Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003/04/02 - Agenda Packet
'~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 APRIL 2, 2003 cR c.o UCAMONGA 11 A. CALL TO ORDERIl 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Roll Call: Alexander , Gutierrez Howdyshell __, Kurth , and Williams I[ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS[PRESENTATIONS ] 1. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring April as "Child Abuse Prevention Month." 2. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring week of April 6-12, 2003, as "National Library Week." [[ C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ] This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. Ii D. CouNciL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for reports to be made by members of the City Council on mattem not on the agenda. IlE. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controvemial. 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: March 5, 2003 (Howdyshell absent) March 10, 2003 (Special Meeting) March 14, 2003 (Special Meeting) I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 APRIL 2, 2003 cR~C~O UCAMONGA 2. Approval of Warrants1 Register March 11 through March 25, 2003, and 1 Payroll March 11 through March 25, 2003, for the total amount of $2,391,847.68. 3. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for 26 Citywide Street Name Sign Replacement, Phase I, to be funded from Acct. No. 1025001-5300. RESOLUTION NO. 03-076 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITYVVlDE STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 1, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the 31 Heritage Park Storage Shed Project, to be funded from Acct. No. 11203055650/120712-0. RESOLUTION NO. 03-077 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE HERITAGE PARK STORAGE SHED IN SAID CiTY 5. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for FY 39 2002/2003 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Overlay of Various Streets, to be funded from Acct. Nos. 11763035650/1022176 (Measure 'T'), 118230305650/1022182 (AB 2928, 11703035650/1022170 (Gas Tax). RESOLUTION NO. 03-078 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FY 2002~2003 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 6. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for 46 Phase lB of Community Facilities District 2001-01 to be funded from Acct. No. 16123035650/1442612-0 and Phase 3B of Community Facilities District 2003-01 from Acct. No. 16143035650. ' CITY COUNCIL AGEND^ o.o APRIL 2, 2003 3 CUCAOdONGA RESOLUTION NO. 03-079 48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FOR PHASE lB OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 AND PHASE 3A OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01, CONSISTING OF STREET, STORM DRAIN, LANDSCAPING AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS, IN SAID CITY, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 7. Approval of a Request to Summarily Vacate an Easement for Construction Purposes, V-193, located between 4th Street and 6th 54 Street, along the west side of Milliken Avenue - APN: 210-082-47, 60, 61. RESOLUTION NO. 03-080 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES- APN: 210- 082-47, 60, 61 8. Approval of a Request to Summarily Vacate Excess Street Right-of-Way 60 along the west side of Center Avenue fronting the properly located at 9180 Center Avenue; V-190 -APN: 209-261-28. RESOLUTION NO. 03-081 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE FRONTING THE PROPERTY AT 9180 CENTER AVENUE 9. Approval of IBM hardware and software annual maintenance 65 agreements with IBM for FY 200312004 in the amount of $48,178.00 from Acct. No. 1001-209-5300. 10. Approval and authorization of a single source vendor selection for the completion of an irrigation retrofit project from Mariposa Horticultural 66 Enterprises, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $37,000, to be funded from Acct. No. 1110316-5650/1119110-0. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 APRIL 2, 2003 cR C.O UCAMONGA 11. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with AEF System 67 Consulting, Inc., (CO 03-021), appropriated from RDA Acct. No. 26508015300 in the amount of $25,000 for Technical Needs Assessment Consulting Services for the City of Rancho Cucamonga Cultural Art Center and Central Park Projects. 12. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the 69 execution of the contract in the amount of $147,020.50 ($133,655.00 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent Iow bidder, All American Asphalt (CO 03-022), for the Construction of Lemon Avenue Street Rehabilitation from Beryl Street to Amethyst Avenue, to be funded from Measure "1" Funds, Acct. No. 11763035650/1411176-0. 13. Approval to award and authorize the execution of the Professional Services Agreement for Temporary Contract Inspection of Various 73 Citywide Capital Improvement Projects to Aufbau Corporation (CO 03- 023) in an amount not to exceed $120,000.00, to be funded from Capital Improvements Funds, Accts. 11703035300 (Contract Services), 10013045300 (Contract Services) and 10013045306 (CFD). 14. Approval of an increase to the Professional Services Agreement for Oracle and SQL Database Consulting with Prudence Huang (CO 03- 82 024) from the original amount of $15,600 to $22,000 from Acct. No. 1001-209-5300. 15. Approval for a contract for a Police Department telephone relocation project and City's telephone switch and network upgrade with NEC, Inc., 87 (CO 03-025) utilizing a California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS), Contract #3-98-00-0226a, appropriated and funded from Fund 2624- 801-5325 in the amount of $71,000 and from the City's reserve Fund 1712-001-5300 in the amount of $110,545. 16. Approval of a contract amendment to extend the contract for U.S 89 Guards, Inc. (CO 01-060) to June 30, 2003; authorize additional expenditures from Acct. No. 1001312-5304 ($6,260), 1001312-5300 ($42,400) and 1700201-5304 ($29,350) to cover this contract period and extra work; and approve and authorize security coverage at the library in the amount of $11,000, to be funded from Acct. No. 1290601-5300. 17. Approval to release the Maintenance Bond for DR 00-73, located on Charles Smith Avenue, south of Sixth Street to terminus of Rochester 90 Court, submitted by Paragon Rochester, LLC. 18. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance 92 Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for Parcel Map 15536, submitted by Fairway Palms LLC, located on the south side of Fifth Street, west of Milliken Avenue. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APmL 2, 2003 5 RESOLUTION NO. 03-082 94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15536 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 19. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 6023277-M in the amount of $781,550.69 for the Foothill Boulevard Median Improvements Phase II, Deer Creek Bridge Widening and Storm Drain Project, Contract No. 00-014. 20. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. SB0066334 97 in the amount of $255,039.15 for the Lower Hermosa Storm Drain and Street Widening, Phase I, Contract No. 00-078. 21. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 6064652 in 99 the amount of $167,919.00 for the Metrolink Station Expansion, Phase II, Contract No. 00-096. 22. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 6064654 in '10'l the amount of $52,896.00 for the Civic Center East Parking Lot Expansion, Contract No. 01-022. 2:3. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. FC910600036 in the amount of $14,209.30 for the Red Hill Park Storage Building and Storage Shed and the Heritage Park Storage Shed, Bid Alternate No. 2 (Buildings A & B), Contract No. 01-055. 24. Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bond No. 929202598 in the amount of $554,281.00 for the Lower Hermosa Avenue Phase I Utility Underground and Street Light Improvements from 4th Street to th approximately 350 feet south of 8 Street, Contract No. 01-089. 25. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. FS6629491 in the amount of $6,247.83 for the Banyan Street Right Turn Lane west of Milliken Avenue, Contract No. 01-100. 26 Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bond No. 83SB103563499 '109 BCM in the amount of $184,424.10 for the 6th Street Pavement Rehabilitation from Hellman Avenue to Archibald Avenue, Contract No. 01-101. 27. Approval to accept the Construction of the Arrow Route Pavement Rehabilitation from Grove Avenue to Baker Avenue, Contract No. 02- 'l'l'l 050, 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 $276,980.10. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA .R o.o APRIL 2, 2003 6 RESOLUTION NO. 03-083 113 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE ARROW ROUTE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM GROVE AVENUE TO BAKER AVENUE, CONTRACT NO, 02-050, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK F. 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP - A request to change the General Plan land use designation within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Districts from Office to Mixed Use to allow for Office and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) for 7.24 acres of land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Channel. The City will also consider Mixed Use to allow for Office and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative for the entire site - APN: 207-101-32, 33, and 50. Related files: Pre- Application Review DRC2002-00450, Preliminary Review DRC2002- 00589, Development District Amendment DDA2002-00001, and Development Code Amendment DCA2002-00001. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DDA2002A30001 - FRAZIER GROUP - A request to change ~e Development District zoning designation within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Districts from Office to Mb(ed Use to allow for Office and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwel]ing units per acre) for 7.24 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Channel. The City will also consider Mixed Use to allow for Ofrce and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative for the entire site - APN: 207-101-32, 33, and 50. Related Files: Pm-Applica'don Review DRC2002-00450, Preliminary Review DRC2002-00589, General Plan Amendment GPA2002q:)0001, and Development Cede Amendment DCA2.002-00001. Staff has prepared a Negative Dedara'don of environmental impacts for oonsideratJon. '~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ,,~RANcHO APRIL 2, 2003 7 ~._.~UC~VlONGA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP - A request to add a Mixed Use zoning designation description to Sections 17.08.030.F and 17.32 of the Development Cede to allow for Office and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) for 7.24 acres of land located on the no~ side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucemonga Channel. The City will also consider Mixed Use to allow for Office and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) as an altema'dve for the entire site - APN: 207-101-32, 33, and 50. Related Files: Pre-Application Review DRC2002-00450, Preliminary Review DRC2002-00589, General Plan Amendment GPA2002-000011, and Development District Amendment DDA2002-00001. Staff has prepared a Negative Declara'don of environmental impacts for consideration. ORDINANCE NO. 702 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DDA2002-00001, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM OFFICE TO MIXED USE FOR 7.24 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-101-32, 33 AND 50 ORDINANCE NO. 703 (second reading) '123 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2002-00001, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OFFICE USES, OR MEDIUM- HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OFFICE USES WHEN DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT (SHOD), WITH ACCOMPANYING DEFINITIONS, PROCESSING PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08 AND 17.32 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA'S DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR 7.24 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-101-32, 33 AND 50 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 8 APRIL 2, 2003 RANCHO CUCA~ONGA 2. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-00031 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.32 (Foothill Boulevard Districts) of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, permitting private school uses within all four subareas and modifying the requirements for public hearing notices within the Foothill Boulevard Districts to a 300-foot radius of proposed projects. ORDINANCE NO. 704 (second reading) 135 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-00031, AMENDING SECTION 17.32 (FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, PERMITTING PRIVATE SCHOOL USES WITHIN ALL FOUR SUBAREAS AND MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES OF THE FOUR SUBAREAS OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS TO A 300-FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT G. 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 141 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 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. (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5, 2003) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA . R c.o APRIL 2, 2003 9 [~UCAMONG& RESOLUTION NO. 03-058 404 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 l-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, ADOPTING A REVISED AND RE-CIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, APN: 207-211-12 AND 13 2. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2002- 416 2003 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN - A proposed amendment to the 2002- 2003 Annual Action Plan to increase the level of funding to a historic preservation activity funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR 4'18 FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 - A review of the federally-required Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2003-2004, including the preliminary selection of projects for the CDBG annual application, based on a new grant allocation of $1,170,000. u. 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. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 10 APRIL 2, 2003 cR~c.o ]] I. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS [I The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT RCPARK. COM WEBSITE AND INSTANTRC ON-LINE CLASS 459 REGISTRATION - Project Update 2. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE BUILDING AND 465 SAFETY DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT A CODE ENFORCEMENT GRANT APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 03-084 467 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION, THE INCURRING OF AN OBLIGATION, THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE A GRANT FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM (CEGP) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. REPORT ON THE LIBRARY BOOK MOBILE - Project Update (Oral) 4. PRESENTATION ON "EVERY 15-MINUTES"- Project Update (Oral) IIJ. 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. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FOR TRAFFIC 469 CONTROL ON ROCHESTER AVENUE DURING QUAKES BASEBALL GAMES (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 19, 2003) 2. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Oral) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA R o.o APRIL 2, 2003 11 ~UC, AMONOA K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING This is the time for CRy Council to identify the items thsy wish to discuss at the next mesting, lhese items will not he discusssd at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. L. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 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. 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 March 27, 2003, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. March 5, 2003 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, March 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 7:15 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Absent was Councilmember: Robert J. Howdyshell Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Director; Flavio Nunez, RDA Analyst; James C. Frost, City Treasurer; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Lorraine Phong, Information Systems Analyst; Sam Davis, Information Systems Specialist; Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Francie Madindale, Marketing Manager; Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to John Mannerino for his years of dedicated service to the City as Planning Commissioner. Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to John Mannerino and thanked him for his service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Mannerino stated his greatest pleasure of all the things he has done with the City is to serve on the Planning Commission and thanked the City for this special recognition. B2. Francie Martindale, Marketing Manager, talked about the activities scheduled for the May 10th Silver Anniversary Celebration. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. John Lyons reminded everyone to support our troops over seas. He talked about RanchoRecall.org and talked about the campaign contributions of Councilmember Gutierrez. He stated the mailing address for RanchoRecall is: P.O. Box 2641, Rancho Cucamonga 91729 - phone number: 980-0935. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 2 C2. Darlene Nichols, 7828 Amador, stated she supports the Mayor and the job he has done. She stated she has been involved with the League of Women Voters and wanted to encourage people to register to vote..She referred to the December 4 Council meeting. She stated she did not like how the appointments of Kurth and Howdyshell were made and felt this is an example of why people don't care to get out and vote in elections. She asked everyone to get out and support the recall effort. C3. Chris Prato, General Manager of the San Bernardino Public Employees Association, stated their organization represents over 16,000 public employees in San Bernardino County. He stated Rancho Cucamonga employees are one of two cities in San Bernardino County that are not represented by any labor representation. He stated they have been contacted by employees of the City asking for representation which they are allowed that right under the law. He continued to state that certain officials of the City are responding with a campaign of threats, harassment and intimidation which is aimed not only at employees but the blue color group as a whole and even a member of his staff. He felt the City's Managers are violating the State and Federal law. He stated two employees in the maintenance group have received letters of reprimand, threatening their employment because they are seeking professional representation. He stated that is their right to do this. He stated they will vigorously defend these employees' rights. He felt it is long overdue for Rancho Cucamonga to come into the 21st Century. He felt employees needed to be treated with the respect they deserve. C4. Matthew Carrol, Sapphire, commented on a Sheriff's person that went to his friend's house and told him he was into drugs. He stated he has never done anything like that and did not have a record. C5. Jim Frost commented on the men and women in the armed service. He talked about John Mannerino and his service to the City as a Planning Commissioner. He continued to talk how the first Planning Commission was selected. C6. Brenda Facio stated she spoke at the last meeting about the law enforcement in the City. She asked that the Council look into this. She stated she and her son are not drug dealers. She stated the deputies are slandering her. She indicated she had asked that this be placed on the next agenda at the last meeting and does not see it on their now. James Markman, City Attorney, stated this family has come before the Council a number of times in the past and accused the Sheriff's Department of every kind of encroachment imaginable. He stated the Captain has stated no one can respond to this because there is a criminal investigation currently going on, there is a human being in jail on more than $1,000,000 bail and that there is an internal affairs investigation going on in the Sheriff's Department because of these accusations. He stated because no one is responding to these accusations does not mean they agree with them, and added the City does not agree with any of them. He stated this is being looked into. He stated if this family would like to file a claim he could investigate and respond to it, but they haven't done so. Mayor Alexander stated this is being reviewed, but that legally it cannot be talked about at this time. C7. Leslie Grimes felt having the right to vote is very important. She felt people do not vote because they feel their vote does not have any power. She felt this was very wrong. She mentioned how Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell were appointed and added she did not know what their vision was for the City. She felt the citizens have the righ! to know this. She stated a special election is costly, but on the other hand only costs $3.50 per registered voter. She felt the City Council should set up a special fund in case there is a need for a special election for the future, and laid her $3.50 on the table to be put in this special fund. 08. Joan DeBarge stated she is learning about government in her senior government class. She stated if there had been a vote, she would not have voted for Don Kurth because he had beat her mother up about 10 years ago and he had a drug addiction. She hoped that the Council would reconsider the election. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 3 C9. Melanie Ingram stated the recall effort is moving along. She felt people in the community do not like what has happened with the appointments and that they are supportive of the recall. She stated the recall effort is directed towards the illegal and unethical actions taken by Councilmembers Williams and Gutierrez which led to the appointments of Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell. She stated people need to understand that City business was done in private and that people were denied the right to speak and denied their privilege to vote. She continued to talk about the campaign contributions of Rex Gutierrez. She stated one of his contributions was from Susan Trager who is associated with the Colonies Project. She stated the Council will continue to see them here regarding the Colonies project and issues they are not happy with. She pointed out that Dr. Kurth has also taken developer contributions in the past. She added that Councilmember Williams has also taken developer contributions and stated perception is everything. C10. Steve Jennings, resident of the City for 13 years, commented on the great recreation programs through the Community Services Department. He felt the citizens need to be heard and that Councilmember Williams should do what is best for the City. He felt Councilmember Williams has not told the truth in the past about how the appointments were made. He stated Councilmember Williams has walked over the Mayor and has stabbed him in the back. He felt Councilmember Kurth should have respecffully declined his appointment. He said they are suppoding the Mayor and the people that will do right for the City. Cll. Melanie Ingram stated the forgot to leave her $3.50 when she previously spoke and left it on the table. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there is a modified staff report and Resolution for item D8 which has been distributed to the Council and that it should be replaced with the one that is in the agenda packet. D1. Approval of Minutes: February 5, 2003 February 19, 2003 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register February11 through February 25, 2003, and Payroll ending February 25, 2003, for the total amount of $3,026,180.52. D3. Approval to adopt Annual Statement of Investment Policy. D4. Approval for annual product support and subscription renewal from the sole-source provider, Oracle, in the amount of $55,524, to be funded from General Fund, Administrative Services Department, Information Systems Division Acct. No. 1001-209-5300. D5. Approval for 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 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 Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 4 D6. Approval to purchase 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 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. D7. Approval of an application for a Used Oil Recycling Block Grant Funds from the Used Oil Recycling Fund under the Used Oil Recycling Enhancement Act. RESOLUTION NO. 03-044 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 RECYC, LING FUND UNDER THE USED OIL RECYCLING GRANT DS. 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, Haven Avenue from 19~h 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 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 D9. Approval of a Resolution approving the application for California Beverage Container Recycling Container and Litter Reduction annual payment by the California Department of Conservation Division of Recycling. RESOLUTION NO. 03-046 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 D10. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Tract rvlap 15724, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, east of Coyote Canyon Park, submitted by KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 03-047 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. 03-046 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 Dll. 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, submitted by Catellus Development Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 03-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CQUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15630, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY D12. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Dan Guerra and 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. 11763035650/1446176-0. D13. Approval to authorize the execution of an amendment to the 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 Guerra 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 "l" fund balance. D14. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with RMA Group (CO 03-012) 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 Acct. No. 11763035650/1446176-0. D15. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Urban Crossroads (CO 03-013) in the amount of $36,950.00 (plus 10% contingency) to 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. REMOVED FOR DISGU$$1ON BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. D16. Approval to release a Drainage Acceptance Agreement located from 5th Street onto Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 14647, submitted by General Dynamics Properties. RESOLUTION NO. 03-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT FROM GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES, INC. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 6 D17. 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 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 D18. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 15797-1 located on the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane, submitted by Tava Development, dba Citation Homes. D19. Approval to 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. RESOLUTION NO. 03-052 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 D20. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance 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 nodheast corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way. RESOLUTION NC). 03-053 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 D21. Approval to accept the construction of 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. RESOLUTION NO. 03-054 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 D22. Approval to accept the construction of 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 Acct. No. 11763035650/1301176-0 from Measure "1" fund balance, release the bonds, accept a Maintenance Bond, release the Labor and Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to fife a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $2,510,502.32. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 03-055 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 D23. Approval to release Faithful Performance Bond No. 83SB 103463488 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. D24. Approval to release a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien 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 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 D25. Approval to release a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien 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 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 D26. 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: 3/15/03). MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Kurth to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar as modified and with the exception of item D15. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Howdyshell absent). DISCUSSION OF ITEM D15. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Urban Crossroads (CO 03-013) in the amount of $36,950.00 (plus 10% contingency) to 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. Councilmember Williams asked Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, to give a staff report. Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. He added the February 11 Route 30 Task Force meeting is running on Channel 3 on Saturday and Sunday all this month. Councilmember Williams felt people should watch the tape and get their questions answered, but if they have further questions they should contact Joe O'Neil at City Hall. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 8 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve item D15. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Howdyshell absent). E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDERATION OF THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN EACH OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 699. ORDINANCE NO. 699 (second 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 approve Ordinance No. 699. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Howdyshell absent). F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL 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 Commercial 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. James Markman, City Attorney, stated the appellant has filed a set of documents with the City Clerk at approximately 7:00 p.m., and that the Council has not had the opportunity to look at these technical documents. He felt the Council needed time to read the information and suggested the Council take a recess. A recess was taken at 8:12 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:28 p.m. with all members of the City Council present (Howdyshell absent). James Markman, City Attorney, stated staff is recommending continuing this matter for two weeks to Mamh 19, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers because the environmental impact consultant has not had the oppodunity to review and respond to it. He also added since Councilmember Howdyshell was not present, it would be better to have the whole Council present on these types of hearings. He stated staff is asking for two weeks to respond to the latest technical information. Mayor Alexander stated he is offended that people bring information in at the last minute prior to the Council meeting, and asked that the information be submitted in a timely manner. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 9 Councilmember Gutierrez stated he feels bad this cannot be discussed tonight, but did not feel it was right to get the information at the last minute. RESOLUTION NO. 03-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM©NGA, 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 l-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 MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to continue the item to March 19, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Howdyshell absent). G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Oral) Councilmember Williams stated she and Mayor Alexander along with other neighboring cities' representatives had been to Sacramento to talk to legislators about protecting the City's local funds which is an ongoing issue until the State finds a way to solve their deficit problem and quit looking at cities as a source to take revenue. She stated she and the Mayor had also gone to Washington, D.C. to visit Congress members and also Senators Boxer and Feinstein to try to obtain funds for various projects and for a fire truck. She stated she really felt being there in person helped the cause and that these trips have paid off in the past. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. City Council Minutes March 5, 2003 Page 10 K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Howdyshell absent). The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * March 10, 2003 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meetinf:l A. CALLTO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Monday, March 10, 2003 in the Training Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 2:40 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Dr. Donald J. Kurth, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; and James Markman, City Attorney. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. C. ITEM OF BUSINESS C1. CONTINUATION OF ANNUAL TEAM BUILDING/GOALS MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP The City Council continued their team building discussions and goals for the year 2003. (A copy of the "Goals Review 2003" is on file in the City Clerk's office.) D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. It was decided the discussions would continue at a future meeting. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * March 14, 2003 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Meetin~l A. CALLTO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Friday, March 14, 2003 in the Training Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 4:20 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez (arrived at 4:25 p.m.), Robert J. Howdyshell, Dr. Donald J. Kurth, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; and James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, Trang Huynh, Building Official; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Tamara Layne, Finance Officer; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Chief Dennis Michael, Fire Protection District; Captain Pete Ortiz, Police Department; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. ' B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. C. ITEM OF BUSINESS C1. CONTINUATION OF ANNUAL TEAM BUILDING/GOALS MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP The City Council continued their team building discussions and goals for the year 2003. (A copy of the "Goals Review 2003" is on file in the City Clerk's office.) D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * T H E ' C I T Y 0 F I~ANCIIO CI/CAI~ONGA MemorandmT DA'r~: March 2~, 2003 ~ TO: Rex Guti~e~cilmember F~M: Pam Eas~puty Ci~ Manager ~E~: Warrants Review ~or Council Meetmg--Aprd' ' 2, 2003 The City Attorney has had an opportunity to review the Summary of Warrants for the April 2, 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 Markman, City Attorney Debbie Adams, City Clerk Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Tamara Layne, Finance Officer Ann Haworth, Accounting Services Supervisor T H E C ~ T Y O F [~ A N C II 0 C lJ C A PI 0 N G A Memorandum DATE: March 26, 2003 TO: Debbie Adams, City Clerk CC: Jack Lam, City Manager Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager Jim Markman, City Attorney Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Ann Haworth, Accounting Services Supervisor FROM: Tamara L. Layne, Finance Officer ¢~o SUBJECT: Summary of Warrants Issued to Vendors Representing Possible Conflict of Interest for Councilmember Gutierrez - Council Meeting Date: April 2, 2003 Attached for your reference is a summary of warrants by entity that were issued to vendors representing a possible conflict of interest for Councilmember Gutierrez due to his personal business dealings with them. These warrants are included in the Consent Calendar section of each entity's agenda. If you have any questions regarding the attached, please give me a call at extension 2430. Thank you. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF WARRANTS COUNClLMEMBER GUTIERREZ SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 2, 2003 VENDOR CHECK # DATE AMOUNT Arrowhead Credit Union 194692 3/12/2003 $ 3,760.67 Deer Creek Car Care Center 194991 3/19/2003 $ 14.00 Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce 195096 3/19/2003 $ 360.00 Southern Cai Edison 194861 3/12/2003 $ 102,772.84 Southern Cai Edison 195121 3/19/2003 $ 14,702.71 hfinance[accounts payablelcouncil warrant list. xls CITY- 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUMMARY OF WARRANTS COUNClLMEMBER GUTIERREZ SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 2, 2003 VENDOR CHECK # DATE AMOUNT Arrowhead Credit Union 194692 3/12/2003 $817.50 klfinance~accounts payable~council warrant list. xls RDA- 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SUMMARY OF WARRANTS COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 2, 2003 VENDOR CHECK # DATE AMOUNT NONE- SEE APRIL 16 AGENDA h~financelaccounts payable~council warrant list. xls FI RE- 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/2512003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194679 3/12/2003 A I SMOG AND REPAIR 30.00 AP- 00194679 3/12/2003 A 1 SMOG AND REPAIR 182.11 AP - 00194680 3/12/2003 ABLAC 294.06 AP - 00194681 3/12/2003 ABORIDA, ABRAHAM 46.00 AP - 00194682 3/12/2003 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,152.00 AP - 00194682 3/12/2003 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,280.00 AP - 00194683 3/12/2003 ALL CITIES TOOLS 50.64 AP - 00194683 3/12/2003 ALL CITIES TOOLS 110.90 AP - 00194683 3/12/2003 ALL CITIES TOOLS 32.86 AP - 00194683 3/12/2003 ALL CITIES TOOLS 64.65 AP- 00194683 3/12/2003 ALLCITIES TOOLS 10.51 AP - 00194684 3/12/2003 ALL DATA 1,616.25 AP - 00194685 3/12/2003 ALPERTS PRINTING 271.24 AP - 00194686 3/12/2003 ALPHAGRAPHICS 25.71 AP - 00194687 3/12/2003 AMERI NATIONAL 260.00 AP- 00194689 3/12/2003 ANGUIANO, RIGOBERTO 81.00 AP-00194690 3/12/2003 ARCH WIRELESS 1,125.39 AP - 00194691 3/12/2003 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 3,080.00 AP - 00194692 3/12/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 369.77 AP - 00194692 3/12/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 165.34 AP - 00194692 3/12/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 180.00 AP - 00194692 3/12/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 2,917.42 AP - 00194692 3/12/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 68.65 AP - 00194692 3/12/2003 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 59.49 AP- 00194693 3/12/2003 ASPEN PUBLISHERS INC 168.92 AP - 00194694 3/12/2003 ASSOCIATED GROUP 60.00 AP - 00194694 3/12/2003 ASSOCIATED GROLrp '1,864.23 AP - 00194695 3/12/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 145.46 AP - 00194695 3/12/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 141.58 AP- 00194696 3/12/2003 B AND T BINDERS 95.00 AP-00194698 3/12/2003 BAUTISTA, JOSE 200.00 AP - 00194699 3/12/2003 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 2,328.00 AP - 00194700 3/12/2003 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORP 765.03 AP- 00194701 3/12/2003 BOJORQUEZ, GINA 180.00 AP- 00194702 3/12/2003 BOYLE ENGINEERING 32,096.27 AP - 00194703 3/12/2003 BREAKTHROUGH DYNAMICS LLC 2,000.00 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 1,041.25 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 492.99 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 161.01 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.30 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 1,347.10 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.74 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 2,544.16 AP- 00194704 3/12/2003 BRODART BOOKS 585.39 AP- 00194705 3/12/2003 BUBALO CONSTRUCTION CO INC, MIKE 181,599.06 AP- 00194705 3/12/2003 BUBALO CONSTRUCTION CO INC, MIKE 17,743.60 AP- 00194705 3/12/2003 BUBALO CONSTRUCTION CO INC, MIKE 41,679.44 AP- 00194707 3/12/2003 BUTLER JR, EMANUEL 100.00 AP- 00194708 3/12/2003 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 259.38 AP - 00194709 3/12/2003 CALIFORNIA DEBT ISSUANCE PRIMER 25.00 AP- 00194710 3/12/2003 CENTRAL DIVISION 359.72 AP - 00194711 3/12/2003 CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT 449.50 AP-00194712 3/12/2003 CHAPMAN, SYLVIA 55.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: I Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name. Amount AP - 00194713 3/12/2003 CHARTER MIEDIA 548.80 AP - 00194714 3/12/2003 CHAVARRIA, DIANNE 85.00 AP - 00194717 3/12/2003 CLAREMONT READING CONFERENCE 150.00 AP - 00194718 3/12/2003 COMBINED CLAIMS CONFERENCE 150.00 AP-00194719 3/12/2003 CONCANNON, SHARI 149.50 AP - 00194720 3/12/2003 CONCEPT POWDER COATING 150.00 AP - 00194721 3/12/2003 COPP CRUSHING CORP, DAN 40.00 AP - 00194722 3/12/2003 COURT TRUSTEE 200.00 AP - 00194722 3/12/2003 COURT TRUSTEE 118.50 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 78.50 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 33.32 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 136.33 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 51.72 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 43.48 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 100.86 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 118.80 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 119.83 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 258.54 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 893.37 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 120.67 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 278.82 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 3,165.56 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 73.14 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 41.42 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 44.51 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 41.42 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 121.91 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 18.40 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 59.96 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 119.49 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 774.93 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 206.95 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 174.08 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 86.53 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 203.19 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 36.80 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 143.54 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 302.10 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 298.71 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 33.18 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 232.79 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 175.11 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003' CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 59.96 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 256.48 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 204.98 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 77.81 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 107.13 AP- 00194724 3/i2/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 562.75 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 86.74 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 197.77 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 1,235.53 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CIICAMONGA CO WATER DIST 58.93 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 141.12 User: ahunsb~r - Ann Hunsberger Page: 2 Current Date: 03/25/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 523.25 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 151.42 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 327.55 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 412.01 AP- 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 132.88 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 27.14 AP - 00194724 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 324.82 AP - 00194725 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 1,050.00 AP - 00194725 3/12/2003 CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 1,400.00 AP - 00194727 3/12/2003 DECORDOVA, CHRISTINE 85.00 AP - 00194728 3/12/2003 DElVlPSTER, KERI 144.00 AP- 00194729 3/12/2003 DICK, ERIC 50.00 AP-00194729 3/12/2003 DICK, ERIC 50.00 AP - 00194731 3/12/2003 EIGHTH AVENUE GRAPHICS 1,297.31 AP - 00194732 3/12/2003 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 749.99 AP - 00194734 3/12/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 108.77 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 17.08 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 28.95 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 17.21 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 21.06 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 19.07 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 13.08 AP- 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 10.01 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 9.71 AP - 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 9.23 AP 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 17.08 AP 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 14.76 AP 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 25.77 AP 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 29.07 AP 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 20.39 AP 00194735 3/12/2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.53 AP 00194736 3/12/2003 FILARSKY AND WATT 3,450.00 AP 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP - 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 799.31 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 859.13 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 95.39 AP ~ 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,440.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 175.50 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 368.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 792.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 243.75 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 652.50 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,440.00 AP- 00194737 3/12/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 269.11 AP - 00194738 3/12/2003 FOOTHILL CARPET AND MATTRESS 1,059.00 AP - 00194738 3/12/2003 FOOTHILL CARPET AND MATTRESS 2,535.00 AP- 00194739 3/12/2003 FUKUSHIMA, JUDITH 1,590.00 AP - 00194740 3/12/2003 GADABOUT TOURS INC 723.60 AP - 00194741 3/12/2003 GENTOSI BUILDERS 1,000.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 3 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:,1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194744 3/12/2003 GRAINGER, WW 9.46 AP-00194744 3/12/2003 GRAINGER, WW 36.18 AP-00194744 3/12/2003 GRAINGER, WW 831.56 AP - 00194745 3/12/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 135.77 AP - 00194746 3/12/2003 GUIJARRO, XIOMARA 100.00 AP - 00194747 3/12/2003 HAGAN, RICHARD 40.00 AP - 00194748 3/12/2003 HAN, JULIET 200.00 AP - 00194749 3/12/2003 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY 315.25 AP - 00194750 3/12/2003 HARDY, BRADLEY 260.50 AP - 00194752 3/12/2003 HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH 1,000.00 AP 00194752 3/12/2003 HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH 1,000.00 AP 00194753 3/12/2003 HILTON SAN JOSE & TOWERS 1,311.76 AP 00194754 3/12/2003 HOLIDAY PRINTING 18,458.74 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 13.95 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 343.72 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 99.28 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 131.76 AP - 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF -49.52 AP - 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 240.26 AP - 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 72.58 AP - 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 49.52 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 29.20 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 30.89 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 106.48 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 91.59 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 94.23 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 52.75 · AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 75.48 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 17.07 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 28.58 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 12.87 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 30.11 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 211.69 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 87.13 AP 00194755 3/12/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 205.69 AP 00194758 3/12/2003 HULS ENVIRONMENTAL MGTLLC 6,512.50 AP 00194759 3/12/2003 HURST, CHERYL 288.50 AP 00194760 3/12/2003 HYDRO TEK SYSTEMS INC 1,315.32 AP 00194760 3/12/2003 HYDRO TEK SYSTEMS INC -327.34 AP 00194761 3/12/2003 IBM CORPORATION 612.47 AP 00194761 3/12/2003 IBM CORPORATION 417.38 AP 00194762 3/12/2003 INLAND EMPIRE DIVISION LEAGUE OF CALIF. ~ 100.00 AP 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 334.95 AP 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 407.50 AP 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 407.50 AP 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 114.60 AP 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 281.40 AP 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 422.00 AP 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 422.00 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 285.60 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 249.90 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DALLY BULLETIN 407.50 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 407.50 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 4 Current Date: 03/25/20~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:, 16:54:4 q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 159.60 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 169.05 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 142.80 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 634.20 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 142.80 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 139.65 AP - 00194763 3/12/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 498.75 AP - 00194764 3/12/2003 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 311.62 AP - 00194765 3/12/2003 J J KELLER AND ASSOC INC 119.81 AP - 00194766 3/12/2003 KB HOMES GREATER LOS ANGELES INC 400.00 AP - 00194767 3/12/2003 KERREY CONSULTING, JULES 280.00 AP - 00194768 3/12/2003 KllvlLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES 3,360.00 AP - 00194768 3/12/2003 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES 11,760.00 AP- 00194769 3/12/2003 KOTZIN AND ASSOCIATES, R 1,985.10 AP - 00194769 3/12/2003 KOTZIN AND ASSOCIATES, R 93.50 AP - 00194771 3/12/2003 LANGLOIS, SALLY 85.00 AP - 00194772 3/12/2003 LAWSON PRODUCTS 1NC 234.68 AP - 00194773 3/12/2003 LEADERSHIP CONNECTION, THE 400.00 AP - 00194774 3/12/2003 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES 23,312.00 AP - 00194775 3/12/2003 LEE, IN IEONG 50.00 AP - 00194779 3/12/2003 LOGUE & ASSOCIATES 100.00 AP - 00194780 3/12/2003 LOWER, DARLENE 251.00 AP - 00194781 3/12/2003 MAHMOND, MOHAMED 46.00 AP - 00194782 3/12/2003 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 24.19 AP - 00194783 3/12/2003 MARTINEZ, MARTHA 200.00 AP - 00194784 3/12/2003 MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 94.76 AP- 00194785 3/12/2003 MCARDLE, KEVIN 122.86 AP - 00194786 3/12/2003 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 139.29 AP - 00194786 3/12/2003 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 33.85 AP - 00194787 3/12/2003 MDM T SHIRT AND PROMO 171.32 AP - 00194788 3/12/2003 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 387.33 AP - 00194789 3/12/2003 MOORE, DAVE 250.00 AP - 00194791 3/12/2003 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 89.97 AP - 00194791 3/12/2003 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 109.11 AP- 00194792 3/12/2003 MR TS 24HR TOWING 122.00 AP - 00194793 3/12/2003 MULBERRY EARLY LEARNING 200.00 AP - 00194793 3/12/2003 MULBERRY EARLY LEARNING 100.00 AP - 00194794 3/12/2003 N M A DUES C/O NAOMI ROBERTS 13.85 AP - 00194795 3/12/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 24,247.27 AP - 00194796 3/12/2003 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOC 450.00 AP - 00194797 3/12/2003 NESTOR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 16,920.00 AP - 00194797 3/12/2003 NESTOR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 16,920.00 AP - 00194797 3/12/2003 NESTOR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 16,920.00 AP-00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -18.91 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 67.56 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 646.49 · AP-00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 12.54 AP-00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -158.80 AP-00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 158.80 AP-00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 14.80 AP- 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 22.62 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 251.49 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 66.98 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 5 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 101.64 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -9.15 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -3.05 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 3.05 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 16.96 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 77.30 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 92.54 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 9.18 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 21.25 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 15.23 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OlqqCE DEPOT 569.29 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OI~YICE DEPOT 154.06 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 82.88 AP - 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -29.11 AP- 00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 3.86 AP-00194798 3/12/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 330.33 AP - 00194799 3/12/2003 OHIO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 77.35 AP - 00194800 3/12/2003 OMNITRANS 255.00 AP - 00194800 3/12/2003 OMNITRANS 435.00 AP - 00194803 3/12/2003 OTSUKA, DENNIS 200.00 AP - 00194804 3/12/2003 OTT, LAURA 72.00 AP-00194804 3/12/2003 OTT, LAURA 216.00 AP - 00194804 3/12/2003 OTT, LAURA 63.00 AP-00194805 3/12/2003 OTT, SHARON 70.00 AP - 00194805 3/12/2003 OTT, SHARON 70.00 AP - 00194806 3/12/2003 PAC1FIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC 28.45 AP- 00194808 3/12/2003 PALLOTTO, BILL 250.00 AP - 00194809 3/12/2003 PDR/RED BOOK 69.95 AP - 00194810 3/12/2003 PERVO PAINT CO 150.85 AP - 00194811 3/12/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 54.00 AP - 00194811 3/12/2003 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 119.19 AP - 00194812 3/12/2003 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 464.21 AP- 00194815 3/12/2003 PMI 1,245.92 AP - 00194816 3/12/2003 POMONA INLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHUR~ 506.25 AP - 00194817 3/12/2003 POP WARNER, RANCHO CUCAMONGA 487.96 AP- 00194818 3/12/2003 POWERPLUS 25.00 AP - 00194819 3/12/2003 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION 1NC 31.55 AP- 00194819 3/12/2003 PRAXAIRDISTRIBUTION INC 21.55 AP - 00194820 3/12/2003 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 122.58 AP - 00194821 3/12/2003 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 9,250.00 AP- 00194822 3/12/2003 QUINTANA, ZITA 193.00 AP - 00194824 3/12/2003 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY/POWERPLAN 28.92 AP - 00194824 3/12/2003 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANYfPOWERPLAN 0.01 AP - 00194824 3/12/2003 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY/POWERPLAN 1,823.75 AP - 00194824 3/12/2003 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY/POWERPLAN 70.21 AP - 00194824 3/12/2003 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY/POWERPLAN 157.34 AP- 00194825 3/12/2003 RED WING SHOE STORE 128.22 AP - 00194826 3/12/2003 REDINGER, TOM 27.00 AP - 00194827 3/12/2003 REINHARDT, RITA 24.00 AP - 00194828 3/12/2003 REINltARDTSEN, DEBRA 282.50 AP- 00~94829 3/12/2003 RH TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP - 00194829 3/12/2003 RH TECHNOLOGY 248.00 AP - 00194829 3/12/2003 RH TECHNOLOGY 544.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 6 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~ 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194829 3/12/2003 RH TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP - 00194830 3/12/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 6,006.47 AP ~ 00194830 3/12/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 12,078.37 AP - 00194830 3/12/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 4,733.00 AP- 00194831 3/I2/2003 RIVERA, MARIE 106.67 AP ~ 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 100.24 AP - 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 35.56 AP - 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 320.10 AP-00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 127.36 AP - 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 200.09 AP - 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 74.35 AP - 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 134.15 AP - 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 113.65 AP- 00194832 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 213.71 AP - 00194833 3/12/2003 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 226.00 AP- 00194834 3/12/2003 RMAGROUP 167.00 AP - 00194835 3/12/2003 RMA GROUP 14,944.00 AP- 00194836 3/12/2003 RMAGROUP 19,472.75 AP- 00194837 3/12/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 65.00 AP - 00194837' 3/12/2003 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 59.00 AP - 00194839 3/12/2003 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 44.06 AP - 00194839 3/12/20'03 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 44.06 AP- 00194839 3/12/2003 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 183.18 AP - 00194839 3/12/2003 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 99.08 AP- 00194839 3/12/2003 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 213.52 AP- 00194840 3/12/2003 SAFEWAY SIGN 2,941.81 AP- 00194841 3/12/2003 SAN ANTONIO MATERIALS 341.64 AP - 00194841 3/12/2003 SAN ANTONIO MATERIALS 500.00 AP - 00194842 3/12/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMEN~ 289.68 AP - 00194843 3/12/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMEN~ 220.00 AP - 00194844 3/12/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 92,075.00 AP - 00194845 3/12/2003 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 12,752.86 AP - 00194846 3/12/2003 SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF 3,840.00 AP - 00194847 3/12/2003 SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF 184.00 AP - 00194847 3/12/2003 SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF 184.00 AP - 00194847 3/12/2003 SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF 184.00 AP - 00194847 3/12/2003 SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF 184.00 AP- 00194848 3/12/2003 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 443.93 AP- 00194848 3/12/2003 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 254.29 AP - 00194849 3/12/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 54.65 AP- 00194849 3/12/2003 SBC/PACIFIC BELL 54.65 AP- 00194850 3/12/2003 SCANNATOA 25.00 AP- 00194851 3/12/2003 SENCHAL, CAL 80.00 AP- 00194851 3/12/2003 SENCHAL, CAL 91.00 AP-00194851 3/12/2003 SENCHAL, CAL 189.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 138.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 2,555.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SH1RLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 225.05 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SH1RLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 1,455.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 276.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 69.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 276.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 444.59 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 7 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 125.44 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONM~ENTAL TESTING LLC 646.08 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LLC 2,186.00 AP - 00194852 3/12/2003 SHIRLEY ENVIRONMiENTAL TESTING LLC 279.13 AP-00194853 3/12/2003 SIMPLOTPARTNERS 355.58 AP - 00194854 3/12/2003 SIMS, DIANA LAURIE 250.00 AP- 00194854 3/12/2003 SIMS, DIANA LAURIE 218.50 AP - 00194856 3/12/2003 SMOKE DETECTORS, THE 900.00 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 159.33 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.09 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.48 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.52 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON i4.50 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.31 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTI-[ERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTI-IERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 112.45 AP- 0019486I 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 131.81 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00~94861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 33.88 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.02 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 67.04 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTI-IERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 418.52 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTH~ERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 152.57 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTI-YERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 89.81 AP ~ 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTI-IERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 104.24 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHiERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 147.41 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 114.92 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIEORN1A EDISON 219.80 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 109.17 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.07 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORN1A EDISON 12.96 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 289.95 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.59 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORN1AEDISON 13.82 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORN1AEDISON 88.70 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.59 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.72 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.69 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.69 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 124.88 AP- 00~94861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTI-IERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.67 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.15 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 8 Current Date: 03/25/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time.~n~ 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 186.60 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 99.19 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 103.65 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 176.03 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 7,719.14 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 683.12 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.21 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.08 AP: 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.81 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 208.94 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16,970.00 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,063.62 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.33 AP - 0019486t 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.07 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.93 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.80 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.33 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.91 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 52.98 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.48 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.39 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.50 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.43 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.88 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.07 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.93 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.31 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 0.47 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.46 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.10 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.26 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.37 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 79.48 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 221.91 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 9 Current Date: 03/25/20(~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~. 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/2512003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194861 3/i2/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.48 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 198.33 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.18 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 199.62 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 121.72 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 135.79 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,811.81 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,808.89 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28,846.29 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9,047.87 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 762.10 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14,048.81 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,613.55 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 149.17 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 505.52 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 473.83 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON I51.86 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 199.07 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.58 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 175.33 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 91.34 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 141.78 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.52 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 499.97 AP- 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 195.14 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 112.46 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.40 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.59 AP - 00194861 3/12/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 107.22 AP- 00194862 3/12/2003 SOUTHWEST SAFETY CONGRESS 195.00 AP - 00194863 3/12/2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOAR 71.37 AP- 00194864 3/12/2003 STATE OFCALIF 2,400.00 AP - 00194865 3/12/2003 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 717.12 AP - 00194865 3/12/2003 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 708.33 AP-00194866 3/12/2003 STETKEVICH, OREST 40.00 AP - 00194867 3/12/2003 STOFA, JOSEPH 20.00 AP- 00194868 3/12/2003 SUNRISE FORD 49.14 AP- 00194871 3/12/2003 TETRA TECH ASL INC 2,177.66 AP - 00194872 3/12/2003 TIME WARNER TELECOM 3,750.00 AP - 00194873 3/12/2003 TOBIN, ROBERT 5,370.00 AP-00194873 3/12/2003 TOBIN, ROBERT 9,215.00 AP-00194873 3/12/2003 TOBIN, ROBERT 1,215.00 AP- 00194874 3/12/2003 TOLL BROS INC 2,500.00 AP- 00194875 3/12/2003 TOMARK SPORTS INC 485.68 AP - 00194876 3/12/2003 TRUGREEN LANDCARE REGIONAL 6,648.00 AP- 00194877 3/12/2003 U T I 115.85 AP- 00194877 3/12/2003 U T I 356.62 AP - 00194878 3/12/2003 UM?S ARE US ASSOCIATION 240.00 AP - 00194878 3/12/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 2,231.00 AP - 00194878 3/12/2003 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 320.00 AP- 00194879 3/12/2003 UNII~IRST UNIFORM SERVICE 45.79 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 1JNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 581.75 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 10 Current Date: 03125/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/I 1/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name. Amount AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNlit'IF, ST UNIFORM SERVICE 24.18 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 563.53 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNII~'IY, ST UNIFORM SERVICE 120.46 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 36.58 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 82.20 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNIF1RST UNIFORM SERVICE 25.27 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNII~'IRST UNIFORM SERVICE 36.58 AP - 00194879 3/12/2003 UNlit'IF, ST UNIFORM SERVICE 67.90 AP - 00194882 3/12/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 31.35 AP - 00194882 3/12/2003 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 33.08 AP-00194883 3/12/2003 UNITEDWAY 596.32 AP - 00194884 3/12/2003 UPSTART 42.75 AP - 00194888 3/12/2003 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 2,380.58 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 29.35 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 202.72 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 55.72 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 511.16 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 167.43 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 206.43 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.92 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VEP, IZON 84.77 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 47.18 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 46.45 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 458.13 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 458.13 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 458.13 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 563.11 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 76.45 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 42.01 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 24.45 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VEP, IZON 79.45 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 85.16 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 33.92 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 31.02 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 148.79 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 381.44 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 331.08 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 38.26 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 38.26 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.59 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.06 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 0.98 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 11 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Port/alt Layout Tim~/ 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00194891 3/.12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 206.43 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 24.61 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 384.95 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.59 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 179.06 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 91.06 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 23.40 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 29.65 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 28.42 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.59 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.58 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 206.43 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.61 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 89.59 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 88.20 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 141.31 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 172.73 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 46.74 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 65.93 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 61.75 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 47.67 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 54.40 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP-00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 81.65 AP- 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 29.07 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 111.67 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.93 AP - 00194891 3/12/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP - 00194892 3/12/2003 VERIZON 1,670.20 AP - 00194893 3/12/2003 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 600.00 AP- 00194894 3/12/2003 VOLM, LIZA 112.50 AP- 00194895 3/12/2003 WEST GROUP 1,081.41 AP- 00194896 3/12/2003 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 786.58 AP- 00194896 3/12/2003 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 818.90 AP - 00194896 3/12/2003 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 226.28 AP - 00194896 3/12/2003 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 786.58 AP - 00194896 3/12/2003 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 237.05 AP- 00194898 3/12/2003 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 51,900.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 12 Current Date: 03/25/20G Report:CK_AGENDA PEG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00194899 3/12/2003 WORLDCOM 714.29 AP - 00194900 3/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 10,594.45 AP-00194900 3/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 93.86 AP - 00194900 3/12/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 32.94 AP - 00194901 3/12/2003 YEE, LARRY 39.00 AP - 00194902 3/12/2003 ZWISSLER, JAMES 75.00 AP - 00194903 3/12/2003 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 400.00 AP - 00194905 3/13/2003 ALLEN, SYLVESTER R 108.01 AP - 00194906 3/13/2003 HAKIMI, SUSAN 420.69 AP - 00194907 3/13/2003 ADELPHIA 500.00 AP - 00194908 3/13/2003 B & G PLUMBING 500.00 AP - 00194909 3/13/2003 CHRISTESON COMPANY 250.00 AP- 00194910 3/13/2003 DAVIS DEVELOPMENT ·1,000.00 AP- 00194910 3/13/2003 DAVIS DEVELOPMENT 1,000.00 AP- 00194911 3/13/2003 G R FROST 1,000.00 AP- 00194912 3/13/2003 GREGGELECTRIC INC 500.00 AP-00194913 3/1312003 GREYSTONEHOMES 1,000.00 AP 00194914 3/13/2003 GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATION 5,000.00 AP 00194915 3/13/2003 HAWKER CONSTRUCTION 250.00 AP 00194916 3/13/2003 HILLSIDE COVE 176.87 AP 00194917 3/13/2003 IN N OUT BURGER 500.00 AP 00194918 3/13/2003 LANGI MAS. & CONCRETE 250.00 AP 00194919 3/13/2003 LEWISHOMES 2,000.00 AP 00194920 3/13/2003 LINDSAY-ONTARIO LLC 9,900.00 AP- 00194921 3/13/2003 LOFTUS III, OWEN 250.00 AP- 00194921 3/13/2003 LOFrUS III, OWEN 250.00 AP- 00194922 3/13/2003 MAJOER ROOTER INC 30.00 AP- 00194923 3/13/2003 PACIFIC PAVING 200.00 AP - 00194924 3/13/2003 PACIFIC PIPELINE 1,000.00 AP- 00194925 3/13/2003 RANCHO TECH LLC 10,368.00 AP - 00194926 3/13/2003 WILLIAM LYON HOMES 1,000.00 AP - 00194927 3/13/2003 WOODHAVEN MANOR 1,000.00 AP- 00194928 3/13/2003 YELICA,$ 500.00 AP - 00194929 3/17/2003 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 1,134.00 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 1,487.24 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 29.02 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 34.72 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 17.36 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 34.72 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 968.70 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 29.02 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 458.06 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 319.17 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 290.13 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 11.00 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 39.80 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 29.02 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 29.02 AP- 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 47.08 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 61.64 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 29.02 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 11.00 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 545.04 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 13 Current Date: 03/25/20G Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:. n 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 69.44 AP - 00194932 3/1912003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 17.36 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 34.72 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 52.08 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 34.72 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 473.46 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 46.38 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 455.50 AP - 00194932 3/19/2003 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 69.44 AP - 00194933 3/19/2003 A JONTUE, ROSEANN 3,717.90 AP- 00194934 3/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 16.70 AP - 00194934 3/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 250.00 AP - 00194934 3/19/2003 ABC LOCKSMITHS 17.24 AP- 00194935 3/19/2003 ABLAC 16.39 AP - 00194939 3/19/2003 AIR CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS 2,092.58 AP - 00194940 3/19/2003 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE LN(~9 239.30 AP - 00194942 3/19/2003 ALTA LOMA SEWING CENTER 889.93 AP - 00194943 3/19/2003 ALVAREZ, MANUEL 20.00 AP - 00194944 3/19/2003 AMAZON.COM CREDIT 45.92 AP - 00194944 3/19/2003 AMAZON.COM CREDIT 15.98 AP - 00194946 3/19/2003 AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS INC 251.25 AP - 00194947 3/19/2003 ARBOR NURSERY INC 862.00 AP - 00194948 3/19/2003 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 504.00 AP - 00194948 3/19/2003 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 4,609.26 AP - 00194948 3/19/2003 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 349.00 AP-00194949 3/19/2003 ASSI SECURITY 125.00 AP - 00194950 3/19/2003 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 6,405.00 AP- 00194951 3/19/2003 AUDIO EDITIONS 8.58 AP- 00194952 3/19/2003 AUTO ILESTORATORS INC 814.39 AP - 00194953 3/19/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 145.46 AP - 00194953 3/19/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 505.20 AP - 00194953 3/19/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 80.12 AP - 00194953 3/19/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 706.84 AP - 00194953 3/19/2003 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 54.13 AP - 00194954 3/19/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 276.C4 AP- 00194954 3/19/2003 BARNES AND NOBLE 145.34 AP - 00194955 3/19/2003 BARTON;LOIS 200.00 AP - 00194956 3/19/2003 BASELINE TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 14.20 AP - 00194956 3/19/2003 BASELINE TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 124.03 AP - 00194957 3/19/2003 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 1,935.00 AP- 00194958 3/19/2003 BISHOP COMPANY 390.51 AP- 00194959 3/19/2003 BOOKS ON TAPE 1NC 19.40 AP- 00194960 3/19/2003 BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES 1NC, MICHAEL 17,523.10 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 11.97 AP ~ 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 11.16 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 52.76 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 16.82 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 25.23 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 150.70 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 37.18 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 54.64 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 55.97 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 15.43 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 14 Current Date: 03/25/20£ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:.., 16:54:~1 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 111.54 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 31.96 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 13.75 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 63.45 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 517.96 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 377.58 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.56 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 35.14 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 26.62 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.21 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 1,038.82 AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 47.60 ' AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 26.20 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 56.84 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 762.30 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 96.51 AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 1,021.16 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 1,041.46 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 21.33 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 85.55 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 14.10 AP 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 17.41 AP 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 47.80 AP 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 136.18 AP 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 5.16 AP 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 8.09 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 29.42 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 32.17 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 307.43 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 69.33 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 63.04 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 24.25 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 10.35 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 33.90 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 67.79 AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 15.35 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 58.10 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 276.62 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.68 AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 4.41 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 15 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP - 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 9.37 AP - 00194963 ' 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 4.68 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 6.84 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 12.57 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 34.93 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 10.44 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 38.68 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODARTBOOKS 34.61 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS I4.65 AP-00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 19.35 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 38.28 AP- 00194963 3/19/2003 BRODART BOOKS 14.50 AP - 00194964 3/19/2003 BUSTAMANTE, FELIPE 115.00 AP - 00194967 3/19/2003 CAFE JUSTICE 790.00 AP-00194968 3/19/2003 CALSENSE 59.30 AP - 00194968 3/19/2003 CALSENSE 382.69 AP - 00194969 3/19/2003 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY 28.72 AP - 00194970 3/19/2003 CHAMPION AMERICA 12.93 AP - 00194971 3/19/2003 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALIES 80.81 AP - 00194971 3/19/2003 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALIES 80.81 AP - 00194972 3/19/2003 CHARTER MEDIA 1,241.60 AP - 00194972 3/19/2003 CHARTER MEDIA 540.80 AP- 00194973 3/19/2003 CHEVRON USA INC 139.06 AP - 00194974 3/19/2003 CITY RENTALS 39.60 AP - 00194975 3/19/2003 CLABBY, SANDRA 1,000.00 AP - 00194976 3/19/2003 CLARK, DEBORAH 7.92 AP - 00194977 3/19/2003 CLAYTON, JANICE 20.80 AP- 00194980 3/19/2003 COPP CRUSHING COP. P, DAN 10.00 AP- 00194980 3/19/2003 COPP CRUSHING CORP, DAN 10.00 AP - 00194982 3/19/2003 COUNTRY ESTATE FENCE CO INC 388.95 AP - 00194982 3/19/2003 COUNTRY ESTATE FENCE CO INC 2,436.79 AP - 00194983 3/19/2003 CRESTWOOD CORPORATION 25,000.00 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 89.62 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 344.39 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 581.29 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 400.01 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 537~67 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 19.93 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 255.81 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 524.05 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 325.85 AP - 00194985 3/t9/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 351.60 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 331.00 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 571.89 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 33.32 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 74.38 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 113.52 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 259.57 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 240.36 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 412.37 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 39.36 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 16 CurrentDate: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date yendor Name Amount AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 417.52 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 147.30 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 437.09 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 277.44 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 448.42 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 194.01 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 340.27 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 490.65 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 214.61 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 547.30 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 21.99 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 27.80 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 144.91 AP- 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 314.52 AP - 00194985 . 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 456.66 AP - 00194985 3/19/2003 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST 38.47 AP - 00194987 3/19/2003 D 7 CONSULTING INC 797.50 AP - 00194988 3/19/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 15,941.00 AP - 00194988 3/19/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 9,650.00 AP - 00194988 3/19/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 5.6,360.00 AP - 00194988 3/19/2003 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 44,370.00 AP - 00194990 3/19/2003 DE LEISE, JENAE 519.24 AP - 00194991 3/19/2003 DEER CREEK CAR CARE CENTER 14.00 AP - 00194992 3/19/2003 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 310.31 AP - 00194993 3/19/2003 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC DEV. 1,450.00 AP - 00194993 3/19/2003 DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC DEV. 1,000.00 AP - 00194996 3/19/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 210.03 AP- 00194996 3/19/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 81.94 AP- 00194996 3/19/2003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 2,630.36 · AP- 00194997 3/19/2003 EXCLUSIVEEMAGES 76.50 AP - 00194998 3/19/2003 FAKHOURY, H1LDA 50.00 AP - 00194999 3/19/2003 FASTERNAL COMPANY 560.48 AP - 00195000 3/19/2003 FEDERAL JOBS DIGEST 112.50 AP - 00195001 3/19/2003 FILTER RECYCLING SERVICE 1NC 114.00 AP - 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,440.00 AP- 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 331.50 AP ~ 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 792.00 AP- 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 552.00 AP - 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 608.85 AP- 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 736.00 AP- 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 552.00 AP- 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 736.00 AP- 00195002 3/19/2003 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 497.25 AP - 00195004 3/19/2003 FISCHER PLUMBING 1,000.00 AP - 00195004 3/19/2003 FISCHER PLUMBING 1,000.00 AP-00195005 3/19/2003 FLUORESCOLIGHTING 2,675.25 AP - 00195006 3/19/2003 FORD OF UPLAND INC 1,232.31 AP- 00195006 3/19/2003 FORD OFUPLAND INC 72.15 AP-00195007 3/19/2003 FORTUNE 34.48 AP - 00195008 3/19/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 138.79 AP - 00195008 3/19/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 54.14 AP - 00195008 3/19/2003 GALE GROUP,THE 148.43 AP-00195009 3/19/2003 GARCIA, VIVIAN 18.72 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 17 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time.'. ,~ 16:54:4 1 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00195009 3/19/2003 GARCIA, VIVIAN 24.12 AP - 00195010 3/19/2003 GOLDEN WEST SURPLUS 560.00 AP - 00195011 3/19/200~ GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING 69.42 AP - 00195012 3/19/2003 GRAINGER, WW 95.17 AP - 00195012 3/19/2003 GRAINGER, WW 82.43 AP - 00195013 3/19/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 111.66 AP - 00195013 3/19/2003 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPM]~NT 413.75 AP - 00195014 3/19/2003 HECHT, ROBERT 30.00 AP - 00195015 3/19/2003 HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE 232.44 AP- 00195016 3/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 324.60 AP- 00195016 3/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 386.82 AP- 00195016 3/19/2003 HOLL1DAY ROCK CO INC 398.64 AP- 00195016 3/19/2003 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 207.15 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 93.85 AP-00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 12.33 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 106.05 AP-00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 151.86 AP - 00195017 3/19/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 53.44 AP-00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 29.89 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 248.01 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 105.60 AP-00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 536.51 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 102.74 AP-00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 142.40 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 18.36 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 89.49 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 43.07 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 239.41 AP- 00195017 3/19/2003 HOME DEPOT/GECF 89.35 AP-00195017 3/19/2003 HOMEDEPOT/GECF 21.64 AP- 00195018 3/19/2003 HOOPER, ALISON 750.00 AP- 00195020 3/19/2003 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 217.22 AP - 00195021 3/19/2003 HUSH PUPPIES RETAIL INC. 150.00 AP - 00195022 3/19/2003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 98.80 AP - 00195022 3/19/2003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 471.76 AP - 00195022 3/1912003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 284.40 AP - 00195022 3/19/2003 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 529.48 AP - 00195023 3/i9/2003 INLAND ASPHALT & COATINGS 1,000.00 AP - 00195025 3/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 114.60 AP - 00195025 3/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 114.60 AP - 00195025 3/19/2003 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 114.60 AP- 00195026 3/19/2003 INTRAVAIAROCK AND SAND 1,857.50 AP- 00195026 3/19/2003 INTRAVAIA ROCK AND SAND 1,665.00 AP - 00195026 3/19/2003 INTRAVAIA ROCK AND SAND 70.00 AP - 00195026 3/19/2003 INTRAVAIA ROCK AND SAND 170.00 AP- 00195027 3/1912003 INVENSYS BUILDING SYSTEMS INC 10,828.00 AP- 00195027 3/19/2003 INVENSYS BUILDING SYSTEMS INC 10,828.00 AP - 00195028 3/19/2003 JAGUSCH, DOROTHY 20.00 AP - 00195029 3/19/2003 JANECK, LINDA 16.62 AP - 00195030 3/19/2003 KELLEY BLUE BOOK 60.06 AP- 00195031 3/19/2003 KELLEY BLUE BOOK 56.00 AP - 00195032 3/19/2003 KELLY PAPER COMPANY 69.11 AP - 00195033 3/19/2003 KERREY CONSULTING, JULES 210.00 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 18 Current Date: 03/25/2012 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:, ,~ 16:54:4 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00195034 3/19/2003 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 2,200.00 AP - 00195035 3/19/2003 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 2,300.00 AP - 00195036 3/19/2003 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 3,805.00 AP- 00195037 3/19/2003 KOTZIN AND ASSOCIATES, R 3,978.20 AP - 00195038 3/19/2003 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO 1,000.00 AP- 00195039 3/19/2003 LAM, JACK 100.00 AP-00195039 3/19/2003 LAM, JACK 26.50 AP - 00195040 3/19/2003 LAMBELL, CHRIS 30.00 AP - 00195041 3/19/2003 LARSON, JOHN 146.07 AP - 00195042 3/19/2003 LAUTENSLAGER, DENESE 100.00 AP - 00195043 3/19/2003 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 60.17 AP- 00195043 3/19/2003 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 627.01 AP - 00195044 3/19/2003 LENIHAN, SHARON 47.25 AP - 00195045 3/19/2003 LlEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1,512.00 AP - 00195047 3/19/2003 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 3,495.00 AP - 00195049 3/19/2003 LNL ENTERPRISES 435.00 AP - 00195050 3/19/2003 LOGIC ENTERTAINMENT INC 2,423.00 AP - 00195052 3/19/2003 LOS ANGELES TIMES 19.96 AP - 00195053 3/19/2003 LU'S LIGHTHOUSE INC 236.92 AP - 00195054 3/19/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00195054 3/19/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00195054 3/19/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 80.00 AP - 00195054 3/19/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00195054 3/19/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00195054 3/19/2003 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00195056 3/19/2003 METROPOLITAN COOPERATIVE LIBRARY 50.00 AP- 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 21.98 AP-0019505~ 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 73.95 AP- 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 65.96 AP- 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 20.99 AP- 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 17.99 AP- 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 91.98 AP - 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 87.96 AP - 00195057 3/19/2003 MID'WEST TAPE -20.99 AP-00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 158.93 AP- 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 67.97 AP - 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 46.98 AP - 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 75.95 AP- 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 64.97 AP - 00195057 3/19/2003 MIDWEST TAPE 100.95 AP - 00195058 3/19/2003 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 1,299.60 AP - 00195059 3/19/2003 MILLIKEN, KEELY 1,200.00 AP- 00195060 3/19/2003 MOBILE MINI INC 85.67 AP- 00195060 3/19/2003 MOBILE MINI INC 85.67 AP- 00195060 3/19/2003 MOBILE MINI INC 85.67 AP- 00195060 3/19/2003 MOBILEMINI INC 85.67 AP- 00195061 3/19/2003 MOLINA, LARRY & DEBORAH 451.20 AP - 00195061 3/19/2003 MOLINA, LARRY & DEBORAH 1,800.00 AP- 00195061 3/19/2003 MOLINA, LARRY& DEBORAH 192.60 AP ~ 00195062 3/19/2003 MORGAN, JANE 1,190.00 AP- 00195063 3/19/2003 MORRIS, CATHY 95.00 AP - 00195066 3/19/2003 MT BALDY UNITED WAY 51.00 AP- 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 19.46 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 19 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time.', ,~ 16:54:4 l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 18.53 AP - 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 19.16 AP - 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 86.44 AP- 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 190.76 AP - 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS -5.70 AP - 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS -95.79 AP - 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 25.40 AP - 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 15.30 AP- 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPAAUTO PARTS 29.19 AP- 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPAAUTO PARTS 79.91 AP - 00195067 3/19/2003 NAPA AUTO PARTS 5.29 AP - 00195068 3/19/2003 NATIONAL DEFERRED 8,483.46 AP - 00195069 3/19/2003 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 7,951.00 AP - 00195070 3/19/2003 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 150.00 AP - 00195071 3/19/2003 NELSON, FRANCIE 40.00 AP - 00195072 3/19/2003 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 92.56 AP- 00195072 3/19/2003 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 46.28 AP - 00195072 3/19/2003 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 46.28 AP - 00195073 3/19/2003 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 35.00 AP ~ 00195074 3/19/2003 NIKPOUR, SHIRIN 35.00 AP - 00195075 3/19/2003 NORBERT'S ATHLETIC PRODUCTS INC 664.31 AP - 00195075 3/19/2003 NORBERT'S ATHLETIC PRODUCTS INC 999.92 AP- 00195076 3/19/2003 OCHOA, JOSE A 57.25 AP-00195077 3/19/2003 OCLCINC 58.70 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 31.75 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 107.25 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 26.64 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 84.52 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 33.54 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OI~I~ICEDEPOT 363.55 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 534.47 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 85.47 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 5.80 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 103.14 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 20.69 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 77.30 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 275.46 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 30.79 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 67.85 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 62.69 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 178.98 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 74.50 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 121.91 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 203.39 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 3.03 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 303.82 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 126.92 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 44.24 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 27.37 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 46.29 AP - 00~95079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 71.40 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 31.00 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT -18.48 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 20 Current Date: 03/25/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 140.71 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 12.20 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 437.85 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 49.91 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 205.94 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 304.39 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 441.15 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 51.72 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 106.48 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 5.78 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 7.15 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 5.89 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 50.26 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 20.14 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 81.91 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 23.79 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 23.69 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OI~YICE DEPOT -23.69 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 190.34 AP - 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 48.69 AP- 00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 21.68 AP-00195079 3/19/2003 OFFICE DEPOT 213.06 AP-00195080 3/19/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 4,189.36 AP - 00195080 3/19/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 179.41 AP-00195080 3/19/2003 OWEN ELECTRIC 413.76 AP- 00195081 3/19/2003 P A P A 55.00 AP - 00195082 3/19/2003 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 46,260.66 AP-00195084 3/19/2003 PARSAC .37,815.50 AP- 00195085 3/19/2003 PATTON SALES CORP 147.85 AP- 00195086 3/19/2003 PEP BOYS 34.76 AP- 00195086 3/19/2003 PEPBOYS 12.73 AP- 00195086 3/19/2003 PEPBOYS 28.48 AP - 00195087 3/19/2003 PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTION 3,870.00 AP-00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMANLUMBER 50.28 AP - 00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMAN LUMBER 5.62 AP-00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMANLUMBER 258.75 AP - 00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMAN LUMBER 255.80 AP- 00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMAN LUMBER -102.36 AP-00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMANLUMBER 38.29 AP-00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMANLUMBER 385.70 AP- 00195088 3/19/2003 PETERMAN LUMBER 71.91 AP- 00195089 3/19/2003 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 287.60 AP - 00195090 3/19/2003 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 10.00 AP - 00195091 3/19/2003 PIONEER MANUFACTURING 74.75 AP- 00195092 3/19/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 1,366.69 AP- 00195092 3/19/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 1,251.89 AP- 00195092 3/19/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 5,843.66 AP- 00195092 3/19/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 7,895.19 AP- 00195092 3/19/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 9,140.08 AP- 00195092 3/19/2003 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 5,047.75 AP - 00195093 3/19/2003 PORT SUPPLY 320.16 AP - 00195094 3/19/2003 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00195095 3/19/2003 RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY 67.27 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 21 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/t 1/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00195096 3/19/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 180.00 AP - 00195096 3/19/2003 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMIVIEI 180.00 AP - 00195099 3/19/2003 RC HOMES LLC 106.25 AP-00195100 3/19/2003 RCPFA 4,101.68 AP - 00195101 3/19/2003 RH TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP - 00195101 3/19/2003 RI-I TECHNOLOGY 792.00 AP - 00195102 3/19/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 7,685.06 AP- 00195102 3/19/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 3,181.50 AP - 00195102 3/19/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 10,987.99 AP - 00195102 3/19/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 5,957.14 AP - 00195102 3/19/2003 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 4,333.00 AP- 00195104 3/19/2003 ROSLOF, VICKY 29.07 AP-00195105 3/19/2003 RUSSO, FRED 30.00 AP - 00195107 3/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 35,298.12 AP - 00195108 3/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 1,295.00 AP- 00195109 3/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 41,048.04 AP - 00195110 3/19/2003 SAN BERN COUNTY 19.35 AP- 00195111 3/19/2003 SCCCA 60.00 AP - 00195112 3/19/2003 SCItLOSSER FORGE COMPANY 1,000.00 AP - 00195113 3/19/2003 SHIREMAN, MELANIE 20.00 AP- 00195114 3/19/2003 SHOETERIA IND INC 77.57 AP - 00195117 3/19/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 461.79 AP - 00195117 3/19/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 548.96 AP- 00195117 3/19/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 3,242.12 AP- 00195117 3/19/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 438.41 AP - 00195117 3/19/2003 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 335.04 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.i0 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.77 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.30 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.82 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 312.42 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.61 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.23 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.23 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.34 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.89 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.67 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.07 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 339.34 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.60 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.04 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.39 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.64 AP ~ 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.88 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 22 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 194.34 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 166.51 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 249.48 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 158.56 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOIJTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 116.67 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 333.37 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 179.56 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 8.08 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 372.00 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.33 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 160.32 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 291.10 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 376.86 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 131.81 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 281.88 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 144.65 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.99 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.67 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,520.99 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,315.98 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 311.16 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.32 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.20 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.35 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.04 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.12 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.08 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 128.45 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 87.82 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 318.88 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.24 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.23 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTH]ERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.53 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 218.96 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 72.70 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.75 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.38 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.23 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.23 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 58.61 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.75 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.61 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.15 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 306.95 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 130.06 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.24 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORN1AEDISON 75.94 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.98 AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.96 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 23 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3711/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.51 AP - 00195121 3/19/2003 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.91 AP - 00195123 3/19/2003 STERICYCLE INC 490.00 AP - 00195124 3/19/2003 STERLiNG COFFEE SERVICE 44.00 AP - 00195124 3/19/2003 STERLING COH~EE SERVICE 262.93 AP - 00195124 3/19/2003 STERLING COPPicE SERVICE 95.75 AP - 00195124 3/19/2003 STERLING COI~I~EE SERVICE 31.45 AP-00195125 3/19/2003 STEVESTOWING 90.00 AP - 00195127 3/19/2003 SURE SHRED DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION 40.00 AP - 00195129 3/19/2003 TANGRAM INTERIORS 1,355.59 AP-00195129 3/19/2003 TANGRAMINTERIORS 315.20 AP-00195129 3/19/2003 TANGRAMINTERIORS -390.00 AP - 00195129 3/19/2003 TANGRAM iNTERIORS -325.00 AP- 00195129 3/19/2003 TANGRAM INTERIORS -1,787.50 AP - 00195129 3/19/2003 TANGRAM INTERIORS 2,701.23 AP- 00195129 3/19/2003 TANGRAM INTERIORS -585.00 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER O C 206.32 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER O C 223.55 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER OC 183.94 AP-00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER OC 346.03 AP-00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER OC 221.53 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER OC 200.41 AP-00195t31 3/19/2003 TANNER OC 186.40 AP-00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER OC 228.04 AP-00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER OC 1,467.13 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER O C 652.93 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER O C 177.13 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER O C 211.77 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER O C 174.51 AP- 00195131 3/19/2003 TANNER O C 169.63 AP - 00195133 3/19/2003 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 316.25 AP - 00195135 3/19/2003 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P, 46,012.00 AP-00195136 3/19/2003 UNIQUE CREATIONS 228.97 AP - 00195137 3/19/2003 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 515.93 AP- 00195138 3/19/2003 UNITED TRAFFIC 3,013.77 AP- 00195138 3/19/2003 UNITED TRAFFIC 244.95 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 27.64 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 27.58 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.40 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 55.15 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 85.62 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 24 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~,/~6:54:4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 3/11/2003 through 3/25/2003 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 55.15 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 28.39 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.99 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 17.78 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 25.48 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 33.46 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 27.58 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON ~ 27.58 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 27.68 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 27.58 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.00 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 27.43 AP-00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 315.94 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 55.90 AP - 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 95.02 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.11 AP- 00195140 3/19/2003 VERIZON 22.41 AP - 00195141 3/19/2003 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 600.00 AP - 00195142 3/19/2003 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANANGER VPM 500.00 AP - 00195143 3/19/2003 VORTEX INDUSTRIES 2,583.64 AP-00195143 3/19/2003 VORTEX INDUSTRIES 972.78 AP - 00195144 3/19/2003 WALLNER, MIKE 500.00 AP - 00195145 3/19/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 72.87 AP - 00195145 3/19/2003 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 158.99 AP - 00195146 3/19/2003 WASTE MANAGEMENT L.A. METRO 62.93 AP- 00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 350.00 AP- 00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 664.83 AP- 00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 1,216.18 AP- 00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 345.77 AP- 00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 319.59 AP- 00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 11.23 AP-00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 94.55 AP- 00195147 3/19/2003 WAXIE 312.48 AP- 00195149 3/19/2003 WEST COAST LIQUIDATORS INC 1,089.03 AP - 00195150 3/19/2003 WEST GROUP 1,206.80 AP- 00195151 3/19/2003 WHITE, LARRY 70.00 AP - 00195152 3/19/2003 W1LKIN GROUP, THE 2,709.29 AP- 00195152 3/19/2003 WILKIN GROLrP, THE 2,709.29 AP-00195155 3/19/2003 WORMDAHL, AMY 100.00 AP-00195156 3/19/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 929.35 AP- 00195156 3/19/2003 XEROX CORPORATION 72.89 AP- 00195158 3/19/2003 YEE, LARRY 23.00 AP- 00195159 3/19/2003 ZWISSLER, JAMES 110.00 AP - 00195160 3/20/2003 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 72.00 AP - 00195161 3/20/2003 LOGIC ENTERTAINMENT INC 2,423.00 AP- 00195162 3/20/2003 LOGIC ENTERTAINMENT INC 2,423.00 Total for Check ID AP: 1,653,125.75 Total for Entity: 1,653,125.75 User: ahunsber - Ann Hunsberger Page: 25 Current Date: 03/25/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:54:4 R A N H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Gary Varney, Streets Superintendent ~UIMI=CT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR CITYWIDE STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 1 TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 1025001-5300 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the Citywide Street Name Sign Replacement, Phase 1 and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In the year 2000, City staff procured equipment to begin a street name sign retrofit program to replace signs as needed. With a growing concern from emergency response departments that many older signs were not highly identifiable, staff made recommendations and the specification was changed to a highly retroreflective material. A citywide survey was completed in 2001-02 and approximately 1,000 signs were identified as needing immediate attention, an overwhelming task for maintenance to perform. City staff recommended a two-phase program to begin in fiscal year 2002-03 and to be contracted out, funding was provided and staff is ready to begin phase one of this project. Engineer's estimate for Phase I of this project is $124,000 and an additional $124,000 has been requested for Fiscal Year 2003-04. R~p~fully submitted, City Engineer WJO:GV:dlw SOLUTION NO. O 75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITYWIDE STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT~ PHASE 1 AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of thc City of Rancho Cucamon§a City Council to construct certain improvements in thc City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council has prepared specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the specifications presented by thc City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for thc "CITYWIDE STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 1". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby anthorizcd and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall bc substantially in thc following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council will receive at the OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN THE OFFICES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ON OR BEFORE THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON APRIL 30, 2003, scaled bids or proposals for "CITYWIDE STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 1" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council, California, marked, "BID FOR CITYWIDE STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 1." A Pre-Bid Job Walk is scheduled for April 25, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Yard, 9153 Ninth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730, where bidders may present questions regarding the Bid Documents: Plans, Proposals, Specifications. THIS MEETING IS MANDATORY. Verification of attendance at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be documented by signing in at the meeting. Any bidder not documented as being present at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be excluded from the bid process. Resolution No. Page 2 PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the. provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provision of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making.such contributions. Resolution No. Page 3 The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Resolution No. Page 4 Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including but not limited to an "A" (General Engineering Contractor), or "D-42" (Sign Installation), or "C-32" (Parking and Highway Improvement Contractor). In accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non-reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense; substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for CITYWIDE STREET NAME SIGN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 1 may be directed to: Ernest Ruiz, Maintenance Supervisor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2700, ext. 4108 By order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 2ud day of April, 2003. ADVERTISE ON: April 8, 2003 and April 15, 2003 T H E C I T Y 0 F I~ANCflO CUCAMONGA Staff Repor DATE: April 2, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Kenneth Fung, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE HERITAGE PARK STORAGE SHED PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids" for Heritage Park Storage Shed Project. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The widespread usage of the Heritage Community Park has .resulted in a continuing shortage of storage facilities. To help alleviate the shortage, a facilities storage shed is planned for Heritage Community Park. Staff is in the process of preparing plans, specifications and estimates for the construction of the aforementioned structure. The storage shed will provide an additional 550 square feet of covered storage for Facilities use at Heritage Park. It is estimated that construction will be completed by September 2003. R~¥1y submitted, City Engineer WJO:kf I ALMOND ST. /'~ . PARK (BUiLDiNG "C") FOOTHILL BL~. LOCA~ON ~ N.T.S. CI~ OF ~CHO ~C~ONGA ~C~ ~ HE~TAGE P~ STOOGE ~D PR0~CT RESOLUTION NO. (~ ~" ~ 77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE HERITAGE PARK STORAGE SHED IN SAID CITY WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially Jn the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Ber- nardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said the City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, May 13, 2003, sealed bids or proposals for the "HERITAGE PARK STORAGE SHED PROJECT" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of the "HERITAGE PARK STORAGE SHED PROJECT". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such pre- vailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 2 copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing trades- men in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. 'When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the admin- istration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 3 Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other require- ments may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to ex- ecute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten pement (10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the preDosed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the Iow bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred pement (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any ,15 RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 4 work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as re- quired by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor), Class "B" License (General Building) or combination of Specialty "C" Licenses in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code", Sec- tion 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being.provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS); said $35.00 (THIRTY- FIVE DOLLARS)-is nonrefund-able. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non-reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamongao In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 5 The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. By order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 2nd day of April 2003. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for "HERITAGE PARK STORAGE SHED PROJECT" May be directed to: Walter Stickney, Associate Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2740 ext. 4076 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 2nd day of April 2003. William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 2nd day of April 2003. RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 6 Executed this 2nd day of April, 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California Debra J. Adams, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: April 10, 2003 and April 24, 2003 R A N C H O C U C'A M O N G A ]~ NGINI~E I~ING DE DAI~T~ENT $ Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer(~"~' SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR FY 2002/2003 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - OVERLAY OF VARIOUS STREETS, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NOS. 11763035650/1022176 (MEASURE "1"), 118230305650/1022182 (AB 2928), 11703035650/1022170 (GAS TAX) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve specifications for the construction of FY 2002/2003 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Oveday of Various Streets and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: The scope of work for Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Overlay of Various Streets consists of, but not limited to cleadng and grubbing, cold planing, crack sealing, A.C. overlay, re-striping and Pavement markings. The project will be funded from Measure "1" funds, Account No. 11763035650/1022176, AB 2928 funds, Account No. 11823035650/1022182 and Gas Tax funds 11703035650/1022170. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt per Article, Section 15301© of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate for FY 2002/2003 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation - Overlay of Various Streets is $932,000 and legal advertising is scheduled for Apdl 8, 2003 and April 15, 2003, with bid opening scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday April 22, 2003. ~.p~y submi~ed, cWiity~a~i.'?n g in ee r' r'~~1/~' '~''~ ~'~ ( ' WJO:LEH:Ieh Attachments RESOLUTION NO. {~' ~) ;/~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FY 2002/2003 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - OVERLAY, OF VARIOUS STREETS IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "FY 2002/2003 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - OVERLAY OF VARIOUS STREETS". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2003, sealed bids or proposals for the "FY 2002/2003 LOCAL STREET REHABILITATION - OVERLAY OF VARIOUS STREETS" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of FY 2002/2003 LOCAL STREET REHABILITATION - OVERLAY OF VARIOUS STREETS." PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles I and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 2 the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the previsions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the previsions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that Will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 3 journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. if the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the Iow bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 4 thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY- FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non- reimbursable payment of $15.00 FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidde~ will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 5 Dated this 2'd day of April, 2003. Publish Dates: April 8, 2003 and April 15, 2003 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 2nd Day of April, 2003. William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 2nd day of April, 2003. Executed this 2nd day of April, 2003,'at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: April 8, 2003 and April 15, 2003 LOCATION MAP AR~ TO BE O~R~D 0.10' ~ P~E ~D 0.10 ~T ~NOR~ ~R~Y (~ O~L) CITY OF RANCHO CUC~ONGA ~ 2002/03 PAYMENT RE~I~TATION ~C~ ~ ~C. 0~ [~ A C h O C U C A M O N G a ENGINEERING D E DAR'TI~IE N T SlaffReport DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR PHASE lB OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 16123035650/1442612-0 AND PHASE 3A OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 FROM ACCOUNT NO. 16143035650 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the plans and specifications and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids" for Phase 1B of Community Facilities District 2001-01 and Phase 3A of Community Facilities District 2003-01. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Community Facilities District 2001-01 was formed in August of 2001 to provide for the construction of the infrastructure relative to Tentative Tract Map 15947 and the regional mall site. Subsequently, Community Facilities District 2003-01 was formed in February of 2003 to provide for the balance of infrastructure relative to the regional mall site. The design package of plans, specifications and estimates for this phase of construction are substantially complete. Phase lB construction will include the following: · Day Creek Boulevard from Church Street to Foothill Boulevard · Chumh Street from Day Creek Boulevard to Etiwanda Avenue · South side of Base Line Road from Day Creek Boulevard to Victoria Park Lane · Main distribution/collection system for water and sewer CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01, PHASE lB AND'3A April 2, 2003 Page 2 · Day Creek Boulevard storm drain from south of Church Street to Day Creek Channel · Victoria Garden Lane storm drain from Church Street to Day Creek Boulevard · Arbor Way north of Church Street · Sewer main in Victoria Gardens Lane, from Church Street to Day Creek Boulevard · Landscaping and irrigation for Day Creek Boulevard, Church Street, Victoria Park Lane and Base Line Road Phase 3A construction will include the following: · Victoria Gardens Lane, from Church Street to Day Creek Boulevard · North half of Foothill Boulevard from Day Creek Boulevard' to Day Creek Channel · Storm drain in Victoria Gardens Lane · Water main in Victoria Gardens Lane Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:MEP:Is RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR PHASE lB OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01, AND PHASE 3A OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01, CONSISTING OF STREET, STORM DRAIN, LANDSCAPING AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS, IN SAID CITY, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS · WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sea!ed bids or proposals for Phase lB of Community Facilities Distdct 2001-01 and Phase 3A of Community Facilities District 2003-01, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2003, sealed bids or proposals for"PHASE lB OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 AND PHASE 3A OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of PHASE lB OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 AND PHASE 3A OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 2 Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C, When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 3 Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest ~)idder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the Iow bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 4 insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal Will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Copies of the plans and specifications will be made available at the office of the City Engineer. They will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $65.00 (SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $65.00 (SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request bythe bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Previsions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 2nd day of April, 2003. RESOLUTION NO. April 2, 2003 Page 5 Publish Dates: April 3, 2003 and April 10, 2003 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 2nd day of April, 2003. William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 2nd day of April, 2003. Executed this 2® day of April, 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: April 3, 2003 and April 10, 2003 VICINITY MAP COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0..2001'01 EXHIBIT A ..5'3 T H C I T Y 0 F I~ANCHO C U CAIfiONGA stuart DA~ April 2, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Vicki Chilicki, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, V-193, LOCATED BETWEEN 4TM STREET AND 6TM STREET, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE. APN# 210-08247,60,61. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution summarily ordering the vacation of thc easement for construction purposes, and the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution and exhibits to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bcmardino County, California. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On August 9, 1982, the City was granted a~d accepted a dirt slope construction easement along ihe west side of Milliken Avenue, between 4th Street and 6th Street for Assessment District 82-1 improvements. The current property owners have made a request to the City to have the easement vacated. Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8333 of the Streets and highways Code allows for an easement to be summarily vacated when the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. R~ff~tively submitted, City Engineer WJO:VC:dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Copy of Easement RESOLUTION NO. ~) 3 ' ~ ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. APN 210-082-47, 60, 61. WHEREAS, by Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8333(a), of the Streets and Highway Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate the drainage easement along the west side of Milliken Avenue, between 4th and 6th Streets. APN 210-082-47, 60, 61. WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that the slope construction easement is unnecessary for public service purposes, and has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1' That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby makes its order vacating the dirt slope construction easement for construction purposes, as shown in Exhibit "A" and described as follows: As granted in a .document recorded August 9, 1982, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as described in official record 82-155357 recorded in the office of the County Recorder, San Bernardino County, State of California. All as shown on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2.: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution and exhibits to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall certify passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force. 5'5' ~"~ Par. 7 ~ ?.2.76AC. P~r.! AC, · N CiTY OF rrg~: V - IC)..~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: V I~itv I'I'*[ ]~1~t~ ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "~" ~ssess~eat Olstrice 82-1 ~ses~t goo; 132 . P.O: ~ ~ ~ EASEMENT NILLI~ ST. GRA~NTIS) ID II~ C"mj of ~ C~am~a. a Municipal Coq~oralion, an EASEMENT DIRT SLOPE CONSTRUCTION over a~d upao Ib~ ~ n~] pro~y in Ihe City of Rancho Cucamon~a, Courtly of San Bemardino. State of The East 40 feet of Lot 25, Section 13 of Cucamonga Land Subdivision as per Plat recorded in ~ap Book 4, Pag~ g, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; EXCEPT therefro~ tf: East 30 feet. HILLIKEN ST. INVESTORS .~ ';:: ',~-t '? 7';'~.~.; ~-~ .-..~ ~A~ ~ ~F~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~N ~NO} ) ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~nty ~ N~Y ~0~ ~ . Imown to n',e .'.o the Peraae__et~une ~ne____._jot~be~ to II~ ~hifl Inslmme~ a~.d ~ t~at __ %% I Notary Public In and for said CoMnt~v and Start This Is to certify that ~he interest in real property conveyed by the within Instrument to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a City Incorporated under the laws of the State of California, Is hereby accepted Oy order of the City Council, and the grantee consents to the recordation thereof by It8 duly authorized officer. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO,~ THE CITY OF ~ GU CAM O N GA StnffReport DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mark N. Brawthen, Contract Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE EXCESS STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE FRONTING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9180 CENTER AVENUE; V-190 - APN:209-261-28 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution summarily ordering the vacation of excess right-of-way for a portion of Center Avenue and authorizing the City Clerk to present a certified copy of this resolution and exhibits to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Currently, at this location Center Avenue has a 40-foot right-of-way measured from centerline of the street. The Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea 5, calls for a 33-foot right- of-way. This vacation, V-190, will vacate the excess street right-of-way at this location along Center Avenue generally located on the west side of the street, south of 7th Street. The Streets and Highways Code Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8333 (a) allows for an easement to be summarily vacated for any excess right-of-way of a street or highway not required for street or highway purposes. Respectfully submitted, William O. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MNB:sc Attachment: Vicinity Map Resolution Vacation, Exhibits N.T.S. FOOTHILL- E, LVb. ARROW ROUTE 'N ~ll 6~ S~EET 4TH' STREET City of Rancho Cucam.on.qa .ESOLU ON No. CZ- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE FRONTING THE PROPERTY AT 9180 CENTER AVENUE WHEREAS, by Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8333(a), of the Streets and Highway Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate the excess street right-of-way along the west side of Center Avenue fronting the property at 9180 Center Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that the excess right- of-way is unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes because it has not been used for more than five (5) consecutive years and no public money was expended for maintenance of same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby makes its order vacating excess right-of-way along the west side of Center Avenue fronting the property at 9180 Center Avenue as described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B". SECTION 2: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, Califomia. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall certify passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force. SHEET 1 OF 2 VACATION V- 190 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUGAMONGA VACATION OF CENTER AVENUE THE WESTERLY 7.00 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 40.00 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THAT PORTION OF LOT C, NORTH CUCAMONGA TOWNSITE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 13 OF MAPS, PAGE 15, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 100 FOOT STRIP OF LAND AS CONDEMNED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY JUDGEMENT OUT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 119404. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 360 FEET. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 651 FEET. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 23, 1982, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-056.597. NOTE: THE AREA AND DISTANCES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ARE COMPUTED TO THE CENTERS OF THE ADJOINING STREETS AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 0209-261-28-0-000 , AREA OF VACATION = 2687 S.F, SEE EXHIBIT "¢" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. R.B. ENOINEERINC;i 3198 N. ASHWOOD STREET p,ONE (7m 6 7-BlOO 1 EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 2 OF 2 VACATION V- 190 N89'53'12"W ~_ 7TI"~ STREET NOFCFH CUCAMONGA TOWNSIT M.B. 13/1'8 A.P. NO. 0209-261-32-0-O00 N89'53' 12"W /,.~-P.L. r.= 562.07' 7' ----- POR. LOT '"6"' I'-. NOF'~-.FJ-J CUCAK/JONGA TOWNSJTF" M.B, 13/1'8 n o AREA OF VACATION o O N (2687 S.F.) z A.P. NO. 0209-261-28-O'-0OO SCALE: 1"=80" Z 7' 33'_ LEGEND ~ INDICATES AREA TO BE VACATED I('') 561.54' /.--- P.L. N89'44'01 "W P.M. NO. , 6TI--~ STREET 3198 N. ASHWOOD STREET ORANGE, CA 928155 MARK t~.'P-FT'I!./ER £.S.//585§ ~HO~F ~714) §37-8100 I-lC[NS[ £XPIRES 12--~1-04 T H E C I T ¥ 0 F RANCHO C U CA~I ONGA Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor William J. Alexander, Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Robert Bowery, Information Systems Manager A¢,,~,<:¢' SUBJECT: APPROVE A FIVE-YEAR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AS A SOLE-SOURCE WITH IBM, FOR HARDWARE AND SOFTVVARE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003~2004 IN THE AMOUNT OF $48~178.00 FROM ACCOUNT 1001-209-5300 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve IBM hardware and software maintenance agreements with IBM for fiscal year 2003/2004 in the amount of $48,178.00 from account 1001-209-5300. BACKGROUND As a routine and best business practice the Information Systems Division enters into annual hardware and software maintenance agreements covering the City's computer servers, related devices, and system software. The agreements cover hardware and software that are proprietary to IBM. These agreements provide Division staff access to IBM technical support, allow for the repair or replacement of failed components, and ensure the receipt of updates to operating system software. The contract commences on July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director R A C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE~ April 2, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jeff Barnes, Parks and Landscape Maintenance Superintendent ~: APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE SINGLE SOURCE VENDOR SELECTION FOR THE COMPLETION OF AN IRRIGATION RETROFIT PROJECT FROM MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $37,000 TO BE FUNDED FROM 1110316-5650/1119110-0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city Council approve and authorize single source vendor selection for the completion of an irrigation retrofit project from Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $37,000 to be funded from 1110316-5650/1119110-0. . BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In the 2002-2003 budget, City Council approved this year's phase of retrofitting Calsense systems in General Fund parkways for water conservation purposes. Staff is requesting that Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises, Inc. be approved as a single source vendor for the completion of this capital project. The installation of this equipment requires trenching and other severe interdictions of the irrigation systems on the sites that are retrofitted. Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises is the contractor that performs complete landscape and in'igation maintenance on these sites. The company is charged with ensuring that the sites remain in a good state of repair, including during construction projects such as this one. Thus, the company will minimize the negative effects of this project and will expeditiously return the site to its pre-construction condition. Also, if another contractor is hired to do this construction project, Mariposa could not be held responsible for the condition of the site during and after the project because another contractor is interfering with their work. Re~I~y submitted, WJO:JB:ju T H E C I T Y 0 F I~ANCIIO CUCAHONGA DATE: April 2, 2003 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency, Mayor and Members of City Council and Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Service Director BY: Dawn Haddon, Pumhasing Manager SUBJEC'F: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AEF SYSTEM CONSULTING~ INC. APPROPRIATED FROM RDA ACCOUNT NUMBER 26508015325 IN THE AMOUNT OF $25~000 AND CITY ACCOUNT NUMBER 11203055300 IN THE AMOUNT OF $25~000 FOR TECHNICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CULTURAL ART CENTER AND CENTRAL PARK PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION Request to approve a Professional Services Agreement with AEF System Consulting, Inc. for technical needs assessment consulting services for the City of Rancho Cucamonga Cultural Art Center and the Central Park Projects in the amount of $50,000. The funds will be appropriated from RDA account number 26508015325 for $25,000 and from City account number 11203055300 for $25,000. BACKGROUND Staff has identified the very important need to ensure that technology be thoroughly addressed for both the Cultural Art Center and the Central Park Projects. Both projects will serve as a technological resource to service the needs of our community. In keeping with the goals and objectives of the IT Master Plan, it is imperative during the planning phases of these two projects to design with the future in mind. AEF Consulting has been an integral part of many of the City's technology enhancements, including our permitting system, Tidemark, Community Services, Page 2 April 2, 2003 Errorl No text of specified style in document. CLASS registration, future E-government planning, and the City's Financial package, Bi-tech. AEF's expertise and organizational knowledge will allow the City to maximize its resoumes in meeting the technological needs of our City employees, our business community and our citizens. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director H:\Staff Reports~AEF STAFF REPORT.doc ~ A N C h O C U C A M O N G A ENGINI~I~I~ING DEPADT~I~N T StaffR port DALE: April 2, 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 Technician SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $147,020.50 ($133,655.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEMON AVENUE STREET REHABILITATION FROM BERYL STREET TO AMETHYST AVENUE, TO BE FUNDED FROM MEASURE I FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 11763035650/1411176-0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $147,020.50 ($133,655.00 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent Iow bidder, All American Asphalt, for The Construction of Lemon Avenue Street Rehabilitation from Beryl Street to Amethyst Avenue, to be funded from Measure I funds, Account No. 11763035650/1411176-0. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on March 11, 2003, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $170,655.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. ~r~t[ully submitted, Will~rr)/d:O'NeE v ~ City'E'ngineer WJO:LH/RO:Is Attachment BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING MARCH 11, 2003 APPARENTLOWBIDDER ENGINEERS COST Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation from Beryl Street to Amethyst Street ESTIMATE All American Asphalt Silvia Construction, Inc. UNIT UNIT UNIT NO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT C'OST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT 1. LS Clear and Grab, incl. sawcutting, removals of AC paving, and mobil., etc. $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $6,900.00 $6,900.00 $11,180.00 $11,180.00 2.! 3900 SY Gold Plane-Variable from 0' to 0.12' $2.25 $8,775.00 $1.95 $7,605.00 $1.24 $4,836.00 3. 1100 TONS Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix, including crack sealing and prepamtinn $60.00 $66,000.00 $55.70 $61,270.00 $54.50 $59,950.00 4. 170 TONS .Asphalt Concrete (R & R), including pavement preparation $60.00 $10,200.00 $108.00 $18,360.00 $63.00 $10,710.00 5. 400 TONS CrnshcdAggrcgateBase $40.00 $16,000.00 $26.5(] $10,600.00 $35.00 $14,000.00 6. 4 EA Adjust to Grad¢ (Manholes) $250.00 $1,000.00 $310.0(] $1,240.00 $321.00 $1,284.00 7. 10 EA Adjust to Grade (Water Valves) $150.00 $1,500.00 $125.00 $1,250.00 $45.00 $450.00 8. 1140 SF Remove Exist. Cross-Gutter and Const. New Cross-Gutter, incl. PCC curb $12.00 $13,680.00 $6.50 $7,410.00 $5.95 $6,783.00 9. 2050 SF Construct 8" ThickP.C.C. over 8" Thick Aggregate Base $10.00 $20,500.00 $6.00 $12,300.00 $6.30 $12,915.00 10. I LS Striping, Pavement Markings $10,000.00 $10,000.0C $3,340.00 $3,340.00 $3,444.00 $3,444.00 11. I LS Traffic Control $8,000.00 $8,000.0¢ $3,380.00 $3,380.00 $9,360.00 $9,360.0(] TOTAL $1701655.0G $1331655.00 $134~912.0(~ BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING MARCH 11, 2003 Holland-Lowe Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation from Beryl Street to Amethyst Street Construetion~ Inc. Vance Corporation R.J. Noble Company UNIT UNIT UNIT l~lO (~TYI UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT 1. 1 LS Clear and Grub, incl. sawcutfing, removals of AC paving, and mobil., etc. $21,500.00 $21;500.0(] $15,550.00 $15,550.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.0C 2. 3900 SY Cold Plane-Variable from 0' to 0.12' $1.93 $7,527.0(] $0.80 $3,120.00 $1.75 $6,825.0C 3. 1100 TONS Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix, including crack sealing and preparation $60.5(] $66,550.0(] $55.00 $60,500.00 $55.00 $60,500.0G 4. 170 TONS ,Asphalt Concrete (R & R), including pavement preparation $58.1(] $9,877.00 $80.00 $13,600.00 $100.00 $17,000.0(] 5. 400 TONS Crushed Aggrcgate Base $26.35 $10,540.00 $14.00 $5,600.00 $12.00 $4,800.00 6. 4 EA Adjust to Grade (Manholes) $475.00 $1,900.00 $480.00 $1,920.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 7. 10 EA Adjust toGrade (Water Valves) $50.00 $500.00 $50.00 $500.00 $55.00 $550.00 8. 1140 SF Remove Exist. Cross-Gutterand Const. NewCross-Gutter, incl. PCCcurb $8.85 $10,089.00 $12.00 $13,680.00 $13.75 $15,675.0(3 9. 2050 SF Construct 8" Thick P.C.C. over 8" Thick Aggregate Base $4.20 $8,610.00 $6.00 $12,300.00 $10.00 $20,500.0(] 10. 1 LS Striping, Pavement Markings $3,390.00 $3,390.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.0(3 11. I L$ Traffic Control $2,945.00 $2,945.00 $14,450.00 $14,450.00 $6,100.00 $6,100.0G ~ TOTAL $1431428.00 $144~720.00 $145,450.0(] Page 1 BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING MARCH 11, 2003 Laird Construction Co. Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation from Beryl Street to 3, meth~'st Street Inc. E.G.N. Construction, Inc. Gentry Brothers, Inc. UNIT UNIT UNIT N(} QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT C'OST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT 1. I LS Clear and Grubl incl. sawcutting, removals of AC paving, and mobil., etc. $20,907.50 $20,907.50 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 Z 3900 SY ColdPlane-Variable from0'to 0.12' $1.65 $6,435.0(3 $2.25 $8,775.00 $1.75 $6,825.00 3. 1100 TONS Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix, including crack sealing and preparation $60.00 $66,000.0(3 $72.00 $79,200.00 $64.00 $70,400.00 4. 170 TONS Asphalt Concrete (R & R), including pavement preparation $60.00 $10,200.00 $51.50 $8,755.00 $60.00 $10,200.00 5. 400 TONS Cmshed Aggregate Base $25.00 $10,000.0(3 $28.60 $11,440.00 $13.00 $5,200.00 6. 4 EA Adjust to Grade (Manholes) $500.00 $2,000.00 $750.00 $3,000.00 $200.0(~ $800.00 7. 10 EA Adjust to Grade (Water Valves) $50.00 $500.00 $40.00 $400.00 $10.00 $100.00 8. 1140 SF Remove Exist. Cross-Gutter and Coast. New Cross-Gutter, incl. PCC curb $12.50 $14,250.00 $8.40 $9,576.00 $8.00 $9,120.00 9. 2050 SF Construct 8" Thick P.C.C. over 8" Thick Aggregate Base $6.25 $12,812.50 $7.75 $15,887.50 $7.00 $14,350.00 10. I LS Striping, Pavement Markings $3,750.0(3 $3,750.00 $3,815.00 $3,815.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 11. LS Traffic Control $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.0(3 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 TOTAL $151 ~855.00 $1541848.50 $1551595.00 BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING MARCH 11, 2003 Palm Canyon Lemon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation from Beryl Street to Amethyst Street Contractors, Inc. UNIT NO QTY UNIT IDESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT 1. 1 LS Clear and Grub, incl. sawcutting, removals of AC paving, and mobil., etc. $12,815.00 $12,815.00 2. 3900 SY !Cold Plane-Variable from 0' to 0.12' $2.10 $8,190.00 3. 1100 TONS Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix, including crack sealing and preparation $69.65 $76,615.00 4. 170 TONS Asphalt Concrete (R & R), including pavement preparation . $87.81 $14,927.70 5. 400 TONS Crushed Aggregate Base $39.80 $15,920.00 6. 4 EA Adjust to Grade (Manholes) $509.00 $2,036.00 7. 10 EA' Adjust to Grade (Water Valves) $17.00 $170.00 8. 114C SF Remove Exist. Cross-Gutter and Coast. New Cross-Gutter, incl. PCC curb $15.13 $17,248.20 9. 205¢ SF Construct 8" Thick P.C.C. over 8" Thick Aggregate Base $5.01 $10,270.50 10. LS Striping, Pavement Markings $4,135.00 $4,135.00 11. LS Traffic Control $6,075.00 $6,075.00: ~_'~l TOTAL $168,402.40 Page 2 LEMON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (FROM BERYL STREET TO AMETHYST STREET) I: ~-~"' ~' '~ ..... ~ i'~ · ._ JL__I~ ~' I ..- ! I i'-; '-1 --ll-l~ ~~~--------.: 4~__ __~_,.'. · i I.I.__ll..lt ~ll ~ ~__.. CITY OF EANCH0 CUCAMONGA VICINITY MAP R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A F~I~CINI~I~I~IN C DI~PAI~TMI~NT DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY CONTRACT INSPECTION OF VARIOUS CITY WIDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO AUFBAU CORPORATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000.00 TO BE FUNDED FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS, ACCOUNTS 11703035300 (CONTRACT SERVICES), 10013045300 (CONTRACT SERVICES) AND 10013055306 (CFD). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize the execution of the Professional Services Agreement for temporary contract inspection of various City wide capital improvement projects to Aufbau Corporation in an amount not to exceed $120,000.00 to be funded from capital improvement funds, accounts 11703035300 (Contract Services), 10013045300 Contract Services) and 1001305306 (CFD). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Due to the increase in City capital improvement projects and a City Supervising Publics Works Inspector requiring extended medical leave (three months minimum), staff is recommending that City Council approve the use of temporary contract inspection. The proposed rate for inspection services includes vehicle, cell phone, errors and omissions insurance and prevailing wages (now mandated by the State). Contract inspection services are to be funded from the accounts of the various capital improvement projects that are to be inspected. Respectfully submitted, W illi ~.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.m'J. O' N ell City Engineer Attachment: Professional Services Agreement PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SERVICES This Agreement is made and entered into this __ day of April, 2003, between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Aufbau Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). A. Recitals. 1. i CITY has issued its Request for Proposal pertaining to the performance of professional services with respect to the inspection of public works construction on various citywide public works of improvement ("Project" 'hereafter). 2.. CONSULTANT has now submitted its proposal for the performance of such services. 3. CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform professional public works inspection services to the CITY, City Council and staff to insure Project compliance with applicable standards, specifications, plans and laws. 4. CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to perform such services and is willing to perform such professional services as hereinafter defined. NOW, THF. REFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: B. Agreement. 1. Definitions: a) Project: Public Works of Improvement at various locations throughout the City. b) Services: The inspection of public works of improvement before, during and/or after construction to insure conformance with applicable standards, specifications, plans, laws and accepted standard construction practices. This includes, but is not limited to inspections, diaries, records, reports, and documentation, the presentation, both oral and in writing, of such inspections, reports and documents to CITY as required and attendance at any meetings conducted by CITY, with respect to the Project, that the CITY deems necessary. c) Documents: Inspection records and reports, photographs and videos, including but not limited to, all load tickets, weight tickets, certifications of compliance, submittals, shop drawings, materials reports and other Project related documents received by the CONSULTANT from third parties. 2. CONSULTANT agrees as follows: a) CONSULTANT shall undertake and complete Services all in accordance with Federal, State and CITY statutes, regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of C1TY. b) CONSULTANT shall provide to City, person(s) necessary to comply with the terms of this Agreement. CONSULTANT hereby warrants that such person(s) shall be fully qualified to perform Services required hereunder. c) CONSULTANT shall, on a daily basis, deliver Documents to CITY when generated or prepared or received by CONSULTANT. d) CONSULTANT shall not subcontract Services. 3. CITY agrees as follows: a) City shall pay CONSULTANT hourly rate(s) consistent with those rates shown in Exhibit "A" for the performance of the Services required hereunder. The hourly rate shall cover the cost of staff time and all other direct and indirect costs or fees, including vehicle, cell phone and other equipment necessary to perform the Services. b) CITY shall make payments to CONSULTANT in accordance with invoices submitted by CONSULTANT, on a monthly basis. Such invoices shall be paid within a reasonable time after CITY receives said invoices. All charges shall be in accordance with CONSULTANT's proposal with respect to hourly rates for individual tasks. c) City shall provide copies of standards, plans, specifications, permits and other infor- mation, if available, which CITY considers necessary in order for CONSLIYFANT to perform Services. 4. Ownership of Documents: a) All documents generated by or prepared by or received by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered the property of CITY. b) CONSULTANT may make and retain copies of said documents and materials, as CONSULTANT may desire. 5. Termination: a) This agreement may be terminated by CITY upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONSULTANT at least five (5) days prior to the date of termination specified in said Notice. b) In the event this Agreement is so terminated, CONSULTANT shall be compensated at the applicable hourly rate(s) as set forth in Exhibit "A", for all Services completed as of the date of termination. c) CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY any and all Documents, whether in draft or final form, generated by or prepared by or received by CONSULTANT as of date of termination. d) CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 6. Notices and Designated Representatives: a) Any and all notices, demands, invoices and written communications between the parties hereto shall be addressed as set forth in this Section 6. b) The below named individuals shall be the persons primarily responsible for the performance by the parties under this Agreement: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 (909) 477-2740 extension 4075 Vartan V. Vartanians, Director of Engineering Aubau Corporation 9567 Arrow Route, Suite P Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 (909) 648-3891 b) Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications by mail shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee forty-eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as set forth above. 7. Insurance: a) CONSULTANT shall not commence Services under this Agreement until: (1) CONSULTANT has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to CITY. (2) CONSULTANT has furnished CITY with original endorsements, or copies of each required policy, effecting and evidencing the insurance coverage required by this Agreement. (3) A person authorized by the insurer(s) to bind coverage on its behalf shall sign the endorsements. (4) All endorsements or policies have been received and approved by CITY. b) The CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this Agreement the following policies of insurance: (1) CONSULTANT shall provide full compensation insurance for all persons whom the CONSULTANT may employ in carrying out Services specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Such policy of insurance shall provide that the insurer waives all rights of subrogation against CITY and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. (2) In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code, every employer shall secure the payment of compensation to his employees. CONSULTANT shall sign and file with CITY a certification as follows: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code. I will comply with said provisions before commencing the performance of work of this contract." (3) Commercial General Liability (occurrence) ~ for bodily injury, death and property damage for products/completed operations and any and all other activities undertaken by the CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement - - or --: (4) (Alternative to Commercial General Liability) - Comprehensive, broad form General Public liability (occurrence) - for bodily injury, death and property damage arising out of any activities undertaken by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. (5) Comprehensive Automobile Liability (occurrence) - for bodily injury, death and property damage insuring against all liability arising out of the use of any vehicle. (6) Professional Errors and Omissions Liability - insuring against all liability arising out of professional errors and/or omissions, providing protection of at least $1,000,000 for errors and/or omissions ("malpractice") of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Such policy may be subject to a deductible or retention in an amount acceptable to CITY and shall further be subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (6) of Section (c), below. If a "claims made" policy is provided, such policy shall be maintained in effect from the date of performance of Services on CITY's behalf until three (3) years after the date the work or services are accepted as completed. Coverage for the post-completion period may be provided by renewal or replacement of the policy for each of the three (3) years or by a three (3) year extended reporting period endorsement which reinstates all limits for the extended reported period. If any such policy and/or policies have a retroactive date, that date shall be no later than the date of first performance of work or services on behalf of CITY. Renewal or replacement policies shall not allow for any advancement of such retroactive date. Each such policy or policies shall include a standard "Notice of Circumstances" provision. (7) The policies of insurance required in this Subsection b). shall have no less than the following limits of coverage: (a) $1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) for bodily injury or death; (b) $1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) for property damage. (c) The total of the limits specified in (a) and (b), above, where a combined single limit is provided. c) The policies of insurance required in subsections b) (3), (4) and (5) above, shall: (1) Be subject to no deductible amount unless otherwise provided, or approved in writing by CITY; (2) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by CITY, which is admitted and licensed to do business in the State of California and which is rated A+ (seven) or better according to the most recent A.M. Best Co. Rating Guide; (3) Names as additional insured, the CITY, it elected officials, officers, employees, attorneys and agents, and any other parties, including subcontractors, specified by CITY to be included; (4) Specify that it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance held or owned by the designated additional insured shall be called upon to cover a loss under said policy; (5) Specify that it applies separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability; (6) Contain a clause substantially in the following words: "It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled nor the amount of coverage thereof reduced until thirty (30) days after receipt by CITY of written notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a registered letter." (7) Specify that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the required policy, including breaches of warranty, shall not affect the coverage required to be provided; (8) Specify that the insurer waives all rights of subrogation against any of the named additional insured; and (9) Specify that any and all cost of adjusting and/or defending any claim against any insured, including court costs and attorneys' fees, shall be paid in addition to and shall not deplete any policy limits. d) CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with the required policies or endorsements evidencing renewal of the required policies of insurance prior to the expiration of any required policies of insurance if performance of this Agreement shall extend beyond one (1) year. 8. Indemnification: a) CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from all liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or property. b) CONSULTANT pay any and all legal costs and attorneys' fees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all consequential damages, to the maximum extent permitted by law. 9. Assignment: CONSULTANT hereunder shall make no assignment of this Agreement or of any pm or obligation of performance, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of CITY. 10. Independent Contractor: The parties hereto agree that CONSULTANT and its employees, officers and agents are independent contractors under this Agreement and shall not be construed for any purpose to be employees of CITY. 11. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 13. Entire Agreement: a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matters herein. b) Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party that is not embodied herein or any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid and binding. c) Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing signed by all parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above: AUFBAU CORPORATION Vartan V. Vartanians, Vice-President Date CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A Municipal Corporation William J. Alexander, Mayor Date ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk Date Aufbau Consulting C~vil Engineers · Const]~JCtion Management & [r~on Se~ices 3uly 2, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9~.72g Attention: Mr. Monte Prescher Subject: Letter of Interest - Construction Inspection Services Dear Mr. Prescher: Aufbau Corporation is pleased to present this letter of interest to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to perform construction inspection and construction management services on an as needed and on-call basis. Aufbau Corporation is a multi-disciplinary engineering firm, which serves exclusively public agencies. Services provide by Aufbau include construction inspection, construction management, program management, project management, construddbility review, value engineering, design oversight, engineering design, 'and plan review services. We provide courteous, timely, and professional services to the public agencies we serve. Aufbau provides all the required qualifications, resources, competence, and enthusiasm needed to serve as an extension of your staff in meeting the construction inspection and construction management needs of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We have a branch office located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that supports our con~buction inspection and management services in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. During the past 15 years, Aufl3au has provided and continues to provide consultant services to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the areas of engineering design, design oversight, and plan review services. As such, we are very familiar with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's standards, processes, and requirements. We are confident that this familiarity, and our extensive experience in the field of construction inspection and management field will provide an added value to the services that Aufbau may provide to the City. Aufbau Corporation carries $1,000,000 of public liability insurance, as well as $1,000,000 of professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) for the mutual protection of the company and its clients. Aufbau fully complies with all Federal and State laws, including prevailing wages requirements. Attached to this letter please find our hourly rate schedule for construction inspection and management services. The hourly rates reflect the costs associated with a company vehicle, a cellular telephone, office space provided tO our inspection staff outside of the City premises, and light tools. 9567 Arrow Route, Suite P, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 /~ // Tel: 909.648.389! Fax: 909.948.3892 Page 2 of 2 Letter to Mr. Monte Prescher City of Rancho Cucamonga July 2, 2002 We are excited about the prospect of working with you and your staff in meeting the construction inspection needs of the City of: Rancho Cucamonga. Should you have any questions or comments, or should you be in need of any additional .information, please call me. Vartan V. Vartanians Director of Engineering WV/tbm Attacment Aufbau Corp. Hourly Rate Schedule* - Construction Insoection and Manaoement Services Public Works Projects** I Houdy Rates - Public Works Projects Overtime Straight- Time Daily/Saturday I Sunday/Holiday Classification: Construction Inspector I $65.00 $82.00 $96.00 Resident Engineer (Registered Civil Engineer) I $85.00 $110.00 $125.00 Structural Representative (Registered Civil Engineer) $90.00 $115.00 $130.00 Non- Public Works Pro_iects** Hourly Rates - Non-Public Works Projects Overtime Straight- Time Daily/Saturday I Sunday/Holiday Classification: Construction I'nspector $62.00 $78.00 I $78.00 Resident Engineer (Registered Civil Engineer) $82.00 $105.00 I $105.00 Structural Representative (Registered Civil Engineer) $85.00 $110.00 $110.00 * Rates are good through .lune 30, 2003 - Rates are subject to change effective July 1, 2004, in proportion with the determinations made by the State of California Depar~nent of Industrial Relations. ** Public Works as defined in Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 1, Sections 1720-1743 of the California Labor Code. T H E C I T Y 0 F I I ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DA'IE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor William J. Alexander, Members of the City Council and Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Robert Bowery, Information Systems Manager ~' SUBJECT: APPROVE AN INCREASE TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ORACLE AND SQL DATABASE CONSULTING WITH PRUDENCE HUANG FROM THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF $15~600 TO $22~000 FROM ACCOUNT 1001-209-5300 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve an increase to the Professional Services Agreement for Oracle and SQL database consulting with Prudence Huang from the original amount of $15,600 to $22,000 from account 1001-209-5300. BACKGROUND On September 11, 2002 the City of Rancho Cucamonga executed a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Prudence Huang, and independent contractor, for Oracle and SQL database consulting services. The original contract budget for fiscal year 2002/2003 was $15,600. At this juncture the Information Systems Division desires to further use Ms. Huang's services and to supplement the original Pumhase Order (#046455) by an additional $6,400 (from $15,600 to $22,000) to help build the Enterprise GIS database identified in the IT Master Plan. Staff is seeking City Council approval for this contract cost increase. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director ?2. City of Rancho Cucamonga Contract Services Agreement This agreement is entered into the City of Rancho Cucamonga by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, (hereinafter called CITY) and Prudence Huang, (hereinafter called CONSULTANT). Whereas the CITY desires to obtain professional technical services and whereas the CONSULTANT has signified a willingness and is qualified to undertake the required work in connection therewith, the following provisions shall govern this Agreement. 1. TERMS: This Agreement will become effective on August 14, 2002 and will continue in effect until terminated by agreement of the parties or until the completion of all works issued under this Agreement, whichever shall first occur. 2. TERMINATION: City may terminate this Agreement for cause or convenience fffieen (15) days after giving Consultant notice of termination. Upon receipt of notice, Consultant will: (a) immediately stop work unless otherwise directed by City in writing; and (b) notify City of costs incurred up to the date of terminatinn. City shall pay those costs within thirty (30) days of receipt of a proper invoice. Such costs shall not exceed, and City will not be obligated to pay more than, the unpaid balance due to prior to the termination date. 3. SERVICES PROVIDED: The CONSULTANT agrees to the following: 3.1 The Work. During the period of this Agreement, Consultant agrees to perform work consisting generally of professional technical services. The work to be performed will be authorized by City. 3.2 Method of Performing Services. Consultant, in conjunction with authorized representatives from City will determine the method, details, and means of performing the work for City. $.3 Place of Work. Consultant will perform all work for City primarily at City's premises except when such projects or tasks may, as mutually determineai, be performed off-site. City agrees to provide working space and facilities, and any other services and materials related to the Work. Consultant may reasonably request in order to perform the Work. 3.4 Intention of Parties. It is the intention of the parties that Consultant be an independent consultant and not an employee of City. Nothihg in this Agreement shall be interpreted as creating the relationship of employer and employee between City and Consultant. 3.5 Nanexelusive. Consultant shall retain the right to perform work four others during the term of this Agreement. City shall retain the right to cause work of the same or a different kind as that to be performed by Consultant to be performed by its own personnel or other Page 1 of 4 Contract Consultant Agreement 9/11/2002 consultants during the term of this Agreement. 4. COMPENSATION: The CITY agrees to provide the CONSULTANT payment as follows: 4.1 Rates. The method and mount of compensation for this Agreement is at $75.00 per hour based on time and materials. 4.2 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices with timesheet to City mommy for the services furnished and other expenses incurred hereunder. Each invoice will provide a breakdown. 4.3 Date for Payment of Compensation. City shall pay each undisputed invoice in full within thirty (30) days after receipt. City shall pay the undisputed portion of any disputed invoice in full within thirty (30) days after receipt, and shall promptly notify Consultant of the nature of any such dispute. 4.4 Expenses. Except as otherwise agreed in this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incident to the performance of services for City. 5. REPORTING OF INCOME: It is the responsibility of the CONSULTANT for properly reporting all monies earned as a result of work done for the CITY to the State and Federal Governments, The CITY shall distribute Internal Revenue Form 1099 to the Federal Government describing monies earned by the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall receive a copy for tax purposes. 6. ASSIGNMENTS: The CONSULTANT shall not,. under any circumstances, assign lhis contract or its duties without proper authorization from the CITY. Should sucl~ an authorization be granted, the CONSULTANT agrees to inform any subcontractor of all stipulations of this agreement. Intellectual Property Rights 6.1 Confidentiality. Consultant shall maintain in strict confidence, and shall use and disclose only as authorized by City, all information of a competitively sensitive or proprietary nature that it receives in connection with the work performed for City. 6.2 Ownership of Work Product. All copyrights, patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights associated with any ideas, concepts, techniques, inventions, processes, or works developed or created by Consultant during the course of performir~g works (collectively, the "Work Product") for City shall belong exclusively to City. Consultant hereby assigns to City all fight, title, and interest in and to all copyrights on all writings, documents, reports, papers, drawings, tabulations, books, computer programs, and other works written or made by Consultant under this Agreement. 6.3 Residual Rights of Consultant. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein~ Consultant shall be flee to use and employ its general skills, know-how, and expertise during the course of this Agreement, so long as it applies such information without Page 2 of 4 Contract Consultant Agreement 9/11/2002 disclosure of any conndential or proprietary information of City and without any unauthorized use or disclosure of Work Product. 7. INSURANCE: CONSULTANT shallneithercommenceworkunderthisAgreementuntilit has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to CITY nor shall CONSULTANT allow any SUBCONTRACTOR to commence work on a subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement the following poficies of insurance: (a) Public Liability and Property Damage: Throughout the term of this Agreement, at CONSULTANT'S sole cost and expense, CONSULTANT shall keep, or cause to be kept, in full force and effect, for the mutual benefit of the CITY and CONSULTANT, comprehensive, broad form, general public liability and automobile insurance against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from CONSULTANT'S activities, providing protection of at least One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for bodily injury or death to any one person or for anyone accident or occurrence and at least One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for property damage. If such insurance includes an aggregate limit, such aggregate shall be no less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). 8. INDEMNIFICATION, HOLD ltARMLESS AND DEFENSE: The CONSULTANT hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless The City of Rancho Cucamonga, its directors, officers, employees, and agents for any damage or injury to any person or property from any cause whatsoever which may incur, due to the presence and/or activities of the CONSULTANT on or about premises owned and/or controlled by the CITY, except for a cause of injury or damage which is the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY, its employees or servants. 9. LIMITATIONS 9.1 Warranty. Work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall conform to the specifications provided by City, and with the operating systems, protocols, and standards employed generally by City that have been communicated to Consultant by City. 9.2 Force Majeure. Consultant shall not be liable to City for any failure or delay caused by events beyond Consultant's control, including, without limitation, City's failure to furnish necessary information, sabotage, failures or delays in communication, failures or substitutions of equipment, labor disputes, accidents, shortages of labor, or technical failures. Page 3 of 4 Contract Consultant Agreement 9/11/2002 10. PREVIOUS AGREEMENT: Any and all existing agreements or renewals between the parties hereto, covering the same subject matter, are hereby canceled and superseded by this agreement and such prior arrangements shall have no further force or effect. 11. This agreement is to be completed, signed and Submitted prior to commencement of work. Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonea Consult, ant Authorized Agent Name q-I/- Date Address Telephone Q/Df ~ ~) ~ ~ 7 Tax ~ g Si~ture.~ ~ '~//-~ Date cc: Purchasing, Finance Department Page 4 of 4 Contract Consultant Agreement 9/11/2002 T H E C I T Y 0 F I~ANCHO CUCAI~ONGA DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Mayor and City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Dawn Haddon, Pumhasing Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR A CONTRACT FOR A POLICE DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE RELOCATION PROJECT AND CITY'S TELEPHONE SWITCH AND NE'rWORK UPGRADE WITH NEC~ INC. UTILIZING A CALIFORNIA MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE (CMAS)~ CONTRACT ~3-98-00-0226A~ APPROPRIATED AND FUNDED FROM FUND 2624-801-5325 IN THE AMOUNT OF $71~000. AND FROM THE CITY'S RESERVE FUND 1712-001- 5300 IN THE AMOUNT OF $110~545. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council approve a contract with NEC, BNS the City's current telephone maintenance provider, for an upgrade to the City's telephone network and for the telephone relocation project that will be needed for the Police Station and Emergency Operations Center during the renovation of the Police Station. The amount will not exceed $181,545.00 and will be appropriated from account 2624-801-5325 in the amount of $71,000 and $110,545, the reserve fund 17120015300. BACKGROUND In order to accommodate the construction necessary for the renovations and addition to the Police Station it will be necessary to vacate the existing building. Relocation of the telephone system will be needed to remotely connect the Police Department and Emergency Operations Center to the temporary buildings. Additionally, there is an urgent and immediate need to upgrade and expand the City's main switch to accommodate the Police Department move and to address current and future growth for the City's main telephone switch. This will ensure the integrity of the current telephone switch configuration and maintain consistent service levels for the campus environment we now support. Page 2 AEF Staff report April 2, 2003 NEC, BNS is the current vendor the City currently utilizes for telephone maintenance and additional telephone system adds/moves and changes. As it is critical to utilize the current telephone maintenance provider and take the opportunity to utilize pricing based on a CMAS contract, which has been competitively bid, the Pumhasing Division is requesting the approval from Council of a single source contract with NEC, BNS. Having the City's current telephone network vendor, NEC, BNS, will also ensure a smooth transition for the project and ensure telephone network system integrity. It is recommended that the Council approve this telephone network upgrade and the relocation project as well as the necessary funding appropriation. Respectfully Submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director RANCHO C U C A M O N G A ~i 11' ~ .... ~ Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ~ FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dale B. Catron, Facilities Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT FOR U.S. GUARDS, INC. TO JUNE 30, 2003; AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES FROM 1001312-5304 ($6,250), 1001312-5300 ($42,400), AND 1700201-5304 ($29,350) TO COVER THIS CONTRACT PERIOD AND EXTRA WORK; AND APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE SECURITY COVERAGE AT THE LIBRARY IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000 TO BE FUNDED FROM 1290601-5300 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a contract amendment to extend the contract for U.S. Guards, Inc. to June 30, 2003; authorize additional expenditures from 1001312-5304 ($6,250), 1001312-5300 ($42,400) and 1700201- 5304 ($29,350) to cover this contract period and extra work; and approve and authorize security coverage at the Library in the amount of $11,000 to be funded from 1290601-5300. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 20, 2001, City Council approved a contract with U.S. Guards, Inc. to provide security services at the Metrolink Station, Civic Center, and the Epicenter. The City has received excellent response from this vendor and would like to extend their contract to the end of this Fiscal Year. Staff has received a letter from U.S. Guards acknowledging their desire to continue this contract at their current hourly rate. U.S. Guards has provided extra services for the following special situations: · Vandalism at Hermosa Park · Additional hours for parking lot escort at City Hall during Daylight Savings · Security during 210 freeway grand opening preparations · Additional hours for Metrolink and Stadium due to security concerns In addition, in December, the Library requested provision of security guard services in response to staff concerns, vandalism, and difficulty hiring part time monitoring staff. U.S. Guards provided a proposal consistent with their previously quoted rates. There is a projected savings of $600 per month utilizing guard services in lieu of part time monitoring staff. Resp/o~y submitted, City Engineer WJO:DBC:ju R a N C H O C U C A M O N G A E NC, IN EEI~ING DE PAI~T~ENT Staff R l ort DATE: April 2, 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 DR 00-73, LOCATED ON CHARLES SMITH AVENUE, SOUTH OF SIXTH STREET TO TERMINUS OF ROCHESTER COURT, SUBMITTED BY PARAGON ROCHESTER, LLC RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond, for DR 00-73, located on Charles Smith Avenue, south of Sixth Street to terminus of Rochester Court submitted by Paragon Rochester, LLC. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and worl~manship. Developer: Paragon Rochester, LLC 319 East Palm, Second Floor Placentia, CA 92870 Resp~ectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachments R a N h 0 C U C ^ M O N Ga 1~ ~CIN E E 1~ IN G I~E PAI~ Till E N T DATE: April 2, 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 SUBJEC'F: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF. COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15536, SUBMI'I-I'ED BY FAIRWAY PALMS LLC, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FIFTH STREET, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Parcel Map 15536 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 Parcel Map 15536, located on the south side of Fifth Street, west of Milliken 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: Fairway Palms LLC 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 Release: Faithful Performance Bond 184 59 64 $165,300.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond 184 59 64A $ 16,530.00 . .~ff.~ully submitted, V~m J. O'Neil City Engineer ~ s~¢~ $~E~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGIN~.E~.ING DIVISION RESOLUTION NO. ~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUOAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 15536 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, 'the construction of public improvements ,for Parcel Map 15536, 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 Bemardino County. R A N H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT $ Repol DATE: April 2, 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 Enginee~::~lk~'~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Techr~i~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND NO. 6023277-M IN THE AMOUNT OF $781,550.69, FOR THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II, DEER CREEK BRIDGE WIDENING AND STORM DRAIN PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. 00-014 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 6023277-M in the amount of $781,550.69 for the Foothill Boulevard Median Improvements Phase II, Deer Creek Bridge Widening and Storm Drain Project, Contract No. 00-014. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance pedod has ended and the street, storm drain and bridge improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: KEC Engineering 200 N. Sherman Avenue Corona, CA 92882-7162 Re~'~u?_submitted, WJO:LH/RO:Is Attachments VICINITY MAP P.r. oject _.4 S~te ~ --"1 '-"1 .q' ~ 6TH ST Z ~ ....... 4TH ,ST, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~.~~.~ ~,~ FOOTHILL BLVD. AND HERMOSA AVE. STORll DRAIN AND )~'nIAN rMPROV~Jk'~ITS R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ~i~GIN ~I~I~IN g DEPAI2T~I~N T DAT~: April 2, 2003 T~ Mayor and Membem of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ~: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jer~ Dyer, Associate Engineer ~V Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Tebhnician ~ SU~E~: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUA~NTEE BOND NO. SB0066334 IN THE AMOUNT OF $255,039.15, FOR THE LOWER HERMOSA STORM D~IN & STREET WIDENING-PHASE I, CONTACT NO. 00-078 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Ci~ Cle~ to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. SB0066334 in the amount of $255,039A5 for the Lower He~osa Storm Drain & Street Widening-Phase I, Contra~ No. 00~78. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defers in materials and workmanship. Contractor: Southern California Underground Contmctom, Inc. P.O. Box 1747 Bma, CA 92822-1747 Respectfully submitted, City finoinoor A~achments IMPROVElVI~'1'~f LIMITS 4TH STKEET TO 5~=h ~'~ ~so' sotrm or N.TS, Lower Hermosa Avenue Store Drain and Street Widening VICINITY MAP R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ~ NG I NEI~I~IN G DE PAI~TFI I~NT DA'ffi: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council ,lack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William ,l. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician~ ~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND NO. 6064652 IN THE AMOUNT OF $167,919.00, FOR THE METROLINK STATION EXPANSION, PHASE II, CONTRACT NO. 00-096 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 6064652 in the amount of $167,919.00 for the Metrolink Station Expansion, Phase II, Contract No. 00-096. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the parking lot, landscape and Metrolink Station improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: Riverside ConstructiOn Company 111 No. Main Street P.O. Box 1146 Riverside, CA 92502-1146 Respectfully submitted, Will~arfl J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WS/RO:Is Attachments llllJllllllllilllllllllllilllil~/ R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E ~GINEEI~ING DI~PAI~T~II~NT Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria Perez, Associate Enginee~'~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician~,~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND NO. 6064654 IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,896.00, FOR THE CIVIC CENTER EAST PARKING LOT EXPANSION, CONTRACT NO. 01-022 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 6064654 in the amount of $52,896.00 for the Civic Center East Parking Lot Expansion, Contract No. 01-022. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the parking lot and landscape improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: Riverside Construction Company 111 No. Main Street P.O. Box 1146 Riverside, CA 92502-1146 City Engineer WJO:MP/RO:Is Attachments lei ,o~FOOTHILL BI / _CIVIC CENTER .. EDISON. Iq~OJECT:CI~IC CENTEB PARKING CITY OF LOT, EXPANSION BANClIO CUCAMONGA uMrrs: APN 2O8-352-72 ENnlNEEBINe DMSlON EXHIBIT: VlCINITYMAP /~ R a N C H O C U C A M O N G A ]~NGINI~[:I~IN G DI~PAI~TFII~NT S ffRelx DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician~ ~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND NO. FC910600036 IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,209.30, FOR THE RED HILL PARK STORAGE BUILDING AND STORAGE SHED AND THE HERITAGE PARK STORAGE SHED, BID ALTERNATE NO. 2 (BUILDINGS A & B), CONTRACT NO. 01- O55 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. FC910600036 in the amount of $14,209.30 for the Red Hill Park Storage Building and Storage Shed and the Heritage Park Storage Shed, Bid Alternate No. 2 (Buildings A & B), Contract No. 01-055. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the park improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: KCE Company 1846 Woodlawn Street Upland, CA 91786 Res u,y submi. d, City Engineer WJO:WS/RO:Is Affachments ALMOND ST. ~ RED HIM. COMMUNITY ~ BA.~UNE RON )j J ~ PARK (BUILDINGS 'A' & 'B') ~OCA~O~ ~ H.T~ -. ~D HILL PA~ STOOGE BUILDING AND STOOGE SHED PROJECT ~e.~, CITY OF RANCHO CU~kNIONG~ title; ~'~ VICINITY MAP R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry Dyer, Associate Engineer ~/'O/J' Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Te~chnician SUBJECT: RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO. 929202598 IN THE AMOUNT OF $554,281.00, FOR THE LOWER HERMOSA AVENUE PHASE I UTILITY UNDERGROUND AND STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS FROM 4TM STREET TO APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET SOUTH OF 8TM STREET, CONTRACT NO. 01-089 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Faithful Performance Bond No. 929202598 in the amount of $554,281.00 for the Lower Hermosa Avenue Phase I Utility Underground and Street Light Improvements from 4th Street to Approximately 350 feet south of 8th Street, Contract No. 01-089. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: HermannWeissker, Inc. 2631 S. Riverside Avenue Bloomington, CA 92316 Res.,pect~ly submitted, Willi~a/J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JD/RO:Is Attachments 24TH ~T ~. s~ NTS z F' lEO J E C T oNT ^~,o c,~' L,M,T LOCATION " LOw~ N~,RMOSA AVENUE PHASE 1 UTILITY UNDERGROUND AND STREET LIGHT ~MPROVEMENTS 4TH STREET TO 350' S~0 8TH STREET VICINITY MAP R A N C H O C U C A M O N GA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry Dyer, Associate Engineer ~FJ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering T~chnician~'~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND NO. FS6629491 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,247.83, FOR THE BANYAN STREET RIGHT TURN LANE WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, CONTRACT NO. 01-100 RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. FS6629491 in the amount of $6,247.83 for the Banyan Street Right Turn Lane west of Milliken Avenue, Contract No. 01-100. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: EGN Construction, Inc. 1549 E. Grand Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Really submitted, Will~a~.m/J. O'l~eil" City Engineer WJO:JD/RO:Is Attachments PROJECT / ~LOCATION __--' OMTARIO CI~ LIMIT ~~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA B~ S~EET RIGHT TURN ~E SOU~ SIDE OF B~ S~ET ~ST OF MI~N A~NUE VICINITY MAP I~ a N C H O C U C A M O N GA ENGINEERING DE PARTIffENT Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer ~,~ BY: Jerry Dyer, Associate Engineer ~v'~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Te~chnician-~ SUBJECT: RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO. 83 SB 103463499 BCM IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,424.10, FOR THE 6TM STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM HELLMAN AVENUE TO ARCHIBALD AVENUE, CONTRACT NO. 01-101 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Faithful Performance Bond No. 83 SB 103463499 BCM in the amount of $184,424.10 for the 6~h Street Pavement Rehabilitation from Hellman Avenue to Amhibald Avenue, Contract No. 01-101. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: R.J. Noble Company 15505 E. Lincoln Avenue Orange, CA 92865 R~s~tfully submitted, W' i~_.~'n J, O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JD/RO:Is Attachments 24TH 5T a~. ~ NTS ONTAP-JO CITY LIMIT PROJECT LOCATION· · cITy 0F.'RANCHO CUCAMONGA 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM HELLMAN AVENUE TO ARCHIBALD AVENUE VICINITY MAP R A N C H O C U C A M O N GA ~i'/G IN E E I~IN G DE PAI~ TH E N T Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda Hackett, Project Manager~'~ Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician -~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARROW ROUTE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM GROVE AVENUE TO BAKER AVENUE, CONTRACT NO. 02-050 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 $276,980.10 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the construction of the Arrow Route Pavement Rehabilitation from Grove Avenue to Baker Avenue, Contract No. 02-050 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 $313,174.00 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 $27,698.01,35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $276,980.10. 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 $276,980.10, which included two contract change orders resulting in a change in the original contract amount of minus 12.61%. The original amount approved by Council was $348,627.40 ($316,934.00 plus 10%). Respectfully submitted, City Engineer ARROW ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (FROM GROVE AVENUE TO BAKER STREET) !4TH ST \ \ 6TH ST II CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VICINITY MAP RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE ARROW ROUTE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM GROVE AVENUE TO BAKER AVENUE, CONTRACT NO. 02-050 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the Arrow Route Pavement Rehabilitation from Grove Avenue to Baker Avenue, Contract No. 02-050, 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. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNClE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DDA2002-00001, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM OFFICE TO MIXED USE FOR 7.24 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-101-32, 33 AND 50. A. Recitals. 1. The Frazier Group filed an application for Development District Amendment DDA2002-00001 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 22, and continued to February 12, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the associated General Plan Amendment application and issued Resolution No. 03-17, recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendment GPA2002-00001 be approved. 3. On January 22, and continued to February 12, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval of the application by the adoption of Resolution No. 03-18. 4. On March 19, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the associated General Plan Amendment application and issued Resolution No. , approving the associated General Plan Amendment GPA2002-00001. 5. On March 19, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and conducted said hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained 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 Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on March 19, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 7.24 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Channel and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Office; and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DDA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP March 19, 2003 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and the, future Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. The property to the west is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant. The property to the east is designated Community Commercial and is the Vineyard Town Center. The property to the south is designated Medium Residential and developed with a trailer park and single-family homes. c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent witl~the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrin'~ental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Counc=3 during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in, paragraphs I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area as evidenced by its frontage on a public street, its size exceeding minimum size requirements for the land use designation, and the evidence of similar uses existing in the immediate area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by existing medium density residential development and commemial activities in the immediate area; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, which contains provisions for Mixed Use land use designations. 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 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 attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the f'mdings 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 Ir~tial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below. ./I CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DDA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP Mamh 19, 2003 Page 3 Environmental Mitiqation: Water 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that identifies Best Management Practices to be implemented during the period the site is under construction. Best Management Practices shall be identified on the Grading Plan 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 PMm emissions, in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403. 2) Streets adjacent to the site 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 mayvary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to minimize PMm emissions from the site during such episodes. 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~o emissions. 5) 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 manufacturers' 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. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DDA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP March 19, 2003 Page 4 Noise 1 ) Recommendations and/or mitigation measures presented in the noise analysis shall become a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project. If sound barriers and/or building elements designed to reduce interior noise levels are required, then they shall be incorporated into design plans. 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 Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1 -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 City Council hereby approves Developroent District Amendment DDA2.002-00001 to change lhe district from Office to Mixed Use for the site identified in this Ordinance, as shown on Exhibit "A' of this Ordinance. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet N City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: GPA2002-00001, DDA2002-00001, and DCA2002-00001 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resoumes Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Condilions 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 0f compliance and verification has been oulJined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting pregrams 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 City staff's 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 vedfied 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 cimumstances 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 written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 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 prior to the issuance of building permits. I:~INAL\CEQA'~vlMP Form-rev.wpd MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: GPA2002-00001, DDA2002-0001, & DCA,?.002-0001 Applicant: FrazierGroup Initial Study Prepared by: Warren Morelion Date: December 30, 2002 Pdor to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a CP/CE B Review of plans C 2 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that identifies Best Management Practices to be implemented during the period the site is under construction. Best Management Practices shall be identified on the Grading Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabili~Jng CP C Review of plans C (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to_reduce PM~o emissions, 2 in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Streets adjacent to the site shall be swept according to a·schedule CP C Review of plans C established by the Ciky to reduce PM~o emissions associated with 2 vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vaP/depending upon time of year of construction. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed CP C Review of plans C 25 miles per hour to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during 2 such episodes. Chemical soii stabtiizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall CP C Review of plans C be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 2 96 hours or more to reduce PM~= emissions. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment CP B Review of plans C used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. 2 The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be toned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications. The conatraction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alfamaflve fuel CP C Review of plans C powered equipment where feasible. 2 The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading CP B Review of plans C plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when 2 not in use. Recommendations and/or mitigation measures presented in the noise CP D Review of plans A/C 3 analysis shall become a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project. If sound barriers and/or building elements designed to reduce ~'~ interior noise levels are required, then they shall be incorporated into ,. ~,~ , design plans. Key to Checklist Abbreviations COD - Community Development Director or designee A ~ With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map P - 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 - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies I Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee -' - Operating FC - Fire Chief or designee 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds 6 - Revoke CUP ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF T.E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANO.O UC^MONG^. CAL,FORN,A. APPROV,NG DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00A2002-00001, A ~EQUEST TO £STA~LISH A MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OFFICE USES, OR MEDIUM- HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OFFICE USES WHEN DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT (SHOD), WITH ACCOMPANYING DEFINITIONS, PROCESSING PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17. 08 AND 17.32 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA'S DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR 7.24 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-101-32, 33 AND 50. A. Recitals. 1. The Frazier Group filed an application for Development Code Amendment DCA2002-00001 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 22, and continued to February 12, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the associated General Plan An~endment and Development District Amendment applications and issued Resolution No. 03-17 and Resolution No. 03-18, respectively, recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendment GPA2002-00001 and Development District Amendment DDA2002-00001 be approved. 3. On January 22, and continued to February 12, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval of the application by the adoption of Resolution No. 03-19. 4. On Mamh 19, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly, noticed public hearing on the associated General Plan Amendment and Development Distdct Amendment applications and issued Resolution No. and Ordinance__, respectively, approving the associated General Plan Amendment GPA2002-00001 and Development District Amendment DDA2002-00001. 5. On Mamh 19, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and conducted said headng on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained 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 Ordinance are true and correct. /z$ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP Mamh 19, 2003 Page 2 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council dudng the above- referenced public headng on March 19, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence ~resented to this Council during the above- referenced pu_bli~c ~he_adng and upon-the-specifib' findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, thi.~ Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development by permitting joint development of varying uses already listed in the General Plan; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by allowing the innovative use of existing development standards to expand the range of uses within a development project; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity by mandating the continued use of existing development procedures and standards for Mixed Usa districts; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and objectives of the Development Code by continuing a policy encouraging quality development through the innovative application of existing design standards. 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 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 attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference; based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepa.red 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. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP Mamh 19, 2003 Page 3 Environmental Mitiqation: Water 1 ) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that identifies Best Management Practices to be implemented during the pedod the site is under construction. Best Management Practices shall be identified on the Grading Plan 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 Distdct and Regional Water Quality Control Board) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management Board Rule 403. 2) Streets adjacent to the site 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 miles per hour to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes, 4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by South Coast Air Quality Management Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. 5) The construction contractor shall select ~e 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 manufacturers' 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. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA2002-00001 - FRAZIER GROUP March 19, 2003 Page 4 Noise 1 ) Recommendations and/or mitigation measures presented in the noise analysis shall become a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project. If sound barriers and/or building elements designed to reduce interior noise levels are required, then they shall be incorporated into design plans. c. -Pursuant to tl~e-15rb-visions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows:. In considering the re(;:ord 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. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Development Code Amendment DCA2002-00001 to establish a Mixed Use District at the site identified in this Ordinance as shown in attached Exhibit"A," by modifying the text in Sections 17.08 and 17.32 as shown on attached Exhibit "B" and modifying the Subarea 1 Land Use Plan in Section 17.32.080 as shown on attached Exhibit 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet N Section 17.08.030. F.3., Mixed Use Districts, shall be amended to add the following new subsection (new text is in bold): "3. Foothill Boulevard-Cucamonga Channel site - This 7.24-acre site is located at the base of "Red Hill" on .the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Channel. The following table specifies the uses and range of development that may be permitted on the site. Percent Acreage Land Use Mix Range Range Medium Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres (8-14 dwelling units per acre) * .Office 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres The land use categories proposed within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character and intensity as defined in the Development Code Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32. All uses that may be authorized under office designations are subject to a Conditional Use Permit approval. The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32 for each permitted land use shall be applicable to the development within the Mixed Use District." · This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium- High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acrs) if developed in conjunction with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD). Section 17.32.020.C. Office. 3, Mixed Use, shal! be amended to add the following at the end of the section (new text is in bold): The following table specifies the uses and the range of development for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga Channel: NWC Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga Channel Percent Acreage Land Use Mix Range Range Medium Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres (8-14 dwellin9 units per acre) * Office 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres · This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) if developed in conjunction with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD). Section 17.32.080.A. Subarea 1.7.b, Permitted and Conditionally permitted uses, shall be amended to read as follows (new text is in bold): EXHIBIT"B" ' / ~_ g b. Permitted and Conditionally permitted uses: Refer to Table 17.32.030. At the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga Channel, a Mixed Use District allows Medium Residential and/or Office, or Medium-High Residential and/or Office if developed in conjunction with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), as provided in Section 17.32.020.C.3. In the Bear Gulch area, along both sides of Foothill Boulevard, a Mixed Use District allows Commercial and/or Medium Residential/Medium-High Residential as provided in Section t7.32.020.C.3 Foothill SC --..= 4~C: MR LEGENd) RESIDENTIAL' ~ MIXED USE ~ LOW DENDITY HEEIDENTIAL ~ OFfiCE LOW-MEDIUM SEIIDENTIAL ' LCO! COMMERCIAL/OFFICE ~ MEDIUM "'.,DENTIAL ~ ~ M~EOIUM-*HIGN RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ['~"] EPE*C'^L CO..".C..L [-~*] UT,L,TT Feel Co....,T*. CO....C,AL ~'..L,C 'l'~il' ..o.o.,,-"..L,,,.. co....c. AL .~.__,[.A.,.. ,'.,,. A..,, LAND USE PLAN City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: GPA2002-00001, DDA2002-00001, and DCA2002-00001 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that ad. opted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resoumes 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 are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. 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 expense beyond the City stal~s 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. Ail MMP Reporting Forms for animpact 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 cimumstances 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 occu~ng after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 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 indMdual 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:~FINAL\CEQA'~IMP Foen-rev.wpd MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Projec~ File No.: GPA2002-00001, DDA2002-0001, & DCA2002-000~ Applicant: Frazier Group Initial Study Prepared by: Warren Morelion Date: December 307 2002 Pdor to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a CPICE B Review of plans 2 Storm Water Poliutico Prevention Plan that identifies Best Management Practices to be implemented during the period the site is under construction, Best Management Practices shall be identified on the Grading Plan 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 C 2 (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Streets adjacent to the site shall be swept according to a schedule CP C Review bf plans C 2 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. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed CP C Review of plans C 2 25 miles per hour to minimize PM10 emissions Eom the site during such episodes. Chemlcat soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) ~hall CP C Review of plan~ C 2 be applied to all inactive construct[on areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions, The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment CP B Review of ptans C 2 used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high, energy efficiency. The constnJction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans Include a statement that all construction equipment wiJl be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications. The consfruclion contractor shall utilize electric or dean attema~e fuel CP C Review of plans C 2 powered equipment where feasible. The construction contractor shal~ ensure that const~ction-greding CP B Review of plans C 2 plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. Recommendations and/or mitigation measures presented in the noise CP D Review of plans A/C 3 analysis shal~ become a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project. If sound barriers and/or building elements designed to reduce interior noise levels are required, then they shall be incorporated into design plans. Key to Checklist Abbreviations CDD - Community Develop,,,e,~[ 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 Agen(.-y @ermlt I Approval 2 - Wltl~ h~ld Grading'or B'u'iid lng Permi'~" CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports I Studies / Ptans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO ' Police Captain or des gnee E - Cpe,ai;.g 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP ORDINANGE NO. ?~ ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-00031, AMENDING SECTION 17.32 (FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERMITTING PRIVATE SCHOOL USES WITHIN ALL FOUR SUBAREAS AND MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FoR PUBLIC HEARING-NOTICES OF THE FOUR SUBAREAS OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS TO A 300-FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. A. Recitals. 1. On February 12, 2003, lhe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Development Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 03-22, r~commending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said amendment. 2. On March 19, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public.hearing on the amendment to the Development Code. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: This City Council hereby finds and determines that the subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of Division 6 Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Section 17.32.030 - Use Regulations in the Foothill Boulevard Districts, of the Development Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as written below: "B. Conditionally Permitted Uses. Conditionally permitted uses, becz;use of their unusual site development requirements or unique operating characteristics, are subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission or City Planner. Projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall be required to comply with the regulations of Section 17.04.030. "; and Table 17.32.O30 - Use Regulations Table for the Foothill Boulevard Districts, of the Development Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as shown in Exhibit "A." SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision off any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the C~/of Rancho CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA DRC2003-00031 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 19, 2003 Page 2 Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or m(3re sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause t~e same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general cimulation published in the City of Ontario, California, a~d circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Table 17.32.030 - Use Regulations for Foothill Boulevard Districts Summary Table of Permitted (P) and Conditionally Permitted (C) Uses Subarea One Subarea T,,,m Subarea Three Subarea Four Antique Shops P P P P P P P' P P a) Bou~luec P P P P P P P P b) Gemrel P P P P P P P Art, Mus~, Phoingmphic Studi~ and SuRd'/ Stores P P P P P P P P P P~ C Au~ Send~e (including trailers, motorc3~, boats, campe~): P P P C ~s~ F ~ P ~ P P Min~ Repair (does not include P P P P majc~ engine work. muffler C C C shops, painting, body work, uphdstaT, etc.) C C C C d) Cutn.ep Washing e) Automa~ Washing 1) Partsand Supf~les P P P P Bakeries {retail only) P P P P P P P P P Barber and Beaut~ Shops P P P PiP,P! P P P P P P' P Bed and Breakfast C c.cjP/ ! c c c c c c BIc~cle Shops P P I J P P P P~ Slueprint md phutoco~ Services P P I P~ PI P P P P P look, Gi~ end Stafionely Steres p p p pIpIpI P P P P P P C other than adult related material I I I Catering Establishmems P P P~1 I P P P P P Chins and Gtecsware Stores P P P P P P P~ Chriutmec Tree/Pumpkin Sates Lots (opemfln;I en a temporary basis) P P P Chur~hec C C C :IClC C C C C C C C C C C Establishmants ~:ktail Lmmge (bar, lounge, ~vem) inctudingrelated C C C C = C C C C C C C Commerc~ Recreational: and b~'~mds b) Outdo~ uses such as tennis C C : C C C C C C and basketball Convalescent Facil~es & Hospitals P P P P P P P P P P 3urtain and Draper~ Shops P P P P P P :)ay Care Centers C C C C C C C C C C C :)elicateecms and Specialty Food p p p p p p p p , p4 .~ms Over 10~000 square feet P P P P P b) Pharmacies with or without speniaJ¥ mtsil under 10,000 C P C : C P P P square feet Electronics Sales and Service {TVs, p p p p p Stereos, radlec~ cumputers) EXHIBIT 'A' ? ,.. f · Subarea One Subarea Two MRH SubareRU~Thres Subarea I~our RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES SC CC 0 MR P SC CC 0 MR SC CO MR U MU CC MR Li~ ;ducati~nal Services: e) Public, ParochlaI, Pdvat~ C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Colleges Universities b) Instruction, tutoring, C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C cour~sellng, testing, training schools and facltilss c) Vocational, Technical, Trad~ C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Business, and Professional · Schooia ~ Miscellaneous schools C C C C C C C C C C C C! C C C armers' Markets ~ P P P P P Flon~t ShopS F~ P P' "- "F ="~ ~ / P P ~' ~P I~ "P" P =umltum Stores P P P P P P P P Hardware Stores P P P P P Health and Athletic Gyms and C P C P C P C P P p4 p Weight R~lucing Ciinics Hobby Sho~ P P P P P P ' ' P P' Ica Cream Stores end Soda p p p p p p p p p p~ Fountains Janitorial Services and Supplies P P P P P" C Jewelry Stores P P P P P P P P Laundr/, (Serf Service) P P P P P .eather Goods end Luggage Stores P P P P P P P P Jbrades and Museums, public and C )rk, ate UquorS~res C C C C C C C C Messenger and Wire Services P P P P P P P P" Mixed Use Public Storage C Mortuaries and Cernetedes C Music, Dance, and Martial Arts C P C P C P P P ;tudles Newspapa' and Magazine Stores P P P P P P P P P P P Nursedea snd Garden Supply p p p p p ;tares within encleaed area 3ffica, Business Machine end p P p p p P P P P c .?.omputer Component Stores ~ffice Supply Stores P P P P P P P P P P :'aintr Glass, and Wallpaper Stores P P P P P Parking FecnilJes (commercial C where fees are charged) Parks end Recreation Facilities, C public and pdvate Pet Shops P P P P P P P P~ Photocopy(Xerox) P P P P P P P P~ Political or Philanthropic C :'ublic and Pdvate Club~ and .odges, Including YMCA, YWCA, C and similar Youth Group Uses Record andTape Stores P P P P P P P P P Recmaticna/Vehicle Storage Yards C lestaumnts (sit down}: a) with entertainment and/or C C C C C C C C C C C cocktan lounge, bar 5) incidental serving of bear and wine (without a cocktail lounge, P P P P P P P P P P P P P bar, entertainment or dancing) :) cafe, limited to 20 seats p p p p p p p p p p p p p (including outdoor sealing) d) Fast Food: W~th drive-thru C C C C C C Without drive-thru P P P P P P PP P ~pecialb/Retail P P P P P P P I · .,~' OMMERCIAL USESII Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea ThreeII Subarea Four 'RETAIL SC CC O MR P SC CC O MR NH SC CC CO ? MR U MU CC R-RIME LI~ O R · Sporlinq Goods Stores: a) Spe~alty; Backpacking, Tennis, Skiing, Mountaineering, Fishing, P P P ~ P P P P P P etc. b) Genmal; encompassing a p p p p p varie~/of sj~orts squipment Supermmkets P P P P P Swimming P~I Semlc, ea and p p p p p Supplies Tailor Sh0pa P P P P P ' P P P TO)' Stores P P P P P P P P Variety-D~earlmant Stores, Junior C P C P C P P P ~)epartmmt Stores Ceterinar~ (domestic): ~1) Nombaardlng P C P C P P P P C ~) soar~ c c c c[ c c Natch and Clock Repair Stores P P P P P P P P P I~; iYarda~le Goods Stores P PP P P Subarea (3fie Subarea Two Sui)arda Three I Subarea Four ENTERTNNMENT AND IO IMR P =oMR SC CC COM, UMU cc %" [M. O I CULTURAL USES SC CC . ~.rcadea C C C C C C C C Dultuml Arlist E~631bita: ~) Indoor Gallery and A.,t Sales P C P P C P P )) Outdoor A~t Exhibits P C P C P C C )iscotheqess C C C C C C C C Theaters: a) Dinner Thestaf P P P P P C P B) Movie Theater includ~Jg p p p p p Mull~lex 3FFICE & ADMINISTRATIVE Subarea One Subarea Two Sel~area Three Subarea Four JSES SC CC O MR P SC CC O MR SC CC CO MR U MU CC MR LI~ O ~dministra~/e, Business and p P P P P P P P P P P p4 p Professional Offices Banks, Finance Services and p p p p p p p p p p p p p instJtutions~ includin~ drive-thru Business and Off'me Sen/ices P P P P P P P P P Interior Decerafln~3 Firms P P P P P P P P P P P Medical/Dental Offices and Related p P P P P P P P P p4 p Health Clinics Dj3ticiart and Optometrist Shops P P P P P P P P P P* P :leaitom and Real Estate Offices P P P p p p p p p P P P' p Travel AJ[lencies P J P P P P P P P P I P P p4 p PUBLIC USES MH LM RR z JpTurab iScltUFt' ';litinesLilatt°n$ l//Itlllllllll/IPIIIIIlOI Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four RESIDENTIAL USES SC CC 0 MR P SCICC 0 MR RI~'SC CC CO RUvl MR U 'MU CC!Nc" MR LI2 0 Single-Family Detached P P P P Single-Family Attached (duplex, p p p p p p p :riplex, fourplex) Vlulti-FemihJ Dwellings P P P P P P ~,ncilla~y Beaidential Uses: ~) Home-care tacilities (6 or less) P P P P P P P ~) On-site private recreation p p p p p p p facilities Agcessorv Uses: a) Accessory Structures . P P P P P P P b/ Home O~cupafion P P P P P P P Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four HO'tEL USES HoteVMotel C P Hotel Facilities (major) P ~,r~cillan/Uses: ~) Beauty/Barber Shop P )) Cafes P :) Caterfng Sewic, ee P J) Cocktail Lounge P e) Co~ferer~/Conventio~ p Factl~as 0 Florist Sta=gs P g) Gift Shopa P h) Newspaper/Magazine Stares P Phan'nacies P Restaurants (sit down) P 0 Tourist Information P Travel Ac, lenciea P TH E CITY OF I~AN Cfi 0 CUCAM 0 N GA DATE: April 2, 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 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the subject appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and approve Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 through the adoption of the attached resolution and issuance of the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND: The City Council continued the public headng on this item from the March 5, 2003, hearing to provide time for staff and the City's environmental consultant to review and respond to a set of four letters provided by the appellant at the March 5, 2003, hearing. Since that time, the letters have been reviewed, and responses to them are provided in this report and in the attached exhibits. RESPONSE: Note the following responses to the four letters authored by Mr. Gough on behalf of the appellants, Mr. And Mrs. Flores: 1. Response to Letter No. I from Mr. Gough dated March 5, 2003, regarding March 5, 2003, staff report (reply to opposition of City of Rancho Cucamonga): Mr. Gough raises five grounds for appeal in his first letter. His first ground is that the application should be returned to the Planning Commission because City staff augmented and then re-circulated the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration after the matter was appealed from the Planning Commission to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCCUP00-17 - GOUGH April 2, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Gough is correct that the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have been revised and augmented since the Planning Commission considered this matter. This was done for two reasons. First, staff carefully considered the points and issues raised by Mr. Gough and by Environmental Audit, Inc. in his appeal filed on November 4, 2002. Rather than ignore his appeal and comments, staff painstakingly reviewed the comments and the evidence, and then decided that further analysis of the project was warranted. The result of that three-month process was that additional studies were conducted and additional analysis was added to the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Out of an abundance of caution, the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was re-circulated, providing for a new 20-day comment period, prior to the City Council's consideration of the project on appeal. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is intended to be an interactive process. Thus, the City took Mr. Gough's comments and the comments of Environmental Audit, Inc. seriously, considered them, and then undertook additional study and analysis of the project under CEQA. Second, once the matter was appealed, the City Council considers the project based on the record and evidence presented at the City Council appeal hearing ("a de novo appeal"). This record includes the materials and testimony submitted to the Planning Commission, as well as the materials and testimony presented during the City Council's appeal hearing. The City Council is not merely acting based on the record presently solely to the Planning Commission, but may base its decision on the materials and testimony presented to the City Council as part of the appeal hearing. There is nothing in CEQA or the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Municipal Code that requires the City Council to remand a matter back to the Planning Commission just because staff has considered the comments raised in the appeal letter, and addressed those comments in the staff report to the City Council and in a revised and re-cimulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the City Council denies the appeal and affirms the decision of the Planning commission, the City Council will be acting upon the revised Initial Study and adopting the revised and re-circulated Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Council would not be merely approving the same environmental documents presented to the Planning Commission. Thus, having appealed the decision, and with the City acknowledging a timely appeal, the appellant cannot now assert that the appellate body (City Council) does not have the authority to act on the application and related environmental document. Contrary to Mr. Gough's assertion, the City Planner has not °slip[ed] in a replacement Mitigated Negative Declaration." The revised Initial Study was available for public review and a notice of availability published in the Daily Bulletin newspaper on February 13, 2003, for a new 20-day comment period. A copy of the revised Initial Study Part II was also provided to Mr. Gough the same week (Mr. Gough confirmed with staff that he did in fact receive the document). In addition, CEQA does not require the City to respond to Mr. Gough's comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, not only has the City read, considered, and addressed Mr. Gough's comments through the preparation of a new Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, but also this supplemental staff report further responds to his comments even though CEQA does not require the City to do so. Mr. Gough's second point is that he and his client were not afforded an opportunity to respond to the report prepared by Lilburn Corporation, the City's environmental consultant, prior to the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCCUP00-17 - GOUGH April 2, 2003 Page 3 Planning Commission's action on the application on October 23, 2002. The Planning Commission received a large body of material from Mr. Gough shortly before the public hearing on the application on September 25, 2002. As a consequence, the matter was continued to the October 23, 2003, meeting. During that intervening time period, substantial work was undertaken to review and consider Mr. Gough's comments and to address them in a supplemental staff report. When that process was finally completed, the report by Lilbum Corporation was given to Mr. Gough. He now complains that he was not given sufficient time to review it and submit yet another document in response before the Planning Commission acted on the application. The City is not legally required to continue applications and hearings repeatedly at Mr. Gough's request. A one-month continuance at the Planning Commission level for staff to respond to Mr. Gough's first set of comments was reasonable. Similarly, the four-month period between the Planning Commission's action on the application and this public hearing has provided Mr. Gough with sufficient time to review that matedal presented to the Planning Commission, including the Lilbum Corporation material. An additional two-week continuance from the City Council's fimt hearing on this matter on March 5, 2003, to Mamh 19, 2003, was taken to address Mr. Gough's latest four letters and report. These hearings and continuances have not resulted in Mr. Gough and his client being excluded from the planning process. On the contrary, this neady five-month process has occurred because the City has provided Mr. Gough and his client with a full opportunity to repeatedly involve themselves in the City's planning process. Further, even if a proceducal defect occurred at the Planning Commission, that defect would have been cured by the subsequent proceedings. Mr. Gough's third point is that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for this project. CEQA requires an EIR when there is substantial evidence of a "fair argument" that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mr. Gough and his expert have not established a "fair argument" to require an EIR for this project for the reasons discussed in the supplemental report from Lilburn Corporation, attached to this staff report (Exhibit "B"). Mr. Gough's fourth point is that the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard cannot economically support another gasoline service station, and that if one were to be built it would .impair the economic feasibility of his client's gasoline service station located east of the proposed Chevron station on the other side of Vineyard Avenue. The City is not precluded by CEQA or other laws from approving a project that will compete with existing businesses. Similarly, CEQ^ does not require the City to study, during Initial Study/Negative Declaration review process, the economic impacts that the approval of a new business will have on competing businesses. In addition, CEQA was not designed or'intended to be the process by which competition in the marketplace, is to be allowed or not allowed for the benefit or detriment of various economic interests in the community. 2. Response to Letter No. 2 from Mr. Gough dated March 5, 2003, regarding comments on Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the project: Mr. Gough states that CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR for this project because the report from Environmental Audit, Inc. that he submits with his letter presents a "fair argument" that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. City staff does not believe a "fair argument" has been made that the project will have a potentially significant effect on the environment. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCCUP00-17 - GOUGH April 2, 2003 Page 4 A "fair argument" must be based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions.based on facts and expert opinion. As explained below and documented in the supplemental report from Lilburn Corporation dated March 26, 2003, the arguments submitted by the appellant are based on speculation rather than fact, and alternatively, are founded on certain critical assumptions made by the appellant's consultant regarding the project and its impacts that are either illogical and unreasonable, or both. Consequently, substant!al evidence of a "fair argument" has not been submitted, and the City may properly approve the project with the use of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. With respect to air emissions from construction activities, Environmental Audit, Inc. bases its assertion of a potentially significant effect on air quality on two critical assumptions: (i) that a range of construction equipment and construction vehicles normally associated with large development projects will be needed and used during construction of the project site to build the project; and (ii) that all such categories of equipment and vehicles will be operating on the project site for eight full hours and all operating on the came days. These are not reasonable assumptions for several reasons. First, there is no basis in fact to assert that the development of a gas sta'don will require the use of large equipment and transport trucks that are usually associated with the construction of larger projects. This is the construction of a gas station on a one-acre site. Second, it is not logical to assume that all types of grading activities and construction activities will be occurring on this relatively small project site all at the same time. Specifically, Environmental Audit, Inc. reaches its conclusion of a potentially significant effect on the level of NOx emissions based on the assumption that a backhoe, dozer, crane, dump truck, flatbed truck, front end loader, motor grader, ~paver, and welding machine will all be working on the site on the same day for eight hours each. This overlapping activity is not only physically impossible given the project has to be graded before equipment can be brought on-site to construct the building or pave the site, but it assumes that all such activities will occur for eight solid hours on a particular day. With respect to air emissions from the operation of the project once built, Environmental Audit, Inc. asserts that the project will create fugitive dust on area roadways that will create a significant adverse effect on air quality in the area. This assumption rests on two critical assumptions: (i) that each vehicle coming to and from the proposed gasoline station will drive 2.5 miles to the site and 2.5 miles back to its originating point or next destination, and thus, this gasoline station, by itself will generate 2,333 trips per day with each round trip being five-miles; and (ii) that the amount of dust created by those trips would be significant. With respect to the first assumption, appropriate trip generation models for gasoline stations show that many trips to and from, a gas station are not so-called "direct" trips, but rather are trips ~)n the way from or to other points - so-called "pass-by" or "diverted-link pementages." Environmental Audit, Inc.'s trip generation number assumes that none of the trips to and from the proposed gasoline station would be "pass-by" or "diverted link percentages" and that everyone coming to the gas station will be on a single trip solely for that purpose. In sum, the argument is premised on the assumption that someone will drive from their home or office to the gas station and directly back over five miles solely for one purpose, and will not stop at any other location. Staff does not believe that that is a reasonable assumption given common sense and appropriate traffic models for gasoline stations. Further, this information was provided to Mr. Gough in October and the most recent report from Environmental Audit, Inc. provides no evidence to call into question the City's analyzed approach. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCCUP00-17 - GOUGH April 2, 2003 Page 5 Even if every trip to the gas station was a sole-purpose five-mile trip, there is no evidence that the amount of dust created by those trips would have a significant adverse effect on air quality. Using the threshold suggested by Environmental Audit, Inc. and using appropriate trip generation models, the amount of dust generated by the project would be below those thresholds. In addition, the County's CMT's quantification of significant dust requires a project to generate more than 1,000 trips per peek hour, as distinguished from this project, that even at Environmental Audit's numbers, would generate 2,333 trips over the entire day. The rationale for the conclusion that no significant noise impacts will result is found in Lilburn Corporation's March, 26, 2003, response to Environmental Audit's comments (Exhibit "B"). Mr. Gough's nex~ point is that the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration does not consider the economic and social effects of the project, and without that analysis, an EIR is required. CEQA does not require an analysis of economic or social impacts of the project in an Initial Study or within the Negative Declaration process. If an EIR is required, which in this case it is not, CEQA provides that a local agency "may" include an analysis of economic or social effects of a project in the EIR. However, even in the EIR process, such an analysis is not legally required when economic and social impacts do not lead to physical changes in the environment. 3. Response to Letter No. 3 from Mr. Gough dated March 5, 2003, regarding objections to Public Hearing Notice: Mr. Gough's third letter contains an objection to the form of notice provided for the public hearing on the appeal. He states that the public notice stated there would be a public hearing on the Negative Declaration, when the actual agenda has the issue addressed under the heading of "Appeal of Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 - GOUGH." The Notice of the Intent to Adopt a.Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided as required by law by publication of the notice more than 20 days in advance of the appeal hearing. In addition, a notice of the appeal hearing was provided as required by law. A copy of that notice was provided to the appellant. 4. Response to Letter No. 4 from Mr. Gough dated March 5, 2003, regarding objection to incomplete copies of certain documents in agenda packet: Mr. Gough's final objection is that certain double-sided documents that he had submitted at the Planning Commission hearing were copied and placed into the packet in a manner that only provided the odd numbered pages. A full copy of Mr. Gough's appeal letter dated November 4, 2002, a full copy of Environmental Audit, Inc.'s September 20, 2002, report, and a full copy of Mr. Gough's October 23, 2002, letter were presented to the City Council at its meeting on March 5, 2003. Additional copies of all such documents are also attached to this supplemental report (Exhibit "C"). CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing for the March 5, 2003, City Council meeting 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. On March 5, 2003, the City Council continued the public hearing on this item to March 19, 2003. On March 19, 2003, The City Council continued the public hearing on this item to April 2, 2003. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF DRCOUP00-17 - GOUGH April 2, 2003 Page 6 Staff has received two phone calls from residents within the new residential development to the west of the site indicating that they are opposed to a carwash in the proposed location and intend to present their concerns at the April 2, 2003, City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC~jc Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letters (4) from Appellant dated Mamh 4, 2003 Exhibit "B" - Response Memo from Lilburn and Associates dated Mamh 26, 2003 Exhibit "C" - City Council Staff Report dated Mamh 5, 2003 Draft Resolution Denying Appeal STRAW GOUGH LAW OFFICES I ~304 SANTA HONICA BLVD. SUITE 300 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 Communities for a Better Environment 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 Bullet, then the City Council will be affirming the Planning Commission approval o£a Mitigated Negative Declaration which the City Planner has already admitted is legally deficient because of its reliance on an illegal regulation. ~ The City Plmmer's Notice states that there will be a public hearing 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 CiW 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. XVhile 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 Plaimer. 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 Lilbum Report. The issue appealed to the City Council was not (as Mr. Buller has suggested) whether the Flores had notice that there was a hearing on October 23, 2002, nor was the issue whether the Lilburn 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 City 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. Wh/le 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 participation 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 Planning Commission with instrugtions to prepare an EIR. 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, particularly in view of the noise and air emission considerations for the new homeowners who are but a few feet from the Chevron station which intends to operate 24 hours a day, and simultaneously operate a car wash from 7:00 a.m to I0:00 p.m. seven days a week. The fourth issue raised on appeal was whether this intersection would support another service station. Mr. Bullet'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. Bullet's comments ignore the reality of the situation and his o~ 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 fxom 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 Buller. "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 City Council to ignore the economic consequences of 3 gasoline service stations at the same intersection and approve the construction of the new ~hevron 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 street 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 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 widening and alignment 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 max' 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. Buller'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. PTG:jk ~ busi- YON~' ~ per- moatl.y~.local eli.,~ra;ele are.seeing -; fiat'(ir, improved 15usines~ some coff~shop~, re~i~rants anti Ser- firm's ' vice .s~ations ~]~(~fild ROute 66 re. ~nfi~ipated P°rt Plnmme~nE revenue'since ' ?pening~iP f/:'~i~hev~on ~Station thesl~MobiloutletinSa~ onthe~omei-of ' · '-. ......,:~. :: ~,:-;:e~, . Inlosidli,Valley Daily Bulletin iSt~res~ ~gaming, 'lOsing ~e ba Verne also MEDIHA FEJZAG[C DIMARTINO · STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER 'i in coffee ~onsan~ers, Rose Ramos, who owns the Route 66 Memories shop, blames the lull at her once-booming business on the recent opening ofthe Foothill Freeway extension. of~ Claremont's Deli and hurtbusinesseslikeours,~Gilbert And a handful of restaurants "With or without the freeway, pland said. "But I expect the 210 will saythefreewayhashelpedbusi- FeethillBoulevarddeservesspe. 'revenues.. crowdup e~,entaallyjustlikeall ness. cial attention as Rancho Cuca- at the other freeways, and then the "We've had several customers monga's primary retail corridor," care will return to Feethil].' tellusit'smucheasiertogethere said City Planner Brad Buller. 3inLaVerne. While some companies are ap- now that the freeway has "Our goal is to create a sense of parentlysuffering, otherbusiness opened,' said Rebecca Creckett, placewherebusinesseswillhave owners say they haven't been af- a server at The Magic Lamp Inn financial success, customers will ~. ,., ; . ~ fected, restaurant near Foothill and haveagreatshoppingexperience, ~ down," smd general At Auto Servic~ Experts in Up- Grove Avenue. "We have a lot of and tourists will look back and re- land, workers agreed that ffany- people that travel a ways specif- member experiencing historic s decreased thing, busineeshaspickedupover icallyto come here, and if travel- Route 66." s 66 Mem- the last two months. And Payday lng here is easier, it helps us out." Upland has also made efforts to Advance employees said Christ- . Conklesaysbusinessesthatdo tic historic themes into present- hiswife, hashurt mhs is their busiest season, suffer aren't nacessarily doomed daybusinessesonFoothill. Whan 3conslderably. For many businesses, the]ury tofaih a Vons supermarket and phar- light turned red at is still out. Representatives of "There's been a coucerted el- macy opened in a rcdccocated to be gars KFC and In-N-Out Burger both fort to make parts of Foothill a center last month, a sign went :in front of ~ay the restaurants are waiting destinatloninstcadofjustap!ace up with u red neon strip and a for January sales figures before to pass through," he said. Route 66 icon featured promi- ~first they evaluato the effect thc froc- RanchoCuc~mongahasspear- nently along with "Vons" and 'tohave way has had on thcir Foothill lo- headed that cffort, havinglong "Starbucks." cations, ago formed a Foothill Boulevard Business at Wollb's Marke£ in task force and revitalization el: L.C Gteeue can be tv, c/led by c. and re- Claremont is up because cus- fort. Visual effects will aim to maiiatl_greene~tailybulletirucom liehonthel tomersarehavingm3easiertime recreate historic boulevard orbyphoneat(909)483-933Z rounding cater getting in and out, said owner themes. Neon lights. Route 66 Conor Friedersdorf can be the attention ofpaesers-by. Tom Wolfe. signs, classic cars and other tlc- reaelmd by e-mailat coaor.frieder- "I know ove3'all, the freoway is "It's a roal positive for me," he monts are planned for corners sdorf~dailybulletin.corn or by a good thing,.but it'has really said. and bridges, phone et (909)483-9347. FORMER UNION 76 FOOTHILL & VINEYARD FORMER ARCO .... · -~ MALACHITE & FOOTHILL FOOTHILL & MOUNTAIN FORMER MOBIL ARCHIBALD & ARROW /5..4 STRAW GOUGH LAW OFFICES i 230~ SANTA MONIC:A BLVD SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES. CALIFOI~NIA 90025 FACSiMiLE (3 i O) 207-7 i ~4 FI LE NO, 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 cfa 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 cfa 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 will 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 fair 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 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 LosAngeles'(1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68. The purpose of the California Envirorunental Quality Act ("CEQA") is to require governmental agencies to look before they leap and consider any 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 ma3, have a significant effect on the environment." Gent~y v. City of Murietta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 1371; Pub. Res. Code §21151(a). A significant effect is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the enviroument." Laurel Heights Members of the City Council March 5, 2003 Page 2 Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 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 THE 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 Cod~ 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 I 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 us 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 freexvay, 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 /57 Members of the City Council March 5, 2003 Page 3 shopping expenen~, 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 an.x~hing but creating an opportunity for financial success on Foothill Boulevard for the Flores by advocating the construction ora 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 multiple service stations in the area have recently been fomed 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 st,3tion 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 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 payrnents 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 the payments on the loan which they 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. aulT. /fry truly yours, PTG~k 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 CLIP 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 incindcd 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 thc 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 thc 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 would be in the event of an earthquake on the gasoline station. 2. One of the mitigation measures 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 (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 SCAQMD 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 ihe use of architectural coatings, and Emissions from vehicle/track 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 I 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 Ag-13-B). TABLE 1 PEAK DAY CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) ACTIVITY CO VOC NOx SOx PMI0 Construction Equipment 56.2 8.5 11'3.6 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. 10. Table 1 of the Negative Declaration provides emission calculations for both mitigated 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 provided in Table 2. The emission estimates were developed using the South Coast Air Quality Management District P. Gough Febmary 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) 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 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. 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. 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. Constxuction - 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)O) (decibels)(2) 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 0) 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 be 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 amount of electricity and natural gas that may be required for thc gas station. The Initial Stady should indicate the amount of water and wastewatcr 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. Gou~h February 26, 2003 Page 9 22. There are incorrect enlxies 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 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:I2175/ErnissionCalcs:Dispensing 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 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. I have received a Notice of Intent To ~ldopt ~'V'egative Declaration which provides as follows: "A public hearing will be held by the City council to consider this proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION on March 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 with 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, timeand place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed project, when ~own to the lead agency at the time of notice." However, 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 Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration on the grounds that it erroneously advises of a public hearing on this matter 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 environmental assessment and conditional use permit which 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. PTG:jk STRAW 8 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 with 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 which 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 l, 3, 5 and 7 of my appeal letter of November 4, 2002 (see pages 137-140); second, it only provided pages l, 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 pm't of the record; and the complete Environmental Audit Report of September 20, 2002 be made a part of the record. I will provide copies to supplement the record if they are needed. PTGOk /72. LILBURN StrategicPlanning& EnvirontnentalSe,ices CORPORATION MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 2003 Project No. 529.07 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 Environmental Audit, Inc., on CUP 00-17, Chevron Station We have reviewed the memorandum from Environmental Audit, Inc., to Paul Gough, attorney for Art and Diana Flores submitted to the City Council at the public hearing of March 5, 2003. We have prepared written responses to each of the issues raised in the memorandum. Please note, many of the issues raised in the latest memorandum were raised and responded to previously. No new issues have been presented in this memorandum, and the previous responses to comments are incorporated herein by reference. RESPONSE TO GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The City's Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study Part I~) 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 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 Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 2 agricultural parcels in the City are not "Farmland" under the definition in the Appendix G Checklist. Ahd 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 quesfipns 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 EIR (see page 5.6-19). According to the SCAQMD 1997 AQMP, Chapter 12 - Ass?sing Consistency With Applicable Regional Plans (page 12-2), "Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans and significant projects need undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP control strategy is based on projections from local General Plans. As such, projects consistent with local General Plans are considered consistent with the air quality related regional plans." For the proposed project, a consistency review is not required because it is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the site. 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 (PMm), a project's contribution of these criteria pollutants is specifically addressed on page 12 of the Initial Study for the project, and mitigation measures are identified even though the project does not exceed any SCAQMD 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. 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 1905 Business Center Drive . SanBernardino, CA 92408o909/890-1818 o Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 3 applicant must sign (included with the City's Initial Study Part I), and in fact the site is not listed on the CAL/EPA 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. The issue of hazards associated with a release of gasoline and subsequent fire during a transportation accident must be addressed in another forum. The recipient of delivered goods (including delivery of gasoline to a service station) is not responsible for the transportation of the goods. That is the responsibility of the company hauling the goods. A trucking company that delivers gasoline to service stations, is required to meet stringent regulatory requirements for maintenance of the vehicle and the equipment used to transfer the gasoline into and out of the tanks. It is far beyond the scope of the environmental analysis of this service station to address the accidental release or spill of gasoline during transportation. The vast array of potential accident sites, speed of vehicles, amount of fuel being transported, and other variables, would render any assessment purely speculative and of little value to the decision makers or the public. 2. 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 City and County Fire Departments, Air Quality Management District and Regional Water Quality Control Board. RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC COMMElqTS 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 rapture (see Rasmussen and Associates project report). Page 2 of the Initial Study identifies various agencies that have permitting authority over 1905 Business Cen~r Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 /75 Response toCommen~ March 26, 2003 Page 4 the proposed project. The City's Office of Emergency Service and Fire Department, the County Department of Environmental Health Services and Fire Department, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board all review the Business Emergency/Contingency Plans and 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. Page 11 of the Initial Study identifies safety features that are required to be built into a new gas station including double-walled tanks and leak detection systems. In addition, the State Water Board requires that all service stations employ Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and must periodically update these systems as BACT becomes available. So even older existing stations must periodically upgrade their systems to meet current standards. 2. The comment refers to Mitigation Measure 9 on page 8 of the Initial Study and is specific to backfilling the trench excavated during the geotechnical investigation of the site and used to determine if the fault runs across the site. As stated on pages 6 and 7 of the Initial Study 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 last sentence in the first paragraph on page 7 states that recommendations contained in the Rasmussen and Associates will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Mitigation measure 9 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 entire site. Also see measure 7. The investigation is not required at this time. It must be done during grading of the site because it is designed to address proper backfilling of the trenches dug during the geotechnical evaluation of the site. In other words, grading must be underway before this measure can be implemented. It should be noted that these geologic review requirements were made mitigation measure, rather than incorporated by reference, in response to previous comments made by Mr. Gough. Water 3. The project site is in an urban location on Foothill Boulevard where all infrastructure, including storm drains, is in place. All site plans, including preliminary grading plans are available for public review at the City's Planning Department, and are hereby 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 5 incorporated by reference. Any member of the public interested in reviewing the details of the project may go to the counter and request to see the project files. 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 Department as required under CEQA Section 21092Co), are hereby incorporated by reference. 5. The City is responsible for ensuring public health and safety of its residents. With regard to service stations, this responsibility falls to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Office of Emergency Services and the City's Fire Department. The Office of Emergency Services is responsible for approval of the project's Business Emergency/Contingency Plan which describes how emergencies would be handled at the site and who to call in the case of an emergency. The Fire Department is responsible for permitting and periodic testing of underground storage tanks. Page 11 of the Initial Study lists the agencies that have authority over a service station. They all have overlapping authority, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the City departments. With regard to leaking underground storage tanks, page 11 also includes a description of the standards with which auto fueling stations must comply. 6. With regard to Mitigation Measure 10, the discussion of water quality that precedes the identification of this measure describes how San Bemardino County and its incorporated cities implement the area-wide NPDES Storm Water Permit within the Santa Ana region. This discussion and the mitigation measure that requires BMPs to be implemented come directly from the "San Bernardino County Storrnwater Program, A Consortium of Local Agencies, Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment", June 2000. This document is available, with other reference material used to prepare the Initial Study, at the City's Planning Department. 7. As stated in the Initial Study, the project would not affect groundwater management practices because the site is not used for groundwater recharge. In addition, as stated previously in the Initial Study, storm water would be handled through the City's storm drain system. As such groundwater would not be adversely affected since runoff would be handled within the City's existing facilities. Further, the majority of the site would be covered with impermeable surfaces such that a minimal amount of water would infiltrate into the soil and potentially the groundwater. This area would be limited to the landscaped sections of the site. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 /77 Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 6 Air Quality 8. The bulleted items listed in this comment are all included in the Urban Emissions Model used by local jurisdictions to evaluate air quality impacts. The statement that "no where does the CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommend the use of the Urban Emission Model to calculate construction emissions" is correct. This is probably because the Handbook was developed in 1993 and the URBEMIS model was subsequent to that. The comment seems to indicate that because it is not in the Handbook, the model shouldn't be used. However, SCAQMD does in fact encourage the use of this model. The Air Quality Modeling page of the SCAQMD website (www.aqmd.gov.eeqa.models.html) contains the following statement at the top of the page: "the following models are available to assist the CEQA practitioner in calculating impacts to air quality. The following links will take you to these models located on other webaites". The first model listed is URBEMIS 2001. 9. This comment raises a number of issues. First, the model output is included in the project file and is available for public review at the City's Planning Department along with all other plans and references used in the preparation of the Initial Study. Second, the commentor has provided a new Table 1 showing peak construction emissions estimates that differ from those presented in the Initial Study. These emissions appear to be based in the 1993 CEQA Handbook rather than the updated URBEM~S 2001 model. The URBEMIS 2001 model uses the latest emissions factors for calculating air emissions. Third, the "detailed emission calculations" included in the Appendix to the comment letter are actually emissions factors for calculating emissions for the operation of a gas station, not construction emissions associated with grading of a site and construction of a project. Table 1 and thc Table in Appendix A ar~ mutually exclusive. Meaning that an analyst would not use the emission factors identified in Appendix A to calculate construction emissions. Construction emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 model which contains the emissions factors and assumptions for standard construction activities in the region. If the commentor meant to rely on the "Appendix A" attached to the September 19, 2002 comment letter, the commentor provides no evidence or information to negate the prior responses which demonstrate the inaccuracy and unreasonableness of the commentor's construction activity assumptions. If proper assumptions are uses, NOx standards are not exceeded. Fourth, with regard to Table 1 in the Initial Study and Table 1 inthe comment letter: Table 1 in the Initial Study identified reactive organic, gasses (ROG) while T~ble 1 referred to volatile organic compounds (VOC). ROG and VOC are interchangeable terms 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 / 7~ Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page ? but refer to the organic compounds or gasses that are involved in the photochemical reaction that produces ozone. ROG is generally used by the California Air Resources Board while VOC is generally used by the US EPA. The URBEMIS 2001 model uses the term ROG. Regardless of what they are called, the SCAQMD threshold is 75 pounds per day. The applicant has indicated that construction of the facility would take approximately 90 days with the last 30 days devoted to painting, stocking the convenience store, and testing the equipment. In setting up the air quality model for the project the analyst allowed the model default of 20 days to paint to remain fixed. Therefore, Table 1 in the Initial Study reflects a painting schedule of 20 days. If the project were to be painted in I day, 24 pounds of ROG would be emitted. Note: arChitectural coatings are viewed by the SCAQMD as a manufacturing problem rather than an application problem. SCAQMD staff are in the process of implementing new guidelines for the manufacture of architectural coatings. Further, even if the commentor's VOC results are accepted, the results demonstrate that the impact (61.6 pounds per day) is well below the significance threshold (75 pounds per day). Therefore, commentor has not provided a fair argument that a significant impact in this regard will result. 10. Mitigation measures used in the URBEMIS 2001 model to reduce construction emissions include watering exposed surfaces twice per day, properly maintaining equipment, reducing speeds on the site to 15 miles per hour, using low VOC architectural coatings and asphalt. 11. The proposed service station is projected to sell 250,000 gallons per year. The project includes one 20,000 gallon underground storage tank and one 15,000 gallon underground storage tank. Based on a 24-hour operation, 365 days per year, the project would generate 14.79 pounds of VOC emissions per day rather than the 18 pounds identified in Table 2 of the comment letter. Further, for analytical purposes only, accepting the results of commentor's Table 2 (Operational Emissions Estimates), except for PM~0, which is discussed separately below, operational activities of fuel dispensing and underground tanks (i.e. "stationary sources" as defined in the comment) results in 18 pounds per day of VOC only. Assuming the Initial Study Table 2 ROG calculation omitted these stationary sources, which it did not, adding commentor's calculation to that in the Initial Study Table 2, still results in only 37.92 pounds per day which is below the 55 pounds per day threshold. Further, commentor's Table 2 reaches the same conclusion as the Initial Study Table 2 with respect to VOC/ROG: Not significant. 12. Table 2 in the comment letter shows 291.8 pounds of fugitive dust would be emitted from the proposed project from travel on paved and unpaved roads. First, there are no unpaved roads in the vicinity of the project site. Second, it appears that the commentor assumed 1905 Business Center Drive ' San Bernardin°' CA 92408 ° 909/890'1818 ° Fax: 909/890'1809 /7¢ Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 8 that the 2,317 trips associated with the proposed project would be direct trips rather than a combination of direct trips and pass-by trips. The analysis in the Initial Study was based on the assumption that many of the people coming to the project would be passing by and would stop for gas. Also, since this site is part of a large 8.9-acre shopping center, many people stopping in would already be in the shopping center and would be stopping at the service station to get gas or something to eat. The analysis in the Initial Study represents a typical scenario for service station use. Further, this comment is substantially the same as a prior comment from commentor. The response to that comment, incorporated herein by reference, explained that commentor's assumptions as to trip generation were inaccurate and unreasonable. This comment raises no new evidence that the assumptions used by the City's consultant were not reasonable, nor does the comment acknowledge that explanation previously provided. Because the comment is not based on fact or reasonable assumption based on fact, it does not present any substantial evidence of a fair argument that a significant impact would result. 13. Cumulative impacts are addressed in the City's checklist in Section 16, Mandatory Findings of Significance. Transportation/Circulation 14. The assumption made regarding the generation of trips was that 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 there would be 2,317 trips 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 acccepted methodology to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. Further, the comment provides no evidence that the City's assumptions are unreasonable. As described in the Initial Study, a Level of Service analysis for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue in the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted for the City's 2001 General Plan Update. The TIA included a number of mitigation measures that would be required in the future, at various intersections throughout the City, including the Foothill/Vineyard intersection. Based on the recommendations of the TIA, the City 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 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 9 necessary to support adequate traffic cimulation throughout the City. Therefore impacts associated with increased traffic volumes on Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue would be less than significant. Finally, as pointed out in the newspaper articles attached to Mr. Gough's March 5, 2003 letter opposing the project, traffic levels on Foothill Boulevard have decreased with the opening of the 1-210 freeway extension. This decrease in traffic levels will improve the level of service on Foothill Boulevard, further demonstrating that the project's traffic will not significantly impact cimulation in this road. Hazards 15. Hazards associated with a release of gasoline and subsequent fire during a transportation accident. The recipient of delivered goods (including delivery of gasoline to a service station) is not responsible for the transportation of the goods. That is the responsibility of the company hauling the goods. A tracking company that delivers gasoline to service stations, is required to meet stringent regulatory requirements for maintenance of the vehicle and the equipment used to transfer the gasoline into and out of the tanks. 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, as required by project conditiohs of approval. 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. Conditions of approval are recommended to ensure completion of these plans, and submittal to the City for review and approval by the Fire Department. 17. The threshold used for the Risk Assessment was 1.0 x 10-5 from SCAQMD Rule 140t New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants. All risk numbers were less than the threshold. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 / ~/ Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 10 Noise 18. Construction noise represents a short-tern impact on ambient noise levels, and considering that the existing ambient noise level includes traffic on Foothill Boulevard, the short-term construction noise at this site or anywhere in the immediate vicinity, must be analyzed in this context. The noise study prepared for the proposed project measured noise along Foothill Boulevard on April 24, 2002. Measured leq was 64.2 dBA with a calculated CNEL of 67.5 dBA. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, a grader and dozer, and crane for example, can reach high levels as shown in Table 3 of the comment letter, as high as 85 decibels. The applicant has indicated that a typical Chevron Service Station can be constructed in 90 days or less, with approximately 30 days 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 actual trenching and backfilling represents less than a week although the trench may remain accessible for a longer per/od of time. Paving is anticipated to take another week, and so forth. 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. Construction Noise - Using the construction noise levels in Table 3 the estimated levels will be 85 dBA at 50 feet. The nearest residence to the west is over 100 feet away and the projected impact will be 77.8 dBA. The City Exterior Noise Standards 17.02.120(E)(4), Special Provisions: The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this section: Noise soumes associated with construction of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday, or a national holiday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA plus the limits specified in Section 17.02.120(D)(1), which is 14 dB for less than 5 minutes per hour (65 plus 14=79 dBA). The value of 77.8 dBA at the west side is less than the standard of 79 dBA. In addition, under Section 17.08.080 (C)(2) Performance standards: Exemptions (2) Temporary construction maintenance, or demolition activities between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m., except Sunday and national holidays. 1905 Business Center Drive · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · 909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 Response to Comments March 26, 2003 Page 11 19. The noise levels measured for the car wash were of an actual car wash that is the same type, manufacturer and model at another location. Obviously, measurements of the car wash on this site cannot be made because the project does not yet exist. Noise studies prepared for the proposed project are available for review at the Planning Department. 20. The commentor is referred to Table 8 on page 27 of the Initial Study which shows that noise associated with delivery trucks is 54.3 dBA in living areas for neighbors to the west of the project site. The track delivery noise level was 69.5 dBA measured at a point 20 feet from the truck. At 115 feet the noise impact is 54.3 dBA, as shown in the Noise Study on the top line of page 4. Utilities and Service Systems 21. 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. All infrastmcture is available in the vicinity of the project site and only requires hookups for delivery to begin. Please refer to the City's General Plan (2001 Update) for a discussion of both public services and utilities. Socioeconomic Impacts 22. The decision on whether to evaluate economic and social effects is made only when a lead agency have 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 others 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. Traffic impacts are adequately addressed on pagesl4 through 18 of the Initial Study. Noise impacts are adequately addressed on pages 23 through 27 of the Initial Study. 23. The typographical error in the Mitigation Monitoring Program should be corrected to read throughout the "operating" period as suggested. 1905 Business Center Drive . SanBernardino, CA 92408.909/890-1818 · Fax: 909/890-1809 /~,,~ T H'E CITY OF I~ANCflO C~CAMONGA Staff Report 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 sufficient 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 Mamh 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 Commemial 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 forces 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 cr'rtical 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 undercutting 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 Mamh 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 I 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, Brad~Bull~ 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 T H E C I T Y O F P C 0 C C A 0. 1G A March 27, 2003 KB HOME 810 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Pomona, Ca 91768 SUBJECT: ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2002-00814 Dear Applicant: The Plann n Commission approved the above-described project at its meetin~'T-~h 26, 2003T Enclosed are copies of documents pertinent to that approva,~ aeci~,mz~__of the kqanmng Commission is final following a ten-day appeal period that en(Ll'~April 7, 2003.~:~lbpeals mus~J:~,~,. filed in writing to the City Clerk, state the reason for the appeaJ~-an~e-ac'r~6mpanied b3C~126_._.) filing fee. Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. Where undergrounding is a condition of approval, you should establish contact with affected utilities as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing your project. If you have any questions, please contact the Plan Check Section of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. As you are aware, your project was approved subject to certain conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. Your timely attention to these conditions is necessary to avoid delays in the completion of your project. If you have any questions concerning specific conditions, please contact the appropriate department. Please note that this approval will expire in 5 years unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced. If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gail Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary GS:gs Enclosure ~ Mayor William J. Alexander Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councilmember Robed J. Howdyshell Councilmember Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive · P. O. Box 807 * Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 * (909) 477-2700 * FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.ranc ho-cucamonga.ca.us T H E C I T Y 0 F A N C 0 C C Ai ION GA March 27,2003 Fountainhead Shrugged 4301 Birch Street, #7 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00519 Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission approved the above-described project at its meetine&dC~arch 26, 2~ Enclosed are copies of documents pertinent to that approval. The decision ot me ~lanmng Commission is fina following a ten-day appeal period that end~"~-7, 200~ppeals,~.._m_J~ ~ filed in writing to the City Clerk, state the reason for the appea~mpanied ~$1-'o._~""" filing fee. Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. Where undergrounding is a condition of approval, you' should establish contact with affected utilities as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing your project. If you have any questions, please contact the Plan Check Section of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. As you are aware, your project was approved subject to certain conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. Your timely attention to these conditions is necessawto avoid delaysin the completion ofyour project. Ifyou have any questions concerning specific conditions, please contact the appropriate department. Please note that this approval will expire in 5 years unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced. If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gall Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary Enclosure cc: Buddy FinkelArchitects ~ Moyor William J. Alexander ~ Mayor Pro Tern Dione Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councitmember Robert J. Howdyshdl Councilmember Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive · P. O. Box 807 ° Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 ° FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.rancho-c ucamong a.ca.us T H E C I T Y 0 F C iI 0 C U' C 0 G A March 27,2003 Fountainhead Shrugged 4301 Birch Street, tt7 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: VARIANCE DRC2002-00621 Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission approved the above-described project at its meeting~ Enclosed are cop es of documents pertinent to that approval. The~_deci~ o~F-th~-Plannipg Commissions final following a ten-day appeal period that en~! 7, ~ppeals filed in writing to the City Clerk, state the reason for the appeal, an--h-d be accompanied filing fee. Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. Where undergrounding is a condition of approval, you should establish contact with affected utilities as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing your project, if you have any questions, please contact the Plan Check Section of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. The approval of your project may be subject to certain conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. You r timely attention to these conditions is necessary to avoid delays in the completion of your project. If you should have any questions concerning specific conditions, please contact the appropriate department. Please note that this approval will expire in 5 years unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced. If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gall Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary Enclosure cc: Buddy FinkelArchitects Mayor William J. Alexander 'J~ Mayor Pro Tern Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councilmember Robed J. Howdyshell Councilmember Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive · P. O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909} 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us T H E C I T Y 0 F lP AN C 0 C 1J 0 N Gk March ~7,2003 G & L Commercial, LLC 3419 Via Lido, fl438 Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM15902 Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission approved the above-described project at its meetin~l~_a.r, ch 2_6.,~ Encosed are copies of documents pertinent to that approval.~.~...~~n.~n_g Commission is final following a ten-day appeal period that end~"'April~ppea~s~ filed in writing to the City Clerk, state the reason for the appea~ccompanied b ay..~-,o filing fee. Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. Where undergrounding is a condition of approval, you should establish contact with affected utilities as soon as poss ble to avoid delays ~n processing your project. If you have any questions, please contact the Plan Check Section of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. As you are aware, your project was approved subject to certain conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. Your timely attention to these conditions is necessary to avoid delays in the completion of your project. If you have any questions concerning specific conditions, please contact the appropriate department. Please note that this approval will expire in 36 months unless extended by the City. Requests for extensions must be filed in writing with the City Planner 60 days prior to the expiration date and must be accompanied by payment of the then-prevailing time extension fee. In reviewing requests for time extensions, the City may approve the extension as requested, order changes in the project, or deny the request. If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gall Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary Enclosure cc: Goodman &Associates Sanderson J. Ray Development Mayor William J. Alexander Mayor Pro Tern Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councilmember Robed fl. Howdyshell Councilmernber Donald J. Kurth, M.D. ,Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Ddve · P. O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.ra ncho-cuca monga .ca.us T H E C I T Y 0 F 12 ANC H0 C U C XM 0 N G A March 27, 2003 John Morrisette American Beauty Development Co. 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 15974 Dear Applicant: The Plannin Commission approved the above-described project at its meeting ~'~a~arch Enclosed arge copies of documents pertinent to that approv~f-the.-Pla~.ipg Commission is f nal following a ten-day appeal period that end.~April 7, 2oo~.~,~AppeaLs-mu~ filed in writing to the City Clerk, state the reason for the appeal,~-~ompan ed ~.y.~251 filing fee. Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. Where undergrounding is a condition of approval, you should establish contact with affected ut t es as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing your project. If you have any questions, please contact the Plan Check Section of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. As you are aware your project was approved subject to certain conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certa n pans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. Your timely attention to these conditions is necessary to avoid delays in the completion of your project. If you have any questions concerning specific conditions, please contact the appropriate department. Please note that this approval will expire in 36 months unless extended by the City. Requests for extensions must be filed in writing with the City Planner 60 days prior to the expiration date and must be accompanied by payment of the then-prevailing time extension fee. In reviewing requests for time extensions, the City may approve the extension as requested, order changes in the project, or deny the request. If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gall Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary GS:gs Enclosure Mayor William J. Alexander Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams · Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councilmember Robert J. Howdyshell Councilmember Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive · P. O. Box 807 ° Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.rancho-c ucamonga.ca.us T H E C I T Y 0 F A N C H 0 C U C A H 0 N A March 27, 2003 · John Morrisette American Beauty Development Co. 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR01-04 Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission approved the above-described project at its meeting of M~--~26, 2003._:_~ Enclosed are copies of documents pertinent to that approval.. _~--~__ ~.. ~The decisiom-qf the Planning Commission is final following a ten-day appeal period that end~03. A~.eals fil~ed.in_writingto"th~-C ty--C ~rk;-state-the-reason_for-the-appeal,-a~-d-be-accon~a~bY a~.,~126 d_~iling~ Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. Where undergrounding is a condition of approval, you should establish contact with affected utilities as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing your project. If you have any questions, please contact the Plan Check Section of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. As you are aware, your project was approved subject to certain conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. Your timely attention to these conditions is necessary to avoid delays in the completion of your project. If you have any questions concerning specific conditions, please contact the appropriate department. Please note that this approval will expire in 5 years unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced. If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gall Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary GS:gs Enclosure Mayor William J. Alexander Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councilmember Robert J. Howdyshell Councilmember Donald J, Kurth, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager !0500 Civic Center Ddve · P. O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us T H E C I T Y O F A N C H0 C 'U CA H O N O A March 27, 2003 John Miner Guardian Storage Centers 2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 212 Irvine, CA 92612 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-17 Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission approved the above-described project at its meeting2..6,, 200~ Enclosed are copies of documents pertinent to that approval. T~be_~'F-the-Pfan~ng Commission is final following a ten-day appeal period that end~-April 7, ~peals mu. gst-I~ filed in writing to the City Clerk, state the reason for the appeal, a~-b-~ accompanied filing fee. Please review any conditions relative to utility undergrounding required in conjunction with your project. Where undergrounding is a condition of approval, you should establish contact with affected utilities as soon as possible to avoid delays in processing your project. If you have any questions, please contact the Plan Check Section of the Engineering Division at (909) 477-2740. As you are aware, your project was approved subject to certain conditions of approval. Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to the issuance of building permits, final map recordation, or occupancy release. Your timely attention to these conditions is necessary to avoid delays in the completion of your project. If you have any questions concerning specific conditions, please contact the appropriate department. Please note that this approval will expire in 5 years unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced. If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gail Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary Enclosure John Morri e CC: S~yor William J. Alexander Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez Councilmember Robert J. Howdyshell Councilmember Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Monager 10500 Civic Center Ddve · P. O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucomonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.ra ncho-cucarnonga.ca .us T H E C I T Y O F P__ ~ ~ C ]-I 0 C 1J C A.~'i 0 hi G ~ March 27, 2003 John Path Pasta West P. O. Box 3289 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION DRC2003-00158 Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission denied the above-described project at its meetin~g'~March 26,-~..~ 2003. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution pertinent to that denial. The d~ Planning Commission is final following a ten-day appeal period that e~t~-April,7, 20,03~.~ Appeals must be fil~J !n wr~City Clerk, state the reason for tr~e accompanied by ~..~filin~ If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gall Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary GS:gs Enclosure cc: Fried Cook Architects Mayor William J. Alexander ~_~/~z~ Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez ~ Councilmember Robed J. Howdyshell Councilmember Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive · P. O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909} 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.ra ncho-cucamo nga.ca.us T H E C I T Y 0 F /XN C H 0 (2.AHONGA March 27, 2003 James R. Souza 13062 Cherokee Road Etiwanda, CA 91739 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2003-00070 Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission denied the above-described appeal at its meeting _~March ~ 2003. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution pertinent to that denial. The~ Planning Commission is final following a ten-day appeal period that e~crSs April Z, Appeals must be filed inB~writinq-toj~he City Clerk, state the reason for th~ppeak and be accompanied by a~t26 filin~ If you have any questions, please call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, PLANNING DIVISION Gail Sanchez Planning Commission Secretary GS:gs Enclosure cc: KB HOME Richard & Pat Sessler Mayor William J. Alexander ~,~-~ Mayor Pro Tem Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez ~ Councilmember Robert J. Howdyshell Councilmember Donald J. Kurfh, M.D. Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive · P. O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us Pr~e~and LocaUon:chevr°n station - Foothill Blvd. West of Vineyard. DRCCUP 00-17 Planning Comm. Res. 02-101 Appellant ~rt ~ Di~ Add~se: c/o Paul T. Gouqh~ Esq., 12304 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: ~]0-8~fi-7766 Fa~_3!9-297 E~aJlAddress:__Pgoughl@hotmail.com STRAW & GOUGH LOS ANGELES, CA g0025 ~-1~ MEMO . CITY OF R~CHO CITY HRLL FiNAHCE ~EPART~ENT 18588 CIUIC CENTER ~RiUE R~MCHO CUCA~OHGA~ CA 91738 RECEIPT: CRB~9557 DA~: il/84/88 CASHIER I8: CSFl184A TINE: 14:48:81 ~RC CUP 88-17 Piannin§ Fees 126.88 TOTAL PAID' RECEIUE~ FRUM: STRAW & GO~R f STRAW _GOUGH November 4, 2002 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cueamonga 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 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 masons 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 25, 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 of a report from Environmental Audit, Inc. dated September 20, 2002, and a letter from 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 September 23, 2002 are pro{,ided 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 are incorporated into this Members of City Council Appeal of CUP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 2 appeal. Prominent among the deficiencies noted by Environmental Audit was that in jnstifying the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City relied on a CEQA Guideline (14 CCR § 15064(h)) which had been held invalid by the Sacramento Superior 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. On September 25, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the matter over to October 23, 2002 to allow the City an opportunity to respond to my letter and to the points raised by the Environmental Audit report. Following the September 25, 2002 meeting, I did not receive any eommuuication from the Planning Division. On October 22, 2002, I called the Planning Division to find out if the 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 but inexplicably had not been provided to me, to Environmental Audit or to my clients. Mr. LeCount advised me that the responses to our objections were public records and were available in Rancho Cucamonga. My office is in West Los Angeles and Environmental Audit is located in Plaeentim 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 Lilburn 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 Lilbum Report allowed no time for Environm6ntal Audit to review the Lilbum Report or reply to it. Because of this attempt to exclude my clients from further participation in the Planning Commission process on this project, on October 23, 2002, I attended the Planning Commission meeting and requested a continuance to allow my consultant to examine and reply to the Lilbum Report of October 14~. I submitted this request both in writing and verbally. The Planning Commission did not address my request for a continuance and went ahead and approved the project on October 23, 2002, effectively denying my request for a continuance. No member of the Planning Commission asked statT why we were denied the courtesy ora copy of the Lilburn Report and no explanation was forthcoming from staff. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2002, I again expressed my concern that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was relying heavily on a CEQA Guideline which had been held invalid by the Sacramento Superior Court. The City Attorney advised (properly) that the City could choose to rely upon the disputed CEQA regulation while the validity of the CEQA 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 Court of Appeal issued its unanimous opinion that the CEQA Gnid¢line (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 approved the Mitigated NegatiVe Declaration on October 23, 2002 and made a fmdin$ that there was "no substkntial 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 thc California Environmental Quality Act of.1970, as amended, and the ~tate 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 15064Cn) 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 Lilbum 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 f~rst 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 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. Next the Court of Appeal stated that it was invalidating Guideline 150640a) because under that Guideline, ifa project complies with a regulatOry standard (from RWQCB or SCAQIVlD) then the lead agency is directed to make a finding that the environmental effect is not significant, regardless of the existence of other substantial evidence which would support a fair argument that the effect may be environmentally significant. (Opinion page 15.) The Court of Appeal stated that the real issue in the case was the "application of an established regulatory standard in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect." (Opinion page 17.) The City's Mitigated Negative Declaration improperly relied on "compliance with regulatory standards" to preclude any consideration of the significant air and water environmental effects which were raised in the Environmental Audit report, and the Lilbum Report of October 14, 2002 readily admitted this on pages 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9. Therefore, conlrary to the findings of Planning Commission Resolution 02-101, all significant environmental effects have not been reduced to an acceptable level, because merely meeting a regulatory standard does not form a legal basis under CEQA to support such a statement. Moreover, the language of Resolution 02- 101 which provides that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has "been prepared.., in compliance with the State CEQA Ouidelines" is no longer mae following the Court of Appeal decision invalidating section 15064(h). As a matter of law, the City Council must overrule the Planning Commission, disapprove the CUP for the project, and return this matter for the preparation of an EIR. 2. The attempt to exclude Art and Diana Flores from the process at the Planning Commission was improper. CEQA Guideline 15201 provides as follows: "Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency's activities. Such procedures should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency." In Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32na District Agricultural Assoc. (1986) 42 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 bolds a "privileged position" in the CEQA process "based on a belief that citizens can make important conlributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making." The Supreme Court went on to quote from the ease of County oflnyo v. City of LosAngeles (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 ora consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge fi'om 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 staffofthe 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 Lilbum Report was provided on the afternoon before the October 23~a hearing, and then only at~er a request to the staffofthe Planning Commission. The notice which the Planning Commission publishes states that "all interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and,express opinions for or against the proposal." After we did so, the Planning Commission and its staffdid its very best · to prevent any further dialogue onthe 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 staff in violation of the letter and spirit of 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 · iq5 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 Lilburn Report that another gas station seemed logmal at this intersection. 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 trucks, and an increase in traffic will be necessary to support the . three operations. My clients advise me that there are 9 other gasoline service stations wSthin 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 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 · · clients spent an additional $60,000 for the civil engineer and permits.' Mr. and Mrs. Flores · 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 .' ~ales 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 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. fi. The preparation of an EIR 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. · The proposed service station is within several hundred feet of a new home development. known as Cucamonga Ridge. The homes ~re 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 CLIP 00-17 November 4, 2002 Page 7 I · 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. Paul T. Gough/ . ·" 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 ENVIR ONMENT .4 UDIT, INC. 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 hazardons materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 2. Thc 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. Gongh September 19, 2002 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS Geology I. 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 of a 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 mn-offwill be conveyed during consmmtion 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 role mandated by the statue and relevant case law (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens ,,lgainst Pollution v. California Resources ,4gency). 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 esfmating emissions fi.om mobile sources than UKBEMIS7G. 7. Construction emissions are part of the air quality impacts and require analysis. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds fox: conStxuction 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 accuratelyestimated..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 P~. 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 I 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 -- 0.1 Fugitive DUSt/Travel on Paved & Unpaved Roads· - ..... I 45.0 Fugitive Dust From Construction(~' - - - - 85.0 Architectural Coatings - 5225 - - - Total Construction Emissions 68.5 61.6 117.9 17.7 138.4 SCAQMD Threshold Level 550 75. 1 O0 ' 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 fi.om mobile sources since an outdate mobile source model was used (URBEMISTG). 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. 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 I VOC NOx SOx I PMIO 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 Sisnifieant? NO NO NO 'NO YES 11. The City relies on the compliance with SCAQMD requirements as ~n 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 role mandated by the statue and relevant ease law (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communin'es for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Against : Pollution v. California Resourceq Agency). As shown above and as is also common with a number of stationary sources within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, air pc. nits can cemp!y 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 .2.03 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 region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (inclUde releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone . . precumors)? · 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/Cirenlation : .. · .. 14. The level of service (LOS) associated with the nearby intersections must be conducted m 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 could easily have a significant impact on traffic if adjacent impacts are already operating at L6S D or woi~e. 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 ba?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, lhe 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 area where two gasoline stations currently exist. The cumulative impacts associated with benzene exposure on residents near the three gasoline stations is e~pected to be significant. P. Gough S~pternber 19, 2OO2 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 ~ 19. The project generated noise estimates only considered equipment at the site. The Initial Study did not include noise levels from ~'affic 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 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~ant impact on Various resources and utilities. Socioeconomic Impacts · 21. The Initial Study did not provide any analysis ofsocioec~nomic imPaCts associated with the installation of a new gas station. Economic impacts mUSt be analyzed when there are physical impacts (CEQA Guidcimes 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 Station is located about 1 O0 feet from a residential area. APPENDIX A EMISSION CALCULATIONS TABLE A-1 Construction Equipment Emissions Construction Equipment Equipment Type HoursI Emission Factors lb/hr I Dally Emissions (lbs/day) I I~: ,;~= ~ i Number Per Day CO I VOC NOx I SOx I PM10 CO VOC I NOx I SOx PM10 a, ir Compressor 130 CFM (~ 8 0.20 0.04 0.32 0.04 0.02 0.00~ 0.00 0.00 0.0C 0.00 Backhoe 8 0.83 0.17 1.22 0.11 0.06 8.64i 1.33 9.74 0.8§ 0.44 Dozer 8 0.35 0.17 0.001 0.00 0.00 2.86 1.32 Plate Compactor(Gasoline) (~ 8 1.83 9.4~ 0.88 1.10 0.00 0.0C 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cranes 8 0.75 0.2~ 1.92 0.17 0,13 6.01 2.00 15.35 1.33 1.00 Dump Tracks . 8 1.80 0.1c 4.17 0,45 0.26 14.4¢ 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.08 Flatbed Track 8 1.80 0.1c 4.17 0.45 0.26 14.4C 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.08 Front End Loader (~ 8 0.57 0.22 1.90 0.18 0.17 0.0C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ManllfL~ (BOOm ancl Sclasor) (] 8 0,28 0.07 0.67 0.04 0.03 0.0C 0.50 0,00 0.00 0.0( Motor Grader 8 0.68 0.0a 0.05 0.45 0.06 5.4(~ 0.31 0.43 3.60 0.4~c Paver 8 0.99 0.2(: 2.38 , 0.20 0.10 7.92 1.60 19.04 1.60 0.8C Pile Driver (] 8 0.68 0.15 1.70 0.45 0.14 0.0(~ 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Trench Machine 0 8 1.20 0.18 1.3; 0.12 0.09 0.0(~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Forklift 4000 lb. 9 8 0.52 0.17 1.5a 0.14 0.09 0.0C 0.00 0.0C 0.00 0.0C Seneretors (Gasoline) 0 8 24.08 0.88 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0c ~Ve~d Machine 8 0.17 0.03 0.2~ 0.03 0.02 1.3g 0.25 2.2~ 0,25 0.15 ~!~, ~ ~=T~i I=MI~i~T~I~':'::'~:~'~ "~ ~--' ~ ':~ "--~ 56.15 8.53 113.5~ 17.67 S.3~ · Emlss~/ls leclom from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Table 9-8-A. · Emission. lac~om Irom SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Table 9-8-C. Table 9-8-C, Poaf~out calctaated f~m k~ad factor and hp rating. · Tn~cks EmJs~ons fa(~tom from SCAQMD CEQ~ Air Quality Handb~3k Tabl/* 9-8-A. Tn~ks,=ff h~hWay diesel u~ed f~ tnick:p~kul~take bed. D BS:WOflD:2175~Ernls~lonCales:Const ru c{ion Equipment 9/18/~ 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 Start EF Factor Factor Factor Losses Losses Factor Vehicle Type (~mile) (g/trtp) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/trip) (g/hr) (.q/mile) (g/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 Heav~ 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 Numberof Traveled Exhaust Start Running OtherVOC Loss Exhaust Start Source Vehicles Trips In Miles Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emission Construction Workers Commutin.(:J 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 Deliver~ Trucks 1 2 50 10.75 NA 0.33 0.01 NA 4.20 0.00 0.13 Heav~ DieseITrucks 0 0 4 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA · 0.o0 0.00 0.00 ~ource Parameters CO VOC NOx PM10 Total Emissions for Construction Workers 12 · 24 1157 0;22 0.13 0.01 Total Emissions for Li,clht Duty Trucks 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Emissions for Heavy Diesel Trucks I 2 10.75 0.34 4.21 0.13 Total Trip Emissions 12.32 0.55 4.34 0.14 Emlc01on tnctom for Ilghl duly InJck0 include Iruck~ have non-calatysl/ge ~tlne, catalyst/gasoline engines, and diesel engines Diurnal & Resting losses vehicle ROG emission based on Ihs vehicle being not being operated and the ambient lamberature Is rising Based on California ARB EMFAC2000 model years 1965-2001. state-wh3e annual simple averages EMFAC2000 was finalized in May 2000 DB8woRD~.175~ErnlsslonCelc~:Const. TtlpD 9/18/02 TABLE A-3 Vehicle Emission Factors from EMFAC2000 ~ II-DA-TOT ~ LDT1-TOT ILDT2.TOT IHHDT-TO~ I~rp. 61171160 13500887 25489776 2036153I SOX 3.57 0.61 1.19 . TABLE A-4 Fugitive Dust Construction Emission Estimates From Trucks and Employee Vehicles Peak Emission Peak Daily One-way Factor i PM-10 Source Type Number Fuel Trips Distance (Ib/vmt) (lbs/day) Passenger Vehicle/ On Paved Roadways 12 Gasoline 2 11,5 0.01~ 4.97 Pickup·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 Total' 13 44.97 ~ Emission Calculations for travel on :)areal roada from EPA AP~2 Section 13.2.1 ~ DBS:WORD~175~:Emlss~onCalcs:PM10 Veh. Emissions 9/18/02 TABLE A-5 Fugitive Constuction Emission Estimates Average PM10Average Pea~ PM10 Average PM10 Peak PM10 SCAQMD .. ' Pieces of Peak Pieces Emission WaJer PMI0 Equipment ol Equipment Hour~ of Fac~ Contn:)l I I I Grad~nq Operctions Operatlnq Operatinq . Operation (It~our) Factor (Ibskfay) (Ibs/d~y) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Factor Soul,., C° nslmc6°n ^ctlvilies~'~ 1 2 6 ' 7.7 0.5 Average Tons T~so~ PM~0 ~ Average Peek Average Peek : ol Mater~io Maleriols Emission Water PM10 PM10 PMIO PM10 SCAQMO ' Hanoled Pet Handled Factor Conlm] Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emission rEMPORARYSTOCKPILES Da./ PetDa7 I[Ib~l~I Factor Pounds/da~ Pounds/da~ Pounds/da~ Pounds/da,/ ac~orSourc; ~°nst ructl°~ Acflvllles~ 200 .' 250 0.0035 0.5 I 0.35 I 0.2975 I 0.7 J 0.875 ITal~le Ag-9-G emporai7 StOCkF~r. Day(tora~ PerDa7 IIMonl' Facto~ Ponds/da7 Pounds/da}' Pounds/da,/ Pounds/da Factor$ourcc (1) Emi~on(,,(~b~n~). 10.45 x (G"S)/(H''4) x 2.2O46 x J: whom G = ~tt cQr~ct (7.5~.1, H - mo~tum ~re.nt (2.0~ and J. hm · . TABLE A-6 Paint Primer Architectural Coating Emissions Painting of Station Activit~ Amount Notes Volume Applied (~lallons/day) 15 VOC Content (Ib/~tallon) 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 PMIO Exhaust Exhaust Diurrnal & Evap Exhaust Emissions Continuous Emission Continuous HotSoak .Resting Running Emissions Continuous Emission Factor Start EF Factor Start EF Factor Losses Losses Factor Start EF Factor Cehicle Type (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/trip} (g/hr) (g/mile) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) Norkers Cornmutin~l 8.99 11~76 0.54 1,18 0.37 0,17 0.39 0.88 0.72 0.05 Ught Duty Trucks 11.28 13.95 0.57 1.25 0,37 0.16 0.34 1.36 1.07 0.07 Heavy Diesel Trucks 48.75 NA 1.39 2.55 0.09 NA 0.11 19.06 1.57 0.61 Parameters Peak Day Emisslons~ lbs/day CO VOC NOx PM10 Diurnal and Total . Distance Continuous Exhaust& Resting ' . Continuous Numberof Numberof Tmaveled Exhaust Start Running othervoc Loss Exhaust Start Sodrce Vehicles Trips InMiles Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Ernissions Ernission Ernisslons Emission Workers Comrnutin~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 Duty Trucks 0 0 11.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Deliver~ Trucks 2 4 50 21.49 NA 0.66 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 PMIO Ernissions for Vehicles 2325 2333 178.93 27.20 15.30 0.66 I'otal Emissions ,Ight Duty Trucks 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r0tal Emissions for Heavy 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 Emissio~ Peak Daily One-way Factor PMoI0 Source Type Number Fuel Trips Distance (Ib/vmt) (lbs/day) Passenger Vehicle/ On Paved ROadways 8 Gasoline 2 11.5 0.0i8 3.312 Customer Vehicles 2317 Gasoline 2 2.5 0.018 208.53 Trucks on Paved Roadways 0 Diesel 2 20 0.,~ 0 Trucks on Paved Roads 2 Diesel 2 50 0.4 80 Total , 2327 291.842 * Emission Calculations f~om SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 DBS:WORD:~2f 75~EmlsslonCalcs: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 Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Diesel EF = 0,028 Ib/Mgal Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instructio~t 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 Emlaslons: Benzene EF I percent of total gasoline VOC Emissions Source: SCAQMD 2001-2002 Annual Emissions General Instruction Book Emissions 0.18 lbs/day ~j~ , DBS:WORD:/2175/EmlssionCalcs:Dispenstng EX _ BIT 2 ~/~ September 23, 2002 City of Rancho Cueamonga Planning Commission Attn: Brent Le Count 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9i 730 Re: Project File: CUP 00-17 Proposed Chevron Service Station, convenience market, ear 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 froro the gr0utld up at their own expense a/id 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 reqmred for this particular project.~ If a 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£os 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 ageneias to look before they leap and consider any environmental consequences of City Plnnnlng Commission Rancho Cucamonga September 23, 2002 Page 2 their a~tions 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~ 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,4ssn. v. Regents of University of California(1993) 6 Cai. 4~ 1112, 1123, quoting Pub. Res. Code § 21068. "Public Resources Code section 21151 "creates a low threshold rexluiremcnt for initiai preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmantal review when the question is whether any such review is wan'anted." Silveria v. Las Gallinas P'alle)~ Sanitary Dist. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4~ 980, 986. We urge the Planning Commission to require an EIR for this project. OTHER OBgECTIONS TO THE PRO,IECT 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 clients at 8919 East Foothill Boulevard, the Albertson's supermarket directly across the intersection of Vineyard and Foothill operates an .4-Exl2ress 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, there were no gasoline stations is the most baneficiai use of this site for Rancho Cucamonga. Besides saturating the iInmediate area with gasoline service stations, the construction of yet another service station would result in an increase in gasoline deliveries by gasoline tanker trucks, and an increase in traffic to support the three operations. My clients advise me that there arc 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 cfa 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 otRancho 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 undcrgrounding 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 bemuse their volume of gasoline ' sales has decreased over 40% since the opening of the .4-Expres,, another sign that this area may not support yet another gasoline service station. Saturation of this area with yet another se~rice 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. PTG:jk XH!B!T 3- 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: CUP 00-17 Proposed Chevron Station To Members of the Planning Commission: This office represents Art & Diana Flores who are the owners and operators of a Mobil gasoline service station in Rancho Cueamonga 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 moming 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 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 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 allowed 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. .221 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 Cucarnonga 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 n0te 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 invalidated by the Sacramento Superior Court and which is the subject of a pending appeal in the Third District 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 befor~e 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 Lilbum Corporation dated October 14, 2002. Ve truly o~urs, ~ Paul T. Gough PTO:jk. .722 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 E0 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 M. 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.1 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 ad0P~ed'isignificant 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 · 15130·(a)·(4)) (how "de minimis" effects in a·~cu~ulativ~ly 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 definition 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 ~o 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, suprs, page 11, see a~so 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 urban 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.s 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 5 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 be prepared even if other·isubstantial evidence shows no significant environmental effect.8 "'Significant effect, on the environment' means a substantial,~or potentially s·ubstantial, adverse change in the environment.''9 The EIR ·has been repeatedly recognized as the ~hear~ of CEQA. ' ,,10 . . . 6 Pacific Legal. Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal 3d 158, 167-174 7 CEQA sections 21000, 21001 .... - '. s 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 Cai.App.3d 872, 880 (oro Fino). 9 CEQA section 21068. l0 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 in.a statement of. overriding considerations.11 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 organizationsv- Cow~.unities For A Better Environment, Environmental Protection'.. information Center, and Desert Citizens Against.pollution (hereafter collectively referred to as CBE)--sued the Resources Agency, challenging several 1998-revised Guidelines. The California Building Industry Association (BIA), a homebuilding =rade 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, !5152(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 n0t~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 ~rial 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 impli'ed 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). interpret, make specific or otherwise carry-out the'provisions of the statute, no regulation adopted is valid ~r effective unless [1] consistent and not in conflict With the statute and [2] reasonably necessary to effectuate~the purpose of the statute." ~ ~' ' Under the first prong of.this standard,'the judiciary independently reviews the administrative regulation for consistency with controllinglaw.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.~6f 'the authority conferred;.if it is not, it is void.ls This is ~ question particularly suited for the judiciarY a~ the 'final arbiter of the law, and does not invade the technical ~xpertise 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.Ap~.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 Cat.3d 811, 816-817 (Ontario); Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.'4th at page !1 and footnote 4. 16 Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cai.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 mor~ 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 ~o 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 Fr0m this, the 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. (i978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 668. 20 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, footnote 2 (Laurel Hei'ghts I). -9- 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 cons{ruction final responsibility for the interpretation of the law rests with the courts.''z3 An agency has no authority t~ promulgate a regulation that is inconsistent'with controlling law.z4 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.''25 Finally, the "foremost principle" in interpreting CEQA iS- that the Legislature intended the act t6 'be~read s0 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 Henning, 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 Calo4th 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 significant effect~plays a critical role in the CEQA'progess."~8 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 impa~t[,]'" 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 (1990) 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), 2108.2.2, 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.3~ Acco~ding~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 30 Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance (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). 3~ Thresholds of Significance, reprinted in Bass, CEQA Deskbook, appendix 10, supra, page 394. $2 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 performance 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 ~ill 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 significance · of a project's environmental impacts is an effective means of promoting consistency in significance determinasions and integrating CEQA envlronmental 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, the' lead agency shall determine which standard is appropriate for' 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 sec~ion, [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 may be significant as otherwise required by this secsion, [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 requiremen~ 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 argumentlproblem 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 that 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 t5064(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 the whole record that a standard is inappropriate to determine the' Signi.ficance'.o.f an effec5 for a particular project; if this happens, the"lead agency is to determine wh~.ther the effect may be~.significant as otherwise required. However, as one CEQA treatise observes with respect to these two subsections: ~'[A] lead~age~Cy'~ . 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.''34 In other words, the fair 33 Remy, .CEQA Guide, supra, page 174.. 34 Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 175. 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. tHe 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 I5064(i)(3)--Cumulative Impacts: 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 fllnding 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 'i'~ connection with the effects of past projects, the effects 'of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannotbe gauged in vacuum.Ss one of the most important environmental lessons tha~ has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small· Sources~ ·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). 38 Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408. appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with 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 plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid, or substantially·lessen the· cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan; air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) withi·~ 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 conclude 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 of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025 (Los Angeles Unified). 40 See Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 240. 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 agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution 5o 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 require~. 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 !5064(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 5han 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 determine" 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~' notwithstanding that the project complies with t~e specified plan or. mitigationprogram 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 can " 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, h6wever', if Guidelines section 15064(.i) (3) incorporates the fair'a'rgumen% 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)~'(~) is · · consiStent'with controlling' CEQA law So long as'the s~ction is deemed to incorporate the fair argument standard in. triggering EIR preparation. Guidelines s~ction 15152(f) (2), which ihv'01ves 4~ see City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 1'87 Ca~.Appi3d 1325, 1332-1338; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City, of H~n£ord (1990).221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716-717 (Kings County). '~ EIR tiering, incorporates Guidelines section 15064(i) 'The trial court invalidated section 15152(f) (2) to the extent it incorporates Guidelines section 150'64(i) (3). Section 15152(f) (2)'s incorporation of secti0n !5064(i) (3)' is · permissible in light of our validation of section 15064(i) (3). 4. Guidelines Sections 15064(i)(4) and 15130(a) (4)--Oqmulative Impacts:. De Mim{m4~. Incremental Contributions to 'Cumulative Impacts; Guidelines Section 15152(f)(2).'s · ~ Incorporation of Section 15064 (i) (4) Guidelines sections 15064(i)(4) and t5130(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 considerable.. "[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] [9] 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 prcject 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 ...,.. effect requires 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 significan~ . cumulative impact caused by other proje.cts, that~would exist in the absence.of the proposed project. Such de mini~[i]s incremental impacts, by themselves, do not trigger obligation to prepare an EIR. A de minim[i]s contribution means tha~ 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 shalt discuss Cumulative impacts of a project when t.he project,s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable Where a lead agency is examinin~ 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. 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 contribution 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 approa'ch of Guidelines sections 15064(i) (4) and 15130(a) (4) compares the incremental effect of the proposed project against the collective cumulative impac~ 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, therefo.re, insignificant because the [cogeneration] plant would emit relatively minor amounts 44 Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at.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 problsm 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 emissi0Ds 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 relevant issue was not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from~the project when co~pared 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 A-ugeles Unified, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at. page~1025.· -25- any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered significant given the nature of the existing traffic noise problem.49 From Kings County and 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 t5064(i) (4) and 15130(a) (4), the Resources Agency relied on language appearing in San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center'v. County of Stani. s!aus, 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 of-whether a project's impacts are "cumulatively cons~der.able'f, 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 projects, not on 49 Los Angeles Unified, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page 1025. s0 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. [~] [~] [An]agency [must] consider[] the effects of other projects, but only as a context for considering whether the incremental effects of the project atissue 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 a "significant-cumulative-impact" but whether the effect~ 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 A nge!es 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 theimpacts of the project' under review, not on the impacts of other past, present, or future projects.5z However, under CEQA section 21083, under~ th~ Guidelines section 15355 definition of cumulative-impacts, and under the 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, ~upra, 42 Cal.App'.4th.~t pages 623~624 52 Gorsen, The New and Improved CEQA Guidelines Revisions/ reprinted in Remy, CEQA Guide, appendix VI, 'supra, page 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 5he effects of" past, current and probable future projects.53 Guidelines section 15355 defines ~cumulative impacts" as referring "to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase Dther 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's;hen added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future.projects. Cumulative impacus can result from individually minor but co~2ectively significant projects taking place over a period of ~ime" (italics added) ~ And ~the relevant question" under the Kings Coun~y/Lus Angeles Unified approach is not how the effect of the project at issue compares to the preexisting cumulative effect, bus 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, sukdiv±sion (b), italics added. 54 Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at page 718; accord, Los Angeles Unified, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page 1025; see also Environmental Protection Information Center, Inci 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 and 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"~ · ... that language would effectively adopt a higher threshold "comparative approach" for deciding whether' to prepare an EIR, and a lower ~hreshold "combined approach" for governing a cumulative impact discussion in an EIR.' Furthermore, the distinction drawn in the. San Joaquin Raptor passage between EIR 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]. [$]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 with controlling CEQA law because 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 sa~ed 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 cumulgtive impact law requires.,~ Moreover, a de minimis effect in absolute terms woul~ 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 discuss .i~oacts 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 signi~ican% 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 ~IR process (tiering refers, to incorporating the analysis from a general, broader EIR into a later, narrower E!R).60 Guidelines section 15152(f) (2) states, in part, that "[a]t this P~int, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative ~ impact, but whether the effects of the pro~ect 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 tha~ to Guidelines section 15152~, subsection (a) th~ 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 T~pacts: Defining "Probable Future Projects~ for Cumulative ~mpact Purposes This section defines "probable future projectS,'" a t~rm used in CEQA section 21083 on the subject of cumulative impacts. Under cEQA'section 21083, an individual pro~ect"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 agency 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 (f) (3) (C)-~Tiering:' When Significant Environmental Effects Have Been Adequately Addressed for EZR 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 envir°nmental effects an an [EIR] prepared for a policy, plan, program 0f 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 Capabie 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 [EIR] has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance,' the lead agency for a later project that meets the requirements of th·is sectiOn shall examine significant effects of the later project upon 62 See' e.g., San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 6!, 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] ko.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, sta%es as relevant: ~(f) A later EIR shall be required, whgn the [pre-EIR] initial study or other aDalysis finds that.the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR. [9] .... [9] "(3) Significant environmental effects have been ~adequately. addressed' if the-lead agency determines.%hat: "(A)" they have been mitigated, or avoided as a result of the 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 I5152, subsections (f) (3) (A) and (f) (3) (B), as just· quoted, reiterate the·two exceptions set forth in CEQA section 2109~, ·subdivision (a); those two exceptions specify the circumstances under which a tater EIR need not examine the effects 0f a later project because those effects have been the subject of a prior E!R.· Subsection (f) (3) (C) of Guidelines section 1515~ 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 sub·section (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 underlying subsection· (f) (3) (C) appears to fall within the fundamental concept of tiering--a prior EIR has adeqUately addressed the environmental effects Of a later project such that further analysiS·Of those effects in the later EIR would be "duplicative.''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 effect 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 support.6$ 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 tken avoid future political accountability by approving later, more specific projects with significant ·unavoidable impasts pursuant · to the Prior EIR and statement of~.overriding considerations. Even though a prior EIR's analysis of envircu~ental 9ffects may be subject to being incorporated in a later EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible publi~ officials must still go on the record and explain specifica%ly why they·are approving the later project despite ius significan~ unavoi~ab!e impacts. We conclude that Guidelines section 15~52..(f).(3) (C).is inconsistent with controlling CEQA law and is therefore invalid. 7. Guidelines Section 15378{b)(5)--Definition of P~oject~ 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" tkey intend to carry out or approve which may have a-signifiCant effect on. the environment-67 Under CEQA section 2i065, "'[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 1!23; 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·foreseeable 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 phyS£cal changes in the· environment (such as the reorganization 0f· a school district o~ detachment of park land)." There are two problems with this Guideline, one gram~nat·icai 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-AlicerIn-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 '~project" encompasses am 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 not say, activities which do not cause or result in direct or indirect physical changes. This has significance because purely administratSve 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 re/. 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. -39- approvals and school district reorganizations, which constitute an essential step culminating in environmental effect are ~projects" within the scope of CEQA.TM 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 andits 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--Categorica!'Exe~tiOn: In-Fill Development Projects CEQA section 21084 authorizes the Resources A~ency 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.72 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. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (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 donot'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 subsequent case law 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 !05~ 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'i252 (Fairbank); see Davidon Homes v. 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-75 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 wel.1 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 Would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, 'n'oise, air quaiisY, or wat&r quality. "(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services." In reading Guidelines section 15332, we cannot dispu5e 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 Eavidon, 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 Guidelines as a Categorical· exemption must not have a significant effect on the environment. .Guidelines section 15332 is limited to inLfill Urban · development, and subsections (a) through (e) specify, as the trial court found, "comprehensive environmentally protective· condi~icns." 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 and all applicable zoning designations and regulations in addition to the other Guidelines section 15332 protective criteria. In a related 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, statutcry exemptions have an absolute quai'ity not shared by categorical exemptions: 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-7~ Moreover, the Legislature has authorized the adoption cf categorical exemptions notwithstanding statutory ones.TM CBE maintains ~hat the section 15332 phrase ~substantially surrounded by urban uses~ could lead to piecemeal expansion of urban areas as projects avoid CEQA review under th~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 Guidelines section 15061, subsections (b) (1), (b) (2); see also Bass, CEQA Deskbook, supra, page 24; Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, pages 84-85. 78 CEQA section 21084. 79 Guidelines section 15300.2, subsection (b); see Remy, CEQA Guide, supra, page 102. to unusual circumstances.''80 These other environmental effects that CBE mentions would constitute "unusual circumstances" under this exception for a project that otherwise meets the Guidelines section 15332 criteria. This is.'beuause 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'r 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 circums'tances of the projects covered by a particular categorical eXemption, and (ii) those .circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for~the general · class of exempt projects.''81 ' ' ~'. CBE reiies on Chickerin~'s statement "that where there is any reasonable possibility 5hat a project, or activity-may have significant effect on'the environment, an exemption.would be. improper,''s2 and on Mountain Lion's reiteration that "[a]ny 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. 82 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 w~th 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 , J. · ' 83 Mountain Lion, supra, 16 C~l.4th at page 124. T H E C t T Y 0 F t~ANCHO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: October 23, 2002 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning 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 Commerdal 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 wn"tten 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 pom. 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 October 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 within 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~ANCI~ 0 CU CAM 0 N GA DATE: September 25, 2002 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, 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 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. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin.q: North Albertson's Center; Community Commemial South - Vacant land with condominiums further south; Community Commercial 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 Desi(3nations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial South - Commercial 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. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Type of Use Footaqe 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 dyer rock veneer, stucco, trellises, and tile covered roofs with a tile roofed tower projecting out over the entrance. This is consistent with the architectural 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 comer. 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 can~ash be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week, similar to restrictions placed on carwashes in Neighborhood Commercial 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 architecture 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 extedor is compatible with surrounding architectural 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 Distdct 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, Apdl 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 dudng 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 headng 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~na 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 Plant Legend WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION ~ Chevron KEY MAP Opc otto 0o- -7 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 ih excess of fifteen (15) feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and multi-trunks having a circumference 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): ~L 5 trees or less [] 50 feet of windrows or less [] 6 trees or more* [] 51 feet of windrows or more* Related Development Application:* b'~-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: ~E:)O'~[,t;J[ ~:~ Jr" ~/,'~e...e-g Name, Address, Telephone of Applicant: }-~..L~.. ( ~j ~o,~ ~-.,.~ Zo.. o ,5, z/oo Name, Address, Telephone of Property Owner (if other than applicant): Reasons for Removal (atlach addlt~.al sheet(s)if necessary): Property Owner's 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 writter~ 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? ~'~"~ m ~.Jr~ ce ~e~-[,~7 '~:~E )/'cE, ~ 5 2 Any safety hazards to Persons, adjacent property or utility installations? 00 3. Any conflict with proposed improvements? 4, * Proxim~ of other tr~s in ~e area? 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? '~0 DATE: EVALUATED BY: I:FinaFForms/Counter/TREER-ND.doc/rev.04/24/2002 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. Design Parameters: ~'he site is located in the northwest corner 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 immediately to 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 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, 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 barn 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 river rock 2. Eliminate exterior electrical cabinet from south elevation. Place all equipment, etc., within the building. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON April 17, 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 corner of site are 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 care in drive-thru and roof-mounted equipment. Provide heavily landscaped berms along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Note that the Engineering Division does not support the driveway into the site off of Foothill Boulevard. Replace this drivewaywith 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 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Membem Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent 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 Commemial 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 properly 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 corner of Camelian 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 barn 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 dver rock veneer application on column bases, projecting entry tower, and use of decorative wood corbels supporting the tower roof. Further detail including exposed ralfer tails 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 over the previous design reviewed on Apd117th, is still very much a "corporate protoO/pe" design based on a large stucco box. It does not conform to the sketches in the Design Guidelines for the Roddgeuz 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 dver rock veneer. The columns should be of more substantial width and depth and entirely covered with stone. 4. Eliminate exterior electrical cabinet from south elevation. Place all equipment, etc. within the building. Plans no longer show an extedor electrical cabinet. 5 Provide crape 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 i~ seeking design direction on the building elevations. 6 Provide decorative driveways and decorative paving to delineate pedestrian pathways. This has not been addressed. 7. Align the handicapped clear area with the front entry and treat with decorative paving to enhance the entry experience. The applicant pointed out at the Apd117th 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 $ feet in width would be necessary for the raised concrete area in front of the store. An acceptable altemative 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 doore 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 forthe site by Gil Roddguez, which entails a large anchor tenant to the south. The plans do not include the overall Git Roddgeuz master planned project. 10. Provide an illustrative cross-section from Foothill Boulevard through the ddve-thro and building to demonstrate sight lines and screening of care 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 alternative to corbels and exposed rafter tails, provide detailed decorative profile cornice treatment around entire building. Finish cornice to appear as stone material. 3. Provide trim/surrounds with decorative profiles to accentuate archways. This trim shall be of a different color than the main stucco field color. 4. Continue arched 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 wall-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. Track tuming radii shown on the Site Plan appear to accommodate a reduced ddveway opening at the southeast comer of the site. 7. Wall-mounted trellis members shall have a minimum dimension of 2 inches. 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 ddvewaywith 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 working 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 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and brought back for further review. DesiRn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, John Mannedno, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON October 16, 2001 Page 4 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. Backqround: 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 applicantsubmitted a revised set ofdesign 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 original 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, '~he architectural theme of the project drawn on aesthetic cues from the Winery vernacular (such as Thomas Brothe~s Winery)." The architectural guidelines provide for use of Califomia Bam S~yle architecture as a symbol of the winery culture. Conceptual building elevations are included that incorporate corbel supported towers exposed rafter tails, stone covered columns/walls, archways, multi-paned windows, hip style roofs, and tm/lis 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 Rod~fguez 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 O~ober 16, 2001 Page 2 3. The Design Guidelines shall establish a palette of architectural and landsCape design features for designers of the vadous 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 articulation, 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 roof'~ng materials. Staff does not suggest inclusion of wood shingles unless of artificial manufacture nor any metal roof'~ng (other than real copper roof'~ng 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 ddveway entrance points and at on-site ddveway 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. DRC COMMENTS DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ & CUP 99-17 -CHEVRON October 16, 2001 Page 3 Desi.qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry 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 bythe 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 Commercial District, located on the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207- 211-12 and 13. Desi.qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Pam Stewart, John Mannedno, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee recommended approval of the Design Guidelines. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:00 p.m. Brent 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 Commemial District (Subarea 2) located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12, and 13. Backqmund: 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 dyer reck 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 Rodriguez 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 staff's 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 heigl~t 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" s~yle reof pro§le is conveyed. The wall area directly below the roo§ine and above the window line has been reduced in height resulting in a less boxy appearance, 3. The columns that suppor[ the trellises should match those shown in the Guidelines. The trellis columns are of more substantial width and have detailing consistent with the Design Guidelines, The stonework extends the full height ofthe columns similarto the stone 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. 1 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. 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 sen/ice 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/divided light. The applicant proposes a cut up pattern that is consistent with the rest 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 reck. 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, pdor 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 wall in this location but the current Grading Plan still shows the 6 feet of §11. The retaining wall shall 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 forthe carwash building are 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 similar to the trim that wraps the tower for consistency and visual interest. 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. Tdm lines now wrap the entire building. The trim 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 wails. This dimension shall be substantial, at least 2 feet deep. DRC COMMENTS CUP 00-17 - CHEVRON December 18, 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 properly owner and a Tree Removal Permit will be necessary in order to remove the trees. 7. Note the east facing doors 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 pilasters. 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 nor[h, 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 properly line, plus I tree per 30 linear feet of building wall, plus 1 tree per 3 parking spaces to shade 50 percent of the parking area. Staff Recommentation: 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 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam 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 I ~304 SANTA MONICA ~*LVD SEP -.. September 23, 2002 City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 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. 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. 4th 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 Improvernent Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 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 TIlE 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{htion 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 c~t~zens of Rancho Cucamonga, ~t 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 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 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 yo~s, · Paul T.'Gough//'[ 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 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 ~uidelines. A number &issues should be included in the checklist form. Examples of differcoces 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 re~ion 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 Goverament 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 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 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 of a 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 mn-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 la~v (Environmental Protection Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Aga#~st 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. Oough 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 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. 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 Constructiont u ........ 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 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 0bs/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 argnment role mandated by the statue and relevant case law (Environmental Protection 'Information Center, Communities for a Better Environment, and Desert Citizens Against Polhttion 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 tracks), 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 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 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) 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 could easily have a significant impact on traffic if adjacent 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 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 18. 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 fi.om 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 whha there are physical impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). The proposed project will add a ne~v gasoline station in close proximity to two other gasoline stations. The new gasoline station could draw business away fi.om 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. APPENDIX A EMISSION CALCULATIONS TABLE A-1 Construction Equipment Emissions Construction Equipment Equipment Typei .ours I Em,ss,on Factors ,b/hr I Da,,y Emissions (lbs/day) I Number Per Day CO I VOC J NOx I SOx I PM10 CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 Air Compressor 130 CFM 0 8 0.2(3 0.04 0.32 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backhoe I 8 0.83 0.17 1.22 0.11 0.06 6.64 1.33 9.74 0.89 0.44 Dozer I 8 .... 0.35 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 1.32 Plate Compactor (Gasoline) 0 8 1.83 9.46 0.88 1.1C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Cranes I 8 0.75 0.25 1.92 0.17 0.13 6.01 2.00 15.35 1.33 1.0C Durnp Trucks 1 8 1.80 0.19 4.17 0.4~ 0.26 14.40 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.0( Flatbed Truck 1 8 1.80 0.19 4.17 0.4~ 0.26 14.40 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.0~ Front End Leader 0 8 0.57 0.23 1.90 0.15 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Manlifts (Boom and Scissor) 0 8 0.28 0.07 0.67 0.04 0.03 0.0C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Motor Grader 1, 8 0.68 0.04 0.05 0.45 0.06 5.4(; 0.31 0.43 3.60 0.4.c Paver 1~ 8 0.99 0.20 2.38 0.2C 0.10 7.9~= 1.60 19.04 1.60 0.8C Pile Ddver 01 8 0.68 0.15 1.70 0.45 0.14 0.0¢ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0£ Trench Machine 0! 8 1.20 0.18 1.32 0.12 0.09 0.0C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Forklift 4000 lb. 01 8 0.52 0.17 1.54 0.1~ 0.09 0.0¢ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0( Generators (Gasollno} 01 8 24.08 0.88 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.0¢ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0c Weld Machine11 8 0.17 0.03 0,28 0,03 0,02 1,3g 0,25 2,27 0,25 0,12 56.15 8.53 113.55 17.67 8.3z 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 Start EF Factor Factor Factor Losses Losses Factor Vehicle Type (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/trip) (g/hr) (g/mile) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) Construction Workers Commutin~ 8.99 11.76 0.54 1.18 0.37 0.1 ~ 0.39 0.88 0.72 0.05 Li~]ht Duty Trucks 11.28 13.95 0.57 1.25 0.37 O. 16 0.34 1.36 1.07 0.07 H0sv}, Dloaol Trucks 48.76 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 PMIO Diurnal and Total Distance Continuous Exhaust & Resting ' Continuous Number of Number of Traveled Exhaust Start Running Other VOC Loss Exhaust Start 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 Li~lht 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 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 Light 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 include trucks have non-catalyst/gasoline, catalyst/gasoline engines, and diesel engines Diurnal & Resting losses vehicle ROG emission based on the vehicle being not being operated and the ambient temperature is dsing Based on Calilornia ARB EMFAC2000 model years 1985-2001, slate-wide annual simple averages EMFAC2000 was finalized in May 2000 DBSWORD~2175\ErnissionCalcs:Const. Trips 9/18/02 TABLE A-3 Vehicle Emission Factors from EMFAC2000 Calendar Year: 2001 - Model Years: 1 g65 to 2001 - Statew~de Totals Project 1936 Scenario EMFAC2000 Version 2.02 f LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT LDT2-TOT HHDT-TO1 Vehicles 14616335 2223108 4003223 160165 VMT/1000 473835 67563 140267 20258 rips 91171160 13500887 25489776 203615 LDA-TOTI LDT1-TOTI LDT2-TOTIHHDT-TO1 Emission Factors LDA Emission Factors LDT 1 &2 Emission Factors HHDT Diurnal & Evap Diurnal & Evap Diurnal &l Evap Contlnuou~ Resting Running .~ontlnuous Resting Running 0ont[nuous Resting Running Emissions (tons/day) (Pr/mi) (g.trlp) (g/trip) (g/mi) (g/mi) (q/mi) (g/~rlp) (WtriD) (q/mi) (oJml) (g/mi) (g/trip) (~rlp) (g/m1) (g/mi) Reactive Organic Gas Emissions Diurnal 83.53 1169 9,69 001 0.14 0.13 0.00 Hot Soak 36.89 9.18 6.51 0,20 0.37 0.37 0.09 Idre Exh 0.00 0.00 0,00 8.81 0,00 0.39 Start Ex 72.13 13.80 32.12 3.53 0.72 1.07 1.57 Carbon Droxlde Emissions Idle Exh 000 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Ex 247.32 41.36 84.58 47.12 0.46 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.09 0.00 (~.00 0.00 2.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 PMIO Eml$810n$ Jun Exh 8.46 1.56 4.01 12.47 0.02 0.02 0.56 Idle Exh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0,00 Start Ex 065 0.14 029 0.00 001 0,01 qreWear 4.13 0.61 3.59 0.79 0.01 0,01 0.04 BrakeWr 8.48 0.96 4.07 0.28 0.01 0.02 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 I Diesel 2 50 0.4 40.00 Total 13 44.97 * Emission Ca[culalJons for travel on paved roads from EPA AP-42 Section 13.2.1 , ~ DBS:WORD~175~:EmissionCalcs:PM10 Veh. Emissions 9/18/02 TABLE A-5 Fugitive Constuction Emission Estimates Controlled Emissions UncOntrolled Emissions Average PM10 Average Average Pieces at Peak Pieces Emission Water PM10 Peck PM10 PM10 Peak PM10 SCAQMD Equipment of Equipment Hours at Factor Contrat Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emission Graolnq Operations Oporalioq Operatinq Operation {Ib~our} Factor {lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Factor Sourc~ ~onslnJ clion Acfivilios~ ) I 2 8 7.7 0.5 30.80 61.6C 61.6 123.2 l'ab~e A~-9-F TRENCHING OPERATIONS (Backhoe) Cont rolred Emissions Uncontrolled Emissions Peck Average Tons To~s at PM10 Average Peck Average Peck of MaterlaJs Malerials Err~ssion Water PM10 PMIO PM10 PM10 SCAQMD Handred Per Handled Factor Control Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emission rEMPORARYSTOCKPILES Da~ PerDay (Ib~on) Factor Pounds/day Pounds/day Pounds/dayI Pounds/da,/ --actorSour~ -~onstru ction Act Ivit ies~Z~ 200 250 0.0035 0.5 0.35 0.2975 0.7 0.875 Fable A~-9-G I cublc },aid trench spoils = 1 ton -- Construction PerD~/ PerDa~/ (lb/day/acre) Pounds/day Pounds/da~/ Tons/year Tons/Year FactorSourc~ Const nJction Act ~vit es 30 0.5 I 19.800 9.900 18.800 0.149 0.297 Table A9-9-E FRUCK FiLLING/DUMPING Controlled Emissions Uncoat rolled Emissions Peck Estimated Tons ol PM10 Average Peck Average Peck Materials Materials Emission Water PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 SCAQMO Handled Per Handled Factor Control Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emission Da~/(tons~ PerDay (Ib4on~ Factor Pounds/day Pounds/da~/ ! Pounds/day Pounds/day :actorSource Truck Filiog(41 200 250 0.02205 0.5 2.205 2.75625 4.41 5.5125 Fable A9-9 Truck Dumpio.9 200 250 0.009075 0.5 0.9075 1.134375 1.815 2.26875 table A9-9 TOTAL PM10 Pounds/day I Average I Peak Uncontro[ted Emissions) 78.43 151,66 (1) Emissions (Ibs/'n l) = [0.45 x (G~ ~)/(H14) x 2.2046 x J; where G = eJIt content (7.5%). H ~ moisture conter~ (2.0%) and J =hrs of operation. (2) Emissions (Ih~le n). 0.0O 1 f 2 x [{G/5)~ 3/(H/2)1'41 x I/,h wh.re G=meAn wind speed (12 mph). H=molsture cordent at st~rface material (2%): I=lb~ of did handled per de'/( 10.000 lbs): and J~2,0OO Ib~t on TABLE A-6 Paint Primer Architectural Coating Emissions Painting of Station Activity 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 Diurmal & Evap Exhaust Emissions Continuous Emission Continuous HotSoak 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/mire) (g/mile) (g/trip) (g/mile) Workers Commutin~ 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 H eav,/, 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 I NOx PMIO Diurnal and Total Distance Continuous Exhaust & Resting Continuous Numberof Numberof Traveled Exhaust Start Running OtherVOC Loss Exhaust Start .~ource Vehicles Trips In Miles Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emissions Emission Emissions Emission ~/orkers Comrnutin~ I 8 16 11.5 3.65 0,41 0.38 0,05 0.02 0,36 0.03 0.02 3ustomer Cars 2317 2317 2.5 114.80 60.07 11.88 7.92 6.95 11.24 3.68 0.64 .i~ht Dut~ Trucks 0 0 11.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ;)eliver~ Trucks 2 4 50 21.49 NA 0.66 0.02 NA 8.40 0.01 0.27 -leav}, 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 DB S:WO RD:~. 175~Emis sionCalcs:Trip Emissions ~18/02 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 0.018 3.312 Customer Vehicles 2317 Gasoline 2 2,5 0.01~ 208.83 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 Imm SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 ~ DBS:WORD:~2175~EmissionCalcs: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 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 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 Audit, Inc., we do not believe that a fair argument has been presented (see responses to comments 1 through 19). The propose 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 comer. MEMORANDUM FROM ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC. General Comments . 1. Environmental Checklist. The City's Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study Part 1I) 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 o 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 EIR (see page 5.6-20). Only in the case of new or amended general plan elements, specific plans and major projects does City staff need to conduct an AQMP consistency review. Therefore, this specific question need not be 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 Land 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 SCAQMD 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 CAL/EPA 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 ar._ee 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 seismfic 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 [renches 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(b). 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 (DEHS). As stated in the first paragraph on Page 8 of the Initial Study, the RWQCB will require state-of-tbe-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 URBEMISTG and URBEMIS2001 are attached. Construction emission summaries from the URBEMISTG 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 URBEM~S7G 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 SCAQMDTh res. 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~0 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 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 source 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 reasons: 1) it appears that in Environmental Audit's Table 1 all the construction equipment w~)uld 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 truck, 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. ~qe 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 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 13.03 11.29 9.67 8.37 88.12 76.38 4.19 3.62 Totals ' 13.03 11.29 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 to Comments October 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 Dive~ted 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 DistanceI 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 commercial retail use that simply requires a CUP 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 truck 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 capturingJrecirculating 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/Circulation 14. The assumption made regarding the generation of trips was th'at 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 there 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 1, Prat m 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 II 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 ha~ been planned for'by the City as well as the various public utility purveyors. All infrastructure is available in the vicinity of the project site and only requires hookups for delivery to begin. The purpose of an environmental analysis 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: 9091890-1809 Response to Comments October 14, 2002 ' Page 14 developed on a site that is surrounded by other commercial 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 Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Pam 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, carded 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to approve the minutes of September 11, 2002. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, carded 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 11, 2002. PUBMC 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 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. 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 dir{ 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 - carried 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. Buller 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: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MANNERINO - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:33 p.m. to 8:39 p.m. '~ L :J. Ei~IVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONA 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 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 comer 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 modi~ some of the key design features including replacing the proposed restaurant 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 doors. 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 doors 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 care on their way to work in the morning and 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 call 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 Fdday 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 surs 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 Rodriguez, 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 dosed 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 Ci~s established thresholds. Mr. Bullet 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. Buller 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 Kwas 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 market 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 agreed that is desirable. He felt this project is good because of its close proximity to the Metrolink and the golf course. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it will be a nice project. He was concemed 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 ~ 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 occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced 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 proper[7 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, and traffic can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of environmental mitigation measures listed below; and 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 heating and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Coromission 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 California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project 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 heating, 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 Planning Division: 1) Wall mounted trellises shall be minimum 2-inch square metal tubing instead of wood. 2) Provide decorative paving for driveway entrsnces 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 proiect boundary shall be covered with natursl river rock veneer to match the building and have a decorative masonry cap. 8) The column pop outs on the building shall have a minimum depth of 2 feet. ~ Division: 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 Distdct. 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, prior 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 centeriine of Cucamonga Creek Bridge. 8) Reimburse others for the permanent street improvements on the south side from the centeriine of Foothill Boulevard. Environmental Miti,qation: Geologic 1) All mitigation measures identified in the Gary Rasmussen and Associates Subsun'ace Geology Investigation dated July 16, 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 Quality 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD a, nd RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2) 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. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. pLANNING COMMISSIO~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 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. 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 DRCCUP00-17 - RFA, Inc. October 23, 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_~rry T~cNiel, Chain~nan I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October 2002, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; MANNERZN0 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, (999) 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. Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Comoletion 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 / /___ 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 property ~ / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved 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-08-02 2 j~j,~ Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Completion 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 1.2-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. Projsct 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 commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily /_~/ residential projects of more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five pement 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 the 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 amhitect 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 ara 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. Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Compretion 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 of 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 s o o2 project No. DRCCUP00~17 Completion Date g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., 'Fl' #, 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. / / SC-08-02 6 j~.~ 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 tidal 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 / / pedorm 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 cedifications and compaction reports shall be completed, / / submitted, 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 will 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 en 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, but 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: / / Street Name Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike nth Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail __.er 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. Project No. DRCCUP00-17 Completion 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. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / / accordance with the City's street tree program. 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 pamel 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 Bemardino. 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. / / so.o,-o, , Project No. DRCCUPO0-17 Completion 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 more 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 are 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 ATFACHED sc-08-02 9 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 contact 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 previously 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 tho 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 route 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 Number: DRCCUP00-17 Come[etion 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 provisions 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 reads, 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/parcel 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 26-feet. 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 pement. h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12 pement.. i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVVV). 4. Access ControlfTraffic Calming Device Permit: A Fire District permit is required to install any access control device, traffic-calming device, or gate on any access roadway. 2 Project Nurnber: DRCOUP00*17 Completion Date: Applicable CC&R's, or other approved documents, shall contain pmvis~ons 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 purchase 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 md 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 er 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. 3 Project Number: DRCCUP00-17 Comoletion 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 (909) 477.2750 .. The purpose:of this fof'm':i$?tb ihfO'~' th.&' City .6f~he:b~iC":d'6~P~h'~nts~'.'~'P'~P'~'~ed' n~;ni~C.t ~O: th'~{'~he ci~::~.~a~i~'a p~'~a~t'~'m'~:~{'~{:0:::ci~..'~lJ'~?~a:~'~b~ guide ines; ~e California Enwr~nmen~!Quah~Act;.~q~.the'~'s ~ule~.:.and:.Pro~edu~es to Implement CE~ .... ....:::.~...:. ....... . .:~: '.. ........... :-..:....? .- ~.....-~:: .~ .... : : · ?:-.?~.:,,?.....x::-..':. ' provided in'full. ' : :.::.':' ~:~':-:'...??: -':?' -'?'-'.-':. :'.;~'?" ;":?'. ' :'~'~:?".;'":':':.. ' ' :::';;.:.~'..": .' ;'.' .... INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.· Please note that it is the responsibility of the·applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the b'rne of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing infon'na§on. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project.tie: 'Chevron Service Station ,;e & Address of project ow/~er(s): Cheyron Products Co-'Mike LUc,.~y- 145 S. State College Blvd Brea; CA 92822 Name&Addressofdeveloperorprojectsponsor. C~'camon~a Creek Par'triers P~O Box 281 Upland, CA 91786 Contact Person & Address: RFA~ Inc- Jason Miller ~,n~,h,~tm~_ ~'~ q~Ri'l~ Telephone Number. (714) 93_8-6090 ~xt.119 Name & Address of pe~on preparing this form (if different from aboVe): Same As Above Tt . hone Number. .~am~ As Above InformatiOn indicated by aste#sk 0 ~s not n~luYed orr, on-construction CUP's unless othenwse requested by staff. °I) P~vide a fu~ scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quac~rant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the' s~Te boundades. 2) provide a set of color photographs which show repmsentat~e Wews ~nto the s~e from the noff~ south, east end west; vfews into and from the s~Te from the. pt~na~7 access points which serve the site; and.mpmsentst~e, v/ewa of a~gn/f~cent features from the .slle. /nctudeamapshowfngk~agonofeachphotograp/~ . The No~t, hern_boundr_~y_ is 72' £=om the center linL 3) Project Locab'on (descnTJe): · of Foothill Blvdf the Western _ _ _ e of Blvd centerlinef a~ld the Ea~.~rn Vineyard Ave. 4) ASsessOr'S Parcel Numbers (attach additk)nal sheet if necessao~): N/A '5) GrossSiteA~a(ac/sq. fL): 46,9~3}s.qaare__f.e~[~ichis 1.08 acres '6) NetS~teAma(totaisiteaizern~nusareaofpubEcstreets&proposeddedications): 7) Descn*be any proposed general Plan amendment or zone change which WOuld affect the project site (atlach ado~;~al sheet None At..Thi.~ ..T,ime....._- Include a ~scrip#On ~ ~ penni~ whi~ ~ be ~a~ from ~e City ~ Rencho Cu~monga and ~r government~ agencies in o~er ~ fufly implement ~e pmjec~ . ~ . ... CITY 0Y RANCHO CUCAMONGA: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; GRADING PERMIT~ .BUILDING PERMIT;ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, '& PLUMBING PERMIT;LANDSCAPE APPROVA/~, FIRE APPROVAL. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO~ FOOD STORAGE PERMIT, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PERMIT. SCAQMD PERMIT. CUCAMONGA CdUNTY WATER 'DISTRICT: FOOD STORE PERMIT, FIRST RELEASE.. · Descdbe the ·physical seffing of the site as it exists before the project, including informa§on on topography,.soil stability, plants: and anireals, mature trees, traits and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Desc#be any existing stnJcturas on site (~ncluding age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, si~e all sources of information (i. e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic.studies): The existing physical, condition of the site consists o£ a race. hr lot with na~cural Vegetation, stable soil; adequate drainage, · very few trees, no scenic aspects, and no trails or roads. This site has no existing structures. 1~ De~dbe the ~own curtal and/or h~todcal aspects of the ~e. Site ati ~urces of ~a#on (book~ pub~hed repo~ a~ omi h~to~: There age no cultural and/or historical aspects located withen the site's'b°undaries - 11) Desc~e a~ n~e s~urces and ~e~ ~ve~s that n~w a~ct ~e site ~ ~adway n~e~ et~) and h~w they ~ a~ ~ pmp~ed use~ The site is located.on Foothill Blvd west of Vineyard Ave - which has minimal noise impacts on the site and the proposed use, 12) DescnT~e the proposed project in deta#. ~'his shouldpmWde an adequate descripUon of the site in terms of ultimate use which will mault from the pm~ed pmjec~ Indicate if them are proposed phases fo~ ~evelopmen~ the extent of development to occur wfth each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Atta?h addiJfonal sheet(s) ff neces~ao~. THE PROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK CONsISTS OF THE CONSTRucTION AND iNST~.TATION' OF A 2,817 sqft. EXTRA MILE CONVENIfIL~E STORE BI3ILDiNGFOR THE RETAIL SALE OF . PREPACKA~ FOOD ITEMS, FRES~ BA~J~D GOOPS, G0t~qMET CORREE~ AND B~t( AND WINE SALES.' SCOPE OF WOrK WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE CO~b'i'~UCTION AND INST~r.?~TION OF A NEW 38'x85' FUEL DISPENSING CANOPY, 'SIX {6) NEW M~LTI_-GRADE MOTOR %TEHIC~.~. FUEL DISPENSERS, NEW 12'-4' x 10'-8" M~ON~Y ~ ENCfDSUR~, NEW AIR AND WA'r~a UNIT{ 13) Descn~e the sun~u~fng pmperUes, including Jntormaifon on plants and anirnais and any cultural, hi,~toSca~ Or ~contc espect~ Indicate the type of land use (residential, commerc[a~ etc.), intensity of land use (one-fan~Ty, apartment bonsai, shops, deparlment sto~s, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): The [~roposed pro, eot is located on a vacant lot.. Surrounding properties include residen~u~l homes to the' south-and west..-. To the' north there is a vacant lbt and Commercial a'~ea to the ~# the pmp~`;ed pmject ~ange the pa~ scate ~r cha~cter of the surr~un~ng gene~ ama ~ the p~ject? THE P~OPOS~I) PROJEO~ HAS ~RPJ~ DESIGNED TO 'BE COMPATIBLE WIT[{ ~HE HISTORICAL "LANDMARK TO ~HE ~ THERE IS ALSO A ~HOPPING CENTER PROPOSED IN THE SAME ARE~ Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amounL Howwill these noise levels affect adjacent properti.es and on-site uses. What rnethods of $ound proofing are proposed? Short term noise will be limited to .approved construction hours. · L6ng term noise will not be in~reased a.~ the station will primarily attract /o~.~ t~affic. '1~ ~dica~pmposedmmo~a~an~ormp~cemen~ofmatumorscen~tmes: There are no existing trees at [hls sit'e. The proposed installation of the n~w trees w~]l comply with the city's landsca~ code requirements. - 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water sUpl~lies) into which the site dcains: Non*e - 18) Indicate expected amo~/nt of Water usage. (see'Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cla#fication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Disldct at ~87-25~1. a. R~sidential (gaYday) N/A* Pepk*use (gal/Day) N/A b. Commercial/Ind. (gayday/ac) 200 Peak use (gaYmin/ac) 20 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. __ Septic Tank '~ Sewer. ff septic tanks are proposed, affach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitaq, sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attacl~ment A for usage esb'mates). For further clarification, p/ease contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) N/~ · b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) 200 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Nurnber of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel size% minimum lot size and maximum lot size: N/A Attached ~ndicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipaledrange ofsateprices ancYorrent~' s;le P~ce(s) t~nt (per month) $ 22) Specifynumberofbedm°rnSbyunittyPe: 23) indicale an§cipated household size by unit ~ype: . N/A 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing ~Wthin the project: Contact the aPPmp~fate School Di,~s as shov~ in Attachment B: . . a. Elernentaly: N/A ,. '' b. 'Junior High: . COMMERCIAL, (NDUSTRIAL AND INSTTI'UTIoNAL PROJECTS 25) Desctfbe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commen~al, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Total floor ama of commerc~alo indusbl~, or instituEonal uses'by type.'. CONVE:t~NC~ STO~: 2,877 sq*.ft:. 3,230 s~.ft. .) Indicate hours of operation: 24 HoUrs 28) Number of employees: Totak 8 Maximum Shift: 3 Time of Maximum Shift: 8 hours 29) ProvidebreakdownofanticipatedjobclassifiCations, includingwageandsala~yrang&s,aswellasanindicationoftherate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessao~): 30) Esb'matlon of the number of wo/kers to be himd that currently reside in the City: For comme~al and ~st~l uses on~ ~dicate ~e soume, type and amount of a~po~n emissions. ~ata should be verified ~mugh ~e $ou~ Coast ~r Quality Management D~t~ .at ~1~ 572-628~: , ' Applications for approval and permit issuande will be submfted to the SCAOMD for the fuel dispensing equiptment ALL PROJECTS 32) Have ~e wa~ sewe~ tim, and flood contrel agendes se~ng ~e pmje~ ~en ~n~c~d ~ ~rmine ~eir ability ~ pmvide a~qua~ se~ice ~ ~e preposed preject? E so, please ~dica~ ~e~ re~ons~ A~i agencies Drovidlna water, sewer, fire, and flood control have been contacted b~ the developer. Adequate services will be provided to the project site. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazsrclous and/or toxic mateffals? Examples of hazardous ancYor toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's: radioactive substances: peslicides and herbiddes; fuels, o~s, solvents, and uther flammable #quids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and desc#be their use, storage, and/or d*=charge.on the property, as well ss the dates of use, ff 'IN THE KNOWN HISTORY OF THIs PROPERTY, THERE HAS NOT BEk~ ANY USE, STORAGE, OR DISCIiARGE OF ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND/OR TC~IC MA'i'~IALS 34) ~ the proposed project involve the temporery or Ion~tenn use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic maledals, including but not limited to tho=e, examples listed above? ff yes, provide an invento~y of all such materials ~o be used and pn~onsed method of disposal. The InoaUon Of such ~ses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. THE PROPOSED s~VICE STATION WILL INCLUDE THE INST~T.T.-h.'~/'ON OF (l) 20,000 & (i) 15,000 GALLON UNDEI/GROII%ID STORAGE TANKS FOR ~ LONG T~ STORAGE OF MUK~ VEH/C~E FUEL. THE UNDERGROiIND FUEL S~$-~'~1~ WII~. BE DESIGI~ED TO Cflv~13y W/TH ALL ~-~DERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REQUIRI~IENTS IN ORDER TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION TO THE I hereby ce~fy that the statements furnished above and i~ the alta~hedexh,7~its present the data end infonnation required for adequate eveluaUon of this project to the be~t of my eb#ity, that the facts, statements, and inton~aHon presented are true and con. ct tot he be~t of my knowledge and belle£ I further und~t=tand that additional lnfunnation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Clly of Rancho Cucemonga. 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 5. 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 comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Ddve 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 construct/operate auto fueling station (including underground storage tanks) · San Bernardino 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 (¢') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ,/) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (~) Aesthetics /) Water (v~) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources v') Air Quality (/) Noise ( ) Recreation (V') Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') 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. E~nt .Le C ~unt Associate 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: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ('") ( b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ) ( ) ( ) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ('/) 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 undenNay 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: 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposak a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 Information Sources: 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: ' a) Fault rupture? ( (v') ( ) ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( (v') 0 ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (v') ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ('~) e) Landslides or mudflows? ) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ) (v') conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ) (~') h) Expansive soils? ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ) (v') 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): t.' No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the Restricted Zone as modified by the 2002 Geotechnicsl 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 orfiow 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 all 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 construct/operate). 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. f) 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: s~.~t 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? 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? ( ) ( ) (~') ( ) 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 Prevention 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: 10. 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 prior 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: s~,~,~t 5. 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) cause any change in climate? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') Comments: a-b) The proposed project was screened using the Urban Emission Model 2001 (URBEMIS2001) 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 Distdct (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 padiculates (PM~o). Two of these, ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors. Construction Emissions Construction emission summaries from the URBEMIS2001 are provided below. Table URBEMIS2001 Construction Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOx CO PM10 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 during 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~0) the following measures shall be implemented: 11. 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 mom to reduce PM~0 emissions. 15. 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. Operations Emissions The operational mobile source emissions were calculated usin,~ the Institute of 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 6~ 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 atdp 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 Emiss ons 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 SCAQMD rules and regulations for operation of an automotive fueling station. For example, SCAQMD 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: 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ('/) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 Existing/Future Existing AM Existing PM Average Daily Peak Trips Peak Trips Trips Street/Direction Foothill west 38,200/45,500 of Vineyard Foothill east 36,500141,700 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 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 Service ,~ r nalized and Unsi, nalized Intersections ' ' A~erage 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 V/C 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 Source: Rancho Cucamonga 2001 General Plan Update Program EIR, Appendix B - Traffic Impact Analysis. 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 (?IA). 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, $8/ 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: 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to; a) Endangered, threatened, or rere species or their ( ) ( ) ( ) ("') habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, ( ) ( ) ('/) ( ) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) ( ) (¢') ( ) eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') vernal pool)? · e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') 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 addition, 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: 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) inefficient manner?, c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 ( ) (v') ( ) hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) ('/) response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) (¢') ( ) health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ( ( ) (¢') potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ( 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 pad 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-ad 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 scenado 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. Summar,/ 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: Significant 10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresultin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ('") ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 vadous times of the day as sensitivity to noise increases/decreases (sensitivity to noise increases dudng 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 dudng daytime hours and 55 dBA during nighttime hours. Day/Night Noise Level, ~n - 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. Lmax, Lmin - 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 shod-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 shod-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. 21. 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. 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 line, 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 Apdl 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 Existing Ambient Noise Levels April 24, 2002* Time Measured Leq, Calculated I MeasuredI Measured dBA CNEL, dBA I ILmax 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 dryer/blower 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 Fueling Stations in Orange 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 (t 15 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 dBA The average noise levels shown in Table 8 all meet the extedor 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 t0:00 PM to minimize potential noise impacts on residential uses. Issues and Supporting Information Soumes: '1'1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo/lowing areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 Bernardino 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 firefighters are on-duty (conversation with John Thomas, City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Construction Services/Plan 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 Sheriff's 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 acre, 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 commercial 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 distdct 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 sur[ace 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 (Cucamonga 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 District 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 (:Jay. 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 proiect 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: Significant 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ("') ( ) ( ) 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: s~n,~c~t 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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 generaliy 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 66) 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: significant '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 ~s 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. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC CUP 00-17 Page 35 Issues and Supporting information Sources: s~.~,:~t '16, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential ( ) ('") ( ) ( to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) ( ) ('~') ( ) are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? .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. 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 Di~/ision offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v) 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 SubsuH'ace Engineering Geology Investigation, July 16, 2002. (,~) RGS Geosciences, Engineering Geologic Report Review, August 14, 2002. (.~) Colia Acoustical Consultants, Acoustical Analysis of the Chevron Service Station Truck Deliveries, January 29, 2003. FROM : FAX NO, :56290280,2G F~b. 26 2003 0G:OgPM P4 Initial Study for CRy of Rancho Cucamonaa DRC CUP 00-17 Page 38 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant far the pmJe~ descn'bed in this Initial Study, I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mittgaflan measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to awid the effects or mitigate the effect~ to a I~lnt whom clearly na stgn~cant environmental effects would occur. 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: March 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 51 2003 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUT,ONNO. 03- GOMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRGGUPO0-17, REQUESTING TO GONSTRUGT A 2,g45 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION WITH GONVENIENGE MARKET, DRIVE-THRU GARWASH, AND PUMP ISLAND ON 1-AGRE OF LAND IN THE GOMMUNITY GOMMERGIAL DISTRIGT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS, LOGATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, ADOPTING A REVISED AND RE-GIROULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13. A. .Recitals. 1. RFA Inc. filed an application for Conditional Use Permit DRCCU P00-17, 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, and continued to March 19, 2003, and again continued to April 2, 2003, the'City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly not!ced public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on April 2, 2003. 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 makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with this project: a. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the proposed construction of the 2,945 square foot service station with convenience market, drive- thru carwash, and pump island on 1-acre of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Vineyard Avenue (the "project"). CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON April 2, 2003 Page 2 b. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. On October 23, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approved the project by way of Resolution No. 02-101. The approval of the project together with the environmental determination were thereafter appealed to the City Council and the matter was set for hearing before the City Council for March 5, 2003, as a "de novo appeal" as provided for in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, d. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal and prior to the City Council's Mamh 5, 2003, City Council hearing, staff and the City's environmental consultant reviewed and considered the appellants environmental comments and prepared an augmented and revised Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (the "Revised Initial Study" and "Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration"). The Revised Initial Study and Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was re-cimulated for a new 20-day comment period commencing on February 13, 2003, and ending on March 5, 2003. Notice of the Intent to adopt the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was published as required by law. e. At the March 5, 2003, public hearing, the appellant filed four letters and a report from an environmental consultant objecting to the City's approval of the project and the adoption of the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council thereafter continued the item to the March 19, 2003, City Council meeting so as to allow staff and the City's environmental consultant time to review, consider, and respond to the comments from the appellant. A second continuance was granted at the request of staff from March 19, 2003, to April 2, 2003. A supplemental staff report was presented to the City Council for it's meeting on April 2, 2003, together with a report from Lilburn Corporation, the City's environmental consultant, dated March 26, 2003. The information contained in those reports are found by the City Council to constitute a clarification and amplification of the record and not rise to the level of necessitating additional revisions to the Revised Initial Study and Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration for which re-circulation is required. f. The City Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Study and the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, all comments received, the supplemental staff report, the supplemental report from City's environmental consultant, and all other evidence in the record of this matter. Based on the whole record before it, the City Council finds: (i) that the Revised Initial Study and Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. g. The City Council also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that had been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and finds that such Program, as revised and augmented (the "Revised Mitigated Monitoring Program") is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council hereby adopts the Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON April 2, 2003 Page 3 h. Pumuant to the requirements of California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5, the City Council finds, based on the Revised Initial Study, the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the record as a whole, that there is no evidence that the proposed project will have a potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. The site is approximately one acre in size and is within an urbanized area of the City with no identified wildlife inhabiting the site and not containing habitat upon which wildlife depends, as explained and documented in the Initial Study. Based on this evidence, the City Council hereby makes a declaration rebutting the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in California Department of Fish and Game Regulation 753.5 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Code, Section 753.5.) i. The City Council hereby designates the custodian of records for the Revised Initial Study, Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision was based to be the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the office of the City Planner located at 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced Mamh 5, 2003, Mamh 19, 2003, and April 2, 2003, hearings, including all 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: 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 a lot depth of 185 feet, and is presently vacant; and b. The properb/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 consister~t 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: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17- CHEVRON Ap~12,2003 Page 4 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 in so far as the use is conditionally permitted in the Community Commercial District and will provide the community and commuters on Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with additional choice for gasoline, convenience goods, and automated carwash. 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 in that all identified potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant and the project includes attractive architectural and landscape design to ensure compatibility with the Foothill Boulevard street scene. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code in so far as no variances are required to accommodated the project and it complies with all required setbacks, landscaping, parking, use, and height requirements. Furthermore, the project was subject to and successfully completed the City's exhaustive advisory committee review process including technical, grading, and design review to ensure compliance with all applicable code requirements. 5. Based upon the findings and determination contained in this Resolution, including the adoption of the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies the subject appeal and approves Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 for the project, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 9 of this Resolution. 6. The City Planner is directed to file a Notice of Determination regarding the adoption of the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection with this project. 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 governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 and Public Resources Code Section 21167. 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 Mitiqation 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. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON April 2, 2003 Page 5 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. 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. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON April 2, 2003 Page 6 2) 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. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes. 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~o 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 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. No construction is permitted on Sundays and Government Code holidays. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRCCUP00-17 - CHEVRON April 2, 2003 Page 7 5) Deliveries to the automobile fueling station shall be restricted to the houm of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to minimize potential noise impacts on residential uses. 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 receptom. A lighting plan shall be submitted with site plans during plan check. 10. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: CUP 00-17 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in Compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 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 are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee c.overing 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 City 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. ,~11MMP 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 written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 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 identity the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. I:~INAL\CEQA',MM P Form-rev.wpd z...//Z 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 AJC 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 allowed 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 fina~ grading plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved CP/BO/CE B Review of plans A/C 2 by an engineering geologist pdor 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 p~aced 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 dudng the investigation should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer. The location of the Restricted Use Zone for fault rapture 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- AJC 2 condition of the exploratory trench backfill, relative to the proposed site field review development. The investigation shall include monitoring of the backfilling and compacting, including samples taken to ensure proper compaction. water . Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a CP/CE B/C Review of plans A/C 2 SWPPP that identifies BMPs to be implemented during the pedod 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)~o emission, in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403. Foothill Boulevard shaft 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 al~ inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions. Contractor shall select the construction equipment based on Iow CP B/C Review of plans A/C 2 emission factors and high-energy efficiency. Ail construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Contractor shall utilize electdc 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. Dudng all project site excavation and grading onsita, the project CP O Review of plans A/C 2 contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. The project contractor 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 locate equipment staging in areas CP C Review of plans A/C 2 that will create the greatest distance between construction related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during ali 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 ~..~ specified in the Development Code. No construction is permitted on Sundays and Government Code holidays, Deliveries to the automobile fueling station shall be restricted to the C 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 Respons ble Person : , ~,,~ ~, M~ to~'~ng Fre~qpen;¥ ~ :~ ;~, M~thodotVertflcatlo¢il~ ~ ...... ~ ~;~, -i~'~'~ SanctiOns CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-sita Inspection I - Withhold Recordation of F~nal Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction S - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhord Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / 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 STRAW G.__OUGH April 2, 2003 Vi,, Fax (909~ 477-2946 Debbie Adams, Clerk of CiVd Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cncamonga, CA 91730 Dear Ms. Adams: I am enclosing via fax a three page letter bearing today's date and addressed to the Members oftbe City Council regarding Item G on tonight's City Council Agenda, captioned "Consideration of an Appeal of Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit DRCCU~PO0-i 7- GOUGH." Would you please see that City Council membexs and othar interested staff receive a copy of this letter, i will bring the o~iginal with me tonight as well, Please contact me at 0 1 O) 826-7766 in the event you do not receive all three pages of the enclosed letter. PTO:jk 04/02/03 WED 13:17 FAX 310 207 7164 STRAW & GOUGH ~]00~, STRAW GOUGH LAW April 2, 2003 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: FURTI~ER OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF I1NI'I~NT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROJI~CT I)RC CUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station Hon, Members of City Council: On March 5, 2003, I filed I OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE Ole INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROJECT DRC CUP00-17 - Proposed Chevron Service Station, The basis for the March 5, 2003 Objections was that the Notice of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration issued by Rarmho Cueamonga provided: "A public hearing will be held by the City council to consider this proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION on March 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 with California Administrative Code title 14, section 1 $072(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." However, there was no Agenda Item on March 5, 2003 for a public hearing to consider the proposed Negative Declaration. Anyone searching the agenda which Rancho Cucamonga publishes on the Iuternet would have had the impression that no public hearing was scheduled on March 5, 2003 for the Negative Declaration. Anyone attending the City Council meeting would have been left with the same impression. In fact, there was no public hearLug on the Negative Declaration on March 5, 2003. The Appeal which I filed in the matter of the proposed construction ora Chevron station, matter DRC CUP00-17 was continued from March 5, 2003 to Match 19, 2003; and contiIxued again to April 2, 04/02/03 WED 13:].7 FAX 3].0 207 7].64 STRAW & GOUGH [~00 Members of the City Council March 31, 2003 Page 2 2003. Ihere has been no subsequent notice of a public hearing on the Notice oflnt*nt To Adopt Negative Declaration and there is no item on the April 2, 2003 agenda for the public hearing required by California Administrative Code title 14, section 15072(03). The response of Rancho Cucamonga to my objections was as follows: "Mr. Gongh's third letter contains an objection to the form of notice provided for the public hearing of the appeal. He states that thc public notice stated there would be a public hearing on the Negative Declaration, when the actual agenda has the issue addressed under the heading of 'Appeal of Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17-GOUGH.' The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided as required by law by publication of the notice more than 20 days in advance of the appeal hearing. In addition, a notice of thc appeal hearing was provided a~ required by law. A copy of that notice was provided to the appellant." The City is wrong for several reasons: 1. My letter of March 5, 2002 did not "object to the form of the notice provided for the public hearing of the appeal." The form of the notice was fine. My letter objected to the fact that Rancho Cucamonga published a notice advising the public that them would be a hearing on the Negative Declaration, (as required by California Adminislrative Code title 14, section 15072(03)) and then failed to place this item on its agenda for March 5, 2003 and failed to have the hearing or provide any notice ora continuance of the hearing on the newly proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The City is dead wrong when it says the actual agenda of March 5, 2003 had the issue ora Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed under the heading of"Appeal of Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-17 - GOUGH." There is no such item on the March 5, 2003 agenda. There is a "CHEVRON" item on the agenda for March 5, 2003, but there is not a COUGH item. Sometime between March 5 and tonight, the City mysteriously changed the name of this matter from "CHEVRON" (which is the proponent of building the station) to "GOUGH" which is my name. The only reason to change the name of the project at this late date from "CHEVRON'' to "COUGH" would be to confuse anyone who wanted to appear and challenge the new Mitigated Negative Declaration. ffsomeone wanting to challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration could figure out that the "APPEAL" item on the March 5, 2003 calendar might also involve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chevron station, they would certainly be challenged to identify the new "GOUGH' matter on the 04/02/03 WED 13:18 FAX 310 207 7164 STRAW & GOUG9 ~00~ Members of the City Council March 31, 2003 Page 3 April 2, 2003 agenda, a~ the old "CFIEVROW' matter from the March 5, 2003 agenda. Vfaile Rancho Cucamonga may have complied with the initial notice requirements ~der CEQA, that is all that it complied with under CEQA. Rancho Cucamonga did not place thc item on its agenda on March 5, 2003, and then chsnged the n~me of the matter o. ftcr it continued the hearing twice. This is not thc public pan'icipation envisioned by CEQA. I renew my e~tlier objections to the Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration and I object to the change of name of this matter, a tactic which wa~ clearly designed to confuse and frustrate any opponent of this project. Such conduct violates both the letter and spirit of CEQA, Thc Lilbum Response of March 26, 2003 to thc comments of Envlronmental Audit, Inc. states on page 7, item 11: "The proposed service station is projected to sell 250,000 gallons per year." If this is the figure that Lilburn used to calcu]alc thc air cmisslons of Volatile Organic Compounds for thc neighborhood, then the air emissions are drastically understated and this City Council is being badly misled as to the ah' pollution cmissions which will bc emitted from this station. No service stations pumps only 250,000 gallons per year and stays in business. I invite thc City Council to ask Chevron if it h~s any operating set, dec stations which sell only 250,000 gallons per year; or it builds service stations which project sales of 250,000 gallons per month. Clearly whst this Cbewon station is projected to sell is 250,000 gallons per mouth nOt 250,000 gallons per yeax. Through our submissions to City Council, wc l~ve provided substantial evidence of the potential adverse environmental effects of this project. We urge the City Council to reverse the decision of thc City Plznner, ~,~ to refuse to grant approval to the Conditional Use Permit which Chevron seeks in this matter', or alternatively, to require the preparation ora full EIR for this project. PTG:jk FROM : FAX NO. :5629028826 Ap~-. 01 20B3 10:16RM P2 8pr O1 ~ ~8:ESa Rick CoXta COL~A ACOUSTICAL ~O~S~TA~TS 177 Ne~B~ach, ~ 92663 Member. l~l~ute of Noi.~ Cornel Eng/neerlng Phone 714 96~751 Fax ? ] 4 96~677~ ~-038 SU~B~: Add,dura f~ De~ Mr. Tidb~; I have ~e follo~ng addigon~ ~ents f~ ~e a~ ~fe~nced prvje~ Cons~on Noise - ~e ~n8~ no~ ~ro~td audit ~e not a~ic~ for ~dus~ s~d~ds. Sound W~ - A s~ (6) sold ~ would redU~ proj~ n~ levis by at 1cast 5 ded~ls (~) f~ ~ averse ~sten~ at ~und 1~, d~n~g on ~e hd~t of ~e nois~ sour~ ~d i~ loca~. ~nd fl~r l~els may not ~ s~elded. If you have any questions please CONCERNED CITIZENS April, 2003 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: We, the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors of this area do not want the noise, traffic and neighborhood disturbances that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, and that will obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another brightly lighted, 24-hour service station and car wash at a comer that already has 2 service stations. There are too many negative environmental and economic impacts. Please do NOT approve this project. Thank you. Sincerely, --attached signatures of over 200 CONCERNED CITIZENS Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: March, 2003 We,'the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with ca wash near the i:omer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. ' The neighbors of this area do not want the noise, a-affic and neighborhood disturbances that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, and obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another brightly lighted, 24- hour se .ryic. e station and car wash at a comer that already has 2 service stations. There are too many negative env~'fonmen[al ,-~,umm~ aupa~a~, t~lease do rqu ! approve tl~s project. Thank you. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: '~AME ADDRESS PHONE EM~IL ,4ttend Meetin~ 073 ...Dear Mr Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: ' . .. March, 2003 We, the undersigned concerned citizefis, who live or work in Rancho Cueamonga, oppose'the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with ear wash near the Comer of Foothill Boulevard and. VineYard Ave. Thc neighbors of this area do not want the noise, traffic and neighborhood disturbances also destroy beauliful trees, and o~ that will be created by this project, that will struct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another bfightl li ted 24- hour se .rt, i?e station and car wash at a comer that already ha~ 2 service stations~ There are too mnn,~,,-o~t;,,~ ,.,,,,;~,,,,Y~Le!, r~.oL~ut.~a~ Impact.s. riga.ne ¢10 INIOT approve this project.i .Thank you. . Concerned Citizens: ' ':. .' '.~"' NAME ADDRESS . . ..:.L..: PHONE EM,AIL "· · -" .. ....... Dear Mx. Mayor and Membeta of the Rancho'Cucamonga City Council: . .. Match, 2003 ! the .ll~?er~lglaed concerned citlzcns, who live or work ~n Rancho Cucamonga,.oppo~e the siting Of another 24-hour sa er-service st~uon wtth cat wash near the comer of Foothill BoUlevar~ and Vineyard Ave' · P The neighbors of this atea do not want the noise, traffic a~d neighborhood di~turbancas that will be created b this ro'ect that alsodestroybeantifultreas, and obatruct the views ofmanv fournelohht~:~.~._:_, .... Y. .p ~ , vnll . _ o ...... ~ ....... aunp~y ao not nce~ ano~er brightly lighted, 24- hour servic~ station ~a~.d car waSh.at a ~omer ihat already has 2 service stati°n~. Thfre are too manvne~aiive en'~irn~nmenfsl nnd ..... ,-~Fa~,~..raver uo t'~Ul approve t~s proJeCt. Thank you. . ..... Coacarned Citizeaa: Jtte~nd Meeting .NAME ADDRESS. PHONE ~MAIL ~¥ .~ ~. ~xo~ ~ Me~¢~ omo P~o~o'Cu~n~n~ City Co~: ~, ~o0~ :We~ ~e ~demi~ ~h~ cit~ens, ' ' · ' who bye or work m ~ucho Cuc~ong~ oppose the sit~g of ~other 24-ho~ super-se~ice s~ion wi~ c~ ~h n~ the com~ of Foo~ll Boulev~ ~d V~d Ave. The nei~bom offs ~ea do not w~t ~e noise; ~ffic ~d nei~borhood ~s~b~c~ &at ~ll be cr~t~ by.is proj~q ~at ~ill also d~y b~ufi~l ~s, ~d obs~ct ~e views of m~y of o~ not.bom. We s~ply do not ne~ ~o~er bristly li~t~. 24- ' ' "ho~ s~ice s~tion'~d c~ w~h at a comer that ~Ir~.~, ~ono~c ~mpac~. Ple~c do NOT ~provc ~s proj~t. ~ you. · ~ * mo too m~y ncgmvc cnmro~en~ ~d Singly, Con.mod Ci~zms: ~ ~D~SS Attend Meeting ~ - ~HO~ . Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: March, 2003 We, the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near thc comcr of Foothill Boulev~d and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors oflhis ~ea do not want the noise, traffic and nei~borhood disturb~ces that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beanti~l trees, and obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another brightly lighted, 24- hour se~ice station and car wash at a corner that already has 2 se~ice stations. There are too many negative e~roqman~.~ Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: NAME ADD.ss PIIONE EMAIL dttendMeetmg ~' ~, .,'._ , ' / Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: March, 2003 We, the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors of tiffs area do not want the noise, traffic and neigl~borhood disturbances that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, and obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another brightly lighled, 24- hour service slation and car wash at a comer that already has 2 service stations. There are too many aegative environmem0 economic im.n~'ts Plmve do 5~OT aptn,o;c :L[o ,,,~,jcu~. Tinmk you. Sinc ly Concerned Citizens: NAM E ~DR ES S Attend Meeting (~ ~HONE ~M~ March, 2003 Dear Mr. Mayor mad Members of the Rancho Cucarnonga City Council: We, the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near tbe corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. Thc neighbors of~is ama do not want the noise, traffic and neighborhood disturbances that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, ~d obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another bristly li~ted, 24- hour semite station and car w~h at a comer that akeady has 2 semite stations. There are too many negative cnvkom~ental and .............. v .......... d~ NOT ~vv~ thi~ i,,uj~. Ti~ank you. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: ~A~ ADD.SS PHONE EMAIL 4 ' v /"~(z.. ~ ~ Y~ q ~'/'; 4~ ZT/ ' ~ March, 2003 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: We, the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. ' The neighbors of this area do not w~t the noise, traffic and neighborhood disturbances that will be creat~ by this project, that will also destroy beautiful ~ees, ~d obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need ~o~er brightly lighted, 24- hour se~ice station and car wash at a comer that already has 2 se~ice stations. There are too many negative envi~omental and economic impacts. Please do N~I approve mis project. Thal~ you. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: NAME ADDRESS P~ONE EMAIL Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: March, 2003 We, the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors oft~s area do not want ~e noise, traffic and neighborhood disturbances that will be created by this project, that will also deslroy beautifitl trees, and obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need ano~er brightly lighted, 24- hour semite station ~d car wash at a COl~er that already has 2 service stations. There are too m0Bv ~g~five m,,~ ...... ,~ ~..a economic n-72cts. Pizazz .... v~ ~Fp~uv~ tins project. I hank you. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: NA ME A~SS ~tten,I Mectin~ 1~ PHONE EMAIL March, 2003 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Covncil: We, the undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamooga, oppose the siting of anolher 24-hour super-service station with car wash near the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors of this area do not want the noise, traffic and neighborhood disturbances that will be crcated by this project, that will also d~troy beautiful trees, m~d obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another brightly lighted, 24- hoar semite stafioo and car wash at a corner that already has 2 semice stations. The~e are too many negative environmental and economic impacts. Plebe do NOT approve tlus project, llm~ you. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: N~E ADD.SS PIIONE EMAIL Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of/he Rancho Cucamonga City Council: March, 2003 We, the tmdersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-sen,ice station with car wash near the comer of Foothill Boulevard ~d Viney~d Ave. The neighbors of this area do not want lhe noise, traffic and neighborhood dis~rb~ces that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, and obstruct the views ofmm~y of our neighbors. We simply do not need mother brightly li~ted, 24. hour semite station and car wash at a comer that already has 2 se~Jce stations. There are too many negative enviromnental and economic impacts. Ple~ Sincerely Concerned Citizens: BLAME ADDRESS ] , Attend ~e~tOl,~ (~ " o - Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: March, 2003 We, thc undersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rm'.-cho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near thc comcr of Fooll~i[l Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors of this area do not want {he noise, traffic and neighborhood distnrbances that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, and obstruct the views of many of our ueighbors. We simply do not need anolher brightly lighted, 24- hera' service station and car wash at a COllier that already has 2 service stations. There are too maqv ::z::z:::~z };;:p,,~t~. 7L~ du NOT approve mis project, 'l'h~k you. Sh~cercly, Concerned Citizens: N~E ADD.SS --, PHONE EMAIL March, 2003 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: We, the nndersigned concerned citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with car wash near the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors of this area do not want the noise, traffic and neighborhood disturbauces that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, and obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another brightly lighted, 24- hour service station and car wash at a comer that already has 2 service stations. There are too many negative environmental and ~COllOI.llC L..~ ...... ,~ao~ uu ~ s appt~v~ this project. IBan~ yOtL Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: NA~ ADDRESS PItONE EMiL March, 2003 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council: ' We, the undersigned concemed citizens, who live or work in Rancho Cucamonga, oppose the siting of another 24-hour super-service station with ear wash near thc comer of Foothill Bonlevard and Vineyard Ave. The neighbors of this area do not want thc noise, traffic and neighborhood distnrbances that will be created by this project, that will also destroy beautiful trees, and obstruct the views of many of our neighbors. We simply do not need another brightly lighted, 24- honr service station and car wash at a comer that already has 2 service stations. Tbere are too many negative environmental and Sincerely, Concerned Citizens: NAME ADDRESS PHONE EM/ilL THE CITY OF I~AN CII 0 Cu CAM ON GA Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2002-2003 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN - A proposed amendment to the 2002-2003 Annual Action Plan to increase the level of funding to a historic preservation activity funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council conduct a public hearing and take public testimony regarding the proposed amendment and direct staff to schedule the amendment for final review at a subsequent City Council meeting. BACKGROUND The current Consolidated Plan was adopted for the period covering July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2005. An Annual Action Plan is then adopted each year to then guide the implementation of the CDBG program for that year. The Annual Action Plan may be amended, but subject to specific criteria. The Citizen Participation Plan establishes criteria for when an action meets one or more of the criteria of a "substantial change" to the Plan, and thus requires an amendment. A request to increase the amount of funding allocated to an activity by more than 25 percent meets one of the identified criteria. AMENDMENT TO THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The City has been conducting a historic preservation activity that involves the restoration of the Norton-Fisher House. To date restoration activities have included: painting the exterior, reroofing, replacing and rehanging doors and windows, and obtaining a lead based paint clearance. The cost to complete these activities exceeded initial expectations because of unforeseen aspects to each element of the repairs. More specifically, the cost of lead based paint remediation was not included in the original budget estimates and rehabilitation could not CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 2002-2003 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (CDBG) AMENDMENT April 2, 2003 Page 2 begin until the City obtained a lead based paint clearance. The actual cost of the lead based paint clearance was not known until the contaminated material was actually removed and weighed at the disposal site, and that cost represents the bulk of the reprogrammed funds. The City is requesting to increase the funding of this activity by $23,800 above the initial $40,000 allocated to this activity. These funds will be reprogrammed from the remaining program balances from various completed CDBG activities. No other aspects of the Fisher House activity will change. Ultimately, the preservation and historic restoration of the Fisher House will include selected activities such as selective demolition and modifications to secure the structure from the environment and halt the physical effects of deterioration. Historic restoration will include: rehabilitation, framing, repairing exterior siding, painting, dry walling, plumbing, and electrical. This is a multi-year program and will be completed through a cooperative effort between the City and the Etiwanda Historical Society. CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the public hearing to amend the Annual Action Plan was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on March 18, 2003. The City is required to provide public notice and allow a 30-day public review period before the amendment's consideration. The 30-day review period will begin on Monday April 7, 2003, and end on Wednesday, May 7, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG:mlg THE CITY OF I~AN C H 0 C U CAM 0 N GA Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 - A review of the federally required Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2003-2004, including the preliminary selection of projects for the CDBG annual application, based on a new grant allocation of $1,170,000. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council conduct a public hearing and take public testimony regarding the application for funding and direct staff to prepare the final 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan, to be brought back for adoption at a subsequent City Council meeting. BACKGROUND Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) based on a formula that considers census data, extent of poverty, and age of the housing stock. Based upon this formula, the City expects to receive a grant allocation of $1,170,000, an increase of $187,000, or 19 percent more than our current program year funding of $983,000. To be eligible for funding, activities must meet one of the two primary goals of the CDBG program: 1. The development of viable, urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment; and 2. The expansion of economic opportunities, principally for persons of Iow- and moderate-income. CDBG regulations require that at least 70 percent of all funds be directed to activities that benefit Iow-. and moderate-income persons. Of the activities proposed for the 2003-2004 program year, approximately 86.5 percent will benefit Iow- and moderate-income persons. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 2003-2004 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (CDBG) April 2, 2003 Page 2 Funds identified below in bold, refer only to new entitlement funding. Home Improvement: The City's Home Improvement Program has been in existence since 1990. The program currently offers deferred payment loans of up to $30,000 and grants of up to $7,500 for Iow-income, owner-occupied, single-family and mobile homes. Since the program's inception, we have received an overwhelming number of requests for assistance from both the single-family and mobile home community. Additionally, Oldtimers Foundation Home Maintenance Program provides minor and emergency repair grants to seniors, Iow- and Iow- moderate income, and owner-occupied households. Staff recommends funding the City's Home Improvement Program $324,233 (including $300,000 in new funds, and $24,233 in revolving loan funds) and the Oldtimers Home Maintenance Program $10,000. Capital Improvement: The following Capital Improvement projects are recommended for the 2003-2004 program year: · Calle Vejar from Avenida Leon to He//man Avenue, and Avenida Leon from Arrow Route to Calle Vejar - This activity was initially funded in the 2001-2002 program year; that project was not completed and additional funds are necessary to complete the design of the project. Design improvements will include the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates. The design will remove the existing pavement, construct new pavement over aggregate base, and install streetlights, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and ramps for disabled, and street trees. When completed the project will facilitate better drainage of the street and right-of-way. Staffrecommendsfundingthisactivity$11,000. · Sidewalk Grinding- Involves the grinding and repair and/or replacement of displaced sidewalks in qualified target neighborhoods. Staff recommends funding this activity $22,000. · Wheelchair Ramps - Retrofitting of existing intersection curbs to accommodate handicapped persons. Staff recommends funding this activity $22,000. Capital Facilities: The following Capital Facility Improvement projects are recommended for the 2003-2004 program year: · Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center - (Construction) - This activity was established as a multi-year project that initially included funding for both design and construction activities. This activity will provide a bank of construction funds towards the development of this facility. Funding for this facility will include prior year construction funds of $513,401.99, reprogramming previously identified design funds of $139,293.57, and allocating an additional $325,000 of new entitlement funds. This results in a total CDBG funding available for this facility at $977,695.56. Staff recommends funding this activity $325,000. Historic Preservation: The preservation and historic restoration of the Fisher House. The Fisher House is located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, directly south of the vacated railroad right-of-way, on the site of the elementary school. Proposed activities may include selective demolition and exterior modifications to protect the structure from the environment and stop the physical effects of decay. To date, completed preservation activities include exterior paint, CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 2003-2004 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (CDBG) April 2, 2003 Page 3 replacing and/or rehanging windows and doors, reroofing the structure, and obtaining lead based paint clearance. Additional activities to convert the residence to a non-residential structure may include: rehabilitation, framing, repairing exterior siding, interior painting, dry walling, plumbing, and electrical. Staff recommends funding this activity $160,O00. Public Service: Federal regulations allow communities to allocate up to 15 pement of their entitlement to fund public service providers. Fifteen percent of next year's entitlement is $175,000; recommend funding for public service provider's totals $161,900 (a difference of $13,600). Proposed funding will, for the most part, maintain current year Sub-recipient funding. Only one new public service activity is proposed, which is the Northtown Collaborative, operated in part by the Community Services Department. The proposed allocation of funding meets the priority of assisting immediate health and safety needs or address a special need identified of the Consolidated Plan. Public service activities include: Graffiti Removal, Fair Housing, Landlord Tenant Counseling, Homelessness and Food Assistance, Domestic Violence Shelter, Senior, Youth At-Risk, and Literacy programs. Staff recommends funding these activities $161,900. CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the public hearing and proposed funding allocations was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on Mamh 18, 2003, as an eighth page ad. Notice was also published in the La Voz newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit"A" - FY 2003-2004 CDBG Applications Exhibit"B" - FY2003-2004 CDBG Funding Recommendations Exhibit "C" - FY 2003-2004 Draft Annual Action Plan March 26, 2003 ~:10AM) ~ P_rQ~_ra'~ ~.¢J~ ,i~ ~ $225,910 39% Inc. 100% 570.206(a)(1) - NH 14.1 Program administration. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ~alle ~eiai (Design) I $11,000 Additional 100°/o 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(1) LMA NH 10.1 Y ~Sn[sgo~i~tfi~t%ll;~ia~llYhfe~r~?eedd~nct~vlif/y0~' ~! d ~ W~} k G~.in"cl'i~ ~ $22,000 No Change 2.7% 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(1) LMA NH 10.1 y Program tapered to Iow income areas. ~h~l~.a_!~_Ramp~ $22,000 No Change 2.7% 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(2) EEC NH 12.1 y Citywide program. bevon'S{r~i St~)r~ [~i;~,i~ ~ ~(~'[J~t~fi) I $525,500 New 100% 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(1) LEA NH 12.2 N iCn~da~teefdunP~ntoS~hoe~dUlleetde.achvdy; howe .... N~W~'~C.-_S.;~; i~ ~ i.i~. i i i - i;i (Co~$:~;UC{~'~~ $400,000 Additional -- 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(2) LMC SN9.1 Y Activity inigally funded in 01/02, Fisher House $160,000 Additional 100% 570.201(d) 570.208(b)(2) SB NH 13.1 y Activity initially funded in 02J03. Subtotal - Capital ImprovementI $1,140,500.00 HOME IMPROVEMENT Home i~pro~,~m~n~ P~graYd $300,000 8.3% Inc. 100% 570.202(b) 570.208(a)(3) HA HA 4.1, Home improvements through loans and grants. NH 1 6.1 Revolving Loan receipt total $24,223, Oldtimers Foundation - Home Maintenance $15,000 50% Inc. 7.9% 570.202(b) 570.208(a)(3) HA SN 8.1 ~pair program. Subtotal - Home Improvement $340,000.00 PUBLIC SERVICES ~e~-v~ $22,000 No Change 9.4% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(1) LMA NH 16.2 y Programtarge,edtolowincorne areas IFHMB - Fair Housing $14,647 22.1% Inc. 5% 570.206(c) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 y Affirmatively furiher fair housing. IFHMB - LandlordFrenant $10,050 0.5% Inc. 6.5% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 y Mediation, referral, & education Homeless Outreach, Programs, & Education $10,192 59.3% Inc. 5.9% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC HMLS 7.1, y Referral, support, and educational services for NH 11.1 the homeless and economicatly disa~vant aged, Foothill Family Shelter $5,000 66.6% Inc. 2.8% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC HMLS 7.1, y Short-term shelter and supper1 to horceless House of Ruth $12,737 67.6% Inc. 0.5% 570.201 (e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC HMLS 7.1, y Assist battered women with shelter, education, NH 11.1 and self-sufficiency. Pomona-Inland Valley Council of Churches - $16,500 135.7% Inc. 10.7% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC HMLS 7.1, y Emergency food assistance. SOVA NH 11.1 YWCA - Y-Teen $11,541 64.8% Inc. 53% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 y After-school activities to avoid health- YMCA West End Kids Club $7,000 No Change 7% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 y Afler-schcol recreation program. YOUr Own Club $5,000 No Change 39% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 y A~ter-school recreation program. Exhibit "A" - Page 1 Senior Transportation $25,000 66.6% Inc. 44% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 Activity newly f unedd in 01/02. Provieds for trips to and from RCSC, doctor visits, grocer~ shopping. RC Co~ m;u'nlty ~Se~ces - Senior Citize~ $12,000 3.8% Inc. 100% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC SN 9.1, Senior citizen programs anq par~ing lease ~ervlp~s NH 11.1 ~C I.i~-a.~.T- ~aC~{~o,_~S.~ $10,000 No Change 26.4% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 Youthliteracyprogrem. Oldtimers Foundation - Senior Nutrition $25,575 200.8% Inc. 15% 570.201 (e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC SN 9.1 Senior nutrition program for RCSC & hon~ delivery. Camp Fire USA $13,400 100% [nc. 53% 570.201(e) 570.208{a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 Sumner daycarnp program to develop skills, and gain confidence. Project Sister $10,000 3.9% Inc. 54.3% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC HMLS 7.1, Sexual assault and vioJence prevention. NH 11.1 Claremont Dispute Resolution Services $16,470 New 11.6% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 No Funding - Inadequate Funds. (Program duplicates services offered By Inland Mediation programs) Dove Enterprises $9,800 New 17% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 No Fundiog-lnedequateFunds (Literacy program duplicates Library Back to Basics program) Hope Through Housing Foundation $14,922 New 7% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 NO Funding - Inadequate Funds. (Career development, education & job training} No rtht~v~ ~olt~.b~ra~i~ $12,000 New 100% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 Yes- Fund proposed City program. (Youth , - enfichrr~nt, sports, recreation, & human so.ices) Rising Stars of Equestrian Therapy $5,000 Renewal 100% 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) LMC NH 11.1 No Funding - Inadequate Funds (Therapy through use of horses for m~ntally and physically challenged) Subtotal - Public Service $268,834.00 TOTAL $1,890,244.00 Shad~l'~a~tJ_~/i~ie~ are City projects. ~ HA = Housing Affordability; HMLS = Homeless; SN = Special Needs; NH = Non-Housing Community Development Needs; CP Objectives are based upon the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Exhibit "A" - Page 2 -;v,,~,~ ...... vvo w:u[~,r~) FY 2003-2004 - CDBG FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ADMINISTRATION Program Administration $155 000 00 $162 500 00 $225 910 O0 $0 00 $67 810 00 $158 100 00 $225 910 00 YES - Continue required program. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT Calla Vejar (Design) $35,000.00 $11,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,000.00 $11,000,00 YES - Continue eligible program+ Sidewalk Grinding $24,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 YES- Continue eligible program. Wheelchair Ramps $24,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 YES - Continue eligible program, Devon Storm Drain (Construction) $525,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 NO-Insufficient funds New RCSC (Construction) $150,000.00 $363,401.99 $400,000.00 $513,401.99 $139,293.57 $325,000.00 $977,695.56 YES - Continue eligible p~ogram. Oid Town Park $174,000.00 $0.00 $106,190.00 $0.00 $0.00 $106,190.00 YES - Continue eligible program+ Fisher House $40,000.00 $160,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160,000.00 $160,000.00 yES - Fund eligible program Subtotal $1 14050000 $619591 99 $13929357 $54000000 $1 298885.56 HOME IMPROVEMENT Home Improvement Program $393~643.43 $337,701.14 $300~000.00 $24~233.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 $324~233.00 YES - Continue eligible program. Oldtimers Foundation - Home Maintenance $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 YES - Continue eligible program. Subtotal $915,000.00 $24,233.00 $0.00 $310,000.00 $334,233.00 PUBLIC SERVICES Graffiti Removal $20,000.00 $22,000.00 $22~000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 YES - Continue eligible program [FHMB - Fair Housin§ $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,647.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 YES - Continue required program. IFH M B - Landlord/Tenant $9,977.00 $10,000.00 $10,050.00 $0.00 $0,00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 YES - Continue eligible prograrn, HOPE $6,400.00 $6,400.00 $10,192.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 YES - Continue eligible program. Foothill Family Shelter $3,000.00 $3,000,00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5~000.00 $5,000.00 YES - Continue eligibte program. House of Ruth $7,600.00 $7,600,00 $12,737.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,600.00 $7,600.00 YES - Continue eligible program Pomona Valley Council of Churches (SOVA) $7,000.00 $7,000,00 $16,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7~000.00 $7,000.00 YES-Continue eligible program+ YWCA Y-Teen $7,000.00 $7~000.00 $11,541.00 $0.00 $0.00 $71000.00 $7~000.00 YES - Continue eligible program. YMCA West End Kids Club $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,000,00 $0,00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 YES- Continue eligible program. Your Own Club $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 YES - Continue e~igible program. Senior Transportation $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15~000.00 $15,000.00 YES - Continue eligible program. RC Community Services - Senior Programs $5,000.00 $11,550.00 $12~000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 YES - Continue eligible program. RC Library- Back to Basics $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10~000.00 $10,000.00 YES - Continue eligible program+ Oldtimers Foundation - Senior Nutrition $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $25,575.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 YES - Continue eligible prcgram, Campfire Boys and Girls $6,700.00 $6,700.00 $13,400.O0 $0.00 $O.00 $6~700.00 $6,700.00 YES - Continue eligible program. Proiect Sister $9,700.00 $9,700.00 $10~000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,700.00 $9,700.00 YES - Continue elisible program. Claremont Dispute Resolution Services $16,470.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 NO- Insufficient funds, Dove Enterprises - $9,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 NO - Insufficient funds Hope Through Housing Foundation $14,922.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 NO - Insufficient funds. Northtown Collaborative $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 YES - Fund eligible program. Rising Stars of Equestrian Therapy - $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 NO -Insufficient funds. TOTAL Exhibit "B" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 2003-2004 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (JULY 1, 2003 TO JUNE 30, 2004) Draft - April 2, 2003 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE (SF424) ............................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 2 RESOURCES AVAILABLE .................................................................................................................... 2 FEDERAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 2 OTHER RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 3 LEVERAGING AND MATCHING FUNDS ..................................................................................... 4 ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN ........................................................................................................ 4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ......................................................................................................... 4- OBJECTIVE 1 - CONSERVATION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK ......................................... 4 OBJECTIVE 2 -- IMPROVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PRODUCTION OF LARGER (3+ BEDROOM) RENTAL UNITS .............................. 5 OBJECTIVE 3 - PROVIDE DIRECT RENTER ASSISTANCE TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN PERMANENT HOUSING ..................................................................................6 OBJECTIVE 4 -- INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME OWNERSHIP, PARTICULARLY THROUGH HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE ............................................................................. 7 OBJECTIVE 5 - REHABILiTATiON OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK WITH EMPHASIS ON OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING .................................................. OBJECTIVE 6 - IMPROVE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................ 1 0 HOMELESS .......................................................................................................................... 1 0 OBJECTIVE 7 - ASSIST HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, AND PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, AND THOSE AT-RISK OF HOMELESSNESS ................. 10 HOMELESS ANNUAL PLAN ...................................................................................................1 1 SPECIAL NEEDS .................................................................................................................. 1 1 OBJECTIVE 8 -- PROVIDE NECESSARY REHABILITATION SERVICES TO SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS WiTH EMPHASIS ON ASSISTING THE ELDERLY AND FRAIL ELDERLY .................................................................................... OBJECTIVE 9 - SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSISTING SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS ............................................................................................. 1 2 SPECIAL NEEDS ANNUAL PLAN ............................................................................................ 12 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS ............................................................. 1 3 OBJECTIVE 1 0 -- PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC AREAS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TO ENHANCE LIVING ENVIRONMENTS, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE iN LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS, AND FOR LOWER INCOME INDIVIDUALS, SENIORS, AND THE HANDICAPPED ............................................................................................. 13 OBJECTIVE 11 - ASSIST LOCAL PUBLIC AND NON-PROFIT SERVICE AGENCIES THAT IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME PERSONS AND THOSE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS .................................. 1 5 OBJECTIVE 12 -- ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND i Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga STRUCTURES .............................................................................................. 17 OBJECTIVE 13 - THE RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTIES OF SOCIAL VALUE FOR HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, AND AESTHETIC REASONS .................................................................................................... 18 OBJECTIVE 14 - PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT THE CDBG PROGRAM AND THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN .................................................................................. 19 OBJECTIVE 15 -ALLEVIATE PHYSICAL AND RELATED ECONOMIC DISTRESS THROUGH THE STIMULATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION IN IDENTIFIED TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS ....... 19 OBJECTIVE 16 - REVITALIZE AND UPGRADE HOUSING CONDITIONS; PREVENT AND ELIMINATE BLIGHT AND BLIGHTING INFLUENCES; AND ELIMINATE CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE .................................................................................................... 20 OTHER ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 21 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 21 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING ....................................................................... 22 OBSTACLES TO MEETING UNDER SERVED NEEDS ............................................................... 25 ACTIONS TO FOSTER AND MAINTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................... 25 ACTIONS TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ................................................ 25 ACTIONS TO EVALUATE AND REDUCE LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS .................................... 25 ACTIONS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POVERTY LEVEL FAMILIES ....................................... 25 ACTIONS TO DEVELOP INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND ENHANCE COORDINATION .............. 26 PUBLIC HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................... 26 MONITORING ....................................................................................................................... 26 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX "A" - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... A-1 FY 2003-2004 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ............................................. A-1 APPENDIX "B" - SUMMARY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 5-YEAR AND 1 -YEAR GOALS ........................ B-1 APPENDIX "C" - ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................... C-1 SUPPORTING MAPS: PROPOSED PROJECTS, POINTS OF INTEREST, CENSUS BOUNDARIES, LoW/MOD INCOME, ETHNICITY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT ................................. C-1 SUPPORTING FORMS: FUNDING SOURCES, CONTINUUM OF CARE, GAPS ANALYSIS, SPECIAL NEEDS/NON-HOMELESS, HOUSING NEEDS, AND COMMUNITY NEEDS .................. C-1 LISTING OF PROPOSED PROJECTS .................................................................................... C-1 CERTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................... C-1 ii Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE (FORM SF424) The Appfication for Federal Assistance will be inserted into the final report. Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga INTRODUCTION The Annual Action Plan provides a plan of investment and an outline of activities expected to be undertaken during the 2003-2004 program year. The report identifies local objectives and priority needs identified to implement the primar~ objective of the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program, which is the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for Iow- and moderate-income persons. RESOURCES AVAILABLE · FEDERAl- RESOURCES Community Development Block Grant Federal funding available to the City are allocated through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") CDBG program. During the 2003-2004 program year, the City will receive an entitlement allocation of $1,170,000, which is $187,000 more than fiscal year 2002-2003. CDBG funds reprogrammed from prior year activities are $ 207,103.57, which provides $1,309,293.57 available for funding new program activities. There is a total of $ 619,591.99 remaining in prior year funded activities. The sum of all CDBG funds available during the program year totals $ 2,020,928.56. (See Appendix "A"). The City received $ 24,233 in program income during the 2002-2003 program year; this program income is functionally a revolving loan fund tied to the City's Home Improvement Program. We do not expect to receive any program income during the 2003-2004 program year. San Bemardino County Housing Authority The San Bernardino County Housing Authority serves as the local housing authority for the region. The Agency currently operates 170 Section 8 housing units and 16 public housing units located within the City. Sources of funds available to City residents through the Housing Authority are primarily limited to Section 8, Comprehensive Grant Improvement, and the Public Housing programs. County of San Bemardino, Department of Economic and Community Development The County receives federal funds to implement the HOME Consortium, which the City joined in July 1995. In 1999 the City renewed their commitment to the HOME Consortium by signing a 3-year Cooperation Agreement covering the period from October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2002. The City will be renewing the 3-year agreement to cover the period from October 1,2002 to September 30, 2005. The County operates four programs through the HOME Consortium that include the HOME Homeownership Assistance Program ("HAP"), HOME Tenant Based Assistance ('q'BA") Program, HOME Rental Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program, and the HOME Community Housing Development Organization Program. The County allocation for these programs total $ 5,143,932 and includes funds for program administration. These programs are all available to City residents on a first-come first- serve basis through the City's participation in the County HOME Consortium. 2 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucarnonga The Homeownership Assistance, Tenant Based Assistance, and Rental Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation programs are discussed under specific activities in the Consolidated Plan. The Community Housing Development Organization ("CHDO") Set-Aside program is not identified and therefore warrants further discussion. The CHDO program is funded through a mandatory Set-Aside from the County HOME Consortium and provides funds for affordable housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by non-profits that have been certified as CHDO's. The CHDO program functions as a soume of funding for a variety of projects including new construction and rehabilitation of residential structures. Funds are not targeted to a specific area or project type within the County; however, recipient income cannot exceed 80% of the County medium family income. HOME funds are available to eligible residents citywide on a first-come first-serve basis through the City's participation in the County HOME Consortium, with approximately $1,629,539 allocated to the CHDO program. · OTHER RESOURCES City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency State law requires redevelopment agencies to set aside at least 20% of tax increment revenue for increasing and improving the community's supply of Iow- and moderate-income housing. Between July 1,2000, and June 30, 2005, approximately $ 39 million will be generated by tax increment for affordable housing. The tax increment allocation to the 20 Percent Set- Aside during the reporting period is projected to be $ 7,692,637. The Agency's tax increment has been pledged against several on-going projects, and therefore, there is little unobligated funding available. In July 1996, the Redevelopment Agency ("RDA") approved the sale of tax allocation bonds to provide permanent financing for two community based non-profit organizations, Southern California Housing Development Corporation ("SCHDC") and Northtown Housing Development Corporation ("NHDC"). On September 1, 1996, Tax Allocation Bonds in the amount of $ 37.66 million were sold. Proceeds of the bonds will be allocated in the following manner: · A pledge agreement through the year 2025 was signed with SCHDC where $ 3.9 million will be provided annually for debt services and project reserves. Beginning year 6, if the provision of Redevelopment Law that allows for the acquisition of existing units with Housing Set-Aside funds has been extended beyond its current sunset, this $ 790,000 of the annual pledge will be deposited into a "Future Project Reserves" fund for use in acquiring additional apartment complexes within the Project Area. If a program is not developed, the funds will be available for any RDA housing program. · A pledge agreement through the year 2025 was signed with NHDC where $1.5 million was paid to NHDC on June 30, 1996, and again on December 30, 1996. An additional $ 5 million in net bond proceeds were also paid to the NHDC. These bond proceeds will be used to complete a portion of the capital improvement plan for the Northtown 3 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga neighborhood that includes continuing the development of infill housing on vacant lots, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing absentee-owned housing. The annual pledge amount will be $1.4 million through the year 2025. · LEVERAGING AND MATCHING FUNDS The primary soume of fund leveraging will occur in conjunction with activities carried out through RDA 20 Percent Set-Aside funds. This is accomplished through public/private partnerships with non-profit housing development corporations such as the NHDC and the SCHDC. Other potential sources for leveraging include HOME funds and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN · AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBJECTIVE 1: CONSERVATION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. Program 1.1: Acquisition of existing multi-family units to be held for future affordable housing stock. Activity 1.1.1: This activity includes the acquisition of restricted, and previously unrestricted, at-risk units. The SCHDC, with pledge assistance from the RDA 20 Percent Set-Aside funds obtained replacement financing for several complexes within the City. The SCHDC owns and manages the complexes, and the RDA monitors the affordability covenants checking quarterly to ensure units are rented according to the agreement and the occupants comply with established income categories. Lead Agency: The SCHDC, with funding assistance by the City of Rancho Cucamonga RDA. Geographic Location: Activities will primarily occur in the Redevelopment target area, however, units may be acquired citywide. Resources: Bonds issued by the RDA and a loan from the California Housing Finance Authority ("CHFA") were used to provide long-term replacement financing for 4 SCHDC affordable housing complexes. A 1996-97 RDA tax allocation bond issue provided approximately $ 30 million for replacement financing. An annual pledge of $ 3.9 million of Agency Housing funds provides bond debt service and project reserve funds. Accomplishments and Time Frame: There are currently 5 apartment complexes, containing 1,145 total units with 553 held as affordable. Monterey Village and Mountainside Apartments were acquired in FY 95-96 and Sycamore Springs and Rancho Verde Apartments were acquired in FY 96-97. During the 2002-2003 program year, SCHDC completed the Heritage Pointe Senior Apartments, a 49 unit senior apartment complex, which holds 100% of the units affordable. No units are proposed during the 2003-2004 program year. 4 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Complex Total Units Affordable Units Sycamore Springs 240 96 Mountainside Apartments 384 192 Monterey Village Apartments 224 112 Rancho Verde Apartments 248 104 Heritage Pointe Senior Apartments 49 49 Total 1,145 553 Program 1.2: Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing single-family homes. Activity 1.2.1: The NHDC does not anticipate rehabilitating any units during the program year. When rehabilitation does occur the NHDC is the owner/developer of the rehabilitated lots, which are pumhased with assistance from the RDA. This program is also part of the NHDC's First-Time Home Buyer program where newly constructed and/or rehabilitated single-family homes are available to Iow- and moderate-income home buyers in the Northtown neighborhood. (See Objective 4, Program 4.3, Activity 4.3.1 .) OBJECTIVE 2: IMPROVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PRODUCTION OF LARGER (3+ BEDROOM) RENTAL UNITS. Program 2.1: Construction of affordable multi-family units. Activity 2.1.1: There are no activities proposed under this program during the 2003-2004 program year. Program 2.2: Construction of single-family infill development in Iow- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Activity 2.2.1: The NHDC has obtained 9 lots for the construction of new homes on infill lots within the Northtown target neighborhood. The homes will be available to families with incomes between 80% and 90% of the area median income. The NHDC is the owner/developer of the infill lots; however, these lots are purchased with assistance from the RDA. This program is also part of the NHDC's First-Time Home Buyer program where newly constructed and/or rehabilitated single-family homes are available to Iow- and moderate-income home buyers in the Northtown neighborhood. (See Objective 4, Program 4.3, Activity 4.3.1 .) Due to the inability to obtain additional vacant lots this activity may not continue for the duration of the Consolidated Plan. Lead Agency: The NHDC. 5 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Geographic Location: The Northtown target neighborhood. Resources: The NHDC leveraged RDA 20 Percent Set-Aside funds with subsidies from the Affordable Housing Program and permanent first-mortgages from Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, complete the construction of 9 new homes. OBJECTIVE 3: PROVIDE DIRECT RENTER ASSISTANCE TO LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN PERMANENT HOUSING. Program 3.1: Support applications by the Housing Authority of San Bernardino County for future Section 8 and public housing assistance. Activity 3.1.1: The Housing Authority routinely requests assistance from the City when applying for Section 8 Housing Certificates and Vouchers for public housing assistance. The City will continue to support these applications. The agency currently operates 6,257 Section 8 units of which 170 are located within the City. The agency also operates 16 public housing units and rents them to qualified households at affordable rates. Lead Agency: County of San Bernardino, Housing Authority. Geographic Location: These programs are available citywide. Resources: Federal Housing and Urban Development funds. Accomplishments and Time Frame: Annually support 16 public housing and 170 Section 8 applications. Program 3.2: Participate in the County HOME Consortium Tenant Based Assistance (TBA) program. Activity 3.2.1: The Tenant Based Assistance ("TBA") program is offered through the County HOME Consortium and is available to eligible residents. The County has designed the program to provide assistance not only to those who meet federal preferences, but also to those who met a "special need." The County targets monthly rental assistance to eligible households that include a disabled family member, and they place a priority on providing security deposit assistance to families experiencing "temporary" housing situations where the temporary housing or shelter is either not suitable or not available as permanent housing. Lead Agency: County of San Bernardino, Department of Economic and Community Development, HOME Consortium. 6 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Geographic Location: Available to eligible residents citywide. Resources: HOME funds are available on a first-come first-serve basis through the City's participation in the County HOME Consortium, with approximately $1,500,000 allocated to this program. This includes $ 500,000 in monthly rental assistance and $1,000,000 in security deposit assistance. Accomplishments and Time Frame: The City will work with the County HOME Consortium to publicize this program in Rancho Cucamonga so that approximately 6 households could receive assistance by June 30, 2004. OBJECTIVE 4: INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOME OWNERSHIP, PARTICULARLY THROUGH HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE. Program 4.1: Administer a City sponsored Home Buyer Program. Activity 4.1.1: The RDA is administering a Home Buyer program using down payment assistance loans. The loan is 10% of the purchase price up to a maximum of $16,000. The loan is forgiven if the buyer remains in the unit for 30 years. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga RDA. Geographic Location: This program is available to eligible residents citywide. Resources: RDA Set-Aside funds: $ 300,000.- Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, assist a maximum of 5 homebuyers. Program 4.2: Participate in the County HOME consortium Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP) for eligible first-time homebuyers. Activity 4.2.1: The County of San Bernardino operates the Homeownership Assistance Program ("HAP") in which households earning less than 80% of the median family income may receive assistance in the pumhase of a first home. The HAP provides a silent second trust deed program for Iow- income homebuyers. Lead Agency: County of San Bernardino, Department of Economic and Community Development, HOME Consortium. Geographic Location: This program is available to eligible residents citywide. Resources: HOME funds are available on a first-come first-serve basis through the City's participation in the County HOME Consortium, with approximately $1,000,000 allocated to this 7 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga program. Accomplishments and Time Frame: The City will work with the County HOME Consortium to publicize this program in Rancho Cucamonga so that approximately 4 households could receive assistance by June 30, 2004. Program 4.3: NHDC First-Time Home Buyer Program. Activity 4.3.1: The NHDC's First Time Home Buyer Program provides newly constructed and/or rehabilitated single-family homes to Iow- and moderate-income homebuyers in the Northtown neighborhood. NHDC plans to complete the construction of 9 new homes (see Affordable Housing, Objective 2, Program 2.1, Activity 2.1.1 ) to provide the homes available for this program. The newly constructed homes are typically sold to income- eligible homebuyers earning between 80% and 90% of the area median family income. When rehabilitated homes are utilized (see Affordable Housing, Objective 1, Program 1.2, Activity 1.2.1) the rehabilitated homes are leased for a two-year period at affordable rents to families earning up to 60% of the area median family income. At the end of the two year lease period, the tenant will be offered a purchase option if they have demonstrated the ability to properly maintain and pay for the home and can arrange financing for an affordable first mortgage. However, because the NHDC does not plan on rehabilitating any units during the program year, this aspect of this activity will not be utilized. Lead Agency: The NHDC. Geographic Location: The Northtown target neighborhood. Resources: The NHDC received a pledge amount from the RDA that they are able to use accordingly to meet the goals of their affordable housing program. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, the sale or lease of 9 newly constructed or rehabilitated homes. OBJECTIVE 5: REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK WITH EMPHASIS ON OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING. Program 5.1: Provide moderate rehabilitation of owner occupied, single-family and mobile homes for extremely Iow-, Iow-, and moderate-income homeowners. Activity 5.1.1: The City has an existing moderate rehabilitation Home Improvement Program available to eligible owner-occupied households, those earning less than 80% of the area median family income. The program offers 8 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga deferred payment loans of up to $ 30,000 and grants of up to $ 7,500, including emergency repair grants. The City runs this as a full service program and not only lends the money, but secures contractors, oversees the work, and maintains administration of the grants and loans rather than farming this work out to the bank or homeowner. While this method requires additional staff time, it is done to provide a high level of customer service and ensure both consistent and efficient results. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: This program is available to eligible residents citywide. Resources: CDBG funds: $ 324,233.00. (Funding includes $ 24,233 in revolving loan funds). Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, assist 40 households with incomes below 80% of the area median family income. Program 5.2: Participate in the County HOME Consortium Rental Rehabilitation · Program. Activity 5.2.1: This is a program is available to residents of local projects through the County HOME Consortium. HOME funds are available for Iow interest loans to acquire and/or rehabilitate existing rental property in exchange for affordable rental units. Funds may be used for moderate rehabilitation efforts, with a maximum allowed of up to $ 25,000 per unit. The HOME assisted units will be subject to specific rent limits, and be available to Iow- and very-low income residents. This program also provides funding for the refinancing and rehabilitation of multi-family units. Lead Agency: County of San Bernardino, Department of Economic and Community Development, HOME Consortium. Geographic Location: This program is available to eligible residents citywide. Resources: HOME funds are available on a first-come first-serve basis through the City's participation in the County HOME Consortium, with approximately $ 500,000 allocated to this program. Accomplishments and Time Frame: No known units are proposed for assistance during the 2003-2004 program year. The City will work with the County HOME Consortium to publicize this program in Rancho Cucamonga. 9 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga OBJECTIVE 6: IMPROVE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. Program 6.1: Support applications of the Housing Authority for their Annual Comprehensive Grant to improve living conditions for public housing residents. Activity 6.1.1: Each year the City has certified consistency of the Housing Authority's Comprehensive Grant program with the Consolidated Plan. The City will continue to do so for the Comprehensive Plan. Lead Agency: Housing Authority of San Bernardino County. Geographic Location: This program will benefit residents citywide. Resources: Federal Comprehensive Grant funds. Accomplishments and Time Frame: Annually support 16 public housing applications. · HOMELESS OBJECTIVE 7: ASSIST HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, AND PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, AND THOSE AT-RISK OF HOMELESSNESS. Program 7.1: Continue to support of local homeless facilities and services. Activity 7.1.1: The City currently provides assistance to a variety of organizations that provide immediate assistance, advocacy, and short-term shelter. The City will continue to address priority needs, and will continue to evaluate the provision of transitional shelter assistance. These agencies include: Homeless Outreach1 Programs1 and Education ("HOPE"): This agency provides assistance to individuals and families who are or are at-risk of homelessness and include such services as advocacy, education, shelter vouchers, and referrals. HOPE is located at 213 North Fern Avenue, Ontario, CA 91762. Foothill Family Shelter: Foothill Family Shelter operates a 90-day transitional shelter for homeless families with children. Support services are provided to enable families to obtain independence and permanent housing. They are located at 1501 West Ninth Street, Suite D, and at 230,238, and 294 North San Antonio Avenue in Upland, CA 91786. House of Ruth: House of Ruth provides shelter, programs, education, and opportunities for safe, self-sufficient, healthy living for battered women and their children who are at-risk of homelessness. Services provided include 24-hour emergency safe shelter for up to 30 days, 24- hour crisis intervention hotline, 24-hour emergency transportation, outreach offices, and children programs. House of Ruth is located in Claremont, at P.O. Box 457, Claremont, CA 91711. 10 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucarnonga Pomona Valley Council of Churches - West End Hunqer Proqram ("SOVA"): SOVA offers a 5- day food supply (15 meals) for all members of a household. SOVA helps families maintain their health and avoid homelessness by providing emergency food assistance and support services. The PVCC offers the West End Hunger Program from offices located at 635 South Taylor Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: The benefits of this program occur citywide. Resources: CDBG funds: · HOPE: $ 6,400. · Foothill Family Shelter: $ 5,000. · House of Ruth: $ 7,600. · SOVA: $ 7,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, assist the following: HOPE- 150 persons. · Foothill Family Shelter- 10 families. · House of Ruth - 1,600 persons. ·SOVA- 1,280 persons. · HOMELESS ANNUAL PLAN The City's goal is to develop a comprehensive homeless assistance plan that provides a continuum of care with the purpose of ultimately assisting individuals in obtaining and retaining permanent housing. As the first priority in the plan, the City intends to continue funding those agencies that are able to provide the first line of defense in providing outreach and advocacy in assisting individuals and families who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. These activities include the support of emergency shelter, shelter vouchers, food distribution, advocacy, and referral services. The City will continue to fund landlord/tenant activities as a means of assisting those who are at-risk of homelessness in keeping their homes. Additional assistance will be encouraged for those agencies that provide longer-term transitional shelter and assist in the transition to permanent housing oppodunities. · SPECIAL NEEDS OBJECTIVE 8: PROVIDE NECESSARY REHABILITATION SERVICES TO SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS WITH EMPHASIS ON ASSISTING THE ELDERLY AND FRAIL ELDERLY. Program 8.1: Provide minor and emergency rehabilitation services to eligible households with emphasis on assistance to Iow- and moderate- income seniors. Activity 8.1.1: This program will complement the City's Home Improvement Program by providing minor rehabilitation and emergency assistance to Iow- and 11 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City o! Rancho Cucamonga moderate-income residents and senior citizen households whose income falls below 80% of the area median family income. Permitted home repairs include minor plumbing, electrical, carpentry, and roof repairs. Residents who are owner occupants are eligible to receive two visits, up to $100 per visit, and in emergency situations, the allowance of a one- time material charge for up to $ 250. The agency is located at 8572 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: This program is available to eligible residents citywide. Resources: CDBG funds: $10,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, Oldtimers Foundation will assist 70 Iow- and moderate-income households. OBJECTIVE 9: SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSISTING SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS. Program 9.1: Support special need services in areas where there are significant under-served needs. Activity 9.1.1: Develop and enhance senior citizen classes and activities in the focus areas of physical fitness, recreational and educational development, mental health, and emotional well being. To meet additional parking needs for the facility, the City entered into a 5-year lease to utilize the parking lot of an adjacent facility. In return for the use of the parking facility the City will provide monthly rent, maintenance, and improvements to the parking area. The use of this parking lot is critical to the participation of senior citizen residents utilizing Senior Center programs. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department. Geographic Location: Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, 9791 Arrow Route. Resources: CDBG funds: $12,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, to have assisted 550 persons through these activities. · SPECIAL NEEDS ANNUAL PLAN Objectives 8 and 9, as stated above, identify actions the City intends to take over the next program year to address the needs of persons who are not homeless, but have special needs. 12 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga · NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OBJECTIVE 10: PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC AREAS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TO ENHANCE LIVING ENVIRONMENTS, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS, AND FOR LOWER INCOME INDIVIDUALS, SENIORS, AND THE HANDICAPPED. Program 10.1: Complete all necessary infrastructure and sidewalk improvements in qualified target areas. Activity 10.1.1: The City will fund the following public improvement projects: Calle Veiar from Avenida Leon to Hellman Avenue1 and Avenida Leon from Arrow Route to Calle Vejar: This activity was initially funded in the 2001-2002 program year; that project was not completed and additional funds are necessary to complete the design of the project. The design of project improvements to include the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates. The design will remove the existing pavement, construct new pavement over aggregate base, install streetlights, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, ramps for disabled, and street trees. When completed, the project will facilitate better drainage of the street and right-of-way. Sidewalk Grindinq and Replacement in Identified Tarqet Neiqhborhoods: Involves the grinding, repair, or replacement of sidewalks that are displaced and/or inaccessible. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division. Geographic Location: Calle Vejar, between Avenida Leon and Hellman Avenue, is located in CT 21, BG 2. Sidewalk Grinding efforts may be carried out in all eligible neighborhoods including CT 21, BG 2, 3, 6, & 7; CT 20.01, BG 4. Resources: CDBG funds: · Devon Street Storm Drain: $11,000. · Sidewalk Grinding: $ 22,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By'June 30, 2004, complete the design of improvements for the Calle Vejar, and replace approximately 3,960 square feet of sidewalk. Program 10.2: Complete rehabilitation improvements to the Senior Center, including expansion, interior rehabilitation, project landscaping, and handicap improvements. Activity 10.2.1: Funding previously allocated for improving the landscaping at the existing Senior Center was reprogrammed to Program 10.5, Activity 10.5.1 for the construction of a new Senior Center. As reported in the 2001-2002 Annual Action Plan, funding for expansion and rehabilitation improvements to the Senior Center was reprogrammed to Program 10.5, Activity 10.5.1 for the construction of a new Senior Center facility. 13 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucarnonga Program 10.3: Develop a Fire Safety Awareness Program. Activity 10.3.1: There are no activities proposed under this program during the 2003-2004 program year. Program 10.4: Evaluate the development of a new community/recreation facility in either the Southwest Cucamonga or Northtown target neighborhoods. Activity 10.4.1: There are no activities proposed under this program during the 2003-2004 program year. Program 10.5: Evaluate the development of a new Senior Center and provide funding to assist in its construction. Activity 10.5.1: This activity was initially developed a multi-year project that included funding for both design and construction activities. For the 2003-2004 program year, those funds previously designated for the design activity were reprogrammed to the construction bank activity so that all funds allocated to this activity will be allocated towards construction of the new senior center. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division. Geographic Location: The new Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center will be located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue. Resources: CDBG funds: $ 977,695.56. (Funding for this facility will include prior year construction funds of $ 513,401.99, reprogramming previously identified design funds of $139,293.57, and allocating an additional $ 325,000.00 of new entitlement funds. This results in a total of CDBG funding available for this activity at $ 977,695.56.) Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, utilize the designated funds towards the construction of a new senior center facility. 14 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga OBJECTIVE 11: ASSIST LOCAL PUBLIC AND NON-PROFIT SERVICE AGENCIES THAT IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME PERSONS AND THOSE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. Program 11.1: Assist public service agencies that support groups in the highest priority categories including: fair housing counseling, landlord- tenant mediation, homeless and food assistance, emergency shelters, domestic violence shelters, and senior, youth-at-risk, and literacy programs. Activity 11.1.1: The City will continue to fund public service agencies that include: Fair Housinq: The City contracts with the Inland Mediation Board for Fair Housing services that include education, counseling, mediation, and legal referral. Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board is located at 1005 Begonia Avenue, Ontario, CA 91762. Landlord Tenant Mediation: The City contracts with Inland Mediation Board for Landlord/Tenant dispute mediation services. Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board is located at 1005 Begonia Avenue, Ontario, CA 91762. House of Ruth: House of Ruth provides shelter, programs, education, and opportunities for safe, self-sufficient, healthy living for battered women and their children who are at-risk of homelessness. Services provided include 24-hour emergency safe shelter for up to 30 days, 24- hour crisis intervention hotline, 24-hour emergency transportation, outreach offices, and children programs. House of Ruth is located in Claremont, at P.O. Box 457, Claremont, CA 91711. Pomona Valley Council of Chumhes - West End Hunqer Proqram {"SOVA"): SOVA offers a 5- day food supply (15 meals) for all members of a household. SOVA helps families maintain their health and avoid homelessness by providing emergency food assistance and support services. The PVCC offers the West End Hunger Program from offices located at 635 South Taylor Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761. YWCA - Y-Teen: Provide personal development and societal betterment after-school activities to Iow- and Iow-moderate income youth at-risk in a nurturing environment as alternatives and diversions from health threatening and risk-taking behaviors. This program is currently being conducted at the Mountain View Apartments, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue. YWCA of the West End is located at 600 North Park Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768. YMCA - West End Kids Club: Offered to students from Iow-income families attending Bear Gulch School. This activity provides an after-school recreational program. West End YMCA is located at 9017 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. YMCA - Your Own Club: The program is run at the Old Town Park and the Villa Del Norte community room and targeted to the Northtown neighborhood in CT 21, BG 6 & 7. The program is designed to provide at-risk middle school aged youth with fun, educationally enriching and challenging value-based after school alternatives in a safe and enjoyable environm, ent. Rancho 15 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga Family YMCA, a branch of the West End YMCA, is located at 10970 Arrow Route, Suite 106, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Oldtimers Foundation - Senior Nutrition: The nutrition program is run from the Senior Center in which 22,500 hot meals would be provided at the RC Senior Center and 16,250 meals prepared for home delivery. Oldtimers Foundation is located at 6572 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. Rancho Cucamonqa Public Library- Back To Basics: The Back to Basic program trains volunteer tutors to work with 7 to 12-year old children identified by school personnel as at-risk (challenged economically and educationally) and who are reading and writing below their grade levels. The Rancho Cucamonga Public Library is located at 7368 Amhibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. YMCA - Senior Transportation: Provide transportation for senior citizens to and from the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, as well as local grocery stores, for weekly shopping. Rancho Cucamonga Family YMCA, a branch of the West End YMCA, is located at 10970 Arrow Route, Suite 106, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Camp Fire USA: Camp Nawakwa is located in the Barton Flats recreation area of the San Bernardino Mountains. The program provides a 5-day resident camp session to learn responsibility, develop skills, and gain confidence in themselves while building independence and self-reliance. Campfire Boys and Girls is located at 4959 Palo Verde Street, Suite 208C, Montclair, CA 91763. Project Sister: Project Sister is a sexual assault and violence prevention program. The program works with teens addressing date rape, sexual harassment, and personal safety awareness. The program also targets seniors, who are vulnerable to being victims of crimes including sexual assault, robbery, burglary, and financial exploitation. The program offers 24-hour counseling, and individual and group counseling as needed. Project Sister is located at P.O. Box 1390, Claremont, CA 91711. Rancho Cucamonqa Community Services Department - Northtown Collaborative: The Northtown Collaborative is a community (youth and adult) prevention recreation/human services program that will provide essential human service programs as well as traditional recreational classes and activities. This is conducted through a joint use agreement with the Cucamonga Middle School and NHDC. The Community Services Department is located at Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: The benefits of this program occur citywide. 16 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Resources: CDBG funds: · Fair Housing: $12,000. · Landlord/Tenant Mediation: $10,000. · House of Ruth: $7,600. · SOVA: $ 7,000. · YWCA: $ 7,000. · YMCA-WEKC: $ 6,000. · YMCA-YOC: $ 5,000. · Senior Nutrition: $ 8,500. · Back To Basics: $10,000. · YMCA - Senior Transportation: $15,000. · Campfire Boys and Girls: $ 6,700. · Project Sister: $ 9,700. · Northtown Collaborative $12,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, assist the following: · Fair Housing- 388 persons. · Landlord/Tenant-228 households. · House of Ruth - 1,600 persons. · SOVA- 1,258 persons. · YVVCA- 60 youth. · YMCA - WEKC - 95 youth. · YMCA - YOC - 40 youth. · Senior Nutrition- 570 seniors. · Back To Basics - 132 persons. YMCA - Senior Transportation - 3,700 seniors. Campfire Boys and Girls - 20 youth. · Project Sister- 980 persons. · Northtown Collaborative- 3,200 persons. OBJECTIVE 12: ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES. Program 12.1: Installation of handicap wheelchair ramps at all curb returns. Activity 12.1.1: This program involves the retrofitting of existing curbs to accommodate disabled individuals. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division. Geographic Location: The benefits of this program occur citywide. Resources: CDBG funds: $ 22,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, provide approximately 2,880 square feet of curbing for handicap ramps. 17 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Program 12.2: Complete handicap accessibility requirements at other eligible public recreation facilities, including Old Town Park. Activity 12.2.1: This activity was established under the 2001-2002 Annual Action Plan and has been designed, but not implemented. Of the $174,000 previously allocated to this activity, $ 67,810 is being reprogrammed to the CDBG program administration activity. The remaining $106,190 will be banked for the activities possible future implementation. OBJECTIVE 13: THE RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTIES OF SOCIAL VALUE FOR HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, AND AESTHETIC REASONS. Program 13.1: The rehabilitation of significant historic structures, with primary emphasis on residential assistance. Activity 13.1.1: The preservation and historic restoration of the Fisher House. Proposed activities include selective demolition and modifications to secure the structure from the environment and halt the physical effects of deterioration on the structure's exterior. Historic restoration will include: rehabilitation, framing, repairing exterior siding, painting, dry walling, plumbing, and electrical. This is a multi-year program and will be completed through a cooperative effort between the City and the Etiwanda Historical Society. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: The Fisher House was previously located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Base Line Road, and was relocated for the development of a new elementary school. Proposed activities may include selective demolition and exterior modifications to protect the structure from the environment and stop the physical effects of decay. To date, completed preservation activities include exterior paint, replacing and/or rehanging windows and doors, reroofing the structure, and obtaining lead based paint clearance. Additional activities may include: rehabilitation, framing, repairing exterior siding, interior painting, dry walling, plumbing, and electrical. The Fisher House is located at 7165 Etiwanda Avenue. Resources: CDBG funds: $160,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 80, 2004, complete all administrative and program management oversight to ensure efficient and effective use of CDBG funds. The City may contract with a third party for the implementation of this activity. That third party would utilize proposed funds to coordinate the design and installation of project improvements, pay rent, and ultimately occupy the building. The City will require the third party to sign a Subrecipient Agreement to ensure that all improvements and actions of the third party comply with CDBG requirements. 18 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga OBJECTIVE 14: PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT THE CDBG PROGRAM AND THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. Program 14.1: Provide for the necessary planning and administrative activities of the CDBG program. Activity 14.1.1: Includes administration of the CDBG program, the completion of program applications and performance reports, research and analysis, target area studies, historic preservation evaluations, and housing documents. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: The benefits of this program occur citywide. Resources: CDBG funds: $ 225,910. (Funding includes $ 67,810 reprogrammed from prior year activity.) Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, complete all administrative and program management oversight to ensure efficient and effective use of CDBG funds. OBJECTIVE 15: ALLEVIATE PHYSICAL AND RELATED ECONOMIC DISTRESS THROUGH THE STIMULATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION IN IDENTIFIED TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS. Program 15.1: Support housing and Community Development activities that stimulate economic development. Activity 15.1.1: Review and Evaluation of Foothill Boulevard. Foothill Boulevard, west of Haven Avenue is older with mixed uses and appears to be re~ching stages of economic distress, while the area east of Haven Avenue has primarily new development and vacant land. The concern is with revitalization of the older areas and planning land use to ensure effective and balanced growth along Foothill Boulevard. The City has formed a task force to review the planning and land use issues along Foothill Boulevard. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: Approximately 6 miles from Grove Avenue to East Avenue. Resources: City General Fund. Accomplishments and Time Frame: On January 16, 2002, the City Council adopted the Foothill Boulevard/Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. The City's Foothill Boulevard 19 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga and Economic Task Force reviewed existing Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan policies and developed standards for softscape improvements that will occur within the street right-of-way. These improvements will include signage, street furniture, landscaping, etc, to establish a unified street theme. The Visual Improvement Plan will be implemented by private development as vacant properties fronting along Foothill Boulevard develop, and through public improvements where the street frontage is currently improved. The purpose of the Visual Improvement Plan is to develop a design specification plan that will set forth design concepts for the streetscape improvements within the public rights-of-way and entry areas along the entire length of Foothill Boulevard. The plan will help guide a balanced and unified pattern of streetscape for both public and private development. By drawing upon the existing positive improvements and developing a set of unique and unifying historic elements, this plan will ensure that Foothill Boulevard will be an exciting reflection of the historic Route 66 as well as a historic Rancho Cucamonga. Through June 30, 2004, continue analysis and implementation of the Foothill Boulevard/Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. OBJECTIVE 16: REVITALIZE AND UPGRADE HOUSING CONDITIONS; PREVENT AND ELIMINATE BLIGHT AND BLIGHTING INFLUENCES; AND ELIMINATE CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. Program 16.1: Continue improvements to residential energy efficiency, lead-based paint hazard reduction, and code enforcement through the City's Home Improvement Program. Activity 16.1.1: The City currently funds a Home Improvement Program in which, through the course of that activity, the rehabilitation improvements mentioned previously would be completed. A separate activity will not be developed. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. Geographic Location: The benefits of this program occur citywide. Resources: CDBG funds. Accomplishments and Time Frame: Activity accomplishments occur through the Home Improvement Program. (See Objective 5, Program 5.1, Activity 5.1.1 .) Program 16.2: Continue funding the Graffiti Removal Program. Activity 16.2.1: City crews operate in lower income target neighborhoods to remove incidents of graffiti. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division. Geographic Location: Available in all eligible target neighborhoods including CT 21, BG 2, 3, 6, and 7, and CT 20.01, BG 4. 2O Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucarnonga Resources: CDBG funds: $ 22,000. Accomplishments and Time Frame: By June 30, 2004, remove approximately 14,999 square feet of graffiti. OTHER ACTIONS · ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The RDA Implementation Plan for 2000-2005 includes a section on "Commercial and Industrial Economic Enhancement Programs." The objective of that program is to strengthen the economic environment of the commerciaVIndustrial sector of the Redevelopment Project Area. This is accomplished through a variety of programs designed to address the needs of Rancho Cucamonga's existing businesses, to attract new businesses to the City, and provide long-term employment to strengthen and compliment the economy of the City. Economic development goals focus on job creation, improving the quality of life to residents and businesses, increasing the City's tax base, and providing opportunities for public and private partnerships, including private investment in the community. Economic development activities focus on two basic efforts: business retention and business attraction. Currently, the RDA has successfully implemented a variety of marketing and promotion strategies suggested in the strategic plan that have leveraged the community's attributes as well as establishing a positive business related image. Through a comprehensive plan of advertisement campaigns, direct mail of newsletters, site selection information, trade shows, publishing editorials, press releases, and Internet web page, the City has managed to receive local, regional, and even national recognition. Despite this success and recognition, the RDA continues to work to attract businesses that fit the general business environment of the City and achieve a greater presence in the area. The City will continue with these economic development efforts during the 2003- 2004 program year. The RDA's marketing and promotion efforts have significantly affected employment, expansion, and the local tax base. From 1994-2001, more that 80 companies expanded and/or relocated creating more than 5,300 new jobs because of the Agency's marketing and promotion efforts. Although the City's success in economic development is not a direct result of the Agency's marketing and promotional efforts, the Agency has managed to facilitate that growth. Apart from the specifics of the Economic Development strategy, the Agency assists companies through participation in the following programs. The Inland Empire Small Business Development Center ("SBDC"), which offers a variety of resources to improve business operation including, business consulting, seminars and workshops, information resources, procurement assistance, environmental assistance, and a variety of other programs. The results of the SBDC during the past year were outstanding. Over 179 local businesses were assisted, 244 new jobs were created, and many other jobs have been retained. The SBDC has also assisted in securing $1.5 million in new financing for small businesses. In 2001, the California Redevelopment Association ("CRA") awarded the RDA its "CRA 21 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Award of Excellence" in the category of Education, Marketing, and Promotions for interactive site search web site (INside Rancho). · AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING In 1964, the City began contracting with the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board ("IFHMB") to provide for the education and enfomement of state and federal housing laws for all residents who request assistance. The IFHMB provides public education, mediation, counseling, testing, and legal referral services to promote fair housing. Having the iFHMB administer the Fair Housing Program assures that there are no impediments to fair housing choices. Fair Housing education is provided as a major component of the program with a goal of providing the knowledge of what is Fair Housing to all partners of the housing industry. Fair Housing outreach is provided through radio programming, mass media, brochures, and the IFHMB web site (http://hometown.aol.com/inmedbd/index.html). Enfomement is provided through the process of mediation through the IFHMB, or a related enforcement agency. And finally, Fair Housing testing is used as a tool to gather evidence of discrimination. The Fair Housing program attempts to accomplish the primary objectives of the City's Fair Housing Impediments Analysis by providing for the education, counseling, mediation, testing, and legal referral of Fair Housing issues within the community. In May 1996, the City completed a five-year Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments. During the 2001-2002 program year the City contracted with Cotton/Bridges/Associates to prepare an update to the Analysis of Impediments. The update was be completed by adopted by the City Council on December 4, 2002. While the Al identifies a number of potential issues, certain issues are beyond the ability of a local jurisdiction to address, such as those related to lending practices. The actions identified below represent those that can be feasibly addressed by the City. Expandinq Affordable Housin,q Opportunities Housing affordability alone is not necessarily a fair housing issue. However, when housing affordability issues interact with other factors covered under the fair housing laws, such as household type, composition, and race/ethnicity, fair housing concerns may arise. Moreover, the fair housing equation has two sides. One the one side is the availability of a range of housing choices and on the other side is equal access to those choices. Therefore, a community must ensure that it has a range of housing choices to meet the various needs of all income segments in the community. Action 1: The City will continue to provide homeownership opportunities in the community by promoting the First-Time Homebuyer Program. The City will focus outreach efforts towards lower income households, particularly to Black, Hispanic, and Asian households, since they have more difficulty obtaining financing. Specifically the City will provide advertisements and workshops in both Spanish and English to inform residents about this program. Time Frame: Ongoing. Action 2: The City will continue to facilitate the development of housing for all income 22 Community Development Block Grant 2005-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucarnonga groups within the community. The City will focus on facilitating affordable housing development through a combination of financial and regulatory assistance. Specifically, the City will work to provide affordable housing throughout the community, avoiding an over- impaction of specific neighborhoods. Time Frame: Ongoing. Action 3: The City will develop a monitoring system of the Redevelopment Agency's lending practices for the First Time Homebuyer Program, as this program is not subject to HMDA. TimeFrame: By2004. Rehabilitation Assistance Action 4.' The City will continue to provide rehabilitation assistance for owner-occupied and investor-owned single-family housing in the community. Existing programs include the Home Improvement Grant, Deferred Payment Loan Program, and the Emergency Home Improvement Grant. The City will ensure that information about these programs be provided in the City's brochures, advertisements, and website in both English and Spanish. Time Frame: Ongoing. Action 5: The City will ensure that Spanish speaking staff is available to assist residents in the City regarding code enforcement, housing rehabilitation, and other housing services. Time Frame: Ongoing. Action 6: The City will continue to rehabilitate substandard multi-family housing in the community. Time Frame: Ongoing. Access to Information Action 7: The City will work to expand its website to provide additional links to housing services and resources, such as a link to the fair housing service provider and a link to the Fannie Mae Foundation which offers free guides and resources for first-time home buyers in both English and Spanish. Time Frame: By 2004. Public Policies and Pro.qrams Action 8: The City will provide developers with federal fair housing guide information 23 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding accessibility requirements as part of the land use entitlement process. In addition, the City may consider incorporating accessibility compliance as part of the entitlement process. Time Frame: By 2004. Action 9: The City will continue to pursue affordable housing development programs identified in the 2000-2004 Housing Element. To the extent feasible, the City will facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households according to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation identified in the Housing Element. TimeFrame: By2004. Outreach to Lenders Action 10: The City will work with local lenders and government institutions to provide outreach to lower income residents about government-backed financing. The City will encourage local lenders to provide information in both English and Spanish. Time Frame: By 2004. Action 11: The City will encourage lenders, particularly local lenders, to hold homebuying workshops in Rancho Cucamonga by local lending institutions. These workshops should be held in both English and Spanish. Time Frame: Workshops will be conducted on an annual basis. Action 12: The City will explore regional effort to study predatory lending issues and support state and federal initiatives to address predatory lending practices. Time Frame: Discuss with the fair housing service provider a regional study of predatory lending in 2002 and ongoing support of anti-predatory lending initiatives. Fair Housinq Services Action 13: The fair housing service provider will continue to conduct fair housing workshops for residents, apartment owners, and property managers. The City will encourage the fair housing service provider to coordinate with the real estate associations regarding fair housing training. Time Frame: Provide training at least once a year. HMDA Monitorinq Action 14: 'The fair housing service provider will monitor complaints regarding unfair lending, and assess lending patterns using the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data 24 /-/50 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucarnonga (HMDA) and other data soumes. Time Frame: Monitor HMDA and other data on an annual basis. Action 15: The City will work with the fair housing service provider to ensure that an increased number of fair housing tests be performed in the City. Time Frame: Testing to be conducted periodically. · OBSTACLES TO MEETING UNDER'SERVED NEEDS The primary obstacle identified toward meeting under-served needs is a lack of available resoumes. This obstacle is and will continue to be an issue. The best way to address this matter is to combine efforts and resources and tap new funding sources. The City is striving to form public/private partnemhips as well as seeking out new sources of funding, such as HOME funds to better leverage available funding. · ACTIONS TO FOSTER AND MAINTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING A majority of the objectives and actions identified as part of this Annual Action Plan are specifically aimed at increasing and maintaining the City's existing affordable housing stock. Activities such as new construction, conservation of at-risk units, and preservation of existing units are all striving to increase the affordable housing stock. · ACTIONS TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING There were no significant barriem to affordable housing identified that would need to be revised or amended. All regulations and policies currently in-place are necessary in order to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare. · ACTIONS TO EVALUATE AND REDUCE LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS In conjunction with the Home Improvement Program, the City will continue to implement federal requirements concerning lead-based paint reductions. HUD requires that for any program utilizing CDBG funds, all owners, and/or tenants be notified in writing about the dangers of lead-based paint. Units constructed prior to 1978, which are occupied by children under the age of seven, are inspected for defective paint surfaces. If a child residing in the home has an elevated blood lead level, then defective chewable surfaces will be treated and lead abated. It is also recommended that housing rehabilitation efforts carried out by the RDA also follow the same guidelines. · ACTIONS TO RE, DUCE THE NUMBER OF POVERTY LEVEL FAMILIES The City has relatively little control over the many factors that may affect the determination of an individual's income level. The primary activity that may be utilized by the City is the support of public service agencies that incorporate job training and life development skills into their programs, which includes most of the agencies currently receiving CDBG funding. 25 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Most of the activities funded by the City, particularly those related to non-housing community development, act indirectly to increase economic development in the City. The City, through its CDBG contract activities, complies with Section 3 requirements encouraging the employment of local Iow-income individuals. From a housing perspective, all of the priorities, objectives, and programs aimed at increasing affordable housing also increase the stock of housing available to those in the lowest income categories. · ACTIONS TO DEVELOP INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND ENHANCE COORDINATION The Consolidated Plan evaluated gaps in the institutional structure and actions that might be taken to strengthen the system. It was determined that one main action that can be taken toward this is increasing expertise of staff and City Council, which in turn will increase the CDBG program efficiency and effectiveness. Increased contact and coordination among City departments will also contribute to the CDBG program's effectiveness. The City will continue to encourage direct contact between itself and the Public Housing Agency and other service providers operating in the region. Most of the coordination efforts in the west end are tied to funding resources and the type of service provided. · PUBLIC HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS Each year the City reviews the Annual Comprehensive Grant application submitted by the Housing Authority whereby the City must certify consistency of the activities with the goals and objectives of the Consolidated Plan. · MONITORING Monitoring serves as an effective tool to ensure that federal funds are spent in a manner consistent with the CDBG National Objectives and that the programs and projects are achieving stated goals. The following outlines basic monitoring requirements that are followed in the implementation of the CDBG program. Standards Utilized for Review · Is the program meeting intended objectives? · Is the agency capable of tracking and/or documenting necessary benefit information and carrying out the responsibilities of its program consistent with federal requirements? · Is appropriate and accurate documentation submitted in a timely manner? Monitorinq Procedures Construction Projects - All construction projects are expected to comply with federal labor and procurement procedures as well as the various affirmative action and equal opportunity requirements required by various federal and state laws. To ensure this end, CDBG staff developed a Procurement and Contract Compliance Manual that outlines the various procedures and steps required as part of contract management. The CDBG coordinator oversees and reviews contract preparation at each step from bid preparation, contract document preparation, 26 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga pre-construction meetings, and ongoing project inspections. Subrecipient Agencies - All Subrecipient agencies must sign a contract with the City in which the various scope of work, time line, and documentation requirements are outlined. On a monthly basis, each Subrecipient must submit detailed information regarding the number, ethnicity, and income level of individuals benefiting with CDBG funds. Quarterly summary reports are required of some agencies in which further information is provided on activities accomplished in that quarter. The City's monitoring goal is to conduct an on-site inspection of each agency at least once a year, preferably toward the end of the funding cycle. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The preparation of a representative and useful Annual Action Plan is the result of an effective citizen participation process. The City of Rancho Cucamonga encourages and solicits the participation of its residents in accordance with the provisions of its Citizen Participation Plan. The following steps were taken to ensure adequate public participation. 1. A public notice of available funds and soliciting project applications was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 28, 2002. Copies of the notice were also mailed to approximately 42 individuals and organizations. Copies of the notice were posted at City Hall, City Library, Senior Center, and Lion's Center. 2. Notice regarding the 30-day review period and availability of the draft 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan and notice of the public hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on March 18, 2003, and in La Voz on Mamh 20, 2003. Letters providing notice of the public hearing and indicating documents availability were mailed to surrounding jurisdictions, the County of San Bernardino, and the Housing Authority of San Bernardino County. Copies of the notice were posted at City Hall, Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, Lion's Park Community Center, and the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library. 27 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga APPENDIX "A" - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FY 2003-2004 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ANNUAL ACTION PLAN · PURPOSE OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive 5-year strategy that addresses the use of federal grant/entitlement funds, such as CDBG funds, for the purpose of meeting the goal of providing decent housing, suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities principally for persons of Iow- and moderate-income. · PURPOSE OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The Annual Action Plan identifies specific projects consistent with the Consolidated Plan 5-year strategy listing the projects, programs, and resources that will be utilized during the program year. During the 2003-2004 program year, the City will receive an entitlement allocation of $1,170,000, which is $187,000 more than fiscal year 2002-2003. CDBG funds reprogrammed from prior year activities are $ 207,103.57, which provides $1,309,293.57 available for funding new program activities. There is a total of $ 619,591.99 remaining in prior year funded activities. The sum of all CDBG funds available during the program year totals $ 2,020,928.56. These funds will be used to support the following housing and community development activities. Administration CDBG Adminislration Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division $ 67,810.00 $158,100.00 $ 225,910.00 ... $ e7,810.00 $ e6, oo.oo $ 225,910.00 Capital Improvement Projects Carte Vejar Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division $ 0.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 Sidewalk Gdnding Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division $ 0.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 Wheelchair Ramps Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division $ 0.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 New RCSC (Const.) Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division $ 652,695.56 $ 325,000.00 $ 977,695.56 Old Town Park Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division $106,190.00 $ 0.00 $106,190.00 Norton-Fisher House Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division $ 0.00 $160,000.00 $160.000.00 ,.. $540,000.09 Home Improvement Proqram Home Improvement Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division $ 24,233.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 324,233.00 Home Maintenance Oldtimers Foundation $ 0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 ~ ~ -- $ 24,233.00 $ 310,000.09 $ 334,233.00 Public Services Graffiti Removal Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division $ 0.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 Fair Housing Inland Mediation Board $ 0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Landlord/Tenant Inland Mediation Board $ 0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Outreach Center HOPE $ 0.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 6,400.00 A-1 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucarnonga Project Type Implementing Agency Prior Year / FY 2003/2004 Total Available Reprogram Allocation Emergency Shelter Foothill Family Shelter $ 0.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Emergency Shelter House of Ruth $ 0.00 $ 7,600.00 $ 7,600.00 Food Distribution SOVA $ 0.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Y-Teen Program YWCA $ 0.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Youth Activity YMCA - West End Kids Club $ 0.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Youth Activity YMCA - Your Own Club $ 0.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Senior Programs Rancho Cucamonga Community Services $ 0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Food Distribution Oldtimers Foundation $ 0.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 Literacy Rancho Cucamonga Public Library $ 0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Senior Transportation West End YMCA $ 0.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Youth Activity Campfire Boys & Girls $ 0.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 6,700.00 Sexual Assault Assistance Project Sister $ 0.00 $ 9,700.00 $ 9,700.00 Human Services/Recreation Northtown Collaborative $ 0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 A-2 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga APPENDIX "B" - SUMMARY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING S-YEAR AND 1-YEAR GOALS Program Availability 1.1 MF 1.2 SF 2.1 MF 2.2 SF Affordability 3.1 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170' 170' 3.2 30 6 0 6 7 6 6 24 7 4.1 150 30 17 5 7 5 5 45 24 4.3 8 8 i 9 11 10 ' 9 36 ' 'i2 Preservation 5.1 5.2 6.1 These figures are not cumulative, but represent the number of units operated by the Housing Authority dudng the program year. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY OBJECTIVE 1: CONSERVATION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. Program 1.1: Acquisition of existing multiple-family units to be held for future affordable housing. Program 1.2: Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing single-family homes. OBJECTIVE 2: IMPROVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PRODUCTION OF LARGER (3+ BEDROOM) RENTAL UNITS. Program 2,1: Construction of affordable multi-family units. Program 2.2: Construction of single-family infill development in Iow- and moderate- income neighborhoods. OBJECTIVE 3: PROVIDE DIRECT RENTER ASSISTANCE TO LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN PERMANENT HOUSING, Program 3.1: Support applications by the Housing Authority of San Bernardino County for Section 8 and public housing assistance. Program 3.2: Participate in the County HOME Consortium Tenant Based Assistance (TBA) program. OBJECTIVE 4: INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOME OWNERSHIP, PARTICULARLY THROUGH HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE. B-1 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga Program 4.1: Administer a City sponsored Home Buyer Program. Program 4.2: Participate in the County HOME Consortium Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP) for eligible flint-time homebuyers. Program 4.3: NHDC First-Time Home Buyer program. OBJECTIVE 5: REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK WITH EMPHASIS ON OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING. Program 5.1: Provide moderate rehabilitation of owner occupied, single-family and mobile homes for extremely Iow-, Iow-, and moderate-income homeowners. Program 5,2: Participate in the County HOME Consortium Rental Rehabilitation Program. OBJECTIVE 6: IMPROVE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. Program 6.1: Sup'port applications of the Housing Authority for their annual Comprehensive Grant to improve living conditions for public housing residents. B-2 Community Development Block Grant 2003-2004 Annual Action Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga APPENDIX "C" - ATTACHMENTS SUPPORTING MAPS: PROPOSED PROJECTS~ POINTS OF INTERESTs CENSUS BOUNDARIES, LOW- MOD INCOME, ETHNIClTY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT SUPPORTING FORMS: FUNDING SOURCES, CONTINUUM OF CARE GAPS ANALYSIS~ SPECIAL NEEDS/NON-HOMELESS~ HOUSING NEEDS~ AND COMMUNITY NEEDS LISTING OF PROPOSED PROJECTS CERTIFICATIONS C-1 R A N C H O C U C a M O N G a COMMI~NITY SERVICES DA'ffi: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Francie Martindale, Community Services Marketing Manager Bea Smiderle, Community Services Technician SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT RCPARK.COM WEBSlTE AND INSTANTRC ON-LINE CLASS REGISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept and receive this report on the Community Services Department RCpark.com website and InstantRC On-Line Class Registration. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS In August, 2002 the InstantRC On-Line Registration process became live enabling the public to register for Community Service Department classes via the internet off of our RCpark.com website. Anticipating an increase in community use of the RCpark.com website, it was determined to conduct a re-vamp of the site to a more visual and user-friendly experience for web visitors. Mid February 2003 marked the launch of the re-vamped Community Services Department website RCpark.com. Several brainstorming sessions were held with department groups to create a fresh new look and provide more valuable information in this community resource. This Report will serve to introduce you to the new look and feel of the site and provide you with statistical information regarding InstantRC 2002 Fall and Winter on---line class registrations and year over year traffic statistics. We will also provide information as to the planned marketing efforts for continued increase of awareness and usage of RCpark.com and InstantRC. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RCPARK.COM AND INSTANTRC PRESENTATION April 2, 2003 Page Two New Look & Functions At the April 2, 2003 Council meeting, staff will provide a brief walk through the new site. InstantRC Re,qistration Statistics Fall 2002 - Total Class Registrations: 2,366 280 of these (12%) on InstantRC Winter 02/03 - Total Class Registrations: 4,685 169 of these (4%) on InstantRC (Winter has a high volume of Youth Sports Registrations, which are not available on InstantRC) RCpark.com Web Site Statistics A software program has been loaded onto the City's server to pull statistics of website traffic in order for us to analyze various statistics including: hits, visits, activity, and frequency reports. Based on our server, history for the site activity only goes back to October of 2001. Following are just a couple of the interesting statistics we will be tracking on a monthly basis. October 2001 through December 2001 Total Hits: 488,998 Total Visits: 2,836 Aver. age Visit Length: 8:40 minutes October 2002 through December 2002 Total Hits: 563,713 Total Visits: 13,652 Average Visit Length: 6:55 minutes Month of January 2003 Total Hits: 214,559 Total Visits: 7,447 Average Visit Length: 24:19 minutes MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RCPARK.COM AND INSTANTRC PRESENTATION April 2, 2003 Page Three StrateRy Goals have been established for an increase in class enrollments and InstantRC On-Line Class Registration numbers for Spring 2003 Registration. Marketing efforts began with a soft push of promoting the RCpark.com website the first date of launching the new look. The soft push includes promoting the "new" site on RCTV3 and displaying banners at events and Centers. We will continue to utilize our CSD programs to promote the RCpark.com website and InstantRC. The Spring Grapevine, mailed the first week of March, reflects artwork that prominently emphasizes through the wonder of your computer all the valuable program information available on RCpark.com. A campaign to offer a Quakes ticket incentive for those that register via InstantRC has been developed and was announced in the Spring Grapevine to coincide with Spring Registrations and assist with reaching our goals. The Silver Anniversary Event is also providing a wonderful opportunity for additional visitor traffic to RCpark.com as the website address is referenced in News Releases, fliers, posters, RC-I'V and on the automated information hotline as a source for additional details regarding this fantastic event. itted, Comrhunity Services Director KM/mfm Attachments: Website Statistics RCpark.com Web Analysis 2002/2003 Jul~ .~.~, --r' Oct Nov Dec Jan 2003 Feb Mar Apr May Jun General Statistics Successful Hits 195,180 239.794 206,001 193,387 176,210 194,116 214,559 Avg Hits Per Day 6,296 7.735 6,866 6.238 5,873 6.261 6,921 Home Page Hits 148,102 150,262 146,851 151,436 142,930 137,659 Pa~les ' PageViews 160.070 177,305 164,268 162,536 151,699 153,377 151,803 Avg Per Day 5.163 5.719 5,475 5.243 5,056 4,947 4,896 Visits Visits 4,498 6,963 6,210 4,640 4,306 4,706 7,447 ^vg Per Day 145 224 207 149 143 151 240 Avg Visit Length 07:16 07:49 06:20 05:28 05:19 09:18 24:19 Visitors Unique Visitors 1.638 2.210 1.812 1,655 1,526 1,629 2,298 Visited Once 1,215 1,582 1,305 1,184 1,095 1,113 1,593 ~/isited + Once 423 628 507 471 431 516 705 ~ 3/26/2003 I:/CommServ/Marketing/WebSite Reports/RCpark Stats.xls RCpark.com Web Analysis 2001/2002 vs 2002/2003 I July' ,July 01 [ Audi Aug 0~ i Sept Sept 0~ I Oct Oct 01 i NOV NOV01 I Dec Dec 01 General Statistics Successful Hits 195,180 No 239,794 .o 206.001 No 193,387 164,494 176,210 166,179 194,116 173,348 ~,vg Hits Per Day ~ 6,296 Statistics 7,735 Statist~cs 6.866 Statistics 6,238 5,303 5,873 5.539 6,261 5,591 Home Page Hits 148,102 Available 150,262 Available 146,851 Available 151,436 158,548 i 142,930 158,115 I 137.659 161,614 Rages Page Views 160,070 177.305 154,268 162.536 160,170 151,699 160,211 153,377 154,617 ~,vg Per Day 5,163 5.719 5,475 5,243 5,166 I 5,058 5,340 I 4,947 5,310 Visits 4.498 6,963 6,210 4,640 921 ~ 4,306 980 4,706 1,367 ~,vg Per Day 145 224 207 149 29 ! 143, 32 151 44 ~.vg Visit Length 07:16 ! i 07:49 06:20 05:28 07:38 ! 05:19 07:40 r~ 09:18 10:43 Visitors Unique Visitors 1,638 2,210 1,812 1,655 500 ' 1,526 555 1,629: 631 Visited Once 1,215 1.582 1,305 1,164 369 1,095 384 1,113 401 Visited + Once 423 628 507 471 131 431 171 516 230 *Server down - incomplete month ~--~. 3/26/2003 I:/CommServ/Marketing/VVebsite Reports/RCpark Stats.xls RCpark.com Web Analysis 2001/2002 vs 2002~2003 [Jan, 2003 Jan02 [ Feb Feb02*I Mar Mar02*i Apr Apr02 [ Ma~ Ma}~02 I Jun Jun02 ~eneral Statist cs Successful Hits 214,559 174,614 111,288 108,047 158,680 160,209 157,181 ~,vg Hits Per Day 6,921 5,632 3,974 3,485 ~ 5,289 5,168 5,239 Home Page Hits N/A 163,194 102,560 99,190 138,433 139,467 134,251 Page Views 151,803 166,416 105,140 101,377 143,256 144,607 140,046 ~,vg Per Day 4,896 5,368 3,755 3,270 4,775 4,664 4,668 ViSitS Visits 7,447 2,044 1,446 1,556 2,604 2,975 3,449 ~vg Per Day 240 65 51 50 86 ~ ~ 95 114 ~,vg Visit Length 24:19 06:09 ~, 1:28:48 i 04:45 18:48 I 07:04 05:35 Visitors Unique Visitors 2,298 811 632 809 1,136 1,215 1,520 Visited Once 1,593 523 410 585 866 870 1,102 Visited + Once 705 288 222 224 270 345 418 *Server down - incomplete month ~ 3/26/2003 h/CommServ/Marketing/Website Reports/RCpark Stats.xls R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A' BUILDING AND SAFETY DATE: March 26, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council ..lack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Trang Huynh, Building and Safety Official BY: Mark D. Salazar, Code Enforcement Supervisor'~?'/~' SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 03- FOR SUBMITTING A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM (CEGP) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 03- for submitting an application to the Code Enforcement Grant Program of the State of California's Housing and Community Development, in response to the Notice of Funding availability established by SB 1227 Burton and was issued on February 14, 2003. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2003, the Building and Safety Department received notice of the availability of $4,750,000.00 in funding for code enforcement programs from the Housing and Community Development's Code Enforcement Grant Program (CEGP). The CEGP is a new program with the aim of making grant funds available to cities and counties for capital expenditures that improve the effectiveness of and supplement existing local funding for code enforcement programs related to housing code maintenance or compliance. To be eligible, applicants must demonstrate the intent to ensure cooperative and effective working relationships between code enforcement officials, local prosecutorial agencies, local health department, local building and planning departments, policing agencies, local housing agencies or other agencies participating in any interdisciplinary approach to housing code enforcement. The funding is designed to support staff and resoumes and to improve and preserve existing housing through community-oriented code enforcement efforts. The CEPG is awarded on a competitive basis. The maximum grant amount to a single recipient shall not exceed $300,000, and the minimum grant to a single recipient is not less than $30,000. There is not a requirement for matching funds from the City. The grant fund will support and assist the costs of the following four areas already existing in the City's Code Enforcement program: · Graffiti Abatement program. · Supplement the already existing costs of Contract Services such as a Contract Code Enforcement Officer, City Prosecutor, Weed Abatement, and Vector Control. · Costs for Community Outreach program. · Costs of Equipment such as inspection equipment, electronic equipment, computers, etc. FISCAL IMPACT The Building and Safety Department is requesting grant funds from the State in the amount of $300,000. With approval of this resolution and approval of the grant by the State, it is anticipated that any grant monies awarded would help to enhance the already established Code Enforcement program with these additional funds for at least three years. Respectfully s,~b~ itted,/~ Building and Safe Official -2- RESOLUTION NO. 03 - ~ ~ 4/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION, THE INCURRING OF AN OBLIGATION, THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AN~ AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE A GRANT FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM (CEGP) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, wishes to apply for and receive an allocation of funds through the Code Enforcement Grant program. WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (herein referred to as "HCD") has issued a Notice of Funding Availability ("NOFA") for the Code Enforcement Grant Program established by SB 1227 Burton (Chapter 26 of the Statues of 2002), Health and Safety Code section 53433(a)6. Pursuant to the statute, HCD is authorized to approve funding allocations for the program, subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA and program application forms. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby order as follows: 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall submit to HCD an application to participate in the Code Enforcement Grant Program in response to the NOFA issued February 14, 2003 which will request a funding allocation in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for the purchase of the capital assets identified in the application to be used in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The application also commits the applicant to use, support, and maintain the capital assets acquired with grant funds for at least three years. 2. If the application for funding is approved, the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible capital asset(s) in the manner presented in the application as approved by HCD and in accordance with the NOFA and application package. It also may execute any and all instruments required by HCD for participation in the Code Enforcement Grant Program. 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga authorizes its Building and Safety Official to execute in the name of the city of Rancho Cucamonga the application, the Resolution No. 03 Page 2 Standard Agreement, and all other documents required by HCD for participation in the Code Enforcement Grant Program. PASSED, APOPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of April 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William Alexander, Mayor AFFEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City council of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 2nd day of April 2003. SuNeys requeste¢t coud bxing the ib~ar},~ to us. stag's:ed n 2OO'i usn9 a convex'ted Omntxans O~ignaibookmob ehotdsap!sioximately 500books sexy ng ch d~e~' v sat ~g schoos and Spec a~ vs~ts p~og~ams such as ~gunde~'s n the 18 months of nce~ston use of the bookmobi e ti' p ed~ Ca a~©~'n a,~a~"" ~'~,~ L br'a~l that n~,~': n would fund a ~ew veh~c!e awnng su , ~ camera n men,to t R A N H O C U C A M O N G A COMMUNITY SER¥1CES SlaffReport DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL ON ROCHESTER AVENUE DURING QUAKES BASEBALL GAMES (Continued from March 19, 2003) RECOMMENDATION The City Council sub-committee of Mayor Pro Tem Williams and Councilmember Gutierrez recommends that the City Council approve the attached eight-point plan related to traffic control on Rochester Avenue during Quakes baseball games. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS At the City Council meeting on March 19, 2003, the City Council heard from representatives of the Quakes and from retail businesses at Masi Plaza regarding the options associated with traffic control on Rochester Avenue during Quakes weekend baseball games. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the staff report from the March 19t~ meeting. The comments offered from speakers at the meeting related mainly to public accessibility to Masi Plaza during weekend Quakes games and the safety associated with Quakes fans on Rochester Avenue. There were a number of suggestions offered at the meeting relating to changing the signage on Foothill Boulevard and minimizing the amount of time that Rochester is closed on games days. At the conclusion of the March 19m City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to conduct a meeting amongst interested parties to explore options associated with traffic control on Rochester. Mayor Pro Tem Williams and Councilmember Gutierrez were appointed to attend this meeting as a sub-committee. Based upon the concerns expressed and the suggestions offered at the March 19th meeting, City staff prepared a list of possible options associated with traffic control which were presented at a follow-up meeting held on April 1, 2003. This meeting included Quakes representatives, Masi representatives, City staff, Mayor Pro Tern Williams and Councilmember Gutierrez. At the April 1st meeting a number of views and opinions were CLOSURE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE April 2, 2003 Page 2 shared regarding the proposed options and refinements were made to the suggestions. As a result of those discussions the City Council sub-committee and staff are recommending approval of the recommended options detailed on Exhibit "B". In short, these options offer a modified traffic plan for the months of April and May and list a number of follow-up actions during those two months which will assist all the interested parties in coming together again in June to reassess the situation. The City Council sub-committee recommends approval of the options identified on Exhibit ~eReSpectfull~tted' Community Services Director Attachment: Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" EXHIBIT ?A" R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A COMMUNITY SERVICES Slaff Report DATE: March 19, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR ROCHESTER AVENUE DURING QUAKES BASEBALL GAMES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide staff with the direction to keep Rochester Avenue open to through traffic during all weekday and weekend Quakes baseball games, except during those games where attendance is expected to exceed 5,000 fans. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS When the Epicenter first opened and the Quakes began playing baseball games at the Stadium, the City Council approved a policy in which Rochester Avenue would be closed to through traffic during all Quakes games. This policy worked well during the initial seasons when attendance at the games often reached capacity levels. Following a number of refinements over the years relating to the layout and location of traffic control devices, through traffic is controlled as follows during street closure periods: Northbound traffic on Rochester is controlled at Arrow Route. Southbound traffic from Foothill Boulevard is controlled south of the Masi Center at Sebastian. This ensures that access to Masi Plaza is maintained at all times during Quakes games. In July 2000, the City Council took action to open Rochester Avenue to through traffic during weekday ballgames. This action was based on the lessening attendance at weekday games to an average crowd less than 1,500 fans and also on complaints received from nearby businesses and residents who expressed their inconvenience with the street closure. When this policy change was being considered in 2000 staff had discussions with representatives from the Quakes regarding this proposal. The team agreed with the opening of Rochester during weekday games but were opposed to opening the street on weekend game days. This opposition was based on the significantly larger attendance they were experiencing on weekends which caused fans to park in the east parking lot across Rochester Avenue. The Quakes expressed their concern for fan safety and inconvenience in crossing the street. CLOSURE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE Mamh 19,2003 Page 2 Following the 2000 season, and through 2002, staff and the team have agreed that the weekday opening worked well for both fans and the public. During these discussions in July 2000 and at subsequent times since then, the City Council has expressed interest in opening the street for all games, including weekdays and weekends, in the future. Staff was directed to monitor attendance and traffic patterns on Quakes game days and to pursue potential options for keeping the street open during all but the most highly attended games. In recent months, Councilmembers have expressed their continuing interest in opening the street during the 2003 season. During last year's season, City staff monitored attendance and traffic considerations on game days and held discussions regarding issues associated with the opening of Rochester on weekends. The following is a brief summary of those staff discussions. ISSUES FAVORING THE STREET OPENING Crowds at the games have continued to lessen on weekends at the Stadium, although attendance is still fairly strong and typically in the 2,000 - 3,000 range. There are four to eight games per season, such as opening day, Fourth of July, and special events where the crowd is near capacity. However, most weekend games are in the smaller range with a limited number of cars parking in the east parking lot. Opening the street will make travel more convenient for local residents and business owners with a limited impact to Quakes fans. CONCERNS ABOUT OPENING ROCHESTER While crowds have decreased on weekend days there are still hundreds of fans who park across Rochester who need to safely cross the street before and after the game. There are, however, signalized intersections and crosswalks which provide an appropriate path. Staff has held more discussion regarding the issue of traffic control on Rochester if the street were open to through traffic. Since the Quakes collect parking fees when cars enter either of the parking lots on the east or west, this results in cars backing up on Rochester at times in both the northbound and southbound directions. This traffic queuing could potentially cause conflict with through traffic. Particular attention would need to be paid to that span of time during each weekend game when fans entering the stadium lots are diverted from entering into the west parking lots and re-directed into the east lot. This will require a temporary stopping of through traffic, resetting the traffic control devices on the street, and re-directing the vehicle queuing. If a decision is made to open Rochester, staff and the Police Department will work with the Quakes to minimize these impacts by moving fee paying operations deeper into the Stadium lots and developing revised traffic control plans. On those days with large crowds of 5,000 fans or more, staff collectively feels that opening the street would present significant traffic control challenges and should therefore be avoided. The other issue associated with opening Rochester involves the relationship between the Quakes and their fans. The team has consistently stated that they are opposed to opening the street for weekend games when fans are parking in the east lot. Their concern relates to the safety and convenience of their fans. CLOSURE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE March 19, 2003 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT There is no significant cost difference to the City under either Rochester scenario. Respectfully submitted, Kevin McArdle Community Services Director EXHIBIT "B" Rochester Opening Options 1. Rochester will remain open to traffic during Monday through Thursday games. 2. Rochester will be closed to traffic during Friday, Saturday and Sunday games, as well as games where attendance will reach 4,000 fans in the Stadium, with the following changes to procedure: a. The barricades and signs used on Foothill Blvd. stating "Rochester Closed Ahead" will be eliminated. b. The closed portion of Rochester will be barricaded approximately 75 minutes prior to game time (compared to the 90 minute current timeframe c. Depending upon the attendance, City staffwill remove the street barricades and reopen the street for the remainder of the day as soon as safely possible after each game begins, following consultation with the Quakes. 3. Rochester will not be closed on days when there is a major event at the California Speedway. 4. City staff will monitor parking in the Masi Center lots during the hour prior to weekend games at the Stadium in April and May. This will help in determining whether Quakes fans are using the Masi lots to park for games and therefore creating a parking shortage for retail customers. 5. City staff will enhance efforts to ensure that Saturday softball field users park in their designated spaces on Quakes game days and not in spaces reserved for Quakes fans. 6. The Quakes will provide the City with an actual in-Stadium attendance count per game within 15 days following the last home game each month. These numbers will be used to further analyze attendance and traffic patterns. 7. Masi Plaza should consider gathering actual sales revenue figures from representative stores/restaurants for each Friday and Saturday during April and May. These statistics can be analyzed to compare game vs. non-game day revenues. 8. Interested parties will meet in the first week of June to share any continued thoughts or concerns after the first two months of the 2003 season. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A COMMUNITY SERVICES Staff Report DATE: April 2, 2003 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR ROCHESTER AVENUE DURING QUAKES BASEBALL GAMES RECOMMENDATION As deemed appropriate by the City Council. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS At the March 19, 2003, City Council meeting the City Council directed staff to meet with interested parties, including City Council representatives Mayor Pro Tem Williams and Councilman Gutierrez, regarding possible options for traffic control on Rochester Avenue during the Quakes baseball games. A meeting with the interested parties has been scheduled for April 1st at which time staff will review the possible options and provide an update to the City Council at their April 2nd meeting. Community Services Director