b) (5) is inconsistent with controlling CEQA law and is therefore invalid. 8. GuidelinesSection 15332--Categorical'Exemption: In-Fill Development Projects CEQA section 21084 authorizes the Resources Agency to adopt Guidelines that list classes of projects exempt from CEQA pr6vided the agency finds "that the listed classes . do not have a significant effect on the environment-''71 These classes of projects are known as "categorical exemptions" and appear in Guidelines section 15300 et seq.TM The Resources Agency's authority to identify classes Of projects exempt from CEQA is not unfettered-73 As stated in 70 Fullerton, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pages 796-797; Bozung, supra, '13 Cai.3d at pages 277-281; Younger, supra; 81 Cal.App.3d at pages 478-479. ' 71 CEQA section 21084, subdivision (a). 72 Azusa Land Reclamatio~ Co. v.'MainSan Gabriel Basin. Wa~ermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1191 (Azusa). 73 Azusa, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at page 1191. Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, an early high court decision construing CEQA section 21084, the Resources Agency "is empowered to exempt only those activities which do not have a significant effect on the environment. [Citation.] It.follows that where there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an . exemption would be improper.''74 This admonition from Chickering cannot .be'read so broadly as to defeat the very. idea underlying CEQA section 21084 of classes or categories of projects that do not have a significant environmental effect. So subse~sent case 5aw has stated that ~[t]o implement th[is] rule laid out in Chickering, Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c), was adopted, which provides: ,Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall pot be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on. the environment due to.unusual circumstances.,-75 - Thus, a categorical exemption authorized by CEQA secticn 21084 is an exemption from CEQA for a class of 74 Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 205-206 (Chickering); see also Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105; 124-125 (Mountain Lion). 75 Azusa, supra, 52 Cai.App.4th at page 1191; accord, Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1251-1252 (Fairbank); see Davidon Homes vo City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 115 (Davidon Homes). projects that the Resources Agency determines will generally not have a significant effect on the environment.76 Guidelines.section 15332 provides:' "Class 32 consists of projects Characterized as in,fill development meeting the conditions described'in this~section. "(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. "(b) The proposed development' occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. "(c) The project site has no Value, as habitat for' endangered, rare or threatened species'. ~ "(d) Approval of the project Wou~d not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air'qualitY, or water quality. ~'(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services." In reading Guidelines secti'on 15332, we cannot dispuse the Resources Agency's finding that this class of projects generally will not have a significant effect on the environment; ' that is, we do not see an inconsistency between Guidelines section 15332 and CEQA section 21084's requirement that any 76 See Azusa, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at page 1206; see also ~avidon, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at'pages 115-116; Bass, CEQA Deskbook, supra, pages 28, 30; Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 105. class of projects listed in the Gui'delines as a ~ategorical exemption must not have a significant effect On the environment ' .Guidelines section 15332 is limited to in'fill'Urban development, and subsections (~) through (e) specify, as the comprehensive environmentally protective trial court found," ' ' condiLicns." CBE counters with a series of arguments. CBE notes that Guidelines section 15332 applies to any type of in-fill urban project, ranging from industrial facilities to residential developments, and is broader than most categorical exemption~. CBE provides examples of diverse, Under-five-acre urban projects with significant environmental impact, such as highway drill sites and electrical generation, plants. However, all projects within Guidelines section 15332's scope have to comply with all applicable general plan designations and policies a~d all applicable zoning designations and regulations in addition to the other Guidelines section 15332 protective criteria. In a rel~ed vein,_CBE observes that the Legislature has already provided statutory exemptions in the CEQA scheme for certain narrow classes of in-fill projects; thus, Guidelines section 15332 runs counter to legislative intent. However, statutory exemptions have an absolute qual'ity not shared by categorical exgmptions: a project that falls w~thin a statutory exemption is not Subject to CEQA even if it has the potential to significantly affect the environment-77 Moreover, the Legislature has authorized the adoption of categorical exemptions notwithstanding statutory ones 78 CBE maintains that the section 15332 phrase ~substantially surrounded by urban uses" could lead to piecemeal expansion of urban areas as projects avoid CEQA review under thi's exemption. However, one of the exceptions to categorical ~xemptions provides that such exemptions "are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.''79 CBE argues that the environmental, effects listed in subsections (c) and (d) of Guidelines section 15332 necessarily foreclose the consideration of other effects such as aesthetics, cultural resources, water supply, and health and safety. That is not correct. ~n important exception to categorical exemptions, based on the Chickering decision, provides that a "categorical exemption shall not be used for a[] [particular] activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due 77 See Guidel±nes section 15061, subsections (b) (1), (b) (2); see also Bass, CEQA Deskbook, supra, page 24; Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, pages 84-85. 7s CEQA section 21084. 79 Guidelines section 15300.2, subsection (b); see Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 102. ,,80 These other environmental effects to unusual circumstances. . that CBE mentions would constitute "unusual circumstances" under this exception for a project that otherwise meets the Guidelines section 15332 criteria. ·This is.because a project.that does ~ meet the comprehensive environmentally protective criteria of section 15332 normally would not have other significant environmental effects; if there was a reasonable possibility 'that the.project would have such effect~s, those effects would be'" "unusua'~ circumstances" covered by %he section 15300.2(c) exception. In this way, these other effects would fall within the concept of unusual circumstances set forth in Azusa: "[unusual] circumstances of a particular project (i) differ~frOm the general circumstances of the projects·covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (ii) those .circumstances create an environmental risk that ~oes no~.exist for the general~ · class of exempt proj CBE relies on Chickeri.~g's statement "that where there is any reasonable possibility 5hat a project·or activity, may have a significant effect on'the environment, an exemption.would be. · ,82 and on Mound&in Lion's reiteration that ."[a]ny improper, activity that may have a significant effect.on the environment 80 Guidelines section 15300.2, subsection (c). 81 Azusa, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at page 1207. Chickering, supra, 18 Cal.3d at page 206. cannot be categorically exempt."83 As we have explained,, these statements cannot be read so broadly as to defeat the very idea underlying CEQA section 21084 of classes or categories of projects that generally do not have a significant.effect on the environment. Instead, these statements provide the basis for the "unusual circumstances" exception of.Guidelines section 15300.2, subsection (c). DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed, except with respect to Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) and Guidelines section 15152(f) (2)'s incorporation o~ Guidelines section 15064(i) (3), as explained herein. Respondents to the appeal and to the cross-appeal are each awarded their respective costs. Requests. for attorney fees should be made to the trial court. · DAVIS , Acting P.J. We concur: MORRISON , J. CALLAHAN , Jo 83 Mountain Lion, supra, 16 C~l.4th at page 124. ~6- 2t 2. T H E C I T Y 0 F I~AN ClIO CIJCANONGA DATE: October 23, 2002 TO: Chairman and Members of the Plannin9 Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 - RFA, INC. (CHEVRON) - A request to construct a 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash, and pump island on 1-acre of land in the Community Commercial Distdct (Subarea 2), of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue -APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the public headng on this item on September 25, 2002, to October 23, 2002, in response to a letter received from the owners of the Mobil station at the southeast comer of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Mobil station owners stated that the proposed Chevron station would result in competition for their existing service station and that the Initial Study prepared by staff pursuant to a Mitigated Negative Declaration was inaccurate. Since that time, the City's environmental consultant has prepared a written response to the claims made against the Initial Study. Attached is the response from Lilbum Corporation (Exhibit "C"). Staff has concluded that a fair argument has not been presented that would warrant preparation of an EIR. APPLICANT CONCERNS: The applicant has indicated to staff that they have two areas of concern with the proposed Conditions of Approval for the project. Staff is recommending that the hours of operation for the drive-thru carwash be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. because there are new homes being constructed directly west of the site. The applicant wishes to operate the carwash from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. While the noise study prepared for the project indicates that the carwash will not generate noise levels in excess of existing ambient noise levels, staff is nevertheless concerned with the potential impactJdisturbance of the carwash operation on the residences. The proposed hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. are consistent with City requirements for drive-thru carwashes located in neighborhood commercial districts (districts where there may be nearby residential). Staff does not support allowing increased hours of operation. The applicant also does not wish to install a double door foyer on their east entrance to mitigate high seasonal winds. They proposed instead to install an automatic sliding glass door as used on other locations. Staff agrees that automatic sliding ~,~. ~.~ doors have successfully provided adequate wind mitigation at other gas stations. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRCCUP00-17- CHEVRON O~ober 23, 2002 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners ~vithin a 300-foot radius of the project site to advertise the September 25, 2002, meeting. The public hearing was continued by the Planning Commission in an open forum from September 25 to October 23, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 through adoption of the attached Draft Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:BLC~ma Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 25, 2002, with Exhibits Exhibit "B' - Letter dated September 23, 2002, from Straw and Gouch (on behalf of Mobil station owner) Exhibit "C" - Response to Comments Draft Resolution of Approval for DRCCUP00-17 THE CITY OF I~AN C I~ 0 CIICA~ONGA DATE: September 25, 2002 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash, and pump island on 1-acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2), of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surmundinq Land Use and Zonin.q: North - Albertson's Center; Community Commemial South - Vacant land with condominiums further south; Community Commemial with Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) further south East Vacant land and Klusman House (historic); Community Commercial West Flood Control Channel with Residential further west; Flood Control with Medium Residential further west B. General Plan Desianations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial South - Commemial East Commercial West Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes from north to south at approximately three percent. The site lies just west of the historic Klusman House, one of the first concrete structures built in California. The Cucamonga Creek Channel lies to the west of the site with homes under construction on the other side of the channel, approximately 100 feet west of the site. The site lies within the master planned shopping center associated with previously approved CUP95-25 (Rodriguez) and constitutes a modification to the northwestern corner of the plan. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON September 25, 2002 Page 2 D. Parkin Ca~tions: Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Type of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Convenience Mart 2,945 1/250 11.78 12 Carwash N/a N/a 2.5 2 Sevice Station N/a N/a 3 3 TOTAL 17 17 ANALYSIS: A. General: The design of the building and associated pump island canopy includes use of real river rock veneer, stucco, trellises, and tile covered roofs with a tile roofed tower projecting out over the entrance. This is consistent with the amhitectural theme established in the vicinity by the Thomas Brother's Winery at the northeast comer of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, the Albertson's center at the northwest comer, and the service station at the southeast corner. The project includes a drive-thru carwash along the west side of the building. This is to be located approximately 100 feet from existing/under construction homes to the west (across Cucamonga Creek Channel). While a noise study was conducted for the project and found that the noise generated by the carwash does not exceed City established limits, staff is concerned that the carwash operation may cause a disturbance for residents to the west during night time hours. Staff recommends that the hours of operation for the carwash be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week, similar to restrictions placed on carwashes in Neighborhood Commemial districts. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Committee on four separate occasions (April 17, 2001, October 16, 2001, November 6, 2001, and December 18, 2001), with the Committee recommending approval at the December 18, 2001, meeting. The project design required substantial negotiation, as is typical of many service stations, because of the applicant's desire for corporate style amhitocture that is not always compatible with surrounding development. The ultimate design solution achieved by the design review process provides Chevron with their established floor space layout but the exterior is compatible with surrounding amhitectural precedents. Note that nine months have passed since the project received favorable recommendation from Design Review Committee. This delay is because of environmental studies that were necessary for the project but not delivered to City staff until just recently. Refer to the Environmental Assessment section below. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical and Grading Review Committees reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study and staff completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist. The site falls within an area identified by the General Plan as a potential seismic hazard zone. During review of CUP95-25 (Rodriguez) a fault trenching study was done for the area south of the site (Rasmussen, January 29, 1996) and no evidence of faulting was observed. The trenching study did not extend all the way to the current project site (the area was designated for a parking lot in the previous master plan). Therefore, a restricted use zone was recommended by the Rasmussen study because subsurface conditions were unknown. Rasmussen conducted trenching on the project site (July 16, 2002) and found no evidence of faulting. The City required third party review of the Rasmussen study to verify the findings and accuracy of the report. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON September 25, 2002 Page 3 There are a series of recommended mitigations in the Rasmussen and RGS reports, all of which are included as mitigation measures or by reference in the attached Resolution of Approval. As with any new development, there is the potential for short-term air quality impacts during construction (such as dust and exhaust) and long-term impacts related to increased localized traffic trips. These factors were analyzed and a set of mitigation measures are recommended to reduce any impacts to a level of less than significant. The sale and dispensing of gasoline is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the applicant will use state of the art nozzles and other equipment to ensure containment of vapors. Furthermore, special permits are required to ensure safe handling and storage of gasoline. There is potential for noise impacts upon residential development to the west, approximately 100 feet from the site due especially to the proposed drive-thru carwash on the west side of the building. An acoustical study was prepared (Celia Acoustical Consultants, April 2002) to address potential impacts. It was found that the carwash system does generate noise but the level is not considered excessive. While no specialized construction is necessary (such as a noise barrier), staff is recommending that the carwash hours of operation be limited to avoid causing a disturbance during nighttime use. With the proposed mitigation measures, all of the potential impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. E. Tree Removal Permit: There are six mature pine trees on the west side of the project site that will have to be removed to accommodate the development. Removal of the trees will be mitigated by new trees within the landscaping for the site. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use permit DRCCUP00-17 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions and issuance of a mitigated negative declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC'~rna Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Grading Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - ~Floor Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Tree Removal Permit Request Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Action Agendas (April 17 2001, October 16, 2001, November 6, 2001, and December 18, 2001 ) Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Parts I and II Draft Resolution of Approval for DRCCUP00-17 ~ST ELEVATION ~'~ Illlll Illll~ ~ l~-~,~ ~ ~ I1,,,,, [~ ~ IIIIIII1~ IIIIIIII ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ i ~lll II I ~ I I ~x~ ~l I ~ WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION KEY MAP Tree Removal Permit Application Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property, requires that no person remove or relocate any woody plants in excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and multi-trunks having a cimumference of thirty (30) inches or more (measured twenty-four (24) inches from ground level), without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the City. Application is to remove (choose one): ~ 5 trees or less [] 50 feet of windrows or less [] 6 trees or more* [] 51 feet of windrows or more* Related Development Application:* "~¥..C... ('_ O '~ O ~) *Note: When associated with a development application or involves removing 6 trees or more/51 feet of windrows or more requires a 10-calendar day notification period of all adjacent property owners. Location of Subject Site: ~&;ll'i~ + V,'~ ,,~g t~,~. .ama. Address. Te,aphone o, App,~. -g~_k~( ~'. ~,~,/:~ '~ ~'~ 9 ~ ~ ~,O~O Name, Address, Telephone of Property Owner (if other than applicant}: Reasons for Removal (attach additignal sheet(s)if necessary): 'Tr~..~ o,...~. , Properly Ownees Signature: Date: This application shall include a Site Plan indicating location of all trees to be removed and retained. The Site Plan shall include the location of the house/garage and other improvements. The species, number, and size of the trees to be removed shall be so designated. If a tree is diseased, then a written statement from a licensed arborist stating the nature of the disease shall be required. Application fee as established by City Council Resolution. [] APPROVED [] DENIED BY: DATE:.~~~..~-~/~ 1. Condition of the trees? ~"'Ftm~.Jr~ce ~e~[lC~-~ '~:~ 2 Any safety hazards to Persons, adjacent proPerty or utility installations? ri o 3. Any conflict with proposed improvements? co :l,'e 4. Proximity of other trees in the ama? 5. Effect of tree removal on the aesthetics of the area and the public health, safety and welfare. ~.~.~ ~:~? ',~ ~ ~ 6. Are any of the trees required to be preserved by any specific plan, condition of approval, or historic landmark designation? 7. Is an arbodst required? "~ DATE: EVALUATED BY: I:FinaFForms/Cou nter~rREEPeND.doc/rev.04/24/2002 ~./7 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count April 17, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-17 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a new 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru car wash and pump island on 1-acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Desi,qn Parameters: The site is located in the northwest comer of the master plan area approved with Conditional Use Permit 95-25 (Rodriguez). However, this area of the master plan was designated as parking, not a service station so the proposal requires a modification to the approved master plan. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent and takes access off of Foothill Boulevard to the north. The Klusman House (Historic Structure) lies immediatelyto the east. The Wal-Mart project is currently being processed for the property to the south of the site. Construction is nearly finished for the Albertson's grocery store to the north across Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission has not approved design guidelines for this shopping center. Staff has met with Gil Rodriguez and he has indicated that he will be providing design guidelines for the project at the Design Review meeting. 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. Redesign following the amhitectural guidelines for Foothill Boulevard. The building design appears overly boxy and plain with minimal variation and visual interest on the wall surfaces. The design is similar to, although less detailed, than the new Chevron building at the southwest comer of Carnelian Street and Base Line Road. Restudy the design to be complimentary to existing surrounding development including the Klusman House, the Mobil Station at the southeast comer of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, the Thomas Winery buildings, and the new Albertson's. Foothill Boulevard Subarea 2 design standards indicate that the predominant architectural style in the area should be bam style with use of traditional materials and forms. Incorporate substantial use of traditional materials such as river rock veneer and wood siding. 2. Bring the tower feature out over the entry and support with columns. Inset windows to provide a sense of depth and quality. Provide a tower or other feature on the north elevation to address the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Change trellis column material from stucco to dyer rock 2. Eliminate exterior electrical cabinet from south elevation. Place all equipment, etc., within the building. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON April17,2001 Page 2 3. Provide Crape Myrtle tree planting along the Foothill Boulevard frontage consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Activity Center theme. 4. Provide decorative driveways and decorative paving to delineate pedestrian pathways. 5. Align the handicapped clear area with the front entry and treat with decorative paving to enhance the entry experience. 6. Note that east facing doors and openings will be subject to excessive seasonal winds. Suggest a double door foyer to mitigate this. 7. Adjust Site Plan as necessary to reflect latest plan for the Wal-Mart project (parking and drive aisles at the northwest comer of site ara different than shown on plans submitted for Chevron). 8, Provide an illustrative cross-section from Foothill Boulevard through the drive-thru and building to demonstrate sight lines and screening of cars in drive-thru and roof-mounted equipment. Provide heavily landscaped ben'ns along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Note that the Engineering Division does not support the driveway into the site off of Foothill Boulevard. Replace this driveway with heavily landscaped berms accordingly. Elimination of the Foothill Boulevard driveway per Engineering Division requirements will necessitate a revised gasoline delivery truck circulation movement. Policy Issues: The following items ara a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof- and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened. The site sits well below the Albertson's site to the north, which will pose a design challenge for any roof-mounted equipment or satellite dishes. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brant Le Count The Committee requested that the project be redesigned in light of staff's comments. The Committee requested that the revised design have a distinguished architectural character and design that is compatible with the overall center being proposed (the Rodriguez master planned project and the Wal-Mart project to the south). The applicant said they are in the process of preparing design guidelines for the center and revising the building design to be compatible with these guidelines. Staff indicated that the Wal-Mart architect is also preparing their own design guidelines so there may be some conflict between those for the Chevron and Wal-Mart projects as they do not appear to be communicating. The applicant claimed that the handicapped clear area can not be aligned with the building entry due to ADA (Americans with Disabilities ACt) requirements. The Committee directed staff to verify whether this can be accomplished. The applicant agreed to redesign the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count October 16, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-17 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a new 2,740 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash and pump island on 1-acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Backqround: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on Apd117, 2001 at which time the Committee requested that the project be redesigned'in light of staff's comments to provide a distinguished architectural character and brought back for further review. To refresh, the site is located in the northwest comer of the master plan area approved with conditional Use Permit 95-25 (Roddguez). However, this area of the master plan was designated as parking, not a service station, so the proposal requires a modification to the approved master plan. Conditional Use Permit 95-25 expires in May of 2002 unless a building permit is issued for one of the buildings within the master plan. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent and takes access offof Foothill Boulevard to the north. The Klusman House (historic structure) lies immediately to the east. The Wal-Mart project was being processed for the property to the south of the site but has recently been put on hold by the applicant. The Albertson's grocery store and a drive-thru Jack in the Box restaurant have recently been completed to the north across Foothill Boulevard. Compliance with Committee Direction: 1. Redesign following the architectural guidelines for Foothill Boulevard. The building design appears overly boxy and plain with minimal variation and visual interest on the wall surfaces. The design is similar to the new Chevron building at the southwest comer of Carnelian Street and Base Line Road. Restudy the design to be complimentary to existing surrounding development including the Klusman House, the Mobil Station at the southeast comer of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, the Thomas Winery buildings, and the new Albertson's. The Foothill Boulevard Subarea 2 design standards indicate that the predominant architectural style in the area should be bam style with use of traditional materials and forms. InCOrporate substantial use of traditional materials such as river rock veneer and wood siding. The revised design includes #ver rock veneer application on column bases, projecting entry tower, and use of decorative wood corbels supporting the tower roof, Further detail including exposed raflertails around the main building, tile accents and/or quatrefoils, and more color variation would further enhance the building design. The revised design, while an improvement overthe previous design reviewed on April 17th, is still very much a "corporate prototype" design based on a la/ge stucco box. It does not COnform to the sketches in the Design Guidelines for the Rodrigeuz master planned shopping center of which Chevron is a part. 2. Bring the tower feature out over the entry and support with COlumns. Inset windows to provide a sense of depth and quality. Provide a tower or other feature on the north elevation to address the Foothill Boulevard frontage. The entrytower has been brought out overthe entry with support columns. The windows do not appear to be inset and there is no change to the north elevation facing Foothill Boulevard. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17- CHEVRON October 16, 2001 Page 2 3. Change trellis column matedal from stucco to dver rock. Trellis column bases are now covered with river rock veneer. The columns should be of more substantial width and depth and entirely covered with stone. 4. Eliminate extedor electrical cabinet from south elevation. Place all equipment, etc. within the building. Plans no longer show an exterior electrical cabinet. 5 Provide crepe myrtle tree planting along the Foothill Boulevard frontage consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Activity Center theme. No revised Landscape Plan has been submitted. The applicant is seeking design direction on the building elevations. 6 Provide decoretive driveways and decoretive paving to delineate pedestrian pathways. This has not been addressed. 7. Align the handicapped dear area with the front entry and treat with decoretive paving to enhance the entry experience. The applicant pointed out at the April 17th meeting, that this cannot be accommodated due to American's with Disabilities Act ramp grade requirements. This is true in so far as an additional 8 feet in width would be necessary for the raised concrete area in front of the store. An acceptable alternative would be to simply provide a decorative defined pedestrian path leading up to the entrance regardless of handicapped parking location. 8. Note that east facing doom and openings will be subject to excessive seasonal winds. Suggest a double door foyer to mitigate this. No double door foyer has been provided. 9. Adjust Site Plan as necessary to reflect latest plan for the Wal-Mart project (parking and drive aisles at the northwest comer of site are different than shown on plans submitted for Chevron). The Wall- Mart project is on hold at the request of the applicant. The Chevron project therefore must be reviewed'in light of the current entitlement for the site by Gil Rodriguez, which entails a large anchor tenant to the south. The plans do not include the overall Gil Rodrigeuz master planned project. 10. Provide an illustretive cross-section from Foothill Boulevard through the drive-thru and building to demonstrete sight lines and screening of cars in drive-thru and roof-mounted equipment. Provide heavily landscaped berms along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. This has not been provided. Staff recommends the followinq additional comments/modifications: 1. The design does not appear to be consistent with the proposed Design Guidelines now under review in terms of use of materials, divided light windows, roof pitch, etc. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON October 16, 2001 Page 3 2. As an altemative to corbels and exposed rafter tails, provide detailed decorative profile cornice treatment around entire building. Finish cornice to appear as stone material. 3. Provide tdrn/surrounds with decorative profiles to accentuate archways. This trim shall be of a different color than the main stucco field color. 4. Continue amhed treatment from north, south, and west sides of building to the windows on the east elevation. These windows should be multi-paned consistent with the proposed design guidelines for the center and to compliment the grid established by the wail-mounted trellises. 5. Column and archway pop-out dimensions shall be substantial, at least 3-foot or greater. 6. Extend the planter along the east side of the site southerly to reduce the vastness of paving in this area of the site. Truck turning radii shown on the Site Plan appear to accommodate a reduced driveway opening at the southeast comer of the site. 7. Wall-mounted trellis members shall have a minimum dimension of 2 iriches. Provide vine planting (Boston Ivy) to climb trellises. 8. Provide variation in roof tile color. 9. Reduce roof pitch to be similar to Kluseman House. 10. The Engineering Division does not support the ddveway into the site off of Foothill Boulevard. Replace this driveway with heavily landscaped berms accordingly. Elimination of the Foothill Boulevard driveway per Engineering Division requirements will necessitate a revised gasoline delivery truck circulation movement. The applicant is currently wod(ing with the Engineering Division to resolve this matter. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. AIl roof- and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened. The site sits well below the Albertson's site to the north, which will pose a design challenge for any roof-mounted equipment or satellite dishes. Staff Recomm_endafion: Staffrecommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. DesiRn Review Commiffee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Mannedno, Nancy Fong Staff Planner. Brent Le Count DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON O~oberl6, 2001 Page4 The Design Review Committee requested that the project be redesigned in light of staffs comments and the following additional comments: 1. The Committee will not require modification of the corporate floor plan or building plotting but is unwilling to accept Chevron signature architecture in this case as it conflicts with the proposed Design Guidelines, design goals for Foothill Boulevard, and the surrounding development. Incorporate architectural features, colors, and landscaping conforming to the proposed Design Guidelines that foster a winery theme. 2. Provide greater pop-out dimensions and column depth for wall features to foster a more substantial appearance similar to the concept drawings associated with the proposed Design Guidelines. 3. · Restudy parking lot layout at the southeast comer of the site and to the south of the site per the sketch prepared by Nancy Fong and shown to the Committee and applicant (see copy attached) to avoid vast areas of asphalt paving and vehicle circulation conflicts. The applicant agreed to make the requested changes and come back before the Committee for further review. Attachment DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:30 p.m. Brent Le Count October 16, 2001 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 (RODRIGUEZ), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-17 (CHEVRON) - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned shopping center including a 2,900 square foot drive thru restaurant (Burger King), and a 5,548 square foot restaurant (previously Zendejas), and 2,740 square foot service station with drive thru carwash (Chevron) on 10 acres of land in the Community Commercial District, located on the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207- 211-12 and 13. Back.qround: The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 95-25 on May 14, 1997, for a master planned shopping center. The adequacy of the design guidelines processed with the Conditional Use permit/master plan was a key issue during the Planning Commission's deliberation. The Commission allowed the project to be approved without the guidelines but placed a condition on the approval requiring guidelines to be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I (the Burger King restaurant), in 1998, the applicant submitted a revised set of design guidelines that did not meet with approval by Design Review Committee or Planning Commission. The Commission then issued a condition modification to delay preparation of the design guidelines until prior to Phase II building permits. This would allow the applicant to seek approval of a building permit for the Burger King restaurant (which has not yet occurred) without having to develop an approvable set of design guidelines. The site is now under consideration for a new Chevron service station (the Wal-Mart project is on hold at the request of the applicant), which alters the Site Plan. The design guidelines are now intended to satisfy the odginal Conditional Use Permit 95-25 master plan requirement as well as provide a design framework for review of the Chevron project. The Design Guidelines were reviewed by the Design Review Committee on July 31,2001 and the Committee asked to see the guidelines revised and brought back for further review. Desiqn Review Comments from July 31,2001.: 1. It is not necessary to follow the Spanish Revival architectural style established by the Kluseman House for development of the projects. The winery theme consistent with Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard zoning is appropriate for buildings along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The revised Design Guidelines state that, "the architectural theme of the project drawn on aesthetic cues from the Winery vernacular (such as Thomas Brother's Winery)." The architectural guidelines provide for use of California Barn S~yle architecture as a symbol of the winery culture. Conceptual building elevations are included that incorporate coKoel supported towers exposed raftertails, stone covered columns/walls, archways, muitFpaned windows, hip style roofs, and trellis features. 2. Vadous features from the approved design concept for Wal-Mart shall be incorporated into the various pad buildings to achieve a level of visual continuity. The Wal-Mart project has been placed on hold. Therefore, the current guidelines only cover the existing approved Roddguez Master Planned shopping center and the Chevron project now under review and consideration. DRC COMMENTS DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ & CUP 99-17 - CHEVRON October 16, 2001 Page 2 3. The Design Guidelines shall establish a palette of amhitectural and landscape design features for designers of the various pad buildings to choose from. The Guidelines shall also include design concepts/examples of how the architectural features palette could be expressed for a retail building, drive-thru, and Chevron. The guidelines include an architectural palate of,' facade a~iculation, walls, towers and roofs, accents, and areas subject to public view. These are all handled in the text of the guidelines. There is an appendix showing how these features could be assembled into buildings. A plant list is included based off of the Foothill Boulevard zoning information in the Development Code. 4. The Committee is opposed to the use of red tile roofing for buildings within the project. The guidelines specify wood shingle, slate or earth tone colored metal roofing materials. Staff does not suggest inclusion of wood shingles unless of artificial manufacture nor any metal roofing (other than real copper roofing if it can be shown to fit with the Vineyard architectural theme. Other Comments: 1. The parking lot landscaping section on Page 15 should be revised to reduce parking stall depth by 1-foot (2 feet specified) down to 17 feet overall (1-foot overhang) per the Development Code. 2. The landscape section should include a requirement to place larger trees at site entry points and to accentual building entrances. Also, while the minimum requirement for tree planting is 1 tree per 30 feet of building wall/project perimeter, the guidelines should emphasize substantial tree, shrub, and groundcover planting to establish a lush landscaped image. 3. The landscape section should include a statement that the project will conform to the Activity Center hard scape and landscape concept established by the Foothill Boulevard Plan. 4. Drive-thru screening on Page 16 should include Iow rock covered walls in addition to landscaped berms. 5. Future building pads should be irrigated and hydro seeded until construction occurs. 6. Site Plan vignettes seem to show Palm tree planting but the Plant List on Page 18 does not include Palms. 7. Section L on Page 19 "Other Site Improvements" should discuss decorative paving at driveway entrance points and at on-site driveway intersections. 8. The Design Review Committee should discuss whether or not the Burger King and Zendejas building elevations are consistent with the conceptual building elevations .for the other buildings in the project per the Design Guidelines. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the proposed Design Guidelines subject to the above comments. 2.25 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ & CUP 99-17 -CHEVRON October 16, 2001 Page 3 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: LamJ McNiel, John Mannerino, Nancy Fong Staff Planner. Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval of the proposed Design Guidelines subject to staff's comments and the following additional comment: 1. Restudy the existing Burger King and Zendejas building treatment/exterior design to conform to the provisions of the proposed Design Guidelines. This is subject to review by the Design Review Committee, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission review. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 5:45 p.m. Brent Le Count November 6, 2001 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 (RODRIGUEZ), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-17 (CHEVRON) - Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned shopping center including a 2,900 square foot drive thru restaurant (Burger King), and a 5,548 square foot restaurant (previously Zendejas), and 2,740 square foot service station with drive thru carwash (Chevron) on 10 acres of land in the Community Commerdal District, located on the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207- 211-12 and 13. Deslqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, John Mannerino, Nancy Fong Staff Planner. Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval of the Design Guidelines. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Brant Le Count December 18, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-17 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a new 2,740 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash and pump island on 1-acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of Vineyard Avenue -APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Backorcund: On November 6, 2001, the Committee reviewed revised plans for the project and found that the new design was not substantially different from past designs that had been rejected. During the meeting, the applicant submitted another set of revised elevations that had increased river rock application along the base of the building. The Committee found this design to be a nominal increase in quality. The Committee reminded the applicant that it would be necessary to follow the Design Guidelines1 for the Roddguez master planned shopping center of which the project is a part. The applicant claimed that the revised design does conform to the Guidelines and asked the Committee to explain why it does not. The Committee requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review in light of staffs comments and the following additional comments (staff responses to the comments per the currently revised plans in italics): 1. Reduce roof pitch on tower element to match the Guidelines. The roof pitch and perhaps more importantly, the roof overhang, has been adjusted to match the Design Guidelines for the center. 2. Increase the height and mass of the overall roof area to balance the building and avoid a tacked on, mansard-like appearance. In addition to the tower roof revisions, the roof on the main part of the building has been increased in height and mass so that a stronger "hip" style roof profile is conveyed. The wall area directly below the roofline and above the window line has been reduced in height resulting in a less boxy appearance. 3. The columns that support the trellises should match those shown in the Guidelines. The trellis columns are of more substantial width and have detailing consistent with the DesignGuidelines. Thestoneworkextendsthefullhelghtofthecolumnssimilartothestone columns on the Mobil station at the southeast comer of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. 4. The fascia and exposed rafter tail details (including rafter spacing) should match those shown in the guidelines. The height of the fascia (or wall area between top of window and bottom of roof) has been reduced to avoid a boxy appearance and the rafter tail treatment matches the Design Guidelines. I The Planning Commission has not approved the Design Guidelines. In order to allow the shopping center to proceed, the conditions of approval allowed issuance of building permits for Phase I only until the Design Guidelines could be approved. ~ Z ~1~ DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON December 18, 2001 Page 2 5. Windows should have some form of cut ups to add visual interest and be consistent with the Guidelines. The service station/mini-market use requires clear visibility into the building for security reasons. This limits the window area available for such decorative applications as cutups/dividedlight. Theapplicantpmposesacutuppattemthatisconsistentwiththerast of the center while allowing visibility into the building. 6. Section A-A shows approximately 6 feet of fill along west project boundary. If a retaining wall is necessary to support this fill it shall be decorative, preferably covered with river rock. If no retaining wall is to be constructed here off-site grading will be necessary and the applicant shall obtain authorization for such grading from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Such grading would remove existing mature landscaping and trees. The applicant told the Committee at the November 6, 2001 meeting that they do not wish to have a retaining wallin this location but the current Grading Plan still shows the 6 feet of fill. The retaining waft shaft be covered with natural river rock with a decorative cap. 7. Provide decorative profile cornice around the car wash building or provide a pitched roof tied into the remainder of the building. The parapets for the carwash building ara treated with colored stucco trfm along the top and bottom and a horizontal reveal line approximately one-third the way up from the base. It may be preferable to add a step on the bottom of the stucco trim line along the top of the parapet line simftar to the trim that wraps the tower for consistency and visual interesL 8. ' Provide decorative trim around the archway on the tower feature and elsewhere to enhance the appearance of the building and avoid a boxy stucco look. Trim lines now wrap the entire building. The tdm is proposed to have a simple, fiat profile in most areas. The step on the trim line wrapping the tower adds visual Interest and should be used as much as possible throughout the building. 9. Provide more corbels on the tower feature consistent with the Guidelines. The tower has two pairs of corbels per side. Provide additional corbels so that the spacing/rhythm of corbels matches that of the exposed rafter tails consistent with the Guidelines. Additional Comments: 1. The plans do not show a design for the pump island canopy. Previous submittals have shown a stucco-covered canopy with roofline similar to the building and the Committee appeared in favor of this design. The pump island canopy support columns and roof shall have similar proportion and treatment as those on the building. 2. The plans do not provide details to show column pop-out dimension from building walls. This dimension shall be substantial, at least 2 feet deep. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17- CHEVRON December18,2001 Page 3 3. Wall-mounted trellises shall be minimum 2 inches square metal tubing instead of wood. 4. Provide decorative paving for driveway entrances into the site and to delineate pedestrian pathways. 5. Provide Crape Myrtle tree planting along the Foothill Boulevard frontage consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Activity Center theme. 6, When the application was originally submitted, the existing mature trees just west of the site were to remain untouched. The current Site Plan shows these trees to be removed. The trees should be preserved if possible. These appear to be off-site trees so their removal should not be necessary. Permission from the property owner and a Tree Removal Permit will be necessary in order to remove the trees. 7. Note the east f~cing doom and openings will be subject to excessive seasonal winds. Suggest a double door foyer to mitigate this. 8. The driveway into the site from Foothill Boulevard violates Engineering driveway separation policy, as it is only 150 feet from the main driveway entrance to the Rodriguez shopping center to the east. The Engineering Division is willing to support the western-most driveway from Foothill Boulevard subject to it being gated off to customer traffic to avoid confused and conflicting traffic movements. The gate shall be automatically operated so that it is open the minimum length of the time for a gas delivery truck to exit the site and shall be made of decorative wrought iron framed with rock covered pilastem. Intensified landscaping shall be provided along the frontage of the site to conceal the existence of this driveway. Note that the applicant balked at the requirement that the driveway be exit only for fueling trucks at the November 6, 2001, Design Review Committee meeting but has not met with Engineering staff in the meantime to resolve the matter. Planning and Engineering staff have met and the above solution remains to be recommended. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. All roof- and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened. The site sits well below the Albertson's site to the north, which will pose a design challenge for any roof-mounted equipment or satellite dishes. 2. Tree quantities shall be as follows: 1 tree per 30 linear feet of perimeter property line, plus 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building wall, plus 1 tree per 3 parking spaces to shade 50 percent of the parking area. Staff Recoromentation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to compliance with and resolution of the above comments and any additional requirements the Committee may have. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON December 18, 2001 Page 4 DesiRn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Nancy Fong Staff Planner:. Brent Le Count The Committee received the revised plans and recommended approval subject to staff's comments and the following additional comments: 1. The retaining wall along the west property line shall be covered with real river rock veneer and a decorative masonry cap.. 2. The pump island shall be designed to match the main building including substantial sized. river rock covered columns, stucco, and roofing to match. 3. Column pop-outs on the building shall be a minimum of 2 feet deep. 4. Trellis members shall be a minimum of 2-inch square, painted metal. The applicant agreed to all conditions and comments. STRAW GOUGH LAW OFFICES 12304 SANTA MONICA BLVD September 23, 2002 City of Rancho Cueamonga Planning Commission Attn: Brent Le Count 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Project File: CUP 00-17 Proposed Chevron Service Station, convenience market, car wash on Foothill Boulevard west of Vineyard Avenue To Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents Art and Diana Flores who are the owners and operators ora Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. Mr. and Mrs. Flores built this station fxom the ground up at their own expense and have a supply contract with Mobil. THIS PROJECT REQUIRES AN EIR My clients object to thc proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP for the above captioned project. With this letter I am enclosing a report prepared by Environmental Audit, Inc. which sets forth in detail our objections to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the reasons why an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be required for this project. I will not repeat thc findings of thc Environmental Audit report here, but the report in its entirety is incorporated by refercnce for the record. We believe that the Environmental Audit report demonsl~ates that as a matter of law, an EIR is required for this particular project. Ifa lead agency is presented with a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant effect on thc environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may alsobe presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68. The Environmental Audit report presents a number of issues and arguments which constitute a fair argument in favor of an EIR. The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is to require governmental agencies to look before they leap and consider any environmental consequences of %" City Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga September 23, 2002 Page 2 their actions before taking them. CEQA "generally requires a state or local public agency to prepare an EIR on any activity it undertakes or approves which may have a significant effect on the environment." Gentry v. City of Murietta (1995) 36 Cai. App. 4t~ 1359, 1371; Pub. Res. Code §21151 (a). A significant effect is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." Laurel Heights Irnprovement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4t~ 1112, 1123, quoting Pub. Res. Code § 21068. "Public Resources Code section 21151 "creates a low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." Silveria v. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Dist. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 980, 986. We urge the Planning Commission to require an EIR for this project. OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE PROJECT In addition to the reasons set forth in the Environmental Audit report, my clients also question the wisdom and propriety of constructing a third gasoline service station at this intersection. Besides the gasoline service S~tion operated by my clients at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard, the Albertson's supermarket directly across the intersection of Vineyard and Foothill operates an A-Express with pump islands and a convenience store~,.4n terms of city planning and providing useful and necessary services to the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, at does not seem that three gasoline service stations at an intersection where, until a few years ago, there were no gasoline stations is the most beneficial use of this site for Rancho Cucamonga. Besides · saturating the immediate area with gasoline service stations, the construction of yet another service station would result in an increase in gasoline deliveries by gasoline tanker tracks, and an increase in traffic to support the three operations. My clients advise me that there are 9 other. ' gasoline service stations within a one-mile radius of the proposed site and two others have gone out of business recently. Cumulatively the construction of yet another gas station, convenience store and car wash would cause more traffic congestion, delays and noise in an area which is immediately adjacent to the construction of new homes and condominiums. The addition of a car wash at the proposed Chevron location raises the likelihood of numerous and macks either waiting either in the wash line or waiting for the wash to be completed, thereby causing further traffic delays, congestion, exhaust and noise. In addition, when Mr. and Mrs. Flores built their station in 1996 the City of Rancho Cucamonga required that they spend $595,000 for off site improvements including the installation of new traffic lights, the widening and alignment of Foothill Boulevard, the undergrounding utilities on Foothill, the relocation of an Edison light post, the dedication of 17 feet of the Orange Grove property on Foothill to CalTrans, and improvements for adjacent properties including a new driveway to serve Red Hill liquor store and In-and-Out Burger. My City Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga September 23, 2002 Page 3 " clients spent an additional $60,000 for the civil engineer and permits. Mr. and Mrs. Flores are still making payments on the loan which they obtained to pay for these improvements. It has become more difficult for them to meet their monthly payments because their volume of gasoline sales has decreased over 40% since the opening of the A-Express, another sign that this area may not support yet another gasoline service station. Saturation of this area with yet another service station may leave my client unable to meet its payments on the loan which it took to fund these improvements. For all of these reasons, and all of the reasons stated in the Environmental Audit report which is submitted herewith, we request that this project be the subject of further review and consideration, including the legal requirement of preparing an Environmental Impact Report. Ver)/truly_ yojgs, /l PTG:jk ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC. MEMORANDUM Project No. 2175 DATE: September 20, 2002 TO: Paul Gough FROM: Debbie Bright Stevens RE: Gasoline Station in Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Audit, Inc. (EAI) has reviewed the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study Part II for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-17. The proposed project is for the construction ora gasoline station on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. We offer the following comments of the Intital Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. GENERAL COMMENTS ' I. The City used an out-dated environmental checklist form. Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was revised and updated in about 1998 and a new Environmental Checklist form was developed. While CEQA allows lead agencies to develop their own checklist forms (15063(f)), the checklist forms still must comply with the CEQA guidelines. A number of issues should be included in the checklist form. Examples of differences between the checklist used by the City and the Checklist recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G include the following: No agricultural resources were evaluated by the City. · The checklist for air quality resources has been substantially revised and include a consistency review of the proposed project with the Air Quality Management Plan, and a review of the project to consider if the project would "result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment..." These resources were not evaluated by the City. · The Hazard section is missing a number of review criteria including evaluation of transportation hazards, air emissions of hazardous pollutants, and whether the project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 2. The significance criteria used to identify whether or not impacts were considered to be "significant" or not was not provided for most of the environmental resources analyzed. P. Gough September 19, 2002 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS Geolog3' 1. The potential impacts of the proposed project on geology are potentially significant due to the potential impacts associated with an earthquake. The Initial Study does not identify what the potential impacts would be in the event of an earthquake on the gasoline station. 2. The mitigation measures do not reduce the potential impacts of an earthquake on the gasoline station. The first mitigation measure only requires that the restricted use zone be incorporated into site plans. The preparation ora site plan does not reduce any potential significant geological impact· The second mitigation measure indicates that a "Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared" but does not include any requirements of the investigation or what will be done with the results or recommendation of the investigation. The geotechnical investigation should be included as part of the CEQA document and the recommendations of the investigation should be included as mitigation measures. Without this information, the potential impacts of an earthquake must be considered significant and unmitigated, in which case an Environmental Impact Report is required. Water 3. At minimum a preliminary grading plan should be included as part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project. The City indicates that adequate site drainage will be assured but provides no details as to how this will occur. Therefore, no data has been provided to demonstrate that the site drainage will be less than significant. 4. The drainage study that indicates how storm water run-offwill be conveyed during construction and operation should be included as part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project. 5. The City relies on the compliance with RWQCB requirements as an indication that the project impacts will be less than significant which is inappropriate. The courts stuck down the provision of the CEQA guidelines that allowed a lead agency to consider an impact "less than significant" if that impact is consistent with an adopted standard (CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)). According to the court, this provision of the Guidelines subverts the fair argument rule mandated by the statue and relevant case law (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. California Resources Agency)· Leaking underground storage tanks have been a common problem resulting in soil and ground water contamination throughout the country. The Initial Study must describe the equipment that is in place to minimize or prevent a leak from an underground storage tank. Otherwise the project impacts on groundwater must be considered significant. P. Gough September 19, 2002 Page 3 Air Quality 6. The Initial Study estimates the project emissions using an outdated air quality model, URBEMIS7G. EMFAC2000 is the more current and appropriate model for estimating emissions from mobile sources than URBEMIS7G. 7. Construction emissions are part of the air quality impacts and require analysis. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for construction emissions. 8. The assumptions used in the URBEMIS7G model should be provided so that others can review the assumptions and calculations. Nonetheless, it appears that emissions from heavy construction equipment have not been accurately estimated. Construction emission estimates have been provided in Table 1 for construction activities at a gasoline station which should be similar to the construction activities for the proposed project. Detailed emission calculations are included in Appendix A. The emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines which contain requirements for air emission calculations, including emission factors and assumptions for constxuction activities. Based on the information in Table 1 and Appendix A, the construction emissions associated with the proposed project are significant and an EIR must be prepared. TABLE 1 PEAK DAY CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTIVITY CO VOC NOx SOx PMIO Construction Equipment 56.2 8.5 113.6 17.7 8.3 Mobile Source Emissions 12.3 0.6 4.3 -- 0.1 Fugitive Dust/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads ........ 45.0 Fugitive Dust From Construction ....... 85.0 Architectural Coatings -- 52.5 ..... Total Construction Emissions 68.5 61.6 117.9 17.7 138.4 SCAQMD Threshold Level 550 75 100 150 150 Significant? NO NO YES NO NO (1) Assumes application of water two times per day. 9. The air emissions from the operation of a gasoline station have not been calculated correctly and are underestimated In the Initial Study. The emission estimates do not include accurate estimates from mobile sources since an outdate mobile source model was used (URBEMIS7G). Further, the operational emissions do not include emission estimates for stationary equipment which, at minimum, include emissions fi-om fuel dispensing and underground storage tanks. P. Gou~ September 19, 2002 Page 4 10. Emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline station are provided in Table 2. The emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the SCAQMD Guidance for the preparation of annual emissions. Based on the information in Table 1 and Appendix A, the operational emissions associated with the proposed project are significant and an EIR must be prepared. TABLE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTIVITY CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 Mobile Source Emissions 200.4 27.9 23.7 -- 0.9 Fugitive Dust/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads ....... 291.8 Fuel Dispensing and Underground Tanks -- 18 ..... Total Operational Emissions 200.4 45.9 23.7 - 292.7 SCAQMD Threshold Level 550 55 55 150 150 Significant? NO NO NO '.NO YES 11. The City relies on the compliance with SCAQMD requirements as an indication that the project impacts will be less than significant which is inappropriate. The courts stuck down the provision of the CEQA guidelines that allowed a lead agency to consider an impact "less than significant" if that impact is consistent with an adopted standard (CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)). According to the court, this provision of the Guidelines subverts the fair argument rule mandated by the statue and relevant case law (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. California Resources Agency). As shown above and as is also common with a number of stationary sources within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, air permits can comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations, but the emissions could still be considered "significant" under CEQA. 12. No analysis has been completed for the impacts of toxic air contaminants associated with the proposed project. The proposed project will generate additional emissions of diesel particulates, during construction and operation (e.g., gasoline delivery trucks), which are toxic air contaminants. Further, the operation of the proposed project will generate additional emissions of benzene which is also a toxic air contaminant. The impacts of the toxic air contaminants must be addressed, considering the location of the proposed gasoline station to nearby residential areas. Further, the cumulative air quality impacts of this P. Gough September 19, 2002 Page 5 gasoline station with the other two gasoline stations located nearby must also be addressed on the adjacent residential areas. 13. The current CEQA checklist (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) includes that the following checklist item: III.c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project reg4on is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (include releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The City's checklist does not include the above item in its checklist. Therefore, the project cumulative impacts on air quality have been ignored. This is inappropriate because the project area exceeds a number of the state and federal ambient air quality standards.. Transportation/Circulation 14. The level of service (LOS) associated with the nearby intersections must be conducted in order to determine if the project-generated traffic could have significant impacts on traffic. A minimal increase in traffic can have significant impacts if the existing (or ambient) Waffle levels are already severe. No information is provided to determine if the proposed project could have significant impacts. The increase of 2,317 trips could easily have a significant impact on traffic if adjacent impacts are akeady operating at LOS D or worse. Hazards 15. The City's checklist does not evaluated the potential hazards associated with transportation of hazardous materials and substances. Gasoline is considered to be a hazardous material and the impacts associated with an accident should be provided. 16. The hazards ~ssociated with the operation of a gasoline station should be provided. The potential hazard zones associated with a fire or explosion should also be provided. 17. No analysis has been provided in 9.c) to make the determination that benzene will be below the CEQA thresholds. No where in the Initial Study were emissions fi'om benzene estimated, modeled and a cancer risk estimated provided to determine if the exposure to the material would be considered significant. The Initial Study also did not analyze the cumulative exposure to benzene associated with adding a new gasoline station in an area where two gasoline stations currently exist. The cumulative impacts associated with benzene exposure on residents near the three gasoline stations is expected to be significant. P. Gough September 19, 2002 Page 6 Noise ! 8. Construction - related noise impacts should have also been estimated and compared to the noise ordinances to determine if a significant noise impacts could occur to the construction phase. 19. The project generated noise estimates only considered equipment at the site. The Initial Study did not include noise levels from traffic and the project will result in a substantial increase in traffic within 100 feet of residential areas. Utilities and Service Systems 20. The Initial Study should indicate the amount of electricity and natural gas that may be required for the gas station. The Initial Study should indicate the amount of water and wastewater that will be generated by the gas station. Without this information, it is impossible to determine if the project will have a significant impact on various resources and utilities. Socioeconomic Impacts 21. The Initial Study did not provide any analysis of socioeconomic impacts associated with the installation of a new gas station. Economic impacts must be analyzed when there are physical impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). The proposed project will add a new gasoline station in dose proximity to two other gasoline stations. The new gasoline station could draw business away from the other gasoline stations and alter the existing traffic flow and LOS at the local intersections resulting in significant traffic impacts. More serious noise impacts than analyzed herein could also occur if additional traffic occurs at th~ new gasoline station, especially considering the fact that the new gasoline station is located about 100 feet from a residential area. APPENDIX A EMISSION CALCULATIONS TABLE A-1 Construction Equipment Emissions Construction Equipment Equipment Type Hours Emission Factors lb/hr ' I Dally Emissions (lbs/day) ?~i;iiii~i!~ii?i:ii~ii!;i"[; =~i;~':'iii!~[ii! =i~!;~ili~ii~'iiq, ,i , irllll;llll;i Number PerDay CO VOC I NOx I SOx PM10I CO VOC I NOx SOx ~PM10 Sir Compressor 130 CFM 0 8 0.20 0.04 0.32 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3ackhoe I 8 0.83 0.17 1.22 0,11 0.06 6.64 1.33 9.74 0.89 0.44 ;)ozer I 8 ...... 0.35 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 I ~P =late Compactor (GasoNne} 0 8 1.83 9.46 0.88 1.10 0.00 0.00 O.OC 0.00 O.OC 0.00 7,ranes I 8 0.75 0,25 1.92 0.17 0,13 6,01 2,0¢ 15,35 1,3~ 1,00 )ump Trucks 1 8 1,80 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 14.40 1,5-~ 33,36 3.6C 2,08 :lathed Trucl( I 8 1.8C 0.19 4.17 0.4~ 0.26 14.40 1.52 33.36 3.6C 2.08 :rant End Loade? 0 8 0.57 0.23 1.90 0.18 0.17 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 Manllfts (Boom and Scissor) 0 8 0.28 0.07 0.67 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.0G 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mot0r Grader I 8 0.68 0.04 0.05 0.45 0.06 5.40 0.31 0.43 3.60 0.49' Paver 1 8 0.9S 0.20 2.38 0.2¢ 0.10 7,92 1.6(~ 19.04 1.60 0.8( Pile Driver 0 8 0.68 0.15 1.70 0.45 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0( r'rench Machine 0 8 1,2¢ 0.18 1.32 0.12 0,09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Forklift 4000 lb. 0 8 0.52 0.17 1.54 0.14 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C 'Generators (GasolineI 0 8 24.08 0.88 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Weld Machine 1 8 0.17 0.03 0.28 0.03 0.02 1.39 0.25 2.27 0.25 0.1~ 56.15 8.53 113.55 17.67 8.3z · Emissions failers from SCAQMD CEOA Air Qualily Handbcok. Table ~8-A, * Embelolls laaloI~ from 8CAQMD CEOA Air ()uallly I landbool~, Table 9-8.0. Table 0,8.0. Pout~e/hot~' reloltfaf#d fr~ Io~d fearer and hp rating. · Trucks Emissions factors from SCAQMD CEQA Air Qualily Handbook Table 9-8-A. Trucks:off highway diesel used for truck:pickup/stake bed. · Emissions factors Ires SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 9-8-A. Emissions for equipment no~ specifically listed can be fOUnd under rniscetlaneous. TABLE A-2 Construction Vehicle Emissions for Gas Station On Road Mobile Emission Factors from California ARB EMFAC2000 CO VOC NOx PM10 Exhaust Continuous Exhaust Continuous Hot Soak Diurmal& Ev~p Exhaust Continuous Emission Emissions Start EF Emission Start EF Factor Resting Running Emissions Start EF Factor Factor Factor Losses Losses Factor Vehicle Type (~/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/trip) (q/hr) (q/mile) (q/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) Construction Workers Commuting 8.99 11.76 0.54 1.18 0.37 0.17 0,39 0.88 0.72 0.05 Light Duty Trucks 11.28 13.95 0.57 1.25 0.37 0.16 0.34 1.36 1.07 0.07 H0av)' DI0sol Trucks 48.75 NA 1.39 2,55 0.00 NA 0.11 19.06 1.57 0,61 Parameters Peak Day Emissionst lbs/day CO VOC NOx PM10 Diurnal and Total Distance Continuous Exhaust & Resting Continuous Number of Number of Traveled Exhaust Start Running Other VOC Loss Exhaust Staff Source Vehicles Trips In Miles Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emission Construction Workers Commuting 12 24 2 0.95 0.62 0,10 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.01 On-site Cars 0 0 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Light Duty Trucks 0 0 11.5 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 O,00 0.00 Daily Delivery Trucks 1 2 50 10.75 NA 0.33 0.01 NA 4.20 0.00 0.13 Heav~/Diesel Trucks 0 0 4 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0,00 0.00 Source Parameters CO VOC NOx PM10 Total Emissions for Construction Workers 12 24 1.57 0.22 0.13 0.01 Total Emissions for Li,qht Duty Trucks 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Emissions for Heavy Diesel Trucks 1 2 10.75 0.34 4.21 0.13 Total Trip Emissions 12.32 0.56 4.34 0.14 Emission factors for light duty trucks incrude trucks have non-catalysVgasoline, catalyst/gasoline engines, and diese~ engines Diurnal & Resting losses vehicle ROG emission based on the vehicle being not being operated and the ambient temperature is rising Based on California ARB EMFAC2000 model years 1965-2001, state-wide annual simple averages EMFAC2000 was finalized in May 2000 OSSWORD~2 f 75\EmissionCalcs:Const. Tdps 9/18/02 TABLE A-3 Vehicle Emission Factors from EMFAC2000 Calendar Year; 2001 - Model Years: 1965 to 2601 - Slatewlde Totals Project 1636 Scenario EMFAC2CO0 Version 2.02 ~ I .... LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT LDT2-TOT HHDT-IO1 Vehicles 14616335 2223108 4003223 160165 VMT/1000 473835 67563 140267 20258 Tripe 01171160 13560867 25489776 203615 I LDA-TOTr LDT1 -TOT r LDT2oTOT I HHDToTO1 Emission Factors LDA Emission Fac'tom LDT 1 &2 Emission Factors HHDT Diurnal & Evap Diurnal & Evap Diurnal & Evap Emissions (tons/day) (g/mi) (g/trW) (~trlp) (g/mi) (g/mi) ; (g/mD (g/trip) (p/trip) (g/mi) (g/mil {;~,'mi) (~/trlp) (g/trip)I (g/mi) (g/mi) C~rbon Dioxide Emissions (600} BrakeWr 6.48 0.60 4.07 0.28 0.01 0.~2 0.01 Fuel Consumption {1000 gallons) TABLE A-4 Fugitive Dust Construction Emission Estimates From Trucks and Employee Vehicles Peak Emission Peak Daily One-way Factor PM-10 Source Type Number Fuel Trips Distance (Ib/vmt) (lbs/day) Passenger Vehicle/ On Paved Roadways 12 Gasoline 2 11.5 0.018 4.97 Pickup Trucks on Paved Roadways 0 Gasoline 2 11.5 0.4 0.00 Trucks on Paved Roadways 1 Diesel 2 50 0.4 40.00 Total 13 44.97 * Emission Calculations for travel on paved roads from EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.1 DBS:WORD~2175~:EmissionCalcs:PM10 Veh. Emissions 9/18/02 TABLE A-5 Fugitive Constuction Emission Estimates Controlled Enlssio~ UncOnt rolled EmisSions Average PM10 Average Average Pieces of Peak Pieces Emission Wa~er PM10 Peak PM10 PM10 Peak PM10 SCAQMD Equipment of Equipment Hours o~ Factor Control Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emission Tempom~/Stock,,es Average Peak PM10 Average peal( Average Peak I WrND EROSION Distmt~ed Ama and Days~ Disturbed O{sturt~ecl Factor Ernis,ions TOTALPMlOPounds/day I Average I peak I (Co~lkolled E missions ) Cons, ruction 144.1685.591 (Unoontmlled Emissloas) 78.43 151.66 (1) Emissions (Ib~.fn f) = [0.45 x (G~ s}/(H~4) x 2.2048 x J: where G · silt content (7.5%). H = moisture cement (2.0%) and J. hm of operation. TABLE A-6 Paint Primer Architectural Coating Emissions Painting of Station Activity Amount Notes Volume Applied (~allons/day) 15 VOC Content (Ib/,(]allon) 3.5 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Limit VOC Emissions (lbs/day) 52.5 · Emission Calculations from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 "~ DBS:WORD:2175\EmissionCatcs:Fugitive Paint 9/18/02 TABLE A-7 Operational Vehicle and Truck Emissions On Road Mobile Emission Factors from California ARB EMFAC2000 CO VOC NOx PMIO Exhaust Exhaust Diurmal & Evap Exhaust Emissions Continuous Emission Continuous Hot Soak Resting Running Emissions Continuous Emission Factor Start EF Factor Start EF Factor Losses Losses Factor Start EF Factor Vehicle Type (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/trip) (g/hr) (g/mile) (g/mile) (g/~rip) (g/mile) ~Vorkers Commutin~l 8.99 11.76 0,54 1.18 0.37 0.17 0.39 0.88 0.72 0.05 Li~lht Dut~ Trucks 11.28 13.95 0.57 1.25 0.37 0.16 0.34 1.36 1.07 0.07 ~eav~/Diesel Trucks 48.75 NA 1.39 2.55 0.09 NA 0.11 19.06 1.57 0.61 Parameters Peak Day Emissionst Ihs/day CO VOC NOx · PMIO Diurnal and Total Distance Continuous i Exhaust & Resting Continuous Numbero! Numberof Traveled Exhaust Start Running OtherVOC Loss Exhaust Start Source Vehicles Trips InMiles Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emissions' Emission Emissions Emission Workers Commutin~l 8 16 11.5 3.65 0.41 0.38 0.05 0.02 0.36 0.03 0.02 Customer Cars 2317 2317 2.5 114.80 60.07 11.88 7.92 6.95 11.24 3.68 0.64 Light Dut}, Trucks 0 0 11.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delive~ Trucks 2 4 50 21.49 HA 0.66 0.02 NA 8.40 0.01 0.27 Heav,t, Diesel Trucks 0 0 50 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source Parameters CO VOC NOx PMIO Emissions for Vehicles 2325 2333 178.93 27,20 15.30 0.66 Total Emissions for Light Duty Trucks 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Emissions for Hear7 Diesel Trucks 2 4 21.49 0.68 8.42 0.27 Total Trip Emissions 200.43 27.88 23.72 0.93 Emission factors fo~ light doty Imcl<s ~rtc~ude trucks have non-catalyst/gasoline, catalysl/gasoli~e engines, and dlese] engines Diurnal & Resting losses vehicle ROG emission ba~ed ~'~ the vehicle being not being o~erated and the an~blent temperature is Jts[ng Based on California ARB BMFAC200~ rondel years 1965-2001, state-wide annual simple averages TABLE A-8 Operational Fugitive Dust Emissions From Vehicles Peak Emission Peak Daily One-way Factor PM-10 Soume Type Number Fuel Trips Distance (Ib/vmt) (lbs/day) Passenger Vehicle/ On Paved Roadways 8 Gasoline 2 11.5 0.011~ 3,312 Customer Vehicles 2317 Gasoline 2 2,5 0.018 208.53 Trucks on Paved Roadways 0 Diesel 2 20 0.4 0 Trucks on Paved Roads 2 Diesel 2 50 0.4 80 Total 2327 291.842 · Emission Calculations from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Table A9-9 ~,~ OBS:WORD:~2175~ErnissionCalcs:Ops Fugitive Vehicle Emissions 9/18/02 TABLE A-9 FUEL DISPENSING AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS E=EF*Q Where: E VOC Emissions (lbs) EF Emission factor (Ib/Mgal or 1,000 gallons) Q throughput (Mgal) Gasoline EF = 1.8 Ib/Mgal Soume: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Diesel EF = 0.028 Ib/Mgal Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Gasoline Emissions: Gasoline EF 1.8 Ib/Mgal Throughput 10,000 gal/day Emissions 18 lbs of VOC/day Diesel Emissions: Gasoline EF 0.028 Ib/Mgal Throughput 5,000 gal/day Emissions 0.14 lbs of VOC/day Benzene Emissions: Benzene EF 1 percent of total gasoline VOC Emissions Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Emissions 0.18 lbs/day ~ DBS:WORD:/2175/EmissionCalcs:Dispenslng LILBURN StrategicPlanning&EnvironmentalServices CORPORATION MEMORANDUM DATE: September 24, 2002 Project No. 529.00 CUP 00-17 - Chevron TO: Brent LeCount, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department FROM: Nancy Ferguson, Manager, Environmental Programs SUBJECT: Response to Letter from Straw and Gough on CUP 00-17, Chevron Station We have reviewed the letter from Straw & Gough, attorneys for Art and Diana Flores and the accompanying memorandum from Environmental Audit Inc., and have responded to each of the issues raised in the letter and memorandum. This response letter follows the letter from Straw and Gough which we have annotated for your convenience. We agree with Mr. Gough that if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency should prepare an EIR. However, after reviewing the comments presented in the memorandum prepared by Environmental Pmdit, Inc., we do not believe that a fair argument has been presented (see responses to comments 1 through 19). The purpose of an Initial Study is to describe a proposed project and evaluate the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the project. The results of an Initial Study generally determine whether a Negative Declaration would support a project, or an EIR should be prepared. In this case, the Initial Study identified a number of impacts that may cause a significant effect on the environment, but that when City required mitigation measures are implemented and permit requirements from responsible agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) are met, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. This is an acceptable methodology employed by local jurisdictions throughout the state. When combined with compliance with permit requirements from the RWQCB, the (SCAQMD) and the County Department of Environmental Health (DEHS), that must be met either prior to occupancy or on- going during operation, potential impacts are less than significant. Note: we are aware of the court ruling on the use of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h). However, since this ruling is on appeal (court of appeals heard the case on September 20, 2002 and we are awaiting a ruling), this is still an accepted methodology. The proposed project is a service station on approximately one acre of land on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. This is an existing urban area with Foothill Boulevard as a major arterial. The proposed project is within a larger Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 2 commercial shopping center that was previously approved by the City and grading of some of the building pads is currently underway. According to the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard carries more traffic than any other street in the City (23,800 to 38,200 vehicles per day). The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is a major intersection in the City and it is logical that the vicinity of this intersection would accommodate more than one service station, in addition to other commercial retail businesses. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Code. The City established and adopted unique land use and zoning criteria for the Foothill Boulevard, originally adopted as the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, it was added as a complete chapter to the Development Code in 1999. The primary objective in establishing this special land use corridor was in recognition of the potential to maximize commercial activities as well as developing the unique historical potential of the corridor. The southwest comer of the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue intersection is identified as Community Commercial, which is intended to promote the establishment of neighborhood level commercial goods and services. An auto service station is permitted in the Community Commercial district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, as was the case when Mr. and Mrs. Flores received approval for the service station on the opposite corner. MEMORANDUM FROM ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC. General Comments 1. Environmental Checklist. The City's Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study Part I1) is not outdated. We would agree that the City's form does not match verbatim, the updated Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) that came out of the 1999 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. However, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) indicates that the new checklist is a suggested form for local agencies to use but is not meant to be a mandatory checklist that every lead agency must abide by. This is because each jurisdiction is slightly different and a significant impact in one geographic area may not be significant in another. The new checklist is only a suggested form and OPR believes that a lead agency should address questions that are relevant within its own jurisdiction. In fact, in Appendix G form the questions are referred to as "sample questions". The following are response to the specific examples identified in the Environmental Audit Inc., comment. a. Agricultural Resources. The comment is correct that the City's Environmental Checklist does not address agricultural resources. This is not a flaw in the City's form but rather an indication that the City does not have agricultural resources or "farmland" within its corporate boundaries. Yes, there are examples of remnant 1905 Business Center Drive * San Bernardino, CA 92408 * 909/890-1818 * Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 3 vineyards and citrus groves, however, the intent of the questions in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist is to determine whether a project would convert prime or unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance such as the vast tracts of land in the Central Valley that are being pressured by urban sprawl. The remaining agricultural parcels in the City are not "Farmland" under the definition in the Appendix G Checklist. And more specifically the project site itself is a vacant parcel of land within a completely urbanized setting, and does not contain an agricultural use of any kind. b. Air Quality. We agree that the air quality questions in the checklist have been substantially revised. The City's Environmental Checklist includes three of the five questions from the Appendix G checklist. The other two questions are: 1) whether a project would conflict with the air quality management plan; and 2) whether the project would contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, are not included. The question of consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was addressed in the City's General Plan Update (2001). This issue was discussed in the General Plan Draft F_JR (see page 5.6-20). Only in the case of new or mended general plan elements, specific plans and major projects does City staff need to conduct an AQMP consistency review. Therefore, this specific question need not lie included in the City's environmental checklist. However, the question of consistency with other agencies environmental plans and policies is included in the City's Environmental Checklist as 1.and Use and Planning Question 2b. The specific question of cumulative impacts on air quality is not included in the City's environmental checklist but a project's cumulative impacts on the environment are specifically addressed in Section 16 - Mandatory Findings of Significance. Also, because the City recognizes that the South Coast Air Basin's non-attainment status for ozone and suspended particulates (PM~0), a project's contribution of these criteria pollutants is specifically addressed on page 9 of the Initial Study for the project, and mitigation measures are identified even though the project does not exceed any SCAQIvID threshold. c. Hazards. The OPR Environmental Checklist contains eight questions concerning Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The City's contains five. Because the City's Environmental Checklist does not match verbatim the OPR suggested Environmental Checklist, does not mean that the City's is inadequate. Two of the OPR questions relate to airports and the City is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport and does not have a private airstrip within its corporate boundaries or in the vicinity therefore these questions were not included in the City's Environmental Checklist. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 4 The question concerning locating a project on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites is addressed on the Hazardous Waste Site Statement that the applicant must sign (included with the City's Initial Study Part I), and in fact the site is not listed on the CALrEPA Facility Inventory Database of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. The remaining questions identified in OPR's Environmental Checklist are adequately addressed in the questions found in Section 9- Hazards, in the City's Environmental Checklist. The intent of these questions is to ensure that a project would not create hazards such as spills, explosions, or otherwise release toxic substances that may harm people, or if the possibility exists, how the project would prevent or otherwise mitigate such hazards. With regard to the suggestion that the significance criteria used to identify whether or not impacts were considered to be "significant" or not was not provided for most of the environmental resources analyzed, CEQA does not require that a lead agency develop or adopt thresholds of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7). Instead City staff relies on the significance criteria that are implicit within each question included in the Environmental Checklist as well as reliance on the regulatory standards that have been adopted by various responsible agencies such as the SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board. This is still an acceptable methodology under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) since the court case cited in Specific Comments No. 5 below is on appeal, meaning that the lower court's decision is stayed (that is, not in effect). The Superior Court held that 15064(h) was invalid because it voided the "fair argument" standard of CEQA. That holding (and basically the whole decision) was appealed. The California Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the appeal on Friday, Sept 20, 2002 and a decision is expected to be rendered within the next few weeks, more or less. Specific Comments Geology 1. The proposed project is identified as a gas station throughout the Initial Study. As stated on page 6, impacts associated with a seismic event in the area are related to groundshaking rather than fault rupture (see Rasmussen and Associates project report). Page 1 of the Initial Study identifies various agencies that have permitting authority over the proposed project. The County Department of Environmental Health Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board issue permits for underground storage tanks such as those used at gas stations. These agencies are responsible for ensuring that tanks have the appropriate safety features. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 5 2. The first mitigation measure requiring the applicant to identify the restricted use zone on the site plans is a valid mitigation measure because identifying the zone on the site plans would alert anyone reviewing plans that the site is within the Red Hill Fault Zone. The intent is that while reviewing the plans, the City engineering and building and safety staff would make certain that the appropriate conditions of approval are applied to the project. Review of site plans by any responsible agency staff would also remind them that the site is within the Fault Zone and special conditions may be applied to the project's permit. With regard to the second mitigation measure, as stated in Section 3 - Geologic Problems, a Geotechnical Investigation was conducted for the project and a report of findings was prepared by Gary Rasmussen and Associates (available upon request from the Planning Department). As stated in this section, the purpose of this investigation was: 1) to determine if any traces of the fault crossed the property; and 2) to determine whether the site could be developed with the proposed project. Recommendations for development of the project are included in the report which was reviewed by a third party (RGS Geosciences), prior to preparation of the Initial Study. The first paragraph on page 6 states that "recommendations contained in the Rasmussen and Associates report in addition to the following mitigation measures.., shall be implemented to reduce impacts to a less than significant level". The second mitigation measure requires the applicant to have a geotechnical investigation prepared to determine how fill material in the exploratory trenches should be backfilled, only, and does not require another geotechnical investigation of the site. For the convenience of the reader, the recommendations from the Rasmussen Report are included here. However, generally, supporting documentation is not attached to Initial' Studies but instead, as a matter of public record, is available for review at the City's Planning Division as required by CEQA Section 21092(1>). Page 2 of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the project and the first page of the draft Negative Declaration include notes that the project file and all related documents used to prepare the Initial Study are available for public inspection at the Planning Division. · No human occupancy structures should be placed within the Restricted Zone as modified by the Rasmussen Report (2002), unless a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds the area immediately northwest of the site to be free of active faulting. (For boundaries see Rasmussen Report available at the Planning Department). · Any proposed human occupancy structures shall be designed to a maximum probable earthquake of 7.0. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 6 · Positive drainage of the site should be provided and water should not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any natural, cut or fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils should be provided as the native soils are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water. · The final grading plan for the site should be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist prior to grading. · Fills that provide support for any proposed human occupancy structure should not be placed in the Recommended Restricted Use Zone on the site. · Any proposed utilities should cross the Restricted Use Zone at a high angle in order to minimize the amount of damage to utility lines should surface movement occur within the zone. · The trench backfill was not compacted. An evaluation of the significance of all on-site fill, including trench backfill generated during the investigation should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer. Water 3. The project site is in an urban location on Foothill Boulevard where all infrastructure, including storm drains, is in place. The proposed project would hook up locally to all infrastructure including the storm drain system. The project site is flat and minimal grading would be required to establish proper drainage. Site plans, including grading and drainage plans are available for review at the Planning Division. 4. On a flat site where minimal grading will be required, in an urban setting where all infrastructure is available, stormwater runoff would be conveyed to the nearest storm drain. The details are presented on the site plans that are available for review at the Planning Division as required under CEQA Section 21092(b). 5. The reliance on a City's standard conditions of project approval and implementation of permit requirements of responsible agencies such as the RWQCB and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD is still an acceptable methodology until a ruling of the appeal of the lower court ruling is published. When combined with compliance with permit requirements from the RWQCB, the (SCAQMD) and the County Department of Environmental Health (DEHS), that must be met either prior to occupancy or on-going during operation, potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 ° 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 7 The site is currently undeveloped and there is currently no equipment in place on the project site. Leaking underground storage tanks have been a problem in the past at other older gas stations, however this site is a vacant parcel with no history of underground storage tanks. Underground storage tanks require permits from the RWQCB as well as the County of San Bemardino Department of Environmental Health Services (DEl-IS). As stated in the first paragraph on Page 8 of the Initial Study, the RWQCB will require state-of-the-art lined tanks, with built-in leak detection system among other requirements. In addition, the DEHS will require a hazardous materials permit. See also, responses to comments 15 through 17 on hazards below related to underground storage tanks. Air Quality 6. The project emissions for construction and operation were recalculated using the latest version of the software - URBEMIS2001 for Windows, which incorporates EMFAC2000 into the model. With the new software, the project's emissions were slightly higher for operation emissions; however, the results, as shown below, are still far below SCAQMD Thresholds. For comparison, output form both model runs are included. 7. Construction emissions for the project are evaluated in the Initial Study beginning on page 8. 8. As noted previously in response to comment 2 above, supporting documentation is not generally attached to Initial Studies but instead, as a matter of public record, is available for review at the City's Planning Division as required by CEQA Section 21092(b). For the convenience of the reader model data printouts from the URBEMIS7G and URBEMIS2001 are attached. Construction emission summaries from the URBEMIS7G and URBEMIS2001 are provided below. The emissions summaries are nearly identical, with the exception of a 0.05 reduction in mitigated emissions of ROG during Grading. We have also discovered that the URBEMIS7G Model had inherent arithmetic errors that have been manually corrected below. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 8 " Table 1 URBEMIS7G Construction Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) - Source ROG NOx CO PM~o Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Grading 0.95 '~0.95 12.50 11.88 10.92 3.98 Worker_Trips 0.01 0:01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 Stationary Equip. 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.02 Mobile Equip. 2.86 2.72 25.32 24.05 2.03 1.93 Arch. Coatings 4.41 4,19 Asphalt 0.25 0.23 Totals 8.82 8.44 38.10 36.21 0.02 0.02 12.97 5.93 SCAQMDThms. 75 75 100 100 550 550 150 150 Significance No No No No No No No No AMENDED Table 1 URBEMIS2001 Construction Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOx CO PM~o Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Grading 0.95 0.90 12.50 11.88 10.92 3.98 Worker Trips' 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 Stationary Equip. 0.34 0.34 0,27 0.27 0.02 0.02 Mobile Equip. 2.86 2.72 25.32 24.05 2.03 1.93 Arch. Coatings 4.41 4.19 Asphalt 0.25 0.23 , Totals 8.82 8.39 38.11 36.22 0.02 0.02 12.97 5.93 SCAQMDTh res. 75 75 100 100 550 550 150 150 Significance No No No No No No No No The emissions estimates illustrated in Table 1 on page 3 of the Environmental Audit memorandum do not indicate the types of equipment or number of pieces of equipment assumed to be used during construction. However, if the soume of the emissions illustrated in this table is related to Table A-1 attached to that memorandum, then we would argue that these numbers are not realistic for two masons: 1) it appears that in Environmental Audit's Table 1 all the construction equipment would be operating at the same time; and 2) some of the equipment identified in Table A-1 would not be used at a construction site of this size. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 9 First, the dozer and motor grader would be used at the same time, but not in conjunction with the paver or the crane. The paver would come in after grading is complete, and the crane would come in after that to put up the sign, canopies, etc. Second, Environmental Audit's equipment list includes an off-highway dump track, one that would likely only be found at a large mine site, where multiple tons of rock are hauled from a quarry to a crusher, then back to the quarry for another several ton load. The same is true for the flatbed truck listed in the table. Therefore, a fair argument has not been made that the project would create a significant impact on air quality and an EIR must be prepared. 9. Emissions summaries from the URBEMIS7G and URBEMIS2001 for Windows are provided for the operation scenario of the proposed project. Operational emissions do include stationary sources such as idling vehicles and trucks; however emissions from fuel dispensing are negligible due to standard regulatory equipment such as vapor recovery systems and state-of-the art dispensing devices. With the new URBEMIS software, the project's emissions were slightly higher for all operation emissions; however, the results, as shown below, are still far below the SCAQMD Thresholds. Table 2 URBEMIS7G Operations Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOx CO PMlo Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Area Source 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mobile Source 13.03 11.29 9.67 8.37 88.12 76.38 4.19 3.62 Totals ' 13.03 11.2g 9.70 8.40 88.13 76.39 4.19 3.62 SCAQMD Thres. 55 55 55 55 550 550 150 150 Significance No No No No No No No No AMENDED Table 2 URBEMIS2001 Operations Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOx CO PM~o Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Area Source 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mobile Source 19.92 17.63 15.41 13.63 152.09 134.59 4.39 3.88 Totals 19.92 17.63 15.44 13.66 152.10 134.60 4.39 3.88 SCAQMD Thres. 55 55 55 55 550 550 150 150 Significance No No No No No No No No 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 ° Fax: 909/890-1809 Response~ Commen~ Ocmb~ 14,2002 Page 10 10. The purpose of Environmental Audit's Table 2, we believe, is to establish the amount of road dust that can be directly attributed to the proposed project. The operational emissions estimates shown in Table 2 appear to assume two things: first, that trips to the proposed project would all be direct trips, that is where each customer comes directly from home or work to the site then goes back to the original location; and second, that this project is being proposed in a vacuum where the City has not previously considered such a use in its General Plan and the environmental analysis of the General Plan Update (October 2001). With regard to the first assumption, this is not generally how people use service stations, even when there is a convenience store or car wash attached. So to assume 100 percent of the trips would be direct trips of 2.5 miles (5 miles round trip) would be to overestimate the impact. According to the URBEMIS7G Program User's Guide (note: CARB did not updated the guide for 2001 because changes were minimal), Table C-1 - Primary, Pass-by, and Diverted Linked Trip Percentages - the proposed project could either be considered a Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps or Gasoline/Service Station. Table C-1 shows the recommended percentages of each trip type for either of these scenarios. The following table shows how this works out. Using the percentages from this table we have revised Line 2 of Environmental Audit's Table A-8 to reflect a more realistic calculation. Land Use Recommended Percentages Primary Trip Diverted Pass-by Trip Linked Trip Convenience Market/Gas Pumps 20 30 50 Gasoline/Service Station 20 40 40 Table A-8 Revised Operational Fugitive Dust Emissions from Vehicles Source Type Trip Type Number One-Way Emission Peak PM~0 Distance~ Factor pounds per day Customer Direct 463 2.5 0.018 41.67 Vehicles Customer Diverted 927 1 0.018 33.72 Vehicle Linked Trip Customer Pass-by Trip 927 0.75 0.018 12.510 Vehicle Total 2~317 87.9 1. Round trip equals 5 miles for direct trips and 2 miles for diverted trips. For pass-by trips 0.75 mile was used as the model assumes that pass-by trips would be either undiverted or would be diverted by less than a mile. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 11 With regard to the second assumption, the proposed project is a proposed service station on a site zoned for commemial retail use that simply requires a CLIP for such a use on this site. No general plan amendment or zone change is being requested so that during the City's recent General Plan Update, this type of use was considered in the Program EIR prepared to evaluate impacts associated with future growth I the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, the amount of emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the various future landuses that are projected to be constructed and operated have already been evaluated by the City. 11. See response to comment 2 above. 12. Analysis of Toxic Air Contaminants. The generation of additional emissions of diesel particulates, during construction and operation would be minimal. Air toxics associated with the delivery of gasoline by diesel trucks would also be minimal as the deliveries would only occur once or twice a week and the diesel motors would be running at or near the facility for only minutes. Generally, the driver of the delivery vehicle does not leave the engine running while the underground storage tanks are being filled. The potential generation of benzene will be controlled by the use of Phase I vapor recovery systems required by the SCAQMD for the distribution of fuel from tanker track to the stationary storage tanks and Phase II vapor recovery systems for the collection of vapors from the stationary storage tanks to motor vehicle fuel storage tanks. These Phase I and Phase II recovery system prevents hydrocarbons and benzene from escaping into the atmosphere by creating a seal between the dispensing hose and the storage tank and capturing/recimulating into the storage tank any vapors generated as a result of the fueling or dispensing process. 13. The project's cumulative effects on air quality have not been ignored in the Initial Study. The issue of cumulative impacts is addressed in Section 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance. The commentor is directed to the discussion under Issue 16b where this issue is specifically addressed. Transportation/Cimulation 14. The assumption made regarding the generation of trips was ttfat the proposed project represents a drive by rather than destination trip. This is because people don't generally leave their house or office, go get gas, then come back to their house or office. They stop for gas or a snack on their way somewhere else. Likewise, the car wash is associated with the gas station; that is, when you fill up you can get a free or discounted car wash while you are there. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume for the purposes of determining intersection traffic volumes, that the project would generate 2, 317 new trips passing through the intersection. What the Initial Study shows is that them would be 2,317 trips 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 12 in and out of the project site, not that the project trips would all be new. This is an unrealistic assumption, even under a worse case scenario. Relying on Transportation Development Fees is an excepted methodology to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. Hazards 15. See response to comment 1 above concerning the adequacy of the City's Environmental Checklist. The Initial Study does not evaluate the potential hazards associated with the transportation of hazardous material and substances as these impacts are associate with the distribution of fuel from the refinery and not associated with the service station. However, Chevron, the proposed operator of the project maintains an emergency response plan that is implemented in the event an accident occurs while transporting gasoline. This emergency response plan includes notification of emergency response personnel/agencies, implementation of spill control measures, and establishment of buffer areas to prevent non-emergency response human interaction with the accident site. Chevron's emergency response plan will be submitted to the City's Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 16. Hazards associated with the operation of the service station are minimized through various Chevron employee-training programs that include the establishment of a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan, Spill Prevention and Control training, a Best Available Technology/Best Management Practice program and a Spill Response Training program. 17. The California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 7.5, Sections 93100 and93101, Chapter I, Part III Titles 17 and 26 regulate Airborne Toxic Control Measures associated with Benzene. These regulations specify that Air Resources Board (which includes the SCAQMD) certified Phase I Vapor Recovery System recovery systems must be used for the dispensing of gasoline from a gasoline delivery tank to a stationary storage tank (underground storage tank) is installed and used. These regulations further require a Phase 1I Vapor Recovery System recovery systems must be used for the dispensing of gasoline from a stationary storage tank (underground storage tank) at a retail service station into a motor vehicle fuel tank. These measures are specifically designed to prevent Benzene airborne toxic emissions. Noise 18. Construction noise represents a short-tem impact on ambient noise levels, and considering that the existing ambient noise level includes traffic on Foothill Boulevard, 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 ° Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 13 the short-term construction noise at this site or anywhere in the immediate vicinity, is certainly dimensioned in significance. Noise generated by construction equipment, including tracks, a grader and dozer, and crane for example, can reach high levels. The applicant has indicated that a typical Chevron Service Station can be constructed in 90 days or less, with approximately 30 being used to paint, stock the convenience store and generally get the facility ready to open; activities that would not generally exceed the City's noise standards. Grading activities have the potential to generate the highest noise levels. However, because the site is small (approximately one acre), and is relatively flat, grading is anticipated to take two days. This would be followed by trenching and placement of infrastructure which would involve a backhoe. The actually trenching and backfilling represents less than a week although the trench may remain accessible for a longer period of time. Paving is anticipated to take another week, and so forth. As described in response to comment __, construction equipment is operated in phases and there is not a lot of overlap. In other words, grading equipment would be used for a discreet time period, in this case, one day. Paving is a discreet task that cannot be done in conjunction with any other phase on a site this small. The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through the city's Noise Ordinance which limits the hours construction activities can occur. The Initial Study includes a discussion of construction related noise and identifies mitigation measures applied to this and similar projects. Therefore, any short-term impact associated with construction noise can be mitigated and does not represent a significant impact that would require the preparation of an EIR. 19. The purpose of the noise study was to evaluate the potential noise impact associated with the proposed car wash. Otherwise the proposed project is consistent with the types of uses typically allowed in the Community Commercial zone. Therefore, no noise impact analysis for a typical service station was undertaken. Utilities and Service Systems 20. The project site is located in an urbanized area where public infrastructure and services are available and has been planned for by the City as well as the various public utility purveyors. Ail infrastructure is available in the vicinity of the project site and only requires hookups for delivery to begin. The purpose of an environmental analysls of public services (i.e. police, fire, schools, parks) is to determine if a proposed project would result in a substantial adverse effect on the City's ability to provide such services to the community. Since the proposed project does not require a general plan amendment or zone change, is proposed to be 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 Page 14 developed on a site that is surrounded by other commemial retail uses, and would result in a negligible number of employees, the project would not have an adverse impact on public services. Please refer to the City's General Plan (2001 Update) for a discussion of both public services and utilities. Socioeconomic Impacts 21. The decision on whether to evaluate economic and social effects is made only when a lead agency has determined that an EIR should be prepared, and then only when a physical impact can be directly traced to economic or social changes that may be caused by the proposed project. It is too speculative to say that the development of a new service station where two other s exist nearby would cause economic and social effects by simply drawing customers away from the existing gas stations. Other issues raised in this comment do not substantiate the assertion that the proposed project would cause physical impacts that would lead to economic or social impacts. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 25, 2002 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 Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Lan7 McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Para Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner~ Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, Brent Le Count, Associate Planner;, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary;, Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that a meeting had been held with the developer of the mall on Monday, September 23, 2002. He indicated that grading has begun to install infrastructure. He observed that the first design review of the mall is scheduled for October 1, 2002/ Chairman McNiel announced that he is getting married on October 18, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to approve the minutes of September 11, 2002. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Ma¢ias, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 11, 2002. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON - A request to construct a 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash, and pump island on 1-acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2), of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that staff had received a letter from an adjacent business raising several points regarding the proposed Negative Declaration. He said that staff was recommending a one month continuance to October 23, 2002, to allow staffto research and respond and if necessary prepare a new Initial Study. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Paul Gough, Straw & Gough Law Offices, 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles, stated he had written the letter relative to the proposed Negative Declaration. He said he had received a fax from Mr. Le Count indicating staff would be requesting a continuance. He commented that he had driven by the site and noted the site was being graded. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the site was not being graded, but fill dirt has been dumped at the site and they were also backfilling trenches that had been made for the environmental study. Mr. Gough stated that new homes will be within 100 feet of the new carwash. He believed the proposed hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. He felt the new homeowners should be heard. Chairman McNiel stated notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Gough said he was not sure if the homes have been built. He also didn't know if the new buyers are of record as yet. Chairman McNiel said he did not know either. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Conditional use Permit DRCCUP00-17 to October 23, 2002. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: STEWART ABSENT: NONE - carded PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission Business. ADJOURNMENT The Planning commission adjourned at 7:13 p.m. to a workshop The workshop adjourned at 9:55 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 25, 2002 Commissioner Macias concurred. · Mr. Bullet suggested adding a condition that the project be modified to meet the number of covered spaces per the Development Code, subject to City Planner approval. Commissioner Stewart said she did not want to see a loss of landscaping or open space. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15923 and Development Review DRC2002-00633 with a modification to require that the project be modified to meet the number of covered spaces per the Development Code, subject to City Planner approval, and recommending approval of Development Agreement DRC2002-00643. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MANNERINO . - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:33 p.m. to 8:39 p.m. '~ RFA J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 , INC. (CHEVRON) - A request to construct a 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash, and pump island on 1 acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued from October 23, 2002) Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated he had received a telephone call from the individual who owns the service station at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Arrow Route, who raised the same concerns as had been raised at the October 23 meeting; that another gas station so close adds too much competition and that the environmental analysis that was performed was inadequate. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the current plans are for the rest of the property. Mr. Le Count stated that there is an approved Conditional Use Permit, which includes the master plan for the shopping center, He said there is currently an application to modify some of the key design features including replacing the proposed restaurent pad with an auto service type use. He said the big box building is essentially gone. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated there is an application in process to build apartments on that portion of the site. Chairman McNiel indicated~ the public hearing remained open. Mike Lucey, property specialist for Chevron, 2940 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ontario, thanked Mr. Le Count for his help during the two-year processing. He said Mr. Le Count has been open for discussion while maintaining the position of the City. He noted there have been four Design Review Committee meetings. He indicated he told staff previously that they would be willing to install an automatic sliding door in lieu of the requested double door foyer, however, management then told him that they do not use sliding doors in this building. He stated they have a station at Base Line Road and Carnelian Street in Rancho Cucamonga, and another at Base Line Road and Cherry Avenue in Fontana that face north and have pull-open doore. He said they also have stations in Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 23, 2002 north Palm Springs and Cabazon, which are in wind tunnels and have pull-open doors. He said they have not experienced any problems with the pull-open doore and they stopped using sliding doors because they had significant maintenance problems with them. With respect to the hours of operation for the carwash, he believed the carwash is probably 150 to 160 feet from the nearest residential buildings. He said the sound study indicated the noise level would not exceed City limits and observed their blowers do not face the residences. He asked that they be permitted to have the carwash open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., instead of the 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. times called for in the resolution. He said that many customers want to wash their cars on their way to work in the morning end many leave for work before 7:00 a.m. He stated their site at Foothill Boulevard and the 1-15 Freeway is open 24 hours a day and has customers at all hours. Chairman McNiel asked what decibel level would be generated. Mr. Lucey responded it the study showed 51.8 dBA at 100 feet and the regulations cell for not over 60 dBA. Commissioner Stewart asked if Mr. Lucey would be opposed to having hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10;00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends. Mr. Lucay said he wouldn't be opposed but it would be difficult to make sure his staff would abide by it. Chairman McNiel felt that would be an enforcement nightmare. Paul Gough, Straw & Gough Law Offices, 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles, stated he iS the attorney for the Art and Diana Flores. He submitted a letter. He said he had not received a copy of the Lilbum response to his September 23, 2002, letter and the Environmental Audit, Inc. report until he was faxed a copy on October 22. He requested a continuance so that his environmental consultant could have an opportunity to review the Lilbum report and make comments. He noted that Lilbum indicated in its report that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was based in part on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h), which has been held invalid by the Superior Court of Sacramento County. He acknowledged there has been an appeal to determine the validity of that regulation and the Third District Court of Appeals heard the appeal on September 20. He anticipated that a ruling should be forthcoming in the near future as to whether the regulation that formed the basis for the finding is valid. He noted that staff had indicated the Flores do not want competition and said the Flores have plenty of competition. He alleged the Albertson's market across the street is selling gas at or below cost, cutting the volume of the Flores station in half. He stated approval of this project would add another station several hundred yards away. He believed someone will go out of business and he did not feel that is sound planning for the community. He felt the City would not put three supermarkets at the exact same location because they would be counterproductive to one another and one would go out of business. He stated they are not trying to be anti-competitive but they are trying to be sensible. He said that unlike Chevron, the Flores are two individuals who have sunk their entire life savings into their station. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. 750 Mountain, Upland, stated he has worked on this project for 8 years and has always been concerned about the nearby residents. He said he let go of a major retailer because of concerns raised by the neighbors. He stated Mr. Flores approached his company earlier this year in an effort to purchase the site and to open a service station there. He noted that Mr. Flores has had his station up for sale in previous years and had been offered about $3 million but he wanted $3.9 million at the time. He said sources in the brokerage community indicated Mr. Flores is making $1.6 to $1.8 million per year. He felt it is unfortunate that people can use a law to their advantage and abuse the rights of others to compete. He felt the people in the community deserve lower prices and competition. Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 23, 2002 Mr. Gough objected to Mr. Rodriguez's remarks, stating there was no evidence or basis for the remarks. He said the numbers quoted were unsupported. Gil Rodfiguez, Sr., stated he met with Mr. Flores in the latter part of August 2002 and Mr. Flores said he had an $8.2 million cash offer for a short escrow. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He asked the City Attorney to comment on the Court of Appeals hearing. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the Court of Appeals held a hearing on September 20 and there was no indication of when the Court will issue its determination. He said that while the matter is pending, the Trial Court's decision is not in effect, meaning that the CEQA Guideline section can still be followed and decisions can be made with regard to determinations of significance on standards set by their agencies. Commissioner Macias noted that if the Planning Commission approved the project, the decision can be appealed to City Council. Chairman McNiel stated we live in a litigious society and the courts are regularly used in a way for which they were not designed but to the advantage or disadvantage of one group or another, as can be seen in reports eve~J day. He noted the community is on a growth track. He felt it was disheartening that someone would feel threatened by a gas station that is noted for its prices not being the lowest in a community. With respect to the sound study, he noted the maximum dBA is 60 and the applicant indicated they would generate a level of 51 at 100 feet. Commissioner Macias asked for an explanation of what that meant. Mr. Le Count responded that the dBA is expected to be 51 at a distance of 100 feet away, which is less than the existing ambient noise from Foothill Boulevard as well as below the City's established thresholds. Mr. Buller indicated the Commission could restrict the hours and have the applicant submit an application to expand the hours once it is in service or the Commission could allow the applicant a chance to demonstrate that it is not an issue and bring back the Conditional Use Permit for modification if there are complaints. Commissioner Tolstoy noted there are houses nearby. He suggested the hours remain as suggested by staff. Commissioners Macias, Stewart, and Tolstoy supported staff's recommendation on the hours. Mr. Bullet asked for clarification on the door issue. He said staff indicated the applicant agreed to an automatic sliding door, but the applicant said this evening that they do not wish to use a sliding door. He asked for the Commission's feelings on the door issue. Chairman McNiel observed the applicant said they have had maintenance problems with sliding doors and he felt that was the result of using the Iow bidding process, not the door. Mr. Buller asked if it was the Commission's direction that there either be a sliding door or a double door with vestibule. It was the consensus of the commission that that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 23, 2002 Chairman McNiel felt the carwash'will actually mitigate sound problems that will generate from the service islands but said he would abide with the other Commissioners with respect to the hours for the carwash. He noted the applicant could return to request expansion of the hours. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MANNERINO - carried Mr. Buller suggested skipping to Item L, as the applicant for Item K was not in the audience. L. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00770 - KISCO SENIOR LIVING - A proposed Development Agreement to permit a parking ratio of 1.15 parking space per unit for an age- restricted apartment community of 264 units on 9.6 acres of land in Planning Area 8 of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Fairview Place and 6th Street - APN: 210-082-53 thru 57. This project is based on the Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the Subarea 18 Specific Plan and the General Plan Update, certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 1994 and 2001, respectively. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the certified EIRs. Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public headng. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked Mr. Fenn for his hard work on getting the project processed as quickly as possible. He felt their project compared favorably to the senior project reviewed earlier in the evening. He noted their project meets the Code requirements for parking. Chairman McNiel asked if the units would all be market rate. Mr. Buquet responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the parking analysis referenced an additional neighborhood shopping center planned adjacent to the site. He questioned if a project has been submitted. Mr. Buquet stated there is a 17-acre site at Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue that would allow for a manY, et although he knew of no immediate development plans. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is extremely important to have a food market and cleaners within walking distance of senior projects. Mr. Buquet agreedthat is desirable. He feltthis project is good because of its ciose proximity to the Metrolink and the golf course. Headng no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public headng. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it will be a nice project. He was concerned about the parking ratio but stated it was the consensus of the Commission that it should be adequate. Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 23, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17, TO CONSTRUCT A 2,945 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION WITH CONVENIENCE MARKET, DRIVE-THRU CARWASH, AND PUMP ISLAND ON 1-ACRE OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2), OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. RFA, Inc. filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as 'the application." 2. On September 25, and continued to October 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occun'ed. 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 public hearing on September 25, and October 23, 2002, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue, with a street frontage of 200 feet and lot depth of 185 feet, and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed by the Albertson's Center including a grocery store, drive-thru fast food, and service station; the property to the south consists of vacant land with condominiums further south; the properly to the east is vacant and occupied by the Klusman House; and the property to the west is developed by a flood control channel with residential development further west across the channel; and c. The project is designed with the creative use of real river rock veneer, stucco, concrete tile roofing, and architectural massing that is consistent with the Foothill Districts architectural guidelines and the established pattern of development in the area; and d. All of the potential environmental impacts associated with the project including seismic hazards, noise, and traffic can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of environmental mitigation measures listed below;, and .?.7/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 DRCCUP00-17 - RFA, Inc. October 23, 2002 Page 2 e. Six mature pine trees will have to be removed to accommodate the development, but their removal will be mitigated by installation of project landscaping; and f. The project will provide conveniently accessible services along a major thoroughfare within the community consistent with the intent of community commercial development. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. 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. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 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 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 Califomia 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 that 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 orthe 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 DRCCUP00-17 - RFA, Inc. October 23, 2002 Page 3 Plannin,q Division: 1) Wall mounted trellises shall be minimum 2-inch square metal tubing instead of wood. 2) Provide decorative paving for driveway entrances into the site and to delineate pedestrian pathways. 3) Provide landscaping treatment along the Foothill Boulevard frontage consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Districts and Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan suburban parkway theme. 4) Note that east facing doors and openings will be subject to excessive seasonal winds. Provide a double door foyer or automatic sliding doors as mitigation. 5) All roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be fully screened. The site sits well below the Albertson's site to the north, which will pose a design challenge for any roof-mounted equipment or satellite dishes. 6) The hours of operation for the drive-thru carwash shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. 7) The retaining wall along the west proje, ct boundary shall be covered with natural river rock veneer to match the building and have a decorative mason~ cap. 8) The column pop outs on the building shall have a minimum depth of 2 feet. ~vision: 1) An entrance only driveway angled and posted to discourage exiting onto Foothill Boulevard is acceptable. Extend the temporary median island westerly to prohibit left-turn movement. 2) Any improvements affecting the County of San Bemardino Flood Control use of its facilities shall be coordinated with the Flood Control District. 3) Missing improvements along the Foothill Boulevard frontage shall be installed in accordance with City and Caltrans Standards as required and including: a) Provide curbs and gutters, sidewalk, drive' approaches, raised median, signing, striping. b)Provide eastbound right-turn lane for driveway approved as part of CUP95-25. c) Install 600 Lumen HPSV street light as required. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 DRCCUP00-17 - RFA, Inc. October 23, 2002 Page 4 d) Dedicate right-of-way as required. 4) Reimburse others for half of the cost of the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, pdor to issuance of building permits. 5) Reimburse others for half of the cost of installing the permanent median island, including landscaping, and hardscaping prior to issuance of building permits. 6) The parkway Activity Center shall be constructed per Route 66/Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan and Vineyard Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Planner, and Caltrans. 7) Pay construction in-lieu fee for the extension of the permanent median island and landscaping to the centertine of Cucamonga Creek Bridge. 8) Reimburse others for the permanent street improvements on the south side from the centerline of Foothill Boulevard. Environmental Mitigation: Geologic 1) All mitigation measures identified in the Gary Rasmussen and Associates Subsurface Geology Investigation dated July t6, 2002, shall be complied with. 2) The location of the Restricted Use Zone for fault rupture hazard shall be incorporated into Site Plans with proper disclosure. 3) A Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared to evaluate the condition of the fill material and exploratory trench backfill, relative to the proposed development. Air Quali~y 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2) Foothill Boulevard shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. PLANNING COMMISSIOI~RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 DRCCUP00-17 - RFA, Inc. October 23, 2002 Page 5 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. 5) 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 the construction Grading Plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 6) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Hazards 1) All appropriate permits will be obtained prior to construction and must be documented in a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan to be approved by the City Emergency Services Office. These safety measures will mitigate this potentially significant impact to less than significant impact. . ~ Noise 1) During all project site excavation and grading on-site, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2) The proJect contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 3) The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 4) During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all construction related activities that would result in noise levels at adjacent properties to exceed the noise standards specified in the Development Code, as described in the noise analysis under the City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Standards, to between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays and Government Code holidays. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-101 DRCCUPO0-17 - RFA, Inc. October23, 2002 Page 6 Aesthetics 1) To minimize effects of light and glare from nighttime lighting of the site, the applicant shall ensure lights include a shield and are directed away from sensitive receptors. A Lighting Plan shall be submitted with Site . Plans during plan check. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2002. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L~r~y T~cNiel, Chairman I, Brad Bullet, 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 23rd day of October 2002, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NAC[A5, MCNZEL, STEt/ART, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IVlAtINEP, I~I0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DRCCUP00-17 SUBJECT: CHEVRON SERVICE STATION APPLICANT: RFA, INC. LOCATION: SWC FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 02-101, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit 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 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. sc 8 2 Project No. DRCCUP00~17 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all __/ / Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code / / and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be .__J / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and /___/ approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, / and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. 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. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner / / including proper illumination. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the proper17 / / 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 prior to the issuance of building permits. D, Shopping Centers 1. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the ~ /__ City Planner: a. Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). /__./ b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to /__./ include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. /---/ d. Roll-up doors. ---/ / e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. /----/ sc.o o2 2 Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Complc~ion Date g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and /.~./ designed to be hidden from view. 2. .Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. /___/ 3. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash /___ __ and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 4. Signs shall be conveniently posted for "no overnight parking~ and for "employee parking /_____ only." 5. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. b. Loading and Unloading - No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, /.~/ closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 6. Hours of operation for the carwash shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. / / 7. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. / / They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the /_~/ plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. 9. Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces and shall not extend /.~/ into the pedestrian walkways. The design details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or /. / projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space __/ / abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall ~ /__ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be / provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. sc.o .02 3 Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Completion Date 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, _~/ / entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 5. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and .__/ / Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn- around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. G. Trip Reduction 1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commemial, office, industrial, and multifamily / / residential projects of more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to th~ higher whole number. H. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home / / landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape 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. 2. A minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24- / / inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three / / parking stalls. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of / / one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. 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. 6. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible / / for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 7. 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. 8. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, / / meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard. sc.o o2 4 ,2 D Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Completion Date 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, / / the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 10. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and .__./ / approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 11. 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. I. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this __/ / approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. J. Environmental 1. 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. K. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and __/ / location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) L. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size Df the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Completion Date g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., '1-1' #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils / / report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation / / coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / / 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by / / the Building and Safety Division. 6. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can ___/ / contact the Building and Safety Division staff for information and submittal requirements. M. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be /.__/ marked with the project file number (i.e., DRCCUP00-17). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development project / / or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permits issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety 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 or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Division's public / / counter). N. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances .__/ / considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. ~ / 3. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino ~ ! Environmental Health Services prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. /~ Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Completion Date O. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California 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 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, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, ~ / submitte~d, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for ___/ / existing buildings where improvements being proposed wiil generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured /__./ from street centerline): 72 total feet on Foothill Boulevard. /.---/ Q. Street Improvements 1. 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, b,',t are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / /__ St~'et Name Curb & A.C Sde- Dr ve Street Street Comm Med an B ke - I Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail uther Foothill Boulevard x x x x x x e 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) Reimburse others. SC-08-02 7 Project No. DRCCUP00*17 Comaletion Date 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. 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. ^ 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. 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in ___/ / accordance w~th the Ctys stree tree program. 5. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right of-way: ~/ / Foothill Boulevard. R. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting /_._/ Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs .shall be borne by the developer. S. Utilities 1. 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. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. T. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for .__/ / all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: U. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. /__./ These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, /_~/ with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Comeletion Date V. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are __/ ./ within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. W. Windows 1. Storefront windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. __/__/__ 2. Security glazing is recommended on storefront windows to resist window smashes and / / impede entry to burglars. 3. Security/burglar bars are not recommended, particularly in residences, due to the delay or ~__/ prevention of a speedy evacuation in case of fire. X. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for / / nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or mom roofs of this development. They shall / /.~ be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose ars on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED SC-08-02 9 ~ 4~ 5 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE SAFETY DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS FD PLAN REVIEW#: FD-00-0158 PROJECT #: DRCCUP00-17 REQUIRED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM(S) None Required LOCATION: SWC Vineyard and Foothill FD REVIEW BY: Steve Locati, Fire Protection Planning Specialist PLANNER: Brent LeCount ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2770, EXT. 3009, TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Completion Date A. Outstanding Fire District Issues 1. The Fire District has previously provided the applicant with comments and technical requirements for this project. If the applicant has any questions regarding these comments or requirements they shall contac~t the Fire Safety Division. These conditions do not represent all technical requirements for issuance of construction or installation permits for this project. 2. Unpaid Fees: This project has outstanding unpaid service fees in the amount of $214 that are due and payable at this time. Please remit payment by check made payable to the "Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. These fees were prev. iously identified during the development review process. The fees are due for the following service(s): Conditional Use Permit Review and Initial Review of Commercial/Industrial Project B. Water Plans for Fire Protection 1. Public Fire Hydrants: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and the Water District. On the plan include all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. 2. Private/On-site Fire Hydrants: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District standards. Contac the Fire Safety Division for a copy of "Fire District Notes for Underground and Water Plans." 3. Exceeds Allowable Distance: When any portion of a facility or building is located more than 150-feet from a fire hydrant located on a public street, as measured by an approved reute around the exterior of the facility or building on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. The distance is measured as vehicular path of travel on access roadways, not line of sight. ! Project N{Jrnber: DRCCUP00-17 Comoletion Date: 4. Minimum Fire Flow: The required fire flow for this project is 1750 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-A, as amended. Please see "Water Availability" below for required verification of fire flow availability for the proposed project. 5. Maintenance Agreement: If the system is private the applicant shall do the following prior to the issuance of the building permit: a. Submit proof that previsions have been made for the annual testing, repair, and maintenance of the system. A copy of the maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the District. b. For developments with multiple owners, they shall establish a reciprocal maintenance agreement that shall be submitted to the Fire District for acceptance. C. Available Water Supply-Confirmation Required 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Water Availability for Fire Protection Form shall be signed by the Water District and submitted for approval by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. If sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system may be required in each structure affected by the insufficient flow. A copy of the required form has previously been provided to the applicant. Contact the Fire Safety Division for a copy of the form. D. Fire Access 1. Access Roadways Defined: Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets, and highways, as well as private roads, streets, drive aisles and designated fire lanes. 2. Commercial/Industrial and Multi-family Residential: Prior to recordation of a subdivision/tract/pamel map or the issuance of any grading permit the applicant shall submit plans and specifications for Fire District approval of all access roadways to within 150-feet of all portions of the exterior of every structure on-site. 3. Private Roadways and Fire Lanes: .The minimum specifications for private fire district access roadways are: a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26ofeet. b. The inside turn radius shall be 20-feet. c. The outside turn radius shall be not less than 50-feet. d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14 feet, 6 inches. f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20'feet. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9 degrees or 20 percent. h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12 percent. i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). 4. Access Control/Traffic Calming Device Permit: A Fire District permit is required to install any access control device, traffic-calming device, or gate on any access roadway. Project Number: DRCCUP00-17 Completion Date: Applicable CC&R's, or other approved documents, shall contain provisions that prohibit obstructions such as traffic-calming devices (speed bumps, humps, etc.), control gates, bollards, or other modifications in fire lanes or access roadways without prior written approval of the Fire District, Fire Safety Division 5. Knox Rapid Entry System: A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of pumhase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 6. Fire Lane Identification: All required fire lanes shall be identified by red curbing and signage. A drawing of the proposed signage that meets the minimum Fire District standards shall be submitted to and approved. Contact the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District at (909) 477-2770 for a copy of the FD Fire Lanes standard. E. Hazard Control Permits 1. Annual special Permits may be required, dependent upon approved use(s) for Hazard Control and Operation or Uses related to this project. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine requirements. F. Hazardous Materials - Compliance with Disclosure and Reporting Regulations 1. Businesses, operations, uses or conditions involving hazardous materials require that the San Bernardino County Fire Department review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards. Contact the San Bernardino County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-3041 for forms and assistance. The County Fire Department is the Cai'EPA Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. a. Quantities: Any business that uses, generates, processes, produces, treats, stores, emits, or discharges a hazardous material in quantities at or exceeding 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet (compressed gas); handles or uses extremely hazardous substances, explosives, or radioactive materials; at any one time in the course of a year should contact the County Fire Department to avoid delays in beginning operation. b. Certificate of Occupancy Restrictions: If the facility is a NEW business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building and Safety will not be finalized until the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting specific hazardous material disclosure requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMP) may also be required if regulated substances are to be used or stored at the new facility. Contact County Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-3041 for forms and assistance. c. Rental or Lease Properties: Any business that operates on rented or leased property, and is required to submit a Plan, is required to submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates, and has complied with the provision, and must provide a copy of the Plan to the property owner within 5 working days after receiving a request from the owner. Project Number: DRCCUP00-17 Compl~ion Date: d. Fire District Code Adoption: The Fire Code adopted by the Fire District has a provision requiring collection of information regarding hazardous materials at facilities for purposes of Fire Code implementation and emergency response. e, Submittal to the Fire District: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy a copy of the County Fire Department approved Business Emergency/Contingency Plan - New Business (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory) shall be submitted to the Fire District. In some cases additional information that is not in the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan may be required in order to support local fire prevention and emergency response programs. Fire District Standard Conditions - Template SL 7/15/02 Revision 4 ENVIRONMENTAL · INFORMATION FORM o~,o~.~oc~.,.~: (Pa~l - Initial Study) Planning Division (909) 477-2750 The purpose:Of this f°'f~ project So'that,the ci~:~:~ay.~iew:'th:6 guidelines; ~' Califom{~ to Implement CE~. provided in full. ' INCOMPLETE APPLICATION$ WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.. P/ease note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff witl not be available to per~onw work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the preject lo which this form pe~fains: ProjectTitle: 'Chevron Service Station .~e&Addressofprojectowner(s): C]~eyron products Co-Mike LUc~y- 145 S. State College Blvd Brea,' CA 92822 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor Cuca~onqa Creek Partners P.O Box 281 Upland, CA 91786 Contact Person & Address: RFA, Inc- Jason Miller relepboneNumber: (714) 93_8-6090 Ext.119 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from aboVe): Same As Above T~ .h~neNumbec ~,~me A.~ Above Information indicated by aste#sk 0 is not requirad of non-cOnstruction CUP's unless othen~se requested by staff. °t) provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant sheei(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the s~?e bounda~fes. 2) provide a set of color photographs which show representative wews tn(9 the site from the nod, h, south, east end west; views into end from the ~?e from lhe. ptfma~ access points ~ serve the =ke; and.rapresentat/ve.v/ews Of ~gn/~cent features ~l~q the sits. L,x:fude e map showing inse6on of each photograph. . 3) pr~rectLocedon(descnT~e): ~he ~No~hern b__.__~o~nd=_~y~ is 72' from ~___he cen~ of .Foothill Blvd, the Western hn~]~dr'~ ~. R~' ~r~m ~_h~ ~n~_~l~_ne e~ Blvd centerl~ne~ and ~he East.~rn ]~n,,nR~_v (~ '~1R' F~m ~ c~.~_e'r!._'-e of V~neyard Ave. '" 4) AssessoF$ Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet ~f ,ecessao~): N /A '5) Gross S~te Ama (ac/sq. P,.): 46,9~3:s.qaare...~.e_~C.~hich is 1.08 acres '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of pubic streets & proposed dedical~ons): '~ 46.9z_.~7._~. ~q-t{~ r e. .' ~C.... 7) DescnT~e any proposed general plan amendment or zone change whiCh wOUld affect the project ske (a~tach additional sheet ff necesseqc. None At ~This =T,ime.-... _- include a ~ScripU~ Of all pe~rn~ whiCh ~ ~ ~a~ from the ~ of Rancho Cucamonga'and ~her government~ agenc/e$ in on~er~ fury ~plement the pmjecf: . ~ . CITY 0Y RANCHO cUCAMONGA= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; GRADING pERMIT; BUILDING PERMIT;ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL~ & PLUMBING. PERMIT;LANDSCAPE APPROVAL, FIRE APPROVAL. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO: FOOD STORAGE PERMIT, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PERMIT. SCAQMD PERMIT. CUCAMONGA C~UNTY WATER 'DISTRICT: FOOD STORE PERMIT, FIRST RELEASE..~/ Descdbe the physical seffing of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography,.soil stability, plants: and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing strectures on site · (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of infomlation (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, treffic.studies): The existing physical· condition of the site consists of a vacant lot with na~'ural Vegetation, stable soil; adequate drainage·, · gery few trees, no scenic aspects, and no trails or roads. This site has no existing structures. ~sc~dbethe~wncuiture~and/~rhist~dca~a~e~s~thesite~Site~s~urce~in~rma§on(b~ks~p~hedrep~ and omlhisto~): There are no cultural and/or historical aspects located withen the site's'boundaries 11) Desc~e a~ n~e s~urces and ~e~ ~ve~ that p~w a~ the s~ ~ra~ ~adway n~e~ etc~) and h~w they ~ a~ ~ preposed uses: The site is located on ~oot~ill Blvd west of ¥ine~ard Ave which has minimal noise impacts on the site and the proposed use? 12) Descdbe the p~oosed project ~ detail. Th~ should provide an adequate desc~oiion of the site in toflns of ultimate use whk:h w~ result fwm the pwsed project Indicate ff them am proposed phases for developmen~ the extenf of development to occur wfth each phase, and the anticipated compleffon of each increment. Aifa~h addiEonal sheet(s) if necessary:. ~ PRO. ED PROJEC'I' SCOPE OF Y~N2)RK CO~I~ OF ~ ~UCI'ION ~ iNSTALLA~ON' OF A 2,817 sq£t. EXTRA KILE CONVI/lqI]~qCE STORE ~LDING'FOR ~ RETAIL SALE OF PREPACKAGED FOOD l'rl~..-'{S, FRESH ~ GOOD~ SALES.' ~COPE OF ~i:{K ~ ALSO ]]~CLUDE ~ CO{~-'TR[J~i'iO~ AND IRSTAY:r.ATION OF A NL~ 38'x85' FUI~ DIb-'Pl!I~ISII,13 CANOPY, 'SIX {6} DISPI!IqSEP~ ~ 12'-4" x 10'-8" MASONRY TRASH ENC[I)..~.IRE~ ~ AIR AND WATER UNI'I'~, ~ PUBLIC 'I'Irl,EPI-1KDNI~ AND I.~'qD~k?.APiNG AND PARKING AS REQilIRIED. 13) DescnT~e the sunounding properties, including informa~on on plants and animals and any cultural, historica~ Or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residenlial, commewial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-far~Ty, .aparlment houses, shops, depan~nent stores, etc.} and scale of development (heig~. [ frontage, setback, rear yefflo etc.}: The proposed project is located on a vacant lot.. Surroundin~t.. properties include residentual homes to the' south-and west.--. To the' north there is a vacant lbt and commercial a'~ea to the ~ ~ll t~ pmposed pmject ~ange ~e pa~ s~ ~ cha~cter of ~e surwun~ gene~l ama ~ the project? THE PROPOSED PI:K:kTEC~ HAS BEEN DESiGNeD ~ 'BE COHPAT[~ TAr/TH ~HE H~$TOR~CAL LANDMARK TO ~HE ~ THERE IS ALSO A ~HOPPING CENTER PROPOSED IN THE SAME ARE~ ~dicate ~e type of sho~te~ and I~ n~se ~ ~ genemte~ ~duding source and amounL How will ~ese no~e ~ve~ a~ct adjacent prope~s and on-s~e uses. What metho~ of ~ound proo~g a~ proposed? Short term noise will be limited to.approved construction hours. .Long term noise will not be increased a~ the station will. primarily attract /~ t~affic. '1~ Indica~proposedmmova~an~°rmplacemen~°fmatum°rscen~es: ThOre are no existing trees at''th~s site. The proposed installation of the n~w %rees' w~[l COmDIV w~th the c~t¥'s landsca~ code requirements. _ - 17) Indicate any bodies of water 'including domestic water sUpPlies) into which the site drains: Non'e 18) Indicate expected amOUnt of Water usage. (See'AttaChment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal'day) N/A' Pepk use (gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal~day~ac) 200 Peak use (gal~rain/ac) 20 · 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal..-- Septic Tank ~ Sewer. ff septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitao, sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attacl~ment A for usage esb'rnates). For further daiffication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Dis~ct at 987.2591. a. Residential (gal~day) N/A b. Commercial/Ind. (gal~day/ac) 200 _RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS' 20) Nurnber of residential units: N/A Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes~ minimum lot size and maximum lot size: N/A A#ached ~ndicale whether unit= are rental or for sale units): N/A 21) Anticipated range of sale p~ces and/or mn~' Rent (per month). $ to 22) Specify number of bedre°ms by unit ~e: .23) Indicate anUCJPated household size by unit ~ype: N/A 24) Indicate the exPected number of school ch~dran who ~ be residing ~thin the project: Contact the ePProp~fate School Dist~cts as shown Jn A~achment B: a, Elemento~y: N/J~ ,. .. b. .'Junior High: COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIoNA~ PROJECTR 25) Desen'be type of use(s} and major func~on($) of commercial, ~dusbfal orins~uffonal usa~' 20) Totall~ramaofcommercial,~ndusi~f~,orlnsb'~uEonaluses'by~ype:, CON'V~:N~ S'~3~.' 2,,877 .) Indicate hours of operation: 24 Hours 28) Number of employees: Total: · 8 Maximum Shift: ~ Time of Maximum Shift: 8 hours 29) Pmvidebreakd~wn~fantic~patedj~bc~assi~cati~ns~inc~udingwageandsa~aq~ranges~aswetiasanindicati~n~fthe~ate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): ~ Estimation of the number of worke~s to be hired that currently reside in the City:_ _ : 4 3O) 91) hr comme~ial and ~dustdal uses on~ ~dicate ~e soum~ ~pe and amo~t of a~po~n emissi~s. ~a~ shou~ be verified ~mugh ~e Sou~ Coast ~r Quali~ Management D~tdct .at ~1~ 572-628~: . ' Applications for a~proval and permit isSuanCe ~ill be subm~ted to %he SCAOMD for the fuel d~spensinq egniptment ~LL PROJECTS 3~ Ha~ ~e wate¢ sewec tim, and flood contml agendes se~ing ~e pmje~ ~en con~Cted ~ ~rmine ~eY abili~ ~ pmvide a~qua~ se~ce ~ ~e p~posed pmje~? ff so, please ~dica~ ~e~ m~ons~ Al! agencies orov~dino water~ sewer~ fire~ and flood control have been contacted b~ the developer. Adequate services will be provided to the project si~e. 33) In the known history of this prOPerly, has there been any use, storage, or discha~je of hazardous and/or toxic meier/a/s? ' Examples of hazardous ancYor toxic materials include, but are not fimited lo PCB's; redioac§ve aubatancas; pesticides and herbicides* fuels, off=, soA, ents; and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note unde~vround storage of ~ny of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the properly, as well as the dales of use, if known, IN THE KNOWN HISTORY OF THIs PROPERTY, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY USE, ~IDRAGE, OR DI~E OF ANY I~a. ZARIXX~ HATERIALS AND/OR TOXIC 34) t44lithepmp~edpr~jectinvatvethetemp~rary~r~ng-tennuse~st~r~ge~rdischargeofhazard~usand/~rtoxic materials, including but not limited to tho~e examples listed above? ff ye~ provide an inventory of atl such matetfats to be used and propo~ed metlK~d of disposal. The IocaUon Of such ~se$, along with the storage and shipment areas, shaft be shown and labeled on the application plans. THE PROPOser SERVICE STATION WILL INCIL'DE THE INSTALLATION OF (1) 20,000 & (i) 15,000 GALLON UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS FOR THE LON~ T~ STORAGE OF MOTOR FED~iAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REQOI~ IN ORDER TO 'PREVENT CONTAMINATION TO THE SO~L AND/O~ GROt~D *4aTOm. I hereby cerUfy that the statements furnished above and in the affa~hedexh,~its present the data and information required for adequate evatuagfon of thi~ project to the best of my abiMy, that Ihe facts, statements, and information presented are true end correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I fu~her under~tand that adcr~ional infonnaUon may be required to be submiffed before an adequate evaluatiof~ can be made by the Ci~ of Rancho Cqcarnonga. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DRC CUP 00-17 2. Related Files: CUP 95-25 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON - A request to construct an automobile fueling station with a 2,740 square-foot convenience market, 867 square-foot drive-thru carwash, and a 3,230 square-foot fuel dispensing canopy, which will house six multi- grade motor vehicle fuel dispensers, on a 1.08-acre lot within an area designated Community Commercial (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. The site is located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: RFA Inc. - Ted Grove, Project Manager 2050 South Santa Cruz, Suite 2100 Anaheim, CA 92805 $. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial 6. Zoning: Community Commercial, Subarea 2, Foothill Boulevard Districts 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 1.08-acre project site is part of a larger 8.9-acre site that was approved for a master planned shopping center (CUP 95-25) in the Community Commercial development area of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. The 8.9-acre site is located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and is largely vacant except for the Klusman House which has local historic significance for the community. Surrounding properties include the Cucamonga Creek Channel to the west followed by a newly constructed single family neighborhood (approximately 70 feet west of the site). Foothill Boulevard borders the property to the north followed by the new Albertson's shopping center which includes an automobile fueling center. To the south is vacant land that is currently being graded for a recently approved 168-unit apartment project. To the east is Vineyard Avenue followed by condominiums, and a automobile fueling station (Mobil) at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 2 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 '10. Other agencies whose approval is required: · Caltrans - permit to construct street improvements on Foothill Boulevard, a state highway. · South Coast Air Quality Management District - permits to constructJoperate auto fueling station (including underground storage tanks) · San Bemardino County Department of Environmental Health Services - EPA hazardous waste generator/handler permit · San Bernardino County Fire Department - Approval of a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan · City Office of Emergency Services - Approval of a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan ,, City Fire Department - permit for underground storage tanks · Regional Water Quality Control Board - permit for underground storage tanks Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 3 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 (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (V') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (v") Aesthetics (v") Water (V') Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (v~) Air Quality (v') Noise ( ) Recreation (v") Mandato~ Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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. AB~nt ke ~.~ ssociate Planner February 10, 2003 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 4 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: s~0~rn,~t LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (v~) ( b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') established community? Comments: a-d) The project includes the construction/operation of an automobile fueling station to include a 2,740 square-foot convenience market, 867 square-foot drive-thru car wash, and a 3,230 square-foot fuel dispensing canopy to house six multi-grade motor vehicle fuel dispensers on a 1.08-acre lot within a larger master planned shopping center (8.9 acres) an area designated Community Commercial (Subarea 2), Foothill Boulevard Districts. Construction/operation of an automobile fueling station within areas designated community commercial require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Surrounding land uses include Foothill Boulevard to the north followed by the new Albertson's shopping center. To the east is the Klusman House (local historic structure) that would remain in place and be incorporated into the larger approved shopping center. Further east is Vineyard Avenue followed by a automobile fueling station on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and condominiums. To the south is vacant land (grading underway for a 168-unit apartment project). Cucamonga Creek Channel is on the west followed by a recently constructed single family neighborhood (approximately 70 feet west of the site), The topography of the area is such that the project site is situated at a higher elevation than the new single family neighborhood to the west. In addition, the project includes construction of a six-foot high decorative wall around the larger 8.9-acre shopping center. The channel to the west of the site would act as a buffer between the proposed project and residential development. Aesthetic impactS Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 5 associated with developing commercial uses next to residential uses are addressed in Section 13 - Aesthetics. Environmental plans from agencies with jurisdiction over the project are addressed in other sections of this Initial Study. Water Quality issues are addressed in Section 4 - Water Quality; Air Quality impacts related to the project are addressed in Section 5 - Air Quality, while impacts from potential hazards are addressed in Section 9 - Hazards. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s~,,,,~, InCOq3oreted 2. POPULA'nON 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? Comments: a-b) Construction activities at the site would be short-term and would not attract new employees to the area. The proposed fueling station would require eight full-time employees with a maximum shift of three. The addition of these employees would not create a demand for additional housing as most would likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. c) The proposed automobile fueling station would be constructed on a vacant 1.08-acre site in an area designated Community Commercial (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. Commercial uses occur to the immediate north and east of the site. Property south of the site includes an existing parking lot followed by residential development. Following the Cucamonga Creek Channel along the western border is residential development, and property north of Foothill Boulevard was recently developed with the new Albertson's shopping center. Existing residences south and west of the site would remain undisturbed. Therefore the proposed project would not displace existing housing. initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 6 issues and Supporting nformation Sources: Significant 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( (~') ( ) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ('/) 0 ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ( ) ('/) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ( ) ( ('/) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ('/) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ( ) ( ) ( conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Comments: a-c) The site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the State of California. However, the entire site lies within a Special Studies Zone designated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to include traces of suspected active faulting associated with the Red Hill Fault Zone. An investigation was performed at the site by Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates, Inc., to determine the presence or absence of active faulting on the site. The site is located southwest of the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Red Hill fault is shown located in the immediate vicinity of the northwest portion of the site on published geologic maps and in the City's General Plan. A previous investigation performed within the eastern portion of the site in 1996 (Rasmussen, January 29, 1996), found no evidence for active faulting traversing the eastern and southern portions of the site. Another investigation performed by Rasmussen in November 1985 conducted west of the site, found evidence for potentially active faulting traversing the northwest portion of that property. However, no evidence for active faulting was found across the remainder of that property. In 1987, a subsurface investigation was performed at a site approximately 800 feet northwest of the project site. Older reverse faulting associated with the Red Hill fault zone was encountered. Based on these previous investigations west and northwest of the site, the potentially active trace of the Red Hill fault is suspected to be located approximately 300 feet northwest of the project site, north of Foothill Boulevard. Additionally, investigations by others southwest, north and northeast of the site did not find evidence for active faulting associated with the Red Hill fault zone. No evidence for faulting was observed within the trench placed on the project site. No evidence for faulting was observed immediately east of the site during trenching for a previous investigation (Rasmussen, January 29, 1996). Based on this Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 7 trenching and trenching conducted by Rasmussen southwest of the site, the location of potentially active faulting to an area was restricted to the northwest of the project site (Rasmussen, November 12, 1985). During the January 1996 subsurface investigation of the site the entire site was placed within a Restricted Use Zone for. human occupancy structures until additional trenching was conducted. Since no evidence for active faulting was encountered in the subsequent trench placed onsite, Rasmussen recommended that the Restricted Use Zone for human occupancy structures onsite be modified, based on the extent of the current trenching. The modified location of the southeast boundary of the Recommended Restricted Use Zone for human occupancy structures is located northwest and outside of the proposed location of structures (convenience store and gas pump canopy). Ground rupture due to surface faulting is not expected on the portion of the site southeast of the Recommended Restricted Use Zone during the lifetime of the proposed fueling station. However, moderate to severe seismic shaking of the site can be expected within the lifetime of the proposed gas station from an earthquake along the Cucamonga fault located approximately four miles north of the site. To ensure the site is properly prepared, and habitable structures withstand seismic shaking, recommendations contained in the Rasmussen & Associates report are as follows (these will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program): '1. No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the Restricted Zone as modified by the 2002 Geotechnical Report, unless a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds the area immediately northwest of the site to be free of active faulting. 2. Any proposed human occupancy structures shall be designed to a maximum probable earthquake of 7.0. 3. Positive drainage of the site shall be provided and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or.flow over any natural, cut or fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided as the native soils are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water. 4. The final grading plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist prior to grading. 5. Fills that provide support for any proposed human occupancy structure shall not be placed in the Recommended Restricted Use Zone on the site. 6. Any proposed utilities shall cross the Restricted Use Zone at a high angle in order to minimize the amount of damage to utility lines should surface movement occur within the zone. 7. The trench backfill was not compacted so an evaluation of the significance of ali on-site fill, including trench backfill generated during the investigation should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 8 In addition, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to a less than significant level: 8. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the location of the Restricted Use Zone for fault rupture hazard shall be incorporated into site plans with proper disclosure. 9. A Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared to evaluate the condition of the exploratory trench backfill, relative to the proposed development. The investigation shall include monitoring of the backfilling and compacting, including samples taken to ensure proper compaction. Identifying the restricted use zone on the site plans would alert anyone reviewing the plans that he site is within the Red Hill Fault Zone. The intent is that while reviewing the plans, the City engineering and building and safety staff would make certain that the appropriate conditions of approval are applied to the project. Review of site plans by any responsible agency staff would also remind them that the site is within the fault zone and special conditions may be applied to the project's construction/operational permits (see page 2 for a list of responsible agencies who would issue permits to constructJoperate). Mitigation measures would be monitored by the City Engineer and Department of Building and Safety who would be responsible for ensuring that during grading: 1) the contractor would be aware of the fill and compaction requirements for the area and 2) that fill material would be properly placed and compacted to the specifications recommended by the geotechnical consultant. This would stabilize the site and minimize impacts to the underground storage tanks associated with seismic shaking. d) The project site is not located near a body of water. The Cucamonga Creek Channel is located immediately west of the site and contains water intermittently generally during heavy storms and would not present a seiche hazard. e) The site is relatively fiat and is located in a community commercial area adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. The site is not susceptible to landslides or mudflows. The topography would be altered to accommodate the project for a level building pad. Grading would be done in accordance with a grading plan approved by the City Engineer and Building Official. The impact is not considered significant, as the site is relatively fiat and would require minimal grading. g-h) Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Soboba Stony Loamy Sand (SpC). The Soboba series consists of excessively drained, nearly level to moderately sloping soils formed on alluvial fans in granitic alluvium. Soils are present on slopes of zero to nine percent in elevations of 900 to 2,200 feet. The soil is very rapidly permeable. Soboba stony loamy sand has a profile described as representative of the series. Runoff is slow, and hazard of erosion is slight. Included with this soil in mapping are areas of Tujunga gravely loamy sand in scattered tracts 10 to 20 acres in size. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: SigniFy:ant 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ( ) ( ) ('") ( ) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ( ) ( ) ( ) ("') of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or [urbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) ( ) ( ) water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ( ) ( ) ( ) groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The project is expected to result in changes in absorption rates and drainage patterns as the vacant land would be developed with an automobile fueling station and related hardscape. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity that causes the disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into storm water systems, and to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Preventiorr Plan (SWPPP). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region has issued an area-wide NPDES Storm Water Permit for the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. The City of Rancho Cucamonga then requires implementation of measures for a project to comply with the area-wide permit requirements. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the project from polluting surface Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 10 waters. This is a standard condition of approval applicable to this project. BMPs that would apply to the construction phase of the project include, but are not limited to street sweeping of paved roads during construction, and the use of hay bales or sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season. The following mitigation measure would be implemented to ensure impacts from water runoff and erosion are less than significant during construction: t0. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that identifies BMPs to be implemented during the period the site is under construction and ongoing during operation, BMPs shall be identified on the grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer, The 1.08-acre site is part of a larger master planned shopping center on an 8.9-acre site. The automobile fueling station site would be graded to drain inward away from Foothill Boulevard on the north and the flood control channel on the west. Grading would allow storm water to flow inward toward the center of the larger 8.9-acre site. On the larger site, the proposed area around this project site would be a parking lot, so flows from the automobile fueling station would be directed toward the larger parking lot and into that storm drain system. Development of the shopping center is underway and grading has begun. A final grading plan for the project site must be prepared in accordance with City standards to show how storm water runoff would be handled during long-term operation of the site and how it relates to the larger 8.9-acre shopping center site. Approval of grading plans and conditions applied to the project by the City Engineer to ensure adequate site drainage and adherence to BMPs identified in the SWPPP would make this impact less than significant. b) The site is not located within the 100-year flood plain as indicated on Exhibit V-5 "Flood Hazards" in the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan. c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. The Cucamonga Creek Channel which drains the Cucamonga Canyon watershed, is located along the west boundary of the site. The concrete-lined channel contains water intermittently generally during heavy storms. As a standard condition of development, the applicant is required to provide a drainage study depicting how storm water run-off would be conveyed both during grading and construction, and once the site is developed and occupied, prior to issuance of grading permits. The preliminary grading plan for the project shows that the site would be graded to allow stormwater flows to traverse the site in a northwest to southeast direction away from Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Creek Channel. Flows would be directed toward the southeasterly portion of the site where it would be diverted into the drainage system that is part of the larger master planned shopping center of which the automobile fueling station site is a part. h) The automotive fueling station would include the installation of one, 20,000-gallon and one, 15,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tank. Underground storage tanks require permits from and monitoring and reporting to a number of agencies including: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 11 · South Coast Air Quality Management District (permits to construct/operate an auto fueling station (including underground storage tanks), · San Bernardino County Fire Department (approval of a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan); · City of Rancho Cucamonga Office of Emergency Services (approval of a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan); · City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (permit for underground storage tanks); · Regional Water Quality Control Board (permit for underground storage tanks) and; · San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services (Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste generator/handler permit). These permits and plans must all be issued/approved by the respective agencies pdor to Certificate of Occupancy or sooner. In addition, all new automobile fueling stations must be constructed to the following standards: · All tanks, piping and vent/vapor piping must be double walled and contain leak detection capability; · All piping and venting must be sloped back to the storage tank sumps to prevent discharge; · Each pump island must have a containment pan underneath them to prevent spilled fuel from escaping; · All secondary containment systems are required to be tested; · Best Available Containment Technology is a minimum requirement of the State Water Board (as fueling stations age, they must be periodically updated to meet current requirements); and · All equipment associated with underground storage tanks must be tested and approved by a third party laboratory and meet all state and local requirements. In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, all testing is coordinated with the City Fire Department and done in parallel with the County Fire Department. f-i) The project would not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area as the site is not used for groundwater recharge. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: si~.~,.t $. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) (~') ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') cause any change in climate? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: $i~ilicant d) Create objectior~able odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a-b) The proposed project was screened using the Urban Emission Model 2001 (URBEMI$2001) prepared by Jones & Stokes under the guidance of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, the Ventura COunty Air Pollution Control District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The program generates emissions estimates for land use development projects. The criteria pollutants screened for included: reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulates (PM~0). Two of these, ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors. Construction Emissions Construction emission summaries from the URBEMIS2001 are provided below. Table t URBEMIS2001 Construction Emissions Summary Pounds per Day) Source ROG N(~x " CO PM,o Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Grading 0.95 0.90 12.50 11.88 10.92 3.98 Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 Stationary Equip. 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.02 Mobile Equip. 2,86 2.72 25.32 24.05 2.03 1.93 Arch. Coatings 4.41 . 4.19 Asphalt 0.25 0.23 Totals 8.82 8.39 38.11 36.22 0.02 0.02 12.97 5.93 SCAQMDThres. 75 75 100 100 550 550 150 150 Significance No No No No No No No No Generally, construction of a project this size would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PM~o and NOx dudng grading activities, nor SCAQMD thresholds for developed conditions (operational impacts) for NOx. Since the site is small, grading activities would likely be completed within a week and would not generate significant amounts of dust emissions. Since residential development occurs within the vicinity of the site, and since the South Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment status for ozone and suspended particulates (PM~o) the following measures shall be implemented: tt. The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403, Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 13 12. Foothill Boulevard shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 13. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes. 14. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. 16. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 16. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. t7. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Ooerations Emissions The operational mobile source emissions were calculated using the Institute of · th Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 6 edition values programmed into the URBEMIS2001 model. In order to reflect the characteristics of an automobile fueling station, the default fleet mix was modified to increase the number of light passenger vehicles and decrease the number of medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks. The project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, proposed operational activities at the fueling station would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th edition values, the URBEMIS2001 model estimates vehicle trips associated with a designated land use. The proposed project includes the construction of a 2,740 square-foot convenience store with six multi-grade fuel pumps and a drive- thru carwash. The ITE associates a trip rate for specific land uses and their size. The project has an associated trip rate of 845.60 trips per 1,000 square feet. Based on the total square footage, the project will generate approximately 2,317 total trips per day. Emissions associated with operation of the automobile fueling station would be below SCAQMD thresholds as shown in Table 2. The impact is considered less than significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 14 Table 2 URBEMIS2001 Operations Emissions Summary , Pounds .per Day),. Source ROG NOx CO PM~0 Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Unmit. Mit. Area Source 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mobile Source 19.92 17.63 15.41 13.63 152.09 134.59 4.39 3.88 Totals 19.92 17.63 15.44 13.66 152.10 134.60 4.39 3.88 SCAQMD Thres. 55 55 55 55 550 550 150 150 Significance No No No No No No No No c-d) The proposed project is to construct an automobile fueling station, with related convenience store and self-serve carwash. End use would not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes. Control of objectionable odors associated with fueling stations is accomplished by state of the art pumps and nozzles. The station operator would be responsible for compliance with SC^QMD rules and regulations for operation of an automotive fueling station. For example, SC^QMD requires the use of Phase I vapor recovery systems for the distribution of fuel from a tanker truck to stationary storage tanks and Phase II vapor recovery systems for the collection of vapors from the stationary storage tanks to the automobile fuel tanks. These Phase I and Phase II recovery system prevents hydrocarbons and benzene from escaping into the atmosphere by creating a seal between the dispensing hose and the storage tank and capturing/recirculating into the storage tank any vapors generated as a result of the fueling or dispensing process. These systems would be in place and tested prior to Certificate of Occupancy and commencement of operation of the fuel dispensing systems'. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant I Sig~ifica~tlmpac~ I IncorporatedM~tigati°n Significant No 6. 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)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) () ('~') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ( ) ( ) ( ) alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) Table 3 illustrates existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Data is from the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the 2001 General Plan Update and is the most current data available for the intersection. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the General Plan Update, Vineyard Avenue is classified as a secondary roadway that currently carries between 17,000 and 23,800 vehicles per day. Foothill Boulevard is classified as a major divided highway that currently carries between 23,800 and 38,200 vehicles per day. Table 3 shows the traffic volumes in the vicinity of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. According to the TIA, the highest vehicle count on these streets occurs at or in the vicinity of the intersection of these streets. Currently that intersection operates at a Level of Service of C (see Table 4 for definitions of levels of service). According to the General Plan TIA, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS C in the year 2020 with improvements. These include the following: · Vineyard Avenue northbound and southbound approaches - add an additional through lane in both directions. · Foothill Boulevard eastbound and westbound - add an additional dedicated left turn lane and an additional through lane in both directions. · Applicants for future development projects shall prepare, at the City's discretion, site specific access studies to determine the feasibility of proposed access locations. · The City shall ensure sufficient right of way is reserved at critical intersections to implement the approach geometrics necessary to provide the levels of services, as noted within the TIA. · The City shall continue to implement an annual traffic monitoring program to ensure that funds from developers and/or area-wide fee programs are appropriately targeted to ongoing circulation needs. · The City shall adopt all recommended changes to the General Plan Circulation roadway classifications, as noted within the TIA, in order to accommodate projected traffic increase and to ensure that improvements specified are implemented. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 16 Table 3 Traffic Study Data for the Intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue ExistinglF~ture Existing AM Existing PM Average Daily Peak Trips Peak Trips Trips Street/Direction Foothill west 38,200145,500 of Vineyard Foothill east 36,500/41,700 of Vineyard Vineyard north 23,800/26,200 of Foothill Vineyard south 20,600~23,900 of Foothill Existing AM Turning Movements/Volumes Vineyard Avenue 384 219 SB turning west 112 153 SB turning east 982 436 SB through 83 150 NB turning west 108 184 NB turning east 371 696 NB through Foothill Boulevard EB turning north EB turning south 124 318 EB through 81 167 WB turning north 580 1,437 WB turning south 79 175 WB through 113 154 ADT = Average Daily Traffic, SB southbound, NB = northbound, peak = peak morning and afternoon commute hours. Source: Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Update Program EIR, Appendix B - Traffic Impact Analysis.. The City Traffic Engineer would determine when intersection and roadway segment improvements should be initiated. Development impact fees are collected and would be applied to these improvement projects. The proposed automobile fueling station includes a 2,740 square-foot convenience market, 867 square-foot drive-thru carwash, and a 3,230 square-foot fuel dispensing canopy, which would house six multi-grade motor vehicle fuel dispensers. The proposed project would develop a currently vacant site and incrementally increase traffic within the immediate vicinity. The ITE associates a trip rate for a specific land use and its size. The project has an associated trip rate of 845.60 trips per 1,000 square feet of convenience store with gas pumps (the size of the canopy and smaller onsite amenities (i.e. carwash) are not included in the total square footage). Based on 2,740 square feet, the project would generate Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 17 Table 4 Level of Sero/ice 1-OS) Descriptions at Signalized and Unsi~lnalized Intersections Average Stopped Delay LOS Description Per Vehicle {seconds) Minimal delay 0-10.00 B More vehicles stop causing higher levels of average delay 10.01-20.00 C Number of vehicles stopping is significant due to high delays or longer signal cycle lengths 20.01-35.00 D Congestion begins to appear as high volume to intersection (V/C) capacity occurs 35.01-55.00 E Often the limit of acceptable delay, poor progression through intersection, long cycle lengths, high VIC ratio 55.01-80.00 F Unacceptable delays of over 60 seconds, poor progression; arrival flow rates exceed capacity of 80.01 and up the intersection A .~. m -r.~.~. ~[.~..~ A...~ysis' Source: Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Update Program EIR, PF ..... approximately 2,317 total trips per day. The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) has established a threshold of 1,000 two-way peak hour trips. Projects exceeding this threshold require a traffic impact analysis (TIA). Projected trips would not be all new trips, rather non-diverted link trips from the through lanes of Foothill Boulevard. Additionally, projected trips would be made throughout the day and night and would unlikely exceed the peak-hour threshold of 1,000 two-way trips. Therefore the proposed project would not require a TIA. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the City's Development Code Chapter 17.32 Foothill Boulevard Districts that designates the area Community Commercial. As identified above, the City has established a Transportation Development fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. Therefore impacts associated with increased traffic volumes on Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue would be less than significant. b-d) Access to the site is provided by a 25-foot driveway on Foothill Boulevard. The driveway would allow full access without impeding the through traffic and would be adequate for emergency vehicles. The City of Rancho Cucamonga requires a parking ratio of one space per 250 square feet of convenience store. Based on this ratio the project requires a total of 11 spaces. According to the City's Uniform Application Part 1, the proposed project would provide 14 spaces, which is in excess of that required by City Code. For access to the site, the project includes an entrance only driveway angled and posted to discourage exiting onto Foothill Boulevard. Special conditions as applied to the project by the City Traffic Engineer to allow the angled driveway include extending the temporary median island on Foothill Boulevard westerly to prohibit left turn movement. The City is also requiring an eastbound right turn lane for the driveway. Appropriate street lighting, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approaches, Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 18 raised median, signing, striping would also be required. Additionally, the applicant would make its contribution to the frontage improvements and provide appropriate documentation to Caltrans relative to the driveway on Foothill Boulevard. With these improvements, the facility's traffic would be adequately managed and accommodated. The proposed project includes one 25-foot driveway (right-turn only for eastbound traffic) for direct access to the automobile fueling station..In addition, because the project site is part of a larger 8.9-acre master planned shopping center there is a second access at the east boundary of the fueling station site. This driveway is identified as being 45 feet wide with two 20-foot wide lanes separated by a five-foot median. Finally, access from Vineyard Avenue would be from a 40-foot wide driveway. The larger shopping center site is being graded so that development of the fueling station would occur at the same time as development of the larger site. Therefore, access to the site would be adequate for emergency response vehicles. e/f) The new facility would not cause a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or cyclists because adequate points of ingress/egress have been provided and there is adequate parking on-site to accommodate visitors. No bus turnout has been provided. g) ' Located approximately six miles northeast of Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: SignificantP~e~tiallYlrn~act I SignificantMitigationUn~e~Slnc~ted Signh3c. ant'i~ NO 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., hedtage trees, ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The site is vegetated with non-native weeds and small patches of native plants including ragweed, California buckwheat, croton, Thurber's buckwheat, and telegraph weed. The site is currently vacant and is located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. The property is Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 . Page 19 not within the Ontario Recovery Unit as indicated in Figure 6 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Final Recovery Plan for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF) · habitat. It is unlikely that any listed species would move on to the site due to the lack of natural habitat and existing surrounding urban development. In ~ddition, as part of the larger 8.9-acre master planned shopping center, grading has commenced in accordance with an approved grading plan for the larger site. b-c) Several mature trees are present onsite that would need to be removed in order to accommodate site development. Many of the trees are in declining health and appear to have survived on rainfall as other vegetation onsite is also non-irrigated and dry. The applicant is required to submit an application for a Tree Removal Permit and pay necessary fees. Trees scheduled for removal would be replaced with trees of appropriate size and quantity per the City's Development Code. The impact is not considered significant. d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. e) The presence of residential/commercial development, Foothill Boulevard, Vineyard Avenue, and the Cucamonga Canyon Channel has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the past. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: S~T Significant Mitigation Significant No 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ( ) ( ) (v') plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') inefficient manner?. c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ( ) ( ) ( ) mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform to applicable City standards for energy conservation. c) The project site is located on the Cucamonga Creek alluvial fan, an area classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-2). An MRZ-2 zone contains deposits of known value and marketability. However, the State Geologist has determined that the area is not a Designated Area of available resources due to urbanization. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a) The proposed project includes an automotive fueling station with six self-service pumps. The gasoline would be stored in one, 20,000-gallon and one, 15,000-gallon underground storage tanks. The underground fuel system would be designed to comply with all local, state and federal requirements in order to prevent accidental release (see Section 5 for this discussion). b) The proposed project includes one 25-foot driveway (right-turn only for eastbound traffic) for direct access to the automobile fueling station. In addition, because the project site is part of a larger 8.9-acre master planned shopping center there is a second access at the east boundary of the fueling station site. This driveway is identified as being 45 feet wide with two 20-foot wide lanes separated by a five-foot median. Finally, access from Vineyard Avenue would be from a 40-foot wide driveway. The larger shopping center site is being graded so that development of the fueling station would occur at the same time as development of the larger site. Therefore, access to the site would be adequate for emergency response vehicles. c) The proposed sale of gasoline could expose employees and patrons to vapors containing benzene, a known carcinogen. In addition, development of this facility would result in a total of three such facilities located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue which could add cumulatively to the potential for exposure. However, due to state-of-the-art equipment currently installed in automobile fueling stations, these exposures fall below significant thresholds set by the California Environmental Quality ACt (CEQA), therefore this is a less than significant impact. Estimates of theoretical cancer risk from a proposed automobile fueling station were evaluated in a Risk Assessment conducted by Chevron. The risk estimates were generated using the model in the "Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 21 Assessment Guidelines" developed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association (CAPCOA) for the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program. The purpose of determining these risk numbers is to estimate the total impact of gasoline emissions on local residents. The CAPCOA model creates theoretical cancer risk estimates for receptors near automobile fueling stations determined from distance to the center of the station. Although designed as a generic model, the calculations are customized for individual situations based upon the location of the gasoline storage tanks and details of emission control equipment at each facility. Risk estimates are also based upon the degree of development in the surrounding area which affects the air dispersion of emissions and is considered either "rural" or "urban". Details and assumptions used in the air model for emissions estimates are contained in the body of the CAPCOA document. The version used to generate the risk estimates for this project was the version revised November 2001. For the proposed project risk estimates for all three facilities, Albertson's (northwest corner); Mobil (southeast corner) and the proposed Chevron station (southwest corner) were generated using Scenario 6B of the CAPCOA model. This scenario is applied to service stations with underground storage tanks and with both Phase I and Phase II vapor emission controls. Vents for the storage tanks are assumed to have pressure relief valves rather than open vents. Due to the developed nature of the surrounding area the "Urban" scenario was used. Gasoline throughput for the three stations were estimated in millions of gallons to be 3.0 (Mobil), 1.5 (Albertson's) and 3.6 (Chevron), respectively. The actual throughput of the Mobil station may be significantly lower, but the higher estimate has been used in order not to underestimate potential risk. Distances used are either calculated from aerial photographs and the master plan for the development in which the proposed Chevron facility would be located or are actual measurements or estimates from the site by Chevron's Property Specialist. In accordance with the CAPCOA guidelines distances from a service station are calculated from the center of the facility. In order not to underestimate risks distances calculated for the apartment complex (south of the project site) did not include setback of buildings from the property line. Results The distances from the center of each facility to nearby residents and the associated risk estimates are shown in Table 5. The risk values are the chances in one million of' death from cancer during a 70-year lifetime due to exposure to benzene emissions due to operation of the modeled service stations. The estimated theoretical lifetime cancer risk from the operation of the proposed Chevron station to the nearest residential neighbor (new single family neighborhood west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel) is 3.60 chances per million. The distance was calculated to the nearest point of the wall surrounding the new development rather than to the nearest home. This is similar to the risk estimate for the nearest residential receptor; the existing Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 22 Table 5 Results of CAPCOA Cancer Risk Assessment Model Description Distance (feet) Risk/Million Chevron to wall of single family neighborhood west of Cucamonga 70 3.60 Creek storm drain Chevron to Mobil Station nearest neighbor 210 0.67 Mobil to nearest residential neighbor 40 3.56 Mobil to Chevron neighbor 280 0.36 Albertson's to Chevron neighbor 110 0.76 Albertson's to Mobil neighbor 230 0.24 condominiums on the fenceline to the south of the Mobil station. The risk estimate is within acceptable limits under South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and would not trigger warning provisions under Proposition 65. The additional risk that the proposed Chevron station adds to the existing risk from the Mobil station is less than one in a million. Similarly the Mobil station's contribution to the total risks for the Chevron station neighbors is less than one in a million. As a final exercise the estimated risks for the total contribution of all three automobile fueling stations on the nearest residential receptors for either the Chevron or Mobil stations were calculated. The total fueling station related cancer risk for nearest residential neighbors of the Chevron or Mobil facilities are 4.72 per million and 4.47 per million, respectively. Summary The lifetime cancer risks to the nearest residential neighbors of the proposed Chevron service station are estimated to 3.6 in a million. Even considering the additional contribution to risk from the two other fueling stations in the immediate vicinity total theoretical cancer risks are still below five in a million for the Chevron and Mobil neighbors. The presence of the proposed Chevron fueling station would not have an unacceptable impact on the level of cancer risk of the surrounding community. d) No evidence of discarded drums, containers, hazardous wastes or discolored soils were observed onsite. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. e) The project site is located along Foothill Boulevard within a commercial/residential area and is not within a fire hazard zone. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 23 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) (~') ( ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ('/) Comments: a-b) Acoustical Analyses were conducted for the project by Colia Acoustical Consultants in April 2002 and January 2003. The first was conducted for the proposed car wash to be located on the west side of the site. The second was conducted to evaluate other activities on-site. The following is a summary of the two reports. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. The most useful noise descriptors measure time-averaged noise levels representing various times of the day as sensitivity to noise increases/decreases (sensitivity to noise increases during evening and night-time hours). The following are definitions of the terminology commonly used to describe noise and noise related impacts. Decibel, dB - A unit of level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is tens times the Iogarithum (to the base ten) of this ratio. dBA (A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level) - The sound pressure level, in decibels, as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very Iow and very high frequency component of the south, placing greater emphasis on those frequencies within the sensitivity range of the human ear. The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very load). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) - The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. The City of Rancho Cucamonga noise criteria states that the exterior noise levels generated by the project may not exceed 60 dBA at all residential properties during daytime hours and 55 dBA during nighttime hours. Day/Night Noise Level, I~. - The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 24 Equivalent Energy Level (Leq) - The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period, typically 1, 8 or 24 hours. Lrnax, Lrnin - The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation and sleep. Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. The level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. Construction Related Noise Construction related short-term noise levels may be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area, but would cease once construction of the project is completed. The nearest residential property boundary is approximately 70 feet to the west of the project boundary. The following measures, as required by the City's Development Code, would reduce short-term construction related noise impacts associated with the proposed project: 18. During all project site excavation and grading onsite, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 19. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away 'from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 20. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 2t. During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all construction related activities that would result in noise levels at adjacent properties to exceed the noise standards specified in the Development Code, as described in the noise analysis under the City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Standards, to between the hours of 6:36 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays and Government Code holidays. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 25 Noise from the project site is expected to result from the car wash and from typical customer activities (car horns, stereos, car door slams and talking/shouting). Noise Generated from the Car Wash There is a new single family neighborhood near the west property I'ine, across the Cucamonga Creek Channel. There are also residential areas to the east, which are about 780 feet from the project site, and an existing apartment project to the south in excess of 1,000 feet from the site. Finally, between the existing apartments and the site, is an approved apartment project that is not yet under construction. Residential areas were evaluated for potential impacts from the proposed car wash. As stated above, the noise criteria of the City of Rancho Cucamonga states that the exterior noise levels generated by the commercial facility may not exceed 60 decibels noise level (dBA, on the A-weighted scale) at all residential property during the daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm), and not exceed 55 dBA during evening hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The following is a summary of the acoustical analysis prepared to evaluate the exterior noise levels generated by the car wash on the project site in relation to the single family neighborhood west of the project site. Table 6 shows a summary of the noise measurements taken on April 24, 2002 to determine ambient noise at the vacant site. A sound level meter was positioned onsite near the proposed car wash site. At the end of the 15-minute measurement period a Leq value was taken for the representative sample period. Table 6 Existin~ Ambient Noise Levels April 24, 2002* Time Measured Leq, Calculated Measured Measured dBA CNEL, dBA Lmax Lmin 2:00 pm 64.2 dBA 67.5 dBA 74.5 dBA 53.5 dBA Note: Since the site is vacant, ambient noise levels represent traffic noise from Foothill Boulevard. The measurements of the car wash and dryer unit were made at an existing facility in San Diego. The loudest levels of the entire cycle were recorded during the dryeflblower sequence, which is about one minute and ten seconds, Because of the duration of the dryer cycle, measurements were recorded as Leq. Because the car wash is expected to be open 24-hours the nighttime limit of 55 dBA was used to determine the noise limits for the project. Additionally, during peak usage it would be possible for the car wash to run continuously. Therefore, the measured Leq would become the one-hour Leq. At the western property line of the single-family homes being constructed to the west, approximately 70 feet from the proposed car wash, the one-hour daytime average Leq was calculated to be 54.9 Leq dBA and 51.9 dBA Leq at night. For existing residents occurring 780 east of the site, the project impact was calculated at 37.4 dBA Leq and 34.4 dBA Leq at night. Since the potential noise levels at the west and east property lines of the nearest residential areas do not exceed the allowable nighttime criteria of 55 dBA Leq, acoustical shielding beyond the proposed silencer package is not required. The impact is considered less than significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 26 Other Proiect-Generated Noise Other activities on site that would generate noise include truck deliveries, customer vehicles and customer activities on-site. Customer activities that are anticipated to generate noise include car horns, door slams, car stereos, and loud conversations or shouting. Measurements for typical customer activities were taken at several fueling stations in Orange County (Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa). An average of 10 to 20 events was measured for these activities. Table 7 shows the results. Table 7 Typical Noise Levels At Fuelin~l Stations in Oran~le County Distance from source Shouting Door Slams Car Horn Car Stereo 10 feet 65.8 dBA 63.8 dBA 74.2 dBA 73.4 dBA In addition to typical customer noise, the Noise consultant evaluated noise levels associated with delivery trucks; fuel delivery and deliveries to the convenience store. The truck noise levels were determined from data of truck noise levels recorded at another facility in March 2000. The average noise levels (Leq) projected by a three-axle truck at 20 feet is 75.1 dBA for engine start-up; 80.8 dBA for the delivery truck approach at five to ten miles per hour; and 83 dBA for a truck in reverse with the back-up warning beeper. These values would be for brief periods of time. The truck at idle would generate 73.2 dBA at 20 feet from the source. Typically, a fuel truck would arrive, perhaps back up, turn the engine off while the driver pumps the fuel from the truck to the underground storage tank, moves hoses, checks levels with a dipstick, and starts the engine to move off-site. These activities are the most significant noise levels. It takes 20 to 25 minutes for the truck to arrive, unload fuel, talk to the attendant and leave the site. Deliveries of products to the convenience store would be similar. The worst case reference Leq of 69.5 dBA was measured at an existing facility in Irvine for a 20 to 25 minute truck delivery process. This noise level was then projected for the project, out to the west property line (approximately 115 feet from the truck at the delivery site). At the west property line this value would be 54.3 dBA. The nearest residential property line is approximately 70 feet to the west of the project site's west property line due to the location of the Cucamonga Creek Channel between the project site and the new residential neighborhood to the west. So the distance between where the delivery truck would be parked and the residential property line is approximately 185 feet. Other delivery trucks would pull in front of the store. No deliveries would be made to the rear because the car wash would be located between the building and the west property line. Table 8 shows a summary of projected noise levels for all site activities (other than the car wash) for Leq (dBA). These levels are based on the activity occurring around the fuel islands and are projected out to the property line to the west, east and south. As shown in Table 6 above, existing ambient noise associated with traffic along Foothill Boulevard is 64.2 dBA. The area directly south of the fueling station site is a portion of the larger master planned shopping center that is currently vacant. These estimated noise levels represent the new neighborhood to Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 27 the west and were considered because the master plan for the larger site shows a large parking lot adjacent to the immediate south of the proposed fueling station. Table 8 Projected Noise Levels of All Activities, Leq dBA Activity 'Reference Residential Area Distance/Noise Level West East South (tt5 feet) (780 feet) 130 feet) Delivery 20 feet - 69.5 54.3 37.7 53.2 Trucks Car Horn 10 feet - 74.2 53.0 36.4 51.9 Radio 10 feet - 73.4 52.2 35.6 51.1 Door Slam 10 feet - 63.8 42.6 26.0 41.5 Shouting 10 feet - 65.8 44.6 28.0 43.5 Total 58.3 dBA 41.7 dBA 57.2 dB,& The average noise levels shown in Table 8 all meet the exterior noise standard of 60 dBA for daytime hours but exceed nighttime standard of 55 dBA. As such, the following mitigation measure would apply to the project. 22. Deliveries to the automobile fueling station shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM to minimize potential noise impacts on residential uses. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: tl. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') Comments: a-e) Fire Protection - The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) collects information on a community's public fire protection and analyzes the data using their Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). They then assign a Public Protection Classification (PPC) on a scale from one to ten. Class one represents the best Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 28 public protection, and Class ten indicates less than the minimum recognized protection. Each Fire District is evaluated every five years and is reported to insurance companies as a factor in setting the premiums they charge for property insurance; the better the community's PPC grade, the lower the premiums for property insurance. According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Construction Services, the City is rated a Class Three. According to the ISO, a class three rating in California is in the upper 15% of the entire state. The site is located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue and is served by a fire station located on San Bemardino Road at Klusman Avenue, approximately one mile southwest of the project site. The Fire District indicates that for every 1,000 citizens an average of 0.27 fireflghters are on-duty (conversation with John Thomas, City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Construction Services/P/an Check Manager, January 2003). The proposed project would not have an impact on the City's current ratio of firefighters ' to citizens because no new residents would be generated by the proposed project. Under existing conditions the City Fire District would be able to provide adequate fire protection for the proposed project and the impact would be less than significant. Police Protection - The City of Ranch Cucamonga contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (SBSD) and currently has 96 uniformed officers assigned to the City. With an estimated population of 137,000 people, the ratio of officers to citizens is approximately 0.70 per 1,000 residents (conversation with Dan Waters, Crime Analyst assigned to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, January 2003). The average response time to an emergency call for service is approximately four minutes; response times are evaluated on a monthly basis. The Sheriffs Department reviews annually response times, and the ratio of officers to the City's population to determine if more officers are needed to keep the response time below five minutes. The proposed 2,740 square-foot convenience store with drive-thru car wash and six multi-grade fuel pumps would include standard security devices such as security camera, lighting and Iockable doors. Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the proposed project would not have a substantial increase in the area to be patrolled as the project site is small, approximately one acrs, in proportion to the existing surrounding development. Schools - Construction activities at the site will be short-term and would not attract new employees to the area. The proposed service station would include a convenience store, six multi-grade pumps and drive thru car wash. The facility would require eight full-time employees with a maximum shift of three. The addition of these employs will not impact existing schools as most would likely be hired within the City or surrounding communities. Public facilities - The proposed residential development would not significantly increase traffic on adjacent streets and it is consistent with the City's Development Code, which designates the area Community Commercial (Subarea 2), Foothill Boulevard Districts. The project proponent will be required to construct necessary street improvements and pay traffic impact fees as established by the City Council to off-set the incremental increase in traffic as a result of the project. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-'17 Page 29 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: '12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ' ( ) ('/) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) facilities? d) . Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') t} Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) Comments: a) Southern California Edison provides electricity generated by several different sources, including hydroelectric, oil, natural gas, and solar or wind power. Most of the City's energy consumption takes the form of heating and cooling, communications, illumination of buildings, and the transportation of people or goods. Estimates of the future (year 2020 buildout) demand for electricity show the City of Rancho Cucamonga will require a 117% increase in the amount of electricity currently supplied to the City. To meet these expanding needs, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has designed a variety of measures to support the extension of electrical infrastructure into future developments and to decrease the reliance on non-renewable energy sources. Developers are required to fund improvements for infrastructure elements associated with their proposed development and are required to pay fair share fees for improvements in and around proposed projects. In concert with developer fees, the City of Rancho Cucamonga promotes programs to increase energy efficiency, reduce operational energy requirements, and design energy efficiency into proposed plans. Other goals for energy efficiency include the development of infrastructure for the use of alternative fuels, and implementation of efficient technology for industrial businesses. The proposed project would not impact SCE's ability to provide long-term electrical energy supplies and will be required to comply with the City's energy conservation programs. Southern California Gas Company ("The Gas Company") supplies natural gas service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Gas Company is subject to Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 30 California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulations, in addition to actions by federal regulatory agencies that could create impacts to natural gas services/supplies within the City. According to the City General Plan EIR, the demand for natural gas within the City is approximately 40.7 million therms of gas per year. The anticipated increased demand by 2020 would be approximately 32.9 million therms per year, resulting in an increase of 81 percent. The Gas Company supplies natural gas regionally, and has indicated their ability to expand existing facilities in order to meet the City's growing demands. Additionally, City'of Rancho Cucamonga supplies The Gas Company with information regarding population projections and helps coordinate any expansions to ensure adequate gas supplies are available to the City. The proposed project's impacts to natural gas supplies are considered less than significant. b) The proposed project is a typical co.mmercial retail use with no special communications needs. Communications facilities are available in the vicinity of the project site. c) The Cucamonga County Water District ("District") is an independent special district that provides sewer collection, water treatment and distribution services to 152,000 customers in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, portions of the cities of Ontario, Fontana, and Upland, and a portion of the unincorporated area of the County. Annually, the District adopts a five-year Capital Improvement Plan for infrastructure improvements and new projects. Every five years, the District completes a water and sewer master plan study, which was most recently updated in 2000 (Cucamonga County Water District LAFCO Sphere/Service Review Report, September, 2002). The District's water sources include groundwater, surface ("Canyon") water, and imported water. There are currently a total of 23 groundwater wells (17 in the Cucamonga Basin and 6 in the Chino Basin). The District's total capacity of pumped groundwater production from both basins is 32,121 gallons per minute (gpm) (approximately 51,800 acre-feet/year). Capital improvement funds are budgeted annually to recondition and rehabilitate wells as needed. Three water treatment facilities treat local surface water and imported water. The total treatment capacity of all three plants is 57.5 million gallons per day (mgd) with an additional 18 mgd expected to be on-line in mid-2003. These plants currently provide treatment for an average of 32 mgd. The distribution system has approximately 230 miles of primary distribution lines (Cucarnonga County Water District LAFCO Sphere/Service Review Report, September, 2002). The District funds water and sewer system capital improvements primarily through developer fees ("Development Capacity Charges") for the right to connect to the District's systems. The amount of the charge is based on the size of meter installed for a new customer (Cucamonga County Water District LAFCO Sphere/Service Review Report, September, 2002). The project applicant would be required to pay fees for service to the Cucamonga County Water District. The impact to the District's water treatment and distribution system is determined to be less than significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 31 d) Wastewater (sewer) collection is provided by the Cucamonga County Water District. The Distdct is one of several agencies in the region that discharges all of its wastewater to a regional wastewater treatment system operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The District's wastewater collection system currently includes approximately 230 miles of pipeline. The system includes sewers, pump stations and siphons. The existing flow calculated for the District's service area, based on land use and population was 10.06 MGD. Based on the District's master plan, current improvements and planned facilities needed would be sufficient to service customers through 2030 (Cucamonga County Water District LAFCO Sphere/Service Review Report, September, 2002). The District's wastewater collection system is composed of nine trunk lines that transport the wastewater flows to the IEUA for treatment. The District evaluates the system annually to determine when repairs are needed (Cucamonga County Water District LAFCO Sphere/Service Review Report, September, 2002). The proposed project would generate an estimated 1,500 gpd of sewer flows. Based on the District's existing and planned capacity to meet growing demands, the impact is determined to be less than significant. e) The 1.08-acre site is part of a larger master planned shopping center on an 8.9-acre site. The automobile fueling station site would be graded to drain inward away from Foothill Boulevard on the north and the flood control channel on the west. Grading would allow storm water to flow inward toward the center of the larger 8.9-acre site. On the larger site, the proposed area around this project site would be a parking lot, so flows from the automobile fueling station would be directed toward the larger parking lot and into that storm drain. Development of the shopping center is underway and grading has begun. A final grading plan must be prepared in accordance with City standards to show how storm water runoff would be handled during long-term operation of the site and how it relates to the large 8.9- acre shopping center site. Approval of grading plans and conditions applied to the project by the City Engineer to ensure adequate site drainage and adherence to BMPs identified in the SWPPP would make this impact less than significant. f) Solid waste collection and disposal services are currently supplied by the City's contracted hauler and transported to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill in the City of Rialto. San Bernardino County of Public Works, Waste System Division operates the landfill. According to the General Plan EIR, the City generates approximately 270 tons of solid waste per day. The EIR indicates that the City would generate an increase of approximately 236 tons per day by 2020, which accounts for an 87 percent increase over the existing generated solid waste. The current permitted capacity of the Mid-Valley Landfill is estimated to the year 2035. The San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, Waste System Division does not foresee any significant impacts resulting from projected growth and solid waste generation since the County-wide waste management system is · planned for expansions to meet the growing demands within the County's service area. The proposed project is therefore determined to not a significant impact on waste disposal services. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 32 g) Under Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), Water Supply Assessments are required for projects that exceed the following sizes: .1) residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; 2) shipping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet; 3) commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet; 4) hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms; 5) industrial, manufacturing, processing plant, or industrial park housing more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet; 6) mixed use project including one or more of the projects specified above; 7) any other project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project; and 8) any project that accounts for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of existing service connections for a public water system. Under SB 221 a Water Supply Assessment is required for: 1) a project that is a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; 2) a project that accounts for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of existing service connections for a public water system; and 3) development agreements that include such subdivision. The City is required to determine if a project is subject to the requirements listed above. If the City determines that a project meets one of the requirements, then a request for a project-specific Water Supply Assessment must be submitted to the Cucamonga County Water District as the water supply entity. The District has 90 days to prepare a detailed Water Supply Assessment for the project. The Assessment requires District Board of Directors approval. The proposed project is not a project listed in SB 610. Water use would be limited to employee restrooms and food preparation (coffee, dispenser soft drinks, etc.). The car wash would recycle the water used in the process. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on local water supply. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposak a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") c) Create light or glare? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) Comments: a-b) The project site is located within the Community Commercial development area, Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts and is surrounded by Foothill Boulevard to the north followed by vacant land, commercial development to the east, vacant land to the south followed by residential development, and Cucamonga Canyon Channel to the west followed by residential development under construction. The City of Rancho Cucamonga considers Foothill Boulevard the Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 33 most significant commercial corridor in the City. The street is the major east/west commercial thoroughfare and is an important part of the developing regional business area. The Thomas Brothers Winery is located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue approximately 600 feet diagonal from the site. The winery is one of the major theme-setting community character elements for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. The Foothill Boulevard Districts were developed to provide a balanced and unified pattern of development along Foothill Boulevard. As stated within Chapter 17.32 of the City's Development Code, all streetscape/landscape and architectural components shall be sensitive to and compatible with the overall winery theme of Rancho Cucamonga. Key visual elements proposed for the project including grape arbors and trellis elements, will blend with the historic aspect of the corridor. c) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans, which will be reviewed for consistency with City standards. To ensure that lights will not affect nearby residents, the applicant shall implement the following measure: 23. To minimize effects of light and glare from nighttime lighting of the site, the applicant shall ensure lights include a shield and are directed away from Sensitive receptors. A lighting plan shall be submitted with site plans during plan check. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sigtlil-~cant 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (,/') c) ^ffect historical or cultural resources? (v') ( ) d) 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? Comments: a-e) The site is on an alluvial fan, an environment not generally associated with fossils. Therefore the likelihood of affecting paleontological resources is minimal and impacts are not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 34 c) The project site is located on Foothill Boulevard (old Route 86) approximately 600 feet southwest of the Thomas Brothers Winery. The winery, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard, was constructed in 1839 by Tiburcio Tapia and Chinese laborers, and is reputedly the oldest winery in California. The Klusman House, a local historic landmark, is located within the same shopping center approximately 200 feet from the project site. As stated within the EIR prepared for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, a project is considered to have a significant impact on cultural/historical resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource. Foothill Boulevard separates the project site and the site of the Thomas. Brothers Winery. The shopping center entry drive separates the project site from the Klusman House. The proposed automobile fueling station will not alter the winery or the Klusman House in any way and will be constructed in accordance with standards set forth in the development code to ensure it blends with the winery and other historical landmarks along Foothill Boulevard. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: '15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) An increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks is not likely, as the proposed automobile fueling station will require eight full-time employees with a maximum shift of three individuals. It is likely that a majority of these employees will be hired from within the City or surrounding communities~ b) The proposed project will not affect existing recreational opportunities as the site is zoned Community Commercial and is located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue within the Foothill Boulevard Districts. The site itself is not suitable for recreational proposes as surrounding property is zoned Community Commercial. The project is regionally small and will have no impacts to recreational facilities. 33/ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 35 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a. The site is vegetated with non-native weeds and small patches of native plants including ragweed, California buckwheat, croton, Thurber's buckwheat, and telegraph weed. The site is currently vacant and is located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. The property is not within the Ontario Recovery Unit as indicated in Figure 6 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Final Recovery Plan for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF) habitat. It is unlikely that any listed species will move on to the site due to the lack of natural habitat and existing surrounding urban development. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 36 Several mature trees are present onsite that will need to be removed in order to accommodate site development. Many of the trees are in declining health and appear to have survived on rainfall as other vegetation onsite is also non-irrigated and dry. The applicant is required to submit an application for a Tree Removal Permit and pay necessary fees. Trees scheduled for removal will be replaced with trees of appropriate size and quantity per the City's Development Code. The impact is not considered significant. b) The Initial Study identified short-term impacts to air quality and noise with development of the project site. However, the short-term impacts will occur due to proposed construction activities and will not exceed established thresholds. The impacts will cease once construction activities are completed. Implementation of mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study will ensure that short-term impacts will remain at less than significant levels. c) The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan that was recently adopted along with the certification of a Program EIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration for significant adverse environmental effects of build-out in the City and sphere of influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however they would not reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, the City adopted statements of overriding consideration balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and statements of overriding consideration, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. d) Development of an automobile fueling station would not cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. The initial study identified impacts to air quality and noise as having a potentially significant affect to the environment. However, proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to less than significant. 333 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 37 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s)~pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (,~) Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan EIR - City of Rancho Cucamonga (Certified October 17, 2001) (,~) General Plan - City of Rancho Cucamonga (Certified October 17, 2001) (,~) Development Code- City of Rancho Cucamonga (Adopted December 7, 1983, Revised June 1999) (,') Colia Acoustical Consultants, Acoustical Analysis of the Chevron Service Station and Car Wash, May 2, 2002. (~) Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates, Inc. Supplemental Subsurface Engineering Geology Investigation, July 16, 2002. (,~) RGS Geosciences, Engineering Geologic Report Review, August 14, 2002. (v) Colia Acoustical Consultants, Acoustical Analysis of the Chevron Service Station Truck Deliveries, January 29, 2003. FEC~ ; FRX NO. :562~28~,.,,. F~b. 26 ;~B3 ~.'(~gPM P4 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamon~la DRC CUP 00-17 Page 3~ APPLICANT CERllFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project de~cn'bed in this Initial StUdy. I acknowledge that I have read thi~ Initial Study and the proposed mitigation mea~urea. Further, [ have raviead the project plans or pmpesala artr. For hereby agree to the proposed mitigation meaaurea to avoid the effects or mitigate the effeat~ to a point where clearly ne significant environmental effa~'t~ WOuld occur. Print Name and Title: L'~'~~ · ~-~' ~-~'~.r~ ,'"-~g',,'r ~. ClilL~,,z~,a. City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 Public Review Period Closes: Mamh 5, 2003 Project Name: Chevron Project Applicant: RFA, Inc. Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue -APN: 207-211-12 and 13 Project Description: A request to construct a 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive-thru carwash, and pump island on 1 acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. if adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. March 5, 2003 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. ~,)3" ~ ~'~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-17, REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A 2,945 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION WITH CONVENIENCE MARKET, DRIVE THRU CARWASH, AND PUMP ISLAND ON 1-ACRE OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, APN: 207-211-12 AND 13 A. Recitals. 1. RFA Inc. filed an.application for Conditional Use Permit DRCCUPO0-17, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as the "application." The firm of RFA Inc. is no longer representing Chevron and has been replaced by RHL Design Group. 2. On September 25, 2002, and continued to October 23, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 02-101, thereby approving said application. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 4. On March 5, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. 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 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. This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and further, this Council hereby issues a Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Program. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced March 5, 2003 hearing, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above- referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-101, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 Mamh 5, 2003 Page 2 a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue, with a street frontage of 200 feet and lot depth of 185 feet, and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed by the Albertson's Center including a grocery store, drive-thru fast food, and service station; the property to the south consists of vacant land with condominiums further south; the property to the east is vacant and occupied by the Klusman House; and the property to the west is developed by a flood control channel with residential development further west across the channel; and c. The project is designed with the creative use of real river rock veneer, stucco, concrete tile roofing, and architectural massing that is consistent with the Foothill Districts architectural guidelines and the established pattern of development in the area; and d. All of the potential environmental impacts associated with the project including seismic hazards, noise, air quality, water, aesthetics, and traffic can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of environmental mitigation measures listed below; and e. Six mature pine trees will have to be removed to accommodate the development, but their removal will be mitigated by installation of project landscaping; and f. The project will provide conveniently accessible services along a major thoroughfare within the community consistent with the intent of community commercial development. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. 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. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 5. 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 City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the 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 referehce, 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 City Council; and, further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 March 5, 2003 Page 3 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 that 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 City Council 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 City Council during the public hearing, the City Council 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. 6. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies the subject appeal thereby upholding the Planning Commission decision of October 23, 2002, to approve the project and issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 7. This Council hereby provides notice to Attorney Paul Gough that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is gbverned by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 8. 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, return-receipt requested, to Attorney Paul Gough at the address identified in City records. 9. The project shall comply with all conditions of approval as listed in Planning Commission Resolution 02-101, as well as the following environmental mitigation measures: Environmental Miti.qation Geological 1) No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the Restricted Zone as modified by the 2002 Geotechnical Report, unless a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds the area immediately northwest of the site to be free of active faulting. 2) Any proposed human occupancy structures shall be designed to a maximum probable earthquake of 7.0. 3) Positive drainage of the site shall be provided and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any natural, cut or fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided as the native soils are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 March 5, 2003 Page 4 4) The final grading plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist prior to grading. 5) Fills that provide support for any proposed human occupancy structure shall not be placed in the Recommended Restricted Use Zone on the site. 6) Any proposed utilities shall cross the Restricted Use Zone at a high angle in order to minimize the amount of damage to utility lines should sudace movement occur within the zone. 7) The trench backfill was not compacted. An evaluation of the significance of all on-site fill, including trench backfill generated during the investigation should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer. 8) The location of the Restricted Use Zone for fault rupture hazard shall be incorporated into site plans with proper disclosure. 9) A Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared to evaluate the condition of the exploratory trench backfill, relative to the proposed development. The investigation shall include monitoring of the backfilling and compacting, including samples taken to ensure proper compaction. Water 1 ) Prior to issuance of grading permits; the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during the period the site is under construction and ongoing during operation. BMPs shall be identified on the grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. Air Quality 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by South Coast Air Quality Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board) daily to reduce Particulate Matter (PM)~o emission, in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403. 2) Foothill Boulevard shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 Mamh 5, 2003 Page 5 4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by South Coast Air Quality Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. 5) Contractor shall select the construction equipment based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. All construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 6) The contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Noise 1) During all project site excavation and grading onsite, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2) The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 3) The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction related noise soumes and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 4) During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all construction related activities that would result in noise levels at adjacent properties to exceed the noise standards specified in the Development Code, as described in the noise analysis under the City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Standards, to between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays and Government Code holidays. 5) Deliveries to the automobile fueling station shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to minimize potential noise impacts on residential uses. Aesthetics CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO, DRCCUP00-17 March 5, 2003 Page 6 1 ) To minimize effects of light and glare from nighttime lighting of the site, the applicant shall ensure lights include a shield and are directed away from sensitive receptors. A lighting plan shall be submitted with site plans during plan check. City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: CUP 00-17 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared fgr 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: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of 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 ara 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. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original 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 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the Cify staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of. construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after wdtten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director pdor to the issuance of building permits. i:",FINA L\C EQA'dv~ M P Form-rev.wpd MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: CUP 00-17 Applicant: RFA, Inc. Initial Study Prepared by: Brent Le Count Date: February 10, 2003 . No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the CP/BO/CE B/C Review of plans A/C 2 Restricted Zone as modified by the 2002 Geotechnical Report, unless a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds the area immediately northwest of the site to be free of active faulting. Any proposed human occupancy structures shall be designed to a CP.'BO/CE B/C Review of plans A/C 2 maximum probable earthquake of 7.0. Positive drainage of the site shall be provided and water shall not be CP/BO/CE B/C Review of plans/on A/C 2 alrowed to pond behind or flow over any natural, cut or fill slopes, site field review Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided as the native soils are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water. The final grading plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved CP./BO/CE B Review of plans A/C 2 by an engineering geologist prior to grading. Fills that provide support for any proposed human occupancy CP/BO/CE B/C Review of plans/on A/C 2 structure shall not be placed in the Recommended Restricted Use site field review Zone on the site. Any proposed utilities shall cross the Restricted Use Zone at a high CP./BO/CE B/C Review of plans A/C 2 angle in order to minimize the amount of damage to utility lines should surface movement occur within the zone. The trench backfill was not compacted. An evaluation of the CP/BO/CE B/C Review of plans C 2 significance of all on-site fill, including trench backfill generated during the investigation should be determined by the project geotechnicel engineer. The location of the Restricted Use Zone for fault rupture hazard CP./BO B Review of plans C 2 shall be incorporated into site plans with proper disclosure. A Gectechnical Investigation shall be prepared to evaluate the CP,'BO/CE B Review of plans/on- A/C 2 condition of the exploratory trench backfill, relative to the proposed site fierd review development. The investigation shall include monitoring of the backfilling and compacting, including samples taken to ensure proper compaction. ~atet ~ Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a CP/CE B/C Review of plans A/C SWPPP that identifies BMPs to be implemented dudng the period ~,~ 'the site is under construction and ongoing during operation. BMPs shall be identified on the grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. . The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent CP C Review of plans A/C 2 (approved by South Coast Air Quality Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board) daily to reduce Particulate Matter (PM)~e emission, in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403. Foothill Boulevard shall be swept according to a schedule CP C Review of plans A/C 2 established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed CP C Review of plans A/C 2 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by South Coast Air Quality CP C Review of plans A/C 2 Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board) shall be applied to alt inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions. Contractor shall select the construction equipment based on tow CP B/C Review of plans A/C 2 emission factom and high-energy efficiency. All construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered CP C Review of plans A/C 2 equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading CP/CE B' Review of plans C 2 plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During all project site excavation and grading onsita, the project CP C Review of plans A/C 2 contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly opersting and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. The project c(½ntractor shall place all stationary construction CP C Review of plans A/C 2 equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. The construction contractor shall Iocata equipment staging in areas CP C Review of plans A/C 2 that will create the greatest distance between construction retatad noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall CP C Review of plans A/C 2 limit all construction related activities that would result in noise levels at adjacent properties to exceed the noise standards 1~_~1 specified in the Development Code, as described in the noise analysis under the City of Rancho Cucamonga Noise Standards, to between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday throu~lh Saturday. No construction is permittad on Sundays and Government Code holidays. Delivedes to the automobile fueling station shall be restricted to the CP Review of plans A/C 2 hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to minimize potential noise impacts on residential uses. Key to Checklist Abbreviations R~s~°nSlble pers°~ M~)n!~ n; ~req,ency : ,- Meth~ o~Verlficatlon ~i ~ !. ~ ~ ~, · CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Cedificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Repods / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC. MEMORANDUM Project No. '2175 DATE: February 27, 2003 TO: Paul Gough FROM: Debbie Bright Stevens RE: Comments on Negative Declaration for Chevron Gasoline Station, Rancho Cucamonga, California Environmental Audit, Inc. (EAI) has reviewed the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration for a Conditional Use Permit (DRC CUP 00-17) for a Chevron Gasoline Station located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 500 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. We offer the following comments on Negative Declaration dated February 10, 2003. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The City used an out-dated environmental checklist form. Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was revised and updated in about 1998 and a new Environmental Checklist form was developed. While CEQA allows lead agencies to develop their own checklist forms (15063(f)), the checklist forms still must comply with the CEQA guidelines. A number of issues should be included in the checklist form. Examples of differences between the checklist used by the City and the Checklist recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G include the following: · No agricultural resources were evaluated by the City in this Negative Declaration. The checklist for air quality resources has been substantially revised and include a consistency review of the proposed project with the Air Quality Management Plan, and a review of the project to consider if the project would "result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region in non- attainment..." These resources were not evaluated by the City in this Negative Declaration. · The Hazard section is missing a number of review criteria including evaluation of transportation hazards (e.g., what are the hazards associated with a release of gasoline and subsequent fire during a transportation accident) and whether the project site is P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 2 included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 2. The significance criteria used to identify whether or not impacts were considered to be "significant" or not was not provided for most of the.environmental resources analyzed. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Geology 1. The potential impacts of the proposed project on geology are potentially significant due to the potential impacts associated with an earthquake. The Initial Study does not identify. what the potential impacts wopld be in the event of an earthquake on the gasoline station. 2. One of the mitigation measures indicates that a "Geotecimical Investigation shall be prepared" but does not include any requirements of the .investigation or what will be done with the results or recommendation of the investigation. The geotechnical investigation should be included as part of the CEQA document and the recommendations of the investigation should be included as mitigation measures. Without this information, the potential impacts of an earthquake must be considered significant and unmitigated, in which case an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. Water 3. At a minimum a preliminary grading plan should be included as part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project. The City indicates that adequate site drainage will be assured but provides no details as to how this will occur. Therefore, no data has been provided to demonstrate that the site drainage will be less than significant. 4. The drainage study that indicates how storm water run-off will be conveyed during construction and operation should be included as part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project. 5. The City relies on the compliance with RWQCB requirements as an indication that the project impacts will be less than significant which is inappropriate. The courts struck down the provision of the CEQA guidelines that allowed a lead agency to consider an impact "less than significant" if that impact is consistent with an adopted standard (CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)). According to the court, this provision of the Guidelines subverts the fair argument nde mandated by the statue and relevant case law (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. California Resources Agency). Leaking undergroUnd storage tanks have been a common problem resulting in soil and groUnd water contamination throughout the country. The Initial Study must describe the equipment that is in place to minimize or prevent a leak P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 3 from an underground storage tank. Otherwise the project impacts on groundwater must be considered significant. 6. Mitigation measure 10 indicates that "Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that identifies BMPs to be implemented during the period the site is under construction and ongoing during operations. BMPs shall be identified on the grading plas for review and approval by the City Engineer. The BMPs should be included as part of the CEQA document as mitigation measures. Without this information, the potential impacts of storm water runoff must be considered significant and unmitigated, in which case an EIR is required. 7. No significance conclusions are provided for a number of the environmental topics discussed in this section, e.g, ground water impacts. Further, significance criteria has been developed. Air Quality 8. The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) establishes the methodology for conducting CEQA analyses in the South Coast Air Basin, including emission calculations for construction emissions. The SCAQMD recommends the use of their methodology, emission factors and assumptions provided in Appendix 9 of their Handbook (see Chapter 9). No where does the CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommend the use of the Urban Emission Model to calculate construction emissions. The SCAQIvlD CEQA Handbook requires that the following construction emissions be considered: · Emissions from heavy construction equipment, · Fugitive dust emissions from grading, excavation, loading, etc. · Emissions from heavy duty equipment on paved and unpaved roads, · Energy use, · Emissions from the use of architectural coatings, and · Emissions from vehicle/truck trips, 9. The assumptions used in the URBEMIS2001 model should be provided so that others can review the assumptions and calculations. Nonetheless, it appears that emissions from heavy construction equipment have not been accurately estimated. Construction emission estimates have been provided in Table 1 for construction activities at a gasoline station which should be similar to the construction activities for the proposed project. Detailed emission calculations are included in Appendix A. The emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines which contain requirements for air emission calculations, including emission factors and assumptions for construction activities. Based on the information in Table 1 and Appendix A, the construction emissions associated with the proposed project are significant and an EIR must be prepared. P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 4 Some of the assumptions used in the construction emission calculations do not appear to be based on the peak day emissions. For example, the emission estimate for architectural coatings assumes that about 1.25 gallons of coating (assuming compliance with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 limit of 3.5 lbs/gal) will be applied in a day. This assumptions does not seem to be correct since painters would be expected to paint and complete the job in several days and use more than 1.25 gallons of paint per day for a 2,740 square foot commercial store and drive-through car wash. The SCAQMD indicates that about 16 gallons of water-based coatings would be used per 1,000 square feet (see SCAQMD, 1993 Table A9-13-B). TABLE 1 PEAK DAY CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTIVITY CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 Construction Equipment 56.2 8.5 113.6 17.7 8.3 Mobile Source Emissions 12.3 0.6 4.3 -- 0.1 Fugitive Dust/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads ........ 45.0 Fugitive Dust From Construction~ ........ 85.0 Architectural Coatings -- 52.5 ...... Total Construction Emissions 68.5 61.6 117.9 17.7 138.4 SCAQMD Threshold Level 550 75 100 150 150 Significant? NO NO YES NO NO (1) Assumes application of water two times per day. I 0. Table 1 of the Negative Declaration provides emission calculations for both unmitigated and mitigated conditions. The mitigation measures that would reduce the construction emissions have not been provided or required (e.g., that would reduce architectural coatings from 4.41 lbs/day to 4.19 lbs/day and mobile equipment from 25.32 lbs/day to 24.05 lbs/day). 11. The air emissions from the operation of a gasoline station have not been calculated correctly and are underestimated in the Negative Declaration. The operational emissions do not include emission estimates for stationary equipment which, at minimum, include emissions from fuel dispensing and underground storage tanks. The use of Phase 1 and Phase II vapor recovery systems reduce but do not eliminate emissions. The correct methodology for calculating emissions from fuel dispensing and underground storage tanks are in the annual emission fee report manual. 12. Emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline station are prqvided in Table 2. The emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management District P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 5 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the SCAQMD Guidance for the preparation of annual emissions. Based on the information in Table 2 and Appendix A, the operational emissions associated with the proposed project are significant and an EIR must be prepared. P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 6 TABLE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTMTY CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 Mobile Source Emissions 200.4 27.9 23.7 -- 0.9 Fugitive Dust/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads ........ 291.8 Fuel Dispensing and Under,round Tanks -- 18 ...... Total Operational Emissions 200.4 45.9 23.7 -- 292.7 SCAQMD Threshold Level 550 55 55 150 150 Significant? NO NO NO NO YES 13. The current CEQA checklist (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) includes that the following checklist item: III.c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (include releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The City's checklist does not include the above item in its checklist. Therefore, the project cumulative impacts on air quality have been ignored. This is inappropriate because the project area exceeds a number of the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Transportation/Circulation 14. The level of service (LOS) analysis associated with the nearby intersections must be conducted in order to determine if the project-generated traffic could have significant impacts on traffic. A minimal increase in traffic can have significant impacts if the existing (or ambient) traffic levels are already severe. The Negative Declaration does not provide the baseline LOS or indicate what the LOS would be after the project is operational. The increase of 2,317 trips represents an increase in traffic of at least 6 percent. An increase in traffic of 1 to 4 percent is usually considered significant (see Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 1998). An increase in traffic of 6 percent would be considered significant. Itazards 15. The City's checklist does not evaluated the potential hazards associated with transportation of hazardous materials and substances. Gasoline is considered to be a hazardous material and the impacts associated with an accident should be provided. P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 7 16. The hazards associated with the operation of a gasoline station should be provided. The potential hazard zones associated with a fire or explosion should also be provided. 17. The CEQA thresholds used to make the determination that the benzene emissions were less than significant were not provided. Noise 18. Construction - related noise impacts should have also been estimated and compared to the noise ordinances to determine if significant noise impacts could occur during the construction phase. No estimate of the noise levels from various pieces of construction equipment have been provided. Table 3 estimates of noise from various types of construction equipment. TABLE 3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCES TYPICAL RANGE ANALYSIS VALUE EQUIPMENT (decibels)to (decibels)a} Truck 82-95 82 Front Loader 73-86 82 Backhoe 73-95 80 Vibrator 68-82 80 Air Compressor 85-91 85 Saws 72-82 82 Jackhammers 81~98 85 Pumps 68-72 70 Generators 71-83 85 Compressors 75-87 80 Concrete Mixers 75-88 75 Concrete Pumps 81-85 81 Tractor 77-98 85 Scrapers, Graders 80-93 80 Pavers 85-88 75 Cranes 75-89 85 o~ City of Los Angeles, 1998. Levels are in dBA at 50-foot reference distance. These values are based on a range of equipment and operating conditions. ~2~ Analysis values are intended to reflect noise levels from equipment in good conditions, with appropriate mufflers, air intake silencers, etc. In addition, these values assume averaging of sound level over all directions from the listed piece of equipment. P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 8 The estimated construction noise level during equipment installation is expected to b'e an average of about 85 dBA at 50 feet from the center of construction activity. Using an estimated six dBA reduction for every doubling of distance, the noise levels at the closest residential area would be about 79 dBA. These noise levels would exceed the City's noise ordinance level of 60 dBA. The construction noise levels are significant and an EIR should be prepared. 19. The Negative Declaration indicates that noise estimates were based on noise measurements of a car wash and dryer at an existing facility and that the "one-hour daytime Leq was calculated to be 54.9 dBA and 51.9 dBA at night." The Negative Declaration must provide the actual noise readings from the car wash and dryer, since these facilities will be located within close proximity of residents and there is little oppommity for noise attenuation. Project generated noise estimates only considered equipment at the site. 20. The Negative Declaration indicates that the Leq for the track delivery process was 69.5 dBA. Using an estimated six dBA reduction for every doubling of distance, the noise levels at the closest residential area would be about 63.5 dBA. These noise levels would exceed the City's noise ordinance level of 60 dBA during both the daytime and nighttime. The noise levels associated with the operation of the gas station are significant and an EIR should be prepared. Utilities and Service Systems 21. The Initial Study should indicate the mount of electricity and natural gas that may be required for the gas station. The Initial Study should indicate the amount of water and wastewater that will be generated by the gas station. Without this information, it is impossible to determine if the project will have a significant impact on various resources and utilities. Socioeconomic Impacts 21. The Initial Study did not provide any analysis of socioeconomic impacts associated with the installation ora new gas station. Economic impacts must be analyzed when there are physical impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). The proposed project will add a new gasoline station in close proximity to two other gasoline stations. The new gasoline station could draw business away from the other gasoline stations and alter the existing traffic flow and LOS at the local intersections resulting in significant traffic impacts. More serious noise impacts than analyzed herein could also occur if additional traffic occurs at the new gasoline station, especially considering the fact that the new gasoline station is located · about 100 feet from a residential area. Mitigation Monitoring Plan P. Gough February 26, 2003 Page 9 22. There are incorrect entries in the mitigation monitoring plan (MMP). For example, the MMP indicates that the deliveries to the gas station shall be restricted to the hours of 7 am to 10 pm and indicates that the monitoring frequency is throughout construction. This mitigation measure was imposed to minimize noise impacts during operation and the monitoring frequency should be throughout the "operating" period. APPENDIX A EMISSION CALCULATIONS TABLE A-9 FUEL DISPENSING AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS E=EF*Q Where: E VOC Emissions (lbs) EF Emission factor (Ib/Mgal or 1,000 gallons) Q throughput (Mgal) Gasoline EF = 1.8 Ib/Mgal Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Diesel EF = 0.028 Ib/Mgal Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Gasoline Emissions: Gasoline EF 1.8 Ib/Mgal Throughput 10,000 gal/day Emissions 18 lbs of VOC/day Diesel Emissions: Gasoline EF 0.028 Ib/Mgal Throughput 5,000 gal/day Emissions 0.14 lbs of VOC/day Benzene Emissions: Benzene EF 1 percent of total gasoline VOC Emissions Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Emissions 0.18 lbs/day DBS:WORD;/2175/EmissionCalcs:Dispensing STRAW GOUGH LAW O~FIC ES March 5, 2003 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROJECT DRC CUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station Hon. Members of City Council: This office represents Art and Diana Flores who are the owners and operators ora Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cucamonga located at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. With this letter I am lodging our comments on the Notice of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration in the form of a Memorandum dated February 27, 2003 from Environmental Audit, Inc. The Environmental Audit Report sets forth the deficiencies present in the proposed Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration and several reasons why an EIR is required. I xvill not repeat in detail all of the findings of the Environmental Audit Report, but the report in its entirety is incorporated by reference for the record. The Environmental Audit report does present a number of issues and arguments which constitute a thir argument in favor of an EIR including the air emissions from the operation of the station (pp. 3-5 of the EAI report) and the noise levels associated with the operation of the gas station in proximity to a new housing development (pp. 7-8 of the EAI report). Ifa lead agency is presented with a "fair argument" that a project ma3' have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles' (t 974) 13 Cal. 3d 68. The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') is to require governmental agencies to look before they leap and consider an3' environmental consequences of their actions before taking them. CEQA "generally requires a state or local public agency to prepare an EIR on any activity it undertakes or approves which may have a significant effect on the environment." Gentry v. City of Murietta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4'h 1359, 1371; Pub. Res. Code {}21151(a). A significant effect is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." Laurel Heights Members of the City Council March 5, 2003 Page 2 Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4t~ 1112, 1123, quoting Pub. Res. Code § 21068. "Public Resources Code section 21151 "creates a low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." Silveria v. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Dist. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 980, 986. We urge the City Council to carefully consider this project and to require the preparation of an EIR. THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION DOES NOT CONSIDER THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF TIlE PROJECT If an EIR is to be prepared then 14 Cal. Adm. Code §15131 provides that economic or social effects may be considered. Even if an EIR were not warranted, chapter 17.06.010 (A)(1) of the Rancho Cucamonga MuniciPal Code provides that the review procedures for commercial developments should ensure that development projects are consistent wi{h the general plan and "add to the physical, economic and social character of Rancho Cucamonga." The proposed Chevron station would place a third gasoline station at the Vineyard and Foothill intersection. Besides the gasoline service station operated by my clients at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard, the Albertson's supermarket directly across the intersection of Vineyard and Foothill operates an A-Express with pump islands and a convenience store. Several factors strongly suggest that this area is unlikely to support another service stations. First, the recent opening of the Interstate 210 extension parallel to Foothill Boulevard has dramatically reduced the traffic for businesses on Foothill Boulevard. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is an article from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin dated December 24, 2002 entitled "210 Extension A Mixed Blessing." This article confirms that coffee shops, restaurants and service stations along Foothill Boulevard have reported declining revenue following the opening of the 210 extension. Indeed, the newspaper writers interviewed my client, Art Flores, who reported a 40% drop in sales following the opening of the 210 extension. The article then provides that the anticipated opening of the Chevron station could prove "disastrous" and is followed by Mr. Flores quote that "One of os will go out of business." The article goes on to confirm that the Red Hill Union 76 station has lost 20-25% of its business since the opening of the freeway extension, and mentions numerous other businesses with declining revenues since the freeway extension opened. Conversely, businesses located close to the 210 extension have experienced an increase in business. The article contains a quote from Rancho Cucamonga City Planner Brad Buller: "With or without the freeway, Foothill Boulevard deserves special attention as Rancho Cucamaonga's primary retail corridor" said City Planner Brad Buller. "Our goal is to create a sense of place where businesses will have financial success, customers will have a great Members of the City Council :. March 5, 2003 Page 3 shopping experience, and tourists will look back and remember experiencing historic Route 66." In a stroke of remarkable irony, it is City Planner Brad Buller who is now urging the City Council to approve the construction of the new Chevron station on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller is doing any'thing but creating an opportunity for financial success on Foothill Boulevard for the Flores by advocating the construction of a new service station on a street with rapidly declining traffic. Further evidence that this area is ill-suited to accommodate yet another service station is the fact that ruultiple service stations in the area have recently been forced out of business. Attached hereto are photos of four blighted, closed service station including the former Union 76 site at Foothill and Vineyard; the former ARCO at Malachite and Foothill; the former Shell station at Foothill and Mountain; and the former Mobil station at Archibald and Arrow. Should the construction of the Chevron be approved, my client's station at Foothill and Vineyard may soon be joining this list. When Mr. and Mrs. Flores built their station in 1996, the City of Rancho Cucamonga required that they spend $595,000 for off site improvements including the installation of new traffic lights, the ~videning and alignment of Foothill Boulevard, the undergrounding utilities on Foothill, the relocation of an Edison light post, the dedication of 17 feet of the Orange Grove property on Foothill to CalTrans, and improvements for adjacent properties including a new driveway to serve Red Hill liquor store and In-an&Out Burger. My clients spent an additional $60,000 for the civil engineer and permits. Mr. and Mrs. Flores are still making pa.xqnents on the loan which they obtained to pay for these improvements. It bas become more difficult for them to meet their monthly payments because their volume of gasoline sales has decreased since the opening of the A-Express, another sign that this area may not support another gasoline service station. Saturation of this area with yet another service station may leave my clients unable to meet tile payments on the loan which they took to fund these ilnprovements. For all of these reasons, and alt of the reasons stated in the Environmental Audit report which is submitted herewith, we request that tiffs project be the ~ubject of further review and consideration, including the legal requirement of preparing an Environmental Impact Report. _/~_/~r), truly yours, Paul T. Gough PTG~k nesshas.b~een INSIDE: Fr.e'&~ access!iamPs STAFF WRITERS ~.*. ;~,.~:. :~ ~; from Camp/~Av~nue ~r~ UPland to .... the Foothill Freeway won't be The mob~t~-~ ;l~o~)~]ii]]' li~ee; complete unt!l the.end of May at wa3~ extensJo~ is tip-nJng oa[ to the earliest. FUU. STORY ON be a': mixed bl~sin~, for dearb'y :_':"?~? ' .... busin.'esses;, m~4.ng it ;eaSier for' customers to get, to some.while-: lat~ drawing away thb flow bf on which others:r~ly. ~.' ~: · Though enterprises cataring to ' ~Te've dro~oed' ~remendous]y,' mest]y local cliente]e are.eeeing flat or improved business, some * Not only ha~'a'lighter Foothill coffee shops, restaurants and ser- Bou]evard lightened the firm's x'icestationsnlongoldRouta66re- bank account, the anticipated port plummeting revenue'since opening of a. Chewon ,station the lnleed ~,~alley's newest l~ee* across the street cetfld prove dis- way opened N(~,'. 24. astrOus ,;'(. : - TheV'meyax4Mobi] Se-rViceStai "One of us~wi]l g~ out Of busi- .tion in Rancho cuCamonga, once ValerieWin )~t Stafl3/~C~s ness, Flores smd: .. the strongi~st Mobil out]et in San on the Corner of Fo0thill'~hd C aren~ont boulevard~ ' ' : *' - . , ' TRAFFIC contint/es on A5 InlandiValley Daily Bulletin Stores :gai,ning, 'lOsing business TRAFFIC ",. FROM A'I · k couple of miles away, the lte;] Hill 76 service itat~on has also felt the pinch of lo~t commuters. "We're down 20 to 25 percent," said manager Jun Pantaloon. . Jim Oonkle, who head~ the Cal- ifornia Route 66 Preservation Foundation, said some parts of Foothill Bouleva'rd have been hit harder than others. '~'"There. has been a leas pro- n?unced difference in Rancho near the 15 freeway," "For neai; new ~n-ramps are a boom. But for businesses in. La Verne, ,b~en a pro- customers ' Pate]'s Alta Dairy in Upland, ' Patel Said. to caffeine- ~veakening in sales. roughly 15 across from Harvey Mudd after the Foothill Free. in coffee consumers Rosa Ramos, who owns the Route 66 Memories shop, blames the lull at her once-booming business ' on the recent opening of the Foothill Freeway extension, ~ ~ of~ C~aremont's hurt businesses like ours," Gilbert And a handful of restaurants 'q/Vith or without the freeway, J'pland said. "But I expect the 210 will say the freeway has helped busi- Foothill Boulevard deserves spe- l~aner revenues. . crowd up e~,entually just like all ness. cial attention as Rancho Cuca- at the other freeways, and then the 'SVe've had several customers monga's primary retail corridor," Foothill Boulevard ' cars will return to Foothill." tell us it's much easier to get here said City Planner Brad Buller. ,rAvenueinLaVerne While some companies are ap- now that the freeway has "Our goal is to create a sense of pm'entlysuffering, otherbusiness opened," said Rebecca Crockett, piacewherebusinesseswillhave thoroughfare oftrav- owners say they haven't been al- a eervor at Tho Magic Lamp Inn fimmcinl sm:c. cs~, cust(mmrs will , :. ~ fbcted, restaurant near Foothill and haveagrcatshoppiugcxperlencc, down,' smd general At Auto Service Experts in Up- Grove Avenue. "We have a lot of and tourists will look back and land, workers agreed that if any- people that travel a ways specif: inClllb~l' experiencing historic says decreased thing, business has picked up over ically to come here, and if travel- Route 66." 66Mem- thelasttwomonths. AndPayday h~ghereiseauier, ithelp~usout. Uplandhnsalsomndccllbrtstu a store . Advance employees said Christ. . Conkle says businesses that do tie historic themes into present- h his wife, has hurt mis is their busiest season, suffer arc ~ t ncccssarily do ~ed dt~y businesses on 1 uothill. When For many businesses, the~ury to fail. a Vons supermarket m~d phar- light turned red at is still out; Representatives of '~Phere's been a concerted el- macy opened in a redecorated used t6 bq ~ars KFC and In-N-Out Burger both fort to make parts of Foothill a center last month, a sign went f~0i~tlof siay th~ restaurant,'are waiting d~stinationinste,,adofjustapla6e ' up with a red neon strip and a .for Jahuary sitles figures before to pass fi/ri)ugh,' he said. ~' Route 66 icon featured promi- n the freeway first ,~they. e~aluate,the effect the free- Rancho Cu~amonga has spear- nently along with "Vons" and t~.hav~;'wayh~ih~idontheirFoothilllo- headedthi~i'effort, havingli)ng "Starbucks." cations, ago formed a Foothill Boulevard Business at Wolfe's Market in task force and revitalization el- L.C. Greene can be reached by e- andre- Claremont i~ up because cus- fort. Visual effects will aim to mailatl, greeneOdailybulletin, com sur- tomers a~e haci_ng an easier time ' recreate historic boulevard or byphone at (909) 483.9337. gi~tting in and out, said owner themes. Neon lights, Route 66 Conor Friedersdorf can be I~passersrby Tom Wolfe. signs, classic cars and other ele- reachedbye-mailatconor, frieder- . know overall, the freeway ~s It s areal positive for me," he ments are planned for corners sdorf~dailybulletin.com or by a go~d thlngli, but it'has really said. · and bridges, phone at (909) 483-9347. STRAW GOUGH March 5, 2003 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: OBJECTIONS TO INCOMPLETE RECORD LODGED BY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROJECT DRC CUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station Hon. Members of City Council: I represent Art and Diana Flores, appellants in the above matter. I filed the appeal from the Planning Commission on November 4, 2002. On Friday, February 28, 2003, I received the Opposition to the Appeal from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Opposition purported to lodge wSth the City Council the record in this matter, including my letter of November 4, 2002 to the Members of City Council and a Report from Environmental Audit, Inc. of September 20, 2002 xvhich had earlier been lodged with the Planning Commission. The copy of the record which I received was incomplete in three areas. First, it only provided pages 1, 3, 5 and 7 of my appeal letter of November 4, 2002 (see pages 137-140); second, it only provided pages 1, 3 and 5 of the Environmental Audit Report of September 20, 2002 (see pages 143- 145); and third it provided only the first page of my letter of October 23, 2002 (see page 155). I request that, if not already included as part of the record, that my complete letters of November 4, 2002 (and all attachments) and October 23, 2002 be made a part of the record; and the complete Environmental Audit Report of September 20, 2002 be made a part of the record. I xx~ill provide copies to supplement the record if they are needed. PTG:jk STRAW 8,. GOUGH LAW OFFICES March 5, 2003 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROJECT DRC CUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station Hon. Members of City Council: This office represents Art and Diana Flores who are the owners and operators ora Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cucmnonga located at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. I have received a Notice of Intent To Adopt Negative · Declaration which provides as follows: "A public hearing will be held by the City council to consider this proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION on Mamh 5, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, Council Chamber, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga." It appears that this notice was intended to comply xxSth California Administrative Code title 14, section 15072(f)3) which provides that a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration shall specify: "The date, time and place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed project, when known to the lead agency at the time of notice." ltowever, I have now received a copy of the agenda for the City Council meeting of March 5, 2003, and there is no item on the agenda for a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. Therefore, I object to the Notice of lntent to Adopt Negative Declaration on the grounds that it erroneously advises of a public hearing on this maUer at a date, time and place where the matter is not on the agenda as represented. The only item on the agenda for March 5, 2003 is my appeal of an earlier envirom-nental assessment and conditional use permit ~vbich I filed on November 4. 2002. Members of the City Council March 5, 2003 Page 2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the California Administrative Code in providing a proper and accurate notice of the date, time and place for a hearing on the Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration. I request that this objection be made a part of the record on this matter. Very truly yours, Paul T. Gougn PTG:jk STRAW GO'UGH LAW OFFICES March 5, 2003 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO APPEAL OF ART & DIANA FLORES OF FOR PROJECT DRC CUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station Hon. Members of City Council: The Appeal of Art and Diana Flores filed on November 4, 2002, raised five separate grounds for the appeal. The first ground for the appeal was that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not prepared in compliance with the state CEQA guidelines because it relied on a CEQA guideline which was held invalid in the case of Communilies for a Betler Enviromnent v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98. The City Planner's response to this argument was to concede this point and prepare a new Initial Study and analysis to support a Mitigated Negative Declaration. See page 2 of Brad Buller's letter of March 5, 2003 to City Council. Moreover, the City has circulated a new Notice of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration and asked for comments to be submitted by March 5, 2002.~ Having conceded the correctness of the legal position of the appellants and prepared and published a new Mitigated Negative Declaration, the appeal of the Art and Diana Flores is now moot and the process should return to the Planning Commission. But curiously, while conceding the critical legal issue in the appeal, the City Planner continues to ask the City Council to deny the Flores appeal. If the City Council denies the appeal of the Flores as urged by City Planner Buller, then the City Council will be affirming the Planning Commission approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration which the CiLv Planner has already admitted is legally deficient because of its reliance on an illegal regulation. ~ The City Planner's Notice states tbat tbere will be a public bearing on March 5, 2003 at the City Council Meeting. However, this item is not on the City Council agenda for March 5. 2003. We have filed a separate objection to the new Notice of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration due to this error. Members of the City Council March 5, 2003 Page 2 Simply stated, the City Planner cannot have it both ways. It cannot concede the merit of the Flores appeal and prepare a new Mitigated Negative Declaration and restart the process, while simultaneously contesting the Flores appeal. If the City Planner is asking the City Council to deny the Flores appeal but simultaneously slip in a replacement Mitigated Negative Declaration, this is procedurally incorrect. State law requires that the new Mitigated Negative Declaration be noticed for public comments and that the City Planner respond to those comments. While the merit of the Flores appeal is established by the concession made by the City Planner on the first issue, I will nevertheless briefly respond to the other issues appellate issue in order to respond for the record to the Opposition filed by the City Planner. The second point raised in the appeal was the attempt by the Planning Commission to exclude the Flores from the process by refusing to disclose the existence of, or provide a copy of, the Lilbum Report until the day before the October 23, 2003 hearing at the Planning Commission, thereby depriving the Flores of the opportunity to have their consultant respond to the Lilburn Report. The issue appealed to the City Council was no~t (as Mr. Buller has suggested) ~vhether the Flores had notice that there was a hearing on October 23, 2002, nor was the issue whether the Lilbum Report was correct or incorrect. The issue was that CEQA provides that public participation is essential to the process based on the belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and democratic decision making. No one from CiB~ Planning advised me or my clients of the preparation of the Lilburn Report until the eve of the October 23, 2002 hearing, and the Planning Commission refused to even respond to the request for a short continuance to reply to the Lilburn Report. While the appeal is moot because of the concessions made by the City to the first issue, the City Council should nevertheless take this opportunity to remind the Planning Commission that public participatiou in the CEQA process is to be encouraged, not discouraged through heavy handed tactics. The third issue raised on appeal was that the City Council should return this matter to the Plannii~g Commission with instructions to prepare an E1R. The response of Mr. Buller is that the EIR process is "essentially the same" as the Negative Declaration process. In fact, the two processes are different. The Flores contend that an EIR is still required, particnlarty in view of the noise and air emission considerations for the new homeowners who are but a few feet fi'om the Chevron station which intends to operate 24 hours a day, and sinmltaneously operate a car wash fi'om 7:00 a.m to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. The fourth issue raised on appeal was whether this intersection wonld support another service station. Mr. Buller's response is that there is "no evidence that a third service station in this vicinity will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity" and that a "third service station Members of the City Council March 5, 2003 Page 3 near the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard simply provides the community and commuters on Foothill and Vineyard with a third choice for obtaining gasoline." Mr. Buller's comments ignore the reality of the situation and his own published comments. The recent opening of the Interstate 210 extension parallel to Foothill Boulevard has dramatically reduced the traffic for businesses on Foothill Boulevard. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is an article from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin dated December 24, 2002 entitled "210 Extension A Mixed Blessing." This article confirms that coffee shops, restaurants and service stations along Foothill Boulevard have reported declining revenue following the opening of the 210 extension. Indeed, the newspaper writers interviewed my client, Art Flores, who reported a 40% drop in sales following the opening of the 210 extension. The article further provides that the anticipated opening of the Chevron station could prove "disastrous" and is followed by Mr. Flores quote that "One of us will go out of business." The article goes on to confirm that the Red Hill 76 station has lost 20-25% of its business since the opening of the freeway extension, and mentions numerous other businesses with declining revenues since the freeway extension opened. Conversely, businesses located close to the 210 extension have experienced an increase in business. The article contains a quote from Brad Buller: "With or without the freeway, Foothill Boulevard deserves special attention as Rancho Cucamaonga's primary retail corridor" said City Planner Brad Bullet. "Our goal is to create a sense of place where businesses will have financial success, customers will have a great shopping experience, and tourists will look back and remember experiencing historic Route 66." In a stroke of remarkable irony, it is City Planner Brad Buller who is urging the CiD, Council to ignore the economic consequences of 3 gasoline service stations at the same intersection and approve the construction of the new Chevron station on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller is doing anything but creating an opportunity for financial success on Foothill Boulevard for the Flores by advocating the construction of a new service station on a stree~ with rapidly declining traffic. Further evidence that this area is ill-suited to accommodate yet another service station is the fact that multiple service stations in the area have recently been forced out of business. Attached hereto are photos of four blighted, closed service station including the former Union 76 site at Foothill and Y'ineyard; the former ARCO at Malachite and Foothill; the former Shell station at Foothill and Mountain; and the former Mobil station at Archibald and Arrow. Should the construction of the Chevron be approved, my client's station at Foothill and Vineyard may soon be joining this list. When Mr. and Mrs. Flores built their station in 1996, the City of Rancho Cucamonga required that they spend $595.000 for off site improvements including the installation of new traffic lights, the widening and aligmnent of Foothill Boulevard, the undergrounding utilities on Foothill, the relocation of Members of the City Council March 5, 2003 Page 4 an Edison light post, the dedication of 17 feet of the Orange Grove property on Foothill to CalTrans, and improvements for adjacent properties including a new driveway to serve Red Hill liquor store and In-and-Out Burger. My clients spent an additional $60,000 for the civil engineer and permits. Mr. and Mrs. Flores are still making payments on the loan which they obtained to pay for these improvements. It has become more difficult for them to meet their monthly payments because their volume of gasoline sales has decreased since the opening of the A-Express, another sign that this area may not support another gasoline service station. Saturation of this area with yet another service station may leave my clients unable to meet payments on the loan which they took to fund these improvements. The fifth issue on this appeal was that the new purchasers of homes in Cucamonga Ridge were excluded from the process by the swift action of the Planning Commission. While Mr. Bullet's response is that notices were sent to residents of Cucamonga Ridge, the reality of the situation is that at the time any notices were sent, the owners had not yet occupied most of the homes. As noted in the opening of this letter, the appeal is now moot by virtue of the actions of the City Planning in preparing a new proposed Negative Declaration and restarting the CEQA notice process. Nevertheless, should the City Council desire to vote on this appeal, the appeal should be granted for all of the aforementioned reasons. oughY yours, PTG:jk ~i.,s busi-~.! - The ~t b~~' be a;~ed. : ' c~me~ ~.get~ ~me. ~;sWay ~e flow of t~ '. mos~y. ~o~ ~en~le ~ fiat or ~p~ved ~us~s, ~me ~ s~o~ ~ongold ~u~ ~ ;the ~tlcip~ted ~ pl~e~g ~venue's~ opening,?f ~? Che~on 's~tion ~e~Mo6n~: ' "M~ One of.~ go out of bus~- ,~on ~ ~o Cu~onga; on~ Val~d~er Sure ness,~ Fld~e~a.' ~-;~;?~ ~, ' ~e s~t Mpb~ouflet m ~ ,.,on t? ~mer of ~d~'and Claremont bouleva~s;~, ' .... ~" ~ ......~" ~ ' ' ' ' ', ::- T~FFIC coh'tinh'~'on :' - , Bulletin FROM A~I' i' Hill 76 servico the l~d .t 'con~nncters. 'SVe're down20 to 25 percent,". said manager Jun Pantalean. Jim Conkle, who head/the Cai- · ifornia. Route §6 Preservation Foundati6n, :sai~ some Parts Of Foothill Boulevard have been hit harder than oth~rs. ~'There, has been a lesh pro- aounced differenc~ in Rancho Cu- ~ near th~ 15 free)ray," "For,that matter, ocated c~nve- ' near new on-ramps are ' ' a boom. But for ' businesses in La Verne, ~ghere's been a pro- downturn." ' customers from Harry Patel's Alta the not as o be "Patel said. to caffeine- in sales. at the Claremont Star~ . across from Harvey Mudd e after the Foothill Free- way shop manager Shell ,a Veme also MEDIHA FEJZAGIC DIMARTINO · STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER saw cofl'oo consumers, ' Rosa Ramos, who owns the Route 66 Memories shop, blames the lull at her once-booming business on the recent opening of the Foothill Freeway extension. Th~ of Claremont's Tast~; hurt businesses like ours," Gilbert And a handful of restaurants '~qith or without the freeway, Jpland said. "But I expect thc 210 will saythetreewayhashelpcdbusi- FoothillBoulevarddescrvesspe- also uos. crowd up oi, ontually jus£ like nil ness. cial attention as l{amcbo Caca- restaurant at the other freeways, and then the 'q~re've had several customers monga's primary retail corridor,' ' cars will return to Foothill." toll usit's much easier to gcc hero said City Planner Brad Bullor. LiVerne While some companies are ap- now that the freeway has "Our goal is to ereate a sense of ~when the new freeway patently suffering, otherbusiness opened," said Rebeee~i Crockett, place whore businesses will have dralnedl owners say they haven't been af- a server at The Magic Lamp Inn finaacial success, customers will clefs, fected, restaurant near Foothill and haveagreatshoppingexperience, ;down, said general AtAutogervlc~ExPertslnUp- Grove Avenue. "We have a lot of and tourists will look back and re- land, workers agreed that if any- people that travel a ways specif- member experiencihg historic ~-ilbert s decreased thing, business has picked up over ically to come here, and if travel- Route 66.' ~,, traffic.iniq 66Mem- the last two months. AndPayday inghereiseasier, ithelpsusout.' Uplandhasalsomadeeffortsto Advance employees said Christ- , Conldesaysbusinessesthatdo tie historic themes into present- wife has hurt mils i~ their busiest season, suffer aren't necessarily doomed day businesses on Foothill. When For many businesses, the~ury to fail. a Vans supermarket and phar- light tUrned red at is still out. Representatives of "There's been a concerted ef~ macy opened in 'a redecorated KFC and In-N-Out Burger both fo~.to make parts of Foothill~a center last month, a sign went the~restdm'~:or? waiting' destinationinsteadofjust aplace:~I up with a red neon strip and a skl~ fig~es before to pass tlh'~ugh ' he said. ¢' '~ ' Route 66 icon featured promi- ,they e~aiuate.the effect the tree- Rancho Cucamonga has spear-, nently along with "Vons' and to have .~way has h~d on thmr Foothill lo- headed tha~'~ffort, having lbng' "Starbucks." : cations. · ago formed a Foothill Boulevard Businass at Wolfe's Market in task force and revitalization el- L.C. Greene can be reached by e- and re- Claremont is up because cus- fort. Visual effects will aim to mailatl~reenc4M~ilybulletin, com sur-. tomers ore hax;~g aneasier time ' recreate historic ' boulevard or byphone at (909) 483-9337. "getting in and out, said owner themes. Neon lights, Route 66 Conor Friedersdorf can be '"~ Passersrby.. . Tom Wolfe. ' signs, classic cars and other ele- reached by e-mail at conor, frieder- the lkeeway is . ,"It s a real positive for me," he meats are planned for corners sdorf~dailybulletin.com or by really said. . and bridges, phone at (909) 483-9347.